Have library access?
  • Journals


Chinese Version of Peer Conflict Resolution Strategy Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity


本研究旨在檢驗「青少年同儕衝突處理策略量表」之信效度。首先以210名國中生為預試者,進行項目分析、探索性因素分析,依據分析結果選題後的量表包含「統合」、「順應」、「支配」與「逃避」策略,共22題的題項;以Likert五點量表作答,各分量表得分愈高,表示使用該策略之傾向愈高。接著,另以451名國中生為正式樣本,進行信度及效度檢驗。結果得知此量表具良好信度,全量表的一致性係數為.90,分量表的Cronbach's α係數皆在.76以上。以探索性因素分析、驗證性因素分析,及效標關聯效度驗證本量表之效度,結果得知:四個因素總解釋變異量為59.70%;模式的整體適配情形在可接受範圍;大部分的效標關聯分析結果亦符合研究預期,例如:統合策略與利社會行為、同儕接受度有正相關,與外顯攻擊行為有負相關。整體而言,此中文版「同儕衝突處理策略量表」具有良好的信度及效度。

Parallel abstracts

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity, on developing a Chinese version of Peer Conflict Resolution Strategy Questionnaire (PCRSQ) to measure how Taiwanese adolescents tend to deal with interpersonal conflicts in peer relations. The pilot version of PCRSQ was constructed on the basis of Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (Rahim, 1983). A non-random stratified sample of 210 junior-high-school students was recruited for pilot study. The final version of PCRSQ included four subscales of strategies: Integrating (7 items), Obligating (6 items), Dominating (5 items), and Avoiding (4 items), and presented as a five-point Likert-type scale. PCRSQ was then administered to a larger sample (N = 441) for assessment of scale reliability and validity. For reliability, the Cronbach's α of PCRSQ was .90, and the consistency efficiencies of the subscales were above .76. The results of validity analyses were in good condition: (1) the result of EFA showed total four factors can explain 59.70% of variance; (2) the result of CFA is acceptable; (3) generally speaking, the results of criterion-related pattern meet our hypothesis. For example, the tendencies of using Integrating strategies were positively associated with prosocial behavior and peer acceptance, negatively with overt aggression. In sum, the results demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity of PCRSQ.