Validation of the Couples Resource Map Scales

This article describes an examination of the concurrent and criterion-related validity of the Couples Resource Map Scales (CRMS), a 63-item assessment instrument designed to assess the levels of support available to couples from various personal, relationship, and contextual resources. The sample of 1,103 participants included representatives of a nonclinical population and clients in therapy. The results supported the validity of the CRMS (a) by demonstrating statistically significant relationships between the three Resource Area Scales and other measures of related constructs, (b) through a regression analysis linking the CRMS Resource Area Scales to relationship satisfaction, and (c) by examining the differences in scores between the clinical and nonclinical samples. Implications for using the CRMS with clients are outlined. Article: Strength-based approaches in the field of marriage and family therapy (MFT) assume that clients are able to reach their treatment goals when they identify and mobilize available and newly developed resources to address the challenges that bring them to therapy (Murray & Murray, 2004; Walter & Peller, 1992). For couples who present for therapy, relevant resources may include personal strengths, relationship resources, and support from the social context. Due to the potentially broad range of resources available to support couples, MFTs may overlook certain client resources if they do not assess specifically for them. By overlooking these resources, therapists and clients can miss important possible solutions to couples’ presenting problems. Therefore, an assessment instrument designed to measure the degree of support that clients receive for their relationships from personal, relationship, and contextual resources is a useful tool for clinical practice. The present study details the steps taken to validate one such measure, the Couples Resource Map Scales (CRMS). The CRMS (Murray, 2007) is a 63-item self-report assessment instrument that measures the support couples receive from various personal, relationship, and contextual resources. The CRMS was designed to be useful and accessible to both practitioners and researchers of couple therapy. The CRMS has the unique distinction of being available (free-of-charge) through an interactive website on the Internet (http://www.couplesresourcemap.org). Individuals who complete the online assessment receive immediate, printable feedback that depicts the amount of support available to their relationships from 21 resources organized in three broad categories of personal, relationship, and contextual resources. These three categories correspond to the instrument's three Resource Area Scales, which are the focus of the current investigation. Practicing MFTs can direct their clients to the assessment website and subsequently discuss the printed feedback with their clients. The CRMS, which is also usable in a paper-and-pencil format, also can be a valuable resource to MFT researchers who wish to study the associations among various resources and other aspects of relationship functioning (e.g., relationship satisfaction and stability, outcomes in couple therapy, and protective factors against relationship distress). The present study was designed to assess the concurrent and criterion-related validity of the instrument in its current format using a sample that included participants from nonclinical and clinical samples. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Foundation of the CRMS The field of MFT has demonstrated a gradual shift away from approaches that focus on pathology and dysfunction toward approaches that focus on resources and strengths (O’Connell, 1998). One important strength-based approach that emerged in recent years is Solution-Focused Therapy (SFT; Brief Family Therapy Center, 2007), which serves as the theoretical foundation for the CRMS. Several previous authors have applied the solution-focused approach to clinical work with couples (e.g., Hoyt & Berg, 1998; Murray & Murray, 2004). This theory holds that focusing on clients’ strengths and resiliencies leads to positive changes (Murray & Murray, 2004; Walter & Peller, 1992). SFT shifts the focus of therapy away from explaining problems and instead highlights exceptions to the problem (i.e., times when the problem does not occur or occurs less) and solutions (i.e., what life will or does look like when the problem does not exist) (DeJong & Berg, 1998; O’Connell, 1998). An important assumption of SFT is that clients have the ability to create their own solutions based on resources to which they already have access (Murray & Murray, 2004; Walter & Peller, 1992). Therefore, resources play an important role in SFT, in that they provide the foundation upon which clients build solutions as they work toward positive changes. Consistent with the solution-focused assumption that clients build on their available resources to make desired changes, existing research supports the benefits that personal, relationship, and contextual resources provide to couples in their relationships. Personal resources are resources found within the individual. On the CRMS, these resources include self-awareness, self-soothing strategies, coping skills, personal dreams, values, and self-esteem. Personal resources have been linked to increased marital satisfaction and other positive relationship outcomes (e.g., Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004; Gottman, 1999). Relationship resources describe resources shared within a couple's relationship. The CRMS assesses the following relationship resources: relationship skills, strategies to manage negativity, knowledge about one's partner, shared material resources, shared dreams, and a shared history. Conflict resolution and communication skills are two relationship resources that prior research demonstrates are important for positive relationship health (Gottman, 1999; Holman et al., 2001). The third category of resources included on the CRMS is contextual resources, which describes resources that exist within the couple's social context. These include families-of-origin, friends, extended social networks, careers, the economic and political context, family life professionals, and cultural and community resources. Previous research demonstrates the important role these resources play in contributing to positive relationship qualities, particularly friendships and community support (Holman et. al, 2001) and family of-origin factors (Larson & Holman, 1994). Interested readers should consult Murray (2007) for detailed descriptions of each resource. Prior Phases of Development of the CRMS This section presents a brief description of the initial steps taken previously to develop the instrument. The CRMS is based on the Couple's Resource Map (Figure 1), which appeared originally in the literature in Murray and Murray (2004). At the time, the map was intended to be a qualitative assessment instrument. The response to the map from the professional community demonstrated the high level of professional interest in a resource-based approach to assessment of couple relationships, in that approximately 175 to 200 professionals requested a copy of the map following publication of that article, with requests continuing to be made nearly 4 years following publication. Therefore, the map appeared to be a relevant conceptual framework for developing a standardized, empirically based instrument to provide professionals with an alternative strategy for assessing couples’ relationship resources. Three phases of instrument development were then completed (Murray, 2007). The first involved the development of the item pool and an expert panel review to establish the face validity of the instrument. The second phase examined the psychometric properties of the instrument. This phase involved a survey of 397 university seniors who were involved in intimate monogamous relationships. The initial analyses demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability for the total scale and three Resource Area Scales (Personal, Relationship, and Contextual). The third phase provided a preliminary examination of the validity of the CRMS by testing the relationship between CRMS total and subscale scores and relationship satisfaction. The results demonstrated a general trend for participants with higher CRMS total and subscale scores to also demonstrate higher levels of relationship satisfaction. Following the previous work described in this section, the present study aimed to examine the concurrent and criterion-related validity of the CRMS using a larger sample, including participants who represent both clinical and nonclinical populations. The following research questions guided this study: (a) What is the relationship between participants’ CRMS Resource Area Scale scores and their scores on other existing measures that assess related constructs (i.e., self-esteem, relationship satisfaction, and social support)? (b) Can participants’ CRMS Resource Area Scale scores be used to predict their levels of relationship satisfaction? (c) Are there differences in participants’ CRMS total and Resource Area Scale scores based on whether they are members of the clinical or nonclinical sample?