The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Assessment. 2021 Sep;28(6):1601-1613. doi: 10.1177/1073191120911097. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is frequently used to assess intimate partner violence (IPV), but consistently yields low to moderate interpartner concordance of reports. Interpartner concordance on an alternative measure, the Event History Calendar Interview (EHCI), is largely unknown. We observed limited interpartner concordance of IPV reports on the CTS2 and EHCI, with wives generally reporting more IPV than husbands. Compared with the CTS2, the EHCI detected more cases of IPV, but not differential behavior counts. Partners' posttraumatic stress disorder severity, a common respondent characteristic and focus of IPV research, was associated with low interpartner concordance of reports on the CTS2, but not the EHCI. Additionally, husbands' posttraumatic stress disorder severity was associated with wives reporting more husband-perpetrated IPV on the CTS2 than the EHCI. Overall, the EHCI appears to mitigate some of the problems associated with the CTS2 as a measure of IPV, particularly among more highly traumatized samples.
修订后的冲突策略量表（CTS2）常用于评估亲密伴侣暴力（IPV），但报告的夫妻间一致性始终较低且中等。关于替代量表事件历史日历访谈（EHCI）的夫妻间一致性在很大程度上尚不清楚。我们观察到 CTS2 和 EHCI 上的 IPV 报告的夫妻间一致性有限，妻子通常比丈夫报告更多的 IPV。与 CTS2 相比，EHCI 检测到更多的 IPV 案例，但不是不同的行为计数。伴侣的创伤后应激障碍严重程度，这是 IPV 研究的常见受访者特征和焦点，与 CTS2 上报告的夫妻间一致性较低有关，但与 EHCI 无关。此外，丈夫的创伤后应激障碍严重程度与妻子在 CTS2 上报告的丈夫实施的 IPV 比 EHCI 更多有关。总体而言，EHCI 似乎减轻了 CTS2 作为 IPV 测量工具的一些问题，尤其是在创伤程度更高的样本中。
