89 (SD = 2.27); cuatro.94 (SD = 2.97), both groups varying between six months and you can 11 numerous years of dating; eight.76 (SD = cuatro.01), anywhere between a couple of and 19 age; and you can (SD = cuatro.82), between less than a year and you will 29 ages. 8%) and you will resided with family, if you are those people coping with their partners have been generally performing people (69.2%), where 53% got school or postgraduate degrees. Of your official union professionals, 67% had college or post-graduate degree, from which 89.8% had been operating, 2% retired and you will 8.2% unemployed. The functional problem to your married people try similar: 89.5% was performing, 2.9% was basically retired and you will six.3% have been underemployed, and you will 1.3% referred other a position position. In this class, 62.5% of your own users got school or postgraduate degree.

Dating High quality, chosen to ensure standards validity, is actually mentioned toward Relationships Get Setting–Revised (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt

The details exhibited was accumulated from inside the context off broader search tactics, and this contains an in depth sociodemographic and relationship assessment, and also other scales from inside the range of intimate relationships.

Individual connection try analyzed with regards to the Portuguese version (Desk 1) of the less variety of the Work Scale (Stanley, 1986), that has been translated with regards to the pursuing the interpretation and you will retroversion tips: once consent gotten because of the journalist, the original level was translated by two specialists in industry, both of these translations was indeed exposed to retroversion from the two benefits, one to bilingual and one proficient in making use of the newest English language; ultimately, for each adaptation is than the completely new level, opting for the effective use of brand new terms and conditions and you can items that have deeper distance in order to they. The Portuguese version hence contains the latest fourteen brand spanking new factors and you can the same address level and you will try called, after deliberation because of the people, the non-public Union Level (‘Escala de- Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). Toward latest stage of translation techniques, the brand new instrument is actually administered to 3 professionals on the purpose of confirming new adequateness of the words while the unambiguous comprehension of what exactly, which were talked about into participants just after applying of the new survey. As there was indeed zero statements stating or even, those things remained a comparable.

With regards to the complete lifetime of the partnership, the average, in years, to the other statuses described was, respectively: dos

by Lind, 2008). Resulting from a revision of the original Davis (1996, cited in Lind, 2008) scale, this instrument is intended to measure relationship quality perception, with the expectation that, according to the theoretical assumptions, both scales will positively correlate. The items are presented in the form of questions that the subjects will answer according to a rating scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely or extremely). The Portuguese version consists of a total how to use chatstep of 46 items grouped in four dimensions: Passion, Confidence, Conflict and Intimacy. The RRF-R revealed psychometric properties ranging from good to excellent, obtaining an excellent internal consistency at the total scale level, with Cronbach’s alpha values between .97 and .98, for women and men respectively, and .81 and .97 at subscale level, a good temporal stability (significant correlations ranging between .70 and .87; p < .01) and high concurrent validity with a marital satisfaction scale (significant global score correlations between .88 and .85, for women and men respectively; p < .01). In the current sample, the RRF-R presented for the total scale, an excellent Cronbach's alpha of .96; .94 for the Passion subscale, .93 for Confidence, .77 for Conflict and .83 for Intimacy. The internal consistency of the total scale remained excellent for the four subsamples: .95 for participants in a dating relationship, .94 for those in a dating relationship with cohabitation and .97 for participants in both formal unions and married relationships.