Psychometrics

The Conflict Dynamics Profile® is the result of two years of development and revision. Three preliminary versions were developed, administered, analyzed, and revised in order to produce the current CDP. Item analyses and factor analyses were carried out on each version of the instrument and, based upon these analyses, items and item-sets were deleted, added, or in some cases combined in order to produce a cleaner and more psychometrically-sound instrument.

The rating scales used in the CDP are straightforward. Respondents indicate the frequency of occurrence of a particular Response to Conflict along a five-point rating scale continuum:

(1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost Always)


For Hot Buttons, respondents indicate, again along a five-point continuum, the degree to which they get upset by a particular individual or situation:

(1=Not At All, 2=A Little, 3=Moderately, 4=Considerably, 5=Extremely)

Reliability
Internal reliability estimates of CDP Responses to Conflict scales are, for the most part, quite acceptable, with alpha coefficients exceeding .70 over 80% of the time, and exceeding .80 over 60% of the time. Moreover, the fact that most of the scales consist of only four items makes the size of these coefficients somewhat more impressive.


Validity

Social Desirability
Correlations between CDP scales and and measures of social desirability (BIDR; Paulhus, 1998) are small and mostly nonsignificant.

Scale Intercorrelations
Intercorrelations among scales within the same general domain (e.g. Active-Constructive) were always positive in sign, and in every case statistically significant. With regard to correlations across domains, the scales in the Active-Constructive and Passive-Constructive domains were almost all positively correlated with one another, and in many cases these associations were substantial. Correlations between Active-Destructive and Passive-Destructive scales were smaller, indicating that these two types of responses are more independent of one another.

Relations Between Self-Ratings and Ratings by Others
Each of the 45 correlations were positive in sign, and 40 of the 45 were statistically significant, thus supporting the validity of the 15 Responses to Conflict scales of the CDP.

Relations with Other Conflict Measures
Correlations between the 15 Responses to Conflict scales on the CDP and scores on two existing conflict measures, the Thomas-Kilman Instrument (TKI) and the Negotiating Styles Profile (NSP), are consistent with the intended content of the CDP scales.

Relations with Broad Personality Measures
Correlations between the 15 Responses to Conflict scales on the CDP and scores on two broad personality measures, the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962), are consistent with the intended content of the CDP scales.

Relations with Related Constructs
Correlations between the 15 Responses to Conflict scales on the CDP and scores on three other related constructs, the Buss-Durkee hostility measure (1957), Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub's (1989) COPE scale, and Roger and Najarian's (1989) measure of emotional control, are also consistent with the intended content of the CDP scales.


Gender Differences

Men and women display small and usually nonsignificant differences on the Responses to Conflict scale. Where differences exist, men are slightly more likely to respond in Active-Destructive ways, and women in Passive-Destructive ways.

For more information on the psychometric structure of the CDP, please refer to the Conflict Dynamics Profile Technical Guide.