Validation of the French-Canadian adaptation of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory for adolescents in dating relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of dating relationships in adolescence is often a source of intense emotions, which may lead to more frequent conflicts between partners than in adulthood. It is particularly important that adolescents learn constructive conflict resolution strategies so they can react appropriately when conflicts arise. Conversely, destructive strategies can contribute to the escalation of conflicts as well as many consequences for their psychological well-being. In Canada, there is no French instrument available for measuring conflict resolution strategies used by adolescents in their dating relationships. The objective of this study was to validate a French-Canadian adaptation of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory (CRSI) within an adolescent population. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on 2 samples of adolescents (n1 = 262; n2 = 221). In Study 1, results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a 3-factor structure that included positive problem solving, conflict engagement, and withdrawal. Results further revealed evidence of reliability for all subscales (α = .70–.92) and evidence of convergent validity. In Study 2, the results of a second-order confirmatory factor analysis confirmed 3 first-order factors nested in a higher 2-factor model of constructive and destructive strategies (α = .71–.85). In sum, these findings provide evidence of reliability and validity for the French-Canadian adaptation of the CRSI, which will be useful for future research and clinical practice with French-speaking populations of adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".