Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS)

Abstract

The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS), developed by clinical psychologist Patricia K. Kerig in 1996, is a comprehensive, multidimensional psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency, intensity, topical domains, resolution efficacy, and behavioral strategies associated with marital and interparental conflict. Rooted in family systems theory, cognitive-contextual models of marital discord, and developmental psychopathology, the CPS was constructed to overcome the operational limitations of unidimensional conflict indices by capturing both constructive and destructive conflict dynamics, as well as the spillover of interpartner disputes into the parent-child subsystem (e.g., triangulation and child involvement). The instrument evaluates multiple operational facets across distinct modules: conflict frequency and severity, topical problem severity across diverse life domains (paired with ratings of perceived resolution efficacy), and an extensive inventory of conflict resolution and behavioral strategies assessed dyadically for both self and partner. The behavioral strategies module measures six empirically derived dimensions: Collaboration, Avoidance-Capitulation, Stalemate/Stonewalling, Verbal Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Child Involvement. Psychometric investigations across diverse community and clinical samples demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .70 to .98 across subscales, high test-retest stability, sound convergent validity with legacy marital instruments (such as the Conflict Tactics Scales and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale), and strong predictive validity regarding child internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the CPS, detailing its theoretical foundation, structural validity, scoring algorithms, and clinical and research applications in family psychology.

Keywords

Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales, CPS, interparental conflict, marital conflict, child involvement, triangulation, family systems, conflict resolution strategies, verbal aggression, psychometrics

Authors and Background

The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS) was authored by Patricia K. Kerig, Ph.D., a distinguished clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Utah (formerly at Simon Fraser University). Dr. Kerig is internationally recognized for her seminal empirical and theoretical contributions to developmental psychopathology, family processes, trauma-informed care, and the mechanisms through which family conflict impacts children’s emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal development.

The scale was formally introduced in 1996 in her landmark publication in the Journal of Family Psychology, titled “Assessing the Links Between Interparental Conflict and Child Adjustment: The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales.” During the late 1980s and early 1990s, family researchers increasingly recognized that global measures of marital satisfaction (e.g., the Dyadic Adjustment Scale) or isolated indices of physical abuse (e.g., the original Conflict Tactics Scales) failed to delineate the subtle, process-oriented nuances of conflict that matter most for both adult psychological health and child developmental outcomes. In response, Dr. Kerig developed the CPS to operationalize conflict as a multidimensional phenomenon, integrating structural family therapy concepts—such as detouring, triangulation, and diffuse generational boundaries—into a psychometrically sound self-report instrument capable of capturing both constructive problem-solving and toxic interpersonal patterns.

Purpose and Rationale

The primary purpose of the Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS) is to provide an exhaustive, nuanced, and empirically rigorous assessment of interpartner conflict dynamics, specifically designed to bridge adult couple functioning with child adjustment trajectories. Conflict within intimate partnerships is neither inherently pathological nor uniformly deleterious; rather, decades of systemic and developmental research demonstrate that the outcomes of couple conflict depend fundamentally on how disagreements are expressed, managed, resolved, and contextualized within the broader family system. The CPS was developed to operationalize this nuanced reality for both clinical diagnostics and empirical research.

From a research perspective, the CPS resolves critical limitations inherent in older measurement tools. Traditional inventories frequently suffered from severe construct confounding, conflating general relationship dissatisfaction with specific conflict behaviors, or focusing almost exclusively on overt, severe physical violence while ignoring verbal hostility, passive-aggressive withdrawal, capitulation, and constructive collaborative dialogue. Most notably, standard marital instruments consistently omitted the interface between the marital subsystem and the parenting subsystem. The CPS was deliberately engineered to evaluate the degree to which children become the targets, witnesses, or emotional mediators of interparental friction—a systemic dynamic termed interparental boundary violation or triangulation.

In clinical practice, the CPS serves multiple diagnostic and therapeutic functions:

• Comprehensive Dyadic Mapping: The scale employs a dual-respondent rating framework wherein each partner rates not only their own conflict tactics but also their perceptions of their partner’s behaviors. This allows clinicians to identify perceptual discrepancies, mutual escalation cycles, demand-withdraw dynamics, and defensive distortions.
• Topical Domain Specificity: By assessing both the perceived magnitude of specific conflict topics (e.g., finances, intimacy, childrearing, division of household labor) and the perceived efficacy of resolving each specific topic, clinicians can distinguish between couples struggling with global, diffuse conflict and couples navigating circumscribed, instrumental disagreements.
• Risk Screening and Child Safety: The instrument includes dedicated, highly sensitive subscales measuring verbal aggression, severe physical violence, and direct child involvement (such as arguing in front of children, coercing children to take sides, or confiding adult marital grievances in a child). This granular assessment enables therapists to gauge the psychological safety of the home environment and guide targeted interventions.
• Intervention Target Identification: The assessment clearly highlights whether a couple lacks constructive problem-solving skills (collaboration deficits) or possesses active, destructive behavioral patterns (stonewalling, contemptuous bickering, physical intimidation), allowing systemic and behavioral marital therapies to tailor psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral modules accordingly.

Psychological Construct and Dimensions

The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales assesses relationship conflict as a complex, hierarchical, and multidimensional psychological construct. Rather than viewing conflict as a static, unitary score, the CPS decomposes it into structural, topical, and behavioral dimensions across distinct, interconnected operational sections.

1. Global Conflict Frequency and Severity

This dimension captures the temporal cadence and overall magnitude of conflictual interactions within the relationship over the preceding 12 months. It differentiates between routine, low-level normative friction (“minor disagreements, spats, getting on each other’s nerves”) and disruptive, dysregulated escalations (“major disagreements, big fights, blow-ups”). Measuring these parameters independently provides an immediate index of chronic marital distress versus acute, episodic volatility.

2. Topical Conflict Magnitude and Resolution Efficacy

Conflict does not occur in an abstract vacuum; it manifests across specific structural domains of adult life. The CPS assesses 20 distinct substantive areas—ranging from childrearing, financial management, sexual intimacy, and division of household labor, to communication styles, in-law relationships, substance use, and philosophical or religious values. Each topic is assessed along two independent continuous continua:

• Degree of Problem: Rated on a 0 to 100 visual or percentage continuum representing how severely the issue strains the relationship.
• Resolution Efficacy: Rated from 0% to 100%, indicating the proportion of time disagreements regarding that specific issue are resolved to mutual satisfaction.

This dual-rating method isolates the couple’s sense of shared mastery and problem-solving competence from the mere occurrence of differences, distinguishing high-conflict, high-resolution couples from low-conflict, utterly unresolved, detached partnerships.

3. Conflict Strategies (CPS-CS) Subscales

The behavioral strategies inventory of the CPS evaluates the precise communicative and behavioral actions taken by each partner during active disagreements. Factor analytic investigations by Kerig (1996) established six core behavioral dimensions, rated independently for both self and partner:

• Collaboration: Characterized by constructive, proactive problem-solving, open emotional expression, mutual validation, active listening, perspective taking, and striving for equitable compromise (e.g., “Talk it out,” “Try to understand what partner is really feeling,” “Compromise”). This dimension reflects adaptive emotional regulation and high dyadic warmth.
• Avoidance-Capitulation: Captures conflict-avoidant, submissive, and placating behaviors aimed at escaping emotional tension at the expense of authentic resolution. Behaviors include premature surrender, smoothing things over artificially, suppressing emotions, changing the subject, or accepting unearned blame (e.g., “Give in to partner’s viewpoint to escape argument,” “Try to ignore problem”).
• Stalemate / Stonewalling: Reflects passive-aggressive withdrawal, emotional detachment, and interpersonal obstruction. Marked by walking away, giving the silent treatment, refusing to converse, sulking, or engaging in unproductive, chronic bickering (e.g., “Sulk, refuse to talk, give the silent treatment,” “Clam up, hold in feelings”).
• Verbal Aggression: Measures explicit, hostile communicative tactics designed to inflict emotional distress, demean, or dominate the partner. Tactics include yelling, harsh sarcasm, personal insults, name-calling, blaming, and overt character assassination (e.g., “Raise voice, yell, shout,” “Name-calling, cursing, insulting”).
• Physical Aggression: Evaluates overt behavioral hostility, property destruction, and direct physical violence against the partner or self. It spans a continuum from symbolic violence (slamming doors, throwing objects) to mild-to-moderate physical battery (pushing, shoving, slapping) and severe interpersonal violence (beating up, striking, kicking, biting, self-harm).
• Child Involvement (Triangulation): A uniquely valuable feature of the CPS, this dimension captures the spillover of marital distress into the parent-child relationship. It assesses behaviors such as fighting in front of the child, using the child as an emotional ally or messenger, displacing partner-directed anger onto the child, discussing marital discord with the child, and emotional parentification (e.g., “Argue in front of the child(ren),” “Confide in child(ren) about problems with partner”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales is grounded in the convergence of four primary theoretical paradigms in clinical, family, and developmental psychology:

1. Structural and Transgenerational Family Systems Theory

According to structural family theory (Salvador Minuchin) and transgenerational systems models (Murray Bowen), a healthy, functioning family requires clear, flexible subsystem boundaries. The marital (or executive) subsystem must maintain a degree of privacy and autonomy that shields children from adult developmental struggles. When interpartner conflict escalates beyond the couple’s capacity for containment, subsystem boundaries breach, generating pathological triangular dynamics: detouring (blaming the child for marital strife), cross-generational coalitions (a parent aligning with a child against the other parent), or parentification (a parent relying on the child for spousal-level emotional support). The CPS directly operationalizes these systemic violations through its Child Involvement scale, providing empirical metrics for systemic structural boundary failures.

2. The Cognitive-Contextual Framework of Marital Conflict

Developed by John Grych and Frank Fincham (1990), the cognitive-contextual framework posits that children are not merely passive recipients of their environment; they actively attempt to understand and interpret interparental conflict. The impact of conflict on child psychological functioning is heavily mediated by the child’s appraisals of conflict properties—specifically its frequency, intensity, content, and perceived resolution. The CPS operationalizes precisely those parameters: unresolved, verbally or physically violent, child-related conflicts evoke catastrophic threat appraisals and self-blame in offspring, whereas resolved, collaborative conflicts model constructive interpersonal problem-solving.

3. The Emotional Security Theory (EST)

Formulated by Patrick Davies and E. Mark Cummings (1994), the Emotional Security Theory suggests that maintaining a sense of emotional security within the family is a paramount goal for developing children. Destructive conflict tactics—such as verbal hostility, stonewalling, and physical violence—undermine the child’s foundational sense of safety, leading to chronic physiological hyperarousal, emotional distress, and behavioral dysregulation. Conversely, constructive strategies (such as collaboration and successful compromise) preserve emotional security by demonstrating that interpersonal conflict does not threaten family dissolution. The multidimensional subscales of the CPS directly assess these distinct threat vectors.

4. Social Learning and Interactional Behavioral Models

Derived from Albert Bandura’s social learning theory and Gerald Patterson’s coercion model, this framework posits that interpersonal behaviors are modeled, reinforced, and maintained through interactive feedback loops. In couple dynamics, coercive cycles (e.g., escalating hostility to force capitulation) or demand-withdraw patterns (stonewalling in response to verbal nagging) become entrenched. The CPS captures these mutual behavioral strategies, allowing researchers to evaluate how aggressive or avoidant conflict repertoires are transmitted across generations or reinforced within dyadic interactions.

Psychometric Validity

Extensive psychometric evaluations have demonstrated that the Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales possesses robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse socio-demographic, community, and clinical cohorts.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Kerig (1996) utilizing an initial validation sample of married couples with school-aged children. Factor analyses confirmed that the behavioral strategy items grouped coherently into distinct factors corresponding to theoretically differentiated conflict styles. The multidimensionality of the scale was validated by showing that constructive strategies (Collaboration) formed an orthogonal or weakly negative relationship with destructive strategies (Verbal and Physical Aggression), confirming that conflict behavior cannot be represented adequately along a single, bipolar continuum. Subsequent cross-validation studies (e.g., Hogge, 2007; Kielpikowski, 2011) have continuously confirmed this distinct multi-factor architecture across mothers and fathers.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through strong, statistically significant correlations with widely utilized benchmark instruments assessing marital functioning and interpersonal aggression:

• Marital Adjustment: The CPS Collaboration scale correlates positively with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), exhibiting correlation coefficients typically ranging between r = .55 and .68 (p < .001). Conversely, the CPS Stalemate, Verbal Aggression, and Problem Severity subscales correlate negatively with marital satisfaction (r = -.45 to -.62).
• Aggression Indices: The CPS Verbal Aggression and Physical Aggression subscales demonstrate exceptionally high convergent correlations with the corresponding subscales of Murray Straus’s Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979), with coefficients consistently exceeding r = .70 (p < .001), validating the CPS as an accurate detector of domestic conflict escalation.
• Children’s Perceptions of Conflict: Multimethod studies comparing parental CPS scores with child-report measures—such as the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC; Grych et al., 1992)—demonstrate moderate to strong convergence (r = .38 to .54), confirming that parental reports on the CPS accurately reflect the conflict environment experienced directly by offspring.

3. Discriminant Validity

The CPS demonstrates sound discriminant validity by distinguishing between normal marital disagreements and pathological family processes. While routine problem severity scores correlate modestly with transient life stressors (such as economic strain or occupational fatigue), scores on the Child Involvement and Physical Aggression subscales demonstrate divergent independence from general demographic variables, loading specifically onto indices of family disorganization, parent-child boundary erosion, and clinical psychopathology.

4. Criterion and Predictive Validity

The CPS exhibits exceptional predictive utility regarding child mental health outcomes. In longitudinal and cross-sectional investigations, parental scores on the CPS Child Involvement, Verbal Aggression, and Physical Aggression subscales systematically predict child internalizing symptoms (anxiety, depression, somatic complaints) and externalizing problems (aggression, conduct disorder, oppositionality) on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), accounting for significant unique variance beyond global marital satisfaction. Furthermore, high Resolution Efficacy has been shown to buffer children against the adverse impacts of high conflict frequency, demonstrating the predictive power of the scale’s dual problem/efficacy design.

Reliability and Internal Consistency

The psychometric reliability of the Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales has been evaluated across multiple independent investigations, consistently demonstrating exceptional internal consistency and temporal stability across parent genders.

1. Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In Kerig’s (1996) normative validation study, internal consistency coefficients were computed separately for mothers and fathers across all major domains of the instrument. The results demonstrated exemplary reliability:

• Global Frequency / Severity: Alpha coefficients were .75 for mothers and .78 for fathers.
• Degree of Problem Scale: Alpha coefficients achieved extraordinary magnitude at .98 for both mothers and fathers, reflecting seamless item homogeneity across conflict topics.
• Resolution Frequency Scale: Cronbach’s alpha was .79 for mothers and .79 for fathers.
• Overall Problem Efficacy Index: Alpha was .94 for mothers and .91 for fathers.
• Conflict Strategies (CPS-CS):
  • Collaboration: α = .86 (mothers), α = .86 (fathers)
  • Avoidance-Capitulation: α = .70 (mothers), α = .74 (fathers)
  • Stalemate / Stonewalling: α = .76 (mothers), α = .78 (fathers)
  • Verbal Aggression: α = .85 (mothers), α = .84 (fathers)
  • Physical Aggression: α = .83 (mothers), α = .87 (fathers)
  • Child Involvement: α = .81 (mothers), α = .85 (fathers)

Subsequent investigations by Hogge (2007) and Kielpikowski (2011) confirmed these robust parameters, reporting strategy alphas consistently hovering between .72 and .88, confirming that the subscales possess sufficient internal reliability for both group-level research and individual clinical profiling.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Inter-Rater Agreement

Test-retest assessments conducted across intervals ranging from 4 to 8 weeks demonstrate temporal stability coefficients ranging from r = .74 to .89 across the primary behavioral dimensions. Inter-partner agreement—measuring the concordance between an individual’s self-report and their partner’s rating of that same individual—yields moderate to high concordance (correlations typically between .50 and .72 across strategy scales). Inter-partner agreement is notably highest for observable, objective behaviors (such as Physical Aggression and Collaboration) and moderately lower for internal, covert behaviors (such as Avoidance-Capitulation or Stonewalling), reflecting standard perceptual dynamics in couple self-report literature.

Factor Analysis and Structural Architecture

The factorial validity of the CPS was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures conducted during scale construction and subsequent replication studies.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial development of the Conflict Strategies inventory (CPS-CS), Kerig subjected the behavioral items to principal axis factor analysis with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations to identify underlying behavioral clusters. The scree test, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and conceptual clarity decisively supported a six-factor solution:

• Factor 1: Collaboration (Item loadings ranging from .52 to .78; e.g., “Talk it out,” “Listen to each other’s point of view”).
• Factor 2: Physical Aggression (Item loadings ranging from .48 to .84; e.g., “Throw something at partner,” “Slap partner,” “Beat up partner”).
• Factor 3: Verbal Aggression (Item loadings ranging from .51 to .76; e.g., “Name-calling, cursing, insulting,” “Become sarcastic”).
• Factor 4: Child Involvement (Item loadings ranging from .49 to .82; e.g., “Involve the children in our argument,” “Confide in child”).
• Factor 5: Stalemate / Stonewalling (Item loadings ranging from .44 to .71; e.g., “Sulk, refuse to talk,” “Clam up”).
• Factor 6: Avoidance-Capitulation (Item loadings ranging from .42 to .68; e.g., “Give in to partner’s viewpoint,” “Try to smooth things over”).

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Measurement Invariance

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations in subsequent family studies have validated the six-factor behavioral structure against alternative models (such as single-factor global distress models or two-factor constructive vs. destructive models). The six-factor model yields superior goodness-of-fit indices across both mother and father data cohorts (RMSEA < .055, CFI > .92, TLI > .90, SRMR < .06). Multi-group structural equation modeling has confirmed metric and scalar measurement invariance across genders, demonstrating that the underlying psychometric properties of the CPS subscales function equivalently for male and female respondents.

Instrument Administration and Scoring Guidelines

The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales is an objective, standardized, paper-and-pencil or computer-administered self-report instrument. Designed for completion by adults currently engaged in married, cohabiting, or shared-parenting romantic partnerships, it provides a comprehensive dyadic diagnostic profile.

Administration Parameters

• Target Population: Adult couples (married, cohabiting, or separated/divorced co-parents).
• Administration Format: Self-administered; individual completion (partners should complete the inventory independently without conferring to avoid contaminated response patterns).
• Completion Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for the full multi-section instrument.
• Reading Level: Estimated at a standard 6th-grade reading level, ensuring broad accessibility across community and clinical populations.

Structural Organization and Scoring Rules

The CPS is organized into three distinct operational modules, each utilizing specialized response metrics:

• Module I: Frequency and Severity:
  • Consists of 2 items evaluating the past 12-month cadence of minor disagreements and major blow-ups.
  • Scored on a 6-point ordinal frequency scale: 1 = Once a year or less, 2 = Every 4–6 months, 3 = Every 2–3 months, 4 = Once or twice a month, 5 = Once or twice a week, 6 = Just about every day.
  • Can be interpreted as single-item markers or combined into an overall conflict frequency index.
• Module II: Degree of Problem and Resolution Efficacy:
  • Assesses 20 substantive conflict topics (plus an optional open-ended “Others” specification).
  • Degree of Problem: Rated on the left side from 0 (No problem at all) to 100 (A severe problem). The overall score is calculated as the mean across completed items (ranging from 0 to 100).
  • Resolution Frequency / Efficacy: Rated on the right side from 0% (Never resolved to mutual satisfaction) to 100% (Always resolved to mutual satisfaction). If an issue is rated 0 (no problem at all), this column is left blank. The efficacy score is computed as the mean percentage across applicable problem topics.
• Module III: Conflict Strategies (CPS-CS):
  • Presents behavioral strategy items rated dyadically across two simultaneous columns: YOU (self-behavior) and YOUR PARTNER (perceived partner-behavior).
  • Scored on a 4-point Likert scale: 0 = Never, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often.
  • Subscale scores are derived by summing or averaging the items loading onto each respective dimension (Collaboration, Avoidance-Capitulation, Stalemate, Verbal Aggression, Physical Aggression, Child Involvement), yielding separate composite scores for Self-Report and Partner-Perception.

Permissions, Ethical Considerations, and Test Availability

The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales (CPS) was published in 1996 by Dr. Patricia K. Kerig through the American Psychological Association (APA). The conceptual description, psychometric properties, and full item inventory were published in the Journal of Family Psychology (Kerig, 1996). Under standard academic fair-use guidelines, the scale items are accessible for non-commercial scholarly research, educational instruction, and academic dissertation projects.

Investigators and clinical practitioners wishing to utilize the instrument in formal clinical evaluations, randomized controlled trials, or digital assessment systems should seek appropriate permissions from the copyright holder (American Psychological Association) or contact Dr. Patricia K. Kerig directly via the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. Ethical administration requires that clinicians and researchers ensure strict confidentiality, particularly given that the instrument assesses sensitive domestic issues including severe physical violence and child involvement. When physical abuse or imminent self-harm is endorsed, standard clinical safeguards and mandatory reporting protocols must be enacted.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. Guilford Press.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing children’s perceptions of marital conflict: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131346

Hogge, J. L. (2007). Relationships among marital satisfaction, marital conflict dimensions, and marital conflict strategies (Master’s thesis, Utah State University). DigitalCommons@USU. Paper 2595. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2595

Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.454

Kielpikowski, M. M. (2011). Family dynamics and children’s outcomes: The role of silent interparental conflict (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington). http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1930

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

Items of the Scale