从警方报告的亲密伴侣暴力中衡量强制控制

IF 2.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Meghan Weissflog , Elke Ham , Sandy Jung , Soyeon Kim , Angela Wyatt Eke , Mary Ann Campbell , N. Zoe Hilton
{"title":"从警方报告的亲密伴侣暴力中衡量强制控制","authors":"Meghan Weissflog ,&nbsp;Elke Ham ,&nbsp;Sandy Jung ,&nbsp;Soyeon Kim ,&nbsp;Angela Wyatt Eke ,&nbsp;Mary Ann Campbell ,&nbsp;N. Zoe Hilton","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that often co-occurs with physical intimate partner violence (IPV) and some jurisdictions have criminalized this behavior. Research suggests that police can identify acts of coercive control but highlights disagreement on how to define and measure coercive control, which poses challenges to researchers gauging its influence on risk of physical IPV and to criminal justice practitioners responding to the offense. We tested inter-rater reliability in measures adapted from existing self-report coercive control assessments for documenting coercive control in police reports. In Study 1, two coders read three simulated police investigation reports and identified similar types of coercive control (67 %–100 % agreement) except for an “other” category (0 %). In Study 2, two coders demonstrated moderate agreement on the presence of coercive control categories (ICC = 0.56–0.59, 60 %–100 % agreement) in 20 brief fictional police reports, but disagreed on categorizing tactics that did not match the examples given. In Study 3, coders showed good agreement on the total number of coercive control items present in 20 real police reports (ICC = 0.78), and category-level agreement 60 %–100 %, using a 130-item checklist. Third-party identification of coercive control is possible; operationalizing coercive control through explicit behavioral examples improves coding reliability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 102442"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring coercive control from police reports of intimate partner violence\",\"authors\":\"Meghan Weissflog ,&nbsp;Elke Ham ,&nbsp;Sandy Jung ,&nbsp;Soyeon Kim ,&nbsp;Angela Wyatt Eke ,&nbsp;Mary Ann Campbell ,&nbsp;N. Zoe Hilton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that often co-occurs with physical intimate partner violence (IPV) and some jurisdictions have criminalized this behavior. Research suggests that police can identify acts of coercive control but highlights disagreement on how to define and measure coercive control, which poses challenges to researchers gauging its influence on risk of physical IPV and to criminal justice practitioners responding to the offense. We tested inter-rater reliability in measures adapted from existing self-report coercive control assessments for documenting coercive control in police reports. In Study 1, two coders read three simulated police investigation reports and identified similar types of coercive control (67 %–100 % agreement) except for an “other” category (0 %). In Study 2, two coders demonstrated moderate agreement on the presence of coercive control categories (ICC = 0.56–0.59, 60 %–100 % agreement) in 20 brief fictional police reports, but disagreed on categorizing tactics that did not match the examples given. In Study 3, coders showed good agreement on the total number of coercive control items present in 20 real police reports (ICC = 0.78), and category-level agreement 60 %–100 %, using a 130-item checklist. Third-party identification of coercive control is possible; operationalizing coercive control through explicit behavioral examples improves coding reliability.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102442\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225000911\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225000911","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

强制控制是一种经常与身体亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)同时发生的行为模式,一些司法管辖区已将这种行为定为刑事犯罪。研究表明,警察可以识别强制控制行为,但在如何定义和衡量强制控制方面存在分歧,这对研究人员衡量其对身体IPV风险的影响以及刑事司法从业人员对犯罪行为的反应提出了挑战。我们测试了从现有的自我报告强制控制评估中改编的措施的评估者之间的信度,以记录警察报告中的强制控制。在研究1中,两名编码员阅读了三份模拟警察调查报告,并确定了类似类型的强制控制(67% - 100%同意),除了“其他”类别(0%)。在研究2中,两名编码员在20份简短的虚构警察报告中对强制控制类别的存在表现出适度的一致(ICC = 0.56-0.59, 60% - 100%一致),但在与给出的例子不匹配的分类策略上存在分歧。在研究3中,编码员对20份真实警察报告中出现的强制控制项目的总数表现出良好的一致性(ICC = 0.78),使用130个项目的清单,类别水平一致性为60% - 100%。强制控制的第三方识别是可能的;通过显式行为示例实现强制控制可提高编码可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring coercive control from police reports of intimate partner violence
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that often co-occurs with physical intimate partner violence (IPV) and some jurisdictions have criminalized this behavior. Research suggests that police can identify acts of coercive control but highlights disagreement on how to define and measure coercive control, which poses challenges to researchers gauging its influence on risk of physical IPV and to criminal justice practitioners responding to the offense. We tested inter-rater reliability in measures adapted from existing self-report coercive control assessments for documenting coercive control in police reports. In Study 1, two coders read three simulated police investigation reports and identified similar types of coercive control (67 %–100 % agreement) except for an “other” category (0 %). In Study 2, two coders demonstrated moderate agreement on the presence of coercive control categories (ICC = 0.56–0.59, 60 %–100 % agreement) in 20 brief fictional police reports, but disagreed on categorizing tactics that did not match the examples given. In Study 3, coders showed good agreement on the total number of coercive control items present in 20 real police reports (ICC = 0.78), and category-level agreement 60 %–100 %, using a 130-item checklist. Third-party identification of coercive control is possible; operationalizing coercive control through explicit behavioral examples improves coding reliability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest. Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信