Social
Competencies
Conflict Resolution
Measures
| Name: |
Organizational Conflict
Communication Instrument (OCCI) |
| Author: |
L. L. Putnam & C. E. Wilson |
| Date: |
1982 |
| Instrument
Description: |
This instrument was
constructed to measure verbal and nonverbal communicative choices in
the management of conflict in a variety of organizational contexts.
This self-report, 7-point Likert-type instrument contains 29 items
(plus 4 items added in revision). |
| Where Available: |
See authors. |
| Literature Reference: |
Putnam, L. L., &
Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communication strategies in organizational
conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale.
Communication Yearbook, 6, 629-652. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended
Audience: |
Intended for use with
adults in organizational settings. Has been used with adolescents
(i.e., McFarland & Culp, 1992). |
| Subtests: |
Three subscales: control;
nonconfrontation; and solution-orientation. |
| Psychometrics: |
Reliability, Cronbach's
alpha: nonconfrontation - .93; solution-orientation - .88; control -
.82; and overall - .89. Evidence of high discriminatory power,
moderate construct validity and strong predictive validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Quick, easy
administration. Well-documented and extensive testing of the
instrument. It would have to be adapted for use with adolescents. |
| Name: |
Rahim Organizational
Conflict Inventory II (ROCI-II) |
| Author: |
M. A. Rahim |
| Date: |
1983 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This 28 item, 5-point Likert-type
scale measures five styles of handling interpersonal conflict with
superiors, subordinates and peer (3 forms). |
| Where Available: |
M. Afzalur Rahim, Department of
Management, West Kentucky University, 1 Big Red Way, Bowling Green,
Kentucky 42101. |
| Literature Reference: |
Rahim, M. A., &
Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of
handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its
invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
122-132. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Intended for use with adults in an
organizational setting. (May be adapted for use with adolescents). |
| Subtests: |
Five subscales: integrating;
obliging; dominating; avoiding; and compromising. |
| Psychometrics: |
Support for convergent and
discriminate validity. Test-retest reliabilities of the subscales at
1-week intervals ranged from .60 to .83. Internal consistency
reliability coefficient for each subscale using Cronbach's alpha
ranged from .72 to .76. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Quick, easy administration. The
instrument has been well tested in several studies and with large
samples. No record of its use with an adolescent population. |
| Name: |
Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scales |
| Author: |
M. A. Straus |
| Date: |
1979 |
| Instrument Description:
|
The instrument was designed to
measure the use of three modes of dealing with interpersonal
conflict within the family: reasoning, verbal aggression and
violence. A 3 by 8 factorial design results in 24 different CTS
scores: three types of conflict tactics by eight nuclear family
roles. Pairs of role scores can be combined to get four role
relationship scores. All role scores can be summed to obtain a total
family score. One version (Form A) of the instrument is a 14 item
6-point Likert-type self report questionnaire. A revised version
(Form N) was developed for a national interview survey and consists
of more questions with a greater focus on verbal aggression and
violence modalities. |
| Where Available: |
See author. |
| Literature Reference: |
Straus, M. A. (1979).
Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics
(CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Designed for use in a family context,
yet it has been used with adolescents (i.e., Kashani & Shepperd,
1989). |
| Subtests: |
Three subscales: reasoning; verbal
aggression; and violence. |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency reliability for
Form A range from .70 to .88 for the three subscales (mean scores)
considering both husband and wife versions. For form N, alpha
coefficients of reliability for couple scores are .76 for reasoning,
.88 for verbal aggression and .88 for violence. Evidence of
concurrent and construct validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Instrument can be used under a
variety of conditions, including personal interview and mail
surveys. Used most often in a family context; may not be as useful
in a community-based program. |
| Name: |
Management-of-Differences
Exercise (MODE) |
| Author: |
R. H. Kilmann & K. W. Thomas |
| Date: |
1974 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This instrument measures five
interpersonal conflict handling modes. Thirty items (pairs);
forced-choice format. It was designed to control for social
desirability bias by pairing statements similar in social
desirability. |
| Where Available: |
See authors |
| Literature Reference: |
Kilmann, R. H., &
Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of
conflict-handling behavior: The "MODE" instrument.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309-325. |
| Cost: |
$10.00 |
| Intended Audience: |
Adults. Has been used with a high
school population (i.e., Jamieson & Thomas, 1974) |
| Subtests: |
Five subscales: competing;
collaborating; compromising; avoiding; and accommodating. |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency coefficients
ranged from .43 to .71; test-retest reliability ranged from .61 to
.68. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Administration time: 12 minutes. It
would have to be adapted for use with adolescents. |
| Name: |
Rosenthal-Hautaluoma (RH) |
| Author: |
D. B. Rosenthal & J. Hautaluoma |
| Date: |
1987 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This-forced choice instrument
measures five styles of managing conflict derived from conflict
management theory. It was designed to control for social
desirability bias by pairing statements similar in social
desirability. |
| Where Available: |
See authors |
| Literature Reference: |
Rosenthal, D. B., &
Hautaluoma, J. (1987). Effects of importance of issues, gender, and
power contenders on conflict management style. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 128, 699-701. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adults. Has been used with a high
school population (i.e., Watson, Bell, & Chavez, 1994). |
| Subtests: |
Five subscales: competing;
compromising; avoiding; accommodating; and collaborating. |
| Psychometrics: |
Average test-retest reliabilities for
five styles was .70. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Authors claim this instrument more
broadly covers the meaning of the different conflict handling styles
than other instruments. It would have to be adapted for use with
adolescents. |
| Name: |
Interpersonal Negotiation
Strategies (INS) Interview Procedure |
| Author: |
R. L. Selman, W. Beardslee, L. H. Schultz, M. Krupa & D.
Podorefsky |
| Date: |
1986 |
| Instrument Description:
|
A structured dilemma-discussion
interview procedure to assess interpersonal negotiation strategies.
Eight hypothetical dyadic interpersonal dilemmas were constructed to
vary with respect to three contextual factors: generation;
negotiation position; and type of relationship. The dilemmas are
read to the subject and questions are asked regarding: the nature of
the problem; the best way to handle the situation; why a chosen
action is justified; what outcomes are likely; and what feelings may
be generated. |
| Where Available: |
See authors. |
| Literature Reference: |
Selman, R. L., Beardslee,
W., Schultz, L. H., Krupa, M., & Podorefsky, D. (1986).
Assessing adolescent interpersonal negotiation strategies: Toward
the integration of structural and functional models. Developmental
Psychology, 22, 450-459. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents |
| Subtests: |
None noted |
| Psychometrics: |
Interrater reliability - 81%.
Preliminary evidence for validity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Face-to-face interview. Hypothetical
dilemmas. The interview format may not be easily administered in a
community-based program. |
| Name: |
Relational Behaviors
Survey |
| Author: |
M. Covey & H. A. Dengerink |
| Date: |
1984 |
| Instrument Description:
|
This 39-item self-report, multiple
choice instrument measures heterosocial conflict resolution ability.
The measure is related to the development, maintenance and
termination of dating relationships. Examples of situations
addressed in the measure include: differences of opinion; jealousy
of subject or partner; concerns regarding future of relationship;
conflicts caused by partner=s inappropriate behavior; and
miscellaneous disagreements. |
| Where Available: |
Mark K. Covey, Department of
Psychology, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843. |
| Literature Reference: |
Covey, M. K., &
Dengerink, H. A. (1984). Development and validation of a measure of
heterosocial conflict resolution ability. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
College students |
| Subtests: |
None noted |
| Psychometrics: |
Split-half reliability of .85;
unequal length Spearman-Brown and Guttman split-half estimates of
.92; Cronbach=s alpha of .94. Evidence of concurrent and predictive
ability. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
The authors state the format was
intended for efficient sampling of a range of situations, and can be
used economically for mass screening purposes. Authors recommend the
instrument be used to screen subjects in studies of conflict
resolution and as an outcome measure in comparative therapy efficacy
studies. It should be used with caution in clinical screening. It
would need to be adapted for use with adolescents. |
|
