/ Psychological Tests / Behavior

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC)

Portuguese version

Moura, O., Santos, R. A., & Matos, P. M. (2006). The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Análise Factorial Confirmatória com Adolescentes e Jovens Adultos [The Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Adolescents and Young Adults]. Poster apresentado na XI Conferência Internacional de Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos. Braga, Portugal: Universidade do Minho.

Moura, O., Santos, R. A., Rocha, M., & Matos, P. M. (2010). Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Factor structure and invariance across adolescents and emerging adults. International Journal of Testing, 10(4), 364-382. Https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.487964

Original version

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

Theoretical background

The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC) is based on the cognitive-contextual framework proposed by Grych e Fincham (1990) for understanding interparental conflict from the child perspective.

The CPIC consists of 48 items organized into three factor scales (Conflict Properties, Threat, and Self-Blame) and nine subscales (Frequency, Intensity, Resolution, Threat, Coping Efficacy, Content, Self-Blame, Triangulation, and Stability).

The Conflict Properties scale reflects conflict that occurs regularly, involves higher levels of hostility, and is poorly resolved.

The Threat scale measures the degree to which children feel threatened by and are able to cope with interparental conflict when it occurs.

Finally, the Self-Blame scale assesses the frequency of child-related conflict and the degree to which children blame themselves for interparental conflict.

Description

Assessment Domain: Behavior.

Type of Instrument: Self-report questionnaire.

Number of items: 48 items, Likert scale with a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree).

Application: Individual or group, 10 minutes.

Population: Children, adolescents, and emerging adults.

Dimensions

The CPIC consists of 48 items organized into three factor scales (Conflict Properties, Threat, and Self-Blame) and nine subscales (Frequency, Intensity, Resolution, Threat, Coping Efficacy, Content, Self-Blame, Triangulation, and Stability).

Studies

The Portuguese version of the CPIC has studies with children, adolescents and emerging adults from intact families and divorced parents.

The Portuguese version of the CPIC can be used in clinical practice and for research purpose. PsyAssessmentLab is available to collaborate in any research projects related to this instrument.

Contacts

Octávio Moura (octaviomoura@gmail.com).

References

  1. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.267
  2. Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131346
  3. Moura, O., Santos, R. A., & Matos, P. M. (2006). The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Análise Factorial Confirmatória com Adolescentes e Jovens Adultos [The Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Adolescents and Young Adults]. Poster apresentado na XI Conferência Internacional de Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos. Braga, Portugal: Universidade do Minho.
  4. Moura, O., Santos, R. A., Rocha, M., & Matos, P. M. (2010). Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC): Factor structure and invariance across adolescents and emerging adults. International Journal of Testing, 10(4), 364-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.487964