Content uploaded by Robert Epstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Epstein on Mar 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12:297–313, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1533-2691 print / 1533-2683 online
DOI: 10.1080/15332691.2013.836047
Which Relationship Skills Count Most?
ROBERT EPSTEIN
REGINA WARFEL
Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
JAMES JOHNSON
Couple and Family Therapy Program, Alliant International University, San Diego,
California, USA
RACHEL SMITH
Department of Psychology, Chapman University, Orange, California, USA
PAUL MCKINNEY
Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California, USA
In an Internet-based study with 2,201 participants, the new Ep-
stein Love Competencies Inventory (ELCI) was shown to have high
internal-consistency reliability and to be a good predictor of var-
ious self-reported measures of success in romantic relationships;
scores on the ELCI predicted satisfaction in current relationships
especially well. A blind review of test content by licensed therapists
also suggested that the test has strong content validity. The new test
measured seven relationship competencies that various research
suggests are important in the maintenance of long-term roman-
tic relationships: (a) communication, (b) conflict resolution, (c)
knowledge of partner, (d) life skills, (e) self management, (f) sex
and romance, and (g) stress management. ELCI scores were found
to improve with both age and the number of hours spent in rela-
tionship skills training. After communication, knowledge of partner
and life skills were the competencies that best predicted self-reported
positive outcomes in relationships—a potentially important finding
Address correspondence to Robert Epstein, American Institute for Behavioral Re-
search and Technology, 1035 East Vista Way, Ste. 120, Vista, CA 92084, USA. E-mail:
repstein@post.harvard.edu
297
School of Social Sciences, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, and American Institute
for Behavioral Research and Technology, Vista, California, USA
298 R. Epstein et al.
given that the latter two competencies are not always assessed or
taught in couple therapy or education contexts.
KEYWORDS relationship skills, relationship competencies, rela-
tionship education, relationship therapy, Epstein Love Competen-
cies Inventory
INTRODUCTION
Societal concerns about the poor state of America’s romantic relationships,
particularly the high rate of failure in our marriages, have grown in recent
years. Initiatives by both government and private groups are intended to
remedy the situation, and several initiatives, informed by numerous research
studies, emphasize the importance of teaching various relationship skills
to people in committed relationships (Fagan, Patterson, & Rector, 2002;
Hawkins, Wilson, Ooms, Nock, Malone-Colon, & Cohen, 2009; Reardon-
Anderson, Stagner, Macomber, & Murray, 2005). A number of studies have
indeed demonstrated that strengthening relationship skills can have positive
effects (e.g., Barnacle & Abbott, 2009; Larson, Vatter, Galbraith, Holman,
& Stahmann, 2007; Stanley, Allen, Markman, Rhoades, & Prentice, 2010),
and skill training has long been central in a number of relationship educa-
tion programs (Gordon, Temple, & Adams, 2005; Gottman, 2002; Notarius &
Markman, 1993).
Among the more dramatic outcomes reported, a program using the PREP
paradigm and focusing on improvements in communication and conflict
resolution skills found that training reduced marital conflict and produced
higher satisfaction levels in trained couples compared with matched controls.
Even more significantly, the program appeared to produce lasting effects
5 years after training; trainees had a 12% break-up rate at this point, compared
with a 36% break-up rate for controls (Stanley, Markman, & Jenkins, 2002).
Meta-analyses of relationship education and therapy programs have
generally reported positive results (e.g., Butler & Wampler, 1999; Carroll &
Doherty, 2003), although recent studies have cast some doubt on the gener-
alizability of earlier studies. For example, Fawcett, Hawkins, Blanchard, and
Carroll (2010) found that premarital education programs did not significantly
improve relationship quality or satisfaction when unpublished studies were
included in their analysis; they concluded that skill training is more likely to
be effective when it is customized to meet the needs of specific couples (cf.
Blanchard, Hawkins, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2009; Hawkins & Fackrell, 2010).
Tools for assessing relationship skills also exist. In some cases, skills
are assessed as part of a more comprehensive look at a relationship, which
might examine partner satisfaction, existing sources of conflict, personality
factors, family background, and other characteristics. Instruments that assess
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 299
relationship skills (among other things) include the online Couple Checkup
(Olson, Larson, & Olson-Sigg, 2009), Couples Resource Map Scales (Murray
& Forti, 2009), PREPARE (Fowers & Olson, 1986), and the RELATE question-
naire (formerly known as the PREP-M) (Holman, Larson, & Harmer, 1994).
Both the RELATE and PREPARE instruments focus on communication and
conflict resolution as key relationship skills. Other tests, such as the CDEM,
the FOCCUS, and the PMIP, were developed by religious groups with reli-
gious couples in mind (Larson, Holman, Klein, Busby, Stahmann, & Peterson,
1995; Larson, Newell, Topham, & Nichols, 2002). Assessment tools have also
been developed for particular cultural groups (e.g., Elias & Malik, 2009).
