Marital Functioning and Psychological Distress Among Older Couples Over an 18-Month Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many authors have underlined the existence of a negative association between marital functioning and psychological distress. However, little is known about the direction of this association over time among older couples. This study examined the relation over time between psychological distress and marital functioning among 394 community-dwelling couples. The authors conducted dyadic data analyses to determine whether marital functioning at baseline (T1) predicted psychological distress 18 months later (T2), and inversely. The results for women suggested that marital and psychological functioning may each predict the other. The results for men showed that marital problems lead to more psychological distress. The authors found some significant partner effects: In both genders, the marital functioning of one spouse influenced the marital functioning of the other. Men's marital functioning at baseline significantly predicted women's psychological distress at T2. The authors conducted analyses also to determine how 6 patterns of change in marital functioning between times were associated with changes in psychological distress, and inversely. Changes characterized by an increase in psychological distress over time in at least 1 spouse were associated with a decrease in marital functioning. These findings underlined the importance for clinicians and researchers to pay closer attention to the association between these variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".