________________________________ Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Abayomi Olusa, Dept. of Behavioral Studies, Redeemer’s U., Ede, Osun State, Nigeria bjyomsi@yahoo.com North American Journal of Psychology, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 4, 619-636.  NAJP Development and Validation of Redeemer’s University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS) Osagiator Joy Ariyo, Ebenezer Olutope Akinnawo, Abayomi Olubanjo Olusa, & Joshua Oludare Ogunsemi Redeemer’s University, Nigeria There is a paucity of indigenous assessment tools to measure severities of romantic jealousy among the Nigerian population despite its high prevalence reported in the literature. The development and validation of a romantic jealousy scale titled Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS) was thus initiated. A principal component analysis extracted 6 components from items whose eigenvalues exceeded 1. Eleven items loaded best in the first component; 9 items loaded in the second component while 12 items loaded in the third component. The scree plot analysis retained three components (romantic jealousy symptoms). The RUN-RJS has a Cronbach's alpha of .89, .89, .86 for the three dimensions of cognitive, emotional and behavioural subscales. Measures of convergent validity and discriminant validity showed that the RUN-RJS is gender-sensitive, has robust psychometric properties and is recommended as a diagnostic tool for romantic jealousy among adults in Nigeria. Keywords: Romantic Jealousy, validation, romantic jealousy scale, Nigeria. Jealousy in romantic relationships has been linked with several factors that could either sustain or destroy the relationship (Kaya, 2017; Uzun, 2019). The presence of some amount of jealousy in a relationship is a sign of love (Kaya, 2017) and it helps sustain the relationship (Attridge, 2013). However, when romantic jealousy becomes intense and when the individual loses control, it could become pathological with serious consequences (Harris, 2003). Recent statistics have shown an increasing trend in the rate of broken relationships; marriage and courtships (Paul, 2019), which is contrary to historical and cultural antecedents in a multicultural environment like Nigeria. There is also compelling evidence of battered relationships (Chiweta-Oduah et al., 2020; Omoniyi, 2020) which had led to frequent sensitization with the intent to curb domestic violence (Omidoyin, 2018). Since jealousy has been associated with aggression and violence, there 620 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY are strong indications that romantic jealousy could be attributed to the experience of aggressive behaviour towards romantic rivals and intimate partner. In addition, heightened level of romantic jealousy brings drastic consequences for the couple involved and rivals, even to a point of death (Attridge, 2013; Martínez-León et al., 2017), therefore becoming a concern for public health and societal well-being. Romantic jealousy has been researched (Kara & Deniz, 2021; Pichon et al., 2020; Uzun, 2019), however, because it has a way of justifying its strength in harmonizing relationships through a conscious increase in care and concern, excessiveness remains a problem that could be pathological when it occurs. The related factors that we considered within this study are sexuality and attachment styles, while cognitive behavior therapy and cognitive analytical therapy Romantic jealousy is defined as a set of thoughts, feelings and actions that follow a threat to the existence or quality of a relationship, generated by the perception of a potential romantic attraction between the partner and a real or imaginary rival (Salovey, 1991; White, 1981). Healthy relationships increase our life satisfaction and psychological well-being, supporting us against the dangerous effects of stress (Kawamichi et al., 2016; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Love & Holder, 2016). They provide a variety of positive effects such as companionship, passion, and intimacy (Gable & Impett, 2012). Unfortunately, however, romantic relationships can also be a source of great sorrow and suffering, because factors such as jealousy, rejection, abandonment, and conflicts in a relationship may result in psychological distress and emotional pain. Problems in romantic relationships may lead to the emergence of or exacerbate existing psychopathological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse (Gable & Impett, 2012). The psychopathology of jealousy in romantic relationships has historically been neglected by psychiatry and clinical psychology (Berscheid, 2010). This may be because reports on the psychopathology of jealousy in romantic relationships usually lacked clinical precision, resulting from widespread ignorance and limited knowledge about romantic jealousy and available mental health services. Judging from the growing rate of extreme cases of jealousy and abuse or violence in relationships, several cases of intimate partner violence are attributed to jealousy in the relationship due to perceived involvement of either spouse in other intimate/romantic relationship (Adedigba, 2022; Agbedo et al., 2021; NOIPolls, 2019). Intimate partner violence has become a global public health problem (Boserup et al., 2020; Ononume, 2021) with the resulting implications of physical and psychological health risks for both males and females victims and partners. A recent study among 400 sampled females whose age ranged between 18 and 73 Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 621 years in Lagos, Nigeria, examined various forms of domestic violence. Emphasis was placed on the various specific behaviours in each form of violence identified (for example, intentionally injured with a weapon, slapped and pushed in physical violence). Among the several identified behaviours, a prevalence rate of 7.8% - 34.8% experience of physical violence was recorded, 27.5% - 46.8% experience of sexual violence, 19% - 52.5% experience of psychological/emotional violence and 19.3% - 63% experiences of controlling form of behaviours from partners (Oluwole et al., 2020). Males also experience domestic violence with emotional abuse as the most common form. Documentations on male experience of domestic violence are few and most cases reported are those that lead to mortality (Adedipe, 2021; Babajide, 2021; Lambo, 2022; Onoyume, 2021). A survey carried out in 2016 indicated 97% prevalence of domestic violence of men against women and 47% prevalence of domestic violence of women against men (NOIPolls, 2016). The cultural perspectives that males are stronger and should be able to manage any experienced challenges at home make most of the domestic violence encountered go unreported. Based on the notion that the majority of the causes of domestic violence are disagreement between parties and specifically, attributing few to a perceived engagement with a third party in a romantic or intimate form (Esere et al., 2009; Oluwole et al., 2020; Pichon et al. 2020), there tends to be persistence in societal challenges ranging from marital insecurity to marital dissatisfaction. Thus, there is a need for a standardized scale to measure romantic jealousy among Nigerians. This will provide more accurate statistics and proffer workable policy statements to address them. This argument underscores the need for an indigenous scale to measure romantic jealousy, as most available standardized romantic jealousy scales used in Nigeria are imported and, at best, validated by Nigerian authors before use. Often, these imported scales fail to consider peculiar socio-cultural factors germane to Nigerians. Some of these cultural variances are the traditional belief that men could be polygamous and thus need to be closely monitored, men could exercise the right to beat their wives (NOIPolls, 2016), and that a woman has the ability to decide how her home would be based on how she chooses to decide issues relating to her home. Based on these arguments, the authors undertook the development and validation of an indigenous scale to measure Romantic Jealousy. METHOD Ethical Approval Research ethics for human subjects were observed in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. The research intention and proposed procedures were scrutinized by the Internal Research Ethics Committee of 622 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Redeemer's University, Nigeria. Ethical codes do not apply to this research type (See National Code of Health Research Ethics; National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC). Section B, item A. http://www.nhrec.net/nhrec/NCHRE10.pdf Item generation for Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS): The items for Redeemer’s University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS) were based on the symptoms of romantic jealousy as identified in the literature. This was the first stage in the two-stage approach adopted from Lynn’s (1986) recommendations. Lynn (1986) recommended development and generation of instrument items (stage 1) and evaluating the instrument's item performance (Stage 2- validation). In generating the initial pool of items for the RUN-RJS, the researchers reviewed clinical features of romantic jealousy from literature (Kara & Deniz, 2021; Pichon et al., 2020; Uzun, 2019). A total of 35 items were generated and used for item refinement. The items we generated were first subjected to face and content validity by 13 specialists in the field of psychology, sociology, and psychiatry (6 clinical psychologists, 2 industrial psychologists, 1 sociologist, 4 psychiatrists). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from 1-not relevant to 5-very relevant. The justification for this is that the expert technique is an acceptable method for content validity (Nunnally 1978). All items were rated on point 4 and 5 of the rater scale by the experts hence they were all accepted. The 35 items were administered and subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). As summarized in Table 1, Thirty-four items were generally agreed upon by the experts to meet face value at 75%. There was a concordance inter-rater reliability of 0.96 above the stated level of acceptance for face values. Acceptable interrater reliability (r= .96, p=.000) was observed in the scores of the 13 experts for the items of RUN-RJS. The instrument had a final version of 35 items used for item refinement. Participants Respondents' consent was obtained before the administration of the instruments. Participation was voluntary, confidentiality was assured, and the respondents were free to leave at any stage of the study.The study participants were employees in the health sector. Purposive and convenient sampling techniques were used to select participants for the factor analysis of the RUN-RJS stage of this study. Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Benin was selected using the purposive sampling technique while participants ranging from doctors, nurses, http://www.nhrec.net/nhrec/NCHRE10.pdf Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 623 psychologists, drivers, accountants and administrators were selected using a convenience sampling technique. They were approached at their designation duty post after approval was obtained from the organization management. One hundred and thirty participants comprised of 57 males and 73 females (mean age= 39.04, SD= 8.76) with age ranging from 22 to 63 years participated in the study. Inclusion criterion considered only individuals that had been in a relationship for over a year and the marital status of the respondents were those that were engaged (N=46, 35.4%) and those married (N=84, 64.6%). RESULTS The 35 items of the RUDS were subjected to an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used as the factor analysis technique, and confirming the adequacy of items for PCA, Bartlett's test (Bartlett, 1954), and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) were used to assess how factorable the RUN- RJS data were. Item Refinement The RUN-RJS was subjected to exploratory factor analysis. According to Hair et al (2010), for factor analysis to be considered appropriate, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (BTS) should be significant (p < 0.05), and, with 0 to 1 range for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) index, and 0.06 set as the minimum value for suitable factor analysis. The KMO had a value of .879 which falls within the statistically significant range of 0 to 1. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant (X2=3253.284, df=595, p = .000). These results, therefore, support the factorability of the correlation matrix, hence the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS) The factor analysis is therefore considered appropriate. The test of the principal component extraction method indicated 6 components with an initial eigenvalue above one. A Scree plot was also conducted to confirm the numbers of components that would be extracted in the factor analysis. The findings are summarised below. It was noted in the plot that the elbow curve serving as a decision point on the number of component to retain occurred after the third component, thus indicating just three relevant components for the construct. The decision of the scree plot do not align with the EFA conducted, however, the extraction of the six components will be studied 624 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY and utilised to select relevant items for the construct. The summary is presented in Table 1. Figure 1 Scree Plot on the 35-Item Proposed Measure of Romantic Jealousy Table 1Summary of principal component analysis showing extracted 5 components for the 35-Item measure of RUN-RJS Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 I perceive that my partner is being sexually intimate with another person .793 .262 .082 .118 .056 .136 2 I find out my partner is having an affair .760 .202 .179 .125 .066 .032 3 I suspect that my partner seems to enjoy the company of someone else more than mine .755 .196 .149 .208 .057 -.110 Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 625 4 I suspect that my partner is attracted to someone else .646 .391 .096 .075 .007 -.123 5 I discover my partner is sexting .632 .259 .192 .044 .178 .183 6 I suspect that my partner is seeing another person .628 .351 .132 .111 .049 .103 7 I constantly think of my partner's infidelity .524 .240 .011 .032 .002 .135 8 I think my partner prefers to be away from home .517 .106 -.187 .286 .052 .245 9 I fear my relationship with my partner will not last .395 .332 -.202 -.387 .349 -.358 10 My partner looks lustfully at another person .139 .668 .263 .036 .111 .339 11 My partner gets easily distracted by the presence of someone of the opposite sex .134 .663 .078 .441 .171 .075 12 At a party my partner kisses someone i do not know .355 .644 .266 .011 .168 .252 13 My partner forgets our date night because he/she was with another person .007 .618 .371 -.163 .199 .182 14 My partner tells you how great looking someone of the opposite sex is .168 -.601 .325 -.333 .015 -.128 15 My partner suggests that we develop intimate relationships with other people .282 .593 .239 .353 .052 .224 16 My partner tells me he/she likes another person .251 .592 .304 .080 .061 .054 17 Someone is flirting with my partner .106 .572 .347 .193 -.070 .124 18 My partner spends more time with others .388 .537 .157 .249 .264 .035 19 My partner repeatedly looks at someone of the opposite sex -.114 .530 .365 .258 .247 .237 20 My partner hugs a member of the opposite sex .289 -.523 -.423 -.218 -.080 .278 21 I go to my partner's work place unexpectedly to see if he/ she is there .012 .369 -.681 .021 .185 .036 22 I question any current relationship with an ex-lover .389 .026 .626 .075 .108 .004 626 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Table 1 above, indicates that 8 items loaded best in the first component, 11 items loaded in the second component while 13 items loaded in the third component. Three items (items 9, 34 and 35) did not load in any of the components with values exceeding .40 which was the criterion for selecting valid items. None of the items loaded in the last three components (component 4, 5 and 6). This supports the findings in the scree plot and indicated that the construct has 3 components. From the 11 loading in the second, one had a negative coefficient value (item 14), thus it was dropped. In a similar form, two of the items in the third 23 I stay awake at night to go through my partners phone .330 .058 .621 .060 .062 .076 24 I monitor my partner's social media accounts .341 .252 .605 .197 .088 .091 25 I question my partner about his/her phone calls and messages .377 .101 .603 .200 .012 -.155 26 I call my partner unexpectedly to know if he/she is there -.360 .276 .561 .065 .085 .055 27 Whenever I see my partner talking to a member of the opposite sex I move close to hear what they are discussing .310 -.254 .560 .216 .029 .059 28 I constantly watch my partner for bad intent .360 .025 .546 .023 .263 .185 29 I question my partner about his whereabouts -.314 .320 .530 .029 .247 .127 30 I stalk my partner to see where he/she is going -.373 .175 .519 .079 .482 .043 31 I look through my partner's handbags/ wallet .393 .355 .516 .060 .135 .115 32 I cannot leave a member of the opposite sex at home with your partner -.377 .292 .512 -.043 .031 .306 33 I believe my partner is having an affair despite no evidence .277 .301 .483 .145 .194 .210 34 I fight my partner over issues of infidelity -.378 -.185 .398 .094 .447 .078 35 My partner has a best friend that is of the opposite sex .319 .355 .378 -.272 -.019 .152 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 6 components extracted. Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 627 component (Item 20) and (item 21) also had a negative coefficient value and they were dropped. Therefore, the scale was left with 29 items. The 29 items that scaled through this phase were subjected to inter-item correlation analysis. This was to test the reliability of the items via an item-by-item reliability test. It was noted that most of the items had a good item by item correlation coefficient except for a few that indicated poor correlation and insignificant relationship with other items. The items that had poor correlation with other items were those with less than .40 correlation coefficient and they were dropped from further analysis (items; 7, 8, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32). Based on literature and the content of the items within each component, the first component reflected a cognitive form of jealousy, the second indicates behavioural jealousy, while the third component is made up of items measuring emotional jealousy. There is the tendency for an individual to measure high on one or more of these subscales, thus scoring and interpretation of the scale should be made based on the subscales. The participants were used to determine the psychometric properties of the 18-1tem Redeemer’s University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN- RJS). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient values of .89, .89, and .86 were obtained for cognitive, emotional and behavioural subscales respectively. The item-total correlation for the cognitive subscale indicates the strength of correlation of each item with the total items and it was noted that the items had good values ranging between .85 and .88. This shows that the items correlated adequately with the total items and were thus reliable. The item-total correlation coefficient for the emotional dimension ranged between .88 and .87, which was also indicative of good reliability for the items. Items measuring the behavioural subscale of romantic jealousy had item by item-total coefficient values ranging between .81 and .86. This range shows that the items were all reliable. Validity The convergent validity was assessed using the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) short form, by Pfeiffer and Wong (1989). MJS is a 17-item scale with three subscales designed to evaluate three components of jealousy: cognitive, emotional and behavioural. The cognitive subscale has 5 items which measure the extent to which the individual has worries and doubts regarding the partner’s fidelity. For the cognitive subscale, participants indicated how often certain thoughts about their partner occurred, with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time). A sample item is, ‘I suspect that my partner may be attracted to someone else’. The emotional subscale has 6 items and measures the strength of the jealous emotions in situations that cause the experience of 628 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY jealousy. For example, ‘My partner hugs and kisses someone of the opposite sex.’ Participants were evaluated from 1 (very pleased) to 7 (very upset). The behavioural subscale measures the frequency of actions and activities that represent expressions of jealousy, such as looking through the partner’s pockets, checking and questioning others about the partner’s movement etc. The participant reports how often he or she is involved in that type of action on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time). The authors of the scale claim good reliability of the scale and all subscales specifically: the cognitive, emotional and behavioural (Cronbach’s alpha .92, .85, .89, respectively). For this study, Cronbach Alphas were .83, .91, and .78 for cognitive, emotional and behavioural respectively. Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis was conducted to test the correlation coefficient between the RUN-RJS and MJS and the result is presented in Table 2. Table 2 Simple Correlation showing the Relationship between 18-item RUN-RJS and 17-item MJS Construct (Mean; SD) Cognitive MJS (26.08; 9.20) Emotional MJS (28.72; 9.91) Behavioural MJS (16.99; 9.36) Cognitive RJS (30.54; 8.39) .34** .45** -.19 Emotional RJS (34.70; 9.08) .44** .44** -.16 Behavioural RJS (13.66; 7.70) -.62** -.26** .57** Table 2 shows the convergent validity of the subsections, and this was done by pairing each aspect of the instrument with the other. It was observed that the reliability coefficient between cognitive RJS and cognitive MJS was positively significant (r= .34, p < .01). In a similar way, the reliability coefficient between emotional RJS and emotional MJS was positively significant (r= .44, p < .01). Lastly, behavioural RJS had a positive and significant reliability coefficient value with behavioural MJS (r= .57, p < .01). This implied that each dimension of the RUN romantic jealous scale had adequate convergent validity. For discriminant validity, RUN-RJS was correlated with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). This scale was developed by Zimet et al (1988), and it is a brief research tool Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 629 designed to measure perceptions of support from 3 sources: Family, Friends, and a Significant Other. The scale comprises 12 items, with 4 items for each subscale. A seven-point Likert scale is used (1 = very strongly disagree; 7 = very strongly agree). The total score ranges from 12 to 84. Higher scores indicate higher social support. Psychometric property for all subscales has been reported as Cronbach’s alpha .88, .89, and .87, respectively. Cronbach alphas obtained in uur study were .88, .94, and .91 for family, friends and significant other subscales. However, we used the composite score for our purpose and the results were summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Simple Correlation showing the Relationship between 18-item RUN-RJS and MSPSS Construct (Mean; SD) Social Support MSPSS (16.99; 9.36) Cognitive RJS (30.54; 8.39) .10 Emotional RJS (34.70; 9.08) .03 Behavioural RJS (13.66; 7.70) -.08 Table 3 indicated that the three subscales of RUN romantic jealousy scale had no significant correlation with social support. The reliability coefficients obtained were .10, .03, and -.08 respectively for cognitive, emotional and behavioural. This means that romantic jealousy was not related to social support and this proves that the construct measures what it is said to measure. The validated items for the instrument consist of 6 items in the cognitive subscale, 7 items in the emotional subscale and 5 items in the behavioral. The response options for the various sections also differ. Responses for the cognitive and emotional subscales are in a 7-point Likert format ranging from 1- Extremely pleased, 2- Very pleased, 3- Pleased, 4- Undecided, 5- Upset, 6- Very upset, to 7- Extremely upset. For the behavioral subscale, the response options were also on a 7-point Likert scale. However, its responses were 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Few times, 4- Undecided, 5- Sometimes, 6- Often, 7- Always. 630 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Table 4 The final draft of Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS) Showing the three sub-scales 1 2 3 Cognitive Subscale 1 I perceive that my partner is being sexually intimate with another person. .793 2 I find out my partner is having an affair .760 3 I suspect that my partner seems to enjoy the company of someone else more than mine. .755 4 I suspect that my partner is attracted to someone else. .646 5 I discover my partner is sexting. .632 6 I suspect that my partner is seeing another person. .628 Emotional Subscale 7 My partner looks lustfully at another person .668 8 My partner gets easily distracted by the presence of someone of the opposite sex. .663 9 At a party, my partner kisses someone I donot know. .644 10 My partner forgets our date night because he/she was with another person. .618 11 My partner suggests that we develop intimate relationships with other people .593 12 My partner tells me he/she likes another person .592 13 Someone is flirting with my partner. .572 Behavioural Subscale 14 I question any current relationship with an ex-lover. .626 15 I stay awake at night to go through my partner's phone .621 16 Whenever I see my partner talking to a member of the opposite sex, I move close to hear what they are discussing. .560 17 I look through my partner's handbags or wallets .516 18 I believe my partner is having an affair despite no evidence. .483 Table 5 Norms for RUN-RJS subscale scores Subscales Group sample Individual Male Sample Individual Female Sample Cognitive 38.41 32.74 37.9 Emotional 45.0 45.75 44.45 Behavioural 25.38 23.95 26.5 Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 631 There are different norms for males and females hence the scale is gender-sensitive. The norms for this instrument can be used to screen and diagnose pathological levels of romantic jealousy. Scores equal to or higher than the norm indicate the presence of pathological romantic jealousy, while scores lower than the norm indicate the absence of pathological romantic jealousy. DISCUSSION In the development and validation of RUN-RJS, a measure for romantic jealousy for adults that takes into cognizance the Nigerian socio-cultural setting, the approach described by Lynn (1986) was used. Lynn (1986) recommended a two-staged approach; development and generation of instrument items and evaluating the instrument's item performance (validation). In generating the initial pool of items for the RUN-RJS, the researchers reviewed clinical features of romantic jealousy from literature (Kara & Deniz, 2021; Pichon et al., 2020; Uzun, 2019). Romantic jealousy is seen as thoughts, feelings or actions from a perceived or actual threat to the existence or quality of a relationship which is attributed to the perception of a potential romantic attraction between the partner and a real or imaginary rival (Salovey, 1991; White, 1981). Some of the characteristics of romantic jealousy are feelings of anger, humiliation, sadness, insecurity, and rejection. It has also been associated with low self-esteem, sexual dissatisfaction with, and chronic doubts (Mužinić et al., 2003). Although jealousy is a normal emotion and can be an important component of healthy relationships, with abnormally high levels of intensity, persistence and lack of insight, jealousy can become pathological (Marazziti et al., 2003), especially when the symptoms are not noticed in time and appropriate attention given by way of treatment. The generation of items relating to the symptoms of romantic jealousy resulted in 35 items used for scale purification purposes. Also, a 7-point Likert scale was used as a result of its ability to measure opinions, beliefs, and attitudes (DeVellis, 2003). As recommended by Flynn and Pearcy (2001), and Pecheux and Derbaix (1991), the combination of reliability analysis and EFA was used for the purification of RUN-RJS. The Initial items generated by authors were subjected to face and content validity by a panel of experts. According to Streiner et al (2004), content validity presents currently available knowledge in the construct of interest. It is also the minimum quality requirement for an instrument (Beckstead, 2009; DeVon et al; 2007), an essential indicator of an instrument's validity, and a display of how feasible and practicable an instrument is (DeVon et al; 2007, Haynes 632 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY et all, 1995) The development process of RUN-RJS supported its validity and formed a basis for further examination of its validity and reliability. The RUN-RJS Subscales yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.89 for the cognitive subscale, 0.89 for the emotional subscale, 0.86 for the behavioral subscale, and item-total correlations ranging from 0.56 to 0.82. The implication of these findings is a good item inter-relatedness, multidimensionality and homogeneity of the construct among the Nigerian population. In other words, the scores of Cronbach's α, Spearman-Brown coefficient, and Guttman Split-Half coefficient are also not too high to render some items redundant (Lai et al, 2013; Panayides & Walker,2012). In summary, the high alpha scores show that RUNRJS has a strong reliability value. Being a new scale, The Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale was validated using the concurrent validity method as recommended by Cronbach and Meehl (1955) RUN-RJS positively correlated with two standardized scales for measuring romantic jealousy and psychological distress among the general population. Based on the exploratory factor analysis results and the acceptable psychometric properties, the Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale is an adequate measure of romantic jealousy for both adolescents and adults in Nigeria and possibly other climes with similar socio-cultural settings. Limitations and Conclusion This research was carried out based on the unique psycho- sociocultural setting of the Nigerian population. The generalization of the findings and the use of this scale on other populations with different social-cultural characteristics without scale re-validation should be approached with caution. Through stages involving initial items generation, experts' assessment (content validity) of the initial pool of items, and the use of Expository Factor Analysis for items purification, a 3-factor scale with 18 items was extracted to make up The Redeemer's University Romantic Jealousy Scale (RUN-RJS). The items of the RUN-RJS have acceptable internal consistency (reliability coefficient). Also, RUN-RJS had significant positive correlations with the MJS and the MSPSS indicating an acceptable validity coefficient. We recommend the RUN-RJS as a measure of romantic jealousy among adults in Nigeria and other climes with similar socio-cultural settings. Further studies on confirmatory factor analysis of RUN-RJS is suggested. This tool is also gender sensitive as it shows different norms for both males and females. Conflict of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 633 REFERENCES Adedigba, A. (2022 May, 10). Nigeria records 335 SGBV cases from January to April 2022. HumAngle. Retrived from https://humanglemedia.com/nigeria- records-335-sgbv-cases-from-january-to-april-2022/. Adedipe, A. (2021 November, 15). Edo junior wife stabs husband to death, aids lover’s escape during sex romp. PUNCH. Retrieved from https://punchng.com/edo-junior-wife-stabs-husband-to-death-aids-lovers- escape-during-sex-romp/ Agbedo, O., Anazia, D., Awodipe, T., Thomas-Odia, I., &Diamond, M. (2021 February, 27). Domestic violence: Why Nigeria is experiencing an upsurge. The Guardian. Retrived from https://guardian.ng/saturday- magazine/domestic-violence-why-nigeria-is-experiencing-an-upsurge/ Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness. Exploring the good (reactive) and bad (suspicious) sides of romantic jealousy. Sage Open, 3(1), 2158244013476054. Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness: Exploring the good (reactive) and ban (suspicious) sides of romantic jealousy. Sage Open, 3(1), 1-16. doi.org/10.1177/2158244013476054. Babajide, A. (2021 February, 17). Wife kills husband over suspicion of infidelity in Ondo. Daily Post.Retrieved from https://dailypost.ng/2021/02/17/wife- kills-husband-over-suspicion-of-infidelity-in-ondo/. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x Beckstead. J. W. (2009). Content validity is naught. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1274-1283. Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100318 Boserup, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38(12), 2753–2755. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.077 Chiweta-Oduah, O., Arinze-Umoh, C. N., & Chukwu, C. E. (2020). Spousal abuses in Nigerian marriages: A multidisciplinary approach. International Journal of Comparative Law and Legal Philosophy, 2(1). Cronbach, L. J., &Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0040957 DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd Ed.) Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., Savoy, S. M., & Kostas-Polston, E. (2007).A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 155–164. Esere, M. O., Idowu, A. I., Durosaro, I. A., &Omotosho, J. A. (2019). Causes and consequences of intimate partner rape and violence: Experiences of victims in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of AIDS and HIV Research, 5(2), 233-239. https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/domestic-violence-why-nigeria-is-experiencing-an-upsurge/ https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/domestic-violence-why-nigeria-is-experiencing-an-upsurge/ https://dailypost.ng/2021/02/17/wife-kills-husband-over-suspicion-of-infidelity-in-ondo/ https://dailypost.ng/2021/02/17/wife-kills-husband-over-suspicion-of-infidelity-in-ondo/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x https://doi.org/%2010.1037/h0040957 https://doi.org/%2010.1037/h0040957 634 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Flynn, L. R., & Pearcy, D. (2001). Four subtle sins in scale development: Some suggestions for strengthening the current paradigm. International Journal of Market Research. 43(4), 1-14. doi:10.1177/147078530104300404 Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1751-9004.2011.00405.X Harris, C. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self- report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128. Haynes, S., Richard, D., &Kubany, E. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 Kara, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2021). An examination of irrational relationship beliefs and perfectionism as the predictors of coping and romantic jealousy. Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance and Counselling, 10(2), 184-196. Kawamichi, H., Sugawara, S. K., Hamano, Y. H., Makita, K., Matsunaga, M., Tanabe, H. C., Ogino, Y., Saito, S., & Sadato, N. (2016). Being in a romantic relationship is associated with reduced gray matter density in striatum and increased subjective happiness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(NOV), 1763. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01763 Kaya, S. (2017). University students’ loneliness and future time perspective as the predictors of their life satisfaction levels. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(1), 338-345. doi.org/10.18844/gjhss.v3i1.1783. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Wilson, S. J. (2017). Lovesick: How couples’ relationships influence health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111 Lai, C. M., Mak, K. K., Watanabe, H., Ang, R. P., Pang, J. S., & Ho, R. C. (2013). Psychometric properties of the internet addiction test in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(7), 794–807. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst022. Lambo, D. (2022). Lagos housewife allegedly kills husband with pressing iron during argument. PUNCH .Retrieved from https://punchng.com/lagos- housewife-allegedly-kills-husband-with-pressing-iron-during-argument/. Love, A. B., & Holder, M. D. (2016). Can romantic relationship quality mediate the relation between psychopathy and subjective well-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2407–2429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015- 9700-2 Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385. Martínez-León, N. C., Peña, J. J., Salazar, H., García, A., & Sierra, J. C. (2017). Una revisión sistemática de los celos románticos en la relación de pareja. Terapia Psicologica, 35(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718- 48082017000200203 https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530104300404 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1751-9004.2011.00405.X http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128 https://punchng.com/lagos-housewife-allegedly-kills-husband-with-pressing-iron-during-argument/ https://punchng.com/lagos-housewife-allegedly-kills-husband-with-pressing-iron-during-argument/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9700-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9700-2 https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-48082017000200203 https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-48082017000200203 Oriyo, Akinnawo, Olusa, & Ogunsemi ROMANTIC JEALOUSY 635 NOIPolls, (2016). Domestic Violent Poll Report. Retrieved from https://noi- polls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Domestic-Violence-In-Nigeria- 2016.pdf Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Oluwole, E. O., Onwumelu, N. C., & Okafor, I. P. (2020). Prevalence and community in Lagos, Southwest Nigeria. Pan African Medical Journal, 36(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.36.345.24402 Omidoyin, T. J. (2018). Violence against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015: a positive step to the eradication of domestic violence in Nigeria. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 9(1), 39–51. Omoniyi, T. O. (2020). Appraisal of harmful traditional practices in Nigeria: Magnitude, justifications and interventions. Journal of Social, Humanity, and Education, 1(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.35912/JSHE.V1I1.335 Onoyume, J. (2021 January, 23). Woman suspects husband of infidelity, kills him with shoe heel. Vangard. Retrieved from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/01/lady-uses-shoe-heel-to-kill-husband- in-warri/. Panayides, P., & Walker, M. J. (2012). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) in a sample of Cypriot High School students: The Rasch Measurement perspective. European Journal of Psychology, 8 (3), 327–351. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v8i3.474. Paul, K. O. (2019). A critical examination of broken homes in Nigeria. Agathos, 10(1), 247–257. Pecheux, C., & Derbaix, C. (1999). Mood and children. Proposition of a measurement scale. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 571-590. Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600203 Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stockl, H., &Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 56-82. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17165682. Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17165682 Salovey, P. (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. The Gilford Press. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2014). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Uzun, G. O. (2019). A review of romantic jealousy in married people in terms of family education. Education in the Knowledge Society 20-29. doi.org/10.14201/eks2019_20_a29. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/01/lady-uses-shoe-heel-to-kill-husband-in-warri/ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/01/lady-uses-shoe-heel-to-kill-husband-in-warri/ 636 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY Uzun, G. Ö. (2019). A review of romantic jealousy in married people in terms of family education. In Education in the Knowledge Society, 20, 291–299. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201 /eks2019_20_a29 White, G. L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992549 Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2 https://doi.org/10.14201 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2