ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: Factor Structure and Reliability Study in rural

population of Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to examine the reliability of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction
Scale among married men in Lalitpur and Shrawasti in Uttar Pradesh, India. Data were
collected from Lalitpur and Shrawsti district of Uttar Pradesh. The correlation matrices were
constructed to understand the correlation between items of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction
Scale. Furthermore, to examine the reliability of the scale, the study utilized confirmatory
factor analysis. This study attempted to estimate factor loadings for three different models
(Model I, Model II, and Model III) by utilizing the maximum likelihood method. The result
found an overall alpha value of 0.936 for the male married below 21 years of age in Lalitpur
and Shrawasti districts. The Idealistic Distortion items had a higher correlation that ranged
from 0.70 to 0.95. The correlation between Martial Satisfaction items ranged from -0.81 to
0.88. The result concluded that model III was the best-fitted model in this study. Factor
structure shows that model III with three factors, namely Idealistic Distortion, Happiness, and
Dissatisfaction was the best fit model in measuring marital satisfaction among the study
population. Therefore, this scale could be useful in research settings in measuring marital
satisfaction among men in rural India.

Keywords: ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale; Early Marriage; Rural India; Idealistic
Distortion; Happiness.
ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: Factor Structure and Reliability Study in rural
population of Uttar Pradesh, India

Introduction:
An overview of the literature suggests that studies related to marriage and marital satisfaction
have not received much attention in India than in Western countries (Mukherjee, Chaudhuri,
& De, 2016). The persistence of lower divorce rates in India has subsided the debate on marital
satisfaction in the Indian population (Haris & Kumar, 2018). However, rising divorce trends in
the recent period have given a push to studies related to marital satisfaction among couples in
India (Sheykhi, 2020; Thadathil & Sriram, 2020). The scarcity of literature related to marital
satisfaction in the Indian context has been longstanding and much credit for this was given to
the unavailability of a valid and reliable scale that can measure marital satisfaction in the Indian
population (Sorokowski et al., 2017). The unavailability of a reliable and valid scale left
researchers unanswered in examining marital satisfaction among the Indian population (Jaiswal
et al., 2016). Furthermore, data unavailability at a national level is another issue that limits our
understanding of marital satisfaction among the Indian population. Whatever limited studies
were undertaken to measure marital satisfaction used primary data with a limited sample size
and used the western scale to measure marital satisfaction (Pandya, 2019). However, a few
studies have examined marital satisfaction by utilizing scales that originated from the Indian
context (Haris & Aneesh, 2019).

Measures of marital quality are among the most used variables in the study related to marriage
(Spanier and Lewis, 1980; Bulanda, Brown, & Yamashita, 2016; Troxel et al., 2017). Across
the world, many researchers have developed various scales aimed at measuring marital quality.
The widely used scales measuring marital quality include Locke-Wallas Marital Adjustment
Test (MAT) (Locke & Wallace, 1959), Spanier’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier,
1976), Roach, Frazier and Bowden’s Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS) (Roach, Frazier, &
Bowden, 1981), Hudson’s Index of Marital Satisfaction (IMS) (Hudson, 1982), Schumms’s
Kansan Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) (Schumm et al., 1983), Norton’s Quality Marriage
Index (QMI) (Norton, 1983), Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) (Hendrick,
1988), Fowers and Olson’s ENRICH (Evaluation and Nurturing Relationship Issues,
Communication and Happiness) Marital Satisfaction Scale (Fowers & Olson, 1993), and
Snyder’s Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI) (Gasbarrini & Snyder, 2017). All of the scales,
as mentioned above, were developed as per the norms and cultural values in western societies,
and their applicability in the Indian context has not been tested to a satisfactorily level (Vishwas
et al., 2017). Lack of a reliable scale to understand marital satisfaction in India prompted us to
examine the reliability and validity of one of the widely used scales worldwide; ENRICH
Marital Satisfaction Scale. Despite various scales being available to the researchers, marriage
researchers are still exploring new correlates, which may explain variance in marital quality
and marital stability (Dovina & Karunanidhi, 2017). Evaluation of marital satisfaction using a
reliable and valid scale is crucial in measuring the overall quality of life (Pandya, 2019).

Previous studies have documented the association between early marriage and marital
satisfaction (Velotti et al., 2016; McNulty, Wenner, & Fisher, 2016; Jackson et al., 2017).
However, such studies are available in abundance exploring the association between early
marriage and marital satisfaction among females (Hajihasani & Sim, 2019), but studies
involving males were scant. Lack of reliable and valid scales of Indian origin prompt
researchers to borrow the marital satisfaction scale developed in different settings (Vishwas et
al., 2017). However, utilizing scale from other settings require a pre-testing in order to check
reliability and validity. Not all the scales developed for different settings shall be used
blindfolded as it may create ambiguity in results. This study utilized ENRICH marital
satisfaction scale and explored the reliability and validity of the same.

In many western countries, the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS) has been widely
used to explore marital satisfaction among couples and men and women separately (Wadsby,
1998; McLeland & Sutton, 2005). Not only in western countries, but this scale has found its
applicability in other countries, too (Ziaee et al., 2014; Arab, Nakhaee, & Khanjani, 2015).
Pandya (2019) explored the marital satisfaction of highly qualified professional women after
retirement in urban India using the ENRICH scale. Limited scales are available in the Indian
context to measure marital satisfaction (Haris & Kumar, 2018). This study adds significant
knowledge to the literature in two significant ways. First, this study examines the reliability
and validity of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in the Indian context. Second, by
examining the reliability and validity of EMS, this study discusses the applicability of this scale
in the Indian context. The EMS scale is widely used and is one of the most trusted scales
measuring marital satisfaction across countries worldwide (Pandya, 2019; Akinnawo et al.,
2019). Since marriage is a sacred union in the Indian context, it is generally termed a union
between two families in India. There arises a need to have a valid and reliable scale to measure
marital satisfaction. So, the main objective of this study is to examine the reliability and validity
of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in the Indian context.
Data and Methods:

Data Source:
Data for this study were collected from the Lalitpur and Shrawsti district of Uttar Pradesh,
India. The data was collected from June 1, 2019, to November 31, 2019. The data was collected
from 348 males married below 21 years of age, 174 each from Lalitpur and Shrawasti. A three-
stage sampling was used. At the first stage, a block was selected randomly from each district.
In the second stage, six villages were selected randomly from each of the blocks. Villages were
selected based on the level of literacy rates. In the third stage, individuals were selected from
households. The selected individuals were married below 21 years of age and were currently
below 25 years of age at the time of the survey. Lalitpur and Shrawasti districts of Uttar Pradesh
were selected because these are the two districts in Uttar Pradesh with the highest prevalence
of early marriage.

Ethical Considerations:
The ethical considerations were followed appropriately. The questionnaire was presented
before the Institute Research Ethics Committee (SREC) for their approval. After receiving the
approval from SREC, fieldwork was started. Before undertaking the fieldwork, required
permission was also taken from required government officials of the study area. At last,
informed consent was signed from the individual also. Before administering the questionnaire,
the purpose of the survey was explained to the participants. The participants were allowed to
withdraw from the study at any point, and participation in the study was voluntary. The study
did not involve any benefits or harm to the participants.

Methods:
The main purpose of this study is to examine the reliability of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction
Scale among married men in Lalitpur and Shrawasti in Uttar Pradesh in India. EMS Scale
comprises of two sub-scales: Marital Satisfaction and Idealistic Distortion scale. The scale is a
15-item scale comprising the Marital Satisfaction Scale (10 items) and Idealistic Distortion (5
items). Each of the ten Marital Satisfaction items represents the particular area of the marital
relationship assessed by the full length of ENRICH marital inventory consisting of 60 items.
Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the scale was 0.86 (Fowers & Olson, 1993). The inter-item
correlation of the scale was between 0.52 to 0.82, with a mean of 0.65 for men (Fowers &
Olson, 1993). The items were coded as positive worded and negative worded and were
presented on a scale of 5 (Strongly disagree, Moderately disagree, Neither agree nor disagree,
Moderately agree, and Strongly agree). Strongly disagree was coded as 1, and strongly agree
was coded as 5. The marking for positive worded was collected from 1 to 5, whereas, for
negatively worded items, marking was done backward, which means response coded as 5 was
marked as 1.

Table 1: Items in ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale

Coding Marital Satisfaction Scale Sign
OMS 2 I am not pleased with the personality characteristics of my partner -ve
OMS 3 I am happy with how we handle role and responsibilities in our +ve
marriage
OMS 5 I am not happy about our communication and feel my partner does -ve
not understand me.
OMS 7 I am very happy about how we make decisions and resolve conflicts. +ve
OMS 8 I am unhappy about our financial position and the way we make -ve
financial decisions.
OMS 10 I am very happy with how we manage our leisure activities and the +ve
time we spend together
OMS 11 I am very pleased about how we express affection and relate sexually +ve
OMS 12 I am not satisfied with the way we each handle our responsibilities as -ve
parents
OMS 14 I am dissatisfied about our relationship with my parents, in-laws, -ve
and/or friends.
OMS 15 I feel very good about how we each practice our religious beliefs and +ve
values
Idealistic Distortion Scale
OMS 1 My partner and I understand each other perfectly +ve
OMS 4 My partner completely understands and sympathizes with my every +ve
mood
OMS 6 Our relationship is a perfect success. +ve
OMS 9 I have some needs that are not being met by our relationships. -ve
OMS 13 I have never regretted my relationship with my partner, not even for +ve
a moment.