Although relationship skills are both measurable and valuable, a com-
prehensive understanding of relationship skills appears to be lacking. It is
not clear which of the broad range of skills that people possess play a role
in healthy adult relationships, which skills are most important, or how we
can measure such skills comprehensively. Identifying and prioritizing a wide
range of relationship skills might help improve couple education, couple
therapy, and self and couple awareness. With this in mind, we examined
the relevant empirical literature to identify competencies that appear to be
helpful in long-term romantic relationships and then devised an inventory to
assess the current state of an individual’s relationship competencies.
In addition, we are aware of the recent shift in relationship and mar-
riage education toward preventative, competency-based training and of the
public’s new reliance on the Internet to address relationship needs (Olson,
Larson, & Olson-Sigg, 2009). With these issues in mind, we sought to develop
an online, user-friendly test that could be used by singles for self-evaluation
and could also be used by couples, couple educators, and therapists to
measure a broad range of competencies within existing relationships.
Finally, we sought to prioritize the competencies according to how well
they predicted desirable outcomes in relationships.
METHOD
To determine potential competencies that might contribute to success in
romantic relationships, we looked for studies that presented evidence that
a measurable competency—a functionally related set of skills that may or
may not have been previously expressed—(a) increased the longevity of
relationships, (b) increased satisfaction in relationships, or (c) reduced con-
flict in relationships. Based on a review of relevant studies, we concluded
that there are at least seven different competencies that have the potential
to contribute to success in romantic relationships (listed here in alphabet-
ical order): (a) communication, (b) conflict resolution, (c) knowledge of
partner, (d) life skills, (e) self-management, (f) sex and romance, and (g)
stress management. Definitions and relevant references are given in Table 1.
300 R. Epstein et al.
TABLE 1 Seven Important Relationship Competencies
Communication: knowing how to listen, sharing one’s thoughts and feelings honestly,
refraining from criticizing, etc.
Sample Item: “I often ask for feedback from my partner.”
References∗: Fawcett et al., 2010; Ferch, 2001; Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998; Sprecher
& Hendrick, 2004
Conflict Resolution: staying focused on the topic, staying focused on the present, being
ready to forgive or apologize, etc.
Sample item: “I’m always ready to forgive when my partner apologizes.”
References: Bodenmann, Charvoz, Cina, & Widmer, 2001; Creasey, 2002; Lavner & Bradbury,
2010; Shigemasu & Ikeda, 2003
Knowledge of Partner: knowing how to have fun with one’s partner, knowing about his/her
preferences, caring about one’s partner’s hopes and dreams, etc.
Sample item: “I always remember my partner’s birthday and other special days.”
References: Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Ryan, Swanson, & Swanson, 2005; Showers & Kevlyn,
1999
Life Skills: managing money responsibly, exercising and staying fit, being able to find and
keep a job, etc.
Sample item: “I’m always prepared for possible hard times.”
References: Britt, Grable, Goff, & White, 2008; MacDonald, 1999; Olson & Olson, 2000
Self Management: knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses, striving to overcome one’s
weaknesses, identifying and reaching one’s goals, etc.
Sample item: “I regularly take time to reflect on my dreams and obstacles.”
References: Barker, 2010; Frederickson, 1998; Gordon & Baucom, 2009; Proulx, Helms, &
Buehler, 2007
Sex & Romance: inquiring and caring about how to please one’s partner sexually, setting
aside time for intimacy, staying attractive for one’s partner, etc.
Sample item: “I always make time for sensual intimacy with my partner.”
References: Butzer & Campbell, 2008; MacNeil & Byers, 2009; Sprecher, 2002; Yabiku &
Gager, 2009
Stress Management: using imagery techniques, thought management techniques, planning
and organizational skills, muscle relaxation techniques, etc.
Sample item: “I have trouble prioritizing.”
References: Berry & Worthington, 2001; Bodenmann, Atkins, Sch¨
ar, & Poffett, 2010; Randall
& Bodenmann, 2009
∗
Using methods employed by the first author in developing other tests
(e.g., Epstein, 2000a, 2000b; Epstein, Fox, Garcia, & McKinney, 2012; Ep-
stein & Muzzatti, 2011; Epstein & Rogers, 2001; Epstein, Schmidt, & Warfel,
2008), we then created items to be used in an agree/disagree 5-point Lik-
ert scale inventory. All items were derived from specific ways in which
For a complete list of supporting references in each category, download http://drrobertepstein.
