000			02966nab a22002537a 4500
999			_c6251 _d6251
005			20250625151509.0
008			190514s2016 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_93264 _aHamby, Sherry L.
245			_aSelf-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: _bA multi-study investigation _cSherry Hamby
260			_bAmerican Psychological Association, _c2016
500			_aPsychology of Violence, 2016, 6(2), 323-335.
520			_aObjective: Gender patterns in intimate partner violence (IPV) remain a controversial topic. Some self-report measures produce gender “parity” in IPV rates. However, other self-report surveys do not produce gender parity, nor do arrests, reports to law enforcement, homicide data, helpseeking data, or witness reports. This methodological inconsistency is still poorly understood. The objective of these studies is to explore the effects of item wording on gender patterns for victimization reports in a range of samples. Method: In Study 1, 238 undergraduates were randomly assigned either the standard Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) physical victimization items or a version which changed the partner-specific wording to generic wording (“Someone” instead of “My partner”), with perpetrator information collected in follow-up. Studies 2 and 3 compared the standard approach to items with stems intended to reduce false positives (either “Not including horseplay or joking around . . .” or “When my partner was angry . . .”), among 251 college students and 98 agency-involved women, respectively. Study 4 implemented the “not joking” alternative from Study 3 in a large rural community sample (n = 1,207). Results: In Studies 1 and 2, significant Wording × Gender analyses indicated that some item wordings yielded higher rates of female than male victimization. Study 3 showed similar patterns across forms for highly victimized women. Study 4 found higher female than male victimization for a new scale and every item. Conclusion: The CTS and similar behavioral checklists are unusual in their inattention to false positives. Self-report measures designed to minimize false positives produce results consistent with other IPV methodologies; that is, they do not demonstrate gender parity. The Partner Victimization Scale, described here, can be used when a scale that has multimethod convergence with other IPV methodologies is desired. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Author's abstract). Record #6251
650			_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650		0	_96447 _aGENDER SYMMETRY DEBATE
650			_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650			_aPREVALENCE _9457
650			_aSURVEYS _9592
651		4	_aUNITED STATES _92646
773	0		_tPsychology of Violence, 2016, 6(2), 323-335.
830			_aPsychology of Violence _95489
856			_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038207 _yRead abstract
942			_cARTICLE _2ddc