Adaptation of the Relationship Quality Scale into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

The purpose of this study is to adapt the Relationship Quality Scale, developed by Chonody and colleagues (2018), into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties in a sample of emerging adults in Turkey. The study included a total of 542 students (273 women and 269 men) aged 19–29 years who were studying at a state university in Turkey. In addition to the Relationship Quality Scale, the Self-Efficacy in Romantic Relationships Scale, the Perceived Quality of Romantic Relationships Scale, and the Relationship Satisfaction Index were used for data collection. In the language validity study, a significant correlation of 0.71 was found between the original and Turkish forms. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted to examine construct validity confirmed that the scale's unidimensional structure showed a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.7, RMSEA = .04, GFI = .98, CFI = .97). The scale's internal consistency coefficient was .84, while the test–retest reliability coefficient, measured over a three-week interval, was .74. Criterion-related validity analyses showed that the Relationship Quality Scale was positively and significantly associated with romantic self-efficacy, relationship satisfaction, and perceived relationship quality. The findings indicate that the Relationship Quality Scale is a brief, valid, and reliable instrument for assessing the quality of romantic relationships among emerging adults in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Relationship Quality
• Emerging Adulthood
• Scale Adaptation
• Validity
• Reliability

Etik Beyan

The ethics committee approval of the study was obtained from Dokuz Eylül University Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee with the decision numbered E-10042736-6591319956 on 28.02.2025. Online informed consent was obtained from all participants, and they were provided with detailed information about the purpose of the study, its methods, potential risks, and their rights.

İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Chonody ve arkadaşları (2018) tarafından geliştirilen “İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin” Türkçeye uyarlanması ve Türkiye’deki beliren yetişkinler örnekleminde psikometrik sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmaya, Türkiye’de bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören, yaşları 19 ile 29 arasında değişen, 273’ü kadın ve 269’u erkek, toplamda 542 öğrenci dahil edilmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinde İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin yanı sıra “Romantik İlişkilerde Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği”, “Algılanan Romantik İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği” ve “İlişki Doyum İndeksi” kullanılmıştır. Dil geçerliği çalışmasında orijinal ve Türkçe formlar arasında 0.71 düzeyinde anlamlı bir korelasyon saptanmıştır. Yapı geçerliğini araştırmak için yapılan Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) sonuçları, ölçeğin tek boyutlu yapısının verilerle mükemmel uyum sağladığını doğrulamıştır (χ2/df = 1.7, RMSEA =.04, GFI =.98, CFI =.97). Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı 0.84, üç hafta arayla yapılan test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı ise 0.74 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik analizleri, İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin romantik öz-yeterlik, ilişki doyumu ve algılanan ilişki kalitesi ile pozitif ve anlamlı düzeyde ilişkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, İlişki Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin Türkiye’deki beliren yetişkinlerin romantik ilişki kalitesini değerlendirmede kısa, geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İlişki Kalitesi
• Beliren Yetişkinlik
• Ölçek Uyarlama
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın etik ilkelere uygunluğunun incelenmesi için Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kuruluna başvurulmuş olup ilgili müdürlük tarafından 28.02.2025 tarihli E-10042736-6591319956 sayılı resmi yazı ile bu çalışmanın etik ilkelere uygun olduğu belirtilmiştir. Araştırmaya katılan tüm katılımcılardan online bilgilendirilmiş onam alınmıştır ve katılımcılara çalışmanın amacı, yöntemleri, olası riskler ve hakları detaylı olarak açıklanmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Araz, A., Güngör, D., & Aşçı, E. (2019). Turkish adaptation of the Positive–Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) Scale: A reliability and validity study. Behavioral Sciences, 9(9), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9090100
2. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
3. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.
4. Arnett, J. J. (2010). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology (pp. 255–275). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195383430.003.0012
5. Atak, H., & Taştan, N. (2012). Romantik ilişkiler ve aşk. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 4(4), 520-546. https://doi.org/10.5455/cap.20120431
6. Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1993). Mothers, children, and cohabitation: The intergenerational effects of attitudes and behavior. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095968
7. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 193–281). McGraw-Hill.
8. Brown, S. L., Manning, W. D., & Payne, K. K. (2017). Relationship quality among cohabiting versus married couples. Journal of Family Issues, 38(12), 1730–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15622236

9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.
10. Chin, K., vd. (2017). The dark side of romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.003
11. Chonody, J. M., vd. (2018). Measuring relationship quality: Development of the Relationship Quality Scale (RQ). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(12), 1635–1654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516631120
12. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609–672. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.003141
13. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603260882
14. Collins, W. A., & Van Dulmen, M. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America (pp. 219–234). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-009
15. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
16. Dağ, İ. (2025). Romantik ilişkilerde doyum ve ilişki kalitesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları.
17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9051-8
18. Di Martino, vd. (2025). Development and initial validation of the Multidimensional Quality of Relationship Scale (M-QoRS). Marriage & Family Review, 61(7), 686-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2025.2517781
19. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
20. Feiring, C. (1996). Concept of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence.
21. Fincham, F. D., & Cui, M. (2011). Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761935
22. Fincham, F. D., & Veach, L. J. (2010). Relationship satisfaction and quality. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 579–594). Springer.
23. Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 275–292. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x
24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
25. Fortin, A., vd. (2022). Relationship quality among dating adolescents: Development and validation of the Relationship Quality Inventory for Adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1026507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026507
26. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x
27. Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
28. Galliher, R. V., & Bentley, C. G. (2010). Links between rejection sensitivity and adolescent romantic relationship functioning: The mediating role of problem-solving behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(6), 603–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.502066
29. Gómez-López, M., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019). Well-being and romantic relationships: A systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2415. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132415
30. Gökdemir, F., & Yılmaz, T. (2023). Likert tipi ölçekleri kullanma, modifiye etme, uyarlama ve geliştirme süreçleri. Journal of Nursology, 26(2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.5152/JANHS.2023.22260
31. Haack, K. R., & Falcke, D. (2014). Love and marital quality in romantic relationships mediated and non-mediated by internet. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 24(57), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272457201413
32. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
33. Holt-Lunstad, J. (2022). Social connection as a public health issue: The evidence and a systemic framework for prioritizing the “social” in social determinants of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 43, 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052020-110732
34. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
35. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035
36. Miller, R. S. (2008). Intimate relationships (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
37. Morry, M. M., Reich, T., & Kito, M. (2010). How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self-and partner-enhancement within cross-sex friendships, dating relationships, and marriages. The Journal of social psychology, 150(4), 369-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365471
38. Overall, N. C., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2023). Attachment and relationship functioning. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49, 101537.
39. Öz Soysal, F. S., Uz Baş, A., & Aysan, F. (2019). Romantik ilişkilerde öz yeterlik ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 1100-1110. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.544395
40. Özbacı, N. (2011). İlişki niteliği ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2011.985
41. Özdemir, Y., & Sağkal, A. S. (2021). İlişki doyum indeksi: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(Armağan Sayısı), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.854797
42. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1028
43. Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Marriage and family, 69(3), 576-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x
44. Reifman, A. (2011). Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 21–35). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761935.003
45. Riggio, H. R. vd. (2011). Initial validation of a measure of self efficacy in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.026
46. Robles, T. F. vd. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859
47. Rogge, R. vd.. (2017). Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and validation of the Positive–Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychological Assessment, 29(9), 1028–1043. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pas0000392
48. Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critique of contemporary survey instruments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(04), 891-915. https://doi.org/10.2307/352102
49. Sağkal, A. S., & Özdemir, Y. (2018). Algılanan romantik ilişki kalitesi ölçeğinin (ARİKÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 46, 22-40. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.329888
50. Sánchez, V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2015). Cyberdating Q_A: An instrument to assess the quality of adolescent dating relationships in social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.006
51. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International journal of behavioral development, 27(6), 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000145
52. Shulman, S., & Kipnis, O. (2001). Adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 24(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0409
53. Snyder, M. (2006). Psychology of relationships. Sage.
54. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659-675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x
55. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
56. Şimşek Özkan, H., & Siyez, D. M. (2023). Çevrim içi romantik ilişki kalitesi ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Social Sciences Studies, 9(118), 9797. https://doi.org/10.29228/sssj.73926
57. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
58. Ümmet, D., & Acar Bulut, Ö. (2022). Affetme ile ilişki kalitesi arasındaki ilişkide duygusal bağımlılığın aracı rolü. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(27), 660-678. https://doi.org/10.38155/ksbd.997351
59. Yılmaz, S., Yazıcı, S., & Akçinar, B. (2025). Kişilerarası duygu düzenlemenin ve algılanan romantik ilişki kalitesinin psikolojik sıkıntı üzerindeki etkisi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.1561216
60. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Petherick, J. (2006). Intimacy dating goals and relationship satisfaction during adolescence and emerging adulthood: Identity formation, age and sex as moderators. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406063636