Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Husbands’ and wives’ discordant self-reports on couple-level variables

implications for data analysis

Amorim, Mariana PhDa,b,c; Silva, Susana PhDa,c; Severo, Milton PhDa,c; Kelly-Irving, Michelle PhDd,e; Samorinha, Catarina PhDa,c; Alves, Elisabete PhDa

doi: 10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000053
Original Article
Open

Background: Using the couple as unit of analysis raises methodological challenges. This study aims to discuss the appropriate proxy to use in statistical analyses when couples provide discordant answers on the following couple-level variables: household monthly income and length of marital relationship.

MethodsDuring 12 months (July 2013–June 2014), parents of very preterm infants admitted at all level III Neonatal Intensive Care Units of the North of Portugal were consecutively and systematically invited to participate in this study. Mothers and fathers were surveyed separately, 15 to 22 days after birth. In the current analysis, 82 couples living in the same household were included. A socioeconomic position factor score was computed through a principal component analysis. To seek the most appropriate proxy of the couple's value, the association between the individual answers and the summary measures of couple-level variables, and the factor's score was estimated using generalized linear models.

Results: Almost 40% of couples gave discordant answers about household monthly income [weighted kappa = 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.58–0.79)], with no association with sex. Approximately 19% of couples disagreed regarding the length of marital relationship [weighted kappa = 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.92–0.98)], with men declaring longer relationships. No associations were observed between women's and men's answers or the summary measures with the socioeconomic position score.

Conclusions: Suggestions regarding how to handle the methodological problems related with spousal discrepancies include the collection of individual variables through separate interviews alongside couple-level variables using joint interviews.

aEPIUnit – Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

bGlobal Public Health Doctoral Programme, Portugal

cDepartamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

dINSERM UMR1027, Toulouse, France

eUniversité Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, UMR1027, Toulouse, France.

Corresponding author. Institute of Public Health of University of Porto, Rua das Taipas no 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal. E-mail address: mariana.amorim@ispup.up.pt (Mariana Amorim).

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Financial support and sponsorship: This work was supported by FEDER funding from the Operational Programme Factors of Competitiveness —COMPETE and by national funding from the Foundation for Science and Technology - FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education) under the project “Parenting roles and knowledge in Neonatal Intensive Care Units” (FCOMP-01–0124-FEDER-019902; Ref. FCT PTDC/CS-ECS/120750/2010) and the Unidade de Investigação em Epidemiologia - Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (EPIUnit) (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006862; Ref. UID/DTP/04750/2013); and the grants PD/BD/105830/2014 (to M.A.), SFRH/BPD/103562/2014 (to E.A.), co-funded by the FCT and the POCH/FSE Program; and the FCT Investigator contract IF/01674/2015 (to S.S.).

Received July 19, 2018

Accepted August 16, 2019

Online date: September 9, 2019

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Back to Top | Article Outline

Background

Recent quantitative studies focused on health-related family issues have used the couple as the unit of analysis.1–3 This insight enhances the probability of recruiting men in a context where family and parenthood studies have been mainly focused on women's experiences,4–6 and enables the analysis of sex patterns and intersectionality regarding personal experiences on health.7 Listening both women and men is also essential for a successful design and implementation of evidence-based practices of family integrated care, defined as provision of care that is respectful of and responsive to parents’ preferences, needs, and values.8

A primary issue to consider in couple-based studies is whether to inquire the couples separately or jointly, since being alone or in the presence of the partner shapes the reporting of experiences and emotions,5,9 with spousal presence leading to greater agreement on a variety of attitudinal and behavioral items.5,10 In any of these designs, using the couple as a unit increases the complexity of data throughout the research process, from recruitment and data collection to data analysis and interpretation.10–12 However, the empirical work around the methodological challenges involved in couples’ research is sparse and has been mainly grounded on qualitative data, covering 3 main areas: ethical dilemmas regarding informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and privacy13,14; issues regarding study design and sampling5; and difficulties in data analysis and interpretation.3,15 The last topic has also been discussed in quantitative studies, with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of dyadic analysis,16 whereas the strategies to deal with husbands’ and wives’ discordant self-reports on couple-level variables in data analysis and their implications for measurement, when the couple is questioned separately, are clearly underexplored.17

Thus, the aim of this article is to discuss the most appropriate proxy to use in statistical analyses when couples provide discordant answers, drawing on a study in which authors observed discordance on household monthly income and length of marital relationship as reported by each spouse when questioned separately.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

This study is based on a cohort of mothers and fathers of very preterm infants, previously described.4 The study was approved by the National Data Protection Commission and the Ethics Committees of all hospitals where the data were collected (Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Centro Hospitalar do Alto Ave, Centro Materno-Infantil do Norte, Hospital de Braga, Centro Hospitalar Entre Douro e Vouga, and Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Between July 2013 and June 2014, parents of very preterm infants, born before 32 weeks of gestation,18 and hospitalized in all level III Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU) in the Northern Health Region of Portugal (n = 7) were systematically invited to participate in a study about parental roles and knowledge in NICU. Parents with illness that precluded NICU visitation (eg, severe chronic conditions) and those who were absent in NICU were excluded. Among the 126 eligible families, 122 (96.8%) accepted to participate, with a total of 83 heterosexual couples living in the same household.

Trained interviewers questioned couples separately, although in approximate times, 15 to 22 days after a very preterm birth, using a structured questionnaire. The decision to inquire couples separately was taken to assess gender-specific lived experiences,19,20 without the influence of one partner in another, while respecting privacy and confidentiality as fundamental ethical principles.21

Data on sociodemographic characteristics (age, educational level, occupation, employment status, subjective social class, and existence of previous children) was self-reported. Occupations were classified by major professional groups, according to the Portuguese Classification of Occupations (PCO) 201022 and then grouped in 3 categories: upper white collar, lower white collar, and blue collar. The upper white collar category comprised individuals classified in the upper 3 major groups of the PCO2010: executive civil servants, industrial directors, and executives; professionals and scientists; and middle management and technicians. The lower white-collar category comprised individuals classified in the fourth and fifth major group of the PCO2010: administrative and related workers and service and sales workers. The blue-collar category comprised individuals classified in the sixth to ninth major groups of the PCO2010. These major groups included farmers and skilled agricultural, fisheries workers, skilled workers, craftsmen and similar, machine operators and assembly workers, and unskilled workers. Unemployed participants were classified considering their previous main occupation (n = 23).

The length of marital relationship was assessed through an open-ended question: “How long have you been living together?” and then the answers were classified in categories with a 12 months interval each (from <12 to ≥230 months). Household monthly income question inquired about using previously defined categories (≤500€; 501€–1000€; 1001€–1500€; 1501–2000€; 2001€–2500; >2500€). When the answer of one spouse did not match with the partner's answer, participants were classified as “discordant couples.”

The data regarding perceived social support and parental stress were collected through self-administered questionnaires. The Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support23 measures the perceived adequacy of social support received from a significant other, family, and friends, through 12 items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The Portuguese version of the Parental Stressor Scale: NICU24 measures the parental perception of sources of stress arising from the environment of NICU through 26 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all stressful) to 5 (extremely stressful). In the present study only the domain “Overall stress” was considered.

After exclusion of a couple with missing values on household monthly income and length of marital relationship, 82 couples were included in the statistical analysis. Descriptive data are presented as count and proportions, mean and standard deviation, and median and interquartile range (P25-P75), according to the type of variables and distribution. The Chi-square test or the Fisher exact test, as well as the 2 independent samples t test or the Mann-Whitney test were used, as appropriate, to compare “discordant couples” with “concordant couples.” The agreement within couples was calculated using weighted kappa coefficients and the respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Looking for the most appropriate proxy of the couple's discordant answer, a principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed to identify the number and the factors explaining the individual socioeconomic variables (education level, occupation, and subjective social class), and to compute the factors’ score of the socioeconomic position for each individual. Considering that household income is an indicator of the socioeconomic position,25 and that the latter shapes the transition for stable family formation,26 we assumed that self-reported household monthly income and length of marital relationship would be associated with individual socioeconomic position score. The association between the wife's answer, the husband's answer, and the summary measures for each couple with the socioeconomic position factor score was assessed using generalized linear models,27 assuming that the strongest association would reveal the most appropriate proxy of couple's answer. Beta regression coefficients (β) were standardized (z scores) and presented with 95% CI.

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 11.0 (College Station, TX, 2009) and R Statistical Programming Language version 3.2.2.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

A total of 40.2% (95% CI: 29.6–51.7) of couples disagreed about household monthly income [weighted kappa = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58–0.79)]. No association with sex was observed: 18 women and 15 men reported higher household income than their spouses. Regarding the length of marital relationship, 18.8% (95% CI: 10.9–29.0) of couples disagreed [weighted kappa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98)], with 13 men and 2 women declaring longer relationships than their spouses (Fig. 1). Concordant and discordant couples did not differ significantly regarding sociodemographic characteristics, perceived social support, and parental stress (Table 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 1

Principal component analysis revealed that individual socioeconomic position variables (educational level, occupation, and subjective social class) were aggregated in 1 factor, explaining 54% of total variance (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2

Household monthly income was positively and strongly associated with the socioeconomic position factor score, whereas length of marital relationship was weakly associated with the score (Table 3). No significant differences were observed regarding the association between women's answers, men's answers, or the summary measures of each couple with the socioeconomic position score, both for household monthly income and for length of marital relationship.

Table 3

Table 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

Approximately 40% and 19% of the couples gave discordant reports about household monthly income and length of marital relationship, respectively, when questioned separately. Men tended to indicate longer relationships than their spouses, whereas no sex differences were observed on the report of household monthly income. The lack of evidence regarding the most appropriate proxy to use in statistical analysis when couples gave discordant answers on household monthly income and length of marital relationship sustains the use of any of the tested measures—the woman's answer, the man's answer, the maximum, the minimum, or the mean, while lending strength to the need for developing guidance on how to handle discrepancies analytically. Two major issues arise when assessing self-reported couple-level variables: what type of variables should be used—individual measures, household measures, or both; and the adequate mode of inquiry—separate interview, joint interview, or both.

This study reveals measurement errors when couple-level variables are reported by only one spouse. Our findings show a men's tendency to report longer relationships, but do not support previous data according to which men tend to state higher income levels,28 neither suggest that the existence of children under 12 years-old in the household is associated with higher levels of discordance among couples on household income's report.29 Although cohabitation has become progressively prevalent in contemporary societies,30 with couples often moving in together gradually, without a clear start date,31 women seem more likely to elect marriage as the landmark of couple's trajectory, whereas men may have focused on when cohabitation began. Regarding household income, each partner may overstate his/her own income and understate their partner's income,28 or one of the partners may omit the income resulting from informal occupations.32

In order to minimize the measurement error, it would be helpful, whenever feasible, to collect individual variables through separate interviews alongside couple-level variables using joint interviews with both spouses. Epidemiological survey studies should consider collecting data from both members of the couple on the start date of the current cohabitation and the start date of the current marriage (when applicable), using the life-history calendar or the time line techniques. In addition, both individual and household monthly income should be assessed, together with household financial and physical assets, such as the value of housing, cars, investments, inheritance, or pension rights,28 and perceived income adequacy.

This study is limited by the sample size, although participants were recruited systematically during 1 year in all the level III NICU located in North of Portugal. The present article reveals several aspects that may be used by different areas of the medical and social sciences, namely regarding: the discussion about the influence of having the partner present in the research setting during a self-administered questionnaire in healthcare studies10,33; the implications for measurement and marital quality of the discordance among couples on the report of courtship stages in sociological studies34; and the impact of the mode of inquiring the couple on the spouses views of family's income and wealth in economic studies.28 In addition, our achievements challenge traditional methodological approaches of epidemiological research on family issues, often based only on the women's report to collect information about the household,28 in the sense that they call for the analysis of the couple as a unit, using individual variables alongside couple-level variables and collecting it through both separate and joint interviews, which may add robustness and accuracy to health-related family survey studies. However, it should be acknowledged that this approach can lengthen the application of the questionnaires, which can be considered a study-related reason for refusals.35 This discussion can be useful for teaching and applied advance training on epidemiological research methods of students interested on family issues, regardless their background and research field.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants and health professionals for their collaboration in the study.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

[1]. McDougall J, Edmeades J, Krishnan S. (Not) talking about sex: couple reports of sexual discussion and expression in Bangalore, India. Cult Health Sex. 2011;13:141–156.
[2]. Samorinha C, Severo M, Alves E, et al Factors associated with willingness to donate embryos for research among couples undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32:247–256.
[3]. Story WT, Burgard SA. Couples’ reports of household decision-making and the utilization of maternal health services in Bangladesh. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:2403–2411.
[4]. Alves E, Amorim M, Fraga S, et al Parenting roles and knowledge in neonatal intensive care units: protocol of a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005941.
[5]. Bjornholt M, Farstad GR. ‘Am I rambling?’: on the advantages of interviewing couples together. Qual Res. 2012;14:3–19.
[6]. Provenzi L, Santoro E. The lived experience of fathers of preterm infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24:1784–1794.
[7]. Baía I, Amorim M, Silva S, et al Parenting very preterm infants and stress in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Early Hum Dev. 2016;101 (suppl C):3–9.
[8]. O’Brien K, Bracht M, Macdonell K, et al A pilot cohort analytic study of Family Integrated Care in a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13 (suppl 1):1–8.
[9]. Machado H, Silva S. Nardi V. Gender and ethics in qualitative interviewing: Research relationships in the context of a study of infertility in Portugal. Feminism and women in leadership. New York: Nova Science; 2010;97–110.
[10]. Zipp JF, Toth J. She said, he said, they said the impact of spousal presence in survey research. Public Opin Q. 2002;66:177–208.
[11]. Breunig R, Cobb-Clark D, Gong X, et al Disagreement in partners’ reports of financial difficulty. Rev Econ Househ. 2007;5:59–82.
[12]. McMahon JM, Tortu S, Torres L, et al Recruitment of heterosexual couples in public health research: a study protocol. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:24.
[13]. Braybrook DE, Mroz LW, Robertson S, et al Holistic experiences and strategies for conducting research with couples. Qual Health Res. 2017;27:584–590.
[14]. Valentine G. Doing household research: interviewing couples together and apart. Area. 1999;31:67–74.
[15]. Eisikovits Z, Koren C. Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:1642–1655.
[16]. Peterson BD, Pirritano M, Christensen U, et al The longitudinal impact of partner coping in couples following 5 years of unsuccessful fertility treatments. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1656–1664.
[17]. Thomson E, Williams R. Beyond wives’ family sociology: a method for analyzing couple data. J Marriage Fam. 1982;44:999–1008.
[18]. World Health OrganizationBorn too soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
[19]. Carter JD, Mulder RT, Darlow BA. Parental stress in the NICU: the influence of personality, psychological, pregnancy and family factors. Personal Ment Health. 2007;1:40–50.
[20]. Matricardi S, Agostino R, Fedeli C, et al Mothers are not fathers: differences between parents in the reduction of stress levels after a parental intervention in a NICU. Acta Paediatr. 2013;102:8–14.
[21]. Margolin G, Chien D, Duman SE, et al Ethical issues in couple and family research. J Fam Psychol. 2005;19:157–167.
[22]. Statistics Portugal. Portuguese Classification of Occupations 2010. 2011. Available at: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=107961853&PUBLICACOESmodo=2&xlang=en. Accessed November 24, 2017.
[23]. Carvalho S, Pinto-Gouveia J, Pimentel P, et al Características psicométricas da versão portuguesa da Escala Multidimensional de Suporte Social Percebido (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support—MSPSS). Psychologica. 2011;54:309–358.
[24]. Souza SRd, Dupas G, Balieiro MMFG. Adaptação cultural e validação para a língua portuguesa da Parental Stress Scale: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (PSS:NICU). Acta Paul Enferm. 2012;25:171–176.
[25]. Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, et al Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:95–101.
[26]. Kuo JC-L, Raley RK. Is it all about money? Work characteristics and women's and men's marriage formation in early adulthood. J Fam Issues. 2016;37:1046–1073.
[27]. Carey G. Carey G. The general linear model (GLM): A gentle introduction. Quantitative Methods in Neuroscience. Colorado: University of Colorado; 2013;129–140.
[28]. Zagorsky JL. Husbands’ and wives’ view of the family finances. J Socio Econ. 2003;32:127–146.
[29]. Van der Lippe T, Voorpostel M, Hewitt B. Disagreements among cohabiting and married couples in 22 European countries. Demogr Res. 2014;31:247–274.
[30]. Hiekel N, Liefbroer AC, Poortman A-R. Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. Eur J Popul. 2014;30:391–410.
[31]. Manning WD, Smock PJ. Measuring and modeling cohabitation: new perspectives from qualitative data. J Marriage Fam. 2005;67:989–1002.
[32]. Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:859–883.
[33]. Samorinha C, Fraga S, Alves E, et al Self-reported psychosocial factors among in vitro fertilization patients interviewed alone or with the partner. Psychol Health Med. 2016;21:431–438.
[34]. Halpern-Meekin S, Tach L. Discordance in couples’ reporting of courtship stages: Implications for measurement and marital quality. Soc Sci Res. 2013;42:1143–1155.
[35]. Calanzani N, Higginson I, Koffman J, et al Factors associated with participation, active refusals and reasons for not taking part in a mortality followback survey evaluating end-of-life care. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0146134.
Keywords:

data analysis; discordance; family studies; methods; spouses; surveys and questionnaires

Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.