Assessing the physical violence component of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales when used in heterosexual couples: An item response theory analysis

Cadernos de Saude Publica

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 53-62

  Reichenheim, Michael E ^a   Klein, Ruben ^b   Moraes, Claudia Leite ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^b Fundacao Cesgranrio   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Domestic violence; Questionnaires; Reliability and validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846015524     PISSN: 0102311X     EISSN: 16784464     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0102-311X2007000100007     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Kashani JH, Daniel AE, Dandoy AC, Holcomb WR. Family violence: impact on children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1992; 31:181-9.
2. Heise L, Pitanguy J, Germain A. Violence against women: the hidden health burden. Washington DC: The World Bank; 1994.
3. Straus MA, Gelles RJ. Physical violence in American families: risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8145 families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher; 1995.
4. Gelles RJ. Intimate violence in families. London: Sage Publications; 1997.
5. Carlson BE. Children exposed to intimate partner violence: research findings and implications for intervention. Trauma Violence Abuse 2000; 1: 321-42.
6. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R. World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
7. Waters H, Hyder A, Rajkotia Y, Basu S, Rehwinkel JA, Butchart A. The economic dimensions of interpersonal violence. Geneva: Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention, World Health Organization; 2004.
8. Simmel G. Conflict and the web of group affiliations. New York: The Free Press; 1955.
9. Adams BN. Coercion and consensus theories: some unresolved issues. Am J Sociol 1965; 71:714-6.
10. Straus MA. Measuring intra-familiar conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marriage Fam 1979; 41:75-88.
11. Archer J. Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics scales: a meta-analytic review. J Interpers Viol 1999; 14:1263-89.
12. Straus M. Handbook for the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). Durham: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire; 2000.
13. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues 1996; 17:283-316.
14. Barnett OW, Miller-Perrin CL, Perrin R. Family violence across the lifespan: an introduction. London: Sage Publications; 1997.
15. Hasselmann MH, Reichenheim ME. Adaptação transcultural da versão em português da Conflict Tactics Scales Form R (CTS-1), usada para aferir violência no casal: equivalências semântica e de mensuração. Cad Saúde Pública 2003; 19:1083-93.
16. Newton RR, Connely CD, Landsverk JA. An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educ Psychol Meas 2001; 61:317-35.
17. Lucente SW, Fals-Stewart W, Richards HJ, Goscha J. Factor structure and reliability of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for incarcerated female substance abusers. J Fam Viol 2001; 16:437-50.
18. Jones NT, Ji P, Beck M, Beck N. The reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2) in a female incarcerated population. J Fam Issues 2002; 23:441-57.
19. Straus MA. Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: a study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cult Res 2004; 38:407-32.
20. Nunnally JCJ, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
21. Wilson M. Constructing measures. An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.
22. Regan KV, Bartholomew K, Oram D, Landolt MA. Measuring physical violence in male same-sex relationships: an item response theory analysis of the Conflict Tactics Scales. J Interpers Viol 2002; 17:235-52.
23. Schafer J. Measuring spousal violence with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Notes on reliability and validity issues. J Interpers Viol 1996; 11:572-85.
24. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
25. Bock RD, Gibbons RD, Muraki E. Full-information factor analysis. Appl Psychol Meas 1988; 12:261-80.
26. Reichenheim ME, Moraes CL. A comparison between the abuse assessment screen and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for measuring physical violence during pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58:253-7.
27. Moraes CL, Hasselmann MH, Reichenheim ME. Adaptação transcultural para o português do instrumento "Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)" utilizado para identificar a violência entre casais. Cad Saúde Pública 2002; 18:163-75.
28. Moraes CL, Reichenheim ME. Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) Portuguese version used to identify violence within couples. Cad Saúde Pública 2002; 18:783-96.
29. Wilson D, Wood R, Gibbons RD. TESTFACT: test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis. Mooresville: Scientific Software; 1984.
30. Thissen D, Steinberg L, Wainer H. Detection of DIF using the parameters of item response models. In: Holland PW, Wainer H, editors. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993. p. 67-113.
31. Zimowski MF, Muraki E, Mislevy R, Bock RD. BILOG-MG for Windows 3.0. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International; 2002.
32. Masters GN, Wright BD. The essential process in family of measurement models. Psychometrika 1984; 49:529-44.
33. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software/SE, Release 8.2. College Station: Stata Corporation; 2004.
34. Barling J, O'Leary KD, Jouriles EM, Vivian D, Macewen KE. Factor similarity of the Conflict Tactics Scales across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications. J Fam Viol 1987; 2:37-54.
35. Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Krueger RF, Magdol L, Margolin G, Silva PA, et al. Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychol Assess 1997; 9:47-56.
36. Cascadi M, Avery-Leaf S, O'Leary KD, Slep AMS. Factor structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychol Assess 1999; 11:546-55.
37. Wacholder S. When measurement errors correlate with truth: surprising effects of nondifferential misclassification. Epidemiology 1995; 6:157-61.
38. Dosemeci M, Wacholder S, Lubin JH. Does non-differential misclassification always bias a true effect toward the null value? Am J Epidemiol 1990; 132:746-8.
39. Greenland S, Robins JM. Confounding and misclassification. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 122:495-506.
40. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W. Influence of model-building strategies on the results of a case-control study. Stat Med 1993; 12:1325-38.
41. Browning J, Dutton D. Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. J Marriage Fam 1986; 48:375-9.
42. Edleson JL, Brygger MP. Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences. J Appl Fam Child Stud 1