College Students' Chronological Age Predicts Marital Happiness Regardless of Length of Marriage
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A revised version of the Quality Marriage Index (QMI) was used to examine demographic correlates of marital satisfaction. We administered the revised QMI to a sample of college students and found a significant positive correlation between age and relationship satisfaction. We suggest that this increase in relationship satisfaction could be due to age related increases in life satisfaction and age related increases in conscientiousness and decreases in neuroticism. ********** Nazarina & Schumm (2009) demonstrated that a shorted form of Norton's Quality Marriage Index (1983) was simple to administer and has sound reliability and validity. Given the convenience of this scale, we administered the revised Quality Marriage Index (QMI) to measure relationship satisfaction in married and cohabitating college students and to determine whether relationship satisfaction is related to demographic characteristics of this population. Method Participants Participants included sixty-nine undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at a 6,000 student university in Oklahoma of whom 49 were female and 20 were male. Participants included twenty-five freshman, twelve sophomores, three juniors, ten seniors, and nineteen graduate students. The sample consisted of Caucasians (30), African-Americans (15), Multiracials (13), Hispanics (6), Native-Americans (3), Asian-Americans (2) and 3 subjects did not indicate their ethnicity. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 54 years, M = 27.01. Materials Demographic information was collected using a self-report questionnaire. Information collected included gender, ethnicity, college major, years in school, religious affiliation, and self-reported religiosity. Participants also reported whether they were married or cohabitating, how many years they had lived together and the number of children that they had. A revised version of the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) (Norton, 1983) was used to assess relationship satisfaction that has been reported to have sound psychometric properties (Nazarinia & Schumm, 2009). For this study we changed the word marriage in item 1 to relationship so as to include people in romantic relationships in general. The original QMI has solid psychometric properties, with reported internal reliabilities ranging from .89 to .99 (Knee, Patrick, Victor, Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002; Neff & Kareny, 2004; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2005). The scale has demonstrated concurrent validity with the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (Calahan, 1997), which is another widely used measure of global satisfaction. The QMI has been used with married couples (Neff & Karney, 2004), including newlyweds (Palerari et al., 2005) and couples in medium and long term marriages (Paleari et al., 2005). It has also been used with engaged couples (Stafford & Canary, 1991), cohabitating couples (Kalbfleisch, 2001), and dating couples (Kabfleisch, 2001; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Nazarinia and Schumm (2009) reported psychometric properties for the revised version of the QMI. They report high internal consistency, with substantial test-retest reliability. The revised QMI has been used with undergraduate students in heterosexual, non-married (dating) relationships (Knee, et al., 2002) and with expectant and new Canadian mothers (Nazarina & Schumm, 2009). Design and Procedure Participants were instructed by a research assistant to read and sign an informed consent document which briefly outlined the nature of the study, the risks and benefits of participation in the study, and a statement of confidentiality. All participants filled out the forms in a group setting. The participants then filled out a short demographics questionnaire and the revised QMI. All of the participants completed the surveys voluntarily, were debriefed as to the nature of the study and were given extra credit in one college course by the relevant course instructor. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».