Using Dyadic Modeling in Nursing Research: Introduction of Theory and Application

Abstract

Use of dyadic modeling in nursing has theoretical and practical importance, as the interpersonal processes related to health behaviors can be captured. Theoretical models focusing on dyadic coping with chronic illness and illness management are established in family nursing. However, few studies utilized dyadic designs in empirical research, as most studies are patient-centric or care partner-centric. With theoretical elaborations and examples, we first review how conventional health models have been extended using a dyadic perspective and then briefly review the major dyadic frameworks in nursing. Five frequently used dyadic models are described with examples from health and nursing research fields. Statistical applications and cultural considerations are reviewed. We conclude that dyadic modeling provides a useful lens for nursing research but continues to be underutilized.

Keywords

nursing family nursing dyadic modeling dyadic illness management communal coping

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata (Revised ed.). Stata Press.

Ahn

Morita

Wang

Yuan

(2019). Bayesian analysis of longitudinal dyadic data with informative missing data using a dyadic shared-parameter model. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 28(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280217715051

Ajzen

(1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Atkins

D. C.

(2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.98

Azhari

Lim

Bizzego

Gabrieli

Bornstein

M. H.

Esposito

(2020). Physical presence of spouse enhances brain-to-brain synchrony in co-parenting couples. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7569. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63596-2

Beckstein

Davey

Zhao

2021. Native American subjective happiness, self-construal, and decision-making. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01272-4

Berg

C. A.

Upchurch

(2007). A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 920–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920

Berli

Bolger

Shrout

P. E.

Stadler

Scholz

(2018). Interpersonal processes of couples’ daily support for goal pursuit: The example of physical activity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739264

Card

N. A.

Selig

J. P.

Little

T. D.

(Eds.). (2008). Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences. Routledge.

10.

Casu

Ulivi

Zaia

Fernandes Martins

M. d. C.

Parente Barbosa

Gremigni

(2018). Spirituality, infertility-related stress, and quality of life in Brazilian infertile couples: Analysis using the actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Research in Nursing & Health, 41(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21860

11.

Coates

E. E.

Tran

Phares

(2019). Parenting, coparenting, and adolescent adjustment in African American single-mother families: An actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(6), 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000552

12.

Cobb

L. K.

McAdams-DeMarco

M. A.

Gudzune

K. A.

Anderson

C. A. M.

Demerath

Woodward

Selvin

Coresh

(2015). Changes in body mass index and obesity risk in married couples over 25 years: The ARIC cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 183(5), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv112

13.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

14.

Cornelius

Desrosiers

Kershaw

(2017). Smoking concordance during pregnancy: Are there relationship benefits? Social Science & Medicine, 192, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.027

15.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

16.

Crawford

(2006). Health as a meaningful social practice. Health, 10(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459306067310

17.

Desai

Schimmack

Jidkova

Bracke

(2012). Spousal similarity in depression: A dyadic latent panel analysis of the panel study of Belgian households. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025575

18.

Dong

Peng

C. Y. J.

(2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 222. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-222

19.

Wang

(2016). The impact of the number of dyads on estimation of dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. Methodology, 12(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000105

20.

Feng

J.-Y.

Y.-W. B.

(2005). Nurses’ intention to report child abuse in Taiwan: A test of the theory of planned behavior. Research in Nursing & Health, 28(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20087

21.

Ferrer

Helm

J. L.

(2013). Dynamical systems modeling of physiological coregulation in dyadic interactions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.013

22.

Ferrer

Nesselroade

J. R.

(2003). Modeling affective processes in dyadic relations via dynamic factor analysis. Emotion, 3(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.4.344

23.

Foran

H. M.

Kliem

(2015). Longitudinal analysis of dyads using latent variable models: Current practices and constraints. In Stemmler

von Eye

Wiedermann

(Eds.), Dependent data in social sciences research: Forms, issues, and methods of analysis (pp. 203–229). Springer.

24.

Garcia

R. L.

Kenny

D. A.

Ledermann

(2015). Moderation in the actor–partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12060

25.

Geiser

(2021). Longitudinal structural equation modeling with Mplus: A latent state–trait perspective. The Guilford Press.

26.

Gistelinck

Loeys

(2019). The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: An implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1527223

27.

Gonzalez

Griffin

(2012). Dyadic data analysis. In Cooper

(Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (Vol. 3, pp. 439–450). American Psychological Association.

28.

Haase

C. M.

Holley

S. R.

Bloch

Verstaen

Levenson

R. W.

(2016). Interpersonal emotional behaviors and physical health: A 20-year longitudinal study of long-term married couples. Emotion, 16(7), 965–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040239

29.

Heck

R. H.

Thomas

S. L.

(2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (3rd ed.). Routledge.

30.

Helgeson

V. S.

Jakubiak

Van Vleet

Zajdel

(2018). Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 170–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317735767

31.

Helgeson

V. S.

Zajdel

(2017). Adjusting to chronic health conditions. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 545–571. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044014

32.

Hevey

(2018). Network analysis: A brief overview and tutorial. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1521283

33.

Howland

Farrell

A. K.

Simpson

J. A.

Rothman

A. J.

Burns

R. J.

Fillo

Wlaschin

(2016). Relational effects on physical activity: A dyadic approach to the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychology, 35(7), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000334

34.

Hox

J. J.

Moerbeek

van de Schoot

(2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge.

35.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. SAGE Publications.

36.

Hush

Porter

(2010). Algorithms for optimal dyadic decision trees. Machine Learning, 80(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-010-5167-x

37.

Kashy

D. A.

Campbell

Harris

D. W.

(2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 73–90). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606632.006

38.

Kenny

D. A.

(1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00078.x

39.

Kenny

D. A.

(1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596132007

40.

Kenny

D. A.

(2018). Reflections on the actor–partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12240

41.

Kenny

D. A.

Cook

(1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x

42.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

(2011). Dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. In Hox

J. J.

Roberts

J. K.

(Eds.), Handbook for advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 335–370). Routledge.

43.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

44.

Kenny

D. A.

La Voie

(1984). The social relations model. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 141–182). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60144-6

45.

Kenny

D. A.

Veldhuijzen

Weijden

T. v. d.

LeBlanc

Lockyer

Légaré

Campbell

(2010). Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor–patient relationships: A dyadic analysis of doctor–patient communication. Social Science & Medicine, 70(5), 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.065

46.

Kim

J. H.

Shin

H. S.

Yun

E. K.

(2018). A dyadic approach to infertility stress, marital adjustment, and depression on quality of life in infertile couples. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 36(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010116675987

47.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

48.

Knight

A. P.

Humphrey

S. E.

(2019). Dyadic data analysis. In Humphrey

S. E.

LeBreton

J. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 423–447). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000115-019

49.

Kuiper

R. M.

Ryan

(2018). Drawing conclusions from cross-lagged relationships: Re-considering the role of the time-interval. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(5), 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1431046

50.

Ledermann

Bodenmann

Rudaz

Bradbury

T. N.

(2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations, 59(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00595.x

51.

Ledermann

Kenny

D. A.

(2012). The common fate model for dyadic data: Variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026624

52.

Ledermann

Kenny

D. A.

(2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000290

53.

Ledermann

Macho

(2014). Analyzing change at the dyadic level: The common fate growth model. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036051

54.

Ledermann

Macho

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor–partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099

55.

Lee

V. E.

(2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_6

56.

Leineweber

Westerlund

Chungkham

H. S.

Lindqvist

Runesdotter

Tishelman

(2014). Nurses' practice environment and work-family conflict in relation to burn out: A multilevel modelling approach. PLoS One, 9(5), e96991. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096991

57.

Cao

Lan

Zheng

Chen

Zhou

Fang

(2019). The association between transition pattern of marital conflict resolution styles and marital quality trajectory during the early years of Chinese marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(1), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517721380

58.

Y. H.

Huang

(2010). Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM): A model for dyadic data analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(8), 1321–1328.

59.

Liu

(2016). Applied ordinal logistic regression using Stata: From single-level to multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications.

60.

Lyons

A. C.

Chamberlain

(2006). Health psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.

61.

Lyons

K. S.

Lee

C. S.

(2018). The theory of dyadic illness management. Journal of Family Nursing, 24(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840717745669

62.

Lyons

K. S.

Lee

C. S.

(2020). The association of dyadic symptom appraisal with physical and mental health over time in care dyads living with lung cancer. Journal of Family Nursing, 26(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840719889967

63.

Lyons

K. S.

Sayer

A. G.

(2005a). Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1048–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00193.x

64.

Lyons

K. S.

Sayer

A. G.

(2005b). Using multilevel modeling in caregiving research. Aging & Mental Health, 9(3), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860500089831

65.

Lyons

R. F.

Mickelson

K. D.

Sullivan

M. J.

Coyne

J. C.

(1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 579–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598155001

66.

Maroufizadeh

Hosseini

Rahimi Foroushani

Omani-Samani

Amini

(2018). Application of the dyadic data analysis in behavioral medicine research: Marital satisfaction and anxiety in infertile couples. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0582-y

67.

Mehta

P. D.

Neale

M. C.

(2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equations modeling. Psychological Methods, 10(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.3.259

68.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

69.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00059.x

70.

Olsen

J. A.

Kenny

D. A.

(2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127

71.

Pauly

Gerstorf

Ashe

M. C.

Madden

K. M.

Hoppmann

C. A.

(2021). You’re under my skin: Long-term relationship and health correlates of cortisol synchrony in older couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000809

72.

Planalp

E. M.

Braungart-Rieker

J. M.

Wang

(2017). Growth curve modeling to studying change: A comparison of approaches using longitudinal dyadic data with distinguishable dyads. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1224088

73.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141

74.

Preciado

M. A.

Krull

J. L.

Hicks

Gipson

J. D.

(2016). Using a dyadic logistic multilevel model to analyze couple data. Contraception, 93(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.09.001

75.

Ramos Salazar

(2015). The negative reciprocity process in marital relationships: A literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.008

76.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004

77.

Robson

Pevalin

(2015). Multilevel modeling in plain language. SAGE Publications.

78.

Sayer

A. G.

Klute

M. M.

(2005). Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In Bengtson

V. L.

Acock

A. C.

Allen

K. R.

Dilworth-Anderson

Klein

D. M.

(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 289–314). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990172.n12

79.

Segrin

Badger

T. A.

Meek

Lopez

A. M.

Bonham

Sieger

(2005). Dyadic interdependence on affect and quality-of-life trajectories among women with breast cancer and their partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056443

80.

Silva

B. C.

Bosancianu

C. M.

Littvay

(2019). Multilevel structural equation modeling. SAGE Publications.

81.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

82.

Thomson

Molloy

G. J.

Chung

M. L.

(2012). The effects of perceived social support on quality of life in patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting and their partners: Testing dyadic dynamics using the actor–partner interdependence model. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 17(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2011.579988

83.

Tsai

C.-l.

(2019). Statistical analysis of the item-count technique using Stata. The Stata Journal, 19(2), 390–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x19854018

84.

Van Vleet

Helgeson

V. S.

Seltman

H. J.

Korytkowski

M. T.

Hausmann

L. R. M.

(2018). Communally coping with diabetes: An observational investigation using the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(5), 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000414

85.

Varner

Lloyd

Ranby

K. W.

Callan

Robertson

Lipkus

I. M.

(2019). Illness uncertainty, partner support, and quality of life: A dyadic longitudinal investigation of couples facing prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 28(11), 2188–2194. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5205

86.

Wickham

R. E.

Macia

K. S.

(2018). Examining cross-level effects in dyadic analysis: A structural equation modeling perspective. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2629–2645. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1117-5

87.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Lee

T. K.

O’Neal

C. W.

Lorenz

F. O.

(2016). Higher-order growth curves and mixture modeling with Mplus: A practical guide. Routledge.

88.

Zhao

White

K. M.

Young

R. M.

Obst

P. L.

(2018). Smoking beliefs among Chinese secondary school students: A theory-based qualitative study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 20(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx012