Advertisement

Assessing Children’s Responses to Interparental Conflict: Validation and Short Scale Development of SIS and CPIC-Properties Scales

  • Tonje HoltEmail author
  • Maren Sand Helland
  • Kristin Gustavson
  • Edward Mark Cummings
  • Anh Ha
  • Espen Røysamb
Article

Abstract

The Children’s Perception of the Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC) and The Security in the Interparental Subsystem (SIS) are two widely used scales capturing (a) children’s perception of the interparental conflict properties and (b) children’s reactions to the conflict. The aims of this study were to validate the part of CPIC measuring children’s perception of the conflict (CPIC-properties) and a modified SIS-version in a Scandinavian context and to develop concise short versions of the scales. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to analyze the underlying factor structure of the full and short versions of the scales in a sample of N = 393 children and youth aged 10–15 years old (M age = 11.1, SD = 0.5; 52.2% girls). Regression analyses were used in creating the short scales and in investigating the predictive strengths of the short versions. The full and short versions of the CPICproperties and the modified SIS had excellent fit according to a two level model (CPICproperties) and a three-level model (modified SIS). The CPIC-properties was reduced from 25 items to 17 items and the modified SIS was reduced from 38 items to 17 items. The internal consistencies of both long and short versions were satisfactory. The predictive strengths of the short subscales were comparable to the full subscales’. The findings support the validity of the full and short versions of the CPIC-properties and the modified SIS. The advantages of the short versions are discussed; these scales should be validated in future studies.

Keywords

Interparental conflict Children’s reactions and perceptions Confirmatory factor analysis Short scale development 

Notes

Funding Information

This study was funded by the The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs and the Research Council of Norway (grant number: 250642)

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics and Consent Statement

The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics “REC” in Norway approved the study (Protocol number: 2015/1374). Participation in the study was voluntary and both parents had to provide a written informed consent in order to let their children participate. The children were provided information about the study in a separate letter.

Supplementary material

10802_2019_586_MOESM1_ESM.docx (57 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 57 kb)

References

  1. Bickham, N. L., & Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the children’s perceptions of interparental conflict scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 66(1), 60–75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/075910630006600106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Covell, K., & Abramovitch, R. (1987). Understanding emotion in the family: children's and parents' attributions of happiness, sadness, and anger. Child Development, 58(4), 985–991.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1130539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123–139.Google Scholar
  5. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, G., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children's responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274–1282.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1129516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: an emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M., Rasi, J. A., & Stevens, K. I. (2002). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental relationship: the security in the Interparental subsystem scales. Child Development, 73(2), 544–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., & Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ [British Medical Journal], 324(7347), 1183–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Gadermann, A. F., Schomert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating validity evidence of the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children. Social Indicators Research, 96, 229–247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9474-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Harold, G. T., & Shelton, K. H. (2003). Categories and continua of destructive and constructive marital conflict tactics from the perspective of U.S. and welsh children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 327–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman, M., Bonds, D., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2005). Parent psychoeducational programs and reducing the negative effects of Interparental conflict following divorce. Family Court Review, 42(2), 263–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2004.tb00648.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader Internalising and Externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(8), 1179–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: a cognitive -contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child's perspective: the Children's perception of Interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests in multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). London: LEA.Google Scholar
  19. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harold, G. T., & Sellers, R. (2018). Annual research review: interparental conflict and youth psychopathology: an evidence review and practice focused update. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(4), 374–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire length on response quality. Public Opinion Quartely, 45(4), 549–559.  https://doi.org/10.1086/268687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilton, A., & Skrutkowski, M. (2002). Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nursing, 25, 1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Holøien, A. M., Zachrisen, O. O., & Holseter, A. M. R. (2016). Befolkningens utdanningsnivå. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/utniv. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analyses: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitterød, R. H. (2012). Foreldrenes tidsbruk: Fedre deltar mer i husarbeid og omsorg [Time usage: Fathers participate more in household chores and caregiving]. Retrieved August 30, 2017, Samfunnsspeilet, 26(4), 56–63. http://www.ssb.no/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/fedredeltar-mer-i-husarbeid-og-omsorg. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  26. Kitterød, R. H., & Rønsen, M. (2012). Kvinner i arbeid ute og hjemme: Endring og ulikhet [Women's paid and unpaid work: Changes and disparities]. In A. L. Ellingsæter & K. Widerberg (Eds.), Velferdsstatens familier. Nye sosiologiske perspektiver [The families of the welfare state. New sociological perspectives] (pp. 161–190). Gyldendal Akademisk: Oslo.Google Scholar
  27. Kotsadam, A., & Finseraas, H. (2011). The states intervenes in the battle of the sexes: causal effects of paternity leave. Social Science Reserach, 40(6), 1611–1622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.06.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magnus, P., Birke, C., Vejrup, K., Haugan, A., Alsaker, E., Daltveit, A. K., Handal, M., Haugen, M., Høiseth, G., Knudsen, G. P., Paltiel, L., Schreuder, P., Tambs, K., Vold, L., & Stoltenberg, C. (2016). Cohort profile update: the Norwegian mother and child cohort study (MoBa). International Journal of Epidemiology, 45(2), 382–388.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Malik, K. (2014). Human development report 2014 sustaining human Progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report Office. New York.Google Scholar
  30. McCoy, K., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2009). Constructive and destructive marital conflict, emotional security and children's prosocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(3), 270–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01945.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald, R., & Grych, J. H. (2006). Young children's appraisals of interparental conflict: measurement and links with adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 88–99.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Moura, O., dos Santos, R. A., Rocha, M., & Matos, P. M. (2010). Children’s perception of Interparental conflict scale (CPIC): Factor structure and invariance across adolescents and emerging adults. International Journal of Testing, 10, 364–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.487964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  34. Nigg, J. T., Nikolas, M., Miller, T., Burt, S. A., Klump, K. L., & von Eye, A. (2009). Factor structure of the children’s perception of Interparental conflict scale for studies of youths with externalizing behavior problems. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 450–456.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016564.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Reese-Weber, M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2008). The Children’s perception of interparental conflict scale: comparing factor structures between developmental periods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 1008–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408318765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sainfort, F., & Booske, B. C. (2000). Measuring post-decision satisfaction. Medical Decision Making, 20, 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0002000107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva, C. S., Calheiros, M. M., & Carvalho, H. (2016). Security in the Interparental subsystem (SIS) scale: psychometric characteristics in a sample of Portuguese adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 147–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9767-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Statistics Norway. (2018). Kindergartens, final figures. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/en/utdanning/statistikker/barnehager. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  39. Tambs, K., & Moum, T. (1993). How well can a few questionnaire items indicate anxiety and depression? Acta Psychiatric Scandinavia, 87, 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). The significance of Interparental conflict for children rationale for couple-focused programs in family therapy. European Psychologist, 21(2), 99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziegler, M., Kamper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales – five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Mental & Physical healthNorwegian Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations