000			02763nab a22002777a 4500
650			_9181 _aDATA ANALYSIS
999			_c5312 _d5312
005			20250625151425.0
008			170227t2014 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aLehrner, Amy _96444
245			_aConstruct validity of the Conflict Tactics Scales : _ba mixed-method investigation of women’s intimate partner violence _cAmy Lehrner and Nicole E. Allen
260			_bAmerican Psychological Association, _c2014
500			_aPsychology of Violence, 2014, 4(4): 477-490
501			_aRecommended reading
520			_a"The Conflict Tactics Scales 2 (CTS; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is the most widely used measure of intimate partner violence (IPV), and it consistently indicates high rates of IPV by young women in dating relationships. However, the CTS has been criticized for not assessing the context of the acts it measures. This study undertook a mixed-method investigation of women’s IPV, incorporating both the CTS and in-depth interviews, to contextualize women’s CTS reports of their use of violence against dating partners. Method: Four hundred seventy-six female undergraduates who had been in a heterosexual dating relationship in the past year completed the CTS. Women were then purposively recruited for follow-up interviews in a balanced design across 4 groups defined by self-reports of IPV perpetration on the CTS, ranging from none to severe and/or frequent violence. Thirty-four women completed interviews. Results: Although women’s CTS reports were consistent with rates reported in the literature, there were discrepancies with the interview data. Findings indicate that women report endorsing acts of playful wrestling/fighting (i.e., “roughhousing”) and mock violence on the CTS, and that such behavior is common among undergraduate women. The directionality of IPV identified by the CTS was also inconsistent with interview data. Conclusions: The CTS may potentially miscategorize acts and individuals and inflate estimates of the frequency and severity of women’s IPV in young, dating, nonclinical samples. Research and clinical implications include the need for clearer definitions of the construct of IPV and the development of alternative or complementary assessment measures." (Authors' abstract). Record #5312
650			_aRECOMMENDED READING _96431
650			_aGENDER _9269
650			_aGENDER SYMMETRY DEBATE _96447
650			_aWOMEN'S USE OF VIOLENCE _94412
651		4	_aUNITED STATES _92646
700			_aAllen, Nicole E. _96445
773	0		_tPsychology of Violence, 2014, 4(4): 477-490
830			_aPsychology of Violence _95489
856			_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037404 _yRead abstract
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE