Validation of the Romanian version of coparenting relationship scale

Abstract

Studies show that children from divorced families are more likely to experience emotional and behavioral problems, which is why researchers have focused on finding factors that facilitate children's post-divorce adaptation. One of these factors is coparenting. Thus, to measure the quality of coparenting, the Coparenting Relationships Scale (CRS) was developed. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate this scale for the Romanian population. It was used a combination between the procedure of back-translation and the techniques derived from the work of a team, used for adapting the scale for Brazil-Spanish speakers. Data were obtained from a sample of 504 people. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the Romanian translation of the items. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the final factor solution with six subscales and 28 items was considered acceptable, unlike the original version of the scale, consisting of 7 factors and 35 items . The Romanian Version of CRS revealed good internal consistency on all subscales, with coefficients similar to the original scale. The Romanian Version of the CRS can be used by practitioners to assess levels of parental conflict and to design interventions for children.

Polish Adaptation of the Coparenting Relationship Scale

“…The research presented in this article aimed to establish the Polish adaptation of the CRS. Previous studies have indicated that the CRS is a highly effective tool for assessing parental cooperation (Carvalho et al, 2018; Dumitriu et al., 2022; Favez et al, 2021; Feinberg et al, 2012; Ju et al, 2023; Lee et al, 2021; Pinto et al, 2019). While it has been adapted in several countries, there was a lack of such an instrument for a population of Polish mothers and fathers.…”

“…In this project, we decided to address this gap, and the analysis followed a structured approach, including an initial assessment of data quality related to examining inter-item correlations and the reliability of the full CRS, full CRS subscales, and the Brief-CRS. Furthermore, it entailed an evaluation of various theoretical models based on proposals available in the CRS literature, encompassing both the original version (Feinberg et al, 2012) and its adaptations (Carvalho et al, 2018; Dumitriu et al, 2022; Favez et al, 2021; Ju et al, 2023). Subsequently, we conducted a gender invariance measurement analysis for the Polish sample and two cultural invariance measurement analyses for American-Polish and Swiss-Polish samples separately.…”

“…Our adaptation of the full CRS based on the model MF2, where the division of labor factor and its items were removed and an additional method factor (represented reverse-worded items) was attached. The first change is methodologically justified (Hair et al, 2014), and was used in previous adaptations (Dumitriu et al, 2022, Ju et al, 2023; Lee et al, 2021; Pinto et al, 2019). The second difference, with the original CRS (Feinberg et al, 2012), is also its methodological nature – introducing the technical method factor to the model mostly leads to the improvement of its fit indices.…”

“…Favez et al (2021) do not report a correlation between Brief CRS and full CRS. The remaining studies concerned only one version of the CRS (short, full, or its derivative) and inevitably could not report correlation coefficients between Brief CRS and full CRS (Dumitriu et al., 2022; Ju et al, 2023; Lee et al, 2021; Lindroos et al, 2023; Pinto et al, 2019). The indicators of theoretical validity for the Brief CRS and its construct validity are confusing and suggest a rather poor fit (Favez et al, 2021), a good fit (Lee et al, 2021), or are not reported at all (Feinberg et al., 2012).…”

“…Feinberg’s CRS has undergone translation and validation processes in several countries, including Portugal (Father’s Prenatal Version; Pinto et al, 2019), Switzerland (Favez et al, 2021), Sweden (Brief-CRS; Lee et al, 2021), China (Ju et al, 2023), Romania (Dumitriu et al, 2022), and Finland (Couples’ Prenatal Version; Lindroos et al, 2023). Among these adaptations, only the French version (conducted in Switzerland) kept a structure of the original scale, which consists of 35 items and 7 factors, and demonstrated an acceptable fit (Favez et al, 2021).…”