Content validity of the Aggressive and Assertive Conflict Management Styles Questionnaire (CEMCAA)
Abstract
The CEMCAA is an instrument designed to inform on ten styles of interpersonal conflict management in undergraduate university students: dominant, accommodating, avoidant, compromising and integrative, each one in its aggressive and assertive modalities. Although it has a solid theoretical and methodological basis in its design, no studies have been presented that provide evidence of its psychometric validity. Within this framework, this research aimed to evaluate the content validity of the CEMCAA by judges' criteria. Thirteen expert judges participated and evaluated each of the 60 CEMCAA items in three aspects: clarity, coherence and relevance. To assess the degree of agreement between the judges, the Aiken V validity coefficient was used, complemented by the use of 95% confidence intervals. Only those items that presented V values greater than .70 and that, at the same time, obtained the lower limit of the confidence interval of .50 or greater in the three aspects mentioned were selected. Results: The findings indicate that most of the items met the stipulated criteria, except for 11 items which are recommended to be removed or reformulated in future versions of the test. It is concluded that the CEMCAA has evidence of content validity to be applied to samples of undergraduate university students, except for the items indicated, so it is recommended to continue with the study of its psychometric properties in future works.
Downloads
References
American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME] and Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.
Aragón, L. E. (2011). Evaluación psicológica. Historia, fundamentos teórico-conceptuales y psicometría. Manual Moderno.
Arce, H. (2019). Competencias ciudadanas: una reconstrucción conceptual en el marco de la Educación Cívica costarricense. Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 19(2), 1-20. DOI: 10.15517/aie.v19i2.36904
Ato, M., López-García, J. J. y Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. DOI: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Blake R. and Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Key orientations for achieving production through people. Gulf Publishing Company.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1970). The fifth achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(4), 413-426. DOI: 10.1177/002188637000600403
Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Maley, J. and Silic, M. (2019). Ten years of conflict management research 2007-2017: An update on themes, concepts and relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1), 87–110. DOI: 10.1108/IJCMA-06-2018-0078
Caycho, T. (2018). Contribuciones a la cuantificación de la validez de contenido en cuestionarios de enfermería. Revista Cubana de Enfermería, 34(2), 262-264.
Chávez, D. F. y Norzagaray, C. C. (2021). Construyendo ciudadanía en la universidad: Una propuesta para la convivencia y resolución de conflictos. Vértice Universitario, 23(92), 28-37. DOI: 10.36792/rvu.v92i92.39
Domínguez-Lara, S. A. (2016). Validez de contenido usando la V de Aiken con intervalos de confianza: aportes a Rodríguez et al. Archivos Argentinos de Pediatría, 114(3), e221-e223.
Escobar-Pérez, J. y Cuervo-Martínez, Á. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6(1), 27-36.
Escurra, L. M. (1988). Cuantificación de la validez de contenido por criterio de jueces. Revista de Psicología, 6(1-2), 103-111. DOI: 10.18800/psico.198801-02.008
Fierro-Evans, C. y Carbajal-Padilla, P. (2019). Convivencia escolar: Una revisión del concepto. Psicoperspectivas, 18(1), 1-19. DOI: 10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol18-issue1-fulltext-1486
González, A. y Molero, M. del M. (2022). Estrategias de afrontamiento en los conflictos entre adolescentes: revisión sistemática. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 146-170. DOI: 10.17583/remie.8383
Jares, X. R. (2012). Educación para la paz. Su teoría y su práctica (3a ed.). Editorial Popular.
Merino, C. y Livia, J. (2009). Intervalos de confianza para el índice de la validez de contenido: Un programa de Visual Basic para la V de Aiken. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 25(1), 169–171.
Merino-Soto, C. (2023). Coeficiente V de Aiken: diferencias en los juicios de validez del contenido. MHSalud: Revista en Ciencias del Movimiento Humano y Salud, 20(1), 1-10. DOI: 10.15359/mhs.20-1.3
Moreno, M. A. (2023). Estrategias de manejo conductual en el abordaje de los conflictos. REDES, 15(1), 164–180.
Leyton-Leyton, I. (2020). Convivencia escolar en Latinoamérica: una revisión de literatura latinoamericana (2007-2017). Revista Colombiana de Educación, 1(80), 227-260. DOI: 10.17227/rce.num80-8219
Luna, A. C. A. (2020). Propuesta de un instrumento para evaluar estilos agresivos y asertivos de manejo de conflictos interpersonales. Sincronía. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Humanidades, 24(78), 3-39.
Luna, A. C. A. (2022). Estilos de comunicación en el manejo de conflictos interpersonales: Tres estudios de adolescentes mexicanos. Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades.
Luna, A. C. A., Nava Preciado, J. M. y Valencia Aguirre, A. C. (2021). Manejo de conflictos interpersonales y violencia escolar en estudiantes de bachillerato: aproximación conceptual y estudio empírico. Universidad de Guadalajara.
Paris, S. (2009). Filosofía de los conflictos. Una teoría para su transformación pacífica. Icaria Editorial.
Pegalajar, M. C. (2018). Análisis del estilo de gestión del conflicto interpersonal en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 77(2), 9-30. DOI: 10.35362/rie7723178
Penfield, R. D. and Giacobbi, Jr., P. R. (2004). Applying a Score Confidence Interval to Aiken’s Item Content-Relevance Index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(4), 213–225. DOI: 10.1207/s15327841mpee0804_3
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.
Rivera, M. J. y Matute, R. (2023). Resolución de conflictos para estudiantes de psicología: Una propuesta de Cultura de Paz. Psicoperspectivas, 22(1), 31-45. DOI: 10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol22-issue1-fulltext-2769
Ross, R. G. and DeWine, S. (1988). Assessing the Ross-DeWine Conflict Management Message Style (CMMS). Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 389-413. DOI: 10.1177/0893318988001003007
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G. and Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: escalation, stalemate and settlement (2a ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc.
Sanmartín, R. C. y Tapia, S. R. (2023). La importancia de la educación emocional en la formación integral de los estudiantes. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7(3), 1398-1413. DOI: 10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i3.6285
Santamaría-Cárdaba, N. (2019). ¿Cuál es el estatus de la educación para la paz en el ámbito científico actual? MODULEMA. Revista científica Sobre Diversidad Cultural, 3, 63-77. DOI: 10.30827/modulema.v3i0.9249
Talavera-Salas, I. X., Zela-Pacori, C. E., Parillo-Sosa, E. G. y Calcina-Cuevas, S. C. (2021). Inteligencia emocional y estilos para el manejo de conflictos sociales en estudiantes universitarios. Dominio de las Ciencias, 7(2), 180–194.
Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In order to promote the development and dissemination of research in education in Latin America, the Ibero-American Journal for Educational Research and Development (RIDE) adhered to the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which is why it is identified as a Open access publication. This means that any user can read the complete text of the articles, print them, download them, copy them, link them, distribute them and use the contents for other purposes. Creative Cummons licenses allow users to specify the rights to use an open access journal available on the Internet in such a way that users know the rules of publication. Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions: Authors they keep the author's rights and give the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work registered with the attribution license of Creative Commons, which allows third parties to use the published material whenever they mention the authorship of the work and the first publication in this The authors can make other independent and additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (eg, include it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book) as long as they clearly indicate that The work was published for the first time in this magazine. Authors are allowed and recommended to publish their work. low on the Internet (for example on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and to a greater and faster dissemination of the published work
