SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Eğitim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Short Form of the Divorce Predictors Scale (DPS-SF): Validity and Reliability Study

Boşanma Göstergeleri Ölçeği -Kısa Formu (BGÖ-KF): Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Ayşe Cansu Bilgen(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5307-2540
Turgut Türkdoğan(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5440-341X
Pages
262–278
Publication Date
2025-11-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings suggest that the Divorce Predictors Scale Short Form is a brief, reliable, and valid tool for assessing predictors of relationship dissolution in married individuals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Gottman Couple Therapy has significantly contributed to the marriage and family therapy literature by distinguishing couples in stable relationships from those at risk of dissolution.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to develop a short form of the 54-item Divorce Predictors Scale, grounded in Gottman Couples Therapy, and to evaluate its psychometric properties.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings suggest that the Divorce Predictors Scale Short Form is a brief, reliable, and valid tool for assessing predictors of relationship dissolution in married individuals.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:boşanma göstergeleri · evli bireyler · Gottman Çift Terapisi

Abstract

Gottman Couple Therapy has significantly contributed to the marriage and family therapy literature by distinguishing couples in stable relationships from those at risk of dissolution. This study aimed to develop a short form of the 54-item Divorce Predictors Scale, grounded in Gottman Couples Therapy, and to evaluate its psychometric properties. To increase its utility in multivariate research, 21 candidate items were selected based on their highest factor loadings and sub-dimensional specificity, while avoiding cross-loadings. Exploratory factor analysis conducted with 460 married participants resulted in a five-factor, 19-item short form. Confirmatory factor analysis with an independent sample of 247 married participants supported the construct validity of this short form. Internal consistency reliability was strong, with Cronbach's alpha values of .80 for the Exploratory factor analysis sample and .83 for the Confirmatory factor analysis sample. Criterion-related validity was supported by positive correlations with couple burnout and negative correlations with marital satisfaction. These findings suggest that the Divorce Predictors Scale Short Form is a brief, reliable, and valid tool for assessing predictors of relationship dissolution in married individuals.

Özet

Gottman Çift Terapisi, istikrarlı ilişkilere sahip çiftler ile ilişkisel çözülmeye ve boşanmaya yakın çiftleri ayırt etmeye yönelik kapsamlı araştırmalar yürütmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Gottman Çift Terapisi temel alınarak yapılandırılmış 54 maddelik Boşanma Göstergeleri Ölçeği'nin kısa bir formunu geliştirmek ve psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmektir. İlgili ölçeğin çok değişkenli çalışmalardaki kullanım kolaylığını artırmak amacıyla, orijinal ölçekteki her bir alt boyut için faktör yük değerleri en yüksek olan ve ait olduğu faktör dışındaki diğer maddelerle faktörleşme eğilimi göstermeyen 21 madde, kısa form çalışması için aday madde havuzuna seçilmiştir. 460 evli katılımcı üzerinde yürütülen açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda beş faktörden ve 19 maddeden oluşan bir kısa form elde edilmiştir. 247 evli katılımcıdan oluşan ikinci bir çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları da 19 maddelik kısa formun yapı geçerliğini güçlü şekilde desteklemiştir. Kısa formun iç-tutarlılığı Cronbach-alpha katsayısıyla incelenmiştir, Cronbach-alpha katsayısı, Açımlayıcı faktör analizi çalışma grubunda .80, Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi çalışma grubunda ise .83 olarak bulunmuştur. Ayrıca ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik analizleri, Boşanma Göstergeleri Ölçeği Kısa Formunun artan eş tükenmişliğiyle pozitif yönde ve evlilik doyumu ile negatif yönde ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Mevcut bulgular, Boşanma Göstergeleri Ölçeği Kısa Formunun evli bireylerin ilişkisel çözülme göstergelerini değerlendirmeye yönelik kısa, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği kanıtlanmış bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bilgen, A. C., Türkdoğan, T. (2025). Short Form of the Divorce Predictors Scale (DPS-SF): Validity and Reliability Study. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 262–278. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1652829

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Bradbury, T. N., Bertoni, A., Iafrate, R., Giuliani, C., Ranse, R., & Behling, J. (2007). The role of stress in divorce: A three-nation retrospective study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(5), 707-728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507081456
  2. Brigance, C. A., Waalkes, P. L., Freedle, A., & Kim, S. R. (2023). Gottman's sound relationship house and relational resilience through infertility for couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 50, 933–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12736
  3. Busby, D. M., & Holman, T. B. (2009). Perceived match or mismatch on the Gottman conflict styles: Associations with relationship outcome variables. Family Process, 48(4), 531-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01300.x
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Çakmak, E. K. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  5. Çapri, B. (2013). Tükenmişlik ölçeği-kısa formu ile eş tükenmişlik ölçeği-kısa formu’nun Türkçe uyarlaması ve psikoanalitik-varoluşçu bakış açısından mesleki ve eş tükenmişlik ilişkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1393-1418. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1576
  6. Carrére, S., Brchlman, K.T., Coan, J.A., Gottman, J.M., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in Newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1) 42-58 https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.14.1.42
  7. Cohen, L., Manion L. ve Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntemleri. (N. Güler ve M. İlhan, Çev.) Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal eser 2017’de yayınlanmıştır).
  8. Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x.
  9. Driver, J., Tabares, A., Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2012). Couple interaction in happy and unhappy marriages: Gottman laboratory studies. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: growing diversity and complexity (4th ed., pp. 57–77). The Guilford Press.
  10. Erbek, E., Beştepe, E., Akar, H., Eradamlar, N. ve Alpkan, R. L. (2005). Evlilik uyumu. Düşünen Adam, 18(1), 39-47. https://dusunenadamdergisi.org/storage/upload/pdfs/1587721786-tr.pdf
  11. Fowler, C., & Dillow, M. R. (2011). Attachment dimensions and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2010.518910
  12. Gladding, S. T. (2018). Aile Terapisi: Tarihi, Kuram ve Uygulamaları (İ. Keklik ve İ. Yıldırım Çev. Ed.) Türk PDR Derneği. (Orijinal eser 2011’de yayınlanmıştır).
  13. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. W.W. Norton & Company.
  14. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
  15. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14‐year period. Journal of Marriage and family, 62(3), 737-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x
  16. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two‐factor model for predicting when a couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14‐year longitudinal data. Family process, 41(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.x
  17. Gottman, J. M., & Schwartz-Gottman (2023). Gottman method couple therapy. In: J. L. Lebow, & D. K. Snyder (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (6th ed., pp. 386-386). The Guilford Press.
  18. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. Crown.
  19. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438
  20. Gottman, J. M., Cole, C., &. Cole, D. L. (2019a). Gottman method couples therapy. In: J. L. Lebow, A. L. Chambers, & D. C. Breunlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (1st ed., pp. 1319-1328). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8
  21. Gottman, J. M., Cole, C., &. Cole, D. L. (2019b). Four horsemen in couple and family therapy. In: J. L. Lebow, A. L. Chambers, & D. C. Breunlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (1st ed., pp. 1212-1216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8
  22. Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (1999), What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Process, 38, 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00143.x
  23. Grunow, D., & Evertsson, M. (2016). Couples' transitions to parenthood: Analysing gender and work in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  24. Hooper, A., Spann, C., McCray, T., & Kimberly, C. (2017). Revisiting the basics: Understanding potential demographic differences with John Gottman’s Four Horsemen and emotional flooding. The Family Journal, 25(3), 224-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717710650
  25. Huss, B., & Pollmann-Schult, M. (2019). Relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: The impact of conflict behavior. Journal of family issues, 41(3), 383-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19876084
  26. Joaquim, R. M., Pereira, T. F. B., de Oliveira Vilela, L., Rodrigues, T. M. P., Brandino, A. M. D. S. M., & Caramaschi, S. (2018). Correlation of disgust and contempt expressions with conjugal dissatisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 8(10), 562. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2018.810034
  27. Kavak, A. (2018). Evli bireylerde çatışma yönetimi ve evlilik doyumu. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  28. Kaźmierczak, M. & Karasiewicz, K. (2019) Making space for a new role–gender differences in identity changes in couples transitioning to parenthood. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(3), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2018.1441015
  29. Kleka, P., & Soroko, E. (2018). How to avoid the sins of questionnaires abridgement? Survey Research Methods, 12(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8jg9u
  30. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  31. Koğar, H. (2020). Development of a short form: methods, examinations and recommendations. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(3), 302-310. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.739548.
  32. Koğar, H. (2022). Which scale short form development method is better? A Comparison of ACO, TS, and SCOFA. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(3), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.946231
  33. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
  34. Pines, A. M., Neal, M. B., Hammer, L. B., & Icekson, T. (2011). Job burnout and couple burnout in dual-earner couples in the sandwiched generation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(4), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511422452
  35. Rajaei, A., Daneshpour, M., & Robertson, J. (2019). The effectiveness of couples therapy based on the Gottman method among Iranian couples with conflicts: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(3), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2019.1567174
  36. Rauch-Anderegg, V., Kuhn, R., Milek, A., Halford, W. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2019). Relationship behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 41(4), 483-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19878864
  37. Şahan, B. (2021). Does forgiveness affect marital satisfaction? Spiritual psychology and counseling, 6(3), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.37898/spc.2021.6.3.146
  38. Salehi, M., Nikoo Abkenar, B., & Rashidi, T. (2024). The effectiveness of gottman's systemic cognitive couple therapy on marital conflicts, communication patterns, and alexithymia in couples with marital conflict. Journal of Assessment and Research in Applied Counseling, 6(3), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.jarac.6.3.16
  39. Shapiro, A.F., & Gottman, J.M. (2005). Effects on marriage of a psycho-communicative educational intervention with couples undergoing the transition to parenthood: Evaluation at 5-year post intervention. Journal of Family Communication, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0501_1
  40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  41. Tezer, E. (1996). Evlilik ilişkisinden sağlanan doyum: Evlilik yaşamı ölçeği. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2(7), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.19981
  42. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, TÜİK. (2024), Evlenme ve Boşanma İstatistikleri. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Evlenme-ve-Bosanma-Istatistikleri-2023-53707
  43. Tüysüz Doğan, H. (2021). Duygusal zekânın boşanma göstergeleri ve romantik ilişki doyumuyla ilişkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Nişantaşı Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  44. Wu, Y., Tang, J., Du, Z., Chen, K., Wang, F., Sun, X., Zhang, G., & Wu, Y. (2025). Development of a short version of the perceived social support scale: based on classical test theory and ant colony optimization. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 232 -243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21399-y
  45. Yöntem, M. K. ve İlhan, T. (2018). Boşanma göstergeleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 18(41), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.vi.460646
  46. Yöntem, M. K., Adem, K., İlhan, T., & Kılıçarslan, S. (2019). Divorce prediction using correlation based feature selection and artificial neural networks. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 9(1), 259-273.