Turkish Adaptation of Romantic Relationship Sabotage Scale Validity and Reliability Study

NCT05795998 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: SultanAbdulhamid Khan RTH
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 495
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief 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.

Conditions

Unrecognized Condition

Keywords

reliability; romantic relationship; sabotage; scale; validity

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• 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 Outcomes (1)

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

  16.04.2022-15.07.2022

Interventions

Adaptation of the Sabotage in Romantic Relationships Scale into Turkish and its validity and reliability analyzes OTHER

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.

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 65 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Male and female volunteer participants who applied to the psychiatry clinic of the hospital, did not have any psychiatric disease and were in a romantic relationship.

You may qualify if:

• Volunteer to participate in the study,
• Having 18 years or older,
• Having a romantic relationship
• 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)

You may not qualify if:

• Those who did not volunteer to participate in the study,
• Having under the age of 18,
• 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)

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Sultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey: lead

Study Sites (1)

Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Sultan 2. Abdülhamid Han Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi

Üsküdar, Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (43)

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (18. baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.

  BACKGROUND

• Büyükşahin, A., & Hovardaoğlu, S. (2004). Çiftlerin aşka ilişkin tutumlarının Lee'nin çok boyutlu aşk biçimleri kapsamında incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19(54), 59-75.

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

• Dönmez, A.(2009). Yakın ilişkiler psikolojisi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

• 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. doı: 10.1080/15332691.2020.1795039

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

• 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

  BACKGROUND

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

  BACKGROUND

• Tezbaşaran, A. (1996), Likert Tipi Ölçek Geliştirme. Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları, Ankara.

  BACKGROUND

• Yılmaz, 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.

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 30096516 RESULT

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

  PMID: 19035830 RESULT

• 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. Epub 2015 Jan 5.

  PMID: 25559192 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 34538259 RESULT

Study Officials

• Özgür MADEN, PH.D., M.D.

  Corresponding author

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: OTHER
• Time Perspective: CROSS SECTIONAL
• Target Duration: 1 Month
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal Investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 17, 2023
• First Posted: April 3, 2023
• Study Start: January 15, 2022
• Primary Completion: April 15, 2022
• Study Completion: June 15, 2022
• Last Updated: April 3, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-03

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF
• Time Frame: At any time
• Access Criteria: After contacting the corresponding author, the data will be sent if deemed appropriate.

Locations

TU (1)