Factor Structure of ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in Pakistani Culture

The aim of the research is to examining the psychometric properties of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction scale by using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, which had been established for western married couples. The EMS was developed by Fowers and Olson (1993), which measures marital satisfaction and idealistic distortion. The data was gathered from six distinct Punjab’ cities. The study 1 included a total of 280 participants, 119 working married women (42.5%) and 161 non-working married women (57.5%) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and study II included 206 participants, 130 working married women (63.11%) and 76 non-working married women (36.89%) employing confirmatory factor analysis. The final structure of the scale utilizing the common factor analysis approach with two factors, one factors containing all the positive items and other factor containing all the negative items. The reliability of overall scale was α = .89, the first factor α = .91 and the other factor α = .77. To validate the factor's structure, the CFA was performed on a new sample (n = 206). The CFA showed that the two-factor solution of this scale, with values of χ2 (84) = 171.38, χ2/df = 2.04; RMSEA =.06; normed fit index (NFI) = .91; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .94 confirmatory fit index (CFI) = .95; incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .95 had a satisfactory model fit. For intervention study and marital counseling, it is important to highlight negative aspects of marriage which was previously not considered by EMS.

Marriage is said to be the sharing of love, affection, emotional support, loyalty, stability, security, romantic, sexual fulfillment, companionship and wellbeing between two partners. Marital satisfaction as an individual’s subjective evaluation of the overall quality of their marital relationship, shaped by emotional intimacy, communication, mutual support, and perceived fairness between partners (Karney & Bradbury, 2020 ). Studies emphasize that marital satisfaction is dynamic rather than static, changing over time in response to personal, relational, and contextual stressors (Lavner et al., 2016 ).

Similarly, marital compatibility is now understood as a multidimensional construct encompassing harmony, adaptability, mutual respect, and effective conflict management, rather than mere agreement on roles or tasks (Bodenmann et al., 2015 ). Empirical evidence suggests that couples who perceive greater emotional responsiveness, validation, and equitable partnership report higher marital satisfaction and stability (Neff & Karney, 2017 ; Randall & Bodenmann, 2017 ). Maritalompatibility includes the aspects of harmony, satisfaction and adjustment. Marital disharmony refers to persistent difficulties in managing and resolving conflicts, marked by ineffective communication, misinterpretation of a partner’s intentions, heightened emotional reactivity, and the tendency for minor disagreements to escalate into recurring or intense disputes (Lavner et al., 2014 ; Overall et al., 2013 ).

Research conceptualizes marital quality as a multidimensional construct that reflects both partners’ global evaluations of the relationship and specific interaction such as intimacy, communication, conflict resolution, and emotional support (Haghighi et al., 2024 ; Robles et al., 2014 ). Systematic reviews highlight that modern marital quality measures integrate evaluative and behavioral components including relationship satisfaction, agreement on key issues, companionship, and adaptive coping (Allendorf & Ghimire, 2013 ; Robles et al., 2014 ). Current measurement approaches emphasize theoretical foundations, construct validity, and cross-cultural relevance, ensuring that scales capture both positive and negative dimensions of relationship functioning and align with contemporary dyadic frameworks such as the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation model, which integrates enduring vulnerabilities, stress, and adaptive processes to explain variations in marital quality and stability (Haghighi et al., 2024 ; Karney & Bradbury, 2020 ; Robles et al., 2014 ).

Shabbir (2019) and Iqbal (2013) translated the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction scale by Fowers and Olson (1993) , for Pakistani married couples. However, this scale taps marital satisfaction in general terms and idealistic distortion subscale composes a marital conventionalization scale to overcome the propensity to embrace too flattering descriptions of the marriage. Conventionalization, as the tendency to present one’s marriage in an overly positive or socially desirable manner, remains a critical methodological concern in the assessment of marital quality. Contemporary research recognizes that self-report measures of marital quality are susceptible to social desirability bias, particularly in cultures where marriage is highly valued and marital problems are stigmatized (Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2013 ; Randall & Bodenmann, 2017 ). Empirical studies demonstrate that marital quality indicators such as satisfaction, adjustment, and commitment continue to show significant associations with socially desirable responding, underscoring the importance of accounting for conventionalization effects in both research and clinical assessment (Fisher & McNulty, 2008 ; Hudson et al., 2020 ).

The cultural, religious, linguistic, and geographical heterogeneity in this globe is immense. It must be modified to account for the peculiarities of the target culture's beliefs, language, and ethnicity if an instrument constructed in one cultural context is to be utilized in another. There is always a demand for scales that are valid and reliable across cultures (Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011 ; Widenfelt et al., 2005 ). Given the scale of the target population, it is a suitable approach. When modifying a scale, slang phrases, confusing language, double-barreled phrases and time adverbs should all be avoided, according to (Brislin et al., 1973 ).

Contemporary psychometric literature emphasizes that the existence or frequent use of a measure does not guarantee its structural validity across contexts, populations, or time. Factor structures established in earlier studies often conducted decades ago and predominantly in Western cultural settings may not replicate when instruments are applied to different cultural, linguistic, or socio-demographic groups (Bornstein & Putnick, 2016 ; Celenk et al., 2011 ). Changes in social norms, relationship expectations, and response styles further necessitate re-evaluating the dimensionality of established marital constructs (Karney & Bradbury, 2020 ). Recent methodological research underscores that failing to reassess factor structure risks construct underrepresentation, measurement bias, and inaccurate interpretation of findings, particularly in non-Western samples (Flake et al., 2017 ; Marsh et al., 2020 ).

Studies conducted in Pakistan demonstrate that marital satisfaction is deeply embedded in collectivistic values, extended family involvement, gendered role expectations, religious norms, and socio-cultural obligations, which are not fully captured by Western instruments conceptualized within individualistic frameworks (Hussain & Gulzar, 2015 ; Jauhar et al., 2024 ; Malik, 2025 ). Indigenous researchers have reported culturally specific dimensions of marital functioning such as in-law relationships, obedience norms, family honor, and religious compatibility that significantly predict marital satisfaction in Pakistani couples but are underrepresented or absent in ENRICH and similar scales (Batool & Khalid, 2012 ). Moreover, several Pakistani and South Asian studies have explicitly called for psychometric re-evaluation and contextual adaptation of marital satisfaction measures, noting inconsistent factor structures, differential item functioning, and social desirability effects when Western tools are administered to indigenous populations (Khalid & Frieze, 2004 ; Anjum & Batool, 2017 ). Research comparing locally developed marital satisfaction measures with imported scales has shown that indigenous instruments often demonstrate superior cultural sensitivity and explanatory power for marital adjustment and harmony (Batool et al., 2017 ; Shafiq & Naz, 2023 ).

In line with contemporary psychometric standards and indigenous scholarship, the present study therefore considers it essential to appraise the factor structure of the existing scale within the Pakistani context to ensure cultural relevance, conceptual validity, and accurate interpretation of marital satisfaction.

Despite the widespread use of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in marital research, evidence suggests that factor structures established in Western populations may not be invariant across cultural contexts, particularly in collectivistic societies such as Pakistan where marital roles, family systems, and relational expectations differ substantially (Celenk et al., 2011 ; Bornstein et al., 2023 ). Indigenous studies from Pakistan have highlighted culturally specific determinants of marital satisfaction, including extended family involvement, gender-role norms, and social desirability influences, which are insufficiently represented in imported measures (Batool & Khalid, 2012 ; Naz & Malik, 2018 ). Contemporary psychometric guidelines emphasize that assuming structural validity without empirical verification risks construct misrepresentation and biased conclusions (Flake et al., 2017 ; Marsh et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the present study aims to re-examine the factor structure of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale within a Pakistani sample to ensure its cultural relevance, conceptual clarity, and psychometric adequacy for local research and clinical application.

Method

To establish the factor structure of the marital satisfaction scale within the local cultural context, the present study was conducted in systematically devised phases following contemporary psychometric guidelines. In the first phase, data were collected from an initial sample to examine the underlying dimensionality of the scale using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In the second phase, the emergent factor structure was cross-validated on an independent sample through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess model fit and structural stability. Finally, reliability and validity indices were examined to evaluate the internal consistency and construct adequacy of the finalized model.

Phase 1

The study's goals were to create the factor structure of Enrich marital satisfaction scale and to psychometrically validate the tool to demonstrate its usefulness in our society.

Sample Characteristics

A total of 280 out of 296 respondents participated in the study, comprising 119 working and 161 non-working married women (mean age = 22.47 years, SD = 2.89). The income range of working married women wasbetween 35,000 –55,000 rp. The distribution of the sample across different cities was determined primarily by convenience and feasibility, taking into account the researchers’ access to participants and logistical considerations e.g, Gujranwala (n = 102), Sialkot (n = 88), Narowal (n = 78), Mandibahudin (n = 2), Rawalpindi (n = 4) and Lahore (n = 6). On the basis of purposive convenience sampling techniques, inclusion criteria included being married for within or maximum of seven years and having at least one child, while women whose husbands were residing abroad were excluded from the study. Before the assessment, signed informed consent was sought. Most of the people in the sample have matric level education (40.3%) followed by intermediate (23.6%), graduation (18.2%), masters (16.1%) and others (1.8%). Most of the married women live in joint family system (74.6%) and their marriage was arranged. A small proportion of participants (13.9%) reported that their marriage was not according to their choice

ENRICH arital Satisfaction Scale

A 5-point Likert scale is used to evaluate a person overall personal assessment and level of satisfaction with his or her marriage (Fowers & Olson, 1989 ). The original scale English version comprised of 15 items in which 9 items (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15) were comprised of positive statements. Additionally, negative or reverse score items made up 6 of the items (2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14). Two factors make up the Enrich marital satisfaction scale. Idealistic distortion contained primarily 5 items (1, 4, 6, 9, 13) and marital satisfaction comprised of 10 items (2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15).

Psychometric studies in diverse cultural contexts have also demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability for the EMS, with overall internal consistency values ranging from α = .84 to .87 in Portuguese samples (Nunes et al., 2022 ) and α = .74 in Persian adaptations (Banifatemeh et al., 2025 ), supporting the continued use of the two-factor structure across populations The growth of socio-cultural life raises the prospect of people's perspectives changing, thus it was necessary to check the preexisting factors using confirmatory factor analysis.

Procedure

After obtaining ethical approval, data were collected through individual administration of the self-report questionnaire. Participants were provided standardized instructions and completed the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in a quiet setting at their convenience. In addition to informed consent, ethical safeguards included assurance of confidentiality and anonymity, the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty, and the absence of any identifying information on the questionnaires. Participants were also informed that the data would be used solely for research purposes and stored securely to ensure privacy and ethical compliance.

Results

For the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, the researcher conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with AMOS in the current study, but the estimate of the indices revealed a poor model fit. IFI =.87; NFI =.84; RFI =.79; TLI =.82; CFI =.86; RMSEA =.10 were the values for the default model. Even after including all of the error covariances, the model is still inappropriate (IFI = .90; NFI = .86; RFI = .82; TLI = .87; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .09). Therefore, it was crucial to investigate the Enrich marital satisfaction scale's factor structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was initially conducted to test whether the established factor structure of the scale adequately fit the present data; however, the model failed to demonstrate acceptable fit indices even after theoretically justified covariance modifications. Consistent with psychometric best practices, EFA was therefore undertaken to identify a data-driven factor structure more appropriate for the current sample and cultural context. Another main standard for analyzing an instrument is its validity. It informs us if the scale gauges the concept under research accurately or not (Brains et al., 2011 ; Hair et al., 2006 ; Kramer et al., 2019 ; Zikmund et al., 2013 ).In order to determine whether a sample was appropriate, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, or KMO, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were both used. A KMO score of less than 0.5 is regarded as unsatisfactory (Kaiser, 1974 ). KMO for this test was .91, which is significantly higher than 0.5 and a similar statistical significance was found for Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p .001). Two factors were found in the analysis. The factors were maintained in accordance with the Eigenvalue rule, which states that the factors less than 1.0 should be eliminated (DeVellis, 2016 ).

Table 1: Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Direct Oblimin Rotation of Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale (N = 280)

Factor analysis is done on the data collected through a questionnaire which has 15 items about dimensions on EMS. Table shows the loading of 15 items on two components of ENRICH Marital Satisfaction scale. According to the specifications for EFA, the factor loadings for the 15 items were found to be more than .30. (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The items with factor loadings higher than .30 were retained. Table 3 reveals all the items converged on relevant factors.

Rotated Component Matrix

The exploratory factor analysis provided two constructs for the given 15 items instruments. A rotated component matrix is obtained by using direct oblimin rotation method whereas the extraction method is principal component analysis. According to the results for marital compatibility, items are bonded together on this dimension with factor loadings ranging from 0.65 to 0.84, of marital disharmony, on this dimension, items are grouped together with factor loadings ranging from 0.53 to 0.77. It was found that items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 clearly loaded on factor 1. Item no. 1, 4, 6 and 13 were loaded on factor 2 in the originally developed scale. While the other items like 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 14 were clearly weighed at factor 2. In the scale that was initially designed, these items were negatively scored. Among these items, item no. 2, 5, 8, 12 and 14 were loaded on factor 1 in the originally developed scale. As shown in Figure the point of inflexion is somewhere between factor 2 and 3; Consequently, two factors were extracted. Contrarily, the third factor did not appear to be shared by the other two factors, making it challenging to make any inferences about it.

The following titles were chosen after consulting the expert’ opinions including researcher herself and supervisor.

Marital Compatibility. The items included 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. These items show that people have compatibility in their marriages. The higher the score on this subscale, the more marital compatibility person have in their marriage.

Marital Disharmony. The items 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 14 were included to demonstrate the disharmony in marriage. The more disharmony in marriage reflects by the higher score on this subscale.

This analysis is performed by using Principal components analysis extraction method. According to the recommendation of the Hadi et al. (2016), communality ranged from .39 to .74, and the items with communality below 0.3 were eliminated. Items with communality lower than 0.3 and those with communality ranging from.39 to.74 were deleted. The EMS scale acquired both convergent validity and discriminant validity (Mohajan, 2017). The two obtained factors' cumulative variance was 54.03%. First factor, Eigen value, explained 42.03 percent of the variance, while second factor 12.00 percent.

As shown in the scree plot (figure 1), two components are having the Eigen value greater than one hence the results indicate that there are two distinct constructs in this instrument on which factors can be loaded.

Figure 1: Scree plot suggesting factors for ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale.

The scree plot shown in Figure 1 represents the two-factor EMS solution. Because all of the factors' Eigenvalues are very close to 1, the scree plot initially displays a steep curve, then a bend, and finally a horizontal line. Two components are having the Eigen value of greater than one hence the results indicate that there are two distinct constructs in this instrument on which factors can be loaded.

The exploratory factor analysis of the indicators suggested rearranging the constructs, especially for married women in Pakistan. Confirmatory Factor Analysis becomes crucial to validate the factor structure discovered by EFA. As a result, in the following chapter, CFA using AMOS 22 was used to confirm the factor structure that emerged from EFA.

Study II

A second study was carried out on an independent sample to examine and address the construct validity of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scaleithin the Pakistani setting and to psychometrically validate the instrument.

Participants

For study II, a separate sample included 206 participants; 130 working married women (63.11 %) and 76 non-working married women (36.89%) where confirmatory factor analysis was carried out. An independent sample was used to examine the alternative model (N = 206; age 19-37 years; M = 28.35, SD = 3.49). Sixty married women belong to Gujranwala, 91from Sialkot, 20 from Narowal, 10 from Mandibahaudin, 13 from Rawalpindi and 12 from Lahore. Majority of the participants have just one child (39.8%) and the mean age at marriage (M = 23.80, SD = 2.96). Most of the women have master level education (35.0%) followed by matric (22.8%), intermediate (18.0%), and graduation (15.5%). The same method for obtaining information was used as in research I.

Measures
                               
Modified ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale

The modified ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, derived from the EFA findings of Study I and used in Study II, comprises 15 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). It yields two subscales: Marital Compatibility, consisting of 9 positively worded items (Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15) with scores ranging from 9 to 45, where higher scores indicate greater harmony, understanding, and marital adjustment and vice versa; and Marital Disharmony, comprising 6 negatively worded items (Items 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14) with scores ranging from 6 to 30, where higher scores reflect greater conflict, dissatisfaction, and relational strain and vice versa. The total scale score ranges from 15 to 75, with higher scores representing greater overall marital satisfaction characterized by high compatibility and low disharmony, whereas lower scores indicate poorer marital satisfaction.

Procedure

A second confirmatory factor analysis (Alternative Model, Mi) was carried out in conjunction with the statistical analysis plan to ascertain whether the new factor structure, which was based on the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, either appropriate the data for the population in this study. Analyses were carried out in AMOS while visual routes were manually sketched on the graphic window.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

EFA was followed by the CFA to confirm the factor’s structure (Hu & Li, 2015). Following the recommendation of the new data set for CFA, a new sample (n = 206) was employed (Henson & Roberts, 2006; Hu & Li, 2015). Based on the initial criteria of factor loading > .30, all the items were examined. (Field, 2009). According to predetermined standards, items loading less than .30 were disqualified. It was discovered that every item had acceptable loadings, ranging from (λ = .51 to λ = .84). Error covariances were added within each subscale only to account for conceptual overlap among items measuring the same construct. Such theoretically justified within-factor error correlations are recommended in CFA to improve model fit without compromising construct validity (Besnoy et al., 2016; McCoach & Newton, 2016).

Figure 2: CFA Model of EMS Scale (N = 206)

Table 2: Model fit indices of CFA for of Urdu ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (N = 206)

Note. MI = default model of CFA for Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale with 2 factors; M2 = MI after adding covariance within factor.

The items' appropriateness was demonstrated by the regression weights being above .50 and as per the two-factor model of EMS, this model shows consistent behavior of being a good-fitting model. The error variables were combined because they indicated the various factors that contribute to both marital compatibility and marital disharmony (Figure 2). Indexes of model fit showed a good fit with χ2 (82) = 167.10; χ2/df = 2.04; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = .06; Confirmatory Fit Index = .95; Normed Fit Index  = .91; Tucker-Lewis index = .94; Incremental Fit Index = .95, p < .001.

Reliability Analysis
           
An additional criterion for determining an instrument's validity on a certain sample is its reliability indices. Estimates of internal consistency reliability were used for this purpose (Hair et al., 2006; Zikmund et al., 2013), employing the Cronbach Alpha coefficient approach, which is frequently evaluated. To confirm the accuracy of an instrument or scale, this technique looks at the degree to which the scale's items are supposed to measure. A value of < .60 impliesow reliability, with the Cronbach Alpha coefficient's range being 0 to 1 (Hair et al., 2006). A value of .70 to .80, however, denotes a high level of reliability (Zikmund et al., 2013).

Cronbach’s alpha was then determined for each of the two factors independently and for the entire set of 15 items. Cronbach's alpha for the two factors was higher than 0.70, as seen in Table 3. Similar to that, the overall scale's alpha was .89.

Table 3: Reliability Statistics of EMS Scale (N = 280)

Table 3 demonstrates that the two factors have a Cronbach's alpha higher than 0.70. Similar to that, the total scale's alpha was .89. Hence, reliability of the scale is satisfied.

Discussion

The present study sought to culturally adapt and psychometrically evaluate the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale for married women in Pakistan, with particular emphasis on examining its underlying factor structure. The emergence of a two-factor solution comprising marital compatibility and marital disharmony reflects a conceptually meaningful distinction between positive and negative dimensions of marital functioning. Contemporary relationship research increasingly recognizes marital satisfaction as a multidimensional construct that encompasses both adaptive and maladaptive processes rather than a single global evaluation of relationship quality (Karney & Bradbury, 2020; Lavner et al., 2016).

The identification of marital compatibility as a distinct factor underscores the importance of harmony, mutual understanding, and emotional adjustment in marital life. In collectivistic cultures such as Pakistan, marriage is embedded within extended family systems, religious norms, and social obligations, where patience, compromise, and role fulfillment are strongly emphasized (Batool & Khalid, 2012; Hussain & Gulzar, 2015). Accordingly, compatibility extends beyond personal satisfaction to include alignment with familial expectations and relational accommodation, explaining the coherent clustering of positively worded items and supporting indigenous South Asian findings that highlight harmony as a core component of marital satisfaction (Naz & Malik, 2018; Shafiq & Naz, 2023).

The emergence of marital disharmony as a separate factor reflects the presence of conflict, dissatisfaction, and relational strain as distinct marital experiences. In cultural contexts where marital problems are often concealed due to social stigma and family honor concerns, negative interactions may form a qualitatively different dimension rather than simply representing low compatibility (Anjum & Batool, 2017; Khalid & Frieze, 2004). This distinction is consistent with global literature demonstrating that positive and negative relationship processes function independently and differentially influence marital stability and psychological well-being (Fincham & Rogge, 2010; Karimi et al., 2019).
Within the framework of Vulnerability–Stress–Adaptation model, marital compatibility reflects adaptive relational processes, whereas marital disharmony captures stress responses and maladaptive interaction patterns (Karney & Bradbury, 2020). The present findings suggest that this theoretical model is applicable beyond Western settings and holds relevance for understanding marital dynamics in collectivistic societies. Cross-cultural psychometric studies similarly report that instruments assessing both positive and negative relational dimensions demonstrate construct validity compared to unidimensional measures of satisfaction (Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2013; Bornstein & Putnick, 2016).

Overall, the findings underscore the importance of culturally sensitive measurement in marital research. The two-factor structure obtained in the present study is supported by both indigenous scholarship and global theoretical frameworks, reinforcing the notion that marital satisfaction is best conceptualized as a balance between compatibility and disharmony. By explicitly incorporating negative marital experiences alongside positive relational qualities, the modified scale offers a more comprehensive and culturally grounded assessment of marital functioning.

Limitations and Suggestions
                                                                                                                       
Despite its contributions, the present study has certain limitations. The use of purposive convenience sampling and the inclusion of married women only may limit the representativeness and generalizability of the findings to the broader Pakistani population, particularly across diverse provinces, socio-economic strata, and marital arrangements. Marital satisfaction is a dyadic construct, and the exclusion of husbands restricts a comprehensive understanding of marital dynamics; therefore, future research should include married couples to capture reciprocal and interactive relationship processes. Additionally, although the scale was culturally adapted, its applicability remains confined to a single linguistic and national context. Future studies should examine the scale across different regional languages within Pakistan and validate it in other cultural settings to establish cross-cultural equivalence. Longitudinal designs and probability-based sampling approaches are also recommended to assess the stability of the factor structure over time and enhance the robustness and external validity of the findings.

Implications

The findings of this study have practical applications across clinical, counseling, and social work settings. The culturally modified marital satisfaction scale can help therapists and counselors assess marital compatibility and disharmony, guide targeted interventions, and monitor treatment outcomes. It can also inform preventive programs aimed at strengthening relationships and reducing family conflict. In research, the scale provides a validated tool for studying marital satisfaction in similar sociocultural contexts. Additionally, the results can support evidence-based family welfare initiatives and premarital counseling programs, promoting healthier and more stable marital relationships.

Conclusion

This research focused on the adaptation and validation of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, which was originally developed for White-American married couples. We adapted it in the context of Pakistani married women. The methodology, techniques, and assessments used in the process demonstrate that the adapted version with two factors is valid and trustworthy for gauging the targeted population's marital compatibility and disharmony. Therefore, the adapted EMS scale is appropriate for assessing Pakistani married women's marital satisfaction.

References

Allendorf, K., & Ghimire, D. J. (2013). Determinants of marital quality in an arranged marriage society. Social Science Research, 42(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.002

Anjum, W., & Batool, I. (2017). Translation and Cross Language Validation of Passionate Love Scale Among Adults in Lahore, Pakistan. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 11(2), 188-206. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.230

Banifatemeh, M. S., Sohrabi, F., & Hosseinsabet, F. (2025). The effectiveness of a group training program for enriching spousal relationships on marital adjustment, expectations, and goal orientation. International Journal of Systemic Therapy, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/2692398X.2025.2546603

Batool, I., Hussain, S., & Bajwa, R. S. (2017). Job satisfaction and marital adjustment among paramedical: mediating role of work family conflict. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 3(1), 61-74.  https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v3i1.37

Batool, S. S., & Khalid, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A predictor of marital quality in Pakistani couples. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 27(1). 65-88. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=328

Besnoy, K. D., Dantzler, J., Besnoy, L. R., & Byrne, C. (2016). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to measure construct validity of the Traits, Aptitudes, and Behaviors Scale (TABS). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624160

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Germann, J., Nussbeck, F. W., Heinrichs, M., & Bradbury, T. N. (2015). Effects of stress on the social support provided by men and women in intimate relationships. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1584-1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594616

Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2016). Mothers 'and fathers 'parenting practices with their daugters and sons in low-and middle-income countries. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 81(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12226

Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Esposito, G., & Pearson, R. M. (2023). The nature and structure of maternal parenting practices and infant behaviors in US national and international samples. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2, 1124037. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2023.1124037

Brains, C., Willnat, L., Manheim, J., & Rich, R. (2011). Empirical political analysis. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315109664

Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597608247359

Celenk, O., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2013). What makes couples happy? Marital and life satisfaction among ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1275-1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113486003

Celenk, O., Van de Vijver, F. J., & Goodwin, R. (2011). Relationship satisfaction among Turkish and British adults. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,35(5), 628-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.013

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications Ltd.

Fisher, T. D., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: Mediating role played by the sexual relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 112-122.  

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1989.tb00777.x

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

Fincham, F. D., & Rogge, R. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 227-242.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x

Hadi, N. U., Abdullah, N., & Sentosa, I. (2016). An easy approach to exploratory factor analysis: Marketing perspective. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(1), 215-223.

Haghighi, P., Littler, E. A., Mauer-Vakil, D., Miller, M., & Oremus, M. (2024). Exploring the relationship between marital quality and cognitive function: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 355, 117-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117120

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson. ISBN: 0135153093.

Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485

Hu, Z., & Li, J. (2015). The integration of EFA and CFA: One method of evaluating the construct validity. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 15(6), 15-19. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/ view/1354

Hudson, N. W., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2020). The highs and lows of love: Romantic relationship quality moderates whether spending time with one’s partner predicts gains or losses in well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 572-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219867960

Hussain, W., & Gulzar, A. (2015). The psychosocial preferences in mate selection among Pakistanis. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 29-31. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:209436566.

Iqbal, N. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Urdu version of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 23(1), 45-60.

Jauhar, A. A., e Sameen, D., & Riaz, S. (2024). Role of demographic characteristics in predicting psychological burden and marital satisfaction among diabetic patients. Bulletin of Business and Economics, 13(2), 677-683. https://doi.org/10.61506/01.00378

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 100-116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12635

Karimi, R., Bakhtiyari, M., & Arani, A. M. (2019). Protective factors of marital stability in long-term marriage globally: A systematic review. Epidemiology and Health, 41, e2019023. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2019023

Khalid, R., & Frieze, I. H. (2004). Measuring perceptions of gender roles: The IAWS for Pakistanis and U.S immigrant populations. Sex Roles, 51, 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000046613.99273.22

Kramer, G. P., Bernstein, D. A., & Phares, V. (2019). Introduction to clinical psychology (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 1108705146

Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2014). Relationship problems over the early years of marriage: Stability or change? Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 979-985. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037752

Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples' communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680-694.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301

Malik, N. A. (2025). Divorce and second marriage in Pakistan: A sociocultural and psychological perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 45(2), 167-169.

Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., & Craven, R. G. (2020). Confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory structural equation modeling, and set-ESEM: Optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55(1), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503

Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59-82. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83458/

McCoach, D. B., & Newton, S. D. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press.

Naz, S., & Malik, N. (2018). Domestic violence and psychological well-being of survivor women in Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 9(2), 184-189. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2018.09.00519

Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room: How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013

Nunes, C., Martins, C., Leal, A., Pechorro, P., Ferreira, L. I., & Ayala-Nunes, L. (2022). The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction (EMS) Scale: A psychometric study in a sample of Portuguese parents. Social Sciences, 11(3), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11030107

Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854-871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031798

Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Shafiq, S., & Naz, I. (2023). Development and psychometric properties for scale of marital intimacy in couples. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(4), 4711-4720. https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2023.v11i4.1949

Shabbir, S. (2019). Translation and validation of the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale in Urdu. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 34(2), 321-336.

Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x

Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D., De Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1

Zikmund, W. G., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781285202068

Received 31 October 2023
Revision received 09 January 2026