Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Oct 15;65(4):e70211. doi: 10.1111/famp.70211

Criterion‐Related Validity of the Couple Flourishing Measure in a Spanish Population: Distinguishing Outpatients From Community Participants

Alejandro Saavedra‐Roa 1, Martiño Rodríguez‐González 2, Claudia Pineda‐Marín 1, Pablo Vallejo‐Medina 1, Adrián Montesano 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13673113  PMID: 42885219

ABSTRACT

Relational (or couple) well‐being has begun to be conceived from an integrative perspective that transcends mere satisfaction or stability in couples and may include dimensions such as emotional connection, joint growth, and shared purpose. This study evaluated the criterion‐related validity of the Couple Flourishing Measure (CFM) in comparison with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in a Spanish sample of people in affective‐sexual relationships (n = 118; Mage = 40.3, SD = 8.77). Differences between participants receiving affective‐sexual therapy services (n = 67) and community participants (n = 51) were analyzed, as well as their discriminative ability using ROC curves. The results showed that the CFM had a greater ability to discriminate between the two groups (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI [0.74, 0.89]) than the DAS (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI [0.62, 0.81]). In turn, a preliminary cutoff score for CFM was identified (61.5), with moderate sensitivity (0.64) and high specificity (0.94). These findings provide preliminary evidence supporting the criterion‐related validity of the CFM for distinguishing outpatients receiving affective‐sexual therapy from community participants without previous therapeutic experience and suggest that the measure may offer complementary information beyond traditional indicators of relationship adjustment. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: couple flourishing, criterion‐related validity, outpatients, relationship well‐being, ROC analysis

1. Introduction

The study of couple relationships has evolved from a focus on stability and adjustment to a broader perspective that incorporates relational well‐being and flourishing (Bühler et al. 2021). Traditionally, satisfaction and dyadic adjustment have been considered leading indicators of couple functioning, with instruments such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier 1976) being widely used in research and clinical practice. However, these approaches have been criticized for placing greater emphasis on relationship adjustment, conflict management, and stability, potentially providing less coverage of other dimensions that may contribute to a broader understanding of relational well‐being in intimate relationships (Fishbane 2023; Galovan et al. 2022). Further, research shows that partners differ not only in the degree of closeness they desire but also in how they define and perceive intimacy, underscoring that relational well‐being involves subjective, interpretive processes that cannot be captured by satisfaction alone (Hudson and Fraley 2017). In response, contemporary perspectives in relational science have begun to challenge individualistic models of well‐being, emphasizing instead the inherently relational nature of human flourishing (Fishbane 2023; Fowers 2000; Griffes et al. 2024; Montesano et al. 2023; Silverstein et al. 2006; VanderWeele 2017). From this standpoint, relational well‐being involves not only emotional closeness and mutual support but also ethical responsiveness, co‐constructed meaning, and the shared pursuit of growth as a couple (Fishbane 2023; Fowers 2000; Montesano and Ness 2019; Montesano et al. 2023).

Recent models underscore that relational well‐being should not be reduced to satisfaction alone but understood as a dynamic and co‐constructed process of mutual flourishing. For instance, Galovan et al. (2022) proposed the Strong Relationality Model, which challenges the satisfaction‐centered paradigm and introduces categories such as flourishing and connected relationships, highlighting the importance of emotional depth, mutual responsiveness, and shared meaning. Likewise, Natarajan and Francis (2024), and Griffes et al. (2024) argue that couple education and intervention programs should move beyond a focus on reducing conflict or improving satisfaction and instead foster conditions that promote mutual inspiration, growth, and a deeper sense of connection. These perspectives call for a conceptual and methodological reorientation that foregrounds the relational, as opposed to individualistic, nature of well‐being in affective‐sexual relationships. Consistent with this view, recent longitudinal evidence demonstrates that relationship outcomes depend heavily on dynamic interactional processes such as communication, expectations, and coordination rather than on static global evaluations of satisfaction (Machia et al. 2020).

The couple flourishing perspective draws on philosophical notions of hedonia and eudaimonia, the former referring to the search for pleasure and the latter to the search for the realization of human potential (Sanri et al. 2021). In the relational context, this implies recognizing that well‐being is not only defined by the absence of distress but also by the capacity to be a space for mutual development, emotional resilience, and shared meaning, even when discomfort or distress is present (Prameswari‐Edwina et al. 2022; Rosta‐Filep et al. 2023). To date and to the best of our knowledge, the only instrument specifically designed to assess this expanded notion of couple flourishing is the Couple Flourishing Measure (CFM; Sanri et al. 2021), which operationalizes these conceptual advances and components into a brief, clinically applicable assessment framework.

In addition to dimensions commonly assessed by traditional measures of relationship adjustment and quality (e.g., DAS; Spanier 1976), the CFM incorporates aspects of this construct, such as growth in the relationship, connectedness, shared meaning, and resilience within the bond. This unifactorial questionnaire was originally developed in English and has 4‐, 8‐, and 16‐item versions, all in a 7‐point visual Likert‐type response format that allows a person's response to be placed on a continuum ranging from a deteriorating relationship to flourishing. An example item is: “My life with my partner is…” where 1 = drained (distressed), 4 = content (satisfied), and 7 = plethoric (flourishing). Reliability assessment has been shown to be high, with coefficients ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 (Sanri et al. 2021). In its recent adaptation and validation in Spanish from Spain, the 16‐item version showed high internal consistency (α = 0.94) and favorable convergent validity with measures of dyadic, life, and sexual satisfaction (Saavedra‐Roa et al. 2026).

Despite growing evidence supporting the psychometric validity of the CFM in the general population, its ability to distinguish between individuals receiving affective‐sexual therapy and individuals from the general community remains largely unexplored. Examining whether the CFM can differentiate between outpatients receiving affective‐sexual therapy and community participants may provide preliminary evidence regarding its criterion‐related validity and potential utility within clinical and counseling contexts. Such comparisons have traditionally been used in criterion‐related and known‐groups validation studies to examine whether an instrument can distinguish between groups expected to differ on the construct of interest (Anderson et al. 2014; Crane et al. 2000). This issue is particularly relevant given the increasing interest in assessment approaches that move beyond relationship satisfaction and incorporate broader indicators of relational well‐being. This gap is especially relevant considering that many currently used tools, such as the DAS, were developed decades ago under paradigms focused on stability rather than on flourishing (Fincham et al. 2018; Spanier 1976).

From a clinical perspective, assessment tools that capture both relational vulnerabilities and developmental potential may provide valuable information for understanding relationship functioning. Instruments grounded in a flourishing perspective may complement traditional measures of relationship adjustment by assessing dimensions such as growth, connectedness, resilience, and shared meaning. However, empirical evidence regarding their ability to distinguish outpatients receiving affective‐sexual therapy from community participants remains limited. Examining this issue may contribute to understanding the potential role of flourishing‐based assessment within clinical and counseling settings.

Thus, this instrumental study aimed to evaluate the criterion‐related validity of the CFM based on the version proposed by Saavedra‐Roa et al. (2026) in a Spanish population. Specifically, the study examined its internal consistency, factorial structure, and ability to differentiate between outpatients receiving affective‐sexual therapy and community participants without previous experience of affective‐sexual therapy, and compared its discriminative performance with that of the DAS.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

This convenience sample included 118 Spanish adults who met the following inclusion criteria: being of legal age; currently engaged in an affective‐sexual relationship of at least 6 months; having sufficient Spanish language comprehension and fluency; and providing voluntary participation through signed informed consent. All participants were living in Spain during the data collection period. Participants were divided into an outpatient group (n = 67), composed of individuals who were currently receiving affective‐sexual therapy at the time of participation, and a community group (n = 51), composed of individuals who reported no current or previous experience of affective‐sexual therapy. Group membership was used as the criterion variable in subsequent discriminative validity analyses. This grouping strategy is consistent with a known‐groups approach to criterion‐related validity, in which an instrument is evaluated according to its ability to distinguish between groups expected to differ on the construct of interest (Anderson et al. 2014; Crane et al. 2000). The mean age with available data was 40.3 years (SD = 8.77), with an average relationship duration of 10.76 years (SD = 9.47). A total of 59.32% (n = 70) self‐identified as women and 40.68% (n = 48) as men. A total of 91.53% (n = 108) described their sexual‐affective orientation as exclusively or mostly heterosexual, and only five (4.24%) described themselves as completely or mostly homosexual. Only two participants reported being in non‐monogamous, affective‐sexual relationships. All participants voluntarily agreed to participate in this study. The present sample was recruited specifically for the purposes of the current study. Sampling was carried out from September 2023 to March 2025. Table 1 provides further details.

TABLE 1.

Sociodemographic Information.

Outpatients Community participants Contrast
n (%) or M (SD) n (%) or M (SD)
Age 40.38 (9.62) 40.24 (7.90) t(97.98) = −0.09, p = 0.931
Relationship duration (Years) 11.59 (10.05) 9.66 (8.60) t(114.38) = −1.12, p = 0.264
Gender
Woman 43 (64.18) 27 (52.94) χ 2(1) = 1.09, p = 0.298
Man 24 (35.82) 24 (47.06)
Affective‐sexual orientation
Exclusively heterosexual 54 (81.81) 42 (84.00) χ 2(5) = 8.79, p = 0.118
2 8 (12.12) 4 (8.00)
3 2 (3.03) —
4 1 (1.51) —
5 1 (1.51) —
Exclusively homosexual 4 (8.00)
Type of relationship
Monogamous 66 (98.51) 50 (98.04) Fisher's exact test, p > 0.999, OR = 1.32
Non‐monogamous 1 (1.49) 1 (1.56)
Open in a new tab

Note: Affective‐sexual orientation was assessed using a 7‐point Kinsey‐type scale, categorized here from 1 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). Descriptive statistics for age were calculated using available cases (n = 103).

Abbreviations: χ 2, chi‐square test; M, Mean; OR, odds ratio; p, significance level; SD, standard deviation; t, student's t‐test (Welch's correction applied when appropriate).

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Sociodemographic Information

An ad hoc questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic information from participants, including age, gender identity, and affective‐sexual orientation (Kinsey et al. 1948). Participants were also asked whether they were currently involved in a romantic or sexual relationship, and if so, to report the duration of the relationship. Additionally, they were asked to rate their subjective level of satisfaction with their current relationship on a scale of 0–100, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.

2.2.2. Couple Flourishing Measure

The Couple Flourishing Measure (CFM; Sanri et al. 2021) is a 16‐item unidimensional scale that assesses couple flourishing based on hedonic and eudaimonic components of relational well‐being. Sanri et al. (2021) reported excellent internal consistency for the scale (α = 0.91–0.97) and strong test–retest reliability over one‐month (r = 0.84) and two‐month (r = 0.86) intervals, and evidence of construct and convergent validity, including strong correlations with relationship satisfaction, meaning, and personal well‐being, has also been demonstrated in a Spanish population (Saavedra‐Roa et al. 2026). For this study, we used the Spanish adaptation (Saavedra‐Roa et al. 2026), which has shown high internal consistency (α = 0.94). For additional conceptual details, see the Introduction.

2.2.3. Dyadic Adjustment

For this study, we employed the brief Spanish version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Santos‐Iglesias et al. 2009), which consists of 13 items designed to assess dyadic adjustment across three core dimensions: consensus, satisfaction, and commitment. Items are rated on Likert‐type scales ranging from five to seven points, depending on the item. Higher scores reflect greater adjustment. The Spanish version has previously demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.92; Santos‐Iglesias et al. 2009), and internal consistency in the present sample was adequate (α = 0.85). An example item is: “Do you and your partner engage in activities together outside the relationship?”

2.3. Procedure

Participants in the outpatient group were primarily recruited through professionals and services providing affective‐sexual therapy across various regions of Spain, whereas participants in the community group were recruited through general social and academic dissemination channels. Interested individuals accessed an online form on the Qualtrics platform that contained informed consent with the objectives of the research, the voluntariness of their participation, the anonymity of their responses, and data protection in accordance with the law and local ethics committee. After providing consent, participants completed a self‐administered questionnaire that included sociodemographic data, the CFM, and the DAS. Completing the survey took approximately 11.47 min. No financial or material compensation was provided for participation in the study. For the outpatient group, participation in the study was not linked to access to or continuation of the couples' therapeutic process.

2.4. Data Analysis

All analyses were performed using the R programming language (R Core Team 2025; version 4.5.1), in the RStudio environment (Posit Team 2025; version 2023.09.1 + 494). The following packages used for data analysis are highlighted: readxl (Wickham and Bryan 2023; version 1.4.2), ggplot2 (Wickham 2016; version 3.5.1), effsize (Torchiano 2020; version 0.8.1), caret (Kuhn et al. 2022; version 6.0–94), pROC (Robin et al. 2021; version 1.18.5), dplyr (Wickham et al. 2023; version 1.1.4), corrplot (Wei and Simko 2021; version 0.92), plyr (Wickham 2011; version 1.8.9), and Hmisc (Harrell 2024; version 5.1–1). The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

A post hoc sensitivity power analysis was conducted to evaluate the ability of the study to detect between‐group differences in CFM scores (independent‐samples t‐test, two‐tailed, α = 0.05). Using the final sample size (n = 67 in the outpatient group, n = 51 in the community group), the analysis indicated that effects of d ≥ 0.52 can be detected with 80% power. Thus, the study was adequately powered to identify medium‐to‐moderate differences in couple flourishing between groups. Given that ROC analyses constituted the primary criterion‐related validity analyses, an additional post hoc power analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the available sample size was sufficient to detect AUC values above chance performance.

Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. Correlations between the main study variables were assessed using Pearson's coefficients, including the subjective assessment of the relationship, the CFM, and DAS total scores. The subjective assessment was included as a complementary indicator of perceived relationship quality, offering an ecological and intuitive appraisal of relationship well‐being from the participant's perspective. Although it was not used as a classification criterion, it supported the concurrent validation of standardized measures and helped identify general trends across relationship groups. To explore whether CFM scores differed by gender, group comparisons were conducted between men and women; this analysis aimed to determine if gender‐based differences could affect the interpretation of scores across groups. In contrast, subjective assessment scores were compared across outpatient and community groups to examine whether participants' perceptions aligned with their reported relational status. Additional analyses by gender or age for the subjective measure were not conducted to maintain parsimony, as the variable was not used for primary classification purposes. Criterion‐related validity was evaluated using ROC analyses, with group membership (outpatient versus community participants) serving as the classification criterion. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and preliminary cutoff scores were estimated and compared with those of the DAS. To formally compare the discriminative performance of the two instruments, DeLong's test for correlated ROC curves was conducted. The Youden index was used to identify the preliminary cutoff score that maximized the balance between sensitivity and specificity within the present sample.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Open University of Catalonia under number CE23‐PF02. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 1983, by the Research Ethics Committee. All participants voluntarily decided to participate in the study, and the ethics committee evaluated the procedure to obtain consent.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Psychometric Analyses

Prior to the main analyses, the psychometric performance of the CFM and DAS was examined in the current sample. The CFM demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95; McDonald's ω = 0.95). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the unidimensional structure reported in previous validation studies. Results supported the one‐factor model and showed acceptable fit indices (CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05). The DAS also demonstrated good internal consistency in the present sample (Cronbach's α = 0.85). Collectively, these findings support the use of both instruments in the subsequent correlational, group comparison, and discriminative validity analyses.

3.2. Convergent Validity Analyses

To observe whether the CFM and DAS measure similar constructs, Pearson correlations were observed between their totals and the subjective assessment of the degree of couple satisfaction. The CFM showed a strong relationship with the subjective assessment of the relationship quality (r = 0.76**), whereas the DAS showed a moderate association (r = 0.44**). The correlation between the two scales was also moderate (r = 0.50**), suggesting that the instruments assess related but non‐identical aspects of relationship functioning. The comparison between the correlations of the CFM and DAS with the subjective relationship assessment revealed a statistically significant difference, Δr = 0.33, z = 4.90, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.47].

3.3. Group Differences Between Outpatients and Community Participants

To control for potential confounding effects, total CFM scores were compared across gender. The analysis revealed no significant gender differences, t(110.43) = 1.28, p = 0.20. In addition, differences in subjective ratings of the relationship between groups (i.e., outpatient and community group) were reviewed, confirming that both groups reported different levels of satisfaction, t(101.02) = 6.49, p < 0.001; d = −2.05.

3.4. Criterion‐Related Validity and ROC Analyses

A post hoc power analysis indicated that the available sample size provided excellent statistical power (> 0.99) to detect an AUC of the magnitude observed for the CFM relative to chance performance. ROC analyses were performed to assess the criterion‐related validity and discriminative capacity of both scales. As shown in Table 2, both the CFM and the DAS effectively differentiated between outpatient and community participants. Both instruments demonstrated discriminative ability; however, the CFM showed a larger area under the curve (AUC) than the DAS. A formal comparison of the ROC curves was conducted using DeLong's test for correlated ROC analyses. Results indicated that the CFM demonstrated significantly greater discriminative accuracy than the DAS (z = 2.08, p = 0.037). This pattern is illustrated in Figure 1, where the CFM showed a steeper and more discriminative ROC curve. The preliminary cutoff score for the CFM, identified via the Youden index (61.5), yielded moderate sensitivity (0.64) and high specificity (0.94), indicating greater accuracy in identifying community participants than in identifying outpatients. This pattern suggests that the cutoff may be more effective in ruling out membership in the outpatient group than in identifying all individuals receiving therapy.

TABLE 2.

Classification performance indices for CFM and DAS in distinguishing outpatients and community participants.

Community participants Outpatients Accuracy [95% CI] NIR P[Acc>NIR] Sensitivity Specificity AUC DeLong's test
Observed
Predicted CFM Community participants 48 (40.7%) 24 (20.3%) 0.77 [0.64–0.84] 0.56 < 0.001 0.64 0.94 0.81 z = 2.08, p = 0.037
Outpatients 3 (2.5%) 43 (36.4%)
DAS Community participants 44 (37.3%) 32 (27.1%) 0.67 [0.57–0.75] 0.56 < 0.05 0.52 0.86 0.71
Outpatients 7 (5.9%) 35 (29.7%)
Open in a new tab

Note: Accuracy values indicate overall classification success with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Sensitivity and specificity refer to the proportions of correctly identified outpatients and community participants, respectively. DeLong's test compares the AUCs between CFM and DAS.

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; CFM, couple flourishing measure; DAS, dyadic adjustment scale; NIR, no information rate.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves for the CFM and DAS. The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals. The black cross indicates the preliminary cut‐off point (score = 61.5), with a sensitivity of 0.64 and a specificity of 0.94.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate the criterion‐related validity of the CFM, based on the version by Saavedra‐Roa et al. (2026), in a Spanish population. Specifically, we evaluated its performance in comparison with the DAS in terms of its ability to discriminate between outpatients and community participants. In comparison with the DAS, the CFM demonstrated greater discriminative accuracy and stronger associations with subjective evaluations of relationship quality.

The results obtained in this study support the theoretical and empirical shift toward approaching relational well‐being in affective‐sexual relationships from an integrative flourishing perspective (Prameswari‐Edwina et al. 2022; Rosta‐Filep et al. 2023; Sanri et al. 2021). As mentioned, the CFM is based on a conceptualization of relational well‐being that incorporates dimensions such as emotional connection, mutual growth, and shared purpose. These dimensions complement those traditionally assessed by measures of dyadic adjustment such as the DAS (Spanier 1976) and include components such as emotional connection, mutual growth, or the construction of a shared purpose (Saavedra‐Roa et al. 2026), which fill an important gap in existing research and clinical assessment tools. Such patterns are in line with evidence that individuals differ in their interpretations and experiences of intimacy, meaning that global satisfaction scores may overlook important relational processes (Hudson and Fraley 2017). These results align with contemporary approaches that frame intimate couples not merely as sources of individual satisfaction but as ethical systems grounded in mutual responsiveness, shared meaning, and co‐construction of relational purpose (Fishbane 2023; Fowers 2000; Montesano and Ness 2019; Silverstein et al. 2006). The CFM provides a framework for assessing broader dimensions of relational well‐being, including growth, connectedness, and shared meaning. These dimensions may complement traditional assessment approaches by highlighting relational strengths and developmental processes.

Although the CFM was not originally developed as a clinical classification instrument, its focus on relational flourishing makes it relevant for examining differences between outpatients and community participants. In fact, the CFM shows some limitations in identifying couples experiencing relationship distress. Although the CFM does not model dyadic interactional processes directly, its focus on relational meaning and development makes it particularly suitable for individual‐level clinical assessment within couple and family therapy contexts. Nevertheless, within the present sample, the CFM demonstrated greater discriminative accuracy than the DAS. Indeed, the CFM showed stronger associations with subjective relationship appraisal and greater discriminative accuracy than the DAS in the present sample, with a significantly higher AUC. This finding is consistent with that reported by Sanri et al. (2021), who demonstrated that the CFM shows robust psychometric properties and effectively captures richer and more nuanced relational experiences. Furthermore, these findings were reinforced by the Spanish validation (Saavedra‐Roa et al. 2026), which extended its applicability to Spanish‐speaking populations.

In addition to dimensions commonly assessed by measures of dyadic adjustment such as the DAS, the CFM may capture aspects of relational flourishing that allow for greater differentiation among individuals reporting relatively high levels of relationship quality. This is consistent with longitudinal findings indicating that relationship trajectories and outcomes depend on communication patterns and shared expectations, reinforcing the importance of assessing relational processes rather than relying exclusively on satisfaction‐based measures (Machia et al. 2020). This is useful in therapeutic contexts oriented toward relational development and ethical repair, as it allows for the identification of areas of vulnerability as well as potential transformation. Although this is the first study using the CFM with couples in distressed relationships, the results suggest that this instrument may provide complementary information beyond that captured by traditional measures of dyadic adjustment. However, this analysis should be interpreted with caution, as most scales assessing relationship problems are not typically studied as clinical classifiers, and limitations for this purpose are rarely articulated. For example, in the studies by Santos‐Iglesias et al. (2009) and Crane et al. (2000), the DAS was analyzed using equations derived from non‐clinical samples; consequently, a cutoff score was proposed, but its classification power was not reported. Similarly, Anderson et al. (2014) employed clinical samples and calculated the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for the DAS, along with a cutoff point distinguishing couples in therapy from community samples. Nevertheless, they did not report the AUC, sensitivity, specificity, percentage of correctly classified cases, or any other indicator that would allow for an assessment of the cutoff's discriminative accuracy.

4.1. Clinical Implications

Specifically, the present findings suggest that the CFM may offer useful complementary information regarding relational well‐being beyond traditional measures of dyadic adjustment. However, the current results should not be interpreted as evidence that the instrument can independently support screening, diagnosis, case formulation, or treatment planning. Additional research using larger and more representative samples, independent indicators of relationship distress, and longitudinal designs is needed before such applications can be recommended.

Beyond its clinical utility, the CFM also has potential for use in relationship education programs, especially those that seek to foster flourishing rather than simply reducing conflict or increasing satisfaction (Griffes et al. 2024; Natarajan and Francis 2024). The results of this study support the idea that relational well‐being can and should be assessed using constructs that go beyond adjustment, incorporating a broader vision of development, emotional depth, and ethical commitment. In applied settings, this allows therapists to formulate development‐oriented goals, support discussions regarding relational strengths, growth, and shared meaning during intervention, and integrate assessment findings into psychoeducational or preventive work. Integrating tools such as the CFM into psychoeducational or preventive interventions could help identify relational strengths and areas for growth, thus fostering a deeper sense of connection and mutual inspiration among couples.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the added value of the results of this study, there are some limitations that should be considered in future studies. First, a cross‐sectional design was used, which precludes drawing conclusions about the sensitivity to change of the CFM in therapeutic settings. In addition, although the present study relied on individual‐level data, this approach reflects common assessment practices in couple and family clinical settings and does not preclude the value of future dyadic research. Although the CFM has shown robust psychometric properties in the general population, its clinical application requires longitudinal studies that explore its ability to capture significant changes throughout the psychotherapeutic process and its potential usefulness as a follow‐up or outcome‐prediction tool.

Second, although the statistical power was adequate and the sample allowed us to observe differences between the outpatient and community groups, the sample was composed of people in heterosexual and monogamous relationships, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other relational configurations and diverse cultural contexts. Future studies should further evaluate the clinical utility and longitudinal responsiveness of the CFM in non‐heteronormative couples, non‐monogamous relationships, and cross‐cultural contexts.

Third, a limitation concerns the criterion used to define group membership. Outpatients should not be considered equivalent to clinically significant relationship distress, as some distressed individuals may never seek therapy whereas others may seek therapy for reasons unrelated to severe relational difficulties (e.g., relationship enhancement or premarital counseling). Consequently, the present findings should be interpreted as evidence of criterion‐related validity relative to outpatients rather than evidence of clinical validity in a broader sense. Future studies should incorporate independent indicators of relationship distress to further evaluate the discriminative performance of the CFM.

Fourth, the identification of the preliminary cutoff point is a limitation of this study. Although the Youden index was used to estimate the threshold with the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, this preliminary cutoff point could vary according to the sample composition or application context of the study. Moreover, although the preliminary cutoff demonstrated high specificity, its sensitivity was comparatively modest (0.64), indicating that a substantial proportion of outpatients would not be correctly identified using this threshold alone. Consequently, the cutoff should not be interpreted as a standalone screening tool and requires further evaluation in larger samples before any applied use can be recommended. Therefore, these values should be validated using independent samples with greater clinical diversity. Replication studies using larger and independent samples are particularly necessary to determine the stability and generalizability of this preliminary cutoff across different populations and clinical contexts.

Finally, although the CFM was compared with the DAS, it is pertinent to extend this comparison to other contemporary measures that address relational quality from other perspectives to enrich the couple flourishing construct. Indeed, these results open new lines of research that allow us to consolidate the use of the CFM in clinical practice, as well as to advance in the development of tools that reflect the complexities of relational well‐being in real intervention contexts.

Funding

This publication is part of the fund PREP2022‐001096 and PID2022‐141198OB‐I00, financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the ESF+.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Anderson, S. R. , Tambling R. B., Huff S. C., Heafner J., Johnson L. N., and Ketring S. A.. 2014. “The Development of a Reliable Change Index and Cutoff for the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 40: 525–534. 10.1111/jmft.12095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bühler, J. L. , Krauss S., and Orth U.. 2021. “Development of Relationship Satisfaction Across the Life Span: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 147, no. 10: 1012–1053. 10.1037/bul0000342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Crane, D. R. , Middleton K. C., and Bean R. A.. 2000. “Establishing Criterion Scores for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale.” American Journal of Family Therapy 28: 53–60. 10.1080/019261800261815. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fincham, F. D. , Rogge R., and Beach S. R. H.. 2018. “Relationship Satisfaction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by Vangelisti A. L. and Perlman D., 2nd ed., 422–436. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316417867.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fishbane, M. D. 2023. “Couple Relational Ethics: From Theory to Lived Practice.” Family Process 62: 860–875. 10.1111/famp.12889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fowers, B. J. 2000. Beyond the Myth of Marital Happiness: How Embracing the Virtues of Loyalty, Generosity, Justice, and Courage Can Strengthen Your Relationship. Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar]
  7. Galovan, A. M. , Carroll J. S., Schramm D. G., Holmes E. K., and Buswell L. A.. 2022. “Satisfaction or Connectivity? Implications From the Strong Relationality Model of Flourishing Couple Relationships.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 48: 883–907. 10.1111/jmft.12562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Griffes, K. R. , Daire A. P., Carlson R. G., Wetchler J. L., and Herakova L. L.. 2024. “Couple Relationship Education Content: What We Have and What We Are Missing.” Family Process 63: 144–160. 10.1111/famp.12892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Harrell, F. E. 2024. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=Hmisc. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hudson, N. W. , and Fraley R. C.. 2017. “Adult Attachment and Perceptions of Closeness.” Personal Relationships 24: 17–27. 10.1111/pere.12166. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kinsey, A. C. , Pomeroy W. B., and Martin C. E.. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W. B. Saunders Co. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuhn, M. , Wing J., Weston S., et al. 2022. Caret: Classification and Regression Training. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=caret. [Google Scholar]
  13. Machia, L. V. , Proulx M. L., Ioerger M., and Lehmiller J. J.. 2020. “A Longitudinal Study of Friends With Benefits Relationships.” Personal Relationships 27, no. 1: 47–60. 10.1111/pere.12307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Montesano, A. , Madigan S., Çakmak K., Ness O., and Brønseth S. R.. 2023. “Reconnecting With Relational Values in Highly Conflicted Separating Couples: A Narrative Therapy–Informed Relational Interviewing Teamwork–Based Supervision Approach.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 79: 1521–1536. 10.1002/jclp.23480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Montesano, A. , and Ness O.. 2019. “La carta relacional en terapia de pareja: Un recurso narrativo para la reconstrucción de la ética y el bienestar interpersonal.” Revista de Psicoterapia 30: 107–128. 10.33898/rdp.v30i114.323. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Natarajan, S. , and Francis L.. 2024. “Beyond Satisfaction: Enhancing Couple Flourishing Through Relationship Education Interventions – A Narrative Review (Chapter 15).” In Relationship Education: International and Cultural Perspectives, edited by Francis D., Naidoo N., and Francis L., 221–233. Francis & Naidoo Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  17. Posit Team . 2025. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. https://posit.co/download/rstudio‐desktop/. [Google Scholar]
  18. Prameswari‐Edwina, O. I. , Setyana C. M., and Sembiring T.. 2022. “Role of Self‐Esteem on the Relationship Flourishing Through AIM (Attention, Interpretation and Memory) and Positivity for a Married Individual.” Humanitas (Jurnal Psikologi) 6: 329–344. 10.28932/humanitas.v6i3.5549. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. R Core Team . 2025. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R‐project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  20. Robin, X. , Turck N., Hainard A., et al. 2021. pROC: Display and Analyze ROC Curves. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=pROC. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rosta‐Filep, O. , Lakatos C., Thege B. K., Sallay V., and Martos T.. 2023. “Flourishing Together: The Longitudinal Effect of Goal Coordination on Goal Progress and Life Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships.” International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology 8: 205–225. 10.1007/S41042-023-00089-3/TABLES/4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Saavedra‐Roa, A. , Pineda‐Marin C., Vallejo‐Medina P., and Montesano A.. 2026. “Adaptation and Validation of the Couple Flourishing Measure Among Spaniards.” Family Process 65, no. 4: e70204. 10.1111/famp.70204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sanri, A. G. , Kim Halford W., Rogge R. D., and von Hippel W.. 2021. “The Couple Flourishing Measure.” Family Process 60: 457–476. 10.1111/famp.12632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Santos‐Iglesias, P. , Vallejo‐Medina P., and Sierra J. C.. 2009. “Propiedades psicométricas de una versión breve de la Escala de Ajuste Diádico en muestras españolas.” International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 9, no. 3: 501–517. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/337/33712038009.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  25. Silverstein, R. , Bass L. B., Tuttle A., Knudson‐Martin C., and Huenergardt D.. 2006. “What Does It Mean To Be Relational? A Framework for Assessment and Practice.” Family Process 45: 391–405. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00178.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Spanier, G. B. 1976. “Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 38: 15–28. 10.2307/350547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Torchiano, M. 2020. Effsize: Efficient Effect Size Computation (Version 0.8.1) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=effsize. [Google Scholar]
  28. VanderWeele, T. J. 2017. “On the Promotion of Human Flourishing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America 114: 8148–8156. 10.1073/pnas.1702996114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wei, T. , and Simko V.. 2021. Corrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix (Version 0.92) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=corrplot. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wickham, H. 2011. Plyr: Tools for Splitting, Applying and Combining Data (Version 1.8.9) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=plyr. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Version 3.5.1) [R package]. Springer‐Verlag. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wickham, H. , and Bryan J.. 2023. Readxl: Read Excel Files (Version 1.4.2) [R package]. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=readxl. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wickham, H. , François R., Henry L., Müller K., and Vaughan D.. 2023. Dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=dplyr. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Family Process are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES