Content area
Full text
Sex Roles (2013) 69:149167 DOI 10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Validity Concerns in the Measurement of Womens and Mens Report of Intimate Partner Violence
Diane R. Follingstad & M. Jill Rogers
Published online: 26 February 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The measurement of intimate partner violence (IPV) has proven to be more complex than originally anticipated and content and construct validity need to be greatly improved for IPV assessment. For measurement of IPV in the United States, these validity issues range from providing the most accurate wording for the content domain to controversies as to when violent actions are counted (e.g., self-defense) or whether to include mild aggression (e.g., psychological conflict tactics) that may be more normative and not harmful. The three major forms of IPV (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological abuse) have distinct validity issues and may require different modalities for assessment. Gender needs to be considered when establishing construct validity due to differences in the meaning of aggression, impacts of abuse, and even patterns of violence for women and men. External threats to validity include potential bias of self-report and motivations when reporting on a partner, discrepancies in couples reports, the influence of response styles, and design issues affecting reporting. Traditional methods used to establish validity for IPV scales are reviewed and critiqued. Recommendations for enhancing validity in IPV assessment are provided.
Keywords Intimatepartnerviolence .Genderissuesre:IPV . Measurement of IPV . Validity issues
Introduction
Establishing the validity of instruments as successfully measuring the construct of intimate partner violence (IPV) has proven to be more complex and challenging than originally thought. Researchers devising IPV measures have acknowledged the need for verifying the appropriateness of their scales and the paramount importance of demonstrating that a particular measurement device is appropriate, accurate, and comprehensive for covering the domain of this phenomenon (e.g., Murphy and Hoover 2001; Tolman 2001). It is the thesis of this paper that researchers devising instrumentation to measure IPV face many difficulties for establishing validity because of a variety of internal and external threats. For example, there is a lack of consensus regarding the exact domain to assess, which creates ambiguity as to what exactly is being validated. Also, the sensitivity and privacy of the subject matter in addition to IPV being interpersonal...