Validation of the Psychometric Properties of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory in the University Population

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not know the journal well enough to know whether this article is what the journal publishes.  The article is a type of validation of a scale in the context of university students in Ecuador.  The scale results seem to be similar to those in other cultures.  If the journal publishes single-country extensions of internal validations of scales, then this article is publishable pretty much as is.  Three things are perhaps missing, but may not be relevant, depending on journal policies. First, there is no external validation.  Do scores on the scale predict success in resolving conflicts?  Second, further regarding external validation, do some styles predict better resolution of conflicts than others?  Third, there might be more contact with the conflict-resolution literature in social psychology, in general.  If the journal publishes single-country extensions of studies of internal validation, this study can go pretty much as is. I would have liked to see some of the external validity issues discussed, but I do not think such discussion is necessarily needed for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: I don’t know the journal well enough to know if this article fits with what the journal publishes.

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge that the study focuses on the validation of a scale in a specific context, and we understand your concern about the fit of the article with the journal. We are open to any editorial guidance regarding the journal’s preferred areas of interest.

Comment 2: The article is a type of scale validation in the context of university students in Ecuador.

Response 2: Indeed, our study focuses on the validation of the Conflict Resolution Style Inventory (CRSI) in a group of university students in Ecuador, contributing to the existing literature by contextualizing its applicability to this specific population.

Comment 3: The scale results seem similar to those from other cultures. If the journal publishes extensions of internal scale validations for a single country, then this article can be published almost as is.

Response 3: We appreciate your observation regarding the similarity of the results with those from other cultures. This highlights the robustness of the instrument across different contexts. If the journal’s policy allows internal validation studies for a single country, we believe our work can provide significant value to the field.

Comment 4: Perhaps three things are missing, though they may not be relevant, depending on the journal’s policies. First, there is no external validation. Do scores on the scale predict success in conflict resolution? Second, regarding external validation, do some styles predict better conflict resolution than others? Third, there could be more engagement with the conflict resolution literature in social psychology in general.

Response 4: We deeply appreciate your suggestions regarding external validation and the connections to the conflict resolution literature. We agree that it would be valuable to investigate whether CRSI styles predict successful conflict resolution and how they relate to conflict resolution theory in social psychology. Since this study is designed as an internal validation, we suggest that future research explores these issues and expands the predictive and theoretical focus.

Comment 5: If the journal publishes extensions of internal validation studies for a single country, this study can go more or less as it is.

Response 5: We agree with your observation. If the journal permits internal validations for a single country, we believe our study is a relevant contribution by validating the scale in Ecuador, which could be useful for local researchers and practitioners.

Comment 6: I would have liked some of the external validity issues to be discussed, but I don’t think that discussion is necessarily required for publication.

Response 6: We appreciate your interest in a deeper discussion on external validity. While this is not the primary focus of our study, we consider your suggestions for future research, where we could address these issues more thoroughly. We remain open to any additional requirements from the journal on this matter.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Introduction/Literature review need improvement. The authors need to more clearly justify why the instrument was selected for development and validation, among similar instruments, and why there is a need to develop this instrument for use among young people.

The paper needs a clearer statement of the objectives of the validation study. The process of translation and adaptation of instrument was only briefly reported. The authors sometimes uses terms which are not commonly, such as what's the meaning of iterative translation, or intentional sampling. The sampling has some criteria, but it was not clear when the screening of participants are done. It is not clear how many items are there in the translated CRSI. On line 32, it is supposed to have 16 items. On line 91, 13 items. Results in Table 1 shows 24 items. This needs clarification. 

The presentation of results, the numbers of decimals were not standardised. The correlation between PFB and PFA is 1.256, and not below 1. The modelling or this figure needs to be checked. The p-values of the Shapiro-Wilk test were all significant, meaning that the distributions were not normal.

The results of factor analysis was not fully discussed, such as whether the factors align with the original grouping of items under the subscales. Several reliability indexes (alpha, G6, w, AVE) were reported in both Table 2 and 3.  Is there are reason for this?

The Discussion need to start with discussion and interpretation of the results, but not discussion of previous literature. The initial part of the discussion could be more useful in the Introduction than in the Discussion. The results should be discussed with reference to similar studies in the literature. Potential issues of cultural adaptation of instrument was mentioned in Discussion, but it was not explicitly reported how it was handled in the translation or development process. The Conclusion needs to be a better summary of the work done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are obvious grammatical errors and typos in the manuscript, which needs further editing after revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: The Introduction/Literature Review needs improvements. The authors need to more clearly justify why the instrument was selected for development and validation among similar instruments, and why there is a need to develop this instrument for use among young people.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate this comment. We have restructured the Introduction to more clearly justify the selection of the instrument, highlighting its advantages over similar instruments. Additionally, we have expanded the explanation regarding the need for this instrument specifically for use among young people, emphasizing the context and particularities that make it relevant to this population.

Comment 2: The paper needs a clearer statement of the validation study objectives. The translation and adaptation process of the instrument was briefly mentioned. The authors sometimes use uncommon terms, such as what the meaning of iterative translation or intentional sampling is. The sampling has some criteria, but it was unclear when the participant selection takes place. It’s not clear how many items the translated CRSI has. Line 32 suggests 16 items. Line 91, 13 items. The results in Table 1 show 24 items. This needs to be clarified.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. We have added a clearer statement of the validation study objectives at the beginning of the manuscript. Moreover, we have expanded the description of the translation and adaptation process, providing more detailed explanations of terms like "iterative translation" and "intentional sampling" to avoid confusion. Regarding the number of items in the CRSI, we have corrected the inconsistencies and clarified that the translated CRSI consists of 16 items. All references to items in the manuscript have been reviewed for consistency.

Comment 3: In the presentation of the results, the number of decimals was not standardized. The correlation between PFB and PFA is 1.256, and not less than 1. The model or this figure needs to be checked. The p-values of the Shapiro-Wilk test were all significant, meaning the distributions were not normal.

Response 3: We have standardized the presentation of the results, ensuring consistency in the number of decimals. We also reviewed the correlation between PFB and PFA to correct any typographical errors and ensure that the results align with statistical expectations. Additionally, we have added an explanation of the Shapiro-Wilk test results and the implications of the non-normality of the distributions.

Comment 4: The results of the factor analysis were not fully discussed, for example, whether the factors align with the original grouping of items in the subscales. In Tables 2 and 3, several reliability indices were reported (alpha, G6, w, AVE). Is there a reason for this?

Response 4: We have expanded the discussion on the results of the factor analysis, including a detailed explanation of whether the factors align with the original grouping of the items in the subscales. Regarding the reliability indices reported (alpha, G6, ω, AVE), we have included a justification for reporting multiple indices to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the instrument's reliability.

Comment 5: The discussion should start with the discussion and interpretation of the results, not with a discussion of previous literature. The initial part of the discussion might be more useful in the Introduction than in the Discussion. The results should be discussed with reference to similar studies in the literature. The discussion mentioned possible issues with the cultural adaptation of the instrument, but it was not explicitly reported how these were addressed during the translation or development process. The Conclusion should be a better summary of the work done.

Response 5: We have restructured the Discussion section to start with the interpretation of the results, followed by references to similar studies in the literature. We moved part of the previous literature discussion to the Introduction, where it is more relevant. Additionally, we clarified how the cultural adaptation issues were addressed during the translation and development process of the instrument. Lastly, we revised the Conclusion to provide a clearer and more comprehensive summary of the work conducted and its implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Validation of the Inventory has been done correctly. I see no any significant problems in CFA, even if the CEA factor is a bit lower than 0.500.  All parts of the manuscript meet the requirements for such kind of research paper.

 

• Consider starting with a short summary of the manuscript explaining what the study is about.

 

The aim of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory in a university population in Ecuador. 746 university students who reported being in a dating relationship and was selected using a non-probabilistic intentional sampling method.

 

• Then, explain each of the issues found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into major issues and minor issues.

 

An instrumental research study was conducted in two phases, adhering to current standards for the validation of educational and psychological tests. In the first phase, the linguistic adaptation of the original test was performed through an iterative translation process by experts. In the second phase, evidence of reliability and validity was examined for the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory in a sample of university students in Ecuador. This study confirms the Inventory's high internal consistency and reliability among Ecuadorian university students, highlighting its effectiveness in measuring various conflict resolution styles with accuracy and consistency.

 

• Major issues might include problems with the study’s methodology, techniques, analyses, missing controls or other serious flaws.

 

The study’s methodology, techniques and data analysis have been performed in acordance with standards for instrumental research study.  

 

• Minor issues might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text.

 

All tables and figures are formed correctly. All parts of the text look complete and logically related to each others. There is no necessity to delete any parts of text. The text is clear and it is easy to read it. I consider the text, tables and figures to meet the standard of quality for academic journals.

   

Author Response

Comment 1: Consider starting with a brief summary of the manuscript explaining what the study is about. The objective of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory in a university population in Ecuador. 746 university students who reported being in a dating relationship were selected using a non-probabilistic purposive sampling method.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for taking the time to review our manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have added a concise summary at the beginning of the manuscript to explain the purpose of the study. The objective of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory in a university population in Ecuador, focusing on a sample of 746 university students who are currently in dating relationships, selected through a non-probabilistic purposive sampling method.

Comment 2: Then, explain each of the issues that need to be addressed. Divide the list into major issues and minor issues. An instrumental research study was conducted in two phases, adhering to current standards for the validation of educational and psychological tests. In the first phase, the linguistic adaptation of the original test was carried out through an iterative translation process by experts. In the second phase, the evidence of reliability and validity for the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory was examined in a sample of university students in Ecuador. This study confirms the high consistency and internal reliability of the Inventory among Ecuadorian university students, highlighting its effectiveness in measuring various conflict resolution styles with accuracy and consistency.

Response 2: We have revised and reorganized the manuscript to clearly divide the issues found into two categories: major issues and minor issues. Regarding the key aspects of the study, we would like to clarify that our instrumental research study was conducted in two phases, following international standards for the validation of educational and psychological tests. In the first phase, the linguistic adaptation of the Conflict Resolution Styles Inventory was carried out through an iterative translation process by experts. In the second phase, the evidence of reliability and validity of the scale was examined in the university population in Ecuador. Our study confirmed the high internal consistency and reliability of the Inventory, demonstrating its effectiveness in accurately measuring different conflict resolution styles.

Comment 3: Major issues may include problems with methodology, techniques, study analysis, lack of controls, or other significant flaws.

Response 3: We appreciate your observations regarding the methodology and study analysis. We are pleased to confirm that the methodology, techniques, and data analysis were conducted according to current standards for instrumental research studies. We have ensured that the procedures meet best practices and that the evidence for reliability and validity is adequate to support the study’s conclusions.

Comment 4: Minor issues may include tables or figures that are difficult to read, sections that need further explanation, and suggestions to remove unnecessary text.

Response 4: We appreciate your comments on the presentation of tables and figures. We have reviewed all the tables and figures, and we believe they are correctly formatted and clear. We also consider that all parts of the text are complete and logically connected. We did not remove any sections of the text, as we believe the manuscript as a whole is clear and easy to follow, meeting the quality standards of academic journals.