Content uploaded by Rebecca L Brock
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rebecca L Brock on May 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 1
Free to be Me with You:
Development of the Individuality in Couples Questionnaire
Rebecca L. Brock & Erin L. Ramsdell
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Molly R. Franz
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Sara M. Stasik-O’Brien
Carthage College
Sarah J. Gervais & Frances C. Calkins
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln
This is a preprint version which has been published in final form
at Psychological Assessment: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001238
Author Note
This research was funded by several internal funding mechanisms awarded to PI Rebecca
Brock from the UNL Department of Psychology, the Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Biomedical
Research Development Fund, and the UNL Office of Research and Economic Development. We
thank the entire team of research assistants who contributed to various stages of this project. We
thank Eric Phillips for statistical consultation. We also thank Thomas Bradbury, Rebecca Cobb,
Joanne Davila, Kim Halford, Matt Johnson, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ron Rogge, and
Lorelei Simpson Rowe for providing feedback on the initial item pool.
Consistent with Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines we report our
sample size, data exclusions, and study measures. All research materials, analysis code, and data
for this project are available by emailing the corresponding author. The final version of the
Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ) and scoring procedures are available as
supplemental material and can be accessed free of charge by contacting the corresponding
author. This study’s design and analysis were not pre-registered.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca L. Brock,
Department of Psychology, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 220 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE,
68588-0308. E-mail: rebecca.brock@unl.edu.
Author Contributions
Brock: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. Ramsdell:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing-review and editing. Franz:
Conceptualization, Writing-review and editing. Stasik-O’Brien: Conceptualization, Writing-
review and editing. Gervais: Conceptualization, Writing-review and editing. Calkins: Data
curation, Investigation, Project administration, Writing-review and editing.
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 2
Abstract
Despite multiple theories and treatment modalities emphasizing the importance of individuality
in couple relationships, the field is lacking a reliable and valid measure of this construct. In the
present study, we developed the Individuality in Couples (ICQ) questionnaire and demonstrated
its strong psychometric properties across two samples of participants in committed intimate
relationships (Sample 1 = 580 undergraduates; Sample 2 = 445 community members). The ICQ
is comprised of 25 items that can be combined into a reliable total score to measure individuality
in the context of couple relationships (i.e., the extent to which someone feels respected by their
partner for their individuality and experiences personal autonomy in the relationship). Scores on
the ICQ demonstrated high internal consistency, excellent construct replicability, convergent and
divergent validity with measures of other relationship dimensions (i.e., intimacy, support, sexual
satisfaction, psychological aggression, communication), criterion validity with measures of
relationship satisfaction and partner health, and incremental predictive validity for explaining
relationship satisfaction and partner well-being when controlling for other relationship
dimensions. Results suggest that individuality in couples is largely a unidimensional construct
that is distinct from more severe patterns of control and coercion characteristic of psychological
aggression. The ICQ holds promise for identifying and promoting dynamics essential for healthy
couple relationships.
Keywords: Scale, Individuality, Couples, Respect, Autonomy
Public Significance Statement
The Individuality in Couples (ICQ) questionnaire is comprised of 25 items that measure the
extent to which someone feels respected by their partner for their individuality and experiences
personal autonomy in the relationship. The ICQ demonstrated excellent reliability and validity
and holds promise for understanding how to best promote healthy dynamics in couple
relationships and enhance the health of each partner.
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 3
Free to be Me with You:
Development of the Individuality in Couples Questionnaire
Most adults enter into a committed intimate relationship at least once during their
lifetimes and can benefit greatly from the sense of connection and security that can result from
this unique bond. Yet, it can be challenging to maintain a sense of autonomy and individuality,
separate from one’s role and identity as an intimate partner. It can also be difficult to balance the
demands of the relationship (e.g., finding time to spend together, providing support to one’s
partner when they are distressed) with one’s own individual needs (e.g., time spent with friends,
pursuing personal career goals, carving out alone time) (Slotter et al., 2014). Further, humans
have an inherent need to feel accepted and embraced for who they are as a unique person and
appreciated for their strengths and individuality and accepted even with their weaknesses and
vulnerability (Baumeister, 2022; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If someone feels undervalued for
their individuality by their intimate partner—or feels as though they cannot be their authentic
selves—this is likely to undermine the health of both the relationship and the individual.
While several seminal theories (e.g., family systems, attachment theory, need-to-belong)
converge on the idea that respect for “individuality” in close relationships is equally as important
as closeness and connectedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Marvin et al., 2016; Minuchin,
2012), the specific manifestations of individuality in couples are absent from these theories. One
of the reasons for this critical theoretical gap is that no valid and reliable scale of individuality in
couples exists. The present work provides a first step toward addressing this major oversight in
the literature by integrating contemporary scholarship on individuality and couples (e.g., Bell,
2021; Lawrence et al., 2011) to develop the individuality in couples questionnaire. The
development of such a measure could provide the foundation for theoretical refinement around
individuality in couples (e.g., dimensionality; core indicators; critical predictors, outcomes,
mechanisms, and moderators).
Accumulating Evidence for the Importance of Individuality in Couple Relationships
Individuation is considered a normative and healthy development process, often studied
in adolescence, whereby an individual differentiates from the family system and engages in
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 4
individual pursuits (Bowen, 1993; Minuchin, 2012; Snir & Wiseman, 2013). In adult intimate
relationships, individuation is characterized by clear interpersonal boundaries (e.g., limits on
time spent together), respect for individual ideas and opinions of each partner, and validation of
one another as unique individuals (Bell, 2021). In contrast, a lack of individuation can occur in
relationships characterized by less clear differentiation of partners, what is sometimes referred to
as enmeshment or symbiosis. In cases of enmeshment, one’s partner is viewed as “who I need
you to be, rather than as a person with thoughts, feelings, or ideas that may be different from my
own” (Bell, 2021). In these relationships, differences in opinions, beliefs, or feelings are not
tolerated. As aptly summarized by Bell (2021), “An individuated relationship involves clear
interpersonal boundaries—respect for each person's individuality and personal autonomy.”
Although individuation is a core concept in many family theories, it is not widely studied
in couple relationships, so the specific experiences and behaviors representing individuation in
couples is less clear. Nonetheless, researchers have discussed processes related to individuation.
For example, research has demonstrated that a key mechanism of change in couple interventions
(e.g., Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy, The Marriage Checkup) is promoting an accepting
atmosphere in the relationship (Cordova et al., 2014). That is, each partner is encouraged to
adopt an accepting stance toward partner behaviors in service of developing more adaptive
patterns of responding as a couple. If each partner feels comfortable being authentic, without fear
of criticism, this creates a safe emotional climate that is critical for fostering healthy relationship
dynamics. Other work has demonstrated that interpersonal acceptance across close adult
relationships (i.e., parent, best friend, romantic partner) is associated with positive outcomes
(e.g., better mood and life satisfaction; Lac & Luk, 2019). Mutual respect for differences (e.g.,
age, culture, unique preferences) between partners has been proposed as an essential element of a
healthy intimate relationship (Eckstein et al., 2014). Other work suggests that respect for
autonomy (i.e., regard for autonomous action or decision-making) prevents unhealthy patterns of
codependency and destructive power and control dynamics in couple relationships (Osamor &
Grady, 2018).
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 5
Research implementing the Relationship Quality Interview (RQI; Lawrence et al., 2011)
also highlights the potential importance of individuality in couples. The RQI is a semi-structured
interview designed to capture multiple dimensions of relationship quality, using concrete
behavioral indicators, and includes a domain measuring power and control dynamics in the
relationship. Specifically, this domain assesses a couple’s ability to share power and control and
considers the extent to which each partner feels respected as a competent and independent adult,
accepted for who they are as a person, and free to pursue individual interests (e.g., scheduling
one’s own day). Thus, the RQI taps into key aspects of individuality along with other features of
a power imbalance such as control and coercion (e.g., one person makes most of the decisions
and actively restricts the other person’s freedom).
Research applying the RQI suggests that power and control dynamics in couples –
including key features of individuality such as respect and autonomy – have important
implications for family functioning. For example, in a sample of mixed-sex couples, a less
controlling and more respectful relationship during the transition into marriage was associated
with lower levels of men’s depression and anxiety symptoms across the first 7 years of marriage
(Brock & Lawrence, 2011). In a sample of pregnant couples, less control measured with the RQI
was associated with higher levels of global intimate relationship satisfaction (Ramsdell et al.,
2019) and lower levels of depressive symptoms (Brock et al., 2020). Further, following
childbirth, infants exhibited less socioemotional dysfunction when parents engaged in fewer
controlling and disrespectful behaviors during pregnancy (Ramsdell & Brock, 2021), even when
accounting for parent bonding with infant. Finally, decreases in control have been linked with
subsequent increases in emotional intimacy (Manvelian et al., 2021).
Developing a Questionnaire of Individuality in Couple Relationships
Given the potential importance of individuation in couple relationships, we aimed to
develop an internally consistent, validated, and economical self-report questionnaire. Based on
contemporary theorizing on individuality in couples (Bell, 2021; see also Lawrence et al., 2011;
see also Brock & Lawrence, 2011) and closely related constructs (Cordova et al., 2014; Eckstein
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 6
et al., 2014; Osamor & Grady, 2018), we conceptualized individuality as the extent to which
someone feels respected for their individuality by their partner and experiences personal
autonomy in the relationship. That is, each partner will perceive the degree to which they are free
to be themselves in the context of the intimate relationship. Building on past work and seminal
theories of individuation in close relationships, we identified two central features of this
construct that map onto core experiences and behaviors of individuality in couples. The first
feature is respect for individuality from one’s partner, which we operationalized as feeling
valued and appreciated as an individual (e.g., valued my opinions and ideas; open to learning
new things from me), accepted (e.g., embraced as a complex human being), esteemed for my
uniqueness (e.g., praised and celebrated for strengths and accomplishments; admired by my
partner), comfortable being open and authentic with individual weaknesses and vulnerabilities
(accepted for flaws), and equity (e.g., feeling like part of a team). The second feature is
autonomy support, which includes a sense of personal space in the relationship and partner
support of individual pursuits (e.g., freedom and encouragement to pursue personal interests and
passions without fear of judgment or rejection). Although we anticipated that respect for
individuality and autonomy support reflect two important features of individuality, and generated
items capturing both of these features, we ultimately conceptualized individuality in couple
relationships as a unitary construct.
Consideration of Related Constructs. An essential step in scale development is
consideration of the larger nomological network of variables related to the focal construct (Clark
& Watson, 2019); therefore, we identified other dimensions of intimate relationships that we
anticipated would be closely related to, but also sufficiently distinct from, individuality. First,
poor individuation in relationships can co-occur with more destructive behaviors characteristic of
a coercive and controlling relationships, which can lead to patterns of “intimate terrorism”
(Johnson, 2008). For example, one person might make belittling or demeaning comments toward
their partner, show contempt or disgust, or make threats to control and restrict the freedom of
their partner. We propose that these destructive behaviors might be present in the context of a
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 7
relationship that is lacking individuation, but not necessarily. Indeed, some couple relationships
might be devoid of overtly aggressive dynamics but one or both partners could still feel a sense
of enmeshment in the relationship. Given the potential for coercive control to be another form of
poor individuation, we generated items reflecting coercive behaviors to examine alongside items
consistent with our core conceptualization of individuality in couples.
Second, emotional intimacy (i.e., a close intimate bond) in the relationship can support
individualization because emotional connectedness helps to regulate autonomy and efforts
toward independence (Gavazzi & Sabetelli, 1990). Further, feeling like there is space to be
authentic in a relationship and engage in individual pursuits is likely to promote emotional
intimacy. For example, there is evidence that decreases in control dynamics (which undermine
individuality) predict subsequent increases in emotional intimacy in married couples (Manvelian
et al., 2021). Thus, we administered validated measures of emotional intimacy to examine
convergent/divergent validity with our new scale.
Third, autonomy support may be related to, yet distinct from the construct of social
support. Social support refers to one partner providing aid (e.g., listening and validation of
emotions, offering to help address the problem) when the other partner is feeling down, having a
bad day, or coping with a stressor (Brock & Lawrence, 2010). In contrast, autonomy support
refers to encouragement of individual pursuits or interests (McCurdy et al., 2020). Thus,
behaviors intended to promote independence (i.e., autonomy support) are essential to
individuality in couple relationships and are conceptualized as distinct from efforts to alleviate
partner distress (i.e., social support). Thus, we also included measures of partner support to
facilitate validation of our new scale of individuality in couples.
In summary, the purpose of the present paper was to create and examine the
psychometric properties of the novel Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ). We first
developed a large item pool to ensure that the ICQ captured the core facets of individuality in
couples (i.e., respect for individuality; autonomy support) that we identified by integrating the
limited work in this area (Bell, 2021; Lawrence et al., 2011; see also Cordova et al., 2014;
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 8
Eckstein et al., 2014; Osamor & Grady, 2018). We then completed an exploratory factor analysis
in a large sample of undergraduates with a wide range of relationship durations (i.e., one month
to several years). Next, the factor structure of the ICQ was examined with a separate community
sample using latent variable modeling to ensure that the factor structure from the EFA held for
people in more committed, long-term relationships as well as for people from more diverse
backgrounds than undergraduate students. We also examined the validity of the ICQ with the
community sample. Finally, at every step of the process, efforts were made to retain the
necessary items to maintain the ICQ’s strong psychometric properties while minimizing
participant burden (e.g., cutting unclear, uninformative, or redundant items).
Sample #1 Method: Undergraduate Students
Undergraduate students completing introductory and upper-level psychology courses
were recruited using the {BLINDED FOR REVIEW} psychology department participant pool.
To be eligible, participants were 18 years of age or older and in a self-identified romantic
relationship of at least 1 month duration. A total of 590 undergraduate students consented to
participate in the study; three participants consented but did not complete the survey and another
seven failed attention checks (i.e., unrealistic response time) for a final sample of 580. On
average, participants were 20.01 years of age (SD = 2.41). Most of the sample identified as
White (85.9%), not Hispanic or Latino (93.1%), female (83.1%), and heterosexual (91.9%).
Students were in various stages of their education (34.1% freshman, 22.4% sophomore, 22.6%
junior, 20.9% senior). The average relationship duration was 23.88 months (SD = 24.22). Most
participants reported that they were dating their partners (95.5%) with 3.3% reporting they were
engaged and 1.2% reporting they were married. Only 13.8% were cohabiting.
We obtained institutional review board approval. Participants consented from home via
Qualtrics and were redirected to an online survey that included the 160 items generated to assess
individuality in couple relationships (see Phase 1 of Scale Development and Results section).
Items are listed in Table S1. Participants received the following instructions: “Thinking about
interactions with your partner over the past month, please rate the extent to which you agree
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 9
with each of the following statements as it applies to you and your relationship. If you aren’t sure
how to respond to an item, are confused about an item, or don't think an item applies to your
relationship, please select “don’t know.” However, please do your best to respond to each item
with the 1-5 agreement scale.” For each item, participants used the following response scale: 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = don’t know.
Responses of “6” were tallied to assess item clarity but were recoded to missing for subsequent
analyses. Participating students received course credit as compensation.
Sample #2 Method: Community Sample
Participants and Procedures
Participants were recruited using flyers and social media posts. Eligibility criteria
included (a) 19 years of age or older, (b) English speaking, (c) in a committed romantic
relationship of at least six months in duration, and (d) to the best of their knowledge, their
partner had not participated in this study (to minimize interdependence among the data). A total
of 465 individuals enrolled, but 20 were excluded given they did not complete the survey
(despite consenting), for a final sample of 445.
On average, participants were 30 years of age (SD = 9.31; range = 19-69). Most
participants (65.4%) identified as female/woman, followed by 29.9% of participants identifying
as male/man, 3.4% as genderqueer/gender non-conforming/non-binary, 0.9% as transgender
man, and 0.4% as transgender woman. Most of the sample reported their sexual orientation as
heterosexual/straight (84%) while 8.3% identified as bisexual, 2.5% as lesbian, 1.8% as
pansexual, 1.6% as gay, 1.6% as queer, and 0.2% as asexual. The sample primarily identified
their race as White (86.7%), while 5.6% identified as more than one race, 5.2% as Asian, 1.6%
as Black or African American, and 0.9% as American Indian or Alaskan Native. 8.3% of the
sample identified as Hispanic or Latino/a. Over half of the sample (66.3%) was college educated.
Modal annual household income was more than $100,000 (23.6% of the sample) with endorsed
income categories ranging from $0-$10,000 to more than $100,000. All participants were in self-
defined committed intimate relationships of at least 6 months duration, consistent with inclusion
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 10
criteria. The average relationship duration was 87.49 months (SD = 93.55). Nearly half of the
sample was married to their partner (47.6%); 11.2% were engaged; 41.1% were dating but
neither married nor engaged. 72.1% of participants were cohabiting with their partners. Relative
to Sample #1 (undergraduate), Sample #2 (community) included participants who were, on
average, older, t = 22.08, p < .001, in longer-term relationships, t = 13.99, p < .001, and more
likely to be married, z = 17.98, p < .001. Sample #2 had more diversity with regard to sexual and
gender identity; participants were less likely to identify as straight, z = -3.90, p < .001, and as a
cisgender woman, z = -6.53, p < .001, relative to participants in Sample #1.
We obtained institutional review board approval. Participants consented from home via
Qualtrics and were redirected to an online survey. Participants completed the160 items designed
to assess individuality in couple relationships, along with a series of questionnaires for validity
analysis (described in detail below). Following completion of the survey (approximately 60-90
minutes in duration), participants were prompted to schedule a 30-minute follow-up interview on
the telephone during which they completed a semi-structured interview about their intimate
relationship for further validity analyses. Participants were compensated $35 for all study
procedures and their names were entered into a raffle to win an iPad.
Measures of Convergent and Divergent Validity
Semi-structured interview. The Relationship Quality Interview (RQI; Lawrence et al.,
2011) is a semi-structured interview enabling functional analyses of relationships over the past 6
months across multiple relationship domains. We administered the section on power and control,
which includes consideration of respect and autonomy. Behaviorally specific indicators (e.g., "to
what extent does your partner limit your freedom to do the things you really want to do?")
facilitated relatively objective ratings. Interviewers make a rating on a scale ranging from 1
(participant is not treated as a competent person; there is extreme disrespect and control; one
partner makes the majority of the decisions in the relationship) to 9 (participant is treated as
competent; high respect and no control; joint decision making). The RQI has demonstrated
strong reliability and validity (Lawrence et al., 2011). Interviewers completed training in reliable
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 11
coding and participated in consensus and recalibration meetings. Approximately 20% of the
interviews were double-coded to evaluate interrater reliability, which was adequate for the
control score (single measures ICC = .73).
Self-report questionnaires. The 15-item intimacy subscale of the Sternberg Triangular
Love Scale (Sternberg, 1997) was used to measure emotional intimacy in the relationship.
Participants rated their agreement with each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely),
and items were summed (α = 0.95; M = 124.85, SD = 12.96). The Support in Intimate
Relationship Scale—Revised (SIRRS; Barry et al., 2009) is a 25-item measure. Participants
report the frequencies of specific support behaviors from partners over the past month and
indicate a preferred frequency for each behavior (more, less, or the same). A support adequacy
score is calculated by summing item ratings of 0 = inadequate (would like more or less of that
support) and 1 = adequate (would like the same amount of that support; α = 0.91; M = 18.24, SD
= 6.17). The short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004) was used
to assess the frequency of perpetration of psychological aggression (M = 3.09, SD = 5.49) and
victimization (M = 3.12, SD = 5.89). The Marital Satisfaction Inventory—Revised (Snyder,
1997) assesses distress in couples across 11 key relationship domains. We included the affective
communication subscale (13 items; α = 0.80; M = 2.54, SD = 2.63) to assess poor communication
patterns, the problem-solving communication subscale to assess poor conflict resolution (19
items; α = 0.88; M = 4.25, SD = 4.30), and the sexual dissatisfaction subscale (13 items; α =
0.83; M = 3.83, SD = 3.30) to assess discontent with physical intimacy. Participants answered
true or false to each item, and sum scores were computed for each scale.
Measures of Criterion Validity
Intimate relationship satisfaction. The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983)
is a 6-item, self-report questionnaire designed to assess global relationship satisfaction (α = 0.94;
M = 40.04, SD = 5.89). The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007) was also
used to assess global relationship satisfaction (4 items; α = 0.91; M = 17.48, SD = 3.18). The
MSI-R (Snyder, 1997) Time Together scale was administered to assess the quality of time spent
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 12
together (10 items; α = .80; M = 2.22, SD = 2.36); lower scores reflect higher quality time
together.
Partner health. Partner mental health was assessed with the Expanded Form of the
Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II; Watson et al., 2012). Respondents
rated their feelings and experiences during the past two weeks on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5
(extremely). We used subscale scores of Well-Being (8 items; α = 0.90; M = 27.14, SD = 6.50),
which consists of items such as “I was proud of myself” and “I felt hopeful about the future”;
Dysphoria (10 items; α = 0.90; M = 19.65, SD = 7.83; which assesses depressed mood,
worthlessness, and guilt (e.g., “I felt discouraged about things”); Lassitude (6 items; α = 0.83; M
= 12.87, SD = 5.09), which consists of items such as “I felt too tired to do anything”; Ill Temper
(5 items; α = 0.81; M = 7.19, SD = 2.84), which consists of items such as “I lost my temper and
yelled at people”; and Panic (eight items; α = 0.81; M = 10.49, SD = 3.62), which assesses
symptoms of panic disorder (e.g., heart racing/pounding). Physical health was assessed with the
Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). We used the 10-item Physical
Functioning scale (e.g., how much an individual’s physical health impedes daily activities) with
higher scores reflecting better physical functioning (α = 0.90; M = 921.86, SD = 152.26).
Scale Development Stages and Results
Stage 1: Item Pool Generation and Initial Selection for Factor Analysis
We followed recommendations by Clark & Watson (1995, 2019) which included (a)
developing an initial item pool that is broader and more comprehensive than the current
operationalization of the construct, and (b) ensuring adequate representation of key features of
the construct. Thus, we aimed to generate a very large item pool that would eventually be
substantially reduced, as guided by psychometric analysis, to identify a small subset of high-
quality items measuring individuality in couples.
Three of the co-authors had extensive experience working with couples across research
and clinical settings and administering of the RQI which includes several questions assessing
core features of individuality. Collectively, they had interviewed hundreds of couples about their
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 13
relationships, providing valuable qualitative information about what leads someone to feel
respected for their individuality and free to pursue individual interests. Drawing on this
knowledge, along with theoretical frameworks of individuality and recent research (Lawrence et
al., 2011), these co-authors met periodically to operationalize the targeted construct (i.e., respect
for individuality including feeling valued, accepted, esteemed, comfort around vulnerability, and
equity; support for autonomy) into observable experiences and behaviors common in couples.
They generated an initial item pool, ensuring adequate coverage of key facets of individuality in
couples. To enhance the discriminant validity of the measure, items were also included to assess
more severe forms of control, coercion, and psychological aggression that have the potential to
co-occur with poor individuation (e.g., my partner made spiteful, belittling comments about me;
my partner treated me like a child; my partner mocked me for my interests, see Lawrence et al.,
2011). We anticipated that these would emerge as distinct from individuality, but this has yet to
be empirically examined. Additionally, eight experts in couple relationships—external to the
investigative team—reviewed the item pool and provided feedback.
The 160 items from the initial item pool were administered to both samples, and
participants had the option of selecting “don’t know” in response to each item to evaluate item
clarity. See Supplemental Material S1 for the original item pool, along with statistics regarding
item clarity and distributions across the two samples. Next, potentially problematic items were
removed (i.e., higher rates of “don’t know” responses, very low variance or notable
skew/kurtosis), which also resulted in fewer items for factor analysis. We also considered
feedback from expert judges (e.g., item is confusing or not theoretically meaningful; too much
overlap with other aspects of relationship quality). The final pool consisted of 116 items and
those items provided adequate coverage of key facets of individuality in couples.
Stage 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis in Sample #1
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis with oblique (promax) rotation with the 116
items generated in Stage 1. The scree plot and parallel analysis (Figure 1) suggested a 5-factor
solution was an optimal fit to the data. Results of the EFA for the 5-factor model are reported in
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 14
Table 1, and factors had substantive meaning based on the items with salient factor loadings
(>.40) to each factor. Notably, none of the factors appeared to be representative of purely a
method factor which can sometimes occur when using both positive and negative-keyed items.
The first two factors reflected the primary constructs of interest. The first factor was
comprised of 30 items measuring respect for individuality (e.g., “I felt respected by my partner”
“My partner valued my opinions and ideas”). The second factor was comprised of 13 items
reflecting aspects of autonomy support (e.g., “I had personal space when I needed it” “My
partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own").
The next two factors were comprised of items more indicative of psychological
aggression. Specifically, the third factor (7 items) appeared to reflect psychologically aggressive
tactics used by partner (e.g., “My partner criticized me for my weaknesses” “My partner made
spiteful, belittling comments about me”) whereas the fourth factor (13 items) included items that
reflected dehumanizing disregard and contempt from partner (e.g., “My partner disregarded my
opinions” “My partner seemed to be irritated by me”) (see Pizzirani et al., 2019, for more on
denial of partner’s humanity as a relational construct). This suggested that the first two factors
(respect and autonomy) had good discriminant validity with aspects of psychological aggression.
The final factor was comprised of 5 items that appeared to reflect self-consciousness
around partner (e.g., “I felt like I needed to edit myself around my partner” and “I felt like I had
to put on a show around my partner”). We retained this as a separate factor given this seemed to
reflect a distinct construct that is more closely aligned with attachment anxiety; thus, separating
those items from factors 1 and 2 further enhanced the discriminant validity of our primary scales.
Specificity of items and distinction across factors. No items had salient cross-loadings
(>.40) to more than one factor. There were a few instances of conceptual overlap of items; these
items were retained, and conceptual overlap was tracked for consideration in the next stage of
analysis. For example, there were several items with salient loadings to respect for individuality
(factor 1) that also referenced personal pursuits and interests similar to items loading to the
autonomy factor (e.g., “I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions”). Items of
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 15
this nature that also had significant, yet modest, cross-loadings with autonomy support (factor 2)
included: “My partner respected my interests outside of the relationship” (.28 cross-loading),
“My partner encouraged me to have my own interests” (.26 cross-loading), “My partner actively
participated in events or activities that I enjoy” (.17 cross-loading), “My partner showed interest
in things that I enjoy” (.14 cross-loading), “If something was important to me, my partner
supported it even if they didn’t understand it” (.13 cross-loading). There was one other item
referring to personal interests – “My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies”
(Item#108) – but this item had a near zero cross-loading with factor 2 (.03).
Reduction of item pool. 48 items did not have salient factor loadings on any of the 5
factors and were candidates for deletion; however, before removing those items, we examined
factor loadings using an alternative oblique rotation (oblimin), but none of the items had salient
factor loadings. We also closely reviewed the items to ensure that omissions would not result in
the exclusion of a key feature of individuality as originally conceptualized. Ultimately, all 48
items were dropped, resulting in 68 items for the subsequent factor analysis in Sample #2.
Stage 3: Factor Analysis in Sample #2
In Sample #2, we tested a latent variable using the MLR estimator in Mplus 8.2 to
address non-normality. The 68 items were retained from Stage 2, loading to each of the 5
respective factors identified in the EFA, resulted in borderline acceptable fit based on the
RMSEA (.056) and SRMR (.068); however, the CFI was relatively low (.84). This was not
surprising given there was redundancy across some items (e.g., “My partner made me feel guilty
when I was away from him/her” and “My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my
own”), contributing to violations of proportionality as evidenced by large residual covariances.
We considered item characteristics (e.g., clarity), EFA results from Sample #1 (e.g., items with
larger factor loadings and smaller cross-loadings), and our knowledge of the construct to identify
1-2 optimal items from each set of similarly worded items with large residual covariances. Those
items were retained for further consideration. This step was important for not only minimizing
sources of redundancy but also identifying a smaller item pool that would be feasible for routine
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 16
administration.
As previously noted, based on results of the EFA, we also identified several items loading
to factor 1 (respect) that (a) reflected pursuit of personal interests, a characteristic of autonomy
support and (b) had significant but modest cross-loadings with factor 2 (autonomy). In the latent
variable model, those items also had relatively high residual covariances pointing to redundancy,
likely due to similar wording (e.g., “interests” and “hobbies”). Accordingly, we dropped all but
one of those items to minimize redundancy. We retained the item “My partner asked me about
my interests and hobbies” (Item 108) as an indicator of factor 1 (respect) because it had a near
zero cross-loading with factor 2 (autonomy) in the EFA (.03). Conceptually, if one’s partner
inquiries about personal interests, this can be conceived as a form of respect for individuality that
is distinct from giving someone the space to pursue those activities. Indeed, someone could
report feeling free to pursue their interests (autonomy support), but their partner will not
necessarily show interest or engagement with those pursuits (an aspect of respect for
individuality).
After removing items to minimize redundancy and violations of proportionality, 47 items
remained across the five factors, including 25 items that were specific to respect for
individuality (factor 1; 18 items) and autonomy support (factor 2; 7 items). Results of the
respecified latent variable demonstrated adequate global fit (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .043, SRMR =
.058). Model fit could have been further improved by correlating residuals of some items;
however, there were no other obvious sources of redundancy. The latent variable model results
are reported in Table 2. Factor loadings were all significant and salient. As anticipated, factor
correlations were relatively high (f1-f2 = .66; f1-f3 = -.64; f1-f4 = -.71; f1-f5 = -.78; f2-f3 = -.79;
f3-f4 = .74; f3-f5 = .67; f4-f5 = .76) but also less than .80, suggesting that these are distinct,
albeit related, dimensions (Brown, 2015). Nonetheless, we compared this to a model with all
items loading to a single factor; the 5-factor model demonstrated superior fit, Satorra-Bentler
Scaled χ2 (10) = 3.17, p < .001. Large factor correlations are consistent with a higher-order
“relationship quality” dimension.
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 17
Narrowing to the 25 items assessing individuality in couples. Next, we focused on the
two primary factors (25 items) reflecting individuality in couples (factors 1 and 2) which were
sufficiently distinct from factors reflecting more severe aspects of control and contempt (factors
3 and 4) and insecurity with partner (factor 5). The two factors were significantly correlated (r
=.65). We confirmed the 2-factor structure with the 25 items loading to factors 1 or 2, and this
model was superior to a model with all items loading to a single factor, Satorra-Bentler Scaled χ2
(1) = 4.33, p < .001.
Bifactor analysis of scale structure. Because of the large correlation between the 2
factors, we also tested a bifactor model with the variance from the 25 items split between each
respective factor (1=respect for individuality or 2=autonomy support) and a general factor.
Increasingly, bifactor modeling is used to guide decisions about scoring in the case of
hierarchical structures to produce reliable total and subscale scores (Reise et al., 2010). Results
are reported in Table 3. In addition to global fit statistics and factor loadings, there are several
indices specific to bifactor models that are informative, especially in the context of scale
development and evaluation (Rodriguez et al., 2016). Refer to Table 4 for a summary of those
statistics, which we discuss in the context of the general factor and two specific factors (potential
subscales). These indices were computed using a calculator developed by Hammer (2016).
Factor loadings to the general factor were all salient and significant, with the largest factor
loadings observed for respect for individuality items (factor 1). The ECV (i.e., explained
common variance) suggests that a notable proportion (83%) of all common variance across items
was explained by the general factor. The general factor demonstrated internal consistency as
evidenced by Omega > .70, a model-based estimate of internal reliability for each scale. Omega
was high for the general factor (.95). We also evaluated the relative omega (OmegaH divided by
Omega), which reflects the percent of reliable variance in the multidimensional composite of the
general factor which was also large (.87). Finally, we examined the construct replicability (H)
and factor determinacy (FD) indices. The H index (.97) exceeded the recommended threshold of
.80 suggesting a well-defined and replicable factor (Hancock & Mueller, 2001). The FD is the
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 18
anticipated correlation between factor score estimates and the latent factor scores, and it is
recommended that FD exceeds .90 when scores are planned for individual assessments. The
general factor had a FD of .98. In sum, results for the general factor suggest a unidimensional
structure across the 25 items and support the computation of a highly reliable and replicable total
score of individuality in couples.
In contrast, a closer examination of subfactors suggest there is little utility in computing
subscale scores. Factor loadings to the specific respect factor were generally low and several
were non-significant. The items that had significant loadings to the specific factor were largely
phrased “My partner…” (compared to other items phrased “I felt…”) suggesting that the
subfactor could reflect a method factor due to similarly worded items and, therefore, this
subfactor is not of substantive meaning. The ECV was very low – only 11% of the common
variance across the 18 items loading to the specific factor was explained. Omega was acceptable
(> .70); however, the relative omega was concerning. Specifically, the relative omega for a
specific factor is the percent of reliable variance in the subscale composite that is independent of
the general factor, which was only 8% in this case. The H index (.61) and FD (.79) scores were
both below the recommended thresholds of .80 and .90, respectively. Regarding the specific
autonomy factor, the metrics were more favorable but still raised concerns about the utility of a
subscale score. Factor loadings were all significant and greater than .30 (most were salient and
exceeded .40). The ECV was high compared to the ECV for the respect factor although still
modest – 36% common variance across the 7 items loading to this factor was explained. Omega
was acceptable (> .70), and the relative omega was relatively high (.96), suggesting that 96% of
the reliable variance in the subscale composite could be independent of the general factor.
However, notably, the H index (.60) was lower than the recommended .80 threshold, raising
concerns about reproducibility of the factor structure, and the FD (.85) was lower than the
recommended threshold of .90 raising further concerns about the utility of an autonomy subscale.
Nonetheless, future researchers might aim to isolate the variance in autonomy items that is
unique from the general factor, perhaps using a S-1 bifactor model to address limitations of a
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 19
symmetrical bifactor model, to explore the substantive meaning of a specific dimension of
autonomy in relationships that is unique from respect for individuality (Heinrich et al., 2023).
Computing a total score of individuality. Results of the bifactor analysis provide strong
support for creating a total score of individuality in couples. To evaluate whether it is appropriate
to compute a total score across the 25 items, despite some evidence of multidimensionality, we
calculated the Percent of Uncontaminated Correlations (PUC), which was .42. When considered
with the ECV, the PUC evaluates the potential for bias in the unidimensional solution.
Specifically, Reise et al. (2013) suggest that when PUC is less than .80, ECV is greater than .60,
and OmegaH > .70, which was the case for our general factor (PUC = .42; ECV = .83; OmegaH
= .83), then the instrument can be viewed as primarily unidimensional despite the presence of
some multidimensionality.
Optimal items. Finally, it was notable that 13 of the 25 items – all from the respect for
individuality factor – had high individual explained common variance (IECV) values that
exceeded .80 (see Table 3), suggesting that the general factor explains over 80% of the variance
in those items and that those items are strong indicators of the general dimension of individuality
in couple relationships (Stucky & Edelen, 2015). Additionally, each of the items had high factor
loadings to the general factor and they demonstrated high internal consistency (ω = .93). Thus,
these items might prove useful in the implementation of a brief version of the Individuality in
Couples Questionnaire (ICQ, see Table 3).
Stage 4: Validity Analyses in Sample #2
Results of Stage 3 analyses supported the computation of an internally consistent and
replicable, higher-order total scale score reflecting individuality in couples. The final phase
involved computation of composite scores based on the results of a factor analysis, and the
examination of convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of ICQ scores. This step involved
computing correlations and conducting path analyses using the MLR estimator in Mplus 8.2 to
address (minimal, < 10%) missing data and non-normality. An association was considered
significant if p < .05; however, we also considered the relative magnitude of effects. We used
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 20
Cohen’s conventions for evaluating effect sizes of correlations and standardized regression
coefficients (> .10, small; > .30, medium; > .50, large; (Cohen, 1992).
Convergent/divergent validity. In the absence of validated measures of individuality in
couples, our primary test of convergent validity involved calculating correlations between ICQ
scores and scores from the power and control section of the Relationship Quality Interview
which captures numerous features of individuality. We did not expect a very high correlation
given (a) method variation (i.e., survey versus interview) and (b) some distinction in content (i.e.,
this domain of the RQI measures respect and autonomy but also captures more severe forms of
control and manipulation indicative of imbalanced power and control dynamics in the
relationship). Nonetheless, we did predict a significant correlation that was large in magnitude
given content overlap. We also computed correlations between ICQ scores and self-report
measures of related dimensions of intimate relationship quality. We predicted that ICQ scores
would be significantly related to other dimensions of relationship quality including affective
communication, problem-solving communication, emotional intimacy, sexual satisfaction,
partner support adequacy, and psychological aggression; however, we also expected that ICQ
would measure a unique dimension of intimate relationship quality as evidenced by rs < .80
(Brown, 2015). Results demonstrated convergent and divergent validity of ICQ scores with
related constructs. As expected, the correlation between the ICQ-total scale and RQI control
domain (with higher scores reflecting less imbalance of power and control) was .62. Correlations
between ICQ scores and other self-report questionnaires of relationship quality are reported in
Table 5. All correlations were significant (p < .05). Correlations did not exceed .80,
demonstrating adequate discrimination (Brown, 2015).
Criterion and incremental validity. We computed correlations between ICQ scores and
key outcomes including global relationship satisfaction and multiple indices of individual health.
As reported in Table 5, ICQ-total had significant correlations with all measures of criterion
validity. To assess incremental predictive validity, we tested a path model with robust maximum
likelihood estimation. All outcome variables were regressed on ICQ scores, controlling for other
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 21
key dimensions of intimate relationship quality (i.e., communication, intimacy, sexual
satisfaction, support, psychological aggression perpetration and victimization). We covaried
residuals among the outcome variables to account for unmodeled shared causes. Model results
are reported in Table 6 and demonstrated excellent incremental predictive validity of scores from
the ICQ. Specifically, ICQ-total uniquely predicted global relationship satisfaction as measured
with the QMI and CSI-4, demonstrating moderate effect sizes (.31-.34). Further, ICQ-total
uniquely predicted general well-being of the participant, although the effect size was smaller in
magnitude (.28).
Data availability statement and measure access. Analysis code and data for this project
are available by emailing the corresponding author. The final version of the Individuality in
Couples Questionnaire (ICQ) and scoring procedures are available as a supplemental material
and can be accessed free of charge by contacting the corresponding author. This study’s design
and analysis were not pre-registered.
Discussion
Individuals have unique needs that must be met within the context of intimate
relationships, and there is an inherent need to feel embraced as a unique person by intimate
partners. Despite multiple theories and treatment modalities emphasizing the importance of
individuality in couple relationships, the field has been lacking a reliable and valid questionnaire
for measuring this construct. In the present study, we developed the Individuality in Couples
Questionnaire (ICQ) and demonstrated its strong psychometric properties. The ICQ is comprised
of 25 items that can be combined into a total score to measure individuality in the context of
couple relationships (i.e., the extent to which someone feels respected by their partner for their
individuality and experiences personal autonomy in the relationship). Total scores on the ICQ
demonstrated high internal consistency, excellent construct replicability (i.e., high H coefficient),
convergent and divergent validity with measures of other relationship dimensions (i.e., intimacy,
support, sexual satisfaction, psychological aggression, communication), criterion validity with
measures of global relationship satisfaction and partner health, and incremental predictive
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 22
validity for explaining relationship satisfaction and partner well-being when controlling for other
relationship dimensions. Results also suggest that individuality in couples is largely a
unidimensional construct that is distinct from (but related to) more severe patterns of control and
coercion characteristic of psychological aggression.
Limitations and future directions. Although we have presented evidence of strong
psychometric properties of the ICQ across two independent samples, including a H coefficient
that points to high replicability of scores, replication in other, more diverse samples is needed.
We augmented the sample of undergraduate students with a more diverse sample from the
community (e.g., including people with more education and occupation diversity; in longer-range
committed relationships); however, participants across our two samples largely identified as
cisgender, heterosexual, and white. It will be important to demonstrate the validity and reliability
of ICQ scores in samples of sexual and gender minority couples and those who identify as a
racial or ethnic minority. Couples comprised of partners who experience persistent
discrimination, harassment, or stigmatization for aspects of their identities might find
individuality in their relationships to be particularly beneficial given the sense of validation and
belonging this can foster. Further, cultural factors should be considered when administrating the
ICQ. For example, individuals from certain cultural backgrounds could have an interpersonal
orientation that is more collectivist than individualist (Rini et al., 2006) and, as such, the
importance of individuality in the couple relationship might vary. Finally, couples in different
relationship stages (e.g., early dating versus long-term committed couples) might experience
different levels of individuality, and the importance of individuality for relationship adjustment
and the health of each partner might vary as a function of relationship duration. This should be
considered in future research.
The present study relied on cross-sectional data, which is common in scale development;
however, future studies should implement repeated measures to examine factor invariance over
time and explore whether individuality in couples is a relatively stable or dynamic construct.
This has important implications for clinical intervention: Is low individuality in couples largely
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 23
influenced by relatively fixed traits brought to the relationship by each partner (e.g., insecure
attachment; personality traits such as dependency or neuroticism)? If so, is it more resistant to
change or can it be trained and cultivated within the context of the relationship? Longitudional
research is required to adequately address these questions.
Despite these limitations, we present evidence of the strong psychometric properties of
the ICQ. Importantly, scores on the ICQ were highly correlated with other measures of
relationship quality, suggesting that this construct might reflect another key dimension of
intimate relationships that has been largely overlooked in past research. Further, individuality in
couples might emerge as an important catalyst for developing a strong degree of intimacy and
trust in the relationship. If so, this has important implications for couple interventions given that
intimacy is a central dimension of relationship quality, having strong relations with other
relationship dimensions such as conflict management, support, and sexual quality. If
individuality in couples, as measured by the ICQ, helps to promote connection between partners,
this would provide empirical support for family theories proposing that a sense of freedom to be
separate and function independently is a necessary condition for intimacy and cohesion to
develop in a relationship (Holmes, 1997; Olson et al., 2019). Further, it is likely that
individuality and closeness have a reciprocal link such that each of these processes promotes one
another in the context of a healthy relationship (Gavazzi & Sabetelli, 1990; Holmes, 1997). The
ICQ holds promise for testing these hypotheses.
ICQ scores also explained unique variance in a range of outcomes of interest to couple
researchers—ranging from general satisfaction with the relationship to individual health
outcomes. Thus, individuality in couples might represent a critical feature of intimate
relationships that should be routinely considered to increase the predictive power of conceptual
frameworks aimed at understanding healthy couple dynamics. The ICQ is also economical and
efficient. It is free to use, takes 2-3 minutes to complete, and can be administered remotely (e.g.,
via online survey). Thus, it is more efficient than other measures that capture similar content
(e.g., the Relationship Quality Interview), and produces reliable and valid scores of individuality
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 24
in couples as a distinct and important aspect of intimate relationships. This has important
implications not only for research, but also practice. Couple therapists might find that the ICQ is
a useful assessment tool for case conceptualization and treatment planning that only takes a
matter of minutes for each partner to complete.
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 25
References
Barry, R. A., Bunde, M., Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2009). Validity and utility of a multidimensional
model of received support in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 48–57.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014174
Baumeister, R. F. (2022). Need-to-Belong Theory.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a
Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bell, L. G. (2021). Couple dynamics and child abuse: An interaction process analysis. The Family
Journal, 29(4), 387–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807211023864
Bowen, M. (1993). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4g7PdF6oW6EC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=OOmF
1Ojqxe&sig=R2sqFZBMLq3rWyFL2kJDhg8CnAM#v=onepage&q&f=false
Brock, R. L., Franz, M. R., & Ramsdell, E. L. (2020). An integrated relational framework of depressed
mood and anhedonia during pregnancy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 1056–1072.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12611
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2010). Support adequacy in marriage: Observing the platinum rule. In K.
Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 3–25). Oxford Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195380170.003.0001
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2011). Marriage as a risk factor for internalizing disorders: Clarifying
scope and specificity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 577–589.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024941
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 26
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective
measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
Cordova, J. V., Fleming, C. J. E., Morrill, M. I., Hawrilenko, M., Sollenberger, J. W., Harp, A. G., Gray,
T. D., Darling, E. V., Blair, J. M., Meade, A. E., & Wachs, K. (2014). The marriage checkup: A
randomized controlled trial of annual relationship health checkups. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 82(4), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0037097
Eckstein, D., Eckstein, S., & Eckstein, D. (2014). Creating respect in couples: The Couple’s Respect
Questionnaire (CRQ). The Family Journal, 22(1), 98–104.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480713505062
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). 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), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
Gavazzi, S. M., & Sabetelli, R. M. (1990). Family system dynamics, the individuation process, and
psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 500–519.
Hammer, J. H. (2016). Construct Replicability Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate the
Hancock and Mueller (2001) H index. http://DrJosephHammer.com/
Hancock, G., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In
R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future
(pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International, Inc.
Heinrich, M., Geiser, C., Zagorscak, P., Burns, G. L., Bohn, J., Becker, S. P., Eid, M., Beauchaine, T. P.,
& Knaevelsrud, C. (2023). On the meaning of the "P Factor" in symmetrical bifactor models of
psychopathology: Recommendations for future research from the bifactor (S−1) perspective.
Assessment, 30(3), 487-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211060298
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 27
Holmes, J. (1997). Attachment, autonomy, intimacy: Some clinical implications of attachment theory.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8341.1997.tb01902.x
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and
situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EzB6A7BuqJoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=iJDpEe
h-Hr&sig=QAMvQldXxQSOJLtQACQsqub1N_E#v=onepage&q&f=false
Lac, A., & Luk, J. W. (2019). Development and validation of the adult interpersonal acceptance-rejection
scale: Measuring mother, best friend, and romantic partner acceptance. Psychological
Assessment, 31(3), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000669
Lawrence, E., Barry, R. A., Brock, R. L., Bunde, M., Langer, A., Ro, E., Fazio, E., Mulryan, L., Hunt, S.,
Madsen, L., & Dzankovic, S. (2011). The Relationship Quality Interview: Evidence of reliability,
convergent and divergent validity, and incremental utility. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 44–
63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021096
Manvelian, A., Fivecoat, H., Milek, A., & Lawrence, E. (2021). Ending the silo effect: A test of the
relational domain spillover model. Family Process, 00, 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/FAMP.12728
Marvin, R. S., Britner, P. A., & Russell, B. S. (2016). Normative development: The ontogeny of
attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications. (3rd ed., pp. 273–290). Guilford Publications.
McCurdy, A. L., Williams, K. N., Lee, G. Y., Benito-Gomez, M., & Fletcher, A. C. (2020). Measurement
of parental autonomy support: A review of theoretical concerns and developmental
considerations. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 382–397.
https://doi.org/10.1111/JFTR.12389
Minuchin, S. (2012). Families and family therapy (2nd ed.) (Routledge, Ed.).
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 28
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302
Olson, D. H., Waldvogel, L., & Schlieff, M. (2019). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems:
An Update. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(2), 199–211.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12331
Osamor, P. E., & Grady, C. (2018). Autonomy and couples’ joint decision-making in healthcare. BMC
Medical Ethics, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12910-017-0241-6/FIGURES/1
Pizzirani, B., Karantzas, G. C., & Mullins, E. R. (2019). The development and validation of a
dehumanization measure within romantic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02754/full
Ramsdell, E., Franz, M., & Brock, R. L. (2019). A multifaceted and dyadic examination of intimate
relationship quality during pregnancy: Implications for global relationship satisfaction. Family
Process, 59(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12424
Ramsdell, E. L., & Brock, R. L. (2021). Interparental relationship quality during pregnancy: Implications
for early parent–infant bonding and infant socioemotional development. Family Process, 60(3),
966–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12599
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the
Extent to which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and Structural
Coefficient Bias in Structural Equation Modeling: A Bifactor Perspective. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
Rini, C., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Hobel, C. J., Glynn, L. M., & Sandman, C. A. (2006). Effective social
support: Antecedents and consequences of partner support during pregnancy. Personal
Relationships, 13(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00114.x
RUNNING HEAD: Individuality in Couples Questionnaire 29
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the
evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
Slotter, E. B., Duffy, C. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me” with the need to be
“we”: Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the understanding of multiple motives within
romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.001
Snir, S., & Wiseman, H. (2013). Relationship patterns of connectedness and individuality in couples as
expressed in the couple joint drawing method. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 40(5), 501–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AIP.2013.07.005
Snyder, D. K. (1997). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised. Western Psychological
Services.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:33.3.CO;2-W
Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies
for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507–520.
https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.5.507.63686
Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures
from multidimensional data. In Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to
typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I.
Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.
Watson, D., O’Hara, M. W., Naragon-Gainey, K., Koffel, E., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Stasik, S. M.,
& Ruggero, C. J. (2012). Development and validation of new anxiety and bipolar symptom scales
for an expanded version of the IDAS (the IDAS-II). Assessment, 19(4), 399–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112449857
Table 1. Results of EFA with 116 Items (Sample #1)
#
Item
Best
Factor
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
1
I felt respected by my partner
1
0.468
0.126
-0.011
0.104
0.184
2
I felt valued by my partner
1
0.648
-0.087
-0.158
0.006
0.079
6
My partner was responsive to my ideas and opinions
1
0.549
0.107
-0.021
0.078
0.031
7
My partner asked my opinion on a range of topics
1
0.703
0.014
0.193
0.067
0.039
9
My partner asked for my advice when struggling with something
1
0.543
0.015
0.284
-0.015
0.271
13
My partner valued my opinions and ideas
1
0.556
0.034
-0.109
0.132
-0.005
15
My partner asked my opinion
1
0.713
0.079
0.247
0.066
0.083
18
My partner seemed open to learning new things from me
1
0.676
0.093
0.032
0.098
-0.097
20
I felt like part of a team with my partner
1
0.574
0.010
-0.025
-0.021
0.155
24
My partner considered my thoughts and opinions on matters
1
0.579
-0.004
-0.178
-0.002
-0.015
26
My partner made me feel like I have something meaningful to contribute to the relationship
1
0.593
-0.053
-0.182
-0.086
0.157
28
I felt like an equal in the relationship
1
0.475
-0.034
-0.127
-0.001
0.235
30
My partner praised my strengths and accomplishments
1
0.530
0.008
-0.241
0.080
-0.111
33
My partner listened to what I had to say with interest
1
0.638
0.057
0.073
0.133
0.042
34
My pa rtner didn’t a sk a bout my interests or hobbies
1
-0.534
-0.021
0.079
-0.222
0.117
38
My partner made me feel good about myself
1
0.513
0.048
-0.211
0.034
0.052
41
I felt admired by my partner
1
0.543
-0.052
-0.004
0.133
0.120
56
My partner was considerate toward me
1
0.515
-0.025
-0.122
0.121
-0.030
58
My partner respected my interests outside of the relationship
1
0.454
0.279
-0.166
-0.011
-0.042
66
I felt accepted by my partner
1
0.455
-0.050
-0.273
0.083
0.044
81
My partner accepted my flaws
1
0.408
-0.125
-0.320
0.054
0.107
84
I felt safe being vulnerable around my partner
1
0.428
0.040
-0.099
-0.188
0.272
93
I felt a sense of belonging in the relationship
1
0.567
0.037
-0.169
-0.091
0.137
104
I could tell my partner how I really felt without being judged
1
0.419
0.040
-0.048
-0.009
0.182
106
My partner showed interest in things that I enjoy
1
0.740
0.143
0.107
0.107
-0.145
107
My partner actively participated in events or activities that I enjoy
1
0.565
0.168
0.137
0.087
-0.060
108
My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies
1
0.706
0.031
-0.023
0.142
-0.162
116
My partner supported me in following my personal dreams and aspirations
1
0.481
0.024
-0.344
-0.036
-0.073
117
If something was important to me, my partner supported it even if s/he didn’t understa nd it
1
0.490
0.130
-0.135
0.061
-0.124
144
My partner encouraged me to have my own interests
1
0.506
0.259
-0.125
-0.065
-0.122
128
My partner was uncomfortable if I engaged in activities without him/her
2
-0.003
-0.687
0.013
-0.059
0.039
133
I felt pressured to spend most of my free time with my partner
2
-0.046
-0.632
-0.160
-0.144
-0.022
134
I had personal space when I needed it
2
0.276
0.503
0.051
0.029
-0.030
136
My partner insisted that we do everything together
2
0.018
-0.659
-0.010
0.130
-0.029
142
My partner made me feel guilty when I was away from him/her
2
-0.089
-0.653
0.018
-0.109
0.029
143
My partner questioned me about where I had been or what I had been doing
2
0.167
-0.571
0.036
-0.005
-0.132
149
I had to run all of my decisions by my partner
2
0.027
-0.490
0.125
-0.015
-0.059
151
I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions
2
0.308
0.435
-0.171
-0.145
-0.032
152
I felt like I needed my pa rtner’s approva l to do certain things
2
0.140
-0.522
-0.023
-0.109
-0.190
154
I had the freedom to be friends with whomever I wanted
2
0.128
0.517
-0.014
-0.060
0.078
155
I had to convince my partner to let me do things that were important to me
2
0.051
-0.530
0.093
0.002
-0.203
156
It seemed like we had an argument whenever I wanted to do something for me
2
-0.250
-0.457
0.098
-0.120
-0.005
158
My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own
2
-0.065
-0.727
0.062
-0.065
0.019
49
My partner made spiteful, belittling comments about me
3
0.006
-0.093
0.419
-0.266
-0.097
77
My partner criticized me for my weaknesses
3
-0.067
0.019
0.417
-0.379
-0.038
86
My partner made me feel embarrassed about my hobbies, interests, or passions
3
-0.088
-0.147
0.463
-0.039
-0.029
109
My partner made me feel silly for pursuing my hobbies, interests, or passions
3
-0.087
-0.213
0.508
-0.103
0.098
110
My partner mocked me for my interests
3
-0.101
-0.080
0.606
-0.070
0.016
112
My partner belittled my habits, passions, or interests
3
-0.157
-0.201
0.602
-0.140
0.238
118
My partner thought my interests or passions were stupid
3
-0.082
-0.226
0.541
-0.077
0.107
10
My partner disregarded my opinions
4
-0.162
-0.050
0.228
-0.418
-0.072
44
My partner treated me like a child
4
0.045
-0.039
0.134
-0.458
-0.212
46
My partner acted superior to me
4
-0.039
-0.082
0.144
-0.461
-0.126
53
My partner ignored me
4
-0.297
0.149
0.004
-0.470
-0.165
54
My partner talked over me
4
-0.095
-0.158
-0.044
-0.608
0.117
55
My partner interrupted me
4
-0.065
-0.163
-0.112
-0.666
0.158
61
My partner told me s/he was right and I was wrong
4
0.047
-0.179
0.118
-0.419
0.022
76
My partner seemed to be irritated by me
4
-0.189
-0.014
-0.015
-0.623
0.026
78
My partner was impatient and short with me
4
-0.156
-0.006
0.090
-0.756
0.202
96
I felt like I got on my partner's nerves
4
-0.146
-0.067
-0.145
-0.596
0.015
121
My partner nagged me to do certain things or stop doing certain things
4
0.072
-0.349
0.116
-0.420
0.024
132
My partner was bossy toward me
4
0.041
-0.177
0.091
-0.556
-0.014
147
My partner told me what to do
4
0.130
-0.178
0.069
-0.500
-0.109
70
I felt insecure around my partner
5
-0.199
0.071
-0.070
-0.152
-0.497
95
I felt like I needed to edit myself around my partner
5
-0.073
-0.159
0.028
0.014
-0.516
98
I felt like I had to put on a show around my partner
5
-0.067
-0.140
-0.062
0.023
-0.644
100
I felt like I needed to impress my partner
5
0.041
-0.152
-0.205
-0.141
-0.477
105
I felt like I needed to hide certain parts of me
5
-0.126
-0.085
0.063
-0.024
-0.496
4
My partner treated me as a capable person
X
0.368
0.000
-0.193
0.100
0.174
5
My partner did not take my ideas and opinions seriously
X
-0.258
-0.066
0.230
-0.332
0.011
16
My partner respected the decisions that I made
X
0.348
0.315
-0.153
0.095
-0.034
19
I don’t think my partner viewed me as very ca pa ble
X
0.015
-0.028
0.133
-0.268
-0.322
22
My pa rtner didn’t a sk for my opinion on important matters in our relationship
X
-0.286
-0.042
0.069
-0.126
-0.214
36
My partner made me feel smart
X
0.372
0.046
-0.177
0.094
0.023
39
My partner did not appreciate me
X
-0.339
0.090
0.151
-0.312
-0.104
40
I wanted my partner to value me more
X
-0.329
0.163
-0.111
-0.322
-0.273
45
My partner looked down on me
X
-0.040
0.010
0.371
-0.384
-0.124
47
My partner made me feel insignificant around friends or family
X
-0.167
0.014
0.212
-0.261
-0.086
57
My partner expected me to do things that were inconsistent with my values
X
-0.076
-0.251
0.220
0.052
-0.265
59
I felt like a child when I was around my partner
X
0.154
-0.123
0.059
-0.271
-0.383
60
I didn’t feel like m y partner and I were equa ls in our relationship
X
-0.326
0.040
0.112
-0.212
-0.168
62
My partner made me feel small
X
-0.201
0.090
0.190
-0.302
-0.290
63
My partner made me feel insignificant
X
-0.213
0.134
0.229
-0.276
-0.163
64
My partner acted more like my parent than an equal
X
0.079
-0.186
0.175
-0.267
-0.189
65
I felt unimportant around my partner
X
-0.335
0.134
0.002
-0.370
-0.168
69
I felt judged by my partner
X
-0.058
-0.054
0.198
-0.314
-0.260
72
My partner embraced me for who I am
X
0.335
0.015
-0.342
-0.035
0.099
73
My partner accepted my quirks and eccentricities
X
0.375
0.033
-0.220
0.049
0.033
74
My partner accepted me for who I am
X
0.376
0.009
-0.380
-0.046
0.119
75
I felt rejected by my partner
X
-0.190
0.080
0.300
-0.243
-0.199
80
My partner was judgmental toward me
X
-0.030
-0.114
0.370
-0.301
-0.102
82
I could let my guard down around my partner
X
0.316
0.105
-0.102
-0.071
0.203
83
My partner made me feel like I am perfect just the way I am
X
0.358
-0.112
-0.242
0.260
0.023
85
I felt like I needed to justify or defend my hobbies or interests to my partner
X
-0.049
-0.355
0.227
-0.083
-0.092
87
My partner made me feel like I am weird
X
-0.005
-0.052
0.090
-0.372
-0.143
88
My partner made me feel like I am crazy or irrational
X
-0.141
-0.091
0.015
-0.367
-0.280
89
My partner made me feel like my emotions were unreasonable
X
-0.144
-0.045
-0.009
-0.351
-0.239
92
I could bring up embarrassing topics with my partner
X
0.348
0.055
-0.165
-0.146
0.106
94
I felt like my partner disapproved of me
X
-0.111
-0.153
0.139
-0.240
-0.265
99
I didn’t feel fully embraced by my partner
X
-0.309
0.095
0.046
-0.305
-0.187
101
I felt like there was room for me to be my own unique person in the relationship
X
0.280
0.342
0.013
-0.064
0.142
111
My partner made me feel stupid for doing the things I like to do
X
-0.101
-0.183
0.393
-0.135
-0.079
113
My partner pointed out my flaws
X
0.023
-0.059
0.236
-0.374
-0.038
115
I felt like I couldn’t talk about certa in interest or hobbies with my partner
X
-0.084
-0.191
0.278
-0.011
-0.058
120
I felt like my partner embraced our differences (i.e., abilities, qualities, or traits)
X
0.398
0.086
-0.155
0.084
0.050
123
My partner pressured me to change for him/her
X
-0.035
-0.234
0.380
-0.146
-0.104
124
My partner wanted me to change something about myself without any clear benefit to me
X
-0.086
-0.253
0.278
-0.129
-0.141
127
My partner made me feel guilty about how I spend my time
X
-0.037
-0.387
0.049
-0.262
-0.129
130
I felt uncom forta ble pursuing my own interests without my pa rtner’s approva l
X
0.048
-0.287
0.093
-0.079
-0.066
131
If I wanted to make a life change that was important to me (e.g., changing my job), my partner
would have supported me
X
0.325
0.203
-0.398
-0.097
-0.056
135
I could schedule my day without my partner
X
0.024
0.284
-0.009
0.044
-0.011
140
My partner discouraged me from participating in activities that I enjoy
X
-0.043
-0.360
0.347
-0.016
0.002
141
My partner checked in on me when I was away from him/her
X
0.235
-0.287
-0.228
0.093
-0.097
150
My partner made decisions for me
X
0.032
-0.246
0.188
-0.203
-0.086
159
My partner was considerate of my boundaries
X
0.367
0.249
-0.037
-0.012
0.059
160
I felt like I had room to be my own person in the relationship
X
0.321
0.312
-0.100
-0.087
0.166
Note. Results of EFA in Sample #1 with 116 Items selected for analysis. Results of parallel analysis (see Figure 1) suggested a 5-factor model was the best fit. 48
items did not have salient factor loadings (>.40) to any of the five factors and were dropped from additional analyses. Items with salient factor loadings to one of
the five factors did not have notable cross-loadings to any of the other factors. Factor 1 included items capturing respect, acceptance and high regard. Factor 2
included items reflecting a sense of autonomy and personal space in the relationship. Factor 3 included items characteristic of psychological aggression. Factor 4
also included items characteristic dehumanizing disregard, contempt, and infantilization (i.e., being treated like a child). Factor 5 seemed to reflect insecurity or
self-consciousness. Factors 1 and 2 were most closely aligned with our conceptualization of individuality in couple relationships.
Table 2. Results of 5-Factor CFA with 47 Items (Sample #2)
#
Item
Factor and
Loading
1
I felt respected by my partner
1
0.696
2
I felt valued by my partner
1
0.806
7
My partner asked my opinion on a range of topics
1
0.601
13
My partner valued my opinions and ideas
1
0.755
18
My partner seemed open to learning new things from me
1
0.670
20
I felt like pa rt of a team with my partner
1
0.696
26
My partner made me feel like I have something meaningful to contribute to the relationship
1
0.751
28
I felt like an equal in the relationship
1
0.703
30
My partner praised my strengths and accomplishments
1
0.698
33
My partner listened to what I had to say with interest
1
0.689
38
My partner made me feel good about myself
1
0.787
41
I felt admired by my partner
1
0.731
66
I felt accepted by my partner
1
0.741
81
My partner accepted my flaws
1
0.652
84
I felt safe being vulnerable around my partner
1
0.708
93
I felt a sense of belonging in the relationship
1
0.746
104
I could tell my partner how I really felt without being judged
1
0.679
108
My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies
1
0.582
134
I had personal space when I needed it
2
0.608
151
I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions
2
0.704
152
I felt like I needed my pa rtner’s approval to do certa in things
2
-0.571
154
I had the freedom to be friends with whomever I wanted
2
0.550
155
I had to convince my partner to let me do things that were important to me
2
-0.624
156
It seemed like we had an argument whenever I wanted to do something for me
2
-0.726
158
My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own
2
-0.656
49
My partner made spiteful, belittling comments about me
3
0.562
77
My partner criticized me for my weaknesses
3
0.539
86
My partner made me feel embarrassed about my hobbies, interests, or passions
3
0.836
109
My partner made me feel silly for pursuing my hobbies, interests, or passions
3
0.785
110
My partner mocked me for my interests
3
0.730
112
My partner belittled my habits, passions, or interests
3
0.804
118
My partner thought my interests or passions were stupid
3
0.773
10
My partner disregarded my opinions
4
0.687
44
My partner treated me like a child
4
0.609
46
My partner acted superior to me
4
0.718
53
My partner ignored me
4
0.662
54
My partner talked over me
4
0.626
55
My partner interrupted me
4
0.543
61
My partner told me s/he was right and I was wrong
4
0.607
76
My partner seemed to be irritated by me
4
0.696
96
I felt like I got on my pa rtner's nerves
4
0.637
121
My partner nagged me to do certain things or stop doing certain things
4
0.629
132
My partner was bossy toward me
4
0.725
70
I felt insecure around my partner
5
0.632
98
I felt like I had to put on a show around my partner
5
0.671
100
I felt like I needed to impress my partner
5
0.468
105
I felt like I needed to hide certain parts of me
5
0.700
Table 3. Bifactor Model Results with 25 Individuality in Couples Items (Sample #2)
Factor Loading
General
Specific
#
Item
IECV
Items Measuring Respect for Individuality (Factor 1)
0.886
0.024
1
I felt respected by my partner
0.999
0.864
0.185
2
I felt valued by my partner
0.956
0.575
0.506
7
My partner asked my opinion on a range of topics
0.564
0.802
0.25
13
My partner valued my opinions and ideas
0.911
0.714
0.294
18
My partner seemed open to learning new things from me
0.855
0.766
0.21
20
I felt like part of a team with my partner
0.930
0.784
0.302
26
My partner made me feel like I have something meaningful to contribute to the relationship
0.871
0.813
0.085
28
I felt like an equal in the relationship
0.989
0.712
0.374
30
My partner praised my strengths and accomplishments
0.784
0.704
0.367
33
My partner listened to what I had to say with interest
0.786
0.816
0.289
38
My partner made me feel good about myself
0.889
0.746
0.37
41
I felt admired by my partner
0.803
0.839
0.102
66
I felt accepted by my partner
0.985
0.784
0.042
81
My partner accepted my flaws
0.997
0.806
0.122
84
I felt safe being vulnerable around my partner
0.978
0.818
0.175
93
I felt a sense of belonging in the relationship
0.956
0.801
0.067
104
I could tell my partner how I really felt without being judged
0.993
0.573
0.442
108
My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies
0.627
Items Measuring Autonomy Support and Personal Space (Factor 2)
0.563
-0.411
134
I had personal space when I needed it
0.652
0.631
-0.445
151
I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions
0.668
-0.459
0.47
152
I felt like I needed my partner’s approval to do certain things (R)
0.488
0.469
-0.433
154
I had the freedom to be friends with whomever I wanted
0.540
-0.557
0.373
155
I had to convince my partner to let me do things that were important to me (R)
0.690
-0.683
0.373
156
It seemed like we had an argument whenever I wanted to do something for me (R)
0.770
-0.582
0.438
158
My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own (R)
0.638
Note. Results of the bifactor analysis with a general factor common to all 25 items and two specific factors corresponding to the factors identified in previous EFA
and CFA analyses. Significant factor loadings to the general and specific factors are bolded. Unidimensionality was supported and a total score is recommended.
IECV values exceeding .80 are bolded to identify items that hold promise for a brief version of the scale with further validation.
Table 4. Bifactor Model Fit Statistics (Sample #2)
ECV
Omega*
OmegaH*
Relative
Omega
H
FD
General Factor
0.83
0.95
0.83
0.87
0.97
0.98
Respect Specific Factor
0.11
0.97
0.08
0.08
0.61
0.79
Autonomy Specific Factor
0.36
0.72
0.69
0.96
0.60
0.85
Note. ECV = Explained Common Variance (i.e., proportion of all common variance explained by the general factor/strength of a specific factor
relative to all explained variance across items) should ideally exceed .60/.70. Omega is the model-based estimate of internal reliability of each
composite (total or subscales) and should exceed .70. OmegaH is the Omega Hierarchical which reflects the percentage of systematic variance in raw
scores that can be attributed to individual differences on the general factor and should exceed .70 to justify interpreting the instrument as primarily
unidimensional. For the specific factors, OmegaH reflects the proportion of reliable systematic variance of a subscale score after partitioning
variability attributed to the general factor. Relative Omega represents the percent of reliable variance in the composite of the general factor or, for
specific factors, the proportion of reliable variance in the subscale composite that is independent from the general factor. H coefficient is a measure
of construct replicability and represents the correlation between a factor and an optimally-weighted composite; H values greater than .80 signify a
well-defined latent variable that is likely to be reproduced. FD = Factor Determinacy (i.e., correlation between factor scores and latent factors) should
ideally exceed .90. See Rodriguez et al. (2016) for more information.
Table 5. Correlations Demonstrating Convergent, Divergent, and Criterion Validity
ICQ-
Total
Convergent and Divergent Validity
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
-0.22
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-0.25
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.73
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
0.52
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
-0.43
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
-0.68
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-0.63
Criterion Validity
QMI: Relationship Satisfaction
0.77
CSI: Relationship Satisfaction
0.79
MSI: Less Quality Time Together
-0.55
IDAS: Dysphoria
-0.25
IDAS: Lassitude
-0.22
IDAS: General Well-being
0.46
IDAS: Ill Temper
-0.36
IDAS: Panic
-0.16
SF-36: Physical Health
0.14
Note. All correlations were significant at p < .05 demonstrating convergent validity with measures of other dimensions of relationship quality; however,
correlations were also < .80 which provides evidence of discriminant validity. There was excellent criterion validity with key outcome variables of interest to
couple researchers (i.e., relationship satisfaction and multiple indicators of partner health).
Table 6. Incremental Predictive Validity
Model #1:
ICQ-Total
b
SE
p
β
QMI: Relationship Satisfaction
ICQ
3.49
0.75
0.000
0.31
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
-0.61
0.49
0.216
-0.05
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
0.29
0.48
0.545
0.03
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.19
0.04
0.000
0.42
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
0.03
0.04
0.474
0.03
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
0.03
0.06
0.647
0.02
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
-0.38
0.10
0.000
-0.17
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-0.07
0.06
0.262
-0.05
CSI: Relationship Satisfaction
ICQ
2.03
0.38
0.000
0.34
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
-0.29
0.25
0.248
-0.05
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
0.02
0.26
0.954
0.00
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.10
0.02
0.000
0.41
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
0.00
0.02
0.980
0.00
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
-0.07
0.03
0.026
-0.07
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
-0.18
0.06
0.002
-0.15
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-0.01
0.03
0.641
-0.02
MSI: Dissatisfaction with Time Together
ICQ
-0.45
0.29
0.117
-0.10
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
0.63
0.38
0.094
0.13
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-0.87
0.37
0.021
-0.18
Sternberg: Intimacy
-0.04
0.01
0.000
-0.23
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-0.03
0.02
0.187
-0.07
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
0.05
0.03
0.135
0.07
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
0.23
0.06
0.000
0.26
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
0.06
0.03
0.077
0.10
IDAS: Dysphoria
ICQ
0.70
1.22
0.566
0.05
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
1.22
1.25
0.329
0.08
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-1.72
1.27
0.174
-0.11
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.05
0.04
0.244
0.09
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-0.22
0.08
0.006
-0.17
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
0.08
0.13
0.551
0.03
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
1.15
0.22
0.000
0.39
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
0.01
0.12
0.954
0.00
b
SE
p
β
IDAS: Lassitude
ICQ
-0.44
0.77
0.565
-0.05
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
1.31
0.84
0.120
0.13
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-1.17
0.85
0.168
-0.12
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.03
0.03
0.393
0.07
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-0.09
0.05
0.104
-0.10
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
0.15
0.08
0.068
0.10
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
0.42
0.14
0.003
0.22
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-0.03
0.07
0.658
-0.03
IDAS: General Well-being
ICQ
3.48
0.93
0.000
0.28
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
-1.63
0.95
0.085
-0.12
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
1.67
0.93
0.074
0.13
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.07
0.04
0.110
0.14
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
0.05
0.06
0.391
0.05
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
-0.22
0.11
0.045
-0.11
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
-0.24
0.17
0.168
-0.10
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
0.13
0.09
0.142
0.08
IDAS: Ill Temper
ICQ
-0.63
0.42
0.137
-0.12
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
1.19
0.44
0.006
0.21
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-0.45
0.45
0.316
-0.08
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.02
0.02
0.262
0.09
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-0.03
0.03
0.347
-0.06
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
0.00
0.05
0.998
0.00
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
0.27
0.08
0.001
0.26
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
0.08
0.05
0.104
0.11
IDAS: Panic
ICQ
-0.12
0.60
0.845
-0.02
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
0.62
0.57
0.280
0.09
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-0.99
0.58
0.088
-0.14
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.02
0.02
0.390
0.07
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-0.07
0.04
0.065
-0.11
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
-0.02
0.05
0.709
-0.02
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
0.34
0.11
0.003
0.25
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-0.02
0.05
0.724
-0.02
SF-36: Physical Health
ICQ
-17.94
20.69
0.386
-0.06
CTS: Psych Aggression Perpetration
5.83
23.51
0.804
0.02
CTS: Psych Aggression Victimization
-5.46
19.33
0.778
-0.02
Sternberg: Intimacy
0.97
1.24
0.433
0.08
SIRRS: Support Adequacy
-1.53
1.95
0.433
-0.06
MSI: Sexual Dissatisfaction
-3.17
2.87
0.269
-0.07
MSI: Affective Communication Problems
-6.15
5.06
0.224
-0.11
MSI: Problem-Solving Impairments
-3.73
3.25
0.251
-0.11
Note. Bold denotes significant incremental prediction of outcomes by ICQ scores when controlling for other key
dimensions of the intimate relationship.
Figure 1. Results from the parallel analysis for identifying the optimal number of factors to
retain from exploratory factor analysis in Sample #1. The X axis (Number of Factors, range = 1 -
116) and Y axis (Eigenvalue, observed range = 0 - 41.65) have been truncated to clearly
visualize the cross-over point between the sample eigenvalues and the eigenvalues from the
parallel analysis. This is the point that signals the optimal solution which, in this case, was 5
factors (Sample Eigenvalue = 1.89).
S1: Original Item Pool with Item Statistics
# Item
Overall %
"Don't
Knows"
Sample 1
%
Sample 2
% Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Mean SD Skew Kurtosis
1 I felt respected by my partner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.54 0.713 -1.979 5.255 4.56 0.702 -2.016 5.576 4.53 0.728 -1.938 4.934
2 I felt valued by my partner 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.56 0.679 -1.775 3.929 4.58 0.654 -1.770 3.858 4.52 0.709 -1.767 3.917
3 My partner treated me as a competent person 1.85% 2.76% 0.67% 4.54 0.709 -1.986 5.284 4.52 0.757 -1.988 4.885 4.57 0.643 -1.894 5.476
4 My partner treated me as a capable person 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.57 0.637 -1.656 3.730 4.56 0.640 -1.633 3.616 4.58 0.634 -1.694 3.943
5 My partner did not take my ideas and opinions seriously 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 1.59 0.834 1.588 2.415 1.57 0.818 1.671 2.959 1.61 0.855 1.492 1.838
6 My partner was responsive to my ideas and opinions 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.32 0.761 -1.367 2.953 4.32 0.759 -1.403 3.184 4.31 0.765 -1.325 2.710
7 My partner asked my opinion on a range of topics 0.78% 0.69% 0.90% 4.21 0.883 -1.219 1.378 4.19 0.899 -1.229 1.410 4.23 0.863 -1.203 1.330
8 My partner asked me to share my expertise on certain matters 1.66% 2.41% 0.67% 4.16 0.929 -1.172 1.115 4.16 0.906 -1.122 1.090 4.16 0.958 -1.229 1.139
9 My partner asked for my advice when struggling with something 0.88% 0.86% 0.90% 4.19 0.915 -1.225 1.221 4.24 0.896 -1.333 1.759 4.13 0.938 -1.100 0.678
10 My partner disregarded my opinions 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.62 0.863 1.594 2.390 1.59 0.845 1.751 3.279 1.66 0.886 1.414 1.478
11 My partner deferred to my judgment on matters 9.27% 12.41% 5.17% 3.23 1.246 -0.395 -0.857 2.94 1.288 -0.099 -1.126 3.59 1.095 -0.727 -0.011
12 My partner told me I have good ideas 1.46% 1.72% 1.12% 4.24 0.796 -1.074 1.257 4.23 0.818 -1.161 1.582 4.26 0.767 -0.930 0.659
13 My partner valued my opinions and ideas 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.48 0.717 -1.692 3.880 4.50 0.723 -1.793 4.303 4.47 0.709 -1.562 3.375
14 I felt validated by my partner 2.44% 3.45% 1.12% 4.12 1.111 -1.395 1.301 3.98 1.233 -1.195 0.446 4.30 0.902 -1.532 2.430
15 My partner asked my opinion 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 4.37 0.780 -1.553 3.129 4.36 0.767 -1.484 2.997 4.39 0.797 -1.640 3.329
16 My partner respected the decisions that I made 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.42 0.726 -1.406 2.714 4.44 0.745 -1.542 2.986 4.39 0.700 -1.217 2.378
17 My partner asked for my input on an important decision 1.76% 2.07% 1.35% 4.30 0.863 -1.342 1.667 4.28 0.865 -1.295 1.578 4.32 0.860 -1.410 1.834
18 My partner seemed open to learning new things from me 0.88% 0.69% 1.12% 4.23 0.847 -1.126 1.133 4.29 0.840 -1.290 1.752 4.16 0.851 -0.937 0.517
19 I don’t think my partner viewed me as very capable 0.39% 0.34% 0.45% 1.59 0.921 1.823 3.034 1.57 0.871 1.813 3.293 1.61 0.983 1.807 2.666
20 I felt like part of a team with my partner 0.49% 0.86% 0.00% 4.42 0.825 -1.685 3.162 4.41 0.840 -1.622 2.735 4.44 0.807 -1.777 3.839
21 My partner treated me like part of a team 1.46% 2.24% 0.45% 4.41 0.787 -1.408 2.012 4.36 0.827 -1.401 2.034 4.46 0.728 -1.360 1.607
22 My partner didn’t ask for my opinion on important matters in our relationship 1.07% 1.03% 1.12% 1.58 0.878 1.830 3.420 1.56 0.872 1.958 4.170 1.60 0.888 1.677 2.577
23 My partner made decisions without me 0.98% 1.03% 0.90% 2.50 1.247 0.328 -1.098 2.52 1.219 0.330 -0.968 2.46 1.282 0.334 -1.243
24 My partner considered my thoughts and opinions on matters 0.49% 0.69% 0.22% 4.38 0.778 -1.606 3.420 4.39 0.783 -1.628 3.425 4.37 0.773 -1.584 3.471
25 My partner made important decisions about our lives without me 0.88% 1.55% 0.00% 1.61 0.906 1.815 3.268 1.63 0.913 1.818 3.375 1.58 0.897 1.818 3.165
26 My partner made me feel like I have something meaningful to contribute to the relationship 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.50 0.715 -1.521 2.364 4.52 0.714 -1.635 2.848 4.47 0.715 -1.384 1.827
27 I didn’t feel like my partner and I were on even footing in the relationship 1.17% 1.55% 0.67% 1.92 1.164 1.195 0.376 1.92 1.176 1.235 0.500 1.93 1.151 1.145 0.216
28 I felt like an equal in the relationship 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.47 0.798 -1.614 2.350 4.47 0.794 -1.642 2.506 4.45 0.804 -1.583 2.197
29 My partner was proud of me 1.46% 1.03% 2.02% 4.52 0.683 -1.607 3.294 4.57 0.643 -1.605 3.185 4.46 0.728 -1.569 3.164
30 My partner praised my strengths and accomplishments 0.68% 0.34% 1.12% 4.44 0.756 -1.566 3.029 4.49 0.717 -1.539 2.810 4.39 0.803 -1.558 3.027
31 My partner boasted about me to friends and family 10.73% 10.34% 11.24% 3.87 1.111 -0.970 0.295 3.90 1.101 -1.059 0.552 3.82 1.124 -0.862 0.022
32 My partner found me interesting 1.37% 1.03% 1.80% 4.43 0.712 -1.365 2.390 4.50 0.681 -1.582 3.530 4.35 0.744 -1.132 1.431
33 My partner listened to what I had to say with interest 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.33 0.799 -1.336 2.098 4.37 0.804 -1.578 3.096 4.27 0.790 -1.036 0.971
34 My partner didn’t ask about my interests or hobbies 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 1.79 0.953 1.274 1.231 1.72 0.922 1.468 2.038 1.88 0.985 1.059 0.498
35 My partner held me in high regard 3.51% 5.17% 1.35% 4.38 0.801 -1.399 2.105 4.38 0.814 -1.459 2.332 4.38 0.784 -1.319 1.802
36 My partner made me feel smart 0.20% 0.00% 0.45% 4.39 0.764 -1.272 1.547 4.40 0.766 -1.316 1.618 4.37 0.763 -1.221 1.500
37 My partner looked up to me in certain regards 4.10% 4.14% 4.04% 4.06 0.889 -1.048 1.212 4.09 0.838 -0.864 0.770 4.04 0.952 -1.184 1.390
38 My partner made me feel good about myself 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.54 0.662 -1.579 3.245 4.61 0.636 -1.907 4.897 4.45 0.685 -1.248 1.932
39 My partner did not appreciate me 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.58 0.914 1.754 2.626 1.54 0.863 1.830 3.137 1.64 0.975 1.649 2.037
40 I wanted my partner to value me more 0.68% 0.69% 0.67% 2.53 1.277 0.366 -1.060 2.53 1.263 0.385 -1.011 2.55 1.295 0.344 -1.119
41 I felt admired by my partner 0.68% 0.52% 0.90% 4.39 0.832 -1.510 2.285 4.52 0.724 -1.668 3.097 4.21 0.928 -1.262 1.311
42 My partner saw me as skilled 2.05% 1.90% 2.25% 4.40 0.690 -1.052 1.074 4.38 0.702 -1.056 1.125 4.43 0.673 -1.041 0.985
43 My partner respected my rights as an adult 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.61 0.710 -2.539 8.343 4.59 0.688 -2.309 7.216 4.63 0.739 -2.795 9.555
44 My partner treated me like a child 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.52 0.825 1.896 3.643 1.53 0.832 1.900 3.773 1.49 0.817 1.896 3.509
45 My partner looked down on me 0.68% 0.52% 0.90% 1.41 0.717 2.079 4.839 1.44 0.746 2.110 5.127 1.38 0.678 1.998 4.060
46 My partner acted superior to me 0.39% 0.34% 0.45% 1.64 0.914 1.626 2.388 1.66 0.911 1.517 1.974 1.62 0.917 1.776 2.999
47 My partner made me feel insignificant around friends or family 0.29% 0.52% 0.00% 1.45 0.833 2.315 5.557 1.52 0.899 2.116 4.449 1.35 0.729 2.607 7.419
48 My partner was dismissive and condescending 0.78% 1.21% 0.22% 1.53 0.831 1.784 3.076 1.49 0.808 1.907 3.859 1.58 0.859 1.646 2.295
49 My partner made spiteful, belittling comments about me 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 1.44 0.841 2.263 5.025 1.44 0.814 2.195 4.760 1.45 0.876 2.328 5.244
50 My partner made me feel inferior 1.27% 2.07% 0.22% 1.56 0.867 1.778 2.983 1.58 0.888 1.789 3.048 1.54 0.841 1.758 2.859
51 My partner was dismissive of my requests 1.37% 2.07% 0.45% 1.72 0.922 1.395 1.617 1.69 0.923 1.432 1.720 1.75 0.920 1.359 1.536
52 My partner babied or coddled me 1.56% 1.90% 1.12% 1.89 1.116 1.220 0.576 1.94 1.103 1.124 0.457 1.81 1.129 1.365 0.826
53 My partner ignored me 0.39% 0.69% 0.00% 1.74 0.996 1.362 1.076 1.73 0.984 1.372 1.177 1.75 1.013 1.352 0.973
54 My partner talked over me 0.68% 0.86% 0.45% 1.99 1.106 1.049 0.227 1.95 1.087 1.058 0.257 2.03 1.132 1.036 0.183
55 My partner interrupted me 1.07% 1.21% 0.90% 2.26 1.195 0.597 -0.788 2.23 1.193 0.652 -0.667 2.31 1.198 0.528 -0.926
56 My partner was considerate toward me 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 4.50 0.728 -1.851 4.467 4.52 0.711 -1.848 4.421 4.48 0.750 -1.851 4.512
57 My partner expected me to do things that were inconsistent with my values 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 1.42 0.747 2.187 5.346 1.47 0.774 1.959 4.137 1.35 0.706 2.568 7.724
58 My partner respected my interests outside of the relationship 0.20% 0.00% 0.45% 4.49 0.720 -1.763 4.365 4.51 0.728 -1.962 5.350 4.46 0.709 -1.499 3.109
59 I felt like a child when I was around my partner 1.07% 0.69% 1.57% 1.65 0.923 1.508 1.735 1.70 0.936 1.443 1.666 1.59 0.903 1.608 1.888
60 I didn’t feel like my partner and I were equals in our relationship 0.29% 0.52% 0.00% 1.74 1.073 1.484 1.323 1.71 1.047 1.588 1.773 1.79 1.106 1.364 0.857
61 My partner told me s/he was right and I was wrong 1.07% 1.21% 0.90% 2.25 1.231 0.612 -0.862 2.27 1.212 0.560 -0.877 2.22 1.256 0.679 -0.834
62 My partner made me feel small 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.46 0.754 1.950 4.080 1.46 0.744 1.983 4.498 1.47 0.767 1.914 3.637
63 My partner made me feel insignificant 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.51 0.901 2.093 4.152 1.54 0.928 2.121 4.328 1.48 0.864 2.037 3.752
64 My partner acted more like my parent than an equal 0.20% 0.00% 0.45% 1.50 0.824 1.868 3.385 1.54 0.837 1.760 3.004 1.45 0.805 2.036 4.063
65 I felt unimportant around my partner 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.57 0.896 1.811 2.928 1.55 0.875 1.965 3.874 1.59 0.923 1.635 1.946
66 I felt accepted by my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.62 0.644 -2.071 5.702 4.65 0.614 -2.173 6.531 4.58 0.679 -1.950 4.860
67 My partner accepted my unconditionally 1.95% 3.10% 0.45% 4.50 0.765 -1.789 3.525 4.49 0.779 -1.804 3.611 4.52 0.747 -1.768 3.405
68 My partner made me feel ashamed of who I am 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.35 0.714 2.624 7.941 1.38 0.754 2.569 7.478 1.32 0.658 2.662 8.339
69 I felt judged by my partner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.66 0.932 1.522 1.753 1.59 0.880 1.801 3.209 1.76 0.988 1.229 0.535
70 I felt insecure around my partner 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.71 0.984 1.420 1.231 1.64 0.919 1.606 2.194 1.80 1.059 1.208 0.361
71 I could be myself around my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.71 0.577 -2.501 8.729 4.76 0.515 -2.632 9.414 4.63 0.643 -2.297 7.465
72 My partner embraced me for who I am 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.58 0.677 -2.029 5.498 4.63 0.670 -2.307 6.946 4.53 0.683 -1.720 4.096
73 My partner accepted my quirks and eccentricities 0.39% 0.34% 0.45% 4.61 0.661 -2.275 7.234 4.61 0.720 -2.555 8.159 4.61 0.575 -1.429 2.552
74 My partner accepted me for who I am 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.63 0.621 -1.989 5.252 4.65 0.604 -2.170 6.647 4.60 0.641 -1.788 3.863
75 I felt rejected by my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.49 0.844 2.010 3.820 1.43 0.753 2.143 4.935 1.57 0.944 1.806 2.587
76 My partner seemed to be irritated by me 0.20% 0.00% 0.45% 2.35 1.231 0.537 -0.900 2.21 1.187 0.727 -0.546 2.52 1.265 0.308 -1.171
77 My partner criticized me for my weaknesses 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 1.54 0.879 1.888 3.325 1.52 0.887 2.086 4.335 1.57 0.868 1.625 2.007
78 My partner was impatient and short with me 0.29% 0.00% 0.67% 2.09 1.162 0.858 -0.349 1.94 1.078 1.058 0.265 2.28 1.241 0.612 -0.874
Item Clarity Item Statistics Across Samples Sample #1 Item Statistics Sample #2 Item Statistics
79 My partner was embarrassed by me 1.37% 1.38% 1.35% 1.56 0.805 1.739 3.373 1.55 0.791 1.791 3.755 1.57 0.824 1.681 2.973
80 My partner was judgmental toward me 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 1.66 0.902 1.492 1.782 1.60 0.842 1.686 3.011 1.74 0.971 1.274 0.713
81 My partner accepted my flaws 0.59% 0.69% 0.45% 4.51 0.700 -1.538 2.430 4.60 0.638 -1.711 3.134 4.39 0.758 -1.329 1.711
82 I could let my guard down around my partner 0.68% 1.03% 0.22% 4.56 0.817 -2.394 6.307 4.56 0.831 -2.459 6.565 4.56 0.800 -2.305 5.981
83 My partner made me feel like I am perfect just the way I am 0.29% 0.52% 0.00% 4.27 0.928 -1.284 1.183 4.43 0.823 -1.626 2.699 4.06 1.013 -0.932 0.154
84 I felt safe being vulnerable around my partner 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 4.53 0.795 -2.059 4.650 4.54 0.805 -2.189 5.293 4.51 0.782 -1.886 3.815
85 I felt like I needed to justify or defend my hobbies or interests to my partner 0.49% 0.69% 0.22% 1.70 1.014 1.500 1.429 1.66 0.984 1.584 1.838 1.74 1.051 1.401 1.000
86 My partner made me feel embarrassed about my hobbies, interests, or passions 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.42 0.750 2.207 5.455 1.42 0.754 2.320 6.365 1.42 0.746 2.061 4.284
87 My partner made me feel like I am weird 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 1.80 0.989 1.297 1.142 1.78 0.968 1.309 1.266 1.82 1.016 1.282 1.002
88 My partner made me feel like I am crazy or irrational 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.73 1.017 1.444 1.356 1.78 1.036 1.374 1.173 1.68 0.991 1.548 1.663
89 My partner made me feel like my emotions were unreasonable 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.91 1.109 1.167 0.429 1.94 1.148 1.079 0.083 1.87 1.056 1.296 1.007
90 My partner accepted the things about me that I don’t accept about myself 2.54% 1.55% 3.82% 4.41 0.811 -1.556 2.646 4.49 0.801 -1.929 4.294 4.31 0.815 -1.141 1.130
91 My partner thought highly of me even when I didn’t 1.37% 0.86% 2.02% 4.53 0.704 -1.616 2.931 4.58 0.697 -1.902 4.185 4.46 0.709 -1.288 1.698
92 I could bring up embarrassing topics with my partner 0.39% 0.52% 0.22% 4.58 0.688 -2.201 6.672 4.64 0.646 -2.363 7.415 4.51 0.732 -2.028 5.948
93 I felt a sense of belonging in the relationship 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 4.57 0.698 -1.953 4.719 4.57 0.696 -1.988 5.006 4.57 0.700 -1.916 4.417
94 I felt like my partner disapproved of me 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53 0.876 1.872 3.189 1.51 0.885 2.040 3.965 1.56 0.865 1.652 2.201
95 I felt like I needed to edit myself around my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.69 0.982 1.483 1.482 1.63 0.978 1.645 2.029 1.76 0.984 1.297 0.933
96 I felt like I got on my partner's nerves 0.29% 0.17% 0.45% 2.78 1.260 0.058 -1.204 2.69 1.252 0.122 -1.165 2.90 1.263 -0.029 -1.236
97 I felt like I needed to be someone else when I was with my partner 0.29% 0.52% 0.00% 1.40 0.735 2.341 6.351 1.40 0.724 2.405 6.917 1.40 0.749 2.270 5.764
98 I felt like I had to put on a show around my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.48 0.762 1.870 3.763 1.48 0.770 1.989 4.417 1.49 0.752 1.709 2.889
99 I didn’t feel fully embraced by my partner 0.59% 0.52% 0.67% 1.78 1.053 1.399 1.162 1.78 1.049 1.450 1.411 1.78 1.059 1.339 0.873
100 I felt like I needed to impress my partner 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 2.39 1.202 0.401 -1.042 2.40 1.190 0.379 -1.043 2.37 1.218 0.430 -1.037
101 I felt like there was room for me to be my own unique person in the relationship 0.59% 0.86% 0.22% 4.48 0.822 -2.084 5.082 4.46 0.892 -2.115 4.668 4.50 0.723 -1.868 4.952
102 I felt comfortable “being me” around my partner 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.66 0.704 -2.749 9.020 4.70 0.670 -2.927 9.933 4.60 0.742 -2.563 8.134
103 My partner saw the “true me” 1.27% 1.72% 0.67% 4.59 0.683 -2.171 6.341 4.60 0.688 -2.186 6.191 4.59 0.679 -2.160 6.636
104 I could tell my partner how I really felt without being judged 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 4.31 0.946 -1.601 2.305 4.37 0.944 -1.813 3.160 4.24 0.946 -1.354 1.420
105 I felt like I needed to hide certain parts of me 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.79 1.056 1.370 1.008 1.72 1.016 1.531 1.618 1.88 1.101 1.189 0.427
106 My partner showed interest in things that I enjoy 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.17 0.856 -1.112 1.244 4.24 0.796 -1.099 1.438 4.08 0.922 -1.061 0.864
107 My partner actively participated in events or activities that I enjoy 0.29% 0.17% 0.45% 4.04 0.974 -0.970 0.459 4.08 0.951 -1.020 0.697 3.98 1.002 -0.905 0.200
108 My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 4.17 0.900 -1.140 1.107 4.27 0.853 -1.304 1.739 4.03 0.943 -0.957 0.575
109 My partner made me feel silly for pursuing my hobbies, interests, or passions 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.44 0.727 2.014 4.650 1.42 0.705 2.140 5.640 1.46 0.755 1.872 3.650
110 My partner mocked me for my interests 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.40 0.710 2.185 5.378 1.39 0.690 2.236 6.053 1.41 0.736 2.126 4.676
111 My partner made me feel stupid for doing the things I like to do 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.49 0.806 1.911 3.630 1.52 0.838 1.826 3.091 1.45 0.760 2.030 4.514
112 My partner belittled my habits, passions, or interests 0.29% 0.52% 0.00% 1.44 0.764 2.080 4.658 1.45 0.746 2.089 5.051 1.43 0.788 2.074 4.273
113 My partner pointed out my flaws 0.29% 0.17% 0.45% 2.08 1.149 0.792 -0.536 1.91 1.076 1.066 0.183 2.30 1.205 0.483 -1.052
114 I don’t think my partner was genuine when s/he asked me about my interests and hobbies 1.27% 0.52% 2.25% 1.68 0.965 1.652 2.424 1.68 0.976 1.687 2.549 1.68 0.952 1.605 2.276
115 I felt like I couldn’t talk about certain interest or hobbies with my partner 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.82 1.134 1.389 0.925 1.80 1.137 1.437 1.036 1.84 1.131 1.333 0.813
116 My partner supported me in following my personal dreams and aspirations 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 4.59 0.692 -2.107 5.650 4.61 0.678 -2.134 5.706 4.57 0.709 -2.076 5.616
117 If something was important to me, my partner supported it even if s/he didn’t understand it 0.68% 0.69% 0.67% 4.29 0.859 -1.355 1.850 4.30 0.871 -1.392 1.813 4.28 0.845 -1.309 1.949
118 My partner thought my interests or passions were stupid 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.44 0.771 2.181 5.248 1.43 0.793 2.329 5.922 1.44 0.742 1.946 4.100
119 My partner pointed out and expressed appreciation about something unique I bring to the relationship 2.83% 2.24% 3.60% 4.17 0.997 -1.216 0.891 4.17 1.003 -1.206 0.817 4.16 0.990 -1.235 1.019
120 I felt like my partner embraced our differences (i.e., abilities, qualities, or traits) 0.49% 0.34% 0.67% 4.30 0.823 -1.356 2.225 4.28 0.871 -1.405 2.220 4.34 0.755 -1.195 1.799
121 My partner nagged me to do certain things or stop doing certain things 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 2.07 1.194 0.893 -0.351 2.01 1.179 0.963 -0.208 2.14 1.212 0.809 -0.499
122 My partner gave me the space to make changes for myself, rather than pressuring me to make changes on his/her behalf 1.95% 2.24% 1.57% 4.25 0.904 -1.324 1.621 4.27 0.909 -1.321 1.487 4.23 0.899 -1.336 1.842
123 My partner pressured me to change for him/her 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.50 0.825 1.966 3.992 1.51 0.857 2.024 4.185 1.49 0.782 1.850 3.497
124 My partner wanted me to change something about myself without any clear benefit to me 0.49% 0.86% 0.00% 1.48 0.828 2.032 3.994 1.51 0.871 2.012 3.839 1.44 0.768 2.016 3.922
125 There were things my partner would like to change about me 2.93% 3.45% 2.25% 2.40 1.223 0.429 -1.025 2.20 1.192 0.672 -0.703 2.66 1.218 0.156 -1.162
126 My partner provided constructive criticism without making me feel judged or ashamed 1.46% 1.72% 1.12% 3.93 0.967 -0.932 0.624 3.98 0.960 -1.025 0.926 3.86 0.973 -0.825 0.325
127 My partner made me feel guilty about how I spend my time 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.73 0.992 1.450 1.480 1.73 1.010 1.541 1.827 1.73 0.970 1.318 0.965
128 My partner was uncomfortable if I engaged in activities without him/her 0.39% 0.69% 0.00% 1.74 0.980 1.447 1.641 1.81 1.017 1.313 1.197 1.64 0.922 1.648 2.440
129 There were times when I could put my happiness first instead of always putting our relationship first 3.41% 3.45% 3.37% 3.90 1.043 -0.973 0.520 3.91 1.048 -0.930 0.396 3.90 1.037 -1.034 0.709
130 I felt uncomfortable pursuing my own interests without my partner’s approval 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75 1.121 1.600 1.642 1.73 1.101 1.674 1.981 1.78 1.148 1.514 1.279
131 If I wanted to make a life change that was important to me (e.g., changing my job), my partner would have supported me 0.68% 0.69% 0.67% 4.61 0.672 -2.178 6.239 4.60 0.654 -2.105 6.404 4.63 0.696 -2.267 6.125
132 My partner was bossy toward me 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 1.86 1.052 1.166 0.481 1.84 1.036 1.185 0.578 1.88 1.074 1.143 0.373
133 I felt pressured to spend most of my free time with my partner 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.94 1.077 1.140 0.560 1.95 1.062 1.154 0.712 1.93 1.098 1.128 0.400
134 I had personal space when I needed it 0.10% 0.17% 0.00% 4.35 0.835 -1.474 2.264 4.36 0.856 -1.554 2.479 4.34 0.807 -1.357 1.936
135 I could schedule my day without my partner 0.29% 0.17% 0.45% 4.17 1.027 -1.374 1.345 4.24 1.007 -1.486 1.749 4.09 1.047 -1.253 0.960
136 My partner insisted that we do everything together 0.39% 0.34% 0.45% 1.89 0.976 1.132 0.870 1.96 1.017 1.070 0.633 1.81 0.914 1.198 1.179
137 My partner acted like s/he owns me 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 1.35 0.738 2.582 7.266 1.42 0.806 2.318 5.593 1.27 0.629 3.008 10.567
138 My partner refused to let me make decisions for myself 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35 0.702 2.737 9.167 1.36 0.695 2.661 9.072 1.33 0.712 2.843 9.424
139 My partner did not treat me like an independent person 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 1.48 0.807 2.308 6.240 1.51 0.845 2.304 6.136 1.44 0.753 2.271 6.062
140 My partner discouraged me from participating in activities that I enjoy 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.43 0.749 2.199 5.641 1.44 0.787 2.282 5.806 1.42 0.695 2.003 4.908
141 My partner checked in on me when I was away from him/her 1.27% 1.21% 1.35% 4.02 1.063 -1.230 1.048 4.17 0.957 -1.370 1.824 3.83 1.159 -1.023 0.269
142 My partner made me feel guilty when I was away from him/her 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.62 0.925 1.579 1.886 1.65 0.937 1.528 1.719 1.59 0.909 1.654 2.167
143 My partner questioned me about where I had been or what I had been doing 0.29% 0.00% 0.67% 2.06 1.213 0.858 -0.513 2.25 1.272 0.601 -0.954 1.81 1.081 1.259 0.572
144 My partner encouraged me to have my own interests 0.59% 0.52% 0.67% 4.41 0.766 -1.478 2.666 4.44 0.743 -1.543 3.025 4.38 0.795 -1.400 2.288
145 My partner encouraged me to develop new friendships 2.05% 1.90% 2.25% 4.00 1.045 -0.927 0.220 4.13 1.005 -1.143 0.812 3.83 1.074 -0.693 -0.222
146 My partner encouraged me to nurture existing friendships 1.95% 1.90% 2.02% 4.23 0.896 -1.192 1.187 4.25 0.888 -1.261 1.417 4.20 0.907 -1.111 0.948
147 My partner told me what to do 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 1.85 1.007 1.149 0.565 1.79 0.943 1.195 0.843 1.93 1.080 1.060 0.186
148 If I made a new friend, my partner would have insisted on meeting him or her 1.66% 1.72% 1.57% 2.38 1.210 0.608 -0.559 2.53 1.226 0.469 -0.754 2.18 1.159 0.812 -0.129
149 I had to run all of my decisions by my partner 0.29% 0.17% 0.45% 1.66 0.852 1.419 1.937 1.63 0.810 1.304 1.546 1.69 0.904 1.502 2.109
150 My partner made decisions for me 0.29% 0.00% 0.67% 1.75 0.924 1.300 1.281 1.70 0.885 1.401 1.875 1.81 0.971 1.176 0.681
151 I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.56 0.671 -1.881 4.960 4.59 0.647 -1.845 4.360 4.52 0.699 -1.906 5.456
152 I felt like I needed my partner’s approval to do certain things 0.20% 0.34% 0.00% 2.07 1.160 0.821 -0.494 1.99 1.099 0.959 -0.020 2.17 1.228 0.651 -0.942
153 I felt smothered by my partner 0.88% 1.55% 0.00% 1.67 0.949 1.559 1.967 1.74 0.989 1.460 1.623 1.59 0.890 1.694 2.486
154 I had the freedom to be friends with whomever I wanted 0.39% 0.34% 0.45% 4.39 0.879 -1.611 2.381 4.33 0.919 -1.408 1.413 4.47 0.819 -1.938 4.297
155 I had to convince my partner to let me do things that were important to me 0.10% 0.00% 0.22% 1.62 0.925 1.585 1.959 1.66 0.934 1.528 1.875 1.58 0.912 1.671 2.129
156 It seemed like we had an argument whenever I wanted to do something for me 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64 0.949 1.615 2.000 1.72 1.019 1.473 1.391 1.53 0.837 1.777 2.845
157 I felt like I needed to answer to my partner 3.12% 3.62% 2.47% 2.10 1.156 0.782 -0.460 2.10 1.140 0.768 -0.460 2.11 1.178 0.801 -0.458
158 My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.58 0.859 1.660 2.490 1.58 0.871 1.685 2.651 1.56 0.844 1.625 2.270
159 My partner was considerate of my boundaries 0.20% 0.17% 0.22% 4.37 0.824 -1.556 2.800 4.39 0.850 -1.681 3.112 4.34 0.789 -1.373 2.332
160 I felt like I had room to be my own person in the relationship 0.29% 0.34% 0.22% 4.51 0.714 -1.788 4.229 4.52 0.731 -1.914 4.638 4.50 0.691 -1.603 3.623
Individuality in Couples Questionnaire (ICQ)
Thinking about interactions with your partner over the past month, please rate the extent
to which you agree with each of the following statements as it applies to you and your
relationship
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
Over the past month….
1. I felt respected by my partner
2. I felt valued by my partner
3. My partner asked my opinion on a range of topics
4. My partner valued my opinions and ideas
5. My partner seemed open to learning new things from me
6. I felt like part of a team with my partner
7. My partner made me feel like I have something meaningful to contribute to the relationship
8. I felt like an equal in the relationship
9. My partner praised my strengths and accomplishments
10. My partner listened to what I had to say with interest
11. My partner made me feel good about myself
12. I felt admired by my partner
13. I felt accepted by my partner
14. My partner accepted my flaws
15. I felt safe being vulnerable around my partner
16. I felt a sense of belonging in the relationship
17. I could tell my partner how I really felt without being judged
18. My partner asked me about my interests and hobbies
19. I had personal space when I needed it
20. I had the freedom to pursue my own interests and passions
21. I felt like I needed my partner’s approval to do certain things (R)
22. I had the freedom to be friends with whomever I wanted
23. I had to convince my partner to let me do things that were important to me (R)
24. It seemed like we had an argument whenever I wanted to do something for me (R)
25. My partner made me feel guilty for doing things on my own (R)
Scoring instructions:
1. Reverse code items (R) 21, 23, 24, and 25
2. Average all items (1-25)
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychological Assessment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
