Nd your partner living together? That is, do you share a single address without either of you having a separate place?”), and whether the couple had children together and/or by previous partners. Physical aggression–Certain subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, Sugarman, 1996) were given to all participants. We used the minor injuries received subscale (e.g., “I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with my partner”) as well as the minor physical aggression toward partner (e.g., “I pushed or shoved my partner”) and by partner subscales (e.g., “My partner did this to me”) to create the categorical history of physical aggression variable that was used in the NIK333 dose analyses presented in this paper. Individuals who reported that they had never sustained injuries due to a fight with their partner, had never used physical aggression against their partner, and had never been the recipient of physical aggression from their partner were coded as having no history of physical aggression (coded 0). As has been suggested by others (GGTI298 manufacturer Hanley O’Neill, 1997), individuals who reported any of these behaviors were coded as either having a history of physical aggression in the last year (coded 2) or having a past history of physical aggression, but not in the last year (coded 1). Relationship stability–For the current study, relationship stability data were obtained from T2, T3, and T4. Individuals who were broken up by either T2, T3, or T4 were included in the broken up group. To be included in the intact group, however, individuals needed to have completed T4 and indicated then that they were in the same relationship as at T1. We made these inclusion and coding rules so that we could compare those who broke-up withinJ Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 1.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRhoades et al.Pagethe year following T1 to those who stayed together during for this entire year period. Of the initial sample, 1060 (82.9 ) participants met criteria for one of these groups. Of the final 1060 who were used in the relationship stability analyses, 736 (69.4 ) remained in the same romantic relationship over the twelve-month period and 324 (30.6 ) had broken up within the twelvemonth timeframe. Chi-square analyses indicated no significant (p > .20) associations between missingness on relationship stability and any other study variables, with the exception of the alternative quality scale. Those who were missing relationship stability data reported lower quality alternatives to the relationships at T1 than those who were not missing data. Dedication–Dedication was measured with the 14 items from the Commitment Inventory that are designed to measure dedication (Stanley Markman, 1992). The Commitment Inventory was originally developed using novel items and constructs as well as constructs from Johnson’s work on commitment (Johnson, 1973). Factor analyses and comparisons across samples supported its factor structure and validity (Stanley Markman, 1992). Since the original publication of this inventory, Stanley has made several revisions, including the addition of new items, revisions of the response scale, and a total dedication score rather than several subscales of this construct. This new version has been shown to be reliable and valid in other research (e.g., Kline et al., 2004). For the dedication subscale, each item was rated on a.Nd your partner living together? That is, do you share a single address without either of you having a separate place?”), and whether the couple had children together and/or by previous partners. Physical aggression–Certain subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, Sugarman, 1996) were given to all participants. We used the minor injuries received subscale (e.g., “I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with my partner”) as well as the minor physical aggression toward partner (e.g., “I pushed or shoved my partner”) and by partner subscales (e.g., “My partner did this to me”) to create the categorical history of physical aggression variable that was used in the analyses presented in this paper. Individuals who reported that they had never sustained injuries due to a fight with their partner, had never used physical aggression against their partner, and had never been the recipient of physical aggression from their partner were coded as having no history of physical aggression (coded 0). As has been suggested by others (Hanley O’Neill, 1997), individuals who reported any of these behaviors were coded as either having a history of physical aggression in the last year (coded 2) or having a past history of physical aggression, but not in the last year (coded 1). Relationship stability–For the current study, relationship stability data were obtained from T2, T3, and T4. Individuals who were broken up by either T2, T3, or T4 were included in the broken up group. To be included in the intact group, however, individuals needed to have completed T4 and indicated then that they were in the same relationship as at T1. We made these inclusion and coding rules so that we could compare those who broke-up withinJ Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 1.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRhoades et al.Pagethe year following T1 to those who stayed together during for this entire year period. Of the initial sample, 1060 (82.9 ) participants met criteria for one of these groups. Of the final 1060 who were used in the relationship stability analyses, 736 (69.4 ) remained in the same romantic relationship over the twelve-month period and 324 (30.6 ) had broken up within the twelvemonth timeframe. Chi-square analyses indicated no significant (p > .20) associations between missingness on relationship stability and any other study variables, with the exception of the alternative quality scale. Those who were missing relationship stability data reported lower quality alternatives to the relationships at T1 than those who were not missing data. Dedication–Dedication was measured with the 14 items from the Commitment Inventory that are designed to measure dedication (Stanley Markman, 1992). The Commitment Inventory was originally developed using novel items and constructs as well as constructs from Johnson’s work on commitment (Johnson, 1973). Factor analyses and comparisons across samples supported its factor structure and validity (Stanley Markman, 1992). Since the original publication of this inventory, Stanley has made several revisions, including the addition of new items, revisions of the response scale, and a total dedication score rather than several subscales of this construct. This new version has been shown to be reliable and valid in other research (e.g., Kline et al., 2004). For the dedication subscale, each item was rated on a.