Couple’s Satisfaction among Lebanese adults: validation of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Couple Satisfaction Index-4 scales, association with attachment styles and mediating role of alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lebanon is passing through an economic crisis leading to a decreased monthly income within a couple and more couple's dissatisfaction. Furthermore, many studies postulate that the different types of attachment styles affect the romantic relationship experienced between adults. The main objectives of our study were to (1) validate the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) and Couple Satisfaction Index-4 (CSI-4) scales, and (2) assess the association between attachment styles and couple satisfaction and evaluate the mediating role of alexithymia in these associations. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 445 Lebanese participants (April-May 2021). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using SPSS AMOS v.24 on the couple satisfaction index and Toronto alexithymia scales' items. A linear regression was conducted, taking the couple satisfaction index as the dependent variable. RESULTS: /df = 422.31/132 = 3.2, TLI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.07 [95% CI 0.063-0.078] (pclose < 0.001) and CFI = 0.91) (items 4 and 8 were removed due to low factor loading (< 0.4)). Being married and higher secure attachment style were significantly associated with more couple satisfaction, whereas older age, higher household crowding index, more alexithymia and mode depression were significantly associated with less couple satisfaction. In addition, alexithymia mediated the association between secure attachment style and couple satisfaction, between preoccupied attachment style and couple satisfaction and between dismissing attachment style and couple satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Couple's satisfaction is positively associated with secure attachment style. In addition, alexithymia plays a mediating role between couple's satisfaction and attachment styles. Upcoming studies should determine if other mental illnesses play a mediating role between attachment style and couple 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".