Noura AlHammadi^1*, Intan HM Hashim¹, Shahla Ostovar² and Zaireeni Azmi^2
*Correspondence: Noura AlHammadi, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia, Email:

Keywords

Arabic translation, relationship flourishing scale, factor structure, reliability, validity

Introduction

Intimate partnerships have been found to infl individuals’ psychological and physiological well-being substantially, rendering them a salient social bond in the realm of human existence [1, 2, 3]. Researchers in the fi of marriage are adopting a constructive outlook to gauge the standard, contentment, and performance of romantic partnerships [4, 5]. The appraisal of relationship quality has been the focus of the relationship science.

This has led to the development of more efficient methods to evaluate the quality of relationships. Previously, the measurement of marital quality has been constrained by several factors, including the assessment of quality based solely on individual satisfaction, a narrow defi of the satisfaction construct but a limited focus on the absence of negative evaluations in examining relationship satisfaction [1, 5].

The relationship fl has been derived from the positive psychology construct of ”psycho- logical fl [6] introduced the term and advocated for its inclusion in developing positive relationship science. Ascertaining the affective state of partners concerning their relationship is widely recognized as the primary criterion for investigating relationship quality. According to [1], relationship satisfaction is commonly assumed to be the most salient predictor of relationship success.

However, these authors have also raised critical questions regarding how satisfaction measures adequately capture intimate relationships’ multifaceted and nuanced nature. Numerous scholars have argued that there exist multiple dimensions and indicators of positive relationship functioning [7, 8]. According to [9], relationships of a prolonged nature encompass unique characteristics that cannot be accurately assessed through the sole measurement of relationship satisfaction.

The level of happiness and health that individual experiences are highly influenced by the quality of their relationships, as noted by [10, 11]. As a result, significant resources have been invested in measuring the quality of relationships, and recent advancements have improved the accuracy and effectiveness of such measurements. Funk and Rogge (2007) [12] developed a comprehensive and unidimensional Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI) using factor analyses and item response theory (IRT), resulting in a scale that provides more comprehensive information, precision, and predictive power compared to previous methods. In addition, Fincham and Rogge (2010) [6] expanded relationship quality measurement by creating the Positive and Negative Relationship Quality (PNRQ) scales, which use factor analyses and IRT to identify partners who are satisfied, ambivalent, indiff t, or dissatisfi

Fowers et al. (2016) [1] devised the Relationship Flourishing Scale (RFS) to address the shortcomings in relationship quality appraisal and to incorporate the multifaceted nature of thriving relationships, which cannot be fully captured through conventional satisfaction measures. They contended that a relationship fl is a much more inclusive idea than simply being happy. Relationship fl encompasses a variety of factors such as emotional well-being, closeness, personal development, resilience, dedication, selflessness, spirituality, emotional bonding, mutual support, forgiveness, open-mindedness, trustworthiness, mutual admiration, contentment with the relationship, affection, and shared enjoyable experiences. In the psychometric evaluations of the subscales, the domains related to expressing an individual’s ”true nature” and engagement with life were deemed unsuitable and removed.

The fi iteration of the RFS now comprises four distinct dimensions associated with high- quality relationships: meaning, personal growth, relational giving, and goal sharing. The RFS diverges from relationship satisfaction assessments by focusing on behavioral manifestations within romantic relationships rather than purely psychological experiences. The RFS items capture either unilateral actions taken by one partner for the other or joint actions undertaken by both partners. The concepts of meaning and purpose are fundamental to all known versions of eudaimonia [13].

A comprehensive understanding of the meaning and trajectory of one’s life is considered crucial to leading a fulfilling life [14, 15]. For many adults, romantic relationships are central to their lives and can offer significant sources of meaning and purpose. Such relationships can contribute to an individual’s fl and enhance the relationship’s vitality [1]. The development of oneself is a crucial aspect of living and is often considered in theories of eudaimonia. According to Aristotle (1999) [16], realizing one’s full potential is vital to a fulfilling life, which may involve improving one’s character, abilities, knowledge, and other growth forms. Aristotle also viewed friends, including romantic partners, as significant motivators, supporters, and encouragers in one’s growth journey.

According to Aristotle (1999) [16], sharing goals is a crucial aspect of relationships. In romantic relationships, objectives such as harmony and intimacy are especially significant. These are shared aspirations because they require partners’ contribution and joint attainment [1]. Couples strive towards various goals together, such as owning a home or saving for retirement. Additionally, partners have personal goals, such as career advancement or pursuing hobbies. A couple’s ability to have shared goals and to support and celebrate each other’s individual goals is vital for the fl of their relationship.

High-quality relationships are characterized by a motivational shift towards prioritizing the partner and the relationship [17]. Although this behavior is sometimes referred to as ”sacrifice,” it can also be called ”relational giving” to avoid connotations of loss. Aristotle (1999) [16] emphasized that in the best friendships, including romantic relationships, friends are eager to do good to one another. Benefiting each other is not considered a sacrifice, but something that is done gladly because a friend’s interest is often inseparable from one’s own. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between exchange relationships, where one gives to receive future benefits and relationships based on genuine concern for one’s friend’s well-being [18].

Fowers et al. (2016) [1] posit that a comprehensive appraisal of relationship quality necessi- tates the measurement of these constructs in addition to relationship satisfaction to capture a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Fowers et al. (2016) [1] pointed out that the RFS sets itself apart from measures prioritizing satisfaction by focusing on the entire relationship rather than solely examining individual affective states. The RFS measures the level of happiness within a relationship and delves into the domains and behaviors that enhance relationship quality. Additionally, the RFS elucidates the underlying mechanisms that underpin thriving relationships. These scales have a higher degree of accuracy and ability to assess relationship fl than others. At the same time, they have good convergent and construct validity. This study aims to assess the psychometric properties of a 12-item scale for measuring relationship fl

in studies conducted within the Emirates. As accurate measurement tools are crucial in this context, it is important to validate the Relational Flourishing Scale (RFS) specifically for use in the Emirate population. By evaluating the psychometric characteristics of the RFS, this study seeks to contribute to the existing literature by establishing its reliability and validity within the Emirate context.

Method

Participants

The original study aimed to recruit a diverse sample of participants comprising UAE national residing in seven cities in the Emirate. Seven hundred eight married individuals were stratified by age (18 years or older and sex). In this study, data collection was conducted through an online survey administered via Google Forms. The study’s description section clearly outlined the inclusion and exclusion criteria succinctly. These criteria were thoughtfully established to ensure that participants matched specific demographic and experimental prerequisites pertinent to the research objectives. Upon meeting the criteria, participants were enrolled in the study and invited to fi out the online survey, which was created using Google Forms. To achieve a satisfactory sample size, a comprehensive recruitment strategy was implemented, incorporating online advertisements, various social media platforms, and personalized email invitations. The survey was distributed via a weblink embedded in an email and remained open for responses from December 25, 2022, to February 17, 2023. Using an online platform for data collection allowed for a broad and convenient method for obtaining a large and diverse sample of participants. They ranged in age from 18 to 69 (M= 31.77 years, SD= 9.79). They were selected by non-probabilistic sampling method, including 479 (68%) women and 229 (32%) men (Table 1). Nearly 70% of the participants were in the initial fi e years of their married life, and a substantial majority (69%) did have 1-2 children. The sample was ethnically homogenous; all participants were of Arab descent and identified as Muslim.

Procedure

The cross-cultural validation and testing of the Arabic RFS involved a rigorous three-stage process. Firstly, the original version was translated, and secondly, the pre-fi Arabic RFS was tested to ensure its conceptual and linguistic equivalence to the source questionnaire. Finally, the psychometric properties of the Arabic RFS were assessed to determine its reliability and validity as a tool for measuring the relevant constructs. This comprehensive approach is standard practice for establishing an instrument’s cultural and linguistic appropriateness in a new population.

The original version of the scale was freely available on the web for research use. The initial phase of the survey presented contextual information about the research, out lining the participant’s privileges throughout the study, such as their voluntary involvement and ability to withdraw at any point without negative consequences. Additionally, the survey addressed matters relating to protecting participants’ privacy. It included the contact information of the lead researcher, which could be used to resuelve any quieres that arose before or after the survey. After being presented with an informed consent form on the screen, participants were required to consent to participate in the study by clicking to proceeds. Subsequently, they were directed to the assessment consistently presented in a predeterminad sequence (Table 1).

The measurement instruments utilized in the investigation underwent a rigorous translation procedure from English to Arabic using the well-established fi e-step protocol devised by [19]. Initially, two separate teams were formed, each comprising a psychology and translation Bilingual native Arabic speaker. The teams translated the measurement items into Arabic separately, resulting in two discrete versions of the translated RFS. Next, following the fi stage, a third team comprising individuals with equivalent knowledge and linguistic expertise conducted a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the two translation. The evaluation focused on analyzing the semantic and linguistic attributes of the translations, and any disparities were discussed among the three teams. The fi translations of measurement item 11 were selected based on a consensus among the teams. As a result of the comparative procedure, a solitary Arabic version of the scale was established. A bilingual psychology professor possessing considerable expertise in translating psychological assessment measures meticulously back translated this Arabic version into English. The leading author conducted a comprehensive examination of the Arabic-translated document and the corresponding back-translated version and confirmed the absence of any noteworthy distinctions between the Arabic version of the measure and its original English counterpart. Signifi tly, all the measurement items were culturally appropriate and were, therefore, preserved in their original form. No items were found to warrant omission or substantial modifi of terminology beyond the linguistic translation.

Content Validity Index

A systematic validation approach was used based on evidence and best practices. Content validity refers to how the items in a measurement instrument accurately reflect the underlying variable being assessed [20]. The researchers collected evidence-based information to develop potential items for the RFS, and a panel of experts evaluated the translated version to assess its content validity. Gilbert and Prion (2016) [21] suggest that panels of 5-10 experts are ideal for content validation, while Lynn (1986) [22] indicates that more than ten experts are unnecessary. Each panelist was asked to evaluate the relevance of each item on a scale from 1 to 4. The CVI process is crucial in adapting and translating the RFS to ensure its validity and applicability in Arabic. There are two forms of CVI: content validity of individual items (I-CVI) and the overall scale (S-CVI) content validity. According to Polit et al. (2007) [23] an I-CVI value of 1 is required when there are fi e or fewer experts, while a value of at least 0.78 is acceptable when more than fi e experts are involved. Items meeting these requirements can be considered evidence of good content validity, while those that are not should be removed from the assessment instrument. S-CVI can be calculated using either the average item levels I-CVIs (S-CVI/Ave) or the universal agreement among experts on items (S-CVI/UA). Table 2 provides further explanations of these terms.

Following the translation, cultural adaptation, and content validity of the RFS to Arabic, a pilot study was conducted to assess its conceptual, item, and operational equivalence to the original English version. A convenience sample of 30 samples was recruited to participate in the study. Participants completed the Arabic RFS questionnaire, and the results were analyzed to determine the extent to which the Arabic version was comparable to the original English version (Table 2).

This pilot study represents a crucial step in ensuring the validity and reliability of the RFS in the target population. The survey was offered to participants voluntarily, without any indication of rejection in the study. The researcher provided instructions on completing the questionnaire and emphasized the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of their responses. Participants were not given a specific time limit to fi the survey and to ensure their privacy, and the questionnaires were anonymous.

Kappa Statistic Coefficient

Kappa statistic is a valuable complement to CVI, providing information on the degree of agreement beyond chance [24]. Although CVI is commonly used to assess content validity, it does not consider the possibility of a chance agreement that could affect validity. To address this issue, researchers can compute the kappa coefficient, which helps identify and remove chance agreement among experts. To calculate the kappa coefficient, researchers must fi determine the probability of chance agreement (PC), which can be computed using the formula PC = [N!/A! (N -A)!] × 5N, where N represents the number of experts, and A represents the number of panellists who agree that the item is relevant.

After determining the I-CVI values, researchers can calculate the kappa coeffi t using the formula K = (I-CVI–PC)/(1–PC). A kappa coefficient score of ¡0.39 may suggest a potentially problematic item, while a score within 0.40–0.59 is considered moderate. A kappa coefficient score of 0.60–0.74 is rated as a good item, and a score of more than 0.74 is considered excellent [25]. Excel software was used in this study to calculate the critical responses. In summary, the kappa statistic is an essential complement to CVI, helping researchers identify and remove chance agreement among experts to ensure the validity of the assessment instrument.

