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 , Elke Ham , Sandy Jung , Soyeon Kim , Angela Wyatt Eke , Mary Ann Campbell , 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 , Elke Ham , Sandy Jung , Soyeon Kim , Angela Wyatt Eke , Mary Ann Campbell , 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}
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.
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.