Statistical Analysis:
This study utilized a bivariate analysis to examine the description of the study variables. The
correlation matrices were constructed to understand the correlation between items of the
ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale. The Cronbach alpha test was used to estimate the
reliability of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale for the males who were married early in
Lalitpur and Shrawasti. Furthermore, to examine the reliability of the scale, the study utilized
confirmatory factor analysis. This study attempted to estimate factor loadings for three different
models by utilizing the maximum likelihood method. To test the goodness of fit of the model,
this study estimated a few indices, namely; SRMR (Standardized root mean squared residual),
TLI (Tucker-Lewis index), RMSEA (Root mean squared error of approximation), BIC
(Bayesian information criterion), AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion) and CFI (Comparative
fit index).

Description of the Indices used in the study:

Fit refers to the ability of a model to reproduce the data in the form of variance and covariance
matrix. A good-fitting model is one that is reasonably consistent with the data. The following
indices and their goodness of fit are described to understand the concept of goodness of fit in
confirmatory factor analysis.

SRMR: Standardized root mean squared residual is the square root of the discrepancy between
the sample covariance matrix and the model covariance matrix. It can be understood as the
standardized difference between the observed correlation and the predicted correlation. The
value of SRMR lies between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates a perfect fit. A value as high as 0.08
depicts the fitness of the model, and any value beyond 0.08 shows that the model is not a good
fit (Cavanaugh & Neath, 1999). However, a study believes that a value of 0.05 shall be the
closing point for the goodness of fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

TLI: TLI is also known as Tucker Lewis Index or Non-Normed Fit Index. TLI (and the CFI,
too) depends on the average size of the correlation in the data. To put that in perspective, if the
average correlation between variables is not high, then the TLI will not be very high. It is not
affected by sample size (Ding, Velicer, & Harlow, 1995) and is an excellent model to estimate
the goodness of fit when the sample size is small (Cangur & Ercan, 2015). The higher TLI
value indicates a better fit for the model, and values higher than 0.95 are interpreted as
acceptable fit (Cangur & Ercan, 2015). A study has noticed the cut-off point of 0.80 for this
index (Cavanaugh & Neath, 1999).

RMSEA: The goodness of fit of RMSEA is based on the non-centrality parameter.

Recommendations for the RMSEA cut-off have been changed considerably in the last few
years. Steiger (1989), Browne and Mels (1990), and Browne and Cudeck (1993) recommended
that values of RMSEA less than .05 be considered as indicative of close fit. In the late 90s, a
cut-off value of 0.05 to 0.10 was considered an indication of a good fit, and values above 0.10
were considered poor fit (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). After that, a cut-off value
close to 0.06 was considered a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Recently, a cut-off value of 0.07
was recommended as a good fit (Steiger, 2007). Another study noted that the cut-off values of
RMSEA vary from 0.06 to 0.07, and values within this range predict goodness of fit (Hooper,
Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).

BIC: BIC is a criterion for model selection among a finite set of models. BIC or Bayesian
Information Criterion is closely related to AIC. A lower BIC model indicates a good fit. BIC
is always higher than AIC. A lower BIC score in a model indicates the superiority of that model
over other models used in the study.

AIC: The AIC is a comparative measure of fit, and so it is meaningful when two different
models were estimated. Lower values indicate a better fit and vice-versa. It is always lower
than the BIC. The AIC scores measure the goodness of fit of a model by penalizing the model
for over-fitting the data. On its own, the AIC score has no value, and it needs to compare with
the AIC score of other models while performing model selections. A lower AIC score in a
model indicates the superiority of that model over other models used in the study.

CFI: CFI or Comparative Fit Index is an incremental measure based on the non-centrality
measure. Since TLI and CFI are highly correlated, only one of the two shall be reported. The
CFI is reported more often than the TLI. The CFI gives values between 0 and 1, and high values
are indicators of a good fit. A value higher than 0.97 generally predict the best fit (Cangur &
Ercan, 2015). CFI is a highly used model as it is least affected by sample size (Hu & Bentler,
1999). Furthermore, this index performs better when the sample size is relatively small (Chen,
2007).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

For examining the reliability of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out. For
confirmatory factor analysis, this study has utilized three different models based on the 15
items of the EMS Scale. The model I was unidimensional, containing all the 15 items. Model
II is based on the division of EMS scale as proposed by Fowers & Olson (1993). Model II
contained two factors; the first factor had ten items of marital satisfaction, and the second factor
had five items from the Idealistic Distortion scale. Model III included three factors; ten items
of the marital satisfaction scale were divided into two separate factors of equal half of five
items, and the third factor was that of Idealistic Distortion. For model III, ten items of marital
satisfaction were divided into two factors, namely, Happiness and Dissatisfaction.
 Table 2: Distribution of items of ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale based on various
models
Model I Model II (Two factors) Model III (Three factors)
(Unidimensional)
Marital Idealistic Happiness Dissatisfaction Idealistic
Satisfaction Distortion Distortion
OMS 1 OMS 2 OMS 1 OMS 3 OMS 2 OMS 1
OMS 2 OMS 3 OMS 4 OMS 7 OMS 5 OMS 4
OMS 3 OMS 5 OMS 6 OMS 10 OMS 8 OMS 6
OMS 4 OMS 7 OMS 9 OMS 11 OMS 12 OMS 9
OMS 5 OMS 8 OMS 13 OMS 15 OMS 14 OMS 13
OMS 6 OMS 10
OMS 7 OMS 11
OMS 8 OMS 12
OMS 9 OMS 14
OMS 10 OMS 15
OMS 11
OMS 12
OMS 13
OMS 14
OMS 15

Results:
Descriptive Findings:
Table 3 presents the descriptive findings of the study population. The mean age was 21.83
(S.D. = 1.77) years in Lalitpur and 22.30 (S.D. = 1.64) years in Shrawasti. Overall, the mean
age was 22.06 (S.D. = 1.72) years. The mean age at marriage of the male in Lalitpur was 17.95
(S.D. = 1.69) years 18.11 (S.D. = 1.61) years in Shrawasti. The overall mean age at marriage
was 18.03 (S.D. = 1.65) years. Nearly one-fifth (20.7%) of the males in Lalitpur and one-fourth
(25.3%) of the males in Shrawasti were illiterate. Overall, nearly 23 percent of the respondents
were illiterate. Around 80 percent of the respondent belonged to the Hindu religion, which is
almost equal to the Hindu population in the country. Around 20 percent of the population
belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.

Table 4 presents the results from the correlation matrix of 15 items unidirectional ENRICH
Marital Satisfaction Scale with inter-item reliability and the value of Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. This correlation matrix presents the statistical measure of association between 15
items of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale. Inter-item reliability refers to the extent of
consistency between multiple items of the same scale, or in other words, items measuring the
same construct. OMS 1 shows the highest correlation with OMS 3 (0.8991) and the lowest
correlation with OMS 12 (0.5597). Similarly, OMS 2 shows the highest correlation with OMS
3 (0.8603) and the lowest correlation with OMS 12 (0.5071). The inter-item correlation was
highest between OMS 1 and OMS 3 (0.8991), whereas the lowest inter-item correlation was
found between OMS 8 and OMS 12 (0.4617). The average inter-item correlation was 0.691.
The reliability of the scale was measured through Cronbach’s alpha test. The Cronbach’s alpha
reliability was highest for OMS 9 (0.959) and lowest for OMS 12 (0.921). Table 2 found an
overall alpha value of 0.936 for the male married below 21 years of age in Lalitpur and
Shrawasti districts. The value of alpha depicts the acceptable internal consistency for all the
groups, and a value of 0.936 is good enough to conclude that the results are reliable.

Table 5 depicts the characteristics of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale by various models
used in the study. Model 2 has two factors: marital satisfaction and idealistic distortion,
whereas model 3 is based on three factors: happiness, Dissatisfaction, and Idealistic Distortion.
For model 1, the result found that the mean score of marital satisfaction was 29.92 (S.D. = 3)
with a range value of 21-40. The mean score of Idealistic Distortion was 15.61 (S.D. = 4.24),
with a range value between 5 and 23. Model 3 differentiates marital satisfaction into two
factors, namely, Happiness and Dissatisfaction. The mean score of happiness was 17.81 (S.D.
= 6.53), and the mean score of Dissatisfaction was 12.11 (S.D. = 5.97).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

Table 6 shows the result for the goodness of fit for the three models estimated in this study.
Model I was unidimensional, Model II had two factors (Marital Satisfaction and Idealistic
Distortion), and model III contained three factors (Happiness, Dissatisfaction, and Idealistic
Distortion). The RMSEA value was lowest in model III (0.071) and highest in model I (0.111).
RMSEA value less than 0.07 is generally accepted as a model fit value, so model III is the best
fit as per RMSEA value in all the three models. The lower value of AIC and BIC indicates the
best fit, and model III has the lowest AIC and BIC values than the remaining two models. A
higher CFI value predicts the best fit, and generally, a value above 0.97 is taken cut-off point
for a model to be the best fit. Results found that the CFI value was largest in model III (0.971),
and in the other two models, the CFI value was lower than the cut-off point. The acceptable
value of TLI is 0.95, and model III had the TLI value of 0.969. SRMR value is another indicator
showing the goodness of fit of a model. A value closer to 0 depicts the best fit. The value of
SRMR was lowest in model III (0.021) and highest in model I (0.032). The result concluded
that model III was the best-fitted model in this study.

Figure 1 depicts the standardized factor loadings and between-factor correlations of Idealistic
distortion items and Marital Satisfaction items. The factor loadings ranged from -0.94 to 0.94.
The Idealistic Distortion items had a higher correlation that ranged from 0.70 to 0.95 with an
item that shows a negative correlation (OMS 9 has a negative correlation of value -0.81). The
correlation between Martial Satisfaction items ranged from -0.81 to 0.88. Factor 1 includes
Idealistic Distortion items, and factor 2 includes Marital Satisfaction items; the correlation
between factor 1 and factor 2 was 0.93.

Figure 2 depicts the standardized factor loadings and factor correlation of model III, which has
three factors, namely, Idealistic Distortion, Happiness, and Dissatisfaction. The factor loading
in model III ranged from -0.82 to 0.96. The highest (OMS 6), as well as lowest (OMS 9) factor
loadings, belong to the Idealistic Distortion factor. The factor loadings of the happiness factor
ranged between 0.81 to 0.94, and factor loadings of the Dissatisfaction factor ranged from 0.62
to 0.89. The result shows a strong relationship between all three factors in this model. The
correlation between factor 1 (Idealistic Distortion) and factor 2 (Happiness) was 0.94, and the
correlation between factor 2 (Happiness) and factor 3 (Dissatisfaction) was 0.92. The highest
correlation was observed between factor 1 (Idealistic Distortion) and factor 3 (Dissatisfaction);
the correlation between factor 1 and factor 3 was 0.96.

Discussion:
This paper intended to examine the reliability and factor structure of the ENRICH marital
satisfaction scale for males who were married early in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. ENRICH
marital satisfaction scale is one of the most reliable and widely used scales to measure marital
satisfaction (Nouri et al., 2019). Furthermore, the ENRICH scale has been translated into
various languages across many settings (Atta et al., 2013). This scale has applicability in
measuring marital satisfaction for individuals (male or female separately) as well as for couples
(Fowers & Olson, 1989). This study intends to measure marital satisfaction for only males
(individual entities) and not for couples.
The Cronbach alpha reliability was used to examine internal consistency reliability. The result
found that the average Cronbach alpha reliability of the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale was
0.936 for the study population. Studies have highlighted that a value above 0.90 for Cronbach
alpha is considered as an excellent value (Streiner, 2003; Sharma, 2016; Taber; 2018).
Therefore, it can be assumed that the value of Cronbach alpha is indicating excellent reliability
of the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale on the study population. Furthermore, results found
that the average inter-item reliability of the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale was 0.691 for
the study population. An inter-item correlation shall be above 0.30 and below 0.80 to be
considered as the best fit. The value of inter-item correlation in this study is within the
acceptable limit and signifies that the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale is reliable on the study
population. The correlation between various factors in model III more than 0.90, which depicts
a good fit. The overall outcome of the evaluation in this study was similar to that of the original
American evaluation (Fowers & Olson, 1989).

This study used confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of ENRICH marital
satisfaction scale by employing three models. This study examined various indices, namely;
RMSEA, AIC, BIC, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. Based on the above indices, the results confirmed
that model I (unidimensional model) was the poorest fit, and model III was the best fit. A study
confirmed that a value of 0.05 should be the closing point for the goodness of fit for SRMR
value (Hu & Bentler, 1999). However, the value of SRMR was less than 0.05 in all the three
models, but it was least in model III, so the lowest value of SRMR in model III indicates the
best fit. For RMSEA, a cut-off value of 0.07 shall be taken as the best fit (Steiger, 2007).
Results found that model III has the value 0.071, which is well within the acceptable limit of
the RMSEA index. The RMSEA value of model I and model II was beyond the acceptable
limit, so again result proved that model III was the best fit. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was
another important index used in this study. The CFI value of more than 0.97 is generally taken
as a value predicting the best fit (Cangur & Ercan, 2015). The value of CFI in model III (0.971)
was within the acceptable limit, and the value of CFI in model I (0.936) and model II (0.938)
was lesser than the required cut-off value. For other indices such as AIC, BIC, and TLI, model
III was the best fit than the model I or model II. It is evidently found in the study that model
III is the best fit model.

Strengths and Limitations:

It is, however, desirable to have larger sample size for evaluating the reliability of a scale but
previously many studies evaluated ENRICH scale with a lesser sample than in this study
(Wadsby, 1998; Arab, Nakhaee, & Khanjani, 2015; Masoumi et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is
confirmed that confirmatory analysis could be run for a sample as low as 200 individuals
(Mundfrom, Shaw, & Ke, 2005). One of the potential limitations involves a lack of
generalizability. Since the current sample was taken from the rural population of two districts
from Uttar Pradesh, India, it is not fair to generalize the applicability to the whole Indian
population. The sample was not representative of the more significant population, and this
could be rectified in future research. However, with various limitations, this study has some
potential strengths too. This is the first study that has examined the reliability of ENRICH
marital satisfaction scale in the Indian context. Furthermore, this study has measured reliability
with the Cronbach alpha test, which is valid when the items are on the Likert scale (Kashyap
& Singh, 2017).

Conclusion:
The results from this study showed that the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale is reliable in
measuring marital satisfaction among males married at an early age in rural India. In model III,
all three factors were strongly correlated. Factor structure shows that model III with three
factors, namely Idealistic Distortion, Happiness, and Dissatisfaction was the best fit model in
measuring marital satisfaction among the study population. Previously, such studies in the
Indian context were not undertaken, so this study adds significant information to the literature
gap. Regarding the satisfactory reliability of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, this scale
could be useful in research settings in measuring marital satisfaction among men in rural India.
References:
Akinnawo, O. E., Akpunne, B. C., Ahmed, K. A., & Bello, I. B. (2019). Marital Satisfaction
and Job Commitment of Nigerian Nurses: Implications for Family Value System. Asian
Journal of Research in Nursing and Health, 2(2), 1-9.

Arab, A. A., Nakhaee, N., & Khanjani, N. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Persian
versions of the ENRICH marital satisfaction (brief version) and Kansas Marital Satisfaction
Scales. Journal of Health and Development, 4(2), 158-167.

Atta, M., Adil, A., Shujja, S., & Shakir, S. (2013). Role of trust in marital satisfaction among
single and dual-career couples. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2(4),
53-62.

Bulanda, J. R., Brown, J. S., & Yamashita, T. (2016). Marital quality, marital dissolution, and
mortality risk during the later life course. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 119-127.

Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation
modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1),
152-167.

Cavanaugh, J. E., & Neath, A. A. (1999). Generalizing the derivation of the Schwarz
information criterion. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 28(1), 49-66.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement

invariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504.

Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of
indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit
indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 119-143.

Dovina, D. T., & Karunanidhi, S. (2017). Development and validation of Marital Expectations
Scale. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 636-638.

Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH Marital Inventory: A discriminant validity and
cross‐validation assessment. Journal of marital and family therapy, 15(1), 65-79.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A Brief Research
and Clinical Tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-
3200.7.2.176

Gasbarrini, M. F., & Snyder, D. K. (2017). Marital Satisfaction Inventory: Revised. Lebow J.,
Chambers A., & Breunlin D. (eds.) In Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy (pp. 1-5).
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-3-319-15877-8

Hajihasani, M., & Sim, T. (2019). Marital satisfaction among girls with early marriage in Iran:
Emotional intelligence and religious orientation. International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 24(3), 297-306.

Haris, F., & Kumar, A. (2018). Marital satisfaction and communication skills among married
couples. Indian journal of social research, 59(1), 35-44.

Hendrick, S.S. (1988) `A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction', Journal of Marriage

and the Family 50: 93-98.

Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for

determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a
multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Hudson, W.W. (1982). Index of marital satisfaction. The Clinical measurement package. A
field manual, Chicago Dorsey Press.

Jackson, G. L., Krull, J. L., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2017). Household income and
trajectories of marital satisfaction in early marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(3),
690-704.

Jaiswal, P., Jilani, A. Q., Shukla, D., Dalal, P. K., Tripathi, A., Singh, S., & Jain, S. (2016).
Marital quality and its relation with depression: A case-control study. International Journal of
Advances in Medicine, 3(3), 591.

Kashyap, G. C., & Singh, S. K. (2017). Reliability and validity of general health questionnaire
(GHQ-12) for male tannery workers: a study carried out in Kanpur, India. BMC
psychiatry, 17(102), 1-7.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their
reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological methods, 1(2),
130-139.

Masoumi, S. Z., Garousian, M., Khani, S., Oliaei, S. R., & Shayan, A. (2016). Comparison of
quality of life, sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction between fertile and infertile
couples. International journal of fertility & sterility, 10(3), 290.

McLeland, K. C., & Sutton, G. W. (2005). Military Service, Marital Status, and Men's
Relationship Satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 3(3), 177-182.

McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associations among
relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85-97.

Mukherjee, P., Chaudhuri, A., & De, S. (2016). Contributory Factors of Marital Quality for
Joint and Nuclear Family Setup: A Study on Urban Couples. Indian Journal of Community
Psychology, 12(2), 318.

Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations
for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 45,141–151.

Nouri, M., Kebria, M. H., Ahmadianfar, F., & Khosravi, A. (2019). Marital Satisfaction and
Related Factors among Married Women. International Journal of Health Studies, 83(2), 183-
190.

Pandya, S. P. (2019). Marital satisfaction of highly qualified professionally achieving women

post-retirement: the urban Indian scenario. Journal of Family Studies, 25(1), 61-78.

Roach, A.J., Frazier, L.P., & Bowden, S.R. (1981). The Marital Satisfaction Scale:
Development of a Measure for Intervention Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(3),
537-546.
Schumm, W. A., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics
of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers.
Psychological Reports, 53, 567–572.

Sharma, B. (2016). A focus on reliability in developmental research through Cronbach’s Alpha

among medical, dental and paramedical professionals. Asian Pacific Journal of Health
Sciences, 3(4), 271-278.

Sheykhi, M. T. (2020). Worldwide Increasing Divorce Rates: A Sociological

Analysis. Konfrontasi: Jurnal Kultural, Ekonomi Dan Perubahan Sosial, 7(2), 116-123.

Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Groyecka, A., Frackowiak, T., Cantarero, K., Hilpert, P., &
Bettache, K. (2017). Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of
children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33
countries. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1199.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 82(4), 825-839.

Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural

equation modeling. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 893-898.

Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and

internal consistency. Journal of personality assessment, 80(1), 99-103.

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296.

Thadathil, A., & Sriram, S. (2020). Divorce, Families and Adolescents in India: A Review of
Research. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(1), 1-21.

Troxel, W. M., Braithwaite, S. R., Sandberg, J. G., & Holt-Lunstad, J. (2017). Does improving
marital quality improve sleep? Results from a marital therapy trial. Behavioral sleep
medicine, 15(4), 330-343.
Velotti, P., Balzarotti, S., Tagliabue, S., English, T., Zavattini, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2016).
Emotional suppression in early marriage: Actor, partner, and similarity effects on marital
quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 277-302.

Vishwas, H. N., Reddy, J. S., Katravath, P. K., Kumar, N., Posanpally, P. K. B., &
Gattikoppula, H. (2017). Translation and Validation of Telugu Version of Marital Satisfaction
Scale (T-MSS). Indian Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 10(1), 50-58.

Wadsby, M. (1998). Evaluation of the Swedish version of the ENRICH Marital

Inventory. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 52(5), 379-388.

Ziaee, T., Jannati, Y., Mobasheri, E., Taghavi, T., Abdollahi, H., Modanloo, M., &
Behnampour, N. (2014). The relationship between marital and sexual satisfaction among
married women employees at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Iranian journal
of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, 8(2), 44-51.
Table 3: Socio-economic Characteristics of Male who married below 21 years of
age in Lalitpur and Shrawasti districts, Uttar Pradesh, India, 2019
Variables Lalitpur Shrawasti Total
% Number % Number % Number
Mean Age at Marriage 17.95 174 18.11 174 18.03 348
(±1.69) (±1.61) (±1.65)
Current Mean Age 21.83 174 22.30 174 22.06 348
(±1.77) (±1.64) (±1.72)
Education
Illiterate 20.7 36 25.3 44 23 80
Upto Primary 9.8 17 14.9 26 12.4 43
Upto Secondary 31.6 55 25.9 45 28.7 100
Upto Higher 21.8 38 23 40 22.4 78
secondary
Higher secondary and 16.1 28 10.9 19 13.5 47
above
Religion
Hindu 90.2 157 69.5 121 79.9 278
Non-Hindu 9.8 17 30.5 53 20.1 70
Caste
SC/ST 34.5 60 5.2 9 19.8 69
Non-SC/ST 65.5 114 94.8 165 80.2 279
Table 4: Correlation between items in ENRICH marital satisfaction scale (Inter-item reliability)
Cronbach’s alpha
oms01 oms02 oms03 oms04 oms05 oms06 oms07 oms08 oms09 oms10 oms11 oms12 oms13 oms14 oms15
Reliability a
oms01 1 0.9469
oms02 0.8244 1 0.9381
oms03 0.8991 0.8603 1 0.9269
oms04 0.8127 0.718 0.8105 1 0.9384
oms05 0.7945 0.7933 0.8015 0.7912 1 0.9383
oms06 0.8931 0.8023 0.886 0.8455 0.8197 1 0.9266
oms07 0.8833 0.8105 0.8758 0.8055 0.7707 0.8783 1 0.9373
oms08 0.6365 0.5877 0.6357 0.5647 0.6088 0.6726 0.5813 1 0.9414
oms09 0.7634 0.6807 0.7355 0.6799 0.6898 0.7674 0.7321 0.5068 1 0.959
oms10 0.8253 0.7321 0.8318 0.7648 0.7402 0.8607 0.8114 0.6636 0.7483 1 0.9273
oms11 0.7322 0.6877 0.7239 0.6459 0.6622 0.7207 0.7327 0.4907 0.6866 0.7144 1 0.9293
oms12 0.5597 0.5071 0.5392 0.464 0.5078 0.5793 0.5404 0.4617 0.5418 0.6126 0.5599 1 0.921
oms13 0.6226 0.5864 0.6366 0.5857 0.5567 0.6826 0.6054 0.4742 0.56 0.6784 0.5268 0.4835 1 0.931
oms14 0.6686 0.6582 0.7219 0.5898 0.6378 0.6823 0.6716 0.4925 0.6682 0.7107 0.6593 0.5669 0.5206 1 0.9296
oms15 0.7507 0.7524 0.7803 0.6932 0.6791 0.7661 0.7283 0.5917 0.7223 0.7741 0.6948 0.5693 0.6374 0.7409 1 0.9483
a
Average inter-item reliability: 0.691; Cronbach’s α coefficient: 0.936
 Table 5: Characteristics for the ENRICH marital satisfaction scale and Idealistic Distortion
Scale (n=348)
MODEL 2
Mean S.D. Range
Marital satisfaction 29.92 3 21-40
15.61
Idealistic Distortion 4.24 5-23
MODEL 3
Happiness 17.81 6.53 5-25
Dissatisfaction 12.11 5.97 4-25
Idealistic Distortion 15.61 4.24 5-23

Table 6: Goodness-of-fit of three confirmatory factor analysis models (N = 348)

Model I Model 2 Model 3
RMSEA 0.111 0.088 0.071
AIC 9919.3 9912.3 9900.1
BIC 10078.4 10075 10069.9
CFI 0.936 0.938 0.971
TLI 0.925 0.927 0.969
SRMR 0.032 0.031 0.021
Figure 1: Standardized factor loadings and between-factor correlations between model I
and model II

OMS 2

.88
OMS 3

-.94 OMS 5
OMS 1
.85 OMS 7
.94 .93
OMS 4 -.92
.87 OMS 8
OMS 6 Idealistic Marital .7
.95 Distortion OMS 10
Satisfaction -.89
OMS 9
-.81 -.81 OMS 11
OMS 13
.70 .62 OMS 12

.77
OMS 14
-.86
OMS 15
Figure 2: Standardized factor loadings and between-factor correlations for model III.

OMS 1

.94
OMS 4

.87
OMS 6 Idealistic
.96 Distortion
OMS 9 -.82

.70
OMS 13
0.94
OMS 3

OMS 7 .94
.92
Happiness
OMS 10 .88
0.96
.81
OMS 11 .85

OMS 15
0.92

OMS 2

OMS 5 .89
.85
OMS 8 Dissatisfaction
.70

OMS 12 .62
.78

OMS 14