Measures

Relationship Flourishing Scale (RFS).

Fowers et al. (2016) [1] developed the Relationship Flourishing Scale (RFS) to gauge RF. The RFS comprises 12 items classified into four domains: meaning, relational giving, goal sharing, and personal growth. Participants were required to rate the extent of their agreement on a 5-point Likert Scale, with a response set from (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Examples of items in the RFS include (e.g., ”When making important decisions, I consider whether they will benefit our relationship” (meaning), (e.g., ”I am willing to share my most personal thoughts with my partner” (relational giving), (e.g., ”My partner’s support has helped me achieve my important goals” (goal sharing), and (e.g., ”We actively seek out opportunities to grow as a couple” (personal growth). The items in RFS shall be divided into two groups: agreement items (items 1 to 4) and frequency items (items 5 through 12). The RFS has previously been found to have high internal consistency, with Fowers et al. (2016) reporting a mean score of 46.36 (SD = 7.60) and an alpha coefficient of .93. In the current study, a mean score of 27.85 (SD= 6.67) and alpha coefficient of 87, (omega.88) were reported.

Intimacy in Relationship Scale

This scale was developed by Walker and Thomson in 1983 [26] and consists of 17 items (item example;” We want to spend time together, i.e., they come to the residential home and visit me, or we have a walk in the residential home.” Intimacy in relationship scale measures emotional closeness in affection, altruism, and satisfaction. To determine the subject’s score, add the item scores and divide the total by 17. Each item is rated on a scale of 1 to 7. Higher perceived scale scores indicate higher intimacy. It is a component of an instrument that evaluates various dimensions of intimacy, but its developers as an independent scale. In their original study, Walker and Thompson (1983) [26] noted that this scale had good reliability (from 0.91 to 0.97) using Cronbach’s alpha. Additionally, content and face validity were used to establish scale validity [27].

Ethical Considerations

The participants were provided with a consent form before accessing the questionnaire, which confirmed the study’s scientific intent and voluntary participation. The form included information regarding the average completion time of the questionnaire, emphasized the anonymity of the survey, and assured that all collected personal data would be kept confidential and not disclosed, shared, or communicated to any third party.

Data analysis

Various data analysis methods were employed to assess the psychometric properties of the Relationship Flourishing Scale among married individuals in the United Arab Emirates. These methods included assessing its structural validity, reliability, and convergent validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the Chi-square test were utilized to assess the structural validity of the Relationship Flourishing Scale.

CFA is a statistical method commonly employed to examine the hypothetical relationship between ordinal variables, including Likert-type items [28]. The analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS and AMOS 28.0. The maximum likelihood estimation method was utilized via CFA. SPSS 28.0 was used to assess the reliability, and Cronbach’s a was utilized to measure internal consistency, as described by Schweizer (2011) [29] To evaluate the convergent validity, the four factors of the Relationship Flourishing Scale were correlated using two-tailed Pearson correlations with intimacy. To assess the criterion validity, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to investigate how age and gender affect the results.

Result

The Content Validity of RFS

The present investigation aimed to assess the content validation and kappa coefficient of the Relationship Flourishing Scale (RFS), which consists of 12 items. The analysis revealed that this version of the RFS attained a high content validity index (CVI), with an S-CVI/Ave of 1, indicating that the questions were relevant to the measured construct. In addition, the experts achieved a high level of universal agreement (S-CVI/UA = 1) and rated all items as relevant to the construct, resulting in an I-CVI value of 1 for all items. Further analysis showed that the kappa coefficient of all items was 1, and no items were removed in the fi item reduction process. Overall, the evaluation indicated that all 12 items of the RFS were excellent, with one approval rating.

Normality data

The symmetry and distribution of the constructs were re-examined using SPSS 28 software. Skewness and kurtosis coefficients were evaluated to ensure normal distribution of the data, with values close to 0 or ¡1 indicating normal distribution, as Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) [30] suggested. The median and mean central tendency indicators were also analyzed to assess normal distribution. In a symmetrical distribution, the median and mean typically fall at the same point or are equal, with the mode value close to the median and mean Table 3 display the results, which showed that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients of the RFS were 1, indicating a normal distribution range for all constructs.

Correlation of the RFS

Table 4 display the correlation among the four RFS constructs, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.50 to 0.86. Strong correlation were observed among all domains, indicating the presence of multi collinearity among the constructs. The VIF values s were supported, which were all < 3.

Note. TFLO: Total flourishing, ME: Meaning, RG: Relational giving, GS: Goal sharing, PG: Personal growth, IN: Intimacy

Principal-axis factor analysis of the RFS

The RFS data was found to be sufficiently factorable based on a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (X2= 3425.55, df= 66, p¡.001) and a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of .89. The factor analysis revealed that four factors were necessary, with an eigenvalue of 4.97 and explaining 71.34% of the total variance (Table 5).

Table 6 (Appendix A) presents data on constructs, eigenvalue, factor loadings, total variance explained, and Cronbach’s a for each item, indicating that the 12 remaining items of RFS were robust indicators of their respective constructs. Factor loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.84, signifying their strength. To assess the internal consistency of construct-item correlation, Cronbach’s a was used, revealing that all constructs had values above 0.70, indicating high internal consistency. These high Cronbach’s a values suggest that RFS could be a dependable survey tool to measure fl

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Initial Model

Results of the initial RFS model demonstrated a significant Chi-square (X2[18] = 30.42, p = .063), indicating an unacceptable Model fi The RMSEA and SRMR were .09 and .08, and the GFI, AGFI, and NFI were .81, .79, and 81, respectively. All indices indicated a relatively unacceptable Model fi and all paths were significant (see Figure 1). The Model was modifi by adding a covariance between Meaning, Goal sharing, Relational giving, and Personal growth, as suggested by the modifi on indices and supported by previous research [31, 2].

Final Model

Figure 1 presented the constructs, and the model fi of RFS was analyzed. The results indicated that model fi was fulfilled because all of the fi indices had met the minimum requirements: Chi-square/degree of freedom (X2/df) = 2.11, p = 0.00, comparative fi index (CFI) =.93, the Tucker–Lewis fi index (TLI) =.92, and root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA) =

0.012. At least three to four fi indices must confi the model fi Usually, the researchers can affirm that their measurements have a good model fi when the X2/df is ¡ 5, CFI is more than 0.9, TLI is more than 0.9, and RMSEA is ¡0.08 (as cited by Hadie et al., 2017). Table 8 presents the unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates of the RFS. All items are statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.001 (Figure 1).

The squared multiple correlations (R2) explained the amount of items’ variance explained by the respective constructs (see Table) (Figure 2).

Discussion

Committed romantic relationships, such as marriage, are critical in adult lives, profoundly in fl physical and psychological well-being. Married is strongly linked to several mental and physical well-being markers and mortality rates [1, 32]. The current study measures the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the RFS amongst older participants in the Emirates married population. Concerning our objectives, ten experts’ ratings on CVI indicated that each item must have a 100% agreement. The CVI and kappa coefficient results were excellent, and no item has been removed from the RFS. The results of the present study showed that the reliability tests (Cronbach’s alpha (a)) were in the acceptable ranges.

It is clear that when a is closer to 1, the internal consistency of the items will be more homogeneous. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were reported from .70 to .77, within the acceptable range (above 0.7). Therefore, it can be assumed that the items of the scale assess a similar fl concept. Our fi regarding the adequate reliability of the translated version of the scale have been supported by early researchers in diff t countries, such as Japan [1]. In

a study by [33], it was found that Urdu FS has Cronbach’s alpha of .91. While validating the fl scale with 608 Indian adolescents, Singh et al. (2017) [34] also found that FS has high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .80 and .95.

While responding to our objective, which focused on determining the concurrent validity, it was found that the relationship fl scale score was significantly and positively associated with intimacy. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA), which was focused on exploratory factor analysis and CFA) methods, were used to investigate the underlying structure of the RFS scale. Based on the results of EFA, the instrument achieved four-factor structures, and the measurement dimensions were aligned with the concept of the Model proposed by Fowers and colleagues (2010 and 2016) four branches of fl

While exploring the factor structure of the Relationship Flourishing Scale, they also reported that based on principal component analysis with varimax rotation, the RFS had single factor loadings [35], while exploring the psychometric properties of the Turkish RFS, found that a one-factor solution for the RFS was also relevant in the Turkish version. Our fi were also coherent with the original study of [1, 31]. In their study, Fowers et al. (2016) [1] reported that the fl scale showed four strong factors. The factor loadings ranged from .64 to .79. Therefore, it was concluded that four strong factors characterize the fl

scale. Octaviana and Abraham (2018) [2] reported that RFS demonstrated high internal consistency, as evidenced by a Cronbach’s Alpha value of.93. The corrected item-total correlations were also found to be strong, ranging from .54 to .81, indicating good item validity (rit ¿ .25).

Through the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), CB-SEM analysis. In model 2, the researchers concluded that the RFS’s reliability and validity were good over the minimum threshold level and good item fi for most items. Robust CFA supported prior fi for the multidimensionality of the scale. The fi evidenced that the assessment is suitable to apply in the Emirate context.

Figure 3 showed that the adapted English and Arabic versions of the RFS had a four-factor structure comprised of 9 items with 2 items for the meaning, 2 items for relational giving, 2 items for goal sharing, and 3 items for personal growth.

Despite the current study shedding light on the adapted RFS instrument’s reliability and validity to apply in the Emirates context, it has several limitations. First, for future research, the researchers recommended an investigation of the infl of age, study fi and gender on the results of the A-SEIS. In addition, it is advisable to re-examine the content validity of the A-SEIS in each country because the norms and interpretation of emotions are comprehensive and might be culturally diff t. Last, the study highly recommended that EI researchers expand the implication of the A-SEIS among the young population in the United Arab Emirates and non-Western cultures (Figure 3).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the present study demonstrate that the RFS has a multi dimensions structure, high reliability, and is a valid measure of psychological well-being. Based on the results of content validity, EFA, and CB-SEM statistical analysis, the researchers concluded that the RFS is a reliable and valid measurement instrument that can be used to examine the relationship fl of the Emirati context. It has been established as a reliable and valid measure of psychological well-being in countries (such as Spain, Japan, Macau, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Russia, and Iran). The way we see and understand our life experiences infl our view of our well-being and happiness. In the older generation, people from diff t socio-economic statuses, ethnicities, cultures, or religions might view their happiness and well-being diff tly. The fi suggest that the Arabic version of RFS can be used as a valid and reliable tool to gauge individuals’ psychological well-being. It would be interesting to explore the applicability of the RFS scale in the Arab context on other target populations, such as Professionals in various fi diff t communities and ethnic groups, and family institutions.

References

Blaine J Fowers, Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Randall D Penfield, Laura M Cohen, Samantha F Lang, Meghan B Owenz, and Elizabeth Pasipanodya. Enhancing relationship quality measure- ment: The development of the relationship fl scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(8):997, 2016.

Bernadette Nathania Octaviana and Juneman Abraham. Tolerance for emotional internet infi y and its correlate with relationship fl International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), 8(5):3158–3168, 2018.

Robert J Waldinger and Marc S Schulz. What’s love got to do with it? social functioning, perceived health, and daily happiness in married octogenarians. Psychology and aging, 25(2): 422, 2010.

Marina Zanella Delatorre and Adriana Wagner. Marital quality assessment: Reviewing the concept, instruments, and methods. Marriage & Family Review, 56(3):193–216, 2020.

Richard E Mattson, Ronald D Rogge, Matthew D Johnson, Elizabeth KB Davidson, and Frank D Fincham. The positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20(2):328–355, 2013.

Frank D Fincham and Steven RH Beach. Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of marriage and family, 72(3):630–649, 2010.

Brian G Ogolsky, J Kale Monk, TeKisha M Rice, Jaclyn C Theisen, and Christopher R Maniotes. Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3):275–306, 2017.

Mari´e P Wissing, Lusilda Schutte, Christelle Liversage, Brenda Entwisle, Marianne Gericke, and Corey Keyes. Important goals, meanings, and relationships in fl rishing and languishing states: Towards patterns of well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(2):573–609, 2021.

Jason S Carroll, Stan J Knapp, and Thomas B Holman. Theorizing about marriage. Sourcebook of family theory and research, pages 263–288, 2005.

Rick Roels and Erick Janssen. Attachment orientations, sexual behavior, and relationship satisfaction in young, mixed-sex couples: A dyadic approach. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 48(2):147–166, 2022.

Theodore F Robles, Richard B Slatcher, Joseph M Trombello, and Meghan M McGinn. Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 140(1):140, 2014.

Janette L Funk and Ronald D Rogge. Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of family psychology, 21(4):572, 2007.

Samantha J Heintzelman. Meaning in life in context. In Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction, pages 293–310. Routledge, 2017.

Brian P Don and Kristin D Mickelson. Relationship satisfaction trajectories across the transition to parenthood among low-risk parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(3): 677–692, 2014.

Nathan D Leonhardt, Natalie O Rosen, Samantha J Dawson, James J Kim, Matthew D Johnson, and Emily A Impett. Relationship satisfaction and commitment in the transition to parenthood: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(1):80–100, 2022.

Roger Crisp and Trevor J Saunders. Aristotle: Ethics and politics. Routledge history of philosophy, 2:109–146, 1999.

Scott M Stanley, Paul R Amato, Christine A Johnson, and Howard J Markman. Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: fi from a large, random household survey. Journal of family psychology, 20(1):117, 2006.

Margaret S Clark and Oriana R Arag´on. Communal (and other) relationships: History, theory development, recent fi and future directions. The Oxford handbook of close relationships, pages 255–280, 2013.

Richard W Brislin. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3):185–216, 1970.

Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff Abc of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(2):49–54, 2019.

Gregory E Gilbert and Susan Prion. Making sense of methods and measurement: Sample size issues for psychometric studies. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(11):482–483, 2016.

Mary R Lynn. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6): 382–386, 1986.

Denise F Polit, Cheryl Tatano Beck, and Steven V Owen. Is the cvi an acceptable indicator of content validity? appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 30(4): 459–467, 2007.

Vijay Kumar Shrotryia and Upasana Dhanda. Content validity of assessment instrument for employee engagement. Sage Open, 9(1):2158244018821751, 2019.

Vahid Zamanzadeh, Akram Ghahramanian, Maryam Rassouli, Abbas Abbaszadeh, Hamid Alavi-Majd, and Ali-Reza Nikanfar. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of caring sciences, 4(2):165, 2015.

Alexis J Walker and Linda Thompson. Intimacy and intergenerational aid and contact among mothers and daughters. Journal of Marriage and the Family, pages 841–849, 1983.

Maryam Davoodvandi, Shokouh Navabi Nejad, and Valiollah Farzad. Examining the effec- tiveness of gottman couple therapy on improving marital adjustment and couples’ intimacy. Iranian journal of psychiatry, 13(2):135, 2018.

David B Flora and Patrick J Curran. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological methods, 9(4): 466, 2004.

Susanne Schweizer, Adam Hampshire, and Tim Dalgleish. Extending brain-training to the affective domain: Increasing cognitive and affective executive control through emotional working memory training. PloS one, 6(9):e24372, 2011.

BG Tabachnick and LS Fidell. Using multivariate statistics . allyn & bacon/pearson education 2007.

Blaine J Fowers and Meghan B Owenz. A eudaimonic theory of marital quality. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4):334–352, 2010.

Kristen Schultz Lee and Hiroshi Ono. Marriage, cohabitation, and happiness: A cross-national analysis of 27 countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5):953–972, 2012.

Vikas Choudhry, Radhika Dayal, Divya Pillai, Ameeta S Kalokhe, Klaus Beier, and Vikram Patel. Child sexual abuse in india: A systematic review. PloS one, 13(10):e0205086, 2018.

Kamlesh Singh, Mohita Junnarkar, and Snehlata Jaswal. Validating the fl scale and the scale of positive and negative experience in india. In Assessment of Mental Health, Religion and Culture, pages 218–229. Routledge, 2018.

Derya Selin C¸ akır. A sociocultural approach to relationship fl the role of relational mobility. Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2020.