Structural and convergent validity of the Marital Aggrandizement Scale (MAS) in Mexico
PDF#13 3 (Español)

Keywords

Aggrandizement
relationship satisfaction
partner
psychometrics
Mexico

How to Cite

Moral de la Rubia, J. (2017). Structural and convergent validity of the Marital Aggrandizement Scale (MAS) in Mexico . Psicumex, 7(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.36793/psicumex.v7i1.262

Metrics

Abstract

The tendency to exaggerate the positive qualities of the intimate partner and ignore its flaws is named aggrandizement, represents an important variable for the study of the couple, and there exists a scale for its assessment. This scale has been validated in Mexico, using a non-probability sampling and ignoring the ordinal level of measurement of its items. The aims of this study were to estimate the internal consistency of the Marital Aggrandizement Scale (MAS), validate a single-factor model, and show the convergent validity of the MAS. The MAS and the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) were applied to 807 married or cohabiting persons from Monterrey, Mexico, using a random-path sampling. Three of the four inversely keyed items and a positively keyed item had problems of internal consistency and validity. With the elimination of these four items (MAS_14), the number of factors in the matrix of polychoric correlations was one by the Velicer’s criterion. The fit of the one-factor model with all its independent measurement residuals was acceptable by the method of Unweighted Least Squares (χ2/df = 4.69, AGFI = .97, NFI = .96, and SRMR = .07). Internal consistency of the 14 items was good (ordinal α = .87). The correlation between MAS_14 and RAS was high (r = .65). It is concluded that the MAS reduced to 14 items is consistent, the one-factor model is validated, the MAS shows convergent validity with relationship satisfaction, and marital aggrandizement and relationship satisfaction are two distinguishable concepts.

https://doi.org/10.36793/psicumex.v7i1.262
PDF#13 3 (Español)

References

American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (third revision). Washington, DC: APA.
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431-449. doi:10.1037/a0038047
Burgess, A. M., & Nakamura, B. J. (2014). An Evaluation of the Two-Factor Model of Emotion: Clinical Moderators Within a Large, Multi-Ethnic Sample of Youth. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 124-135. doi:10.1007/ s10862-013-9376-z
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. (3a ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Courtney, M. G. R. (2013). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-Menu v2.0 to make more judicious estimations. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 18(8), 24-57.
Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema, 20(4), 896-901.
Gadermann, A., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Ordinal alpha. En A. C. Michalos (Ed.) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well- being research (pp. 4513-4515). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94- 007-0753-5
Gaskin, C. J., & Happell, B. (2014). On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51, 511-521. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005
Hayduk, L. (2014). Seeing perfectly fitting factor models that are causally miss-pecified understanding that close-fitting models can be worse. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 905-926. doi:10.1177/0013164414527449
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98. doi:10.2307/352430
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (2016). Panorama sociodemográfico de Nuevo León 2015. Ciudad de México: INEGI.
Liu, J., Wang, Y., & Jackson, T. (2017). Towards explaining relationship dissatisfaction in Chinese dating couples: Relationship disillusionment, emergent distress, or insecure attachment style? Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 42-48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.041

Molina, J. G., Rodrigo, M. F., Losilla, J. M., & Vives, J. (2014). Wording effects and the factor structure of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Psychological Assessment, 26, 1031-1037. doi:10.1037/ a0036472.
Moral, J. (2007). Control de la deseabilidad social ante la evaluación del ajuste diádico y la satisfacción marital. Psicología y Ciencia Social, 9(2), 5-12.
Moral, J. (2015). Validación del modelo unidimensional de la Escala de Valoración de la Relación en Personas Casadas y en Unión Libre de Monterrey, México. Revista Internacional de Psicología, 14(2), 1-70.
O' Rourke, N., & Cappeliez, P. (2002). Development and validation of a couples measure of biased responding: The Marital Aggrandizement Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 301-320. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_06
O’Rourke, N., & Cappeliez, P. (2003). Validation d’une mesure de réponses biaisées à propos de la relation conjugale: L’Échelle d’embellissement conjugal. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 35, 45-49. doi:10.1037/h0087185
O'Rourke, N., Polchenko, N., Bachner, Y. G., & Carmel, S. (Agosto, 2012). Translation and validation of a Hebrew language version of the Marital Aggrandizement Scale. Trabajo presentado en the Annual Meeting of The American Psychological Association, Orlando, FL. Recuperado de http://www. researchgate.net/publication/252931460
Pick, S., & Andrade, P. (1988). Desarrollo y validación de la Escala de Satisfacción Marital (ESM). Psiquiatría, 4(1), 9-20.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15- 28. doi:10.2307/350547
Valdivieso, C. E. (2013). Efecto de los métodos de estimación en las modelaciones de estructuras de covarianzas sobre un modelo estructural de evaluación del servicio de clases. Comunicaciones en Estadística, 6(1), 21-44.
West, T. V., Dovidio, J. F., & Pearson, A. R. (2014). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of relationship interest for intergroup and intragroup roommates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 235-242. doi:10.1177/1948550613490966
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2017

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.