Dyadic Data Analysis: Theory and Review of Theses Using Dyadic Data Analysis in Turkey

Öz

Most of the topics addressed in social sciences, especially behavioral sciences, are about understanding the relationships between individuals and the complex structure of these relationships. Most of the variables subject to research in these fields of study are interpersonal. That is, they refer to dyadic relationships or group dynamics within a social context rather than to a single individual. The data structure obtained from group members of two or more individuals who are thought to have a certain connection, relationship or interaction between them is characterized as dyadic data. At this point, it is important to use analysis methods that are not based on the assumption of independence of observations and to apply these methods correctly in the analysis of data obtained from individuals who are not independent from each other. Within the scope of this study, the theoretical foundations of dyadic data analysis were discussed and it was aimed to examine the theses conducted using the actor-partner interdependence model published in the National Thesis Center in Turkey according to the variables determined. The 55 graduate theses included in the study were coded according to the thesis review form and document analysis was conducted. It was determined that the increase in theses using the actor-partner interdependence model occurred after 2019 in the national literature, that they were intensively studied in the departments of psychology and guidance and psychological counseling, and that the majority of the theses consisted of couples in romantic relationships. In general, since the target group of the theses were couples in romantic relationships, it was seen that the focus (dependent) variable of the theses were variables such as marital satisfaction and relationship quality. In addition, the theses were conducted on the basis of the standard dyadic order model, and analysis programs testing the structural equation model were used in the analysis of the data.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dyadic data
• Actor-partner interdependence model
• APIM
• document review

Diyadik Veri Analizi: Teori ve Türkiye’de Diyadik Veri Analizi Kullanılarak Yapılan Tezlerin İncelemesi

Öz

Sosyal bilimler özellikle davranış bilimleri ile ilgili bilim alanlarında ele alınan konuların çoğu, bireyler arasındaki ilişkileri ve bu ilişkilerin karmaşık yapısını anlayabilmek üzerinedir. Bu çalışma alanlarında araştırmaya konu olan değişkenlerin çoğu bireyler arasıdır. Yani tek bir kişiyle ilgili olmaktan çok, sosyal bir bağlama dahil olan ikili ilişkilere ya da grup dinamiklerine atıfta bulunmaktadır. Aralarında belirli bir bağlantı, ilişki ya da etkileşim olabileceği düşünülen iki ya da daha çok kişilik grup üyelerinden elde edilen veri yapısı diyadik veri olarak nitelenmektedir. Bu noktada birbirinden bağımsız olmayan bireylerden elde edilen verilerin analizinde gözlemlerin bağımsızlığı varsayımına dayalı olmayan analiz yöntemlerinin kullanılması ve bu yöntemlerin doğru uygulanması önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında diyadik veri analizinin teorik temelleri ele alınmış ve Türkiye’deki Ulusal Tez Merkezinde yayımlanan aktör-partner karşılıklı bağımlılık modeli kullanılarak yürütülen tezlerin belirlenen değişkenlere göre incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma kapsamına alınan 55 lisansüstü tez hazırlanan tez inceleme formuna göre kodlanmış ve doküman analizi yapılmıştır. Aktör-partner karşılıklı bağımlılık modeli kullanan tezlerdeki artışın ulusal alanyazında 2019 yılından sonra gerçekleştiği, yoğun olarak psikoloji ve rehberlik ve psikolojik danışmanlık anabilim dallarında çalışıldığı, diyaların büyük çoğunluğunun ise romantik ilişki içindeki çiftlerden oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Genel olarak tezlerin hedef kitlesi romantik ilişki içerisindeki çiftler olduğundan dolayı tezlerin odak (bağımlı) değişkeninin evlilik doyumu, ilişki kalitesi gibi değişkenler olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca tezler standart diyadik düzen modeli temel alınarak yürütülmüş, verilerin analizinde yapısal eşitlik modelinin test edildiği analiz programları kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diyadik veri
• Aktör-partner karşılıklı bağımlılık modeli
• APIM
• doküman inceleme

Kaynakça

1. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
2. Chow, C. M., Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. (2015). Testing dyadic mechanisms the right way: A primer into moderated actor–partner interdependence model with latent variable interactions. Emerging adulthood, 3(6), 421-433.
3. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
4. Cook, W. L., & Snyder, D. K. (2005). Analyzing nonindependent outcomes in couple therapy using the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 133.
5. Coutts, J. J., Hayes, A. F., & Jiang, T. (2019). Easy statistical mediation analysis with distinguishable dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 69(6), 612-649.
6. Fitzpatrick, J., Gareau, A., Lafontaine, M. F., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). How to use the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 74-86.
7. Fonteyn, M., Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., & Loeys, T. (2022). It takes two to tango: Using the actor-partner interdependence model for studying the coach-athlete relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 63, 102273.
8. Garcia, R. L., Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2015). Moderation in the actor–partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 8-29.

9. Gistelinck, F., & Loeys, T. (2019). The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: An implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 329-347.
10. Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2012). Dyadic data analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D.
11. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 3. Data analysis and research publication (pp. 439–450). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-022
12. Horstman, H. K., & Holman, A. (2018). Communicated sense-making after miscarriage: A dyadic analysis of spousal communicated perspective-taking, well-being, and parenting role salience. Health communication, 33(10), 1317-1326.
13. Iida, M., Seidman, G., & Shrout, P. E. (2018). Models of interdependent individuals versus dyadic processes in relationship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 59-88.
14. Jang, C. Y., & Song, H. (2022). The Effects of Sport Life Skills and Life Skills Transfer on Student-Athletes and Coaches: An Application of Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Korean Journal of Sport Science, 33(4), 612-623.
15. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social Conclusion psychology. NewYork,NY:Cambridge
16. Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.
17. Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal relationships, 6(4), 433-448.
18. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19. Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651
20. Kenny, D. A., & Winquist, L. A. (2001). The measurement of interpersonal sensi- tivity: Consideration of design, components, and unit of analysis. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 265–302). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Kivlighan, D. M., Marmarosh, C. L., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2014). Client and therapist therapeutic alliance, session evaluation, and client reliable change: A moderated actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 15.
22. Kivlighan, D. M., & Narvaez, R. C. (2021). Mutual influence in group psychotherapy: A review and application to group psychology. In C. D. Parks & G. A. Tasca (Eds.), The psychology of groups: The intersection of social psychology and psychotherapy research (pp. 191–206). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000201-011
23. Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2015). A toolbox with programs to restructure and describe dyadic data. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 32, 997 – 1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407514555273
24. Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assess- ing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
25. Li, X. (2022). The “dyadic dance”: Exploring therapist–client dynamics and client symptom change using actor–partner interdependence modeling and multilevel mixture modeling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 69(4), 474.
26. Markin, R. D., Kivlighan Jr, D. M., Gelso, C. J., Hummel, A. M., & Spiegel, E. B. (2014). Clients’ and therapists’ real relationship and session quality in brief therapy: An actor partner interdependence analysis. Psychotherapy, 51(3), 413.
27. Matsuda, Y. (2017). Actor–partner interdependence model analysis of sexual communication and relationship/family planning factors among immigrant Latino couples in the United States. Health communication, 32(5), 612-620.
28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage Publication.
29. Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with inter-changeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141.
30. Perry, N. S., Baucom, K. J. W., Bourne, S., Butner, J., Crenshaw, A. O., Hogan, J. N., Imel, Z. E., Wiltshire, T. J., &
31. Baucom, B. R. W. (2017). Graphic methods for interpreting longitudinal dyadic patterns from repeated-measures actor–partner interdependence models. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(5), 592-603. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000293
32. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 10,173–220. New York: Academic Press.
33. Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user‐friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models. Personal relationships, 25(1), 103-119.
34. Uchmanowicz, I., Faulkner, K. M., Vellone, E., Siennicka, A., Szczepanowski, R., & Olchowska-Kotala, A. (2022). Heart failure care: testing dyadic dynamics using the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM)—a scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 1919.
35. Vangelisti, A. L. (2015). Communication in personal relationships. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 371–392). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-014 Yıldırımoğlu, H. Z. (2017). Teorik temelleri ve uygulaması ile diyadik veri analizi (Yüksek lisans tezi) Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van.
36. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
37. Zhang, Z., Shen, Y., Yang, M., & Zheng, J. (2023). Harmonious passion and procrastination: an exploration based on actor–partner interdependence model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(12), 4407-4427.
38. Zhou, B., Heather, D., Cesare, A. D., & Ryder, A. G. (2017). Ask and you might receive: The actor–partner interdependence model approach to estimating cultural and gender variations in social support. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 412-428.