Relationship education and marital satisfaction in newlywed couples: A propensity score analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether premarital relationship education and characteristics of relationship education in a community sample of newlywed couples predicted marital trajectories over 27 months. Newlywed couples (N = 191) completed measures of marital satisfaction 9 times over 27 months, and prior to marriage they provided information about relationship education and demographic, personal, and relationship risk factors for marital distress. Propensity scores (i.e., the probability of receiving relationship education) were estimated using the marital distress risk factors, and used to derive a matched sample of 72 couples who participated in relationship education and 86 couples who did not. Multilevel analyses of the propensity score matched sample (n = 158) indicated that wives who participated in relationship education had declines in marital satisfaction while wives who did not receive relationship education maintained satisfaction over time. Furthermore, the more hours of relationship education the couple participated in, the less steeply their marital satisfaction declined. Findings indicate that participation in community-based relationship education may not prevent declines in marital satisfaction for newlywed couples. A possible explanation is that the quality of relationship education available to couples is generally poor and could be greatly improved by inclusion of empirically based relationship information and skills training that are known to lead to stronger marriages.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".