{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/106128"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/106128","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A phenomenological assessment of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale","abstract":"This research was designed to examine from a phenomenological perspective the framework respondents use to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and to test the content validity of the scale from the respondent's point of view. Eighteen couples from an academic community were interviewed following their completion of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Problems of conventionality, item ambiguity and asking the subjects to do difficult or impossible mental tasks were addressed through a standardized open-ended questionnaire. An interview guide was used to direct discussion on the content concerns of relevancy, universality, and conceptual integrity. While considered \"clear\" by respondents, questionnaire items had multiple interpretations and multiple equally correct responses. \"Always Agree\" and \"Never\" are still considered the socially desirable ideals. Respondents indirectly admitted to the pull of conventionality, though not to being guilty of it. Survey, definition, and personal reaction modes of thought were used most often while answering the questionnaire. Various time frames were used for answering as well. Concerning content issues, two new content subscales emerged. Respondents supported correlating the existing subscales to the DAS, that the subscales should correlate with each other, but should be reported separately. Subjects suggest that the two sexes do not view marital satisfaction the same way.","abstract_html":"This research was designed to examine from a phenomenological perspective the framework respondents use to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and to test the content validity of the scale from the respondent's point of view. Eighteen couples from an academic community were interviewed following their completion of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Problems of conventionality, item ambiguity and asking the subjects to do difficult or impossible mental tasks were addressed through a standardized open-ended questionnaire. An interview guide was used to direct discussion on the content concerns of relevancy, universality, and conceptual integrity. While considered "clear" by respondents, questionnaire items had multiple interpretations and multiple equally correct responses. "Always Agree" and "Never" are still considered the socially desirable ideals. Respondents indirectly admitted to the pull of conventionality, though not to being guilty of it. Survey, definition, and personal reaction modes of thought were used most often while answering the questionnaire. Various time frames were used for answering as well. Concerning content issues, two new content subscales emerged. Respondents supported correlating the existing subscales to the DAS, that the subscales should correlate with each other, but should be reported separately. Subjects suggest that the two sexes do not view marital satisfaction the same way.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kolodner, Robert D."],"institution":"Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University","degree_name":"M.S.","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Family and Child Development","degree_department":"Family and Child Development","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1986,"date_issued":"1986","date_published":"1986","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:15Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/106128","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Family and Child Development"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kolodner, Robert D."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2021-10-26T20:10:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2021-10-26T20:10:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1986"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Family and Child Development"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/106128"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This research was designed to examine from a phenomenological perspective the framework respondents use to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and to test the content validity of the scale from the respondent's point of view. Eighteen couples from an academic community were interviewed following their completion of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Problems of conventionality, item ambiguity and asking the subjects to do difficult or impossible mental tasks were addressed through a standardized open-ended questionnaire. An interview guide was used to direct discussion on the content concerns of relevancy, universality, and conceptual integrity. While considered \"clear\" by respondents, questionnaire items had multiple interpretations and multiple equally correct responses. \"Always Agree\" and \"Never\" are still considered the socially desirable ideals. Respondents indirectly admitted to the pull of conventionality, though not to being guilty of it. Survey, definition, and personal reaction modes of thought were used most often while answering the questionnaire. Various time frames were used for answering as well. Concerning content issues, two new content subscales emerged. Respondents supported correlating the existing subscales to the DAS, that the subscales should correlate with each other, but should be reported separately. Subjects suggest that the two sexes do not view marital satisfaction the same way."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A phenomenological assessment of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Family and Child Development"],"dc:creator":["Kolodner, Robert D."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2021-10-26T20:10:14Z"],"dc:date.available":["2021-10-26T20:10:14Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1986"],"dc:description.abstract":["This research was designed to examine from a phenomenological perspective the framework respondents use to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and to test the content validity of the scale from the respondent's point of view. Eighteen couples from an academic community were interviewed following their completion of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Problems of conventionality, item ambiguity and asking the subjects to do difficult or impossible mental tasks were addressed through a standardized open-ended questionnaire. An interview guide was used to direct discussion on the content concerns of relevancy, universality, and conceptual integrity. While considered \"clear\" by respondents, questionnaire items had multiple interpretations and multiple equally correct responses. \"Always Agree\" and \"Never\" are still considered the socially desirable ideals. Respondents indirectly admitted to the pull of conventionality, though not to being guilty of it. Survey, definition, and personal reaction modes of thought were used most often while answering the questionnaire. Various time frames were used for answering as well. Concerning content issues, two new content subscales emerged. Respondents supported correlating the existing subscales to the DAS, that the subscales should correlate with each other, but should be reported separately. Subjects suggest that the two sexes do not view marital satisfaction the same way."],"dc:description.degree":["M.S."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/106128"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["A phenomenological assessment of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Family and Child Development"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.S."],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:15Z"}