Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Validation notes assess conflict handling measures, indicating strong validity based on expert ratings and evidence.
This Record is a living collection of validation notes and accompanying materials for the five-item Conflict Handling Measure (CHM) assessing situational conflict handling (avoiding, integrating, obliging, dominating, compromising). Each validation note is provided as a separate PDF with linked analysis outputs (tables) and a brief documentation. Included in Version 1: Validation Note 1 (Germany; N = 2,396): correlational evidence for convergent/discriminant validity. (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18814779) Included in Version 2: Validation Note 2 (Germany; Expert Panel N = 4): Expert ratings supporting face validity and content validity. (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21471226) Citation: Cite the version-specific DOI for the exact evidence used. The concept DOI (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18814778) represents the continuously updated record across all versions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holst et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: