Psychology RootsTable of Contents
Conflict Tactics Scales
Here in this post, we are sharing the “Conflict Tactics Scales”. You can read psychometric and Author information. We have thousands of Scales and questionnaires in our collection (See Scales and Questionnaires). You can demand us any scale and questionnaires related to psychology through our community, and we will provide you with a short time. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.
About Conflict Tactics Scales
Scale Name
Conflict Tactics Scales
Author Details
Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David B. Sugarman (1996); Straus, Hamby, and Warren L. Warren (2003, copyright holders)
Translation Availability
English
Background/Description
The Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), developed by Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David B. Sugarman in 1996, with copyrighted materials by Straus, Hamby, and Warren L. Warren in 2003, is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure psychological and physical attacks between partners, as well as the use of negotiation to deal with conflict, in dating, cohabiting, and marital relationships. Published in Journal of Family Issues (Straus et al., 1996), the CTS2 is a revised version of the original CTS (Straus, 1979), expanding to include sexual coercion and injury subscales. Grounded in family violence research, it assesses the prevalence and frequency of conflict tactics, aligning with theories of interpersonal aggression and conflict resolution.
The CTS2 comprises 78 items (39 items for respondent behavior, mirrored for partner behavior) across five subscales: Psychological Aggression (8 items, e.g., “I insulted or swore at my partner”), Physical Assault (12 items, e.g., “I slapped my partner”), Sexual Coercion (7 items, e.g., “I used force to make my partner have sex”), Injury (6 items, e.g., “I had a sprain or bruise because of my partner”), and Negotiation (6 items, e.g., “I suggested a compromise”). Items are rated on an 8-point frequency scale (0 = “never” to 6 = “more than 20 times in the past year,” 7 = “not in the past year, but it happened before”). Scores are summed or scaled per subscale, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of the behavior. Validated in diverse adult and adolescent samples, it is widely used to study intimate partner violence (IPV), evaluate interventions, and inform policy.
Psychologists, social workers, and family violence researchers use the CTS2 to assess IPV dynamics, screen for abuse, and measure negotiation strategies. Its high internal consistency, comprehensive subscales, and multilingual availability are strengths, though its reliance on self-reports and focus on frequency (not context) may limit nuanced understanding.
Administration, Scoring and Interpretation
- Obtain a copy of the CTS2 from authorized sources, such as Straus et al. (1996) in Journal of Family Issues (Vol. 17, pp. 283-316) or the publisher (Western Psychological Services, 2003), ensuring ethical use permissions and copyright compliance.
- Explain the purpose to respondents, noting that it assesses how couples handle conflicts to promote safety, emphasizing confidentiality and using trauma-sensitive language.
- Provide instructions, asking respondents to rate the frequency of each behavior (both their own and their partner’s) in the past year, using the 8-point scale. Ensure anonymity to encourage honest responses.
- Approximate time for completion is 10-15 minutes, depending on reading ability and relationship history.
- Administer in a clinical, research, or counseling setting, using paper or digital formats, ensuring a private, supportive environment. Provide access to crisis resources due to sensitive content.
Reliability and Validity
The CTS2 demonstrates strong psychometric properties, as reported in Straus et al. (1996). Internal consistency is high across subscales: Psychological Aggression (α = 0.79), Physical Assault (α = 0.86), Sexual Coercion (α = 0.87), Injury (α = 0.95), and Negotiation (α = 0.86), indicating robust item cohesion. Test-retest reliability is moderate to high, with correlations ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 over weeks, based on related CTS studies.
Convergent validity is supported by correlations with related constructs, such as psychological distress (r ≈ 0.40-0.60 for aggression subscales) and positive relationship satisfaction (r ≈ 0.30-0.50 for Negotiation). Discriminant validity is evidenced by weaker correlations with unrelated constructs, like general health (r < 0.30). Criterion validity is demonstrated by its ability to detect IPV in clinical samples and predict outcomes like relationship dissolution or injury. Factor analyses confirm the five-subscale structure, supporting construct validity, though some overlap exists between aggression subscales (r ≈ 0.50-0.70). The high reliability makes it a robust tool, but it should be paired with qualitative or contextual measures to capture abuse dynamics fully.
Available Versions
78-Items
Reference
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S. U. E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of family issues, 17(3), 283-316.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The conflict tactics scales handbook: Revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Cts: Parent-child version (CTSPC). Western Psychological Services.
Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M. H., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for disease control and prevention.
Important Link
Scale File:
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Conflict Tactics Scales measure?
It measures psychological and physical attacks and negotiation in partner relationships.
Who can use the scale?
Psychologists, researchers, and clinicians studying dating, cohabiting, or marital partners.
How long does the scale take to complete?
It takes about 10-15 minutes.
Is the scale specific to certain groups?
No, it applies to diverse partners, including adolescents and adults.
Can the scale inform interventions?
Yes, it screens for IPV with high reliability (α = 0.79-0.95).
Disclaimer
Please note that Psychology Roots does not have the right to grant permission for the use of any psychological scales or assessments listed on its website. To use any scale or assessment, you must obtain permission directly from the author or translator of the tool. Psychology Roots provides information about various tools and their administration procedures, but it is your responsibility to obtain proper permissions before using any scale or assessment. If you need further information about an author’s contact details, please submit a query to the Psychology Roots team.
Help Us Improve This Article
Have you discovered an inaccuracy? We put out great effort to give accurate and scientifically trustworthy information to our readers. Please notify us if you discover any typographical or grammatical errors.
Make a comment. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts.
Share With Us
If you have any scale or any material related to psychology kindly share it with us at psychologyroots@gmail.com. We help others on behalf of you.
