A Review of Comprehensive Questionnaires Used in Premarital Education and Counseling

Abstract

A number of recent publications (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994; Fredman & Sherman, 1987; Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Straus, 1990) attest to the ever growing number of self-report questionnaires used by marriage and family researchers and practitioners. However, most publications on the use of questionnaires are designed to help researchers, to help therapists in the diagnosis of marital/familial dysfunction, or to measure the effectiveness of a therapeutic intervention (Fredman & Sherman, 1987). Little has been written about the use of self-report questionnaires primarily for prevention and primarily by family life educators and premarital counselors. This is so despite the fact that probably more individuals are exposed to marriage and family relations concepts in educational and premarital settings such as high school courses, college and university courses, and church and secular premarital counseling sessions and marriage preparation classes than in any other setting. Even widely recognized premarital counseling handbooks (e.g., Stahmann & Hiebert, 1987; Wright, 1992) have not adequately reviewed the variety of premarital assessment questionnaires (PAQs) available to educators and premarital counselors. Our purpose in this article is to describe five PAQs that can be used appropriately in high school, university, and church or secular counseling settings by family life educators and premarital counselors. To accomplish this purpose, there are three sections in this article. First, the theoretical and psychometric criteria on which comprehensive PAQs should be evaluated in educational/ counseling settings are described. Second, the five most widely used PAQs are described and evaluated using these criteria. Finally, recommendations are made for using PAQs in educational and premarital counseling settings. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING COMPREHENSIVE PREMARITAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES It is our belief that PAQs should be evaluated based on their ability to meet certain basic theoretical and psychometric criteria pertaining to their usefulness in premarital education and counseling. The following criteria are based on characteristics suggested by authorities in the field of premarital questionnaire development and on the authors' experiences as premarital relationship educators and counselors who teach marriage preparation courses and workshops and conduct premarital counseling. An adequate PAQ should: (1) Be designed primarily or exclusively for assessing the premarital relationship. It has been argued recently that marriage relationships are unique compared to other social relationships and, therefore, cannot simply be viewed as one manifestation of public or private relationships such as roommates, friendships, or work groups (Burr, Day, & Bahr, 1993; Constantine, 1986). Accordingly, an instrument that attempts to assess the formation of this unique relationship needs to be sensitive to its special characteristics (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1987), such as expectations of high levels of intimacy, commitment, and permanency. (2) Collect comprehensive data that are relevant to the counseling or educational process. The test administrator and couple should be able to derive information from the instrument on the most critical factors in premarital relationship formation and development that are predictive of later marital satisfaction and stability (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994). Recently, Larson and Holman (1994) reviewed 50 years of published longitudinal and cross-sectional research on premarital factors that predict marital satisfaction and stability. Based on an ecological theory, they concluded that premarital predictors could be organized into three major categories. First, background and contextual factors include family-of-origin dynamics, sociocultural factors like education and race, and support for the relationship from friends and parents. Second, individual traits and behaviors include self-esteem, interpersonal skills, physical health, and conventionality. …