Interpartner Agreement on Intimate Partner Violence Reports: Evidence From a Community Sample of Different-Sex Couples.

IF 3.5 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Assessment Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1177/10731911231196483

Marta Capinha, Daniel Rijo, Marlene Matos, Marco Pereira

{"title":"Interpartner Agreement on Intimate Partner Violence Reports: Evidence From a Community Sample of Different-Sex Couples.","authors":"Marta Capinha, Daniel Rijo, Marlene Matos, Marco Pereira","doi":"10.1177/10731911231196483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An accurate assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) is crucial to guide public policy and intervention. The Conflict Tactic Scales Revised (CTS-2) is one of the most widely used instruments to do so. Despite its good psychometric properties, research on interpartner agreement has pointed to low-to-moderate estimates, which generated some concerns about the validity of the results obtained through single-partner reports. This cross-sectional study introduces indexes that have not previously been used to assess interpartner agreement. Both partners' reports on perpetration and victimization were analyzed in a community sample of 268 different-sex couples. Our results generally pointed to better agreement levels on IPV occurrence than frequency, suggesting that the proxy method (i.e., using a single-partner report) could be a reliable method for assessing IPV occurrence but not its frequency in this population. Findings are discussed as well as the advantages and constraints of different IPV assessment practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"980-993"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11135001/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231196483","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

An accurate assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) is crucial to guide public policy and intervention. The Conflict Tactic Scales Revised (CTS-2) is one of the most widely used instruments to do so. Despite its good psychometric properties, research on interpartner agreement has pointed to low-to-moderate estimates, which generated some concerns about the validity of the results obtained through single-partner reports. This cross-sectional study introduces indexes that have not previously been used to assess interpartner agreement. Both partners' reports on perpetration and victimization were analyzed in a community sample of 268 different-sex couples. Our results generally pointed to better agreement levels on IPV occurrence than frequency, suggesting that the proxy method (i.e., using a single-partner report) could be a reliable method for assessing IPV occurrence but not its frequency in this population. Findings are discussed as well as the advantages and constraints of different IPV assessment practices.

查看原文本刊更多论文

亲密伴侣暴力报告的伴侣间协议：来自不同性别夫妇社区样本的证据。

准确评估亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）对于指导公共政策和干预至关重要。冲突策略量表修订版（CTS-2）是使用最广泛的工具之一。尽管其具有良好的心理测量特性，但对合作伙伴间协议的研究表明，估计值为低至中等，这引发了人们对通过单一合作伙伴报告获得的结果的有效性的一些担忧。这项横断面研究引入了以前未用于评估合作伙伴间一致性的指标。在268对不同性别夫妇的社区样本中分析了伴侣双方关于犯罪和受害的报告。我们的结果通常表明，与频率相比，对IPV发生的一致性水平更好，这表明代理方法（即使用单一伙伴报告）可能是评估IPV发生率的可靠方法，但不是评估其在该人群中的频率。讨论了调查结果以及不同IPV评估实践的优势和制约因素。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

2.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.