ArticleBMC psychology2020
The Persian version of the revised dyadic adjustment scale (RDAS): a validation study in infertile patients.
Article in BMC psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Slovak Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale: validation, factor structure, and population norms.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties and validity of the Tamil version of the dyadic adjustment scale for married couples.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Comparative Effects of Tadalafil Cream Versus Oral Tadalafil on Males with Erectile Disfunction Regarding Relationship Dynamics: A Secondary Analysis of Dyadic Adjustment Outcomes in a Randomized Crossover Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of emotional and psychological problems in Iranian children: Protocol of a cross-sectional study in Isfahan.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Investigation on sexual function in young breast cancer patients during endocrine therapy: a latent class analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Systematic Review of the Relationship between Couple Dyadic Adjustment and Family Health.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfertility can have a powerful impact on marital quality. The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) is a widely used measure of marital quality. This scale has not been validated in infertile patients. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the RDAS in a sample of infertile patients.
methodsThe sample of this methodological study consisted of 254 infertile patients referring to a referral infertility clinic in Tehran, Iran. A battery of questionnaires was administered to the participants, including a demographic/fertility questionnaire, the RDAS, the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS), the Couples Satisfaction Index- 4 Item (CSI-4), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Perceived Stress Scale-4 Item (PSS-4). Internal consistency of the scale was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, construct validity was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and convergent validity was examined by correlating the RDAS with RAS, KMSS, CSI-4, HADS, and PSS-4 instruments.
resultsThe mean total RDAS score was 49.26 ± 9.34, and 100 patients (39.4%) had marital distress based on the cut-off value of < 48. The second-order three-factor model of the RDAS exhibited an excellent fit to the data, as indicated by χ
conclusionThe RDAS is a reliable and valid inventory for measuring marital quality in infertile patients. Further validation studies are needed to generalize the underlying structure of the scale in various populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.