The reliability paradox of the parent–child conflict tactics corporal punishment subscale.

Lorber, Michael F.

doi:10.1037/fam0000307

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Internal reliability for these items was less than ideal (Cronbach's α = .57). However, research indicates that measures with few items and/or poor internal consistency can be both valid and reliable (Lorber & Slep, ; Zimmerman et al., ). Given the exploratory nature of our research project and the fact that measures with less than ideal internal consistency were related in hypothesized directions to other constructs, we retained this measure in our analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

Rothman

Edwards

Rizzo

et al. 2019

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• Dating and sexual violence prevention programs that promote bystander intervention are popular.• More information about what facilitates or inhibits bystander behavior in DSV situations is needed.• Youth perception of community norms were associated with action frequency for many bystander actions.Abstract There is enthusiasm for programs that promote bystander intervention to prevent dating and sexual violence (DSV). However, more information about what facilitates or inhibits bystander behavior in DSV situations is needed. The present cross-sectional survey study investigated whether youth perceptions of adults' behavior and community norms were associated with how frequently youth took action and intervened in DSV situations or to prevent DSV. Specifically, study hypotheses were that youths' perceptions of communitylevel variables, such as adults' willingness to help victims of DSV or prevent DSV, perceptions of community collective efficacy, and perceptions of community descriptive and injunctive norms disapproving of DSV and supporting DSV prevention, would be associated with how frequently youths took reactive and proactive bystander action. Participants were 2172 students from four high schools in one New England state. ANOVA analyses found that descriptive norms were associated with all actionist behaviors, and perceptions of community cohesion were also consistently associated with them. Injunctive norms were associated, but less consistently, with actionist behaviors. Findings suggest that DSV-related social norms, and descriptive norms and community cohesion in particular, might be relevant to youth DSV bystander behavior.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

Rothman

Edwards

Rizzo

et al. 2019

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parents who exhibit less extreme aggression (e.g., spanking) most often do not exhibit more extreme forms of aggression (e.g., shaking), although such behaviors clearly all fall within the domain of physical aggression. Thus, α is not reported per Lorber and Slep (2017), who demonstrated that the reliability of this measure is high over much of the range of corporal punishment despite the seeming paradox of its typically low alpha.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Approach to Risk Factors for Maternal Corporal Punishment in Early to Middle Childhood

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Parents/caregivers completed an amended version of the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Corporal Punishment subscale (CTS-PC; Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). The measure has been shown to have convergent, concurrent, and predictive validity, as well as longitudinal stability (Lorber & Slep, 2018). The CTS-PC Corporal Punishment subscale includes the following behaviors, asked with a 12-month frame of reference: (a) spank on bottom with hand; (b) slap on hand, arm, or leg; (c) hit on bottom with object; (d) slap on face, head, or ears; (e) pinch; and (f) shake; (g) grab was added for this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parents who report fewer extreme acts of corporal punishment (e.g., spanking) most often do not exhibit more extreme forms (e.g., shaking)-negatively affecting alpha-although such behaviors clearly all fall within the domain of physical aggression. The reliability of this measure is high over much of the range of corporal punishment despite the seeming paradox of its typically low alpha (Lorber & Slep, 2018). 2 A multigroup structural equation modeling approach was used to compare females and males on the factor loadings of the CCS scale.…”

Section: Unidimensionality and Factorial Invariancementioning

confidence: 99%

Self-report measures of coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads.

Mitnick¹,

Lorber²,

Heyman³

et al. 2021

Journal of Family Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most influential behavioral models of family conflict is G. R. Patterson’s (1982) coercive family process theory. Self-reports for behaviors related to coercion (e.g., hostility toward a family member) abound; however, there are no self-report measures for coercive process itself, which is, by definition, a dyadic process. Operationalizations of coercive process are measured with behavioral observation, typically including sequential analyzed, microcoded behaviors. Despite its objectivity and rigor, coding of behavior observation is not always feasible in research and applied settings because of the high training, personnel, and time costs the observation requires. Because coercive process has been shown to predict a host of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., parent–child conflict, aggression, negative health outcomes) and given the complete absence of self-report measures of coercive process, we recently designed brief questionnaires to assess coercive process in couple (Couple Coercive Process Scale [CCPS]) and parent–child interactions (Parent–Child Coercive Process Scale [PCCPS]) and tested them via Qualtrics participant panels in samples recruited to mirror socioeconomic generalizability to U.S. Census data. The CCPS and PCCPS exhibited initial evidence of psychometric quality in measuring coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads: Both measures are unifactorial; have evidence of reliability, especially at higher levels of coercive process; and demonstrate concurrent validity with constructs in their nomological networks, with medium to large effect sizes.

show abstract

The reliability paradox of the parent–child conflict tactics corporal punishment subscale.

Cited by 21 publications

References 21 publications

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

A Dynamic Approach to Risk Factors for Maternal Corporal Punishment in Early to Middle Childhood

Self-report measures of coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About