Although the original Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) have been successfully used in many countries, no studies have been published on the cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised instrument (CTS2). This study is intended to provide some of the needed psychometric information. It reports reliability and examples of validity evidence for the five CTS2 (physical assault, physical injury, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and negotiation) to measure these aspects of the dating relationships of 7,179 students at 33 universities in 17 countries. The results show high alpha coefficients of internal consistency and low confounding with social desirability response set. Examples indicating the construct validity of the CTS2 Physical Assault and Injury Scales are also presented. Although the data refer to dating relationships of university students, the results are sufficiently promising to encourage use of the CTS2 in a variety of cultural settings.
Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 1263-1289.
2.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
3.
Coser, L. A. (1967). Continuities in the study of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
4.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
Gelles, R. J.,& Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon & Schuster.
6.
Gershoff, T. E. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579.
7.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). In Family assessment: A guide to methods and measures(pp. 203-299). New York: Guilford.
9.
Hamby, S. L. (1996). The Dominance Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11(3), 199-212.
10.
Herzberger, S. D. (1991). Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques, volume VII(pp. 98-105). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
11.
Hines, D. A.,& Straus, M. A. (2004). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence: Cross-cultural associations and the moderating effect of antisocial personality. Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
12.
Lucente, S. W., Fals-Stewart, W., Richards, H. J.,& Goscha, J. (2001). Factor structure and reliability of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for incarcerated female substance abusers. Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 437-450.
13.
Newton, R. R., Connelly, C. D., & Landsverk, J. A. (2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 317-335.
14.
Rebellon, C. J., & Straus, M. A. (2004). Self-control and violence against dating partners by university students in 16 countries. Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
15.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119-125.
16.
So-Kum Tang, C. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 586-586.
17.
Straus, M. A. (1969). Phenomenal identity and conceptual equivalence of measurement in cross-national comparative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 233-239.
18.
Straus, M. A. (1976). Sexual inequality, cultural norms, and wife-beating. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Victims and society(pp. 543-559). Washington, DC: Visage.
19.
Straus, M. A. (1990a). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families(pp. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
20.
Straus, M. A. (1990b). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families(pp. 29-47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
21.
Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relation to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1), 7-24.
22.
Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children(2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
23.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Bibliography and tabular summary of publications on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2 and CTSPC). Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
24.
Straus, M. A. (2005). The primordial violence: Corporal punishment by parents, cognitive development, and crime. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
25.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J.,& Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Anchor.
26.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S.,& Sugarman, D. (1999). The personal and relationships profile (PRP).Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
27.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.
28.
Straus, M. A., & Members of the International Dating Violence Research Consortium. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by university students worldwide. Violence & Victims, 10(7), 790-811.
29.
Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November). Preliminary psychometric data for the personal and relationships profile (PRP): A multiscale tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
30.
Sugarman, D. B.,& Hotaling, G. T. (1996). Intimate violence and social desirability: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2),275-290.
31.
Tuomi Jones, N., Ji, P., Beck, M.,& Beck, N. (2002). The reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) in a female incarcerated population. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 441-457.
32.
Yodanis, C., Hill, K., & Straus, M. A. (1997). Tabular summary of methodological characteristics of research using the Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
