Prenatal Version of the Coparenting Relationship Scale Among Finnish Couples Expecting Their Firstborn

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ P ena al Ve sion o he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale Among Finnish Couples Expec ing Thei Fi s bo n © The Au ho (s) 2023 Published e sion Lind oos, Emmi; Räikkönen, Eija; Malinen, Kaisa; Rönkä, Anna K. Lind oos, E., Räikkönen, E., Malinen, K., & Rönkä, A. K. (2023). P ena al Ve sion o he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale Among Finnish Couples Expec ing Thei Fi s bo n. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies, 32(10), 2944-2960. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10826-023-02659-0 2023 Jou nal o Child and Family S udies h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10826-023-02659-0 ORIGINAL PAPER P ena al Ve sion o he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale Among Finnish Couples Expec ing Thei Fi s bo n Emmi Lind oos 1●Eija Räikkönen1●Kaisa Malinen2●Anna K. Rönkä1 Accep ed: 11 Augus 2023 © The Au ho (s) 2023 Abs ac Al hough copa en ing has been widely s udied, esea ch on wha expec an couples hink abou hei u u e copa en ing is limi ed. Ou aim was o examine he psychome ic p ope ies o he P ena al Ve sion o Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale among Finnish couples expec ing hei fi s child. We we e also in e es ed in he associa ions be ween couples’expec a ions o copa en ing and couple ela ionship quali y. Expec an s and pa ne s (N=157 Finnish couples expec ing hei fi s child; 156 in a he e osexual and 1 in a same-sex ela ionship) indi idually comple ed he ques ionnai es 1–3 mon hs be o e childbi h. We used Explo a o y Fac o Analysis and Explo a o y S uc u al Equa ion Modeling. The esul s showed ha bo h expec an s’and pa ne s’expec a ions o copa en ing we e e y posi i e. Two dimensions, Expec a ions o coope a i e copa en ing and Expec a ions o copa en ing conflic , we e ound o bo h expec an s and pa ne s, and bo h dimensions we e la gely in a ian ac oss spouses. The wo dimensions we e associa ed wi h each o he . Expec a ions o coope a i e copa en ing we e posi i ely associa ed wi h p ena al couple ela ionship quali y in bo h expec an s and pa ne s, hus confi ming concu en alidi y be ween hese measu es. Suppo o he disc iminan alidi y o copa en ing conflic in ela ion o couple ela ionship quali y was ound o bo h spouses whe eas he disc iminan alidi y o coope a i e copa en ing was confi med o pa ne s only. Ou esul s indica e p elimina y suppo o he alidi y and eliabili y o he Finnish e sion o he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale— Couples’P ena al Ve sion (CRS-CPV) o assessing copa en ing expec a ions, especially among he e osexual couples. Keywo ds Copa en ing ●Couples ●P ena al expec a ions ●Rela ionship quali y ●T ansi ion o pa en hood Highligh s ●Couples’expec a ions o copa en ing we e highly posi i e. ●Expec a ions comp ised wo dimensions, namely Expec a ions o coope a i e copa en ing and Expec a ions o copa en ing conflic . ●Couples’expec a ions o copa en ing we e associa ed wi h hei p ena al ela ionship quali y. ●P elimina y suppo was ound o he alidi y and eliabili y o he Finnish e sion o he CRS-CPV ins umen . In oduc ion The ansi ion o pa en hood, a pe iod ha ypically begins du ing p egnancy and ends some mon hs a e he bi h o he fi s child (Adamsons, 2013), is bo h a joy ul and s ess ul ime o new pa en s (Doss & Rhoades, 2017). Al hough he ansi ion o pa en hood is a no ma i e li e ansi ion, i can be a di ficul phase o some, since i o en en ails changes in ela ionship sa is ac ion, he di ision o household labo , and indi iduals’men al heal h and social ela ionships (Glade e al., 2005). Fo example, a e he baby’s bi h, pa en s end o become mo e adi ional in hei a i udes and beha io (Ka z-Wise e al., 2010) and ela ionship sa is ac ion de e io a es on a e age in bo h women and men (Law ence e al., 2007). One big change b ough by he ansi ion o pa en hood is he couple’s need o build a copa en ing ela ionship o *Emmi Lind oos emmi.k.lind oos@jyu.fi 1Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Al a Aallon ka u 9, P.O. Box 35 (Ruusupuis o), FI-40014 Jy äskylä, Finland 2JAMK Uni e si y o Applied Sciences, Piippuka u 2, 40100 Jy äskylä, Finland 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: deal wi h issues ela ing o hei new oles as pa en s. Copa en ing e e s o he ways in which pa en s wo k oge he as pa en s (Feinbe g, 2002). Acco ding o Kue s en-Hogan (2017), copa en ing comp ises bo h cog- ni i e and beha io al aspec s. The cogni i e aspec e e s o he p ena al and pos na al men al ep esen a ions o copa - en ing, including pe cep ions, ideas, belie s, and expec a- ions. The beha io al aspec o copa en ing e e s o he way pa en s beha e as co-pa en s. Copa en ing, one o he amily subsys ems (Minuchin, 1985), has p o ed o be a c ucial ac o in pa en ing and child wellbeing. I is ela ed o pa en s’own pa en ing in ha he pa en ing p ac ices o mo he s and a he s who ha e a s onge copa en al alliance a e also mo e e ec i e (Mo ill e al., 2010). Mo eo e , copa en ing is impo an o child wellbeing, as i is known o p edic change in child adjus men (Teube & Pinqua , 2010). Copa en ing also media es he influence o ela- ionship sa is ac ion on child adjus men (Camisasca e al. 2019). In his s udy, we ocused on he cogni i e aspec o copa en ing as we we e in e es ed in he copa en ing expec a ions o couples expec ing hei fi s child. Dimensions o Copa en ing While esea che s ag ee ha copa en ing is a mul i- dimensional cons uc , hey ha e di e se iews abou he numbe and con en o hese dimensions. Acco ding o Feinbe g (2003), copa en ing comp ises ou dimensions: child ea ing ag eemen , suppo ing o unde mining one’s pa ne ’s pa en ing, di ision o labo , and join amily managemen . Child ea ing ag eemen e e s o pa en s’ ag eemen on child- ela ed issues, such as beha io al expec a ions and a child’s emo ional needs. Suppo ing (e.g., a fi ma ion o he o he ’s compe ence as a pa en ) o unde mining (e.g., h ough c i icism) one’s pa ne ’s pa - en ing e e s o he pa en s’suppo i eness o each o he . Di ision o labo e e s o how he du ies and asks in ol ed in bo h childca e and he household a e sha ed, and join amily managemen includes pa en s’con ol o e hei own beha io and hei communica ions wi h each o he , managing he bounda ies o amily ela ionships, and bal- ancing he in e ac ion be ween pa en s and child en. La e , Feinbe g e al. (2012) added a fi h dimension, pa en ing- based closeness. This dimension e e s o example o he expe ience o he spouses wo king oge he as a eam and wi nessing hei de elopmen as a pa en . O he schola s ha e heo ized a somewha di e en s uc u e o copa en ing. Fo example, Ma golin and co- au ho s (2001) iden i y only h ee dimensions in copa en - ing: coope a ion, conflic , and iangula ion. Van Ege en and Hawkins (2004), in u n, iden i y ou dimensions: copa en ing solida i y, copa en ing suppo , unde mining copa en ing, and sha ed pa en ing. Al hough schola s dis- ag ee on he numbe and con en o he dimensions o copa en ing, all h ee o he abo e defini ions highligh he impo ance o mu ual suppo , ai ness in he di ision o pa en ing esponsibili ies, and low le els o unde mining and conflic . P ena al Copa en ing P egnancy is an impo an ime o he de elopmen o copa en ing, as i ac i a es bo h he cogni i e and beha- io al aspec s o copa en ing (Kue s en-Hogan, 2017). Fu u e pa en s can discuss and o m expec a ions on issues cen al o copa en ing. Howe e , such p ena al copa en ing expec a ions can be un ealis ic, as shown by Biehle and Mickelson (2012). They ound ha women we e epo ed by men as doing mo e childca e han he men had expec ed du ing p egnancy while men we e epo ed by women as doing less childca e and play han he women had expec ed du ing p egnancy. Con e sely, p e ious s udies ha e also shown ha p ena al copa en - ing p edic s pos pa um copa en ing in ha couples’ha - monious p ena al ep esen a ions o u u e copa en ing a e associa ed wi h hei ha monious pos pa um ep esen a- ions o copa en ing (Kue s en-Hogan, 2017). Obse a- ional s udies ha e also indica ed ha couples wi h a highe quali y o p ena al copa en ing beha io also show mo e suppo i e and less unde mining copa en ing beha- io a e childbi h (Al enbu ge e al., 2014). In addi ion, i has been shown ha p ena al copa en ing expec a ions p edic pos na al copa en ing beha io : he mo e nega i e he p ena al expec a ions o copa en ing, he weake he pos na al copa en ing (McHale e al., 2004; McHale & Ro man, 2007). Measu ing Copa en ing Because o he g owing in e es in copa en ing, many measu es ha e been de eloped o i s assessmen . Acco d- ing o he e iew by Mollá Cusí e al. (2020), mos such measu es (e.g., CRS; Feinbe g e al., 2012) a e in ended o pos pa um copa en ing, while a ew o he s (e.g., ECS; Beckmeye e al., 2017) a ge copa en ing among di o ced pa en s. Sel - epo ques ionnai es (e.g., CRS; Feinbe g e al., 2012) a e he commones ype, al hough a ew obse a ional ins umen s a e also a ailable (e.g., LTP; Ca nei o e al., 2006). Measu es di e in he dimensions (e.g., CQ; Ma golin e al., 2001 o coope a ion, conflic , and iangula ion) o copa en ing hey examine and in he age o he child en (e.g., 3–18 y s. in he ECS; Beckmeye e al., 2017) o he pa en s a ge ed by he measu e. To ou Jou nal o Child and Family S udies bes knowledge, only wo copa en ing measu es conce n p ena al copa en ing. One o hese, he P ena al Lausanne T ilogue Play (Ca nei o e al., 2006), is an obse a ional ool. The o he , a sel - epo ques ionnai e, is he Copa - en ing Rela ionship Scale-Fa he ’s P ena al Ve sion (CRS- FPV; Pin o e al., 2018). The CRS-FPV scale is based on he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale (CRS) de eloped by Feinbe g e al. (2012). The CRS is 35-i em measu e ali- da ed o couples who al eady ha e a child, whe eas he CRS-FPV was de eloped o s udy u u e a he s’copa - en ing expec a ions in Po ugal du ing he fi s imes e o p egnancy (Pin o e al., 2018; Pin o & Figuei edo, 2019). A copa en ing measu e on p ospec i e copa en ing o indi- iduals who a e in a commi ed ela ionship bu no ye p egnan has also been de eloped (Leal e al., 2022). This scale is based on he abo emen ioned p ena al copa en ing scale o Pin o e al. Howe e , Leal e al. (2022) s udied indi iduals who iden i y hemsel es ei he as sexual mino i ies o he e osexuals and added new i ems on social suppo om he amily o o igin o bo h g oups and new i ems on social s igma o indi iduals who iden i y hem- sel es as sexual mino i ies only. Thus a , his is he only copa en ing measu e ha has also been adap ed o indi i- duals who iden i y hemsel es as sexual mino i ies (Leal e al., 2022). To ou knowledge, he CRS-FPV scale has no p e- iously been used o s udy couples expec ing a child. Howe e , when examining p ena al expec a ions o copa - en ing, i would be u mos impo an o s udy couples’ expec a ions, as acco ding o he amily sys ems heo y (Minuchin, 1985), he amily consis s o subsys ems (e.g., he pa en -child subsys em), meaning ha he membe s o amily a e non-independen . On his iew, copa en ing, which in ol es bo h pa en s and he child, can be seen as one such subsys em. I copa en ing expec a ions a e examined om he iewpoin o only one o o he pa en , he esul s will yield a e y one-sided unde s anding o he phenomenon. The e o e, in his s udy, we ocused on he iews o couples expec ing hei fi s child (bo h expec an s and hei pa ne s) and assessed hei expec a ions o copa en ing using he CRS-FPV scale. To s udy dyadic p ocesses and in e -spousal di e ences in copa en ing, o d aw c edible in e ences om he esul s, and o enable eplicabili y o he findings, i is essen ial o ensu e ha he same cons uc has been assessed and analyzed in bo h spouses (Sakaluk e al., 2021). F om a s a is ical s andpoin , examining couples means es ing o dyadic measu emen in a iance. Howe e , as Sakaluk e al. (2021) s a e, dyadic measu emen in a iance has been li le es ed in ela ionship esea ch. The e o e, we wished o in es iga e in e - dependence be ween spouses and es he measu emen in a iance o he ac o s uc u e o he CRS-FPV be ween spouses. Copa en ing and Couples’Rela ionship Quali y P e ious esea ch sugges s ha couple ela ionship quali y and copa en ing a e posi i ely associa ed and, acco ding o Mo ill e al. (2010), may be ecip ocal: ela ionship quali y may p edic copa en ing quali y o ice e sa. In hei longi udinal s udy, Ch is ophe e al. (2015) ound ha a decline in a he s’ ela ionship quali y p edic ed highe compe i i e copa en ing whe eas an inc ease in a he s’ ela ionship conflic p edic ed lowe coope a i e copa en - ing. In addi ion, an inc ease in mo he s’ ela ionship conflic p edic ed lowe suppo o a he s’pa en ing. Du schi and co-au ho s (2017) in u n ound ha suppo i e copa en ing p edic ed bo h mo he s’and a he s’assessmen s o he couple’s ela ionship quali y. They also no iced ha mo he s’pe cep ion o suppo i e copa en ing om a he s p edic ed a he s’ ela ionship quali y, whe eas a he s’ pe cep ion o suppo i e copa en ing om mo he s did no p edic mo he s’ ela ionship quali y. Copa en ing and ela ionship quali y a e also linked du ing p egnancy. Acco ding o McHale e al. (2004), ewe conce ns epo ed by bo h u u e mo he s and a he s abou po en ial di ficul ies in u u e copa en ing we e ela ed o highe ela ionship quali y du ing p egnancy. Resea ch has also shown ha expec an couples’unme expec a ions a e ela ed o ela ionship quali y. Acco ding o Biehle and Mickelson (2012), women expe ienced unme expec a ions when men pe o med less childca e han he women had expec ed, and men expe ienced o e me expec a ions when women engaged in mo e child play han he men had expec ed. The women’s unme and men’s o e me expec- a ions we e ela ed o lowe ela ionship sa is ac ion in bo h women and men. In addi ion, men expe ienced o e me expec a ions when women pe o med mo e childca e han he men had expec ed. The men’s o e me expec a ions we e ela ed o highe ela ionship sa is ac ion in men. The Finnish Con ex The s udy was conduc ed in Finland, a wel a e s a e cha - ac e ized by an emphasis on gende equali y, gene ous pa en al lea e, and he “dual b eadwinne /ex e nal childca e model”(P au-E finge , 2005). Despi e he a ailabili y o gene ous pa en al lea e o bo h pa ne s, mos pa en al lea e days a e aken-up by mo he s (Social Insu ance Ins i u ion o Finland, 2021). In addi ion, while women con inue o do mos o he housewo k, he di ision o labo be ween women and men has slowly become mo e equal as epo ed o example by Mie inen and Ro ki ch (2012), who ound ha a he s o young child en pa icipa e in childca e almos as much as mo he s. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies Finland o e s new pa en s se e al se ices ele an o he de elopmen o copa en ing, such as he high a ail- abili y and co e age o ee ma e ni y and child heal h clinics o ganized on he municipal le el. Bi h egis e da a show ha he p opo ion o pa en s no using ma e ni y clinic se ices is only 0.2–0.3% and ha he co e age o child heal h clinic se ices is app oxima ely 99.6 pe cen (Finnish Ins i u e o Heal h and Wel a e, 2021). The Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h (2017) has empha- sized ha bo h pa en s should be ea ed equally in ma e - ni y and child heal h clinics in Finland. Howe e , du ing he co ona i us pandemic (when ou da a we e collec ed), non- bi h pa en s’pa icipa ion in ma e ni y heal h clinics and child bi hs was a imes es ic ed in di e en pa s o Finland (Kleme i e al., 2020). The P esen S udy The main aim o his s udy was o examine he psychome ic cha ac e is ics o he Finnish Ve sion o he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale-Fa he ’s P ena al Ve sion (CRS-FPV) ac oss spouses expec ing hei fi s child, ocusing on finding a simila ac o s uc u e o bo h expec an s and hei pa - ne s and he in e nal consis ency and concu en and dis- c iminan alidi y o he sub-scales iden ified in ela ion o couple ela ionship quali y. Based on p e ious esea ch on he CRS-FPV (Pin o e al., 2018), we expec ed copa en ing expec a ions o consis o ou ac o s, i.e., lack o copa - en ing suppo , copa en ing conflic , copa en ing disag ee- men , and copa en ing unde mining (Hypo hesis 1a). These ac o s we e expec ed o be simila ac oss spouses (Hypo hesis 1b). Addi ionally, based on he findings o Feinbe g e al. (2012), we expec ed expec an s’and hei pa ne s’dimensions o copa en ing expec a ions o be weakly associa ed wi h each (Hypo hesis 1c). Finally, based on p e ious findings (Feinbe g, 2003;McHalee al.,2004), we assumed ha sub-scales o p ena al expec a ions o a well- unc ioning copa en ing ela ionship would be asso- cia ed wi h highe p ena al couple ela ionship quali y, bu hese sub-scales would no sha e oo much a iance wi h p ena al couple ela ionship quali y, hus demons a ing su - ficien concu en and disc iminan alidi y (Hypo hesis 2). Acco ding o Feinbe g’s(2003) ecological model, he copa en ing ela ionship may be influenced by indi idual, amily, and ex a- amilial ac o s. Educa ion, as a key indica o o socioeconomic s a us, has p e iously been shown o be associa ed wi h copa en ing pe cep ions (Van Ege en, 2003). Mo eo e , he leng h o he pa icipan s’ couple ela ionship will likely a y. The e o e, we chose o con ol o leng h o he couple ela ionship and le el o educa ion in he analyses ela ed o he second esea ch ques ion. Me hod P ocedu e and Pa icipan s Da a we e ga he ed as pa o an ongoing longi udinal esea ch p ojec “Lea ning o copa en : A longi udinal c oss-na ional s udy on cons uc ion o copa en ing in ansi ion o pa en hood (CopaGloba)”conduc ed by an in e na ional conso ium led by Uni e si y o Jy äskylä and JAMK Uni e si y o Applied Sciences in Finland. The p ojec , which includes longi udinal su ey and in e iew da a on Finnish, Japanese and Po uguese pa en s, and longi udinal mobile dia y da a on Finnish pa en s, is expec ed o con ibu e new knowledge on he cons uc ion o copa en ing in an ea ly s age o pa en ing. The p ojec has been app o ed by he e hical commi ee o Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. The s udy epo ed he e u ilizes c oss-sec ional da a ga he ed in Finland ia an online su ey in 2020–2021. The su ey was a ge ed o expec ing couples in he hi d i- mes e o p egnancy (due da e May 2020–Feb ua y 2021). O he inclusion c i e ia we e ha he pa icipan s had o be in a oman ic ela ionship, he child had o be he fi s bo n o bo h spouses, and pa icipan s had o be able o comple e he su ey in Finnish. We used wo ec ui men s a egies. Ou p ima y aim was o ec ui pa icipan s h ough ma e ni y clinics in ou o Finland’s en majo ci ies (119 984–292 796 inhabi an s; OSF, 2020). Howe e , owing o he COVID-19 pandemic, he ma e ni y clinics we e no holding amily classes and we we e unable loca e enough couples expec ing hei fi s child. This mean ec ui ing pa icipan s h ough social media (e.g., a ge ed ad e is- ing). The pa icipan s (46 couples) ec ui ed h ough he ma e ni y clinics also pa icipa ed in he in e iews whe eas he couples ec ui ed ia o he sou ces did no . Expec an s and pa ne s independen ly and anonymously filled in iden ical ques ionnai es. Howe e , o enable ma ching, spouses’ques ionnai es we e code numbe ed. The final sample comp ised 157 Finnish couples (N=302 pa icipan s). One u he dyad egis e ed o ou s udy bu was excluded as hey we e no in a oman ic ela ionship. O he pa icipa ing couples, bo h spouses in 145 couples and jus one spouse in 12 couples (11 expec- an s and one pa ne ) esponded o he ques ionnai e. O he 145 couples, 144 we e he e osexual and one was a same-sex couple. O he 302 pa icipan s, 156 we e expec an s and 146 we e pa ne s. The mean age o expec an s was 29.8 yea s (SD =4.0, ange: 20–44) and ha o pa ne s 31.3 yea s (SD =4.4, ange: 20–53), and hus closely co - esponded o he a e age age o hose who became mo he s (29.7 yea s) and a he s (31.6 yea s) o he fi s ime in Finland in 2020 (OSF, 2021a). On a e age, he couples had been oge he o 6.2 yea s (SD =3.8, ange: 1–16). O he Jou nal o Child and Family S udies pa icipan s, 55 pe cen we e ma ied o in a egis e ed pa ne ship, and 45 pe cen we e cohabi ing. The 55 pe cen couples who we e ma ied o in a egis e ed pa ne ship was hus highe han he 43 pe cen in he Finnish fi s - ime pa en s’gene al popula ion in 2020. (OSF, 2021b). No o ficial s a is ics exis on he numbe o cohabi ing couples who ha e had hei fi s child, bu mos child en bo n ou - side ma iage in Finland a e bo n o cohabi ing pa en s (OSF, 2021b). Wi h espec o educa ion, 82.1 pe cen o he expec an s and 67.8 pe cen o hei pa ne s had a bachelo ’s deg ee o highe . These p opo ions a e highe han he co esponding p opo ions o Finnish fi s - ime mo he s (46.1%) and fi s - ime a he s (38.0%) in he gen- e al popula ion in 2020 (OSF, 2021c). Because he da a we e collec ed du ing he COVID-19 pandemic, we asked he pa icipan s o hei pe cep ions o i s e ec s on hei couple ela ionship and expec a ions o copa en ing. Sligh ly o e a hal o he pa icipan s (55%) el ha hei couple ela ionship had no been a ec ed by he pandemic. The emainde el ha he pandemic had a ec ed hei couple ela ionship: posi i ely in mos cases (27.3% o all pa icipan s), nega i ely in a ew cases (3.3%), and bo h posi i ely and nega i ely in he emainde (14.3%). In addi ion, mos pa icipan s (89.6%) el ha he pandemic had no a ec ed hei expec a ions o copa en - ing. O hose who el ha he pandemic had a ec ed hei expec a ions o copa en ing, 6 pe cen epo ed a posi i e e ec , 2 pe cen a nega i e e ec , and 2.3 pe cen bo h a posi i e and nega i e e ec . Thus, mos pa icipan s el ha he co ona i us pandemic had no a ec ed hei couple ela ionship o expec a ions o copa en ing. Measu es P ena al Expec a ions o Copa en ing The p ena al expec a ions o copa en ing scale comp ised 30 i ems (see Table 1) adap ed om he Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale-Fa he ´s P ena al Ve sion (CRS-FPV; Pin o e al., 2018). We p e aced all i ems wi h he wo ds “I belie e”as he u u e ense does no exis in Finnish. The esponse scale anged om 1 (no ue o us) o7( e y ue o us). In addi ion o he o iginal s udy on he cons uc ion o he scale by Pin o e al. (2018) among a he s a he fi s imes e o p egnancy, he scale has been used only in one o he s udy (Pin o & Fiquei edo, 2019). Acco ding o Pin o e al. (2018), in a di e en -sex ela ionship, a he s’ expec a ions o copa en ing consis o ou dimensions: lack o copa en ing suppo (15 i ems: 1–4, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20–25), copa en ing conflic (5 i ems: 26–30), copa en ing disag eemen (6 i ems: 5, 8, 10–12, 14) and copa en ing unde mining (4 i ems: 7, 15, 18, 19). Because no Finnish e sion o he CRS-FPV was a ailable, he 30 i ems we e ansla ed by a ce ified ansla o , and a back ansla ion was made. The p ojec eam also included na i e Po uguese- speaking esea che s who helped in he ansla ion p ocess. Table 1 The Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale –Fa he ’s P ena al Ve sion (CRS-FPV) I belie e… 1. My pa ne will be a good pa en . 2. My ela ionship wi h my pa ne will be s onge a e we ha e he child. 3. My pa ne will ask my opinion on issues ela ed o pa en ing. 4. My pa ne will pay a g ea deal o a en ion o ou child. 5. My pa ne will play wi h ou child and lea e he di y wo k o me. 6. My pa ne and I will ha e he same goals o ou child. 7. I will be easie and mo e un o play wi h he child alone han when my pa ne is also p esen . 8. My pa ne and I will ha e di e en ideas abou how o aise ou child. 9. My pa ne will ell me I am doing a good job o o he wise le me know I am being a good pa en . 10. My pa ne and I will ha e di e en ideas ega ding ou child’s ea ing, sleeping, and o he ou ines. 11. My pa ne will some imes make jokes o sa cas ic commen s abou he way I am as a pa en . 12. My pa ne will no us my abili ies as a pa en . 13. My pa ne will be sensi i e o ou child’s eelings and needs. 14. My pa ne and I will ha e di e en s anda ds o ou child’s beha io . 15. My pa ne will y o show ha she o he is be e han me a ca ing o ou child. 16. My pa ne will ha e a lo o pa ience wi h ou child. 17. We will o en discuss he bes way o mee ou child’s needs. 18. When all h ee o us a e oge he , my pa ne some imes will compe e wi h me o ou child’s a en ion. 19. My pa ne will unde mine my pa en ing. 20. My pa ne will be willing o make pe sonal sac ifices o help ake ca e o ou child. 21. We will g ow and ma u e oge he h ough expe iences as pa en s. 22. My pa ne will app ecia e my e o s a being a good pa en . 23. When I eel I am a my wi s end as a pa en , my pa ne will gi e me he ex a suppo I need. 24. My pa ne will make me eel ha I’m bes possible pa en o ou child. 25. Pa en ing will gi e us a ocus o he u u e. 26. I will some imes find mysel ha ing a mildly ense o sa cas ic in e change wi h my pa ne . 27. My pa ne and I will a gue abou ou child, in he child’s p esence. 28. My pa ne and I will a gue abou ou ela ionship o ma i al issues un ela ed o ou child, in he child’s p esence. 29. Some imes one o bo h o us will say c uel o hu ul hings o each o he in on o he child. 30. We will yell a each o he wi hin ea sho o he child. Response scale: 1 =No ue o us, 7 =Ve y ue o us Jou nal o Child and Family S udies In addi ion, we pilo ed he scale o ensu e ha he i ems would wo k in Finland. Quali y o he Couple Rela ionship Pa icipan s’ ela ionship quali y was assessed by he Quali y o Ma iage Index (No on, 1983). The o iginal measu e included he wo ds “spouse”and “ma iage”.As he da a collec ion was no limi ed o he e osexual couples and cohabi a ion is common in Finland, we changed he wo ds o “pa ne ”and “ ela ionship”. The QMI con ains 6 i ems. The esponse scale o he fi s fi e i ems (e.g., “My ela ionship wi h my pa ne is e y s able.”) anged om 1 (s ongly disag ee) o7(s ongly ag ee). The esponse scale o he six h i em (“The deg ee o happiness, e e y hing conside ed, in you ela ionship”) anged om 1 (ex emely low) o10(ex emely high). The i ems we e ansla ed by a ce ified ansla o . A o al sco e was compu ed by s an- da dizing each i em and hen aking a mean sco e o he i ems. The eliabili ies we e 0.92 o bo h spouses. Con ol Va iables Con ol a iables included pa icipan s’le el o educa ion and leng h o he ela ionship in yea s. Le el o educa ion was asked wi h he ques ion “Wha is you highes quali- fica ion?”. The esponse op ions we e as ollows: (1) No oca ional qualifica ion; (2) Uppe seconda y le el educa- ion; (3) Lowe e ia y educa ion (i.e., BA le el); (4) Uppe e ia y educa ion (i.e., MA le el). Responses we e ecoded in o wo ca ego ies: 0 =o he (op ions 1–2), 1 = e ia y qualifica ion (op ions 3–4). Da a Analysis Fi s , we examined he ac o s uc u e o he o iginal 30 i ems o copa en ing expec a ions among couples. As ou aim was o find a s uc u e ha simila ly cap u ed copa - en ing in bo h expec an s and pa ne s, we conduc ed he analysis in h ee s eps. Fi s , we explo ed he numbe o copa en ing expec a ion ac o s and he i ems ha eflec ed hese ac o s sepa a ely o expec an s and pa ne s ia explo a o y ac o analysis (EFA; Fab iga & Wegene , 2011). Since he ac o s uc u e o he expec a ions o copa en ing scale has p e iously been es ablished only by Pin o e al. (2018), and mo eo e was based on a sample o men in a coun y con ex di e en om ou own, we chose EFA as he me hod o da a analysis. EFA allowed us o examine he dimensions o copa en ing expec a ions o bo h expec an s and pa ne s wi hou ha ing o es ic ou sel es o any fi m hypo heses abou he numbe o dimensions o copa en ing expec a ions o abou how he i ems would eflec he po en ial dimensions in bo h expec an s and hei pa ne s. We used Geomin (wi h de aul epsilon =0.50) as he o a ion me hod as i allowed co ela ions be ween he copa en ing dimensions. As ecommended in a ecen e iew by Go e zko e al., (2021), se e al c i e ia we e used in combina ion o iden i y possible ac o s uc u es: goodness-o -fi indices (desc ibed in mo e de ail la e in his sec ion), pa allel analysis (Ho n, 1965), an adequa e numbe o i ems pe ac o (i.e., a leas h ee; Fab iga & Wegene , 2011), and he in e p e abili y o he solu ions and hei consis ency wi h heo e ical p e- dic ions. A e deciding on he final ac o s uc u e, we assessed he eliabili y o he dimensions by compu ing McDonald’s omega eliabili y o each ac o sepa a ely (McDonald, 1999). In he second phase o he analysis, we in es iga ed he equi alence be ween expec an s and pa ne s o he s uc- u e o copa en ing expec a ions ob ained in he fi s phase (i.e., measu emen in a iance). Fo his pu pose, we used explo a o y s uc u al equa ion modeling (ESEM; Ma sh e al., 2009), as his allowed ou EFA measu emen model o copa en ing expec a ions o be u he examined wi hin a SEM amewo k. In line wi h he sugges ions by Sakaluk e al. (2021) on how o es measu emen in a iance using couple da a, he ollowing s eps we e aken: (i) configu al in a iance (i.e., a simila pa e n o ac o loadings and numbe o ac o s was specified ac oss expec an s and pa ne s); (ii) weak in a iance (i.e., he p e ious s ep plus ac o loadings cons ained o be equal ac oss expec an s and pa ne s); (iii) s ong in a iance (i.e., i em in e cep s cons ained o be equal in addi ion o p e ious cons ain s); (i ) s ic in a iance (i.e., esidual a iances cons ained o be equal). The models we e e alua ed successi ely so ha o each s ep o in e es , he p eceding s ep se ed as a e e ence. Mo eo e , o ake in e dependence in he spou- ses’ esponses in o accoun , we modeled he da a a he couple le el (i.e., he couple as he uni o analysis) (Kenny, 2011) and co ela ed he e o e ms o he expec a ion i ems (Sakaluk e al., 2021). In he hi d phase o he analysis, based on he in e - and in a-spousal co ela ions es ima ed ia he a o emen ioned ESEM model, we in es iga ed he links be ween expec an s’and hei pa ne s’dimensions o copa en ing expec a ions. Finally, also applying ESEM, we examined expec an s’ and hei pa ne s’dimensions o copa en ing expec a ions in ela ion o couple ela ionship quali y. Rela ionship leng h and le el o educa ion we e con olled o . Bo h expec an s’and pa ne s’indi idual assessmen s o hei ela ionship quali y and he leng h o hei ela ionship we e co ela ed wi h bo h expec an s’and pa ne s’dimensions o copa en ing. Mo eo e , expec an s’and pa ne s’le el o educa ion was co ela ed wi h he dimensions o hei indi idual copa en ing expec a ions. In addi ion o domain knowledge, hese co ela ions also p o ided in o ma ion on Jou nal o Child and Family S udies he concu en alidi y o he subscales o copa en ing expec a ions in ela ion o couple ela ionship quali y. The disc iminan alidi y o he subscales o copa en ing expec a ions in ela ion o couple ela ionship quali y was assessed using he Fo nell–La cke me hod (Fo nell & La cke , 1981). Thus, we compa ed, he a e age a iance ex ac ed (AVE) o each dimension o copa en ing expec- a ions agains he a iance i sha es wi h couple ela ion- ship quali y (i.e., he squa ed co ela ion). The AVE is he a e age amoun o a iance ha a gi en dimension o copa en ing expec a ions accoun s o in he obse ed a iables associa ed wi h i . The AVE is compu ed as an a e age o he squa ed loadings o he a iables ha a e associa ed wi h he dimension o in e es . I he sha ed a iance is smalle han he AVE, hen disc iminan alidi y is confi med. All he EFA and ESEM analyses we e conduc ed using Mplus e sion 8.6 (Mu hén & Mu hén, 1998–2017). As he pa icipan s ec ui ed ia ma e nal clinics did no di e om hose ec ui ed ia social media in he examined a iables (i.e., copa en ing expec a ions, le el o educa ion, and ela ionship leng h; all p alues > 0.05), we analyzed hem oge he . As he da a we e no no mally dis ibu ed, we used a maximum likelihood es ima o (MLR). Missing da a o spouses who did no answe he ques ionnai e (N=12) we e accoun ed o by using ull-in o ma ion-maximum- likelihood p ocedu e (FIML; Ende s, 2010). To e alua e he model fi o all he es ima ed models, we used he chi-squa e (χ2), Compa a i e Fi Index (CFI), Tucke –Lewis Index (TLI), oo mean squa e e o o app oxima ion (RMSEA), and s anda dized oo mean squa e esidual (SRMR) es s. The significance alue o he χ2 es should be g ea e han 0.05. I is accep ed ha alues smalle han 0.08 o bo h he RMSEA and SRMR indica e a easonable fi o he da a (Hu & Ben le , 1999). Values g ea e han 0.90 indica e an accep able fi o he da a o bo h he CFI and TLI. In compa ing he models a each s ep o he in a iance es , we used he χ2di e ence es (Sa o a & Ben le , 2001) and change (Δ) in he RMSEA, CFI, and TLI (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rens old, 2002). ΔRMSEA ≤0.015, ΔCFI ≤0.01 and ΔTLI ≤0.01 indica es ha he null hypo hesis o in a iance should no be ejec ed. Howe e , i should be no ed ha hese cu -o s ha e been es ablished o he a- di ional confi ma o y ac o analysis (CFA)/SEM ame- wo k (Ma sh e al., 2009), and esea ch on hei applicabili y in he EFA/ESEM amewo k is lacking (A ens & Mo in, 2016). ESEM schola s (e.g., Ma sh e al., 2009) ha e sugges ed ha fi indices which include a co - ec ion o pa simony (i.e., TLI and RMSEA) may be pa - icula ly impo an in ESEM, gi en ha he numbe o es ima ed pa ame e s is much la ge han in adi ional CFA/SEM. Hence, in line wi h hese sugges ions (e.g., Ma sh e al., 2009; A ens & Mo in, 2016), we used hese c i e ia only as ough guidelines o acili a ing model e alua ion and, a he same ime, conside ed he heo e ical adequacy o he model o de e mining he fi o ou ESEM models. Resul s Desc ip i e s a is ics o he copa en ing i ems a e p esen ed in Table 2. On a e age, bo h expec an s’and pa ne s’ expec a ions o copa en ing we e highly posi i e and showed li le a ia ion, meaning ha he pa icipan s’ expe iences we e simila , ha is, highly posi i e. S uc u e o he P ena al Ve sion o Copa en ing Rela ionship Scale Fi s , we examined he ac o s uc u e o he CRS-FPV scale. Ou specific ocus was o find a simila ac o s uc- u e o bo h expec an s and hei pa ne s. Ini ial sc eening o he i ems e ealed ha i ems 4 (“My pa ne will pay a g ea deal o a en ion o ou child”) and 19 (“My pa ne will unde mine my pa en ing”) showed no a ia ion in ei he o he spouses: almos all he expec an s and pa ne s ag eed wi h i em 4 and disag eed wi h i em 19. The e o e, we excluded hese i ems om he u he analyses. Es ima ion o di e en EFA solu ions wi h he emaining 28 i ems e ealed ha none o he ac o solu ions ecei ed clea suppo om he s a is ical c i e ia: he fi index alues we e a om adequa e in bo h spouses o all solu ions, he bes eme ging o he 4- ac o solu ion (e.g., CFIs we e a ound 0.80 and TLIs sligh ly unde 0.80). Pa allel analysis sugges ed wo ac o s o expec an s and h ee ac o s o pa ne s. Inspec ion o he loading pa e ns o he a ious ac o solu ions e ealed many p oblema ic i ems, he mos se e e being i em 11 (“My pa ne will some imes make jokes o sa cas ic commen s abou he way I am as a pa - en ”) which loaded di e en ly be ween expec an s and pa ne s: o expec an s, i seemed o eflec he same ac o as i ems measu ing conflic whe eas among pa ne s he i em loaded on he same ac o as i ems ha heo e ically measu ed disag eemen o unde mining. This sugges s ha he meaning o i em 11 was comple ely di e en ac oss spouses. Mo eo e , many i ems did no load p ope ly (i.e., a loading <0.32) in ei he o bo h spouses: i ems 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 25 showed low loadings in expec an s, i ems 8 and 15 did no load on any ac o in pa ne s, and i em 18 (“When all h ee o us a e oge he , my pa ne some imes will compe e wi h me o ou child’s a en ion”) did no load p ope ly on any ac o in ei he expec an s o pa ne s. This means ha hese i ems did no measu e he ac o s uc u e well in ei he o bo h spouses. In o he wo ds, hese i ems we e poo ly ela ed o he o he expec a ion a iables in he Jou nal o Child and Family S udies Table 2 Means (M), s anda d de ia ions (SD) and Spea man co ela ions o he 30 i ems o CRS-FPV (N=157 couples) I ems 1 P2P3P4P5P6P7P8P9P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30 PM Expec an s SDExpec an s 1E0.24** 0.27** 0.22** 0.11 −0.10 0.19*−0.04 −0.08 0.20*−0.17*−0.14 −0.15 0.29*** −0.09 −0.10 0.22** 0.16*−0.01 −0.21*0.11 0.18*0.21*0.13 0.19*0.11 −0.05 −0.14 −0.13 −0.17*−0.07 6.84 0.42 2E0.32*** 0.23** 0.19*0.18* −0.22** 0.27** −0.06 −0.19*0.33*** −0.18* −0.27** −0.17*0.25** −0.19* −0.27** 0.32*** 0.18* −0.18* −0.24** 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.26** 0.15 0.14 −0.26** −0.20* −0.36*** −0.30*** −0.23** 5.95 1.05 3E0.16 0.07 0.09 0.04 −0.25** 0.35*** 0.00 −0.18*0.15 −0.19* −0.23** −0.16 0.17* −0.15 −0.19*0.18*0.04 −0.16 −0.10 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.17*0.13 0.02 −0.15 −0.09 −0.05 −0.01 −0.06 6.41 0.80 4E0.28** 0.22** 0.30*** 0.13 −0.13 0.29*** −0.16 −0.25** 0.24** −0.31*** −0.19* −0.21*0.22** −0.15 −0.17*0.22** 0.24** −0.11 −0.30*** 0.08 0.22** 0.16*0.16 0.14 0.15 −0.08 −0.24** −0.27** −0.19* −0.22** 6.70 0.70 5E−0.13 −0.02 −0.05 −0.07 0.12 −0.11 0.03 0.06 −0.19*0.14 0.23** 0.12 −0.12 0.04 −0.03 −0.06 −0.10 −0.06 0.01 −0.02 −0.03 −0.13 0.01 −0.03 −0.04 0.10 −0.09 −0.11 −0.05 −0.06 2.44 1.44 6E0.12 0.10 0.11 0.06 −0.07 0.17*−0.16 −0.04 0.14 −0.08 −0.17*−0.10 0.16 0.07 −0.07 0.05 0.10 0.02 −0.10 0.18*0.11 0.10 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.03 −0.08 −0.02 −0.04 0.01 6.12 0.83 7E−0.02 −0.04 0.02 0.11 0.09 −0.08 0.03 0.06 −0.06 −0.01 0.24** 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.01 −0.05 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.04 −0.03 0.12 0.14 −0.09 −0.04 −0.02 0.01 1.51 0.87 8E−0.19*−0.20*−0.15 −0.18*0.13 −0.22** 0.17*0.32*** −0.36*** 0.27** 0.11 0.04 −0.18*0.15 0.12 −0.07 −0.11 0.07 0.04 −0.18*−0.14 −0.12 −0.09 −0.22** −0.07 −0.04 −0.01 0.01 −0.00 −0.04 2.26 0.89 9E0.19*0.20*0.12 0.04 −0.26** 0.29*** −0.23** −0.28** 0.27** −0.35*** −0.23** −0.06 0.23** −0.23** −0.18*0.20*0.14 −0.04 −0.14 0.26** 0.26** 0.25** 0.15 0.17*0.13 −0.14 −0.06 −0.02 −0.10 −0.03 5.93 1.21 10E−0.16 −0.17* −0.04 −0.12 0.05 −0.15 0.18*0.16* −0.26** 0.24** 0.23** 0.13 −0.12 0.19*0.11 −0.13 −0.08 0.10 0.16 −0.08 −0.15 −0.23** −0.13 −0.29*** −0.10 0.15 0.00 −0.02 0.07 0.01 2.46 1.18 11E−0.07 0.03 0.08 −0.08 0.03 −0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 −0.03 0.10 −0.07 0.05 −0.02 0.08 0.16 0.11 −0.01 −0.01 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.11 −0.03 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 −0.05 3.93 1.97 12E−0.14 0.03 0.06 −0.08 0.16 −0.08 −0.03 0.08 −0.07 0.05 0.26** 0.05 −0.10 0.08 0.15 −0.04 −0.05 0.07 0.12 −0.03 0.01 −0.04 0.02 −0.13 −0.04 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.07 1.65 1.55 13E0.06 −0.01 0.12 −0.06 −0.14 0.16 −0.16 −0.19*0.19*−0.14 −0.16 −0.23** 0.12 −0.10 −0.23** 0.06 −0.03 −0.08 −0.14 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.03 −0.06 −0.01 −0.03 −0.14 −0.08 6.21 0.85 14E−0.16 −0.08 −0.02 −0.12 0.15 −0.13 0.02 0.22** −0.14 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.20*0.11 −0.05 −0.02 0.05 −0.03 −0.04 −0.06 −0.06 −0.04 −0.14 0.04 0.04 −0.09 −0.09 0.04 −0.06 2.67 1.38 15E−0.06 0.07 0.01 −0.03 0.24** −0.13 0.07 0.05 −0.06 0.07 0.18*0.15 −0.05 0.05 0.18* −0.05 0.02 0.08 −0.01 −0.09 0.07 0.03 −0.01 −0.16 −0.04 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.11 1.26 0.58 16E−0.03 0.05 0.09 0.03 −0.11 0.08 −0.20* −0.16 0.07 −0.10 −0.14 −0.15 −0.02 −0.08 −0.25** −0.07 0.01 −0.04 −0.06 0.08 0.08 −0.03 −0.03 0.14 −0.03 −0.03 0.04 0.01 −0.07 −0.08 6.09 1.07 17E0.23** 0.11 0.13 0.05 −0.17*0.11 −0.16 −0.12 0.19* −0.06 −0.10 −0.17*0.06 −0.02 −0.28** 0.09 0.03 −0.06 −0.04 0.04 0.03 −0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.05 −0.16* −0.04 −0.06 −0.06 −0.04 6.10 1.12 18E−0.05 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.08 −0.06 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.21* −0.11 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.03 −0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 −0.01 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.08 2.23 1.48 19E−0.05 −0.07 −0.01 −0.07 0.11 −0.20*0.04 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.09 −0.05 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.09 −0.11 −0.03 −0.04 0.04 −0.14 −0.01 0.05 −0.02 −0.02 0.03 0.05 1.11 0.33 20E0.08 0.21*0.12 0.10 −0.04 0.14 −0.07 −0.11 0.11 −0.05 −0.15 −0.08 −0.03 −0.03 −0.18*0.17*0.04 0.04 −0.14 0.09 0.03 −0.01 0.04 0.17*0.08 −0.04 −0.00 0.01 −0.05 −0.01 5.98 1.21 21E0.18*0.11 0.09 0.07 −0.18*0.11 −0.02 −0.06 0.12 −0.08 −0.10 −0.09 0.13 −0.06 −0.15 0.08 0.19* −0.08 −0.14 0.16 0.15 0.20*0.16*0.15 −0.03 −0.01 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 6.76 0.61 22E0.17*0.05 0.07 0.03 −0.11 0.17*0.05 −0.10 0.10 0.00 −0.08 −0.05 0.10 −0.00 −0.11 0.14 0.10 0.05 −0.04 0.04 −0.05 0.06 0.09 0.09 −0.05 0.05 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.02 6.67 0.61 23E0.17*0.19*0.27** 0.16 −0.18*0.32*** −0.21* −0.19*0.37*** −0.17* −0.22** −0.17*0.20* −0.22** −0.24** 0.20*0.14 −0.02 −0.15 0.17*0.19*0.15 0.14 0.21*0.05 −0.12 −0.06 −0.13 −0.14 −0.11 6.35 1.08 24E0.19*0.18*0.18*0.09 −0.25** 0.32*** −0.11 −0.18*0.25** −0.15 −0.24** −0.17*0.26** −0.15 −0.27** 0.21*0.05 −0.08 −0.13 0.22** 0.17*0.12 0.15 0.26** 0.11 −0.15 −0.09 −0.11 −0.06 −0.07 6.35 0.86 25E0.17*0.09 0.06 0.11 −0.03 0.21*−0.06 −0.03 0.08 −0.13 −0.05 −0.07 0.18*−0.05 −0.04 0.18*0.14 −0.01 −0.16*0.23** 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.18*0.25** −0.10 0.08 −0.05 −0.04 0.01 5.92 1.30 26E−0.09 −0.08 −0.02 −0.02 0.04 −0.18*0.03 0.19*−0.09 0.09 0.05 0.05 −0.09 0.02 0.02 −0.05 −0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.18*0.16 4.96 1.75 27E−0.09 −0.10 −0.07 −0.12 0.02 −0.26** 0.06 0.13 −0.14 0.12 0.06 0.17* −0.11 0.13 0.04 −0.09 0.10 0.02 0.10 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.07 −0.05 0.00 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.19*0.14 2.05 1.22 28E−0.03 −0.08 −0.13 −0.02 −0.05 −0.14 0.14 0.21* −0.11 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.17*0.08 −0.02 0.08 −0.08 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.00 −0.04 −0.02 0.11 0.21*0.11 0.16 0.18*0.25** 1.83 1.14 29E−0.13 −0.09 −0.06 −0.12 0.04 −0.18*0.12 0.17* −0.13 0.11 0.04 0.09 −0.01 0.20*0.02 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.08 −0.07 −0.02 0.01 −0.01 0.02 −0.01 0.18*0.08 0.16 0.18*0.22** 2.76 1.66 30E−0.08 −0.04 −0.13 −0.06 −0.03 −0.19*0.13 0.17* −0.11 0.12 0.11 0.23** −0.05 0.25** 0.10 −0.08 0.05 −0.02 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.02 −0.05 0.03 0.12 0.28** 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.21*2.08 1.46 Mpa ne s 6.77 6.12 6.35 6.83 2.45 6.05 2.07 2.38 6.12 2.60 4.28 2.10 6.50 2.69 2.05 5.30 6.01 2.28 1.36 6.08 6.64 6.65 6.56 6.50 5.99 4.78 2.05 1.88 2.16 1.75 SDpa ne s 0.51 0.99 0.87 0.49 1.62 0.97 1.52 1.29 1.04 1.29 1.85 1.56 0.65 1.46 1.54 1.41 1.14 1.50 0.89 1.15 0.64 0.66 0.89 0.85 1.14 1.74 1.21 1.27 1.30 1.09 Eexpec an s, Ppa ne s *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001. A 7-poin esponse scale: 1 =No ue o us, 7 =Ve y ue o us Jou nal o Child and Family S udies measu ed wi h di e en c i e ia among sexual mino i y and he e osexual couples. Finally, because ou da a we e c oss- sec ional, i is no possible o ake a posi ion on he causal ela ionship be ween he expec a ions o copa en ing and he quali y o couple ela ionship o o examine he p e- dic i e alidi y o copa en ing expec a ions. Despi e hese limi a ions, ou s udy p o ides aluable new in o ma ion on copa en ing expec a ions be ween spouses as measu ed by he CRS-CPV. Ou findings ha e se e al implica ions o policy make s and p o essionals in amily se ices. Ou s udy highligh s he impo ance o conside ing copa en ing and discussing copa en ing expec- a ions al eady du ing p egnancy, o example h ough p ena al clinics. Ou esul s sugges ha , du ing p egnancy, pa en s- o-be do no ye ha e a b oad concep ion o copa en ing, bu a he h ough only wo dimensions: Expec a ions o coope a i e copa en ing and Expec a ions o copa en ing conflic . Fu u e pa en s may also ha e un ealis ic expec a ions and iew hei u u e copa en ing h ough ose-colo ed glasses, in which case po en ial con- flic s can come as a su p ise. Fu u e esea ch should also s udy he expec a ions o couples in di e en cul u es, as hese may be a ec ed by hei cul u al con ex (Feinbe g, 2003). The ac ha ou s udy was ca ied ou in Finland, a coun y whe e gende equali y, di ision o labo be ween spouses, and pa en al lea e o bo h spouses a e empha- sized, may in pa explain ou expec an pa en s’high le el o op imism ega ding hei u u e copa en ing. Ou s udy en iches he cu en deba e and heo y on copa en ing by in oducing a heo y-based bidimensional measu emen ins umen o examining couples’p ena al expec a ions o copa en ing pe se, a he han examining hese ia in e iew-based measu es o measu es ha ocus solely on one aspec o copa en ing, such as he di ision o labo be ween spouses (see, e.g., McHale e al., 2004; McHale & Ro man, 2007). To ou bes knowledge, no o he published ques ionnai es exis o s udying he p ena al copa en ing expec a ions o couples. On he iew ha copa en ing is one o he possible amily subsys ems and ha he membe s o his subsys em a e dependen upon one ano he (Minuchin, 1985), i is c ucial o ocus specificallyoncouples’copa en ing expec a ions. Thus, inclusion o his spousal in e dependence in u u e esea ch on copa en ing expec a ions may o e new insigh s on spouses’copa en ing dynamics. O e all, ou esul s sugges ha he Finnish e sion o he CRS-CPV is a p omising ins umen o assessing he couples’copa - en ing expec a ions, especially among he e osexual couples. Au ho Con ibu ions All au ho s con ibu ed o he s udy concep ion and design. Ma e ial p epa a ion and da a collec ion we e pe o med by E.L., E.R., K.M., and A.R. Analysis was pe o med by E.L. and E.R. The fi s d a o he manusc ip was w i en by E.L. and all au ho s commen ed on p e ious e sions o he manusc ip . All au ho s ead and app o ed he final manusc ip . Funding This wo k was suppo ed by he Academy o Finland (g an numbe s 323492 and 323493), Ellen and A u i Nyyssönen Founda- ion, Alli Paasiki i Founda ion, and he Depa men o Educa ion, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. Open Access unding p o ided by Uni e si y o Jy äskylä (JYU). Compliance wi h E hical S anda ds Conflic o In e es The au ho s decla e no compe ing in e es s. E hics App o al The ques ionnai e and me hodology o his s udy we e app o ed by he Human Resea ch E hics Commi ee o he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä (Janua y 7, 2020). Consen o Pa icipa e In o med consen was ob ained om all indi- idual pa icipan s included in he s udy. Pa icipa ion was olun a y. Publishe ’s no e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a filia ions. Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons license, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons license, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons license and you in ended use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his license, isi h p://c ea i ecommons. o g/licenses/by/4.0/. Re e ences Adamsons, K. (2013). P edic o s o ela ionship quali y du ing he ansi ion o pa en hood. Jou nal o Rep oduc i e and In an Psychology,31(2), 160–171. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/02646838. 2013.791919. Alakä ppä, O., Se ón, E., No man, H., & Rönkä, A. (2022). Young women’s con adic o y expec a ions and hei pe cei ed capabili ies o u u e wo k- amily econcilia ion in Finland. Jou nalo You h S udies,1–16. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13676261.2022.2098703. Al enbu ge , L. E., Schoppe-Sulli an, S. J., Lang, S. N., Bowe , D. J., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2014). Associa ions be ween p ena al copa en ing beha io and obse ed copa en ing beha io a 9-mon hs pos pa um. Jou nal o Family Psychology,28(4), 495–504. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/ am0000012. A ens, A. K., & Mo in, A. J. S. (2016). Examina ion o he s uc u e and g ade- ela ed di e en ia ion o mul idimensional sel -concep ins umen s o child en using ESEM. Jou nal o Expe imen al Educa ion,84, 330–355. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/00220973.2014. 999187. Beckmeye , J. J., Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Ma kham, M. S. (2017). Expe iences wi h copa en ing scale: A seman ic di e - en ial measu e o pos di o ce copa en ing sa is ac ion. Jou nal o Jou nal o Child and Family S udies Family Issues,38(10), 1471–1490. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/ 0192513X16634764. Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). Fi s - ime pa en s’expec- a ions abou he di ision o childca e and play. Jou nal o Family Psychology,26(1), 36–45. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0026608. Boucha d, G. (2009). Pa en s- o-be wi h o e ly op imis ic expec a ions o pa en hood: Who a e hey and wha should counsello s do? Canadian Jou nal o Counselling and Psycho he apy,43(3), 165–177. h ps://cjc- cc.ucalga y.ca/a icle/ iew/59017. Camisasca, E., Mi agoli, S., Di Blasio, P., & Feinbe g, M. (2019). Co- pa en ing media es he influence o ma i al sa is ac ion on child adjus men : The condi ional indi ec e ec by pa en al empa hy. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies,28(2), 519–530. h ps://doi. o g/10.1007/s10826-018-1271-5. Ca nei o, C., Co bo-zWa ne y, A., & Fi az-Depeu singe, E. (2006). The p ena al Lausanne T ilogue Play: A new obse a ional assessmen ool o he p ena al co-pa en ing alliance. In an Men al Heal h Jou nal,27(2), 207–228. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ imhj.20089. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensi i i y o goodness o fi indexes o lack o measu emen in a iance. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling,14(3), 464–504. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10705510701301834. Cheung, G. W., & Rens old, R. B. (2002). E alua ing goodness-o - fi indexes o es ing measu emen in a iance. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling,9(2), 233–255. h ps://doi.o g/10.1207/ S15328007SEM0902_5. Ch is ophe , C., Umemu a, T., Mann, T., Jacob i z, D., & Hazen, N. (2015). Ma i al quali y o e he ansi ion o pa en hood as a p edic o o copa en ing. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies, 24(12), 3636–3651. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10826-015-0172-0. Cohen, J. (1988). S a is ical powe analysis o he beha io al sciences (2nd ed.). New Yo k: Law ence E lbaum Associa es. Doss, B., & Rhoades, G. (2017). The ansi ion o pa en hood: Impac on couples´ oman ic ela ionships. Cu en Opinion in Psychol- ogy,13,25–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.003. Du schi, J. A., Soloski, K. L., & Kimmes, J. (2017). The dyadic e ec s o suppo i e copa en ing and pa en al s ess on ela ion- ship quali y ac oss he ansi ion o pa en hood. Jou nal o Ma i al and Family The apy,43(2), 308–321. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1111/jm .12194. Ende s, C. K. (2010). Applied missing da a analysis. New Yo k: Guil o d Publica ions. Fab iga , L. R., & Wegene , D. T. (2011). Explo a o y ac o analysis. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Feinbe g, M. E. (2002). Copa en ing and he ansi ion o pa en hood: A amewo k o p e en ion. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Re iew,5(3), 173–195. h ps://doi.o g/10.1023/a:1019695015110. Feinbe g, M. E. (2003). The in e nal s uc u e and ecological con ex o copa en ing: A amewo k o esea ch and in e en ion. Pa en ing, Science and P ac ice,3(2), 95–131. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1207/S15327922PAR0302_01. Feinbe g, M. E., B own, L. D., & Kan, M. L. (2012). A mul i-domain sel - epo measu e o copa en ing. Pa en ing, Science and P ac ice,12(1), 1–21. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/15295192.2012. 638870. Finnish Ins i u e o Heal h and Wel a e (2021). Äi iys- ja las enneu- ola [Ma e ni y and child heal h clinic]. Finnish Ins i u e o Heal h and Wel a e. h ps:// hl.fi/fi/web/lapse -nuo e -ja-pe hee / so e-pal elu /ai iys-ja-las enneu ola. Fo nell, C., & La cke , D. F. (1981). E alua ing s uc u al equa ion models wi h unobse able a iables and measu emen e o . Jou nal o Ma ke ing Resea ch,18(1), 39–50. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1177/002224378101800104. Glade, A., Bean, R., & Vi a, R. (2005). A p ime ime o ma i al/ ela ional in e en ion: A e iew o he ansi ion o pa en hood li e a u e wi h ea men ecommenda ions. The Ame ican Jou nal o Family The apy,33(4), 319–336. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1080/01926180590962138. Go e zko, D., Pham, T. T. H., & Bühne , M. (2021). Explo a o y ac o analysis: Cu en use, me hodological de elopmen s and ecommenda ions o good p ac ice. Cu en Psychology,40, 3510–3521. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2. Halonen, J., Rin ala, R., So kkila, M., Rönkä, A., & Aunola, K. (2021). Vanhempien käsi ykse ihanne anhemman ominai- suuksis a sekä yh eiskunnan anhemmille ase amis a ihan eis a Suomessa [An ideal pa en in he ligh o pa en s’own and pe - cei ed socie al ideals in Finland]. Psykologia,56(3), 304–318. Ho n, J. L. (1965). A a ionale and es o he numbe o ac o s in ac o analysis. Psychome ika,30, 179–185. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1007/BF02289447. Hu, L.-T., & Ben le , P. M. (1999). Cu o c i e ia o fi indexes in co a iance s uc u e analysis: Con en ional c i e ia e sus new al e na i es. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling,6(1), 1–55. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1080/10705519909540118. Ka z-Wise, S., P iess, H., & Hyde, J. (2010). Gende - ole a i udes and beha io ac oss he ansi ion o pa en hood. De elopmen al Psychology,46(1), 18–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0017820. Kenny, D. A. (2011). Commen a y: Dyadic analyses o amily da a. Jou nal o Pedia ic Psychology,36(5), 630–633. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq124. Kleme i, R., Koukkula, M., & Bildjuschkin, K. (2020). Raskaana ko ona-aikaan [P egnan du ing COVID-19]. Finnish Ins i u e o Heal h and Wel a e. h ps://blogi. hl.fi/ askaana-ko ona-aikaan/. Kue s en-Hogan, R. (2017). B idging he gap ac oss he ansi ion o copa en hood: T iadic in e ac ions and copa en ing ep esen a- ions om p egnancy h ough 12 mon hs pos pa um. F on ie s in Psychology,8, 475. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2017.00475. Law ence, E., Nylen, K., & Cobb, R. (2007). P ena al expec a ions and ma i al sa is ac ion o e he ansi ion o pa en hood. Jou nal o Family Psychology,21(2), 155–164. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/ 0893-3200.21.2.155. Le, Y., McDaniel, B. T., Lea i , C. E., & Feinbe g, M. E. (2016). Longi udinal associa ions be ween ela ionship quali y and copa en ing ac oss he ansi ion o pa en hood: A dyadic pe - spec i e. Jou nal o Family Psychology,30(8), 918–926. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1037/ am0000217. Leal, D., Ga o, J., Coimb a, S., Taske , F., & To nello, S. (2022). The p ospec i e co-pa en ing ela ionship scale (PCRS) o sexual mino i y and he e osexual people: P elimina y alida ion. In e - na ional Jou nal o En i onmen al Resea ch and Public Heal h, 19(10), 6345. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ije ph19106345. Ma golin, G., Go dis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Copa en ing: A link be ween ma i al conflic and pa en ing in wo-pa en amilies. Jou nal o Family Psychology,15(1), 3–21. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1037//0893-3200.15.1.3. Ma sh, H. W., Mu hén, B., Aspa ouho , T., Lüd ke, O., Robi zsch, A., Mo in, A. J. S., & T au wein, U. (2009). Explo a o y s uc u al equa ion modeling, in eg a ing CFA and EFA: Applica ion o s uden s’e alua ions o uni e si y eaching. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling,16(3), 439–476. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/ 10705510903008220. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Tes heo y: A unified ea men . New Yo k: Law ence E lbaum Associa es Publishe s. McHale, J. P., Kazali, C., Ro man, T., Talbo , J., Ca le on, M., & Liebe son, R. (2004). The ansi ion o copa en hood: Pa en s’ p e-bi h expec a ions and ea ly copa en al adjus men a 3 mon hs pos pa um. De elopmen and Psychopa hology,16(3), 711–733. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/s0954579404004742. McHale, J. P., & Ro man, T. (2007). Is seeing belie ing? Expec an pa en s’ou looks on copa en ing and la e copa en ing solida i y. In an Beha io & De elopmen ,30(1), 63–81. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1016/j.in beh.2006.11.007. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies Mesman, J., an IJzendoo n, M. H., Beh ens, K. Y., Ca bonell, O. A., Ca camo, R. A., Cohen-Pa ai a, I., de la Ha pe, C., Ekmekci, H., Emmen, R. A., Heida , J., Kondo-Ikemu a, K., Mels, C., Mooya, H., Mu isa i, S., Nóblega, M., O iz, J. A., Sagi-Schwa z, A., Sichimba, F., Soa es, I., S eele, H., S eele, M., Pape, M. C., an Ginkel, J. R., an de Vee , R., Wang, L., Selçuk, B., Ya uz, M., & Z eik, G. (2016). Is he ideal mo he a sensi i e mo he ? Belie s abou ea ly childhood pa en ing in mo he s ac oss he globe. In e na ional Jou nal o Beha io al De elopmen ,40(5), 385–397. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0165025415594030. Mie inen, A., & Ro ki ch, A. (2012). Yh eis ä aikaa e simässä: Lapsipe heiden ajankäy ö 2000-lu ulla [Time use o Finnish amilies wi h child en]. Popula ion Resea ch Ins i u e, Family Fede a ion o Finland. h ps://www. aes olii o.fi/uploads/2020/ 12/34c6d1e0-pe heba ome i-2011.pd . Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h (2017). Sukupuol en asa-a o neu olan asiakas yössä. Opas anhempien ja las en ukemiseen sukupuol en asa-a on näkökulmas a [Gende equali y when wo king wi h clien s in ma e ni y and child wel a e clinics]. Finnish Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h. h p://u n.fi/URN: ISBN:978-952-00-3966-0 Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and indi idual de elopmen : P o oca- ions om he field o amily he apy. Child De elopmen ,56(2), 289–302. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/1129720. Mollà Cusí, L., Gün he -Bel, C., Vila egu Puigdesens, A., Camp e- ciós O iols, M., & Ma alí Cos a, J. L. (2020). Ins umen s o he assessmen o copa en ing: A sys ema ic e iew. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies,29(9), 2487–2506. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/ s10826-020-01769-3. Mo ill, M. I., Hines, D. A., Mahmood, S., & Có do a, J. V. (2010). Pa hways be ween ma iage and pa en ing o wi es and hus- bands: The ole o copa en ing. Family P ocess,49(1), 59–73. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01308.x. Mu hén, L. K., & Mu hén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus Use ’s Guide (8 h ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Mu hén & Mu hén. No on, R. (1983). Measu ing ma i al quali y: A c i ical look a he dependen a iable. Jou nal o Ma iage and he Family,45(1), 141–151. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/351302. O ficial S a is ics o Finland OSF (2020). Key figu es on popula ion by egion, 1990-2020. S a is ics Finland. h ps://pxne 2.s a .fi/ PXWeb/pxweb/en/S a Fin/S a Fin__ m__ ae ak/s a fin_ ae ak_ px _11 a.px/ able/ ableViewLayou 1/. O ficial S a is ics o Finland OSF (2021a). Dec ease in bi h a e s opped in 2020. S a is ics Finland. h p://www.s a .fi/ il/syn / 2020/syn _2020_2021-04-23_ ie_001_en.h ml. O ficial S a is ics o Finland OSF (2021b). Tu n in he bi h a e was especially isible among pe sons aged o e 30 and highly edu- ca ed. S a is ics Finland. h p://www.s a .fi/ il/syn /2020/02/syn _ 2020_02_2021-12-03_ ie_001_en.h ml. O ficial S a is ics o Finland OSF (2021c). Bi hs 2020. S a is ics Finland. h ps://www.s a .fi/ il/syn /index_en.h ml. P au-E finge , B. (2005). Wel a e s a e policies and he de elopmen o ca e a angemen s. Eu opean Socie ies,7(2), 321–347. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1080/14616690500083592. Pin o, T. M., Figuei edo, B., & Feinbe g, M. E. (2018). The copa - en ing ela ionship scale— a he ’s p ena al e sion. Jou nal o Adul De elopmen ,26(3), 201–208. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/ s10804-018-9308-y. Pin o, T., & Figuei edo, B. (2019). A achmen and copa en ing ep esen a ions in men du ing he ansi ion o pa en hood. In an Men al Heal h Jou nal,40(6), 850–861. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/ imhj.21820. Pu nick, D. L., & Bo ns ein, M. H. (2016). Measu emen in a iance con en ions and epo ing: The s a e o he a and u u e di ec- ions o psychological esea ch. De elopmen al Re iew,41, 71–90. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.d .2016.06.004. Rönkä, A., Se ón, E., Malinen, K., & Salonen, E. (2014). An examina ion o non esponse in a s udy on daily amily li e: I do no ha e ime o pa icipa e, bu I can ell you some hing abou ou li e. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Resea ch Me hodology, 17(3), 197–214. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13645579.2012. 729401. Sakaluk, J. K., Fishe , A. N., & Kilshaw, R. E. (2021). Dyadic mea- su emen in a iance and i s impo ance o eplicabili y in oman ic ela ionship science. Pe sonal Rela ionships,28(1), 190–226. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/pe e.12341. Sa o a, A., & Ben le , P. M. (2001). A scaled di e ence chi-squa e es s a is ic o momen s uc u e analysis. Psychome ika,66(4), 507–514. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF02296192. Schoppe‐Sulli an, S. J., & Mangelsdo , S. C. (2013). Pa en cha - ac e is ics and ea ly copa en ing beha io a he ansi ion o pa en hood. Social De elopmen ,22(2), 363–383. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1111/sode.12014. Social Insu ance Ins i u ion o Finland (2021). Kelan lapsipe he- e uus ilas o 2020 [Social Insu ance Ins i u ion’s s a is ics on bene- fi s o amilies wi h child en in 2020]. Social Insu ance Ins i u ion o Finland. h p://u n.fi/URN:NBN:fi- e2021051229777. Teube , D., & Pinqua , M. (2010). The associa ion be ween copa - en ing and child adjus men : A me a-analysis. Pa en ing: Science and P ac ice,10(4), 286–307. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/15295192. 2010.492040. Van Ege en, L. A. (2003). P ebi h p edic o s o copa en ing expe i- ences in ea ly in ancy. In an Men al Heal h Jou nal,24(3), 278–295. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/imhj.10056. Van Ege en, L., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Coming o e ms wi h copa en ing: Implica ions o defini ion and measu emen . Jou nal o Adul De elopmen ,11(3), 165–178. h ps://doi.o g/10.1023/B: JADE.0000035625.74672.0b. Jou nal o Child and Family S udies