com/downloads/Epstein_et_al_2012-relationship_skills.pdf
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 301
skills were characterized in relevant studies. For example, because asking
for feedback from one’s partner is an important communication skill
(e.g., Shumway & Wampler, 2002), one item in our set of communication
questions was “I often ask for feedback from my partner” (see Table 1 for
other sample items). The final test, called the Epstein Love Competencies
Inventory (ELCI, accessible at MyLoveSkills.com), contained 70 items, 10 for
each subscale. Each group of 10 items consisted of nine unique questions,
plus one item that was a variant of one of the other nine. The latter item—a
dummy item, in effect—was not used to compute subscale or total scores;
rather, the correlation between items in the test’s seven dummy pairs yielded
a measure we call the internal consistency score (ICS). A low ICS indicates
for an individual subject that he or she has misunderstood the instructions or
has responded at random or dishonestly. The ICS can be used to eliminate
a subject from a statistical analysis (no participants were eliminated in the
present study), to ask a subject to retake the test (again, this was not done
is the present study), or, using techniques that we have reported elsewhere
(e.g., Epstein, Schmidt, & Warfel, 2008), to maximize validity or reliability
measures; no such techniques were used in the present study.
Participants
Participants were recruited through a notice placed in an online newsletter
that reaches many couple therapists and counselors (Smartmarriages.com).
Over a period of about 30 days, at least 18 therapists and counselors directed
2,201 participants to take the ELCI. Sixty-five percent of the participants were
female (n=1,434), and 35% were male (n=767); the mean age was 36.6;
84% were white (n=1,848), 3.5% were black (n=77), 4.5% were Hispanic
(n=99), 3.9% were Asian (n=85), 0.3% were Native American (n=6),
and the remaining respondents characterized themselves as “other” (n=
77). Twenty-four percent (n=530) indicated that they had completed high
school, 11.9% (n=263) had an associate’s degree, 31.4% (n=691) had
completed college, 24% (n=528) had a master’s degree, and 7.1% (n=
157) had completed doctoral work. Seventy-four percent (n=1,624) of the
participants said they were currently in a relationship, with 824 of those indi-
viduals currently married. Twenty-six percent (n=564) were neither married
nor in a relationship, and 0.1% (n=13) did not respond to this question.
Forty-four percent (n=982) of participants had never been married.
Validity and Reliability
INDEPENDENT RATINGS
The legitimacy of the seven subscales was established initially by our lit-
erature review, but we subsequently sought to assess the content validity
302 R. Epstein et al.
of these subscales using a blind evaluation procedure with independent
raters. This procedure was also used to help determine the content validity
of the 63 scoreable test items. Specifically, we asked a licensed clinical
psychologist (based in San Diego, California) who specializes in couple
therapy to distribute a form to 10 licensed couple therapists. The form did
not identify the name of the new test or the names of the authors of this
study. It merely noted that a new test of relationship skills was under de-
velopment and asked recipients to rate the importance of the subscales and
the appropriateness of the items for each subscale. Completed forms were
subsequently returned to the authors of this study without the names of the
raters.
CRITERION QUESTIONS
In addition to basic demographic questions, participants were asked to rate
their current and past relationships on 10-point scales. To assess the predic-
tive validity of the test, we sought specifically to predict answers to the ques-
tion, “How satisfied are you in your current relationship?” We hypothesized
that ELCI scores would be positively correlated with satisfaction in the current
relationship, since, presumably, better relationship skills would help to pro-
duce better relationships. Since the length of one’s current relationship at the
time one takes the test is arbitrary, we predicted that ELCI scores would not
predict current relationship length. Moreover, because skills tend to improve
over time, we predicted that ELCI scores would be positively correlated with
our participants’ ages. Because skills were likely weaker during past relation-
ships and memory of older events is relatively unreliable, we predicted that
ELCI scores would be only modestly correlated with overall satisfaction in re-
lationships (past and present), if at all. We also conjectured that ELCI scores
would improve with level of education, that women would outscore men
by small margins in some areas, that racial and ethnic differences would be
minimal, and that skills would improve with training. Internal-consistency
reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s αand the Guttman split-half
test.
RESULTS
Independent Ratings of Subscales and Items
Completed ratings forms were received from 7 of the 10 clinicians who had
been approached. Five of the raters listed California as their location; two
did not list a location. Two listed the PsyD as their terminal degree, one
listed an MSW, and the others identified themselves as LMFTs.
Mean ratings of importance for six of the seven competencies (com-
munication, conflict resolution, knowledge of partner, self-management,
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 303
There was more variability in how the appropriateness of items was
judged, with mean item scores for each competency ranging from 7.7 to
9.2. Once again, the lowest mean was for life skills, an area not normally
explored in couple therapy or education (see Discussion).
Reliability and Validity
Cronbach’s αfor our sample was .93, and the Guttman split-half value was
.91, suggesting that the ELCI has high internal consistency. Test scores were
predictive of several of our criterion questions. Total scores were significantly
correlated with whether participants had ever had relationship skills train-
ing (Mann-Whitney U=469,029.5∗∗∗,meanyes =72.10, meanno =69.33),
and with the number of hours of training participants had received (Spear-
man’s ρ=.16∗∗∗), with how highly participants rated their average satis-
faction in romantic relationships (ρ=.14∗∗∗), with whether they had ever
been married (U=509,728.5∗∗∗,meanyes =71.4, meanno =69.2), and
with their level of education (Kruskal-Wallis χ2=52.4∗∗∗,meannone =66.8,
meanhigh school =68.2, meanassociates =70.0, meanbachelors =70.8, meanmasters
=71.7, meandoctoral =73.8). (Nonparametric statistical tests such as Spear-
man’s ρ, the Mann-Whitney U, and the Kruskal-Wallis H are used throughout
this study because scores on the ELCI lie on an ordinal scale. Significance
level is indicated by asterisks: ∗∗∗ indicates p<.001, ∗∗ indicates p<.01, and
∗indicates p<.05. Unless otherwise indicated, all test scores are reported
as a percentage of total correct rather than as raw scores.) As predicted,
total scores were not correlated with the length of participants’ current ro-
mantic relationship (ρ=–.02, p=.47), with the average length of all their
romantic relationships (ρ=.02, p=.40), or with the length of time since
their last romantic relationship (ρ=–.01, p=.61) but were relatively highly
correlated with the level of satisfaction participants reported in their current
relationships (ρ=0.23∗∗∗). There was no significant difference between the
total scores of participants who were in a relationship (which includes all
married participants) and the total scores of participants who were not in a
relationship (U=449,433.5, p=.59, meanyes =70.47, meanno =70.44).
Although training in relationship skills made a significant difference
in total scores, it did not affect the seven competencies equally. Six of
the seven competencies—communication, conflict resolution, life skills, self-
management, sex and romance, and stress management—were improved by
training; however, knowledge of partner was not improved (Table 2).
sex and romance, and stress management) were high: between 9.3 and
9.8 on a 10-point scale. The mean rating for life skills was consider-
ably lower: 7.8. (Complete results from the content validity study may be
downloaded at http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/Epstein_et_al_2012-
relationship_skills.pdf.)
TABLE 2 Total and Subscale Scores by Gender, Age, and Training Level
Men and women Age Training
All
participants
(n=2,201)
Mean (SD)
Men
(n =1,434)
Mean (SD)
Women
(n=767)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
difference
Age <35 yr
(n=1,037)
Mean (SD)
Age ≥35 yr
(n=1,164)
Mean (SD)
Mean dif-
ference
Training
(n=826)
Mean (SD)
No training
(n=1,346)
Mean (SD)
Mean
differ-
ence
Total score 70.5 (10.2) 69.9 (10.5) 70.8 (10.1) 0.9 69.2 (10.2) 71.6 (10.1) 2.4∗∗∗ 72.1 (10.1) 69.3 (10.1) 2.8∗∗∗
Communication 77.4 (13.6) 75.5 (13.6) 78.4 (13.5) 2.9∗∗∗ 77.4 (13.6) 77.4 (13.6) 0 78.7 (13.4) 76.4 (13.6) 2.3∗∗∗
Conflict resolution 66.1 (12.9) 67.7 (11.7) 65.2 (13.5) 2.5∗∗∗ 63.4 (13.2) 68.5 (12.2) 5.1∗∗∗ 67.7 (13.4) 65.0 (12.5) 2.7∗∗∗
Knowledge of
partner
77.0 (12.6) 74.2 (13.5) 78.5 (11.8) 4.3∗∗∗ 77.3 (12.7) 76.7 (12.5) 0.6 77.2 (12.5) 76.7 (12.7) 0.5
Life skills 68.3 (15.3) 69.2 (16.4) 67.8 (14.7) 1.4∗∗ 66.3 (15.9) 70.7 (14.5) 3.8∗∗∗ 70.7 (14.4) 66.7 (15.6) 4.0∗∗∗
Self management 75.9 (13.2) 74.6 (13.6) 76.5 (12.9) 1.9∗∗ 73.8 (13.2) 77.2 (12.9) 3.4∗∗∗ 78.9 (12.5) 73.8 (13.2) 5.1∗∗∗
Sex and romance 68.0 (15.3) 67.5 (14.7) 68.2 (15.6) 0.7 67.5 (15.5) 68.3 (15.1) 0.8 68.7 (15.6) 67.3 (15.1) 1.4∗
Stress management 60.6 (13.4) 60.6 (12.7) 60.6 (13.7) 0 58.7 (13.1) 62.3 (13.4) 3.6∗∗∗ 62.5 (13.1) 59.4 (13.3) 3.1∗∗∗
∗p<.05, ∗∗p<.01, ∗∗∗p<.001.
304
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 305
Gender, Race, and Age
The mean total score was 70.8 for women and 69.9 for men, with no sig-
nificant difference between these values. Female strengths were in the com-
munication, knowledge of partner, and self-management competency areas,
and male strengths were in the conflict resolution and life skills competency
areas (see Table 2). Differences between male and female scores in the stress
management and sex and romance competency areas were not significant
(Table 2). In addition, race was not a significant predictor of total score (χ2
=8.3, p=.14, meanwhite =70.4, meanblack =73.1, meanHispanic =70.4,
meanAsian =70.5, meanAmerican Indian =67.0, meanother =70.3, meanunknown
=73.8).
Splitting the data set at the median age of 35, we found that both the
total score and several subscale scores improved with age. The mean total
score (69.2) for participants under 35 was slightly lower than the mean total
score (71.6) for participants 35 and over (p<.001). Older participants were
stronger in four of the seven competency areas: conflict resolution, stress
management, self-management, and life skills (Table 2). Younger participants
did not score significantly higher in any competency area. Overall, there was
also a small but highly significant positive correlation between age and total
scores (ρ=0.15∗∗∗).
Regressions and Factor Analysis
Linear regression was used to determine how well the seven subscale scores
predicted both current and average relationship satisfaction. With respect
to current relationship satisfaction, Communication was the most predictive
competency (β=.16∗∗∗); knowledge of partner (β=.14∗∗∗) and life skills
(β=.09∗∗∗) were also somewhat predictive. Sex and romance (β=.10∗∗∗)
and communication (β=.07∗) were somewhat predictive of average rela-
tionship satisfaction.
An exploratory principal components factor analysis was performed for
all 63 scored items for all participants. To test the appropriateness of the prin-
cipal component analysis, we used both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Our sampling adequacy
was .94, well above the recommended cutoff value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was highly significant (p<.001). Overall, the analysis produced
five distinct, interpretable, and statistically sound components (Table 3): (a)
communication, especially about intimacy and other needs, (b) self and
stress management, (c) conflict resolution, (d) life skills pertaining to goal
attainment, and (e) life skills pertaining to health and appearance. Compo-
nents b, d, and e appeared to represent participants’ personal skill set, and
components a and c appeared to represent participants’ interpersonal skill
set.
306 R. Epstein et al.
TABLE 3 Factor Loadings for the 63 Scored Test Items
Item No.
Communication,
especially about
intimacy and other
needs
Self and stress
management
Conflict resolution
and perspective
taking
Life skills
pertaining
to goal
attainment
Life skills
pertaining to
health and
appearance
36 0.70
26 0.62
42 0.62
47 0.58
34 0.57
22 0.56
61 0.56
44 0.53
13 0.53
40.50
30 0.50
80.49
49 0.49
58 0.46
66 0.45
10 0.45
54 0.44
20 0.42
20.40
32 0.40
57 0.58
56 0.56
68 0.56
70.50
64 0.46
25 0.44
70 0.45
62 0.42
30.42
53 0.41
46 0.66
29 0.57
69 0.53
17 0.49
50.49
10.48
40 0.46
28 0.41
19 0.58
52 0.52
27 0.50
23 0.49
18 0.49
38 0.46
48 0.45
51 0.40 0.44
35 0.42
12 0.72
37 0.62
59 0.62
9 0.59
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Factor loadings <0.40 are not shown.
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 307
DISCUSSION
The results of this study generally support some commonly held views.
First, relationship skills, like wine, get better with age, although not
dramatically so. Improvement with age applies especially to certain com-
petencies: conflict resolution, life skills, self-management, and stress man-
agement. Second, our findings support the view that couple education is
beneficial: ELCI test scores were higher for people who had had relationship
skills training (Table 2), and more training hours were associated with higher
test scores.
Third, although women did not significantly outscore men overall, they
did score higher than men in three important competency areas (communi-
cation, knowledge of partner, and self-management), with men outscoring
women in two competency areas (conflict resolution and life skills). The
small but significant difference in the communication competency supports
the current view that women may have only slightly better communication
skills than men (cf., Hyde & Linn, 1988; Mulac, 2006). The biggest gap be-
tween male and female scores, with women outscoring men, was in the
knowledge of partner competency. This result is consistent with the finding
that women generally elicit more self-disclosure than men (Dindia, 2002).
Fourth, this study also supports the widely held belief that communi-
cation skills are essential for relationship success. Our regression analysis
confirmed that the communication competency was the best predictor of
self-reported satisfaction in one’s current relationship. Our study also directs
attention, however, toward two other competencies—life skills and knowl-
edge of partner—which are often not stressed in couple therapy or education
programs.
We were fortunate in this study to be able to obtain a relatively large
number of participants rapidly through referrals made by couple therapists
and educators to an Internet address (MyLoveSkills.com). Normally, with un-
known participants responding over the Internet, one would need to be cau-
tious about the validity of one’s data. Because referrals were made mainly by
couple professionals, however, we can be reasonably confident that our par-
ticipants were adults providing relatively honest responses. Some research
suggests, in fact, that people may be more honest when taking a test via
computer than when being tested face-to-face (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009).
However, it is still problematic that, because our participants were informed
about the test while in a therapeutic or education setting, many were pre-
sumably in troubled relationships and therefore may not be representative
of the population as a whole.
Reflecting the subpopulation that normally seeks therapy, our partic-
ipants were also mainly white (84.0%) and highly educated (31.4% with
bachelor’s degrees and 31.1% with graduate degrees). Our scores may there-
fore be inflated; that is, the average American adult probably has weaker
308 R. Epstein et al.
relationship skills than are reflected in this study. This is further suggested by
our findings with respect to relationship training. Of our participants, 37.5%
said they had received such training, a number undoubtedly well above that
for the general population, and subscale scores—except in the knowledge of
partner category—were indeed significantly higher among participants who
had reported having such training (Table 2).
Because the ELCI relies on self-report, it could be argued that ELCI
scores (as well as the results of this study) may not be reflective of ac-
tual behavior but rather are indicative of an individual’s self-perception. We
question this perspective. Well-designed competency tests—that is, tests that
pinpoint behavior—are usually good predictors of performance, as a wealth
of data in the competency-testing literature has long demonstrated (Boyatzis,
1982; Smith & Smith, 2005; Spencer & Spencer, 1993; Wood & Payne, 1998).
While vague test items (“I’m a good communicator”) might produce answers
indicative of self perception, behavior-specific test items (“I always ask my
partner how his or her day was”) predict behavior well, and improvements
in behavior can often be predicted from increases in competency scores. In
another validation study recently reported by Epstein, Schmidt, and Warfel
(2008), for example, increases in scores on a computer-based test of creativ-
ity competencies were associated with a 55% increase in the number of new
ideas employees suggested to managers each week.
Because our test was administered on the Internet, we were also unable
to measure both test-retest reliability and concurrent validity. In a newer
version of the test (currently in use), we ask for participants’ email addresses,
which should allow us to do follow-up testing. This should make it possible
to assess both test-retest reliability and concurrent validity with at least a
self-selected subset of our participants.
IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The results of this study have implications for couple education, as well
as for clinical practice with both couples and individuals. Currently, cou-
ple educators and therapists often focus on strengthening communication
and conflict-resolution skills, sometimes focusing exclusively on these skills.
The present study reminds us that other skill sets are also important in
relationships. Two competencies in particular—knowledge of partner and
life skills—proved to be reasonably good predictors of satisfaction in one’s
current relationship; only communication was a better predictor.
One’s ability to hold a job, manage money, take care of one’s health,
and so on—the competency we are calling life skills—is essential in
long-term romantic relationships (Britt, Grable, Goff, & White, 2008;
Olson & Olson, 2000; Olson & Olson-Sigg, 2008; cf. Carroll, Dean, Call,
& Busby, 2011), but such skills are not always assessed or taught by couple
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 309
professionals. Indeed, the experts who participated in a blind evaluation of
our test content ranked life skills as the least important of the seven rela-
tionship competencies we evaluated. Although couple professionals might
be able to help someone hold a job by assisting him or her with anger
management or assertiveness, they may have little to offer when it comes
to advising people about money management, economic trends, technical
obsolescence, downsizing, and so on. Life skills may be one of those areas,
like the proverbial elephant in the room, which is critically important in a re-
lationship but which we are poorly equipped to tame. Just as non–medically
trained therapists now routinely refer clients to physicians when medication
or other medical treatment is indicated, in an effort to strengthen their clients’
life skills, couple professionals may also need to refer clients on a routine ba-
sis to money managers, headhunters, life coaches, and continuing education
programs. As an alternative, couple professionals might consider adding life
coaching skills to their current repertoires, as Williams and Davis (2002) have
suggested.
The other important competency that emerged in this study—
knowledge of partner—has more immediate relevance to current relation-
ship education and therapeutic practices. In short, this competency should
perhaps be elevated in importance. We say this in part because knowledge
of partner is easier for people to learn and master than are other relationship
skills. When a birthday is missed or someone seems unaware of a food pref-
erence or shirt size, the effects can be devastating, especially when these
omissions are habitual. Making people sensitive to this issue is relatively
straightforward, and fairly simple information swapping and memorization
exercises, given as homework, can presumably strengthen this skill substan-
tially.
If relationship educators are now widely assessing or teaching the
knowledge of partner competency, it is certainly not clear from our results.
(A notable exception is the “Love Maps” technique taught at The Gottman
Relationship Institute, which has been shown to boost the friendship compo-
nent of marital relationships when used in combination with other techniques
[Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Ryan, Swanson, & Swanson, 2005].) Knowledge
of partner was the only one of the seven competencies we examined that
was not stronger among people who had received relationship skills train-
ing, presumably because it had never been taught. Our finding that women
outscored men in the knowledge of partner category more than in any other
category may be relevant here. This may be a rare instance in which the
failure to assess and train allows natural gender differences to be expressed
more than they otherwise would be (cf. Dindia, 2002). It is curious that the
clinicians in our blind evaluation study rated knowledge of partner the high-
est of the seven competencies; relationship skills training may not currently
be consistent with their intuitions.
310 R. Epstein et al.
Although this study has yielded some fairly clear and potentially useful
results, we consider it preliminary in nature. We are currently in the process
of conducting a larger-scale study with more criterion variables to further
assess the validity of the ELCI. In the meantime, we believe that the ELCI can
be helpful to both couple educators and therapists as a tool for assessing
baseline relationship skills in both individuals and couples—information that
is increasingly seen as valuable to the therapeutic process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Randy Lie of the University California San Diego for assistance
in preparation of an early version of the test. For statistical advice, we are
grateful to Lyle M. Spencer Jr. of Spencer Research and Technology, to John
Polich of the Scripps Research Institute, and to Daniel Bajic of the University
of California San Diego. We are also grateful to Tracey Laszloffy for a careful
analysis of an earlier version of the manuscript, to Dennis S. Thompson for
pogramming assistance, and to Mark Kaupp for conducting the blind review
of the competencies and items.
REFERENCES
Barker, M. (2010). Self-care and relationship conflict. Sexual and Relationship Ther-
apy,25, 37–47.
Barnacle, R. E. S., & Abbott, D. A. (2009). Couple and relationship education up-
date. The development and evaluation of a Gottman-based premarital education
program: A pilot study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy,8, 64–82.
Berry, J., & Worthington, E. L. (2001). Forgiveness, relationship quality, stress while
imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology,48, 447–455.
Blanchard, V. L., Hawkins, A. J., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2009). Investigating
the effects of marriage and relationship education on couples’ communication
skills: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology,23, 203–214.
Bodenmann, G., Atkins, D. C., Sch¨
ar, M., & Poffett, V. (2010). The association be-
tween daily stress and sexual activity. Journal of Family Psychology,24, 271–279.
Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Cina, A., & Widmer, K. (2001). Prevention of marital
distress by enhancing the coping skills of couples: 1-Year follow-up study. Swiss
Journal of Psychology,60, 3–10.
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance.New
York, NY: Wiley.
Britt, S., Grable, J. E., Goff, B. S. N., & White, M. (2008). The influence of per-
ceived spending behaviors on relationship satisfaction. Financial Counseling
and Planning,19, 31–43.
Butler, M. H., & Wampler, K. S. (1999). A meta-analytic update of research on
the Couple Communication Program. American Journal of Family Therapy,27,
223–237.
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 311
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and rela-
tionship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships,15,
141–154.
Carroll, J. S., Dean, L. R., Call, L. L., & Busby, D. M. (2011). Materialism and marriage:
Couple profiles of congruent and incongruent spouses. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy,10, 287–308.
Carroll, J., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital preven-
tion programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Applied Family Studies,52, 105–118.
Creasey, G. (2002). Associations between working models of attachment and conflict
management behavior in romantic couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
49, 365–375.
Dindia, K. (2002). Self-disclosure research: Knowledge through meta-analysis. In M.
Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communi-
cation research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Elias, N. T., & Malik, A. A. (2009). Development of Naheed Anila Index for Mate
Assessment (NAIMA). Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,8, 52–63.
Epstein, R. (2000a). The big book of stress-relief games. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Epstein, R. (2000b). The big book of creativity games. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Epstein, R., Fox, S., Garcia, C., & McKinney, P. (2012). Support for a fluid-continuum
model of sexual orientation: A large-scale Internet study. Journal of Homosexu-
ality,59, 1357–1383.
Epstein, R., & Muzzatti, L. (2011). Preliminary validation of an online DSM-based
mental health referral inventory. Journal of Technology in Human Services,29,
284–295.
Epstein, R., & Rogers, J. (2001). The big book of motivation games. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Epstein, R., Schmidt, S. M., & Warfel, R. (2008). Measuring and training creativity
competencies: Validation of a new test. Creativity Research Journal,20, 7–12.
Fagan, P. F., Patterson, R. W., & Rector, R. E. (2002). Marriage and welfare re-
form: The overwhelming evidence that marriage education works. The Heritage
Foundation No. 1606. http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1606.cfm
Fawcett, E. B., Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). Do premarital
education programs really work? A meta-analytic study. Family Relation,59,
232–239.
Ferch, S. R. (2001). Relational conversation: Meaningful communication as a thera-
peutic intervention. Counseling and Values,45, 118–135.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1986). Predicting marital success with PREPARE: A
predictive validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,12, 403–413.
Frederickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology,2, 300–319.
Gordon, C. L., & Baucom, D. H. (2009). Examining the individual within mar-
riage: personal strengths and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships,
16, 421–435.
Gordon, L. H., Temple, R. R., & Adams, D. W. (2005). Premarital counseling from
the PAIRS perspective. In M. Harway (Ed.), Handbook of couples therapy
(pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Wiley.
312 R. Epstein et al.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy.
New York, NY: Norton.
Gottman, J. M. (2002). The relationship cure: A 5 step guide to strengthening your
marriage, family and friendships. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Gottman, J., Ryan, K., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2005). Proximal change ex-
periments with couples: A methodology for empirically building a science of
effective interventions for changing couples’ interaction. The Journal of Family
Communications,5, 163–190.
Hawkins, A. J., & Fackrell, T. A. (2010). Does relationship and marriage education
for lower-income couples work? A meta-analytic study of emerging research.
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,9, 181–191.
Hawkins, A. J., Wilson, R. F., Ooms, T., Nock, S. L., Malone-Colon, L., & Cohen, L.
(2009). Recent government reforms related to marital formation, maintenance,
and dissolution in the United States: A primer and critical review. Journal of
Couple and Relationship Therapy,8, 264–281.
Holman, T. B., Larson, J. H., & Harmer, S. L. (1994). The development and predic-
tive validity of a new premarital assessment instrument: The PREParation for
Marriage Questionnaire Family Relations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied
Family Studies,43, 46–52.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin,104, 53–69.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications,
and issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Larson, J., Holman, T., Klein, D., Busby, D., Stahmann, R., & Peterson, D. (1995).
A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premarital education and
counseling. Family Relations,44, 245–252.
Larson, J., Newell, K., Topham, G., & Nichols, S. (2002). A review of three compre-
hensive premarital assessment questionnaires. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy,28, 233–239.
Larson, J. H., Vatter, R. S., Galbraith, R. C., Holman, T. B., & Stahmann, R. F. (2007).
TheRELATionship Evaluation (RELATE) with therapist-assisted interpretation:
Short-term effects on premarital relationships. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy,33, 364–374.
Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over
the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and Family,72, 1171–1187.
MacDonald, K. (1999). Love and confidence in protection as two independent
systems underlying intimate relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,13,
492–495.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satis-
faction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research,46, 3–14.
Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love and rela-
tionship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,15, 755–773.
Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really
make a difference? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.). Sex differences and
similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 219–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murray, C. E., & Forti, A. M. (2009). Validation of the couples resource map scales.
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,8, 209–225.
Which Relationship Skills Count Most? 313
Notarius, C., & Markman, H. J. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital
conflict. New York, NY: Putnam.
Olson, D. H., Larson, P. J., & Olson-Sigg, A. (2009). Couples checkup: Tuning up
relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,8, 129–142.
Olson, D. H., & Olson, A. K. (2000). Empowering couples: Building on your strengths.
Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
Olson, D. H., & Olson-Sigg, A. (2008). National survey of marital strengths.Min-
neapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal
well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,69, 576–593.
Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships
and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review,29, 105–115.
Reardon-Anderson, J., Stagner, M. Macomber, J., & Murray, J. (2005). Systematic
review of the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411142
Shigemasu, E., & Ikeda, K. (2003). Interpersonal effects of restraint on negative
feedback in communication: Consequences of “not saying what I want to say
rather than causing conflict.” Japanese Journal of Social Psychology,19, 30–40.
Showers, C. J., & Kevlyn, S. B. (1999). Organization of knowledge about a rela-
tionship partner: Implications for liking and loving. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,76, 958–971.
Shumway, S. T., & Wampler, R. S. (2002). A behaviorally focused measure for rela-
tionships: The Couple Behavior Report. American Journal of Family Therapy,
30, 311–321.
Smith, M., & Smith, P. (2005). Testing people at work: Competencies in psychometric
testing. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations
with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research,39,
190–196.
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: As-
sociations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology,23, 857–877.
Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., & Prentice, D. L. (2010).
Decreasing divorce in U.S. Army couples: Results from a randomized controlled
trial using PREP for strong bonds. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,
9, 149–160.
Stanley S., Markman, H., & Jenkins, N. (2002). Marriage education and gov-
ernment policy: Helping couples who choose marriage achieve success.
http://www.smartmarriages.com/choose.marriage.html
Williams, P., & Davis, D. C. (2002). Therapist as life coach: Transforming your
practice. New York, NY: Norton.
Wood, R., & Payne, T. (1998). Competence based recruitment and selection: A prac-
tical guide. New York, NY: Wiley.
Yabiku, S. T., & Gager, C. T. (2009). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital
and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family,71, 983–1000.
