{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02342786683107275, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002466091245376079, 'mean_word_length': 5.496, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Four Instruments Measuring Conflict Behavior

Test-retest reliabilities, internal consistencies, and convergent test validities were examined for four measures of interpersonal behavior in handling conflict. Subjects were 86 graduate students in management. Instruments were those developed by Blake and Mouton, Lawrence and Lorsch, Hall, and by Thomas and Kilmann. Reliabilities were in the low-to-moderate range, with more recent instruments somewhat superior. Some problems with the first two measures were observed. The two most recent instruments, by Hall and by Thomas and Kilmann, show some convergence across all five modes of handling conflict. Convergence among other instruments varies by mode of handling conflict. Inspection of items suggests some reasons for the limited convergence.