Enhancing relationship quality measurement: The development of the Relationship Flourishing Scale.

Relationship quality is the most frequently assessed construct in the intimate relationships literature. Dozens of assessment instruments exist, but the vast majority conceptualize relationship quality in terms of satisfaction (or a similar construct), which focuses on the hedonic (pleasure or happiness) dimension of the relationship. Some scholars question whether the richness and depth of adult intimate relationships can be captured by satisfaction ratings and suggest focusing on a complementary eudaimonic (human flourishing) dimension of the relationship. This study evaluates the development of the Relationship Flourishing Scale, a 12-item measure of eudaimonic relationship quality that assesses meaning, personal growth, relational giving, and goal sharing. The study supports the construct validity of the Relationship Flourishing Scale, including its content, concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. Its incremental validity and independence suggest that it provides information about deeper and richer aspects of relationship quality than do current hedonic relationship quality measures. (PsycINFO Database Record

Challenges of disorders of sex development: diverse perceptions across stakeholders.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Disorders of sex development (DSD) are congenital conditions in which chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex development is atypical. Optimal management is patient- and family-centered and delivered by interdisciplinary teams. The present pilot study elicits concerns held by important stakeholders on issues affecting young patients with DSD and their families. METHODS: Content from focus groups with expert clinicians (pediatric urologists (n = 7), pediatric endocrinologists (n = 10), mental health professionals (n = 4), DSD patient advocates (n = 4), and interviews with parents of DSD-affected children (newborn to 6 years; n = 11) was coded and content-analyzed to identify health-related quality of life issues. RESULTS: Key stressors varied across stakeholder groups. In general, family-centered issues were noted more than child-centered. In the child-centered domain, providers worried more about physical functioning; family and advocates emphasized gender concerns and body image. In the family-centered domain, parental concerns about medication management outweighed those of providers. Advocates reported more stressors regarding communication/information than other stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Variability exists across stakeholder groups in the key concerns affecting young children/families with DSD. Interdisciplinary DSD healthcare team development should account for varying perspectives when counseling families and planning treatment.