Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale Validity and Reliability Study

Unrecognized Condition Clinical Trial

— T-RSS  

Official title:

Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale (T-RSS): Validity and Reliability Study

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05795998
• Other study ID #: SultanAbdulhamid Khan RTH
• Status: Completed
• Start date: January 15, 2022
• Est. completion date: June 15, 2022

Study information

• Verified date: March 2023
• Source: Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational [Patient Registry]

Clinical Trial Summary

In this cross-sectional and relationship-seeking study, it was aimed to adapt the Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale (T-RSS), developed by Racquel Peel, into Turkish, for the reasons why partners sabotage the relationship in romantic relationships.

Description:

Semi-structured sociodemographic data form, Sabotage in Romantic Relations Questionnaire (RISA), Self-Sabotage Questionnaire, was given to the participants after the interview to be conducted by volunteers aged 18 and over and having a romantic relationship and a psychiatrist working at the Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital Mental Health and Diseases Service. The Perceived Romantic Relationship Quality Scale (SRS), the Perceived Romantic Relationship Quality Scale (ARIÖ), and the Attitudes Related to Love Scale (AİTÖ) will be given and they will be asked to fill in these forms. Participants will be divided into three study groups. The first study group will consist of at least 30 people for the Linguistic Equivalence Review of the scale. The second study group will consist of at least 30 people for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Equivalent Scale Validity and Cronbach Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient Examination of the scale. The third study group will consist of at least 30 people for Test/Retest Reliability Analysis, and the same tests will be re-administered to the participants three weeks later. The selection of the sample will be made by simple random sampling method. The criteria given by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) for factor analysis will be taken into account in determining the number of the research sample. According to these researchers, 300 people are evaluated as "good", 500 people as "very good" and 1000 people as "excellent" for factor analysis.

Back translation method will be used in the translation study of the Sabotage in Romantic Relations Questionnaire (RISA) (Brislin, 1970). First of all, the original form of the scale will be translated into Turkish by at least three experts with a doctorate degree in psychiatry and/or clinical psychology and at least three English language experts, independently of each other with a good level of English. The created form will be translated back into English by the researchers, a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist and two English Language experts. Both English and Turkish translations of the scale will be brought together by creating a "Language Validity Examination Form" (Seçer, 2015, p. 70) by the researchers. The Language Validity Examination Form will be compared by experts and evaluated in terms of translation suitability, and the final form of the scale will be decided by choosing the most appropriate items that reflect the theoretical structure better and are more linguistically understandable by majority vote.

Analysis of study data will be done using SPSS for Windows 22.0 and AMOS 24.0 package programs. In statistical interpretations, p<.05 values will be considered significant at the 95% confidence interval.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 495
• Est. completion date: June 15, 2022
• Est. primary completion date: April 15, 2022
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 65 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Volunteer to participate in the study,

2. Having 18 years or older,

3. Having a romantic relationship

4. Having no problem in reading and understanding the semi-structured socio-demographic data form, the Romantic Relationships Sabotage Scale (RSS), the Self-handicapping Scale (SHS), the Perceived Romantic Relationship Quality Scale (PRRQS), and the Love Attitudes Scale-Short Form (LAS-SF)

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Those who did not volunteer to participate in the study,

2. Having under the age of 18,

3. Those who are not in a romantic relationship D. Those with psychiatric disorders who cannot read and fill in the semi-structured sociodemographic data form, the Romantic Relationships Sabotage Scale (RSS), the Self-handicapping Scale (SHS), the Perceived Romantic Relationship Quality Scale (PRRQS), and the Love Attitudes Scale-Short Form (LAS-SF)

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Unrecognized Condition

Intervention

Other:
• Adaptation of the Sabotage in Romantic Relationships Scale into Turkish and its validity and reliability analyzes
Approval was obtained from the local ethics committee before starting the study. Permission was obtained from Racquel PEEL, who developed the scale. The scale was administered to 495 participants and they were informed about the study by a specialist psychiatrist. Language validity, construct validity and reliability analyzes of the scale were performed. The findings were discussed in the light of the literature.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Turkey	Saglik Bilimleri Üniversitesi Sultan 2. Abdülhamid Han Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi	Üsküdar	Istanbul

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Turkey, 

References & Publications (43)

Akin, A. (2012). Self-handicapping Scale: A study of Validity and Reliability. Education and Science, 37(164): 176-187.

Arazzini Stewart, A., & De Leorge Wolker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and slef-efficacy: a path model. Pers Individ Dif, 66:160-164.

Bowlby, J., (1973). Attachment and Loss: Separation, Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.

Büyüköztürk, S. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi (18. baski). Ankara: PegemA Yayincilik.

Büyüksahin, A., & Hovardaoglu, S. (2004). Çiftlerin aska iliskin tutumlarinin Lee'nin çok boyutlu ask biçimleri kapsaminda incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19(54), 59-75.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Campbell L, Stanton SC. Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019 Feb;25:148-151. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.08.004. Epub 2018 Aug 3. — View Citation

Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent romantic relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:631-52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459. — View Citation

Conlon, E. G., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Creed, P. A., & Tucker, M. (2006). Family history, self-perceptions, attitudes and cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. J Res Read, 29:11-32.

Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(2), 257-277. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9051-8

Dönmez, A.(2009). Yakin iliskiler psikolojisi. Ankara: Nobel Yayin

Epstein, N. B. & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll) (Third edition). London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of Perceived Relationship Quality Components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340-354. doi: 10.1177/0146167200265007

Foster, J. J. (2001). A Beginner's Guide Data Analysis. London: Sage.

Fraley RC, Hudson NW, Heffernan ME, Segal N. Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015 Aug;109(2):354-68. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000027. — View Citation

Gottman, J. M. (1993). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Psychology Press

Hair, J. F., Arthur H. M., Phillip, S., & Mike, P. Research Methods for Business. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2007. Print.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1990). 'A Relationship- spesific version of the Love Attitudes Scale'. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 239-254.

Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic Relationships: Love, Satisfaction, and Staying Together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 980-988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.980

Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationships assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 15(1), 137-142

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection. (2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). Self-Handicapping Scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t09528-000

Karahan, A. S. (2021). Consideration of Self-Sabotage Regarding Close Relationships. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(42):1-1.

Kearns, H., Forbes, A., Gardiner, M. L., & Marshall, K. M. (2008). When a high distinction isn't good enough: A review of perfectionism and self-handicapping. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(3):21-36.

Kinnear, P. R. & Gray, C. D. (2006). SPSS 14 Made Simple. Oxford: Psychology Press.

Kline, P. (2000). An easy guide to factor analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

Lee, J. A. (1974). The styles of loving.

Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-styles. In R.J. Sternberg, M. L. Barnes (Eds), The Psychology of Love. New Haven: Yale University Press

Martin, K. A. & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: The contributions of self-esteem and selfefficacy. Self and Identity, 1(4), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106814

Mattingly, B. A., & Clark, E. M. (2012). Weakening relationships we try to preserve: Motivated sacrifice, attachment, and relationship quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 373-386.

Peel R, Caltabiano N. The relationship sabotage scale: an evaluation of factor analyses and constructive validity. BMC Psychol. 2021 Sep 19;9(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00644-0. Erratum In: BMC Psychol. 2021 Oct 6;9(1):153. — View Citation

Peel, R., & Caltabiano, N. (2021a). Why do we sabotage love? a thematic analysis of lived experiences of relationship breakdown and maintenance. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 20(2), 99-131. doi: 10.1080/15332691.2020.1795039

Peel, R., Caltabiano, N., Buckby, B., & McBain, K. A. (2019). Defining romantic self-sabotage: A thematic analysis of interviews with practicing psychologists. Journal of Relationship Research, 10(e16), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2019.7

Sagkal, A. S., & Özdemir, Y. (2018). Turkish adaptation of perceived romantic relationship quality scale (prrqs): Validity and reliability study. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education, (46), 22-40.

Slade, R. (2020). Relationship Sabotage in Adults with Low Self-Esteem from Attachment Trauma in Childhood. Family Perspectives, 1(1), 11.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Stewart, M. A. & De George-Walker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.038

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Sixth edition). United States: Pearson Education.

Tezbasaran, A. (1996), Likert Tipi Ölçek Gelistirme. Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari, Ankara.

Yilmaz, B., & Gündüz, B. (2021). The differentiation of self, authenticity and depression as predictors of relationship satisfaction in emerging adulthood. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education, (58), 334-361.

* Note: There are 43 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale (T-RSS): Validity and Reliability Study - First Evaluation	Examining the data forms and questionnaires requested from the participants between January 2022 and July 2022 and dividing the participants into three different study groups.	15.01.2022-15.04.2022
Secondary	Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale (T-RSS): Validity and Reliability Study - Secondary Evaluation	Evaluating the linguistic equivalence level of the scale with the data of the first study group, performing factor analyzes and reliability studies of the scale with the data of the second and third study groups.	16.04.2022-15.07.2022