{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025027203482045703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01958650707290533, 'mean_word_length': 5.666666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis

We conducted a reliability generalization meta-analysis to examine the internal consistency of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) scores across 91 published studies with 128 samples and 25,035 participants. The DAS was found to produce total and Dyadic cohesion, Consensus, and Satisfaction scores of acceptable internal consistency, although lower than those originally reported by Spanier (1976). Reliability estimates of these scores did not differ by the sexual orientation, gender, marital status, or ethnicity of the sample. The Affective Expression subscale was found to produce scores with poor Cronbach’s alpha across studies. Reliability estimates of Affective Expression scores were highly influenced by sample characteristics. The implications of these results are discussed as they relate to the use of the DAS in research.