How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected intimate relationships? The existing literature is mixed on the effect of major external stressors on couple relationships, and little is known about the early experience of crises. The current study used 654 individuals involved in a relationship who provided data immediately before the onset of the pandemic (December, 2019) and twice during the early stages of the pandemic (March and April, 2020). Results indicate that relationship satisfaction and causal attributions did not change over time, but responsibility attributions decreased on average. Changes in relationship outcomes were not moderated by demographic characteristics or negative repercussions of the pandemic. There were small moderation effects of relationship coping and conflict during the pandemic, revealing that satisfaction increased and maladaptive attributions decreased in couples with more positive functioning, and satisfaction decreased and maladaptive attributions increased in couples with lower functioning.

IntroductionWith growing awareness of the importance of rehabilitation, new measures are being developed specifically for use in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are currently 26 measures reported to assess function in ICU survivors. The Physical Function in Intensive care Test scored (PFIT-s) has established clinimetric properties. It is unknown how other functional measures perform in comparison to the PFIT-s or which functional measure may be the most clinically applicable for use within the ICU. The aims of this study were to determine (1) the criterion validity of the Functional Status Score for the ICU (FSS-ICU), ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) against the PFIT-s; (2) the construct validity of these tests against muscle strength; (3) predictive utility of these tests to predict discharge to home; and (4) the clinical applicability. This was a nested study within an ongoing controlled study and an observational study.MethodsSixty-six individuals were assessed at awakening and ICU discharge. Measures included: PFIT-s, FSS-ICU, IMS and SPPB. Bivariate relationships (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient) and predictive validity (logistic regression) were determined. Responsiveness (effect sizes); floor and ceiling effects; and minimal important differences were calculated.ResultsMean ± SD PFIT-s at awakening was 4.7 ± 2.3 out of 10. On awakening a large positive relationship existed between PFIT-s and the other functional measures: FSS-ICU (rho = 0.87, p < 0.005), IMS (rho = 0.81, p < 0.005) and SPPB (rho = 0.70, p < 0.005). The PFIT-s had excellent construct validity (rho = 0.8, p < 0.005) and FSS-ICU (rho = 0.69, p < 0.005) and IMS (rho = 0.57, p < 0.005) had moderate construct validity with muscle strength. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU had small floor/ceiling effects <11% at awakening and ICU discharge. The SPPB had a large floor effect at awakening (78%) and ICU discharge (56%). All tests demonstrated responsiveness; however highest effect size was seen in the PFIT-s (Cohen’s d = 0.71).ConclusionsThere is high criterion validity for other functional measures against the PFIT-s. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU are promising functional measures and are recommended to measure function within the ICU.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02214823. Registered 7 August 2014).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0829-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Social-learning perspectives explicitly recognize the role of partners’ personal histories and contexts as possible causes of couple communication behavior, but these assumptions are rarely tested directly, and operationalizations of context in behavioral research on couples rarely extend beyond the interacting dyad. To broaden our understanding of why couples differ in communication, the current study examined whether observed behaviors in marital interactions covary with individual experiences and contextual factors. Behaviors coded from in-home conversations of 414 ethnically-diverse newlywed couples were examined simultaneously in relation to childhood and family-of-origin experiences, financial strain and stressful life events, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction. A latent factor representing financial strain and stressful life events was the strongest correlate of negative communication, with higher levels of stress predicting more negativity. Relationship satisfaction was the strongest correlate of observed positivity, with higher levels of satisfaction predicting more positivity. Childhood and family experiences were unrelated to behaviors, whereas results for depressive symptoms were complex and counterintuitive. Because the negative behaviors highlighted in social-learning models of relationship functioning, and often targeted in educational interventions, covary reliably with the stresses and financial strains that couples experience, contextual factors merit greater emphasis in models designed to explain and prevent marital deterioration.

Relationship education programs produce small improvements in relationship satisfaction and communication, particularly for couples at elevated sociodemographic risk. The absence of behavioral effects on satisfaction indicates, however, that the mechanisms by which couples may benefit from relationship education are not yet well understood.

The social and behavioral sciences have long suffered from a lack of diversity in the samples used to study a broad array of phenomena. In an attempt to move toward a more contextually-informed approach, multiple subfields have undertaken meta-science studies of the diversity and inclusion of underrepresented groups in their body of literature. The current study is a systematic review of the field of relationship science aimed at examining the state of diversity and inclusion in this field. Relationship-focused papers published in five top relationship science journals from 2014 to 2018 ( N = 559 articles, containing 771 unique studies) were reviewed. Studies were coded for research methods (e.g., sample source, dyadic data, observational data, and experimental design) and sample characteristics (e.g., age, education, income, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation). Results indicate that the modal participant in a study of romantic relationships is 30 years old, White, American, middle-class, college educated, and involved in a different-sex, same-race relationship. Additionally, only 74 studies (10%) focused on traditionally underrepresented groups (i.e., non-White, low-income, and/or sexual and gender minorities). Findings underscore the need for greater inclusion of underrepresented groups to ensure the validity and credibility of relationship science. We conclude with general recommendations for the field.