Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Center for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive and Behavioral Intervention, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Psychology Research Center, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Assessment. 2024 Jul;31(5):980-993. doi: 10.1177/10731911231196483. Epub 2023 Sep 21.
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.
准确评估亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)对于指导公共政策和干预措施至关重要。冲突策略量表修订版(CTS-2)是最常用的工具之一。尽管具有良好的心理测量特性,但有关伴侣间一致性的研究指出,其估计值较低至中等,这引发了对通过单一伴侣报告获得的结果的有效性的一些关注。本横断面研究介绍了以前未用于评估伴侣间一致性的指标。对来自社区的 268 对不同性别伴侣的施暴者和受害者的报告进行了分析。我们的研究结果普遍表明,在 IPV 发生上的一致性水平要好于频率,这表明在该人群中,代理方法(即使用单一伴侣报告)可能是评估 IPV 发生的可靠方法,但不是评估其频率的可靠方法。还讨论了不同 IPV 评估实践的优点和局限性。