The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)

Abstract

The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) is a specialized, multi-dimensional psychometric instrument developed by David A. Wolfe and colleagues in 2001 to assess the prevalence, frequency, and severity of conflict resolution styles and aggressive behaviors within adolescent romantic relationships. Designed specifically in response to the developmental limitations of adult-centric measures—such as the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)—the CADRI captures dating violence perpetration and victimization across diverse relational contexts characteristic of youth aged 13 to 19 years. While the comprehensive inventory encompasses positive conflict resolution strategies alongside five distinct abusive subtypes, widely deployed short forms and perpetration inventories focus on 24 critical indicators of relationship aggression: Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Threatening Behavior, Relational Aggression, and Verbal/Emotional Abuse.

Administered via a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from Never to Often (or a standard 1 to 4 / 0 to 3 ordinal continuum), the instrument evaluates behavioral occurrences over a retrospective 12-month recall window. Psychometric evaluations across diverse adolescent samples demonstrate robust internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .72 to .86 for perpetration domains and test-retest reliability estimates exceeding .68 over two- to four-week intervals. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validities have been confirmed through significant correlations with childhood maltreatment exposure, peer violence, anger regulation deficits, and patriarchal gender role attitudes. Confirmatory factor analyses support a multidimensional oblique structure, highlighting its psychometric sensitivity for identifying young people at risk of relationship violence and evaluating primary prevention initiatives such as school-based healthy relationships programs.

Keywords

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory, CADRI, adolescent dating violence, teen dating aggression, psychometrics, relational aggression, physical abuse, emotional abuse, interpersonal conflict, youth relationship scales, partner violence perpetration, dating violence assessment

Authors

The CADRI was developed by a team of clinical psychologists and developmental researchers specializing in child trauma, family violence, and youth aggression:

• David A. Wolfe, Ph.D. – Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario, and former RBC Chair in Children’s Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, Canada. A leading authority on child maltreatment and adolescent relationship dynamics, Dr. Wolfe was instrumental in developing youth violence prevention initiatives, notably “The Fourth R.”
• Katreena Scott, Ph.D. – Professor and Academic Director of the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children at Western University, specializing in domestic violence intervention, perpetrator treatment, and family dynamics.
• Christine Wekerle, Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences at McMaster University, known for her scholarship in adolescent mental health and the sequelae of child maltreatment.
• Debbie Reitzel-Jaffe, Ph.D. – Clinical psychologist and researcher investigating trauma and healthy adolescent development.
• Claire Grasley, M.Sc. – Research associate and program evaluator focused on youth health promotion and community safety.
• Anna-Lee Straatman, M.L.I.S. – Project manager and researcher at the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children.

Purpose

Adolescence represents a critical developmental transition characterized by the emergence of initial romantic attachments, sexual exploration, and the reconfiguration of social identity. During this formative period, young people often lack mature communication skills, emotional regulation strategies, and constructive problem-solving models necessary to navigate the frictions of romantic intimacy. Consequently, conflict within adolescent dating relationships frequently escalates into maladaptive, coercive, and violent interactions. Prior to the development of the CADRI, researchers and clinicians routinely relied upon adult domestic violence instruments, particularly the original and revised versions of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). However, adult-focused instruments proved developmentally misaligned with adolescent relationship dynamics for several critical reasons:

• Developmental Contextualization: Adult domestic violence scales prioritize marital paradigms, cohabitation disputes, economic leverage, and shared child-rearing conflicts, entirely omitting adolescent-specific modes of social navigation.
• Peer-Mediated Aggression: Adolescent dating is embedded within peer groups, where covert hostility, social exclusion, manipulation of peer networks, and social sabotage (relational aggression) often serve as primary abusive tactics. Traditional adult scales omit these behaviors.
• Severity Calibration: Adult measures often focus on severe physical trauma (e.g., weapons, choking, severe beatings), which exhibits lower baseline frequencies in younger teen dating samples, while failing to detect subtle forms of coercion, surveillance, public mockery, and boundary violations.

The CADRI was explicitly engineered to fill this empirical and clinical void. Its primary purpose is to provide an ecologically valid, developmentally sensitive, and psychometrically sound assessment of relationship conflict and aggression perpetration and victimization in youth aged 13 to 19. In clinical and educational practice, the instrument is used as a screening tool to identify adolescents engaging in or being subjected to destructive relationship patterns. In intervention and research settings, it serves as a pre- and post-test metric to evaluate the efficacy of universal dating violence prevention curricula, anger management programs, and trauma recovery therapies.

Psychological Construct

The CADRI measures the psychological construct of Adolescent Dating Aggression and Conflict Behaviors. Rather than treating dating violence as a single, homogenous entity, the inventory conceptualizes conflict behavior as a multifaceted, continuous continuum of maladaptive coercive strategies deployed during romantic arguments or interpersonal disagreements. The 24-item perpetration form captures five distinct structural dimensions:

1. Relational Aggression

Relational aggression involves actions intended to harm a partner’s social standing, reputation, peer relationships, or sense of interpersonal belonging. In adolescent dating, where social status within high school peer networks is linked to self-esteem, relational tactics represent potent forms of coercion. Within the CADRI, this construct is operationalized through behaviors such as turning shared peer networks against the partner, publicly sharing private information, and actively spreading malicious rumors (e.g., Item 2, Item 12, Item 24).

2. Physical Abuse

Physical abuse encompasses acts of direct bodily violence, force, or physical intrusion intended to cause somatic pain, injury, discomfort, or intimidation. Rooted in behavioral dysregulation and physical escalation during arguments, this dimension captures both moderate and severe physical assaults tailored to adolescent contexts, including pushing, shoving, kicking, hitting, punching, slapping, pulling hair, and throwing dangerous objects (e.g., Item 6, Item 16, Item 19, Item 23).

3. Sexual Abuse and Coercion

Sexual abuse covers violations of bodily autonomy, non-consensual sexual contact, and psychological coercion directed toward sexual compliance within dating relationships. Recognizing that adolescent sexual coercion often takes subtle, manipulative, or non-stranger forms, this dimension evaluates actions ranging from unwanted sexual touching and non-consensual kissing to explicit threats deployed to force sexual activity (e.g., Item 1, Item 9, Item 11).

4. Verbal and Emotional Abuse

Verbal and emotional abuse represents the systematic use of verbal degradation, hostility, humiliation, and psychological manipulation to undermine a partner’s emotional equilibrium and self-worth. This pervasive dimension includes speaking in an abrasive, contemptuous tone, hurling direct insults, provoking intentional jealousy, weaponizing past mistakes, assigning unilateral blame for interpersonal discord, mocking the partner in public social settings, and hyper-monitoring/surveillance of their whereabouts and social company (e.g., Item 3, Item 5, Item 7, Item 8, Item 10, Item 13, Item 14, Item 15, Item 17).

5. Threatening Behavior

Threatening behavior involves verbal and non-verbal warnings of forthcoming harm, destruction, or punitive action designed to induce fear, subjugation, or compliance. Unlike direct physical violence, threatening behavior functions as an instrument of psychological coercion by generating chronic apprehension. This construct captures explicit declarations of intent to inflict physical injury, throwing threats, posturing to frighten the partner, destroying valued personal possessions, and using abandonment or relationship termination as an emotional ultimatum (e.g., Item 4, Item 18, Item 20, Item 21, Item 22).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the CADRI draws upon several major developmental and clinical theories:

Social Learning Theory and Modeling

Informed by Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, the CADRI is grounded in the premise that aggressive conflict resolution patterns are learned behaviors acquired through direct observation, vicarious reinforcement, and cognitive modeling. Adolescents raised in environments characterized by interparental conflict, coercive domestic discipline, or family violence internalize cognitive scripts that frame aggression as an acceptable or necessary tool for conflict negotiation. These internalized scripts are subsequently reenacted within nascent peer and romantic attachments.

Intergenerational Transmission of Violence

Closely aligned with social learning, the Intergenerational Transmission of Violence hypothesis suggests that exposure to familial dysfunction fosters insecure schemas of intimacy. Youth who experience emotional, physical, or sexual trauma often develop hyper-vigilance toward interpersonal threats, leading them to misinterpret benign partner behaviors as malicious. As a consequence, they may launch pre-emptive verbal, physical, or relational attacks to retain relational dominance and avoid perceived vulnerability.

Developmental Systems Theory

Under Richard M. Lerner’s Developmental Systems framework, adolescent behavior is viewed as the dynamic product of reciprocal interactions between maturing biological systems, cognitive appraisal mechanisms, peer ecology, and societal expectations. During puberty, neurological development is characterized by rapid maturation of the limbic system alongside a gradually maturing prefrontal cortex. This neurodevelopmental window leaves adolescents prone to high emotional reactivity, sensation-seeking, and impaired executive inhibitory control during heightened interpersonal arousal. The CADRI assesses behavioral manifestations that emerge at this intersection of neurobiological impulsivity, romantic inexperience, and peer-group dynamics.

Attachment Theory

Originally formulated by John Bowlby and extended to romantic relationships by Hazan and Shaver, attachment theory posits that internal working models of self and others govern romantic behavior. Anxiously attached adolescents often display hyper-activating strategies—manifesting on the CADRI as tracking a partner’s location, jealousy induction, and frantic attempts to prevent separation through threats of abandonment. Conversely, avoidantly attached youth may employ deactivating strategies, displaying verbal hostility, emotional withdrawal, or contempt to enforce interpersonal distance.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the CADRI has been supported across numerous adolescent populations, high school cohorts, community programs, and clinical samples:

Construct and Factorial Validity

During the initial validation program conducted by Wolfe et al. (2001) with a diverse normative cohort of over 580 high school adolescents, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) substantiated the multidimensional structure of dating violence. The identified five-factor structure provided superior model fit over unidimensional models, confirming that physical abuse, verbal/emotional hostility, sexual coercion, relational sabotage, and threatening behaviors, while intercorrelated, represent distinct behavioral dimensions.

Convergent Validity

The CADRI demonstrates robust convergent validity with validated indices of interpersonal violence, psychopathology, and family trauma. CADRI subscales correlate positively with:

• The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS/CTS2): CADRI physical and verbal subscales demonstrate strong convergent correlations ($r = .60$ to $.78$) with the physical assault and psychological aggression dimensions of the CTS.
• Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ): Perpetration of dating violence on the CADRI correlates significantly ($r = .28$ to $.45, p < .001$) with histories of physical abuse, emotional neglect, and witnessing interparental domestic violence.
• State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI): Trait anger, externalized anger expression, and low anger control consistently predict elevated scores across all five CADRI perpetration domains.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by low, non-significant correlations with non-relational cognitive constructs, such as academic aptitude and general intellectual functioning ($r < .10, p > .05$). Furthermore, the CADRI effectively differentiates between benign conflict communication (e.g., standard ideological disagreement) and systemic patterns of coercive control, confirming that the inventory captures interpersonal dysfunction rather than baseline romantic involvement.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

Longitudinal investigations employing the CADRI indicate that elevated perpetration scores during middle adolescence (grades 9 and 10) significantly predict persistent intimate partner violence (IPV) in late adolescence and early adulthood. In clinical and educational intervention trials, such as evaluations of “The Fourth R” healthy relationships curriculum, CADRI scores demonstrate substantial sensitivity to intervention effects, showing significant decreases in violent behaviors among experimental groups compared to control groups at 12- and 24-month follow-ups.

Reliability

The CADRI demonstrates sound reliability across varied adolescent demographic groups, clinical settings, and research environments:

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the CADRI across standard validation studies demonstrate high reliability:

• Total Inventory Perpetration: $\alpha = .85$ to $.91$, indicating high composite reliability.
• Verbal / Emotional Abuse: $\alpha = .78$ to $.84$, reflecting consistent measurement of psychological hostility.
• Physical Abuse: $\alpha = .75$ to $.83$, confirming strong consistency despite lower base-rate occurrences in general populations.
• Relational Aggression: $\alpha = .70$ to $.79$, demonstrating acceptable to good internal consistency for peer-mediated social tactics.
• Threatening Behavior: $\alpha = .72$ to $.80$, indicating reliable measurement of intimidation tactics.
• Sexual Abuse: $\alpha = .65$ to $.75$. The slightly lower alpha coefficient in this domain is standard for low-base-rate, highly skewed non-consensual sexual behaviors in community school cohorts, yet it remains acceptable for clinical screening.

Test-Retest Reliability

Stability coefficients evaluated across two- to four-week test-retest intervals reveal consistent measurement stability in the absence of targeted interventions, with stability coefficients ($r_{tt}$) ranging from $.68$ to $.82$ ($p < .001$). Over longer intervals (e.g., six months to one year), CADRI scores show expected developmental fluctuations reflecting relationship transitions, interventions, or maturational growth, while maintaining rank-order behavioral stability.

Measurement Invariance

Multiple-group CFA investigations have demonstrated metric and scalar measurement invariance across biological sexes (males vs. females) and across high school grade bands (grades 9 through 12). While base rates of specific behaviors may differ—with females often reporting equivalent or slightly higher frequencies of low-level verbal or relational tactics and males reporting more severe physical/sexual coercion—the underlying factor structure remains consistent across groups.

Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the CADRI was derived through classical test theory combined with contemporary exploratory and confirmatory factor modeling:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, Wolfe and colleagues conducted principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/direct oblimin) rotations on an initial pool of over 70 candidate conflict items administered to high school adolescents. The scree plot and eigenvalue-greater-than-one criteria supported a distinct multi-factor solution reflecting non-violent conflict resolution alongside the distinct domains of aggression. Items with cross-loadings greater than .30 on secondary factors or primary loadings below .40 were systematically eliminated, yielding the concise, non-redundant factor solution seen in the 24-item perpetration form.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling across independent cross-validation cohorts demonstrated acceptable to good model fit for the correlated five-factor perpetration model:

• Goodness of Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $ge .92$ to $.95$; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $ge .91$ to $.94$; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $= .042$ to $.052$ ($90% \text{ CI } [0.038, 0.058]$); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $le .054$.
• Standardized Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across items consistently span from $.45$ to $.82$, with the majority exceeding $.60$. For example, severe physical indicators (e.g., kicking, hitting, punching) display standardized loadings above $.75$ on the Physical Abuse dimension, while relational indicators (e.g., turning friends against a partner) display loadings exceeding $.65$ on the Relational Aggression dimension.
• Inter-Factor Correlations: Moderate to high positive correlations emerge between latent factors ($r = .42$ to $.71$), supporting a shared overarching construct of relationship distress while confirming that each subscale accounts for unique behavioral variance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)
• Target Population: Adolescents and young adults aged 13 to 19 years with current or past dating experience.
• Assessment Type: Self-report behavioral inventory (perpetration form; corresponding victimization forms also exist).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or secure online digital survey platforms.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for completion of the 24-item inventory.
• Item Count: 24 items measuring conflict and aggression perpetration behaviors.
• Recall Period: Past year (“During a conflict or argument in the past year…”).
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type scale:
  • 0 (or 1) = Never: Has not occurred in the past year.
  • 1 (or 2) = Seldom: Has occurred once or twice.
  • 2 (or 3) = Sometimes: Has occurred 3 to 5 times.
  • 3 (or 4) = Often: Has occurred 6 or more times (or regularly).
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Sexual Abuse (3 items): Items 1, 9, 11
  • Relational Aggression (3 items): Items 2, 12, 24
  • Verbal and Emotional Abuse (9 items): Items 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17
  • Physical Abuse (4 items): Items 6, 16, 19, 23
  • Threatening Behavior (5 items): Items 4, 18, 20, 21, 22
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Continuous Total Score: Summing or averaging all 24 items yields an overall Dating Violence Perpetration score (range: 0 to 72 using 0–3 coding, or 24 to 96 using 1–4 coding).
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by summing or taking the mean of items within each specific subscale domain.
  • Dichotomous Prevalence Scoring: Often utilized in epidemiological studies where any response greater than “Never” (i.e., $ge 1$) indicates the presence of a specific form of abuse within the past 12 months.
• Clinical and Screening Interpretation: Elevated overall scores signify heightened risk for reciprocal violence, psychological distress, and potential safety concerns. Endorsement of severe physical indicators (e.g., Items 16, 19) or sexual coercion (e.g., Items 1, 9) warrants immediate individualized clinical assessment and targeted safety planning.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The CADRI was developed and published in 2001 by Dr. David A. Wolfe and his research team at the University of Western Ontario and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. The instrument was placed into the academic literature to support dating violence prevention and youth mental health research. The scale is typically available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, public health tracking, and educational evaluation purposes, provided proper scholarly citation is maintained. Clinicians, school administrators, and researchers interested in using the inventory or its intervention-linked adaptations (such as “The Fourth R” evaluation materials) may access the instrument via the original empirical publication in Psychological Assessment or by contacting the authors through institutional academic channels. Commercial reproduction, inclusion in commercial software packages, or proprietary distribution requires formal permission from the copyright holders and the American Psychological Association.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Lewis, M. M. (2010). Parental conflict, anger control, and dating violence perpetration outcomes [Master’s thesis, San Diego State University]. SDSU DSpace. http://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/310/Lewis_McKenzie.pdf?sequence=1
• 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
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
• Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2009). The Fourth R: A school-based program to reduce dating violence and promote healthy relationships. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016492
• Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)