The History and Further Development of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale

Abstract

A recent review attributed the development of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale to scholars Rusbult and Morrow; however, that scale was developed nearly 50 years ago in 1977 by Schumm, Bollman, and Jurich. The history and further development of the KMSS are discussed with reference to the use of the scale and evidence for its reliability and validity across different populations and nations.

Keywords:Marital satisfaction, Kansas marital satisfaction scale, KMSS, Social desirability, Marital adjustment, Marital happiness, Reliability, Validity, Measurement

Background

As noted by Spanier [1], “The quality and stability of marital relationships have received much attention in modern social science. Marital quality, adjustment, success, stability, and satisfaction are the most frequently studied aspects of marriage and family relationships today (p. 288), a situation echoed by Spanier and Lewis [2]. More recently, Delatorre and Wagner [3] argue that such concerns remain important and justified in terms of how much the quality of relationships can impact personal health and well-being.

Introduction

In 2023, Akanksha, Pudeskar, and Deshmukh [4:1] published an entry on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) in which they attributed the development of the KMSS to psychologists Caryl Rusbult and John Morrow. They said that Rusbult and Morrow “eventually developed a three-item scale that they believed was the most effective at measuring overall marital satisfaction. The three items were as follows:

a) In general, how satisfied are you with your marriage?
b) Compared to most marriages, how would you describe your marriage?
c) How often do you think things are going well in your marriage?” (4:2]

Nevertheless, they went on to accurately describe the response categories of the actual KMSS and that the total score is obtained by adding the scores of the three items, with higher scores representing greater marital satisfaction.

In more detail, they stated that “With a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95, the KMSS has been found to have good reliability and validity and has been used in numerous studies to measure marital satisfaction in various populations [which they later cite as Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, Malaysian, Korean, India, and African American]. However, it should be noted that the scale is self-reported and subject to response and social desirability biases” [4: 2]. They went on to state that “the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale has become one of psychology’s most commonly used marital satisfaction measures.” [4: 2], concluding that “The KMSS is a self-report questionnaire that is widely used to assess marital relationship satisfaction around the globe.” [4: 2]. In terms of construct validity, they said that “Communication, constructive resolution strategies, emotional expressiveness, sexual satisfaction, and marital length have all been identified as important variables in marital satisfaction research works utilizing the KMSS.” [4: 2]. Furthermore, they added that “When compared to other scales, the KMSS is a short scale with only three elements. Although the KMSS assesses marital happiness in general, it does not look into specific aspects of relationships such as communication or dispute resolution. The KMSS, on the other hand, has been found to have high reliability and validity and is widely used in marital satisfaction research.” [4: 4]. In terms of application, they concluded that “It is beneficial to both researchers and clinicians working in marital and family counseling. The results of KMSS-based research studies can help couples and therapists understand the factors that contribute to a satisfying and fulfilling marital relationship, as well as guide the creation of interventions and treatments to improve marital happiness.” [4: 4].

There are several problems with their entry [4]. First Morrow’s name was not John Morrow, but was Gregory D. Morrow, now an emeritus professor of psychology from Penn West University, Edinboro, Pennsylvania. Second, Rusbult and Morrow did not invent the KMSS, even though they may have invented a scale with the three items they listed. The actual KMSS does include three items: “How satisfied are you with…. Your marriage, your relationship with your husband/wife/spouse, and your spouse as a partner?” Third, no references to Rusbult or Morrow’s research were cited [4] to support their scale’s development. Fourth, Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew [5] did use marital satisfaction level as a factor predicting commitment level directly and probability of persistence indirectly in their “investment model of commitment processes” [5: 360], using social exchange theory as the basis for this research, in contrast to our reliance upon symbolic interaction research and use of marital satisfaction as a dependent variable. Fifth, our search of the works of Rusbult or Morrow found several sets of items used to measure marital or relationship satisfaction, sets whose items changed over time rather than being only the three items mentioned [4].

1980: four items pertained to “respondents” attraction to their relationships, positivity of feelings for their partners, satisfaction with their relationships, and closeness of their relationships to their ideals” [6: 182];

1983: “How much do you like your partner? To what extent are you attracted to your partner? To what degree are you satisfied with your relationship?” [7: 107]; 1986a: At present, to what extent are you attracted to your partner, at present how does your relationship compare to most peoples’, and at present, how satisfied are you with your relationship? [8: 53]1986b: In general, to what extent are you attracted to your partner? In general, how does your relationship compare to other people’s? All things considered, how satisfied are you with your relationship? [9: 84] 1998: I feel satisfied with our relationship, my relationship is much better than others’ relationships, my relationship is close to ideal, our relationship makes me very happy, our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my need for intimacy, and I love my partner [5: 366] [6-9].

History of the KMSS

The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale was created for use in research in 1977 [10], based on Spanier and Coles [11] discussion of three different aspects of marital satisfaction. Numerous articles followed, on research by Schumm and his colleagues [12-46]. A copy of the original scale is available in [42: 387]. The scale was revised by Kurdek [47] to use nine response levels.

Recent Developments

The KMSS has been cited in several meta-analyses [48-54] and other reviews of the literature [55-66]. Not all reviews of the marital adjustment literature mention the KMSS, however [67,68]. White, Stahmann, and Furrow [69] compared the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test with the KMSS in great detail. Graham, Diebels, and Barnow [70] cited the KMSS for its high levels of internal consistency reliability. Kurdek [71,72] used the KMSS with both heterosexual and gay/lesbian couples; at one point, Kurdek emailed me a correlation matrix revealing test-retest reliabilities for the KMSS over several years, but he forbade me from publishing that material; however, my recollection is that the correlations were adequate (.50 to .70). Sabatelli [64], reviewed numerous measures, but noted with respect to the KMSS that “The theoretical foundation of the measure is based on Spanier and Cole’s (1976) [11] conceptual distinction between satisfaction with spouse, marriage, and the marriage relationship” [64: 900-901] and concluded that “The scale is direct, focuses on the relationship as a whole, and, at this time, has considerable support for its validity.” [64: 901]. Kurdek [73] cited the KMSS as “a relatively pure measure of marital satisfaction” that correlated with the satisfaction scale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale in his study at r = .82 for husbands and .84 for wives” (both p < .001) [73: 199]. Crane, Middleton, and Bean [74] determined that the cutoff score for distressed/nondistressed couples for the KMSS was a score of 17 or above. Sorokowski, et al., [75] used the KMSS in 33 countries and found that it was “reliable and culturally equivalent” [75: 4}, with Cronbach alphas from .76 (Bulgaria) to .99 (Germany). Kim, et al., [76] reported that the KMSS had been cited 1, 149 times in their search, which put it fifth among measures of global sentiment out of 30 scales evaluated, although Kim et al. incorrectly listed it as having only one item [76: 9].

Limitations

Analyses of individual articles [77-81] that assessed the reliability and validity of the KMSS, especially when used in conjunction with other measurements of marital quality, are beyond the scope of this report. Issues regarding marital social desirability [82-84] are also beyond the scope as well, though we recommend a recent report by Kim, et al. [85] that has discussed a variety of ways for controlling for possible effects of social desirability.

Conclusion

One benefit of living longer is a greater opportunity to see your own research attributed to others. The KMSS was developed in 1977 [10] from issues discussed by Spanier and Cole [11] rather than by Rusbult and Morrow [5-9]. Since then, a great deal of research has explored the reliability and validity of the KMSS. While the KMSS and many other measures of marital adjustment, happiness, satisfaction, or quality have demonstrated varying levels of reliability and validity, we are continuing to learn more about marital outcomes with more sophisticated levels of measurement and analyses, which may challenge our conventional wisdoms, even leave us at a crossroads in the field, but hopefully lead to better scientific understanding [59, 86]. A recent analysis of numerous scale items found a common factor underlying all of them, which may mean that there is so much common variance among different scales that predicting one from another may resemble predicting something from itself [76]. Future research concerning marital quality will need to take these new developments into account.

Permission for Scale Use for Academic, Non-profit Purposes

The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale, the Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale, and the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Scale may be used at no cost for non-profit academic research as you wish; you may translate the scales as needed at no cost. As a courtesy, please advise Dr. Schumm at schumm@ksu.edu about the results of your research with these scales, especially if/when your research is published.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the role of Professor Anthony P. Jurich (1947- 2010) in the development of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale between 1976 and 2010.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Spanier GB (1979) The measurement of marital quality. J Sex Marital Ther 5(3): 288-300.
2. Spanier GB, Lewis RA (1980) Marital quality: A review of the seventies. J Marriage Fam 42(4): 96-110.
3. Delatorre MZ, Wagner A (2020) Marital quality assessment: Reviewing the concept, instruments, and methods. Marriage & Family Review 56(3): 193-216.
4. Akanksha YP, Pusdekar, Deshmukh V (2023) Kansas marital satisfaction scale (KMSS). In T. K. Shackelford (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychol Behavior (1-5).
5. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, Agnew CR (1998) The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships 5: 357-391.
6. Rusbult CE (1980) Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. J Experiment Soc Psychol 16: 172-186.
7. Rusbult CE (1983) A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. J Personal Soc Psychol 45(1): 101-117.
8. Rusbult CE, Johnson DJ, Morrow GD (1986) Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations 39(1): 45-63.
9. Rusbult CE, Johnson DJ, Morrow GD (1986) Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Soc Psychol Quarterly 49(1): 81-89.
10. Copeland JM, Bugaighis MA, Schumm WR (1984) Relationship characteristics of couples married thirty years or more: A four-sample replication. Lifestyles: A J Changing Patterns 7(2): 107-114.
11. Spanier GB, Cole CL (1976) Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. Intern J Sociol Fam 6: 121-146.
12. Akagi CG, Schumm WR, Bergen MB (2003) Dimensionality of the Kansas Family Strengths Scale and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale as revised to capture changes in marital satisfaction. Psychol Rep 93(3): 1267-1274.
13. Anderson SA, Russell CS, Schumm WR (1983) Perceived marital quality and family life-cycle categories: A further analysis. J Marriage Fam 45(1): 127-139.
14. Barnes HL, Schumm WR, Jurich AP, Bollman SR (1984) Marital satisfaction: Positive regard versus effective communications as explanatory variables. The J Soc Psychol 123: 71-78.
15. Bugaighis MA, Schumm WR, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1983) Locus of control and marital satisfaction. J Psychol 114: 275-279.
16. Bugaighis MA, Schumm WR, Jurich AP, Bollman SR (1985/1986) Factors associated with thoughts of marital separation. J Divorce 9(2): 49-59.
17. Calahan CA (1996) Correlations of scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Quality Marriage Index. Psychol Rep 78: 530.
18. Calahan CA (1997) Internal consistency, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Quality Marriage Index. Psychol Rep 80: 49-50.
19. Chang LW, Schumm WR, Coulson LA, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1994) Dimensionality of brief family interaction and satisfaction scales among couples from eight western and midwestern states. Psychol Rep 74: 131-144.
20. Grover KJ, Paff Bergen LA, Russell CS, Schumm WR (1984) The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: A further brief report. Psychol Rep 54: 629-630.
21. Grover KJ, Russell CS, Schumm WR, Paff Bergen LA (1985) Mate selection processes and marital satisfaction. Family Relations 34(3): 383-386.
22. Hatch RC, James DE, Schumm WR (1986) Spiritual intimacy and marital satisfaction. Family Relations 35(4): 539-545.
23. James DE, Schumm WR, Kennedy CE, Grigsby CC, Shectman KL, et al. (1985) Characteristics of the Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale among two samples of married parents. Psychol Rep 57: 163-169.
24. Jeong GJ, Bollman SR, Schumm WR (1992) Self-reported marital instability as correlated with the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale for a sample of midwestern wives. Psychol Rep 70: 243-246.
25. Mitchell SE, Newell GK, Schumm WR (1983) Test-retest reliability of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychol Rep 53: 545-546.
26. Schectman KL, Bergen MB, Schumm WR, Bugaighis MA (1985) Characteristics of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale among female participants in community childbirth classes. Psychol Rep 56: 537-538.
27. Schumm WR, Akagi CA, Bosch KR (2008) Relationship satisfaction for heterosexual women compared to lesbians and men in a sample of faith communities from Topeka, Kansas. Psychol Rep 102(2): 377-388.
28. Schumm WR, Anderson SA, Benigas JE, Mc Cutchen MB, Griffin CL, et al. (1985) Criterion-related validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychol Rep 56(3): 719-722.
29. Schumm WR, Barnes HL, Bollman SR, Jurich AP, Bugaighis MA (1986) Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction revisited. Family Relations 34(2): 241-247.
30. Schumm WR, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1981) Validity of Edmond’s Marital Conventionalization Scale. J Psychol 109: 65-71.
31. Schumm WR, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1982) The “marital conventionalization” argument: Implications for the study of religiosity and marital satisfaction. J Psychol Theol 10(3): 236-241.
32. Schumm WR, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1997) Gender and marital satisfaction: A replication using a seven-point item response version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychol Rep 81(3): 1004-1006.
33. Schumm WR, Bollman SR, Jurich AP, Hatch R (2001) Family strengths and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: A factor analytic study. Psychol Rep 88(3): 965-973.
34. Schumm WR, Bugaighis MA (1986) Marital quality over the marital career: Alternative explanations. J Marriage Fam 48(1): 165-168.
35. Schumm WR, Crock RJ, Likcani A, Akagi CG, Bosch KR (2008) Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale with different response formats in a recent sample of U.S. Army personnel. Individual Differences Research 6(1): 26-37.
36. Schumm WR, Hammond PM (1986) Self-reported marital quality of military families living off-post in a midwestern community. Psychol Rep 59: 391-394.
37. Schumm WR, Hess JL, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1981) Marital conventionalization revisited. Psychol Rep 49: 607-615.
38. Schumm WR, Jurich AP, Bollman SR, Bugaighis MA (1985) His and her marriage revisited. J Family Issues 6(2): 221-227.
39. Schumm WR, Martin MJ, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1982) Classifying family violence: Whither the woozle? J Family Issues 3(3): 319-340.
40. Schumm WR, Milliken GA, Poresky RH, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1983) Issues in measuring marital satisfaction in survey research. Inter J Sociol Family 13(1): 129-143.
41. Schumm WR, Nichols CW, Schectman KL, Grigsby CC (1983) Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychol Rep 53: 567-572.
42. Schumm WR, Paff Bergen LA, Hatch RC, Obiorah FC, Copeland JM, et al. (1986) Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. J Marriage and the Family 48(2): 381-387.
43. Schumm WR, Resnick G, Bollman SR, Jurich AP (1998) Gender effects and marital satisfaction: A brief report from a sample of dual military couples from the 1992 Department of Defense Worldwide Survey of Members and Spouses. Psychol Rep 82: 161-162.
44. Schumm WR, Scanlon ED, Crow CL, Green DM, Buckler DL (1983) Characteristics of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale in a sample of 79 married couples. Psychol Rep 53: 583-588.
45. Schumm WR, Silliman B (1996) Gender and marital satisfaction: A replication with a sample of spouses from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Psychol Rep 79: 496-498.
46. Schumm WR, Webb FJ, Bollman SR (1998) Gender and marital satisfaction: Data from the National Survey of Families and Households. Psychol Rep 83: 319-327.
47. Kurdek LA (1991) Predictors of increases in marital distress in newlywed couples: A 3-year prospective longitudinal study. Devel Psychol 27(4): 727-636.
48. Buhler JL, Krauss S, Orth U (2021) Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 147(10): 1012-1053.
49. Buhler JL, Orth U (2022) Rank-order stability of relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Pers Soc Psychol 123(5): 1138-1165.
50. Jackson JB, Miller RB, Oka M, Henry RG (2014) Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam 76(1): 105-129.
51. Javadivala Z, Allahverdipour H, Jafarabadi MA, Azimi S, Gilani N, et al. (2021) Improved couple satisfaction and communication with marriage and relationship programs: Are there gender differences? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews 10: 178.
52. Kernova L, Halamova J, Deriglazov D (2025) Effectiveness of digital interventions on relationship satisfaction among couples: A systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Psychol 29(13): 1069.
53. Proulx CM, Helms HM, Buehler C (2007) Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam 69(3): 576-593.
54. Whisman MA, Balzert A (2024) Gender differences in variability in intimate relationship satisfaction: A secondary analysis and meta-analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 27(4): 1167-1187.
55. Chis RM (2022) A critical review of the literature on the relationships between personality variables, parenting and marital satisfaction. Postmodern Openings 13(1): 17-46.
56. Chung H (1990) Research on the marital relationship: A critical review. Family Science Review 3(1): 41-64.
57. Dobrowolska M, Groyecka Bernard A, Sorokowski P, Randall AK, Hilpert P, et al. (2020) Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability 12: 8817.
58. Fincham FD, Bradbury TN (1987) The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. J Marriage Fam 49(4): 797-809.
59. Fincham FD, Rogge R (2010) Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. J Family Theory & Review 2: 227-242.
60. Grable JE, Archuleta KL, Nazarinia RR (2011) Couple and family relationship assessments. In JE Grable, KL Archuleta, & RR Nazarinia (Eds.), Financial Planning and Counseling Scales (521-576).
61. Graham JM, Liu YJ, Zeziorski JL (2006) The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam 68(3): 701-717.
62. Heyman RE, Sayers SL, Bellack AS (1994) Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. J Fam Psychol 8(4): 432-446.
63. Louis JP, Louis KM (2022) The development of the Love and Respect Marriage Scale. J Sex Marit Therapy 48(2): 194-216.
64. Sabatelli RM (1988) Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critique of contemporary survey instruments. J Mar Fam 50(4): 891-915.
65. Uhlich M, Luginbuehl T, Schoebi D (2022) Cultural diversity within couples: Risk or chance? A meta-analytic review of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships 29: 120-145.
66. Webb FJ (2011) Measurement in practice. In JE Grable, KL Archuleta, & RR Nazarinia (Eds.), Financial Planning and Counseling Scales (1-12).
67. Bafrani MA, Nourizadeh R, Hakimi S, Mortazavi SA, Mehrabi E, et al. (2023) The effect of psychological interventions on sexual and marital satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health 52(1): 49-63.
68. Wood ND, Crane DR, Schaalje GB, Law DD (2005) What works for whom: A meta-analytic review of marital and couples therapy in reference to marital distress. The Am J Fam Therapy 33: 273-287.
69. White MB, Stahmann RF, Furrow JL (1994) Shorter may be better: A comparison of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. Family Perspective 28(1): 53-66.
70. Graham JM, Diebels KJ, Barnow ZB (2011) The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol 25(1): 39-48.
71. Kurdek LA (1992) Dimensionality of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Evidence from heterosexual and homosexual couples. J Fam Psychol 6(1): 22-35.
72. Kurdek LA (1996) The deterioration of relationship quality for gay and lesbian cohabiting couples: A five-year prospective longitudinal study. Personal Relationships 3: 417-442.
73. Kurdek, LA (1998) Developmental changes in marital satisfaction: A 6-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental cours of marital dysfunction: 180-204.
74. Crane DR, Middleton KC, Bean RA (2000) Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The Am J Fam Therapy 28: 53-60.
75. Sorokowski P, Randall AK, Groyecka A, Frackowiak T, Cantarero K, et al. (2017) Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries. Front Psychol 8: 1199.
76. Kim JJ, Joel S, Gonzales AM, Murphy BA, Perez JC et al. (2026) Predicting relationship quality from itself? A single general factor captures most of the variance across 34 common relationship measures. PLoS One 21(4): 1-32.
77. Bilal A, Rasool S (2020) Marital satisfaction and satisfaction with life: Mediating role of sexual satisfaction in married women. J Psychol Health 2(1): 77-86.
78. Harper JM, Schaalje BG, Sandberg JG (2000) Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life marriages. Am J Fam Therapy 28: 1-18.
79. Hyun S, Shin HJ (2010) Korean pastors and their wives’ marital satisfaction and its predicting factors. Past Psychol 59: 495-512.
80. Omani Samani R, Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Amini P, Navid B (2018) Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) in infertile people. Middle East Fertility Soc J 23: 154-157.
81. Wilmoth JD, Blaney AD, Smith JR (2015) Marital satisfaction, negative interaction, and religiosity: A comparison of three age groups. J Religion Spirituality Aging 27: 222-240.
82. Broderick CB (1974) Editorial. J Marriage Fam 36(2): 224.
83. Russell RJH, Wells PA (1992) Social desirability and quality of marriage. Personality and Individual Differences 13(7): 787-791.
84. Schumm WR (2015) Navigating treacherous waters–One researcher’s 40 years of experience with controversial scientific research. Comprehensive Psychol 4(24): 1-40.
85. Kim D, Lee H, Kwak DH, Benitez J (2026) Assessing and controlling social desirability bias in self-reported survey research: Common practices, recommendations, and an application in cyberbullying research. European J Information Sysonline advance.
86. Karney BR, Bradbury TN (2020) Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. J Marriage Fam 82(1): 100-116.