Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI)

Abstract

The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) is a standardized, multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument developed by Swiss clinical psychologist Guy Bodenmann to evaluate interpersonal stress management and collaborative coping mechanisms within intimate relationships. Grounded in Bodenmann’s Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of stress, the DCI conceptualizes stress and coping not merely as individual phenomena, but as reciprocal, interdependent processes shared between romantic partners. The standardized instrument comprises 37 items in its primary English and German iterations (extended to 41 items in specific cross-cultural validations, such as the Italian adaptation), organized across ten distinct subscales: Stress Communication by Oneself (SCO), Supportive Dyadic Coping by Oneself (SDC), Delegated Dyadic Coping by Oneself (DDCO), Negative Dyadic Coping by Oneself (NDCO), Stress Communication of the Partner (SCP), Supportive Dyadic Coping of the Partner (SDCP), Delegated Dyadic Coping of the Partner (DDCP), Negative Dyadic Coping by Partner (NDCP), Common Dyadic Coping (CDC), and Evaluation of Dyadic Coping (EDC).

Respondents rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). Psychometric investigations across diverse international samples—encompassing German, French, Italian, English, Spanish, and Mandarin cohorts—consistently demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .92 for the subscales and exceeding .90 for the total dyadic coping composite score. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have rigorously supported the STM-derived multidimensional structure, establishing metric and scalar measurement invariance across gender and linguistic groups. The DCI demonstrates strong convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, exhibiting substantial associations with relationship satisfaction, marital stability, communication efficacy, and psychological well-being, while prospectively predicting divorce risk and mitigation of depressive symptoms.

Keywords

Dyadic Coping Inventory, DCI, Guy Bodenmann, Systemic-Transactional Model, interpersonal stress, relationship satisfaction, dyadic coping, couples therapy, stress communication, marital quality, psychometrics, actor-partner interdependence model

Authors

The Dyadic Coping Inventory was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by Guy Bodenmann, Ph.D., Full Professor of Clinical Psychology for Children/Adolescents and Couples/Families at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. Professor Bodenmann is a pioneer in marital and family psychology, widely recognized for formulating the Systemic-Transactional Model of stress and for creating the evidence-based Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET).

Significant psychometric contributions, structural modeling, and cross-cultural adaptations have been spearheaded by key international collaborators, including:

• Thomas Ledermann, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA (specializing in structural equation modeling, dyadic analysis, and cross-linguistic factorial invariance).
• Simone Munsch, Ph.D. and Marc Perrez, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland (early theoretical development and transactional coping architecture).
• Thomas N. Bradbury, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), CA, USA (collaborator on longitudinal marital outcomes and systemic stress mechanisms).
• Chantal Levesque, Ph.D. and Marie-France Lafontaine, Ph.D. — School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada (validation and psychometric refinement of the North American English version).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dyadic Coping Inventory is to provide a clinically sensitive and empirically robust measure of how romantic couples communicate daily stress and mobilize joint or individual coping resources to manage stressors. While classic psychological models, such as the Lazarus and Folkman transactional model, treat stress and coping primarily as intrapsychic processes occurring within an isolated individual, the DCI was specifically designed to operationalize stress as a shared, dyadic phenomenon. It captures the interplay between one partner’s stress signals and the other’s supportive, delegated, or counterproductive reactions, as well as their capacity to act collaboratively as a cohesive unit.

From a research perspective, the DCI serves as an essential tool for examining the mechanisms linking external, chronic micro-stressors (such as workplace demands, financial strain, or parenting pressures) to marital deterioration and relational dissolution. It is extensively utilized in research using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), allowing family scholars to assess actor effects (how one’s own coping reports correlate with personal or partner outcomes) and partner effects (how one partner’s coping behaviors influence the other partner’s psychological distress, relational commitment, or physiological stress reactivity).

In clinical practice, the DCI is used as a diagnostic assessment in couples therapy and marital counseling. It enables clinicians to identify specific dysfunctional interaction patterns, such as negative dyadic coping (e.g., sarcasm, hostile withdrawal, dismissiveness), deficits in explicit stress communication, or asymmetrical caretaking burdens (delegated coping imbalances). Furthermore, the scale serves as a standardized outcome measure for evaluating therapeutic interventions, most notably Bodenmann’s Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET), by quantifying pre-to-post-intervention improvements in communicative transparency, collaborative problem-solving, and perceived relational efficacy.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the DCI is dyadic coping, defined within the Systemic-Transactional framework as an interpersonal, dynamic transaction between romantic partners aimed at reducing individual and joint levels of stress, fostering mutual well-being, and strengthening relational cohesion. Dyadic coping is not simply the mathematical sum of two individual coping repertoires; rather, it constitutes an emergent relational system characterized by continuous feedback loops. The DCI dissects this construct into distinct behavioral dimensions, categorized along directional axes (self-coping versus perceived partner coping) and functional axes (supportive, delegated, negative, and common).

1. Stress Communication (Self and Partner)

Stress communication represents the verbal and non-verbal behavioral manifestations through which an individual signals their state of stress, emotional overload, or need for external assistance to their partner. The DCI differentiates between Stress Communication by Oneself (SCO) (e.g., explicitly asking for assistance, expressing vulnerability, or showing behavioral strain) and the perception of Stress Communication of the Partner (SCP). Effective stress communication is a prerequisite for positive dyadic coping; ambiguous, implicit, or aggressive signals frequently elicit misattributions and maladaptive partner responses.

2. Supportive Dyadic Coping (Self and Partner)

Supportive dyadic coping encompasses instrumental, cognitive, and emotion-focused efforts directed toward assisting the stressed partner. It reflects benevolent, non-intrusive behaviors intended to alleviate the partner’s emotional burden. The DCI separates these into self-enacted behaviors (Supportive Dyadic Coping by Oneself – SDC) and perceived recipient behaviors (Supportive Dyadic Coping of the Partner – SDCP). Functional facets include:

• Emotion-focused supportive coping: Demonstrating empathy, validating feelings, listening attentively, expressing unconditional solidarity, and providing comforting physical touch.
• Cognitive supportive coping: Assisting the partner in cognitive reframing, providing constructive perspective, and helping reinterpret the stressor in a less threatening light.
• Instrumental supportive coping: Offering concrete advice, practical suggestions, or targeted problem-solving assistance.

3. Delegated Dyadic Coping (Self and Partner)

Delegated dyadic coping occurs when one partner explicitly or implicitly requests that the other take over specific tasks, responsibilities, or daily duties to relieve their acute burden. In Delegated Dyadic Coping by Oneself (DDCO), the respondent assumes duties that their partner normally manages (e.g., taking over household chores, running errands, managing childcare). In Delegated Dyadic Coping of the Partner (DDCP), the respondent evaluates the partner’s willingness to perform the same task-redistribution function when the respondent is overburdened.

4. Negative Dyadic Coping (Self and Partner)

Negative dyadic coping captures counterproductive, destructive, or hostile responses to a partner’s stress signals. These behaviors exacerbate relational tension and compound psychological distress. The DCI measures Negative Dyadic Coping by Oneself (NDCO) and perceived Negative Dyadic Coping by Partner (NDCP) across three distinct behavioral expressions:

• Hostile dyadic coping: Openly criticizing, mocking, deriding, or blaming the partner for experiencing stress or coping inadequately.
• Ambivalent dyadic coping: Providing assistance reluctantly, begrudgingly, or accompanied by verbal or non-verbal cues signaling resentment.
• Superficial/Withdrawing dyadic coping: Minimizing the severity of the stressor, emotional disengagement, feigned interest, or actively withdrawing from the partner in distress.

5. Common Dyadic Coping (CDC)

Common dyadic coping is symmetrical and collaborative. It occurs when both partners evaluate a stressor as affecting both of them simultaneously (e.g., financial insecurity, parenting crises, severe illness) or when individual stress expands to impact the relationship system. Both partners engage in joint problem-solving, mutual cognitive re-evaluation, shared informational processing, mutual physical relaxation (e.g., bathing together, physical intimacy, mutual massage), and reciprocal emotional comforting.

6. Evaluation of Dyadic Coping (EDC)

Evaluation of dyadic coping reflects the respondent’s overarching cognitive appraisal of how effectively the couple navigates stress together. It assesses global satisfaction with partner-provided support and the perceived competence and efficacy of their shared dyadic coping mechanisms.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the Dyadic Coping Inventory is the Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) formulated by Guy Bodenmann in the early 1990s. The STM was developed as a direct structural expansion of the classical intra-individual cognitive stress theory established by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). While traditional transactional theories define stress as an imbalance between environmental demands and an individual’s perceived coping resources, the STM situates these transactions within an interconnected, dyadic system.

The STM rests upon several foundational psychological assumptions:

1. Interdependence of Stress and Coping: Within intimate romantic dyads, an acute or chronic stressor experienced by one partner is rarely self-contained. Through emotional contagion, shared physical environments, and communicative exchange, an individual stressor inevitably spills over to become an interpersonal stressor affecting the couple system.
2. Primary and Secondary Dyadic Appraisal: Paralleling Lazarus’s concepts, the STM delineates primary dyadic appraisal (determining whether a stressor concerns only one partner or inherently represents a shared, mutual threat to the dyad) and secondary dyadic appraisal (evaluating the collective coping resources available to the couple, including communication skills, emotional stability, time, and mutual empathy).
3. The Dyadic Coping Process Loop: The systemic-transactional coping process follows a temporal sequence: (a) Partner A experiences stress and initiates verbal or non-verbal stress communication; (b) Partner B perceives and decodes these signals; (c) Partner B engages in internal cognitive appraisal of Partner A’s situation and determines their own emotional/behavioral response; (d) Partner B exhibits supportive, delegated, or negative dyadic coping; (e) Partner A appraises Partner B’s response; and (f) both partners evaluate the outcome, adjusting their relational behaviors accordingly.
4. Erosion Prevention Function: The STM posits that the primary utility of adaptive dyadic coping is to prevent the progressive erosion of relationship satisfaction over time. Daily, low-level chronic stressors (such as work friction, commuting stress, or routine scheduling conflicts) gradually deplete partners’ emotional reserves, leading to irritability, withdrawal, and interpersonal conflict. Effective dyadic coping acts as an emotional buffer, transforming external stressors into opportunities for building intimacy, trust, and dyadic resilience.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations across international cohorts have confirmed the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Dyadic Coping Inventory.

Construct and Factorial Validity

The construct validity of the DCI has been repeatedly confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse cultural and linguistic adaptations. Studies utilizing large representative samples (e.g., Ledermann et al., 2010; Levesque et al., 2014; Randall et al., 2016) demonstrated that a hierarchically nested, multidimensional model reflecting the STM dimensions (Stress Communication, Supportive DC, Delegated DC, Negative DC, and Common DC for both self and partner) exhibits excellent fit to the empirical data. Factor loadings for designated items consistently exceed .50, with the vast majority ranging between .65 and .88, confirming the statistical coherence of the hypothesized constructs.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is supported by strong, theoretically consistent correlations with widely established measures of relationship functioning and marital quality:

• Relationship Satisfaction: Total DCI scores, as well as Supportive and Common Dyadic Coping subscales, exhibit robust positive correlations with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) ($r = .45$ to $.68, p < .001$) and the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) ($r = .50$ to $.72, p < .001$).
• Constructive Communication: Supportive and Common DC demonstrate strong positive associations with observational and self-report measures of open, constructive communication patterns ($r = .40$ to $.60$).
• Empathy and Emotional Intelligence: SDC and CDC positively correlate with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) perspective-taking and empathic concern dimensions ($r = .35$ to $.52$).

Discriminant Validity

The DCI demonstrates clear divergence from constructs that are conceptually distinct from dyadic coping:

• Individual Neuroticism and Depressive Affect: While negative dyadic coping moderately correlates with neuroticism ($r = .20$ to $.35$), structural equation modeling confirms that dyadic coping accounts for substantial unique variance in relationship outcomes beyond that explained by individual Big Five personality traits.
• Social Desirability: Correlations between DCI subscales and standard measures of social desirability (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) are negligible to low ($r < .18$), confirming that DCI responses reflect authentic behavioral interactions rather than impression management.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

Longitudinal investigations spanning up to 5 and 10 years (e.g., Bodenmann & Cina, 2006; Bodenmann et al., 2006) provide compelling evidence of the DCI’s predictive validity. Low baseline scores on Common Dyadic Coping and high scores on Negative Dyadic Coping prospectively predict relationship distress, separation, and divorce, even after controlling for baseline relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, in clinical health contexts, high dyadic coping assessed via the DCI predicts faster recovery from major depressive episodes, improved glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes management, and reduced physiological stress reactivity (e.g., attenuated salivary cortisol awakening responses) during experimentally induced couple conflict.

Reliability

The reliability of the Dyadic Coping Inventory has been thoroughly documented across clinical and community samples globally, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

Across the standard 37-item instrument, the composite Dyadic Coping Total Score regularly yields a Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) exceeding .90 (often $lpha = .91$ to $.94$), indicating high overall scale reliability. Reliability coefficients for individual subscales, derived from extensive validation studies (e.g., Bodenmann, 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010; Falconier et al., 2015), generally demonstrate solid to excellent internal consistency:

• Stress Communication by Oneself (SCO): $lpha = .70 – .82$
• Supportive Dyadic Coping by Oneself (SDC): $lpha = .75 – .86$
• Delegated Dyadic Coping by Oneself (DDCO): $lpha = .65 – .78$ (noting that DDCO comprises only two items, where lower alphas are mathematically expected due to brief scale length)
• Negative Dyadic Coping by Oneself (NDCO): $lpha = .70 – .81$
• Stress Communication of Partner (SCP): $lpha = .72 – .84$
• Supportive Dyadic Coping of Partner (SDCP): $lpha = .80 – .89$
• Delegated Dyadic Coping of Partner (DDCP): $lpha = .68 – .80$
• Negative Dyadic Coping by Partner (NDCP): $lpha = .74 – .85$
• Common Dyadic Coping (CDC): $lpha = .80 – .90$
• Evaluation of Dyadic Coping (EDC): $lpha = .82 – .91$

Test-Retest Reliability

The temporal stability of the DCI has been evaluated across varying time intervals. In non-clinical longitudinal cohorts, stability coefficients across a 4-week to 6-month interval range from $r_{tt} = .74$ to $.88$, demonstrating that dyadic coping styles represent relatively stable relational traits over time. Over extended multi-year periods (e.g., 2 to 5 years), test-retest correlations remain moderate to high ($r_{tt} = .55$ to $.70$), reflecting expected fluctuations resulting from life transitions, severe chronic illness, or therapeutic intervention while retaining baseline stability.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the Dyadic Coping Inventory has been subjected to rigorous factor analytic procedures, progressing from early Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on preliminary German item pools to sophisticated multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse international populations.

Model Specifications and Structural Fit

The standard psychometric model underlying the 37-item DCI posits a multi-factor structure reflecting the Systemic-Transactional Model. When subjected to CFA using maximum likelihood (ML) or robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation, the hypothesized model structure comprises distinct first-order factors for self-coping, partner-coping, and common coping, alongside higher-order overarching constructs.

In the seminal cross-linguistic psychometric validation conducted by Ledermann, Bodenmann, Gagliardi, et al. (2010) across German-, French-, and Italian-speaking Swiss cohorts ($N = 2,094$), the structural model exhibited excellent goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently ranged between $.92$ and $.96$, surpassing the standard $ge .90$ threshold for acceptable fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values ranged between $.91$ and $.95$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Coefficients ranged from $.042$ to $.054$ (with 90% confidence intervals well below $.06$), confirming low residual variance.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values were consistently below $.05$.

Factor Loadings

Standardized item factor loadings across the latent dimensions are uniformly robust. In the validation of the English DCI (Levesque et al., 2014; Randall et al., 2016):

• Items loaded strongly onto Supportive Dyadic Coping (loadings between $.68$ and $.84$).
• Items for Negative Dyadic Coping yielded inverse loadings on positive dimensions and primary loadings ranging from $.58$ to $.79$ on the latent negative coping factor.
• Common Dyadic Coping items (evaluating joint efforts such as mutual problem analysis, collaborative re-appraisal, relaxation, and physical closeness) yielded loadings between $.64$ and $.87$.
• Stress Communication items exhibited consistent loadings ranging from $.52$ to $.78$.

Measurement Invariance

Establishing measurement invariance is essential for dyadic scales administered to both members of a romantic couple. Multi-group structural equation modeling has supported:

1. Configural Invariance: The identical multi-factor configuration holds equally across men and women, as well as across differing cultural and linguistic groups.
2. Metric (Weak) Invariance: Factor loadings are statistically invariant across genders ($Delta text{CFI} < .01, Delta text{RMSEA} < .015$), demonstrating that the latent constructs have identical psychological meaning for both partners.
3. Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Item intercepts remain invariant across gender in most subscales, allowing for valid, unbiased comparisons of latent mean scores between partners.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Dyadic Coping Inventory is a standardized, paper-and-pencil or digital psychometric instrument administered to one or both partners in an intimate relationship. Key structural parameters of the instrument include:

• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report rating scale.
• Administration Format: Individual administration (completed independently by each partner to prevent contamination of responses) via paper-pencil questionnaire or secure computer-based testing interface.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Total Item Count:
  • Standard Primary Version (English/German): 37 items.
  • Expanded Cross-Cultural / European Validation Version: 41 items (incorporating supplementary common coping and evaluation statements).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted as:
  • 1 = Very rarely
  • 2 = Rarely
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Often
  • 5 = Very often
• Subscale Architecture and Composition:
  • (a) Stress Communicated by Oneself (SCO): Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Calculated as sum score; range: 4–20).
  • (b) Supportive Dyadic Coping by Oneself (SDC): Items 20, 21, 23, 24, and 29 (Calculated as sum score; range: 5–25).
  • (c) Delegated Dyadic Coping by Oneself (DDCO): Items 28 and 30 (Calculated as sum score; range: 2–10).
  • (d) Negative Dyadic Coping by Oneself (NDCO): Items 22, 25, 26, and 27 (Reverse-scored items; range: 4–20).
  • (e) Stress Communication of the Partner (SCP): Items 16, 17, 18, and 19 (Calculated as sum score; range: 4–20).
  • (f) Supportive Dyadic Coping of the Partner (SDCP): Items 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 (Calculated as sum score; range: 5–25).
  • (g) Delegated Dyadic Coping of the Partner (DDCP): Items 12 and 14 (Calculated as sum score; range: 2–10).
  • (h) Negative Dyadic Coping by Partner (NDCP): Items 7, 10, 11, and 15 (Reverse-scored items; range: 4–20).
  • (i) Common Dyadic Coping (CDC): Items 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 (Calculated as sum score; range: 5–25).
  • (j) Evaluation of Dyadic Coping (EDC): Items 36 and 37 (Calculated as sum score; range: 2–10).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Scoring: Items marked with an asterisk (*) in psychometric scoring manuals (Items 7, 10, 11, 15, 22, 25, 26, and 27) represent negative coping behaviors. When computing positive composite scores, these items are reversed ($1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1$). When calculating isolated subscale scores for NDCO and NDCP, raw scores may be maintained to index the absolute frequency of negative coping behaviors.
  • Total Dyadic Coping Composite: Computed by summing all positive subscales (SCO, SDC, DDCO, SCP, SDCP, DDCP, CDC, EDC) and subtracting raw negative dyadic coping scores (or adding the reverse-scored NDCO and NDCP values). Higher composite scores reflect greater relational coping competence.
  • Clinical Cut-offs: Total scores below 111 typically indicate severe dyadic coping deficits and elevated relational risk; scores between 111 and 145 denote normal coping functionality; scores above 145 indicate highly adaptive, protective dyadic coping.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dyadic Coping Inventory was formally published in its standardized manualized edition in 2008 by Hogrefe Verlag (Bern, Switzerland) under the title Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual. The instrument emerged from empirical precursors developed by Guy Bodenmann and colleagues dating back to 1995 and 2000 (e.g., the Fragebogen zur Erfassung des Dyadischen Copings [FDCT-N]).

Copyright and Usage Permissions:

• Academic Research: The DCI is made widely accessible by Professor Guy Bodenmann for non-commercial scientific research, academic dissertations, and independent university investigations. Academic researchers may typically utilize the instrument free of charge, provided that formal theoretical credit and standard bibliographic citations are given in all resultant publications. Copies of translations and manuals are disseminated through academic repositories (e.g., ResearchGate, University of Zurich Clinical Psychology repository).
• Clinical and Commercial Application: The official test manual, standardized scoring sheets, and validated norm tables are commercially published and distributed by Hogrefe Publishing Group. Practitioners using the DCI in fee-for-service clinical settings, private couples counseling practices, or proprietary organizational workshops should acquire official test materials through Hogrefe Verlag or obtain formal authorization.

References

Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 34–49.

Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping – a systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137–140.

Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and coping in couples]. Hogrefe Verlag.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002

Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test manual]. Verlag Hans Huber / Hogrefe.

Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44(1–2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v44n01_04

Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T. N., Gmelch, S., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Stress, supportive dyadic coping, and work-family conflict: Effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361611

Bodenmann, G., & Perrez, M. (1991). Dyadisches Coping: Eine systemische Betrachtungsweise der Belastungsbewältigung in Partnerschaften. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 3(1), 4–25.

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping, marital quality, and well-being: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485

Falconier, M. K., Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (Eds.). (2016). Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644394

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., Bertoni, A., & Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000024

Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M.-F., Caron, A., Flesch, J. K., & Bjornson, S. (2014). Validation of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614522272

Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic coping in the U.S.: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0

Items of the Scale