Psychometric Validation of Trust, Commitment, and Satisfaction Scales to Measure Marital Relationship Quality Among Newly Married Women in Nepal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall.  Thank you for the interesting measurement validation research. While marriage tends to be a global institution, I did not realize there was a need for to measure 'relationship quality' among newly weds. Your psychometric validation research methods are thorough as you attempt test hypothetical models and provide relevant psychometrics. I do have some questions and comments about both the substantive content, methodological procedures, and interpretation of your findings. 

Title. 
Your title is very accurate as it describes succinctly the content of your manuscript.

Keywords. 
Your keywords can be more specific. Thinking about your colleagues who may search for relevant literature, I imagine keywords would include an effort to locate a measure of marital quality. I think your keywords are redundant and the relevant ones are 'marital relationship', ''measurement', 'South Asia', 'marriage and health' and perhaps others. 
 
Abstract.  
Overall. The abstract contains all relevant information, though I would condense it to be without subsections, i.e., a single paragraph describing purpose, methods, findings, and implications. 

Introduction.
Overall. You provide a theoretical framework and justification for the validation study, specifically there is a need for the measure. But, I have some comments and questions about the content.
1. You identify 'three theoretically grounded core dimensions: trust, commitment, and satisfaction" (lines 75-76) on which to build a multidimensional measure of marital quality. You then provide a scant one paragraph per each of these constructs as essential quality indicators.  Given the scope of the measure and the purpose of the research, i.e., validation, I would have anticipated a more thorough theoretical treatment of these constructs. 
2.  I am puzzled by your persistent identification of the measure as valuable for research.  Immediately, I imagined the purpose for validating and having a measure of marital quality was clinical, particularly because of the healthcare implications apart from the obvious value for early intervention in couples counseling should quality be problematic. What are the research values and why did you limit the purpose as 'research'? (lines 108-115)

Methods.
Overall.  As validation research, you have suitable design with some shortcomings, which you identify in your Discussion limitations, e.g., women only, social desirable response bias. The test-retest and convergent validity study features are certainly strengths. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures are good, though the methods could be described in more detail and probably implemented more carefully.
1. Exploratory Factor Analysis. Your factor analyses appear to have been completed for each scale independently.  While you describe the procedures for completing the EFA, provide more detail regarding the inter-item correlations. You provide the item statistics, but not the correlation matrices. Because the item responses tend to be positively skewed, I imagine the correlations are constrained. Your coefficient alpha reliabilities are high, but it would be good to at least provide the some discussion of the item intercorrelations, and maybe identify 'poor' or questionable items. This is particularly true for the Satisfaction scale, for which you suggest that you have a two-factor solution.  Regarding scale scores, are they item responses weighted from the factor analysis or are they sum-total scores, which you use in your test-retest analyses?  Explain how you would recommend a user of this scale would compute a scale score.
2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. You refer to your CFA as 'scale validation', though this is not validation with respect to the construct content.  The analyses are more accurately scale confirmation.  As with the EFA, explain how the scale scores are computed (weighted item responses, summed raw responses). 
3. Reliability Analyses. Why did you provide coefficient alpha for the 6 month measures, but not the baseline?  I know that you did obtain a high coefficient alpha for the 2 item General Satisfaction measure, but a 2 item scale is certainly questionable as a 'reliable' measure.  Why did you decide to keep this rather than discarding these items as simply not fitting the Satisfaction Scale? I would have been inclined to note the 2 items, but not more reasonably attempt to provide theoretically (hypothetically) designed scales, which would be the 4 item measure, excluding the ones that did not fit. 
4. Item Writing Generally.  As a rule in item preparation, I notice that many of your items have 'complex' stems, i.e., stems with multiple stimuli, sometimes referred to as 'double-barreled questions'.  For instance, the Trust Scale item 'My husband is perfectly honest and truthful with me.'  The portion of the stem 'honest and truthful' is complex, with two interpretations. This is intended as a note, and maybe can explain why any items may function poorly, if any do. Following is a relevant citation. 
Menold, N. and Raykov, T. (2022). On the relationship between item stem formulation and criterion validity of multiple-component measuring instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 82, 356-375. 
5. Convergent Validity Analyses. It is certainly good to have obtained correlations of scale scores with an external measure. This works well for you.  There are other analyses you could consider.  For instance, your test-retest correlations are poor, and you speculate that perhaps the marriage changed over 6 months and therefore the scale scores would not correlate.  What if you were to screen out participants stating they were very satisfied at 6 months, and see if their test-retest scores correlated?  Also, given demographics, would you hypothesize any relations between some demographics and scale scores?  One possibility is Marriage Type (Arranged vs Love); would these two groups vary on any of the scales hypothetically?  I suggest these types of analyses as further validation analyses.

Discussion.
Overall. Your discussion does cover the findings with respect to the purpose for the research.  
1. I suggest you consider Implications for practice, i.e., can the measure be used beyond research?

Writing.
Overall. The writing is very good, with few if any grammatical or spelling errors. It is well organized and very readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to begin by commending you on your efforts in preparing this manuscript. I found the topic both timely and meaningful, and I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about marriage perceptions and cultural dynamics in Nepal through your study.

I respectfully offer the following comments and suggestions to help improve the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the manuscript:

1. Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), please verify and report whether the data met the necessary assumptions for factor analysis. For example, values for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be reported in the main text.
2. Please include the communalities, eigenvalues, explained variance, and cumulative explained variance in Table 3 for a more comprehensive presentation of the EFA results.
3. For the satisfaction scale, please report all factor loadings in every cell of the table. It is important to confirm whether the items are appropriately and uniquely classified under the two distinct factors without cross-loading.
4. In addition to the current confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), I suggest testing a second-order model that groups the three subscales (trust, commitment, satisfaction) under one overarching latent construct. This approach may help determine whether these dimensions can be meaningfully integrated into a unified measurement tool, rather than treated as entirely separate instruments.
5. In Section 3.4 (Lines 292–295), please avoid using bullet-point lists and instead rewrite the results as complete sentences in accordance with academic writing conventions.
6. The interpretation presented in Lines 298–301 (i.e., “Notably, the marital conflict/dissatisfaction subscale showed the strongest association with happiness, suggesting that the absence of conflict and dissatisfaction is particularly important for overall relationship happiness”) should be moved to the discussion section. Such interpretive statements, while insightful, are more appropriate in the discussion rather than in the results section, which should remain objective.
7. It is unfortunate that the assessment of criterion validity relies solely on a single-item measure. While I understand that alternative options may not have been available, the use of a single item limits the depth and robustness of the validation process.
8. The discussion section requires further development. Rather than merely summarizing the results, I encourage you to elaborate on their implications. For instance, please discuss how the newly validated scales are expected to be used in Nepal in the future and what kinds of societal contributions they might offer. Additionally, it would be valuable to compare these scales with previously developed tools—highlighting how your scales might be superior or more relevant, both academically and socially. Please also reflect on the distinctive cultural characteristics of Nepal that are captured by your scales, and how these features make the instruments unique compared to similar tools developed in other countries.

Thank you again for your contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Psychometric Validation of Trust, Commitment, and Satisfaction Scales to Measure Marital Relationship Quality Among Newly Married Women in Nepal”, submitted to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

This is a high-quality article from theoretical, methodological, and applied perspectives, addressing a significant gap in the literature on marital quality in non-Western contexts.

The title is clear, specific, and accurately reflects the content and objectives of the study. It explicitly presents the key constructs (trust, commitment, satisfaction), the study design (psychometric validation), the target population (newly married women), and the sociocultural context (Nepal), thereby facilitating a precise understanding of the research scope.

The introduction is well-structured and grounded in current and relevant literature. It highlights theoretical and empirical gaps in measuring marital quality in non-Western contexts. The authors convincingly argue, based on robust meta-analytical evidence, that marital quality significantly impacts physical and mental health (lines 61–64), and emphasize the need for culturally specific validation of instruments developed in Western settings: “However, cultural differences necessitate context-specific validation rather than direct translation of Western measures.” (line 97)

The study design is methodologically sound. It adopts a longitudinal framework with two waves of data collection (baseline and six-month follow-up), enabling an assessment of temporal stability. The combined use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), along with well-established psychometric criteria (RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR, Cronbach’s α), adds statistical rigor to the validation process. The high retention rate (96%) between waves (line 136) further supports internal validity.

The sample was well described: 200 newly married women aged 18 to 25 years, residing in rural communities in Nawalparasi District, representative of the Terai region (line 128). The instruments were adapted from well-established theoretical models (Sternberg; Larzelere & Huston; Spanier) and appropriately contextualized for the Nepalese cultural setting, enhancing content validity.

The results are clearly presented, with comprehensive tables (Tables 1–6) and precise psychometric indicators. Factor analyses confirmed the following:

- A unidimensional structure for the trust and commitment scales, with strong factor loadings (0.76–0.95).

- A two-factor structure for the satisfaction scale, comprising (1) “Marital conflict/dissatisfaction” and (2) “General satisfaction” (lines 235–242).

The bifactor model demonstrated superior fit (RMSEA = 0.088; CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.965; SRMR = 0.035) compared to the unifactor model (RMSEA = 0.257; CFI = 0.794; TLI = 0.691), justifying its adoption (lines 266–270). One item (“get on each other’s nerves”) was appropriately excluded due to a low factor loading (0.26).

Inter-scale correlations (r = 0.517 to 0.720) support convergent validity without indicating excessive redundancy among constructs (line 277).

Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.79 to 0.96 across all scales (lines 304–307). Criterion validity was assessed through correlations with a single-item measure of overall marital happiness, which produced strong associations (r = 0.63–0.72). This methodological limitation is acknowledged by the authors (line 22).

Test-retest reliability showed moderate stability for commitment (r = 0.51) and marital conflict (r = 0.49), but low stability for general satisfaction (r = 0.21). The authors interpret this variability as reflective of natural changes occurring early in marital life, rather than measurement instability (line 313) - an interpretation I consider appropriate.

The discussion is critical, coherent, and well-aligned with international literature. It highlights the study’s methodological strengths and emphasizes the importance of culturally adapted instruments in South Asian contexts. The authors appropriately suggest further validation studies incorporating negative relationship dimensions, such as communication problems and conflict resolution difficulties (lines 350–352).

The study’s limitations are clearly acknowledged and do not compromise the overall validity of the findings. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript, with minor revisions aimed at strengthening the methodological discussion and outlining directions for future research.

 

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) Expand Criterion Validity

Criterion validity was assessed using a single-item measure of overall relationship happiness. Although this yielded strong correlations, such a unidimensional indicator may not fully capture the complexity of marital quality.

Recommendation: Include a more detailed discussion of this limitation in the manuscript and suggest, for future studies, the use of multidimensional instruments to provide a broader and more nuanced assessment of criterion validity.

2) Discuss Elevated RMSEA Values More Thoroughly

The commitment and trust scales reported RMSEA values above the conventional cutoff (0.150 and 0.149, respectively), which may suggest suboptimal model fit.
Recommendation: Strengthen the discussion of these values by considering:

• the potential influence of sample size (n = 192) on RMSEA estimates;
• the strong performance of other fit indices (CFI, TLI, SRMR), which support the model;
• existing literature that acknowledges this limitation in small to moderately sized validation studies.

This issue is briefly mentioned in the manuscript (lines 272–274), but could be expanded with greater technical depth to bolster readers’ confidence in the model’s validity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf