Couples coping with sensory loss: A dyadic study of the roles of self‐ and perceived partner acceptance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hearing-, vision-, and dual-sensory loss have been linked to relational and psychological distress among adults with sensory loss (AWSLs) and their spouses. Regardless, research on factors associated with couples' adjustment is lacking. This study examined the stability and strength of associations between self-acceptance of sensory loss, perceived partner acceptance of sensory loss, and relationship satisfaction and psychological distress among AWSLs and their spouses over time. DESIGN: A total of 122 AWSLs and their spouses completed an online survey at two time points over a 6-month period. METHODS: A multigroup (i.e., time 1 and time 2) actor-partner interdependence model assessed the stability and strength of actor and partner effects of self-acceptance and perceived partner acceptance on each partner's relationship satisfaction and psychological distress over time. RESULTS: No moderation by time was identified, indicating stability in associations over the 6-month period. Overall, both actor and partner effects were evident. Specifically, self-acceptance among AWSLs was inversely associated with own psychological distress and the relationship satisfaction of spouses. Self-acceptance by spouses was inversely associated with the psychological distress of AWSLs and spouses. Perception of spouse acceptance by AWSLs was positively associated with own and spouse relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting acceptance that incorporate a family systems perspective may be beneficial in alleviating psychological and relational distress among couples coping with sensory loss. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? The experience of hearing and/or vision loss has been linked to heightened distress both psychologically and within intimate relationships. Prior research has demonstrated a link between an individual's ability to accept their sensory loss and healthier well-being. What does this study add? This is the first dyadic study of sensory loss acceptance and its link to relationship satisfaction and distress. Acceptance operates interpersonally protecting against distress for those with sensory loss and their spouses. Perceiving that one's spouse accepts the sensory loss is important for both partner's relationship satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".