Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) in infertile people

31Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background and objective: Infertility is a global public health issue and may adversely influence marital quality. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) is a quick, easy to administer and score, 3-item scale measuring marital quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the KMSS in Iranian infertile people. Materials and methods: The research sample consist of 254 infertile people drawn from a referral fertility clinic in Tehran, Iran from February to May 2017. The participants were administered the KMSS, Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and a demographic questionnaire. Tests of data quality included descriptive statistics of the data, internal reliability consistency, inter-item correlations, corrected item total correlations, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and convergent validity. Results: The mean total KMSS score was 17.73 ± 3.02. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for KMSS was 0.901. All corrected item-total correlations and inter-item correlations were in acceptable range. Based on CFA result, the one-factor model was fully saturated, and all three factor loadings were significant and in the expected direction. The KMSS significantly correlated with CSI-4, HADS-anxiety and HADS-depression, indicating an acceptable convergent validity. Conclusion: In summary, the present study provides further evidence that the KMSS is psychometrically sound and therefore it can be recommended for further use by researchers interested in the context of marital quality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Omani-Samani, R., Maroufizadeh, S., Ghaheri, A., Amini, P., & Navid, B. (2018). Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) in infertile people. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 23(2), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2017.10.005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free