Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979)

• Populations: Adolescents and Young Adults
• Age ranges: 16-26; 14-18
• Languages: Spanish, English
• Countries: Spain; United States

Items

Items as reported by Cascardi (1999)

•  Discussed things calmly
• Got information to back up your side
• Got someone to help settle things
• Insulted/sworn
• Sulked/refused to talk
• Stomped out of room
• Cried
• Did/said something to spite
• Threatened to hit/throw at partner
• Threw, hit, kicked something
• Threw something at partner
• Physically restrained
• Pushed, grabbed, shoved
• Slapped
• Kicked, bit, hit
• Choked
• Beat up
• Threatened with knife/gun

These items were reported in a factor loading table and may not represent the items as presented during measure application.

Spanish Items as reported by Muñoz-Rivas and colleagues (2007)

• 01. ¿Tú has discutido de forma tranquila?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha discutido de forma tranquila?
• 02. ¿Tú has buscado información para apoyar tu punto de vista?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha buscado información para apoyar su punto de vista?
• 03. ¿Tú has llamado o intentado llamar a otra persona para que ayude a arreglar las cosas?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha llamado o intentado llamar a otra persona para que ayude a arreglar las cosas?
• 04. ¿Tú has insultado o maldecido a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha insultado o maldecido?
• 05 ¿Tú te has negado a hablar de un tema?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a se ha negado a hacerlo?
• 06. ¿Tú te has marchado molesto/a de la habitación o de la casa?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a se ha marchado molesto de la habitación o de la casa?
• 07. ¿Tú has llorado?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha llorado?
• 08. ¿Tú has dicho o hecho algo para fastidiar o «picar» a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha dicho o hecho algo para fastidiarte o «picarte»?
• 09. ¿Tú has amenazado con golpear o lanzar algún objeto a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha amenazado con golpearte o lanzarte algún objeto?
• 10. ¿Tú has intentado sujetar físicamente a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a ha intentado sujetarte ?
• 11. ¿Tú has lanzado algún objeto a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha lanzado algún objeto?
• 12. ¿Tú has golpeado, pateado o lanzado algún objeto a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha golpeado, pateado o te ha lanzado algún objeto? 
• 13. ¿Tú has empujado o agarrado a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha empujado o agarrado?
• 14. ¿Tú has abofeteado a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio te ha abofeteado?
• 15. ¿Tú has golpeado o mordido?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha golpeado o mordido?
• 16. ¿Tú has intentado ahogar a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha intentado ahogar?
• 17. ¿Tú has dado una paliza a tu novio/a?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha dado una paliza?
• 18. ¿Tú has amenazado a tu novio/a con un cuchillo o arma?
  
  • ¿Tu novio/a te ha amenazado con un cuchillo o arma?

Responses

English Items used a 5 point Likert-type scale, 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always. 

Spanish items used the following ordinal response scale: Nunca / Rara vez / Algunas veces / A menudo / Muy a menudo

Scoring

“There are several methods of scoring the CTS:

1. The simplest method is to add the response category code values for the items making up each CT Scale. Thus, the Reasoning score for Form A can range from 0 to 20 because it consists of the sum of items a, b, c, and d, each of which is scored 0 to 5. For Form N, the
   Reasoning score is the sum of items a, b, and c. However, since the response categories for Form N were expanded to 0 to 6, the Form N reasoning scale has a range of 0 to 18.
2. The items in Form N can be weighted in accordance with the frequencies indicated by the response categories presented to the respondent. To do this, substitute for the 0 to 6 scale, 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 25.
3. Each of the scales can be standardized on a 0 to 100 scale indicating the percentage of the possible total score. This is done by simply dividing the score for each respondent by the maximum possible score, multiplying by 100 and rounding to an integer. Thus, for the Reasoning scale, a respondent with a raw score (by method 1) of 9 would have a percentage score of 50, and a respondent with a raw score of 12 would have a percentage score of 67. The advantage of the percentage standardization is thpresses all scales in the same units and uses units that have meaning to the general public: i.e., percentage of the maximum possible score (see Straus and Kumagai, 1977). However, there is no statistical advantage.
4. Because this instrument has been administered to a nationally representative sample of couples, a final method of expressing CTS scores is available for Form N: percentiles of the norming population. Tables giving these norms are at the end of this article. The raw scores used to determine the percentile scores are those described as method 1 above.”

(Straus, 1979) [formatting added to improve clarity]

Citations

• Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Smith Slep, A. M. (1999). Factor structure and convergent validity of the conflict tactics scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11(4), 546-555. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.4.546
• Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Andreu Rodríguez, J. M., Graña Gómez, J. L., O’Leary, D. K., & Mª del Pilar González. (2007). validación de la versión modificada de la conflicts tactics scale(m-cts) en población juvenil española. Psicothema, 19(4), 693.
• Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

Team comments

The Reasoning / Argumentation subscale did not reach our threshold for adequacy for the Internal consistency judgement for the perpetrator or victim scales.

This measure was originally developed by Straus (1979), but as this researcher had adult participants, measure evaluations are based on data reported by Cascardi and colleagues (1999) and Muñoz-Rivas and colleagues (2007) who studied participants relevant to the aims of the Good Measure Project.