4.1 Article

Validation and short-form development of Conflict and Problem-solving Strategy Scales

期刊

JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 738-757

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2021.1981977

关键词

Interparental conflicts; Conflicts and Problem-solving Scales (CPS); short-form development; instrument validation; family dynamics study; MoBa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to validate and develop a short-form of the Strategy scale for use across different family structures. The results showed that the short-form had acceptable fit and validity, and demonstrated incremental validity in explaining parental wellbeing and relationship satisfaction.
The Strategy scales from the Conflicts and Problem-solving Scales is widely used and meaningfully distinguishes between conflict behaviours characterized by Cooperation, Avoidance, Child Involvement, Stalemating, and Verbal and Physical Aggression. The aim of this study was to validate the scale and develop a short-form for use across family structures. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) showed an unsatisfactory fit of the original Strategy scales in a sample (n = 794 parents) from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child cohort study. Less than half of the items were included in the new Strategy short-form, which supported the original six-factor structure, had acceptable fit and comparable concurrent validity to the full-scale. CFAs also showed acceptable fit for the short-form across reporters and family structures in the more heterogeneous Sample 2, consisting of parents living together (n = 838) and apart (n = 902), recruited from family counselling centres across Norway. The short-form scales explained variance in parental wellbeing and relationship satisfaction over and above thebackground variables, supporting incremental validity. However, associations with child mental health were of minor size. Given that the trategy short-form has better fit and validity compared to the original scale, we recommend it for use in family research and practice. Further validation is called for.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据