Measure relationship quality

Parent-child relationship quality

measure relationship quality

This research tested three models of how the relationship evaluation components of satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love are structured. The aim of this research is to develop a new evaluation approach based on a brand relationship index model (BRI model), which includes a three stage study on. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of an empirical study that tested two competing models of relationship quality for superiority and further.

We selected a random sample of these subdistricts from those TAs and GVHs for which household lists were available and which were reachable by land, without requiring travel by boat. We systematically sampled participants from these household lists. Participants were eligible if they were married or cohabiting, had been in the relationship one year or more, were currently living with their partner and the partner was available to be interviewed, and the female partner was between the ages of 20 and We systematically allocated couples to one of three groups: We translated the CFAT into Chichewa, pilot tested it, and addressed translation issues with the help of Chichewa-speaking research assistants before beginning data collection.

Trained same-gender data collectors conducted interviews in Chichewa and obtained signed informed consent prior to the interview. Measures Independent variables relationship quality domains We selected six domains of relationship quality for inclusion in the CFAT based on a review of the literature by Lawrence and colleagues [ 34 ] and key informant interviews with CRS technical experts: We identified measures for these domains through the suggestions of experts, literature searches, and review of all scales described in the comprehensive Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques [ 20 ].

The majority of measures reviewed had been developed for use in the United States or other high-income countries, and for most, there was no evidence of their use in LMIC. We selected a scale or set of questions to measure each domain in consultation with CRS technical experts and based on several factors. First, we considered the cross-cultural transferability of measures and whether they would be easily understood and relevant in a wide variety of cultures. Second, when possible we used measures that had been used previously and performed well in LMIC.

For measures for which we could only find evidence of use in the United States or other high-income countries, we prioritized measures which had been widely used in published research over those which had been less widely used. Consultation with CRS technical experts about the choice of measures also served to assess face and content validity of the measures.

In one case, we made a change in wording in order to make a measure more cross-culturally applicable. Sexual satisfaction was measured using the item Index of Sexual Satisfaction ISS [ 23 ], which asks participants about their level of agreement with various measures of sexual satisfaction.

Thirteen items reflected a lack of satisfaction and were reverse-scored. Constructive communication was measured using two subscales from the Communication Patterns Questionnaire [ 24 ]. A 3-item constructive subscale asks participants whether they practice positive communication patterns such as trying to discuss the problem.

A 4-item, reverse-scored destructive communication subscale asks participants whether they practice negative communication patterns such as blaming, accusing, and criticizing each other. Responses were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 very unlikely to 5 very likely. Decision-making was measured using 6 questions about household decision-making from the latest Malawi Demographic and Health Survey DHS [ 27 ].

Participants were asked who usually makes decisions regarding matters such as health care or household purchases wife, husband, wife and husband jointly, or someone else. Participants were coded according to the proportion of decisions for which they reported sole decision-making power, joint decision-making power with spouse or partneror no decision-making power. The RQI was developed as an index of these domains, with each domain shortened into a high-performing scale via exploratory factor analysis.

For this analysis, participants were divided into four groups: Items frequently performed less well among unmarried but cohabiting men compared to the other three groups. Iterative factor analysis and item omission aimed to improve the performance of each scale in all four groups and established internal construct validity of the scales.

In all cases, only one factor was retained for each scale as in no scale did all groups indicate a two-factor solution. Dependent variables outcomes Three sets of behaviors were treated as dependent variables outcomes of interest in this study: In addition, gender-equitable norms were assessed with a single item. These variables were identified based on a literature review particularly, evidence that a behavior was associated with a construct of relationship quality, or relationship quality generally and through key informant interviews with CRS technical experts.

Correlating relationship quality to these outcomes of interest allowed us to establish criterion validity of the relationship quality measures.

Peer relationship quality

Household cooperation was assessed using the following four items, which were developed by CRS technical experts based on their knowledge of important aspects of household cooperation: Health behaviors were assessed by asking women who had been pregnant in the last 12 months the number of times they had received antenatal care, using a question from the DHS [ 27 ].

Men and women were also asked if they had been tested for HIV and shared their HIV status with each other, which was treated as a binary variable 1 if the participant reported that both partners had been tested and shared their status, 0 if this was not the case.

Male participants were also asked if their female partners had ever inflicted emotional or physical violence. Both women and men were asked if they had ever perpetrated physical violence against a partner. Satisfaction In a retail setting, Westbrook defines satisfaction as an affective state aroused by an evaluation of the interaction between customer and salesperson.

This definition is consistent with that of Anderson, Fornell, and Lemannwho propose that "satisfaction is an overall evaluation based on long-term experience of purchasing and consuming a product or service. Thus, it is included in this study. Similarly, Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande define commitment as 'an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship.

On the basis of such definitions, commitment has been analyzed in past studies in many different ways. But t is generally dimensionalized as cognitive, affective, and behavioral Meyer and Allen Consumers tend to build up commitment when maintaining the relationship yields more benefits than terminating it cognitive commitmentwhen they simply feel an emotional bond within the relationship affective commitmentor when they do not want to switch to other alternatives behavioral commitment.

Likewise, Verhoef, Frances and Hoekstra distinguish two types of commitment: Calculative commitment is the state of maintaining a relationship for economic reasons, a concept similar to cognitive commitment Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer The relationship is usually maintained because the benefits of keeping it exceed those of terminating or altering it Meyer, et al.

Affective commitment, in contrast, is based on feelings of identification Skarmeas, Katsikeas, and Schlegelmilch Since this particular type of commitment is often confused with emotional attachment described earlier, this study confines itself to the cognitive and behavioral aspects of commitment. The existing literature in social psychology proposes two types of trust: Trust is also incorporated in this study.

Intimacy Altman and Taylor define intimacy as a deep understanding and knowledge of a partner; Davis and Latty-Mann consider it the mental closeness of the relationship between partners. Our pilot study indicates that intimacy also has an affective aspect. Thus, in this study, intimacy is included with two sub-dimensions of knowledge depth and affective ties. Two pilot studies were conducted prior to the main study.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

Pilot Study 1 In the first pilot study, we conducted face-to-face in-depth interviews to confirm the dimensions of the BRQ model. The respondents varied in age and sex, i.

measure relationship quality

After choosing a favorite brand of product or service, interviewees were asked why they liked that brand in particular. We further asked them to describe the elements that contributed to the quality of their relationship with the brand. We found that the younger interviewees were, the more deeply attachment and commitment based on satisfaction and trust affected BRQ; the older interviewees were, the more likely they were to buy habitually on the basis of satisfaction and trust.

The dimensions of relationship quality offered by interviewees were very consistent across age and sex, although there were slight differences according to the type of product or service.

Pilot Study 2 Since the existing studies of relationship quality have focused primarily on the service domain, the measures used there are not totally applicable to the physical product area. Hence, the measurement items drawn from past studies as well as those from the first pilot study were revised by marketing professionals in the second pilot study.

Respondents were 40 brand professionals and graduate students in marketing.

measure relationship quality

Presented with a list of measures, they were asked to choose and rank five items that would best explain the determinants of brand relationship quality. Table 1 shows the items selected through the two pilot studies. Main Study Respondents were asked to complete a survey with their favorite brands in mind. As the pilot studies revealed some differences in relationship quality dimensions for products and services, the main study distinguished between product and service brands.

In the study, three product and three service categories were presented. Respondents chose one category of product and another of service and evaluated their favorite brands in those categories. A convenient sample of respondents participated in the survey. Among them were undergraduate and graduate students at a metropolitan university as well as office workers.

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS)

In this section, we describe the results for product brands first and explain those for service brands. Results for Product Brands Refinement of Items. The data indicated five factors, as proposed earlier; each item was categorized into one of the five.

Reliability was tested by exploratory factor analysis. To verify the factor structure, we deleted items with factor loadings below 0. Composite reliability, which needs to be above 0. Table 2 shows the internal consistency for all indicators. After testing for the reliability, we examined the validity of the factors through confirmatory factor analysis, using LISREL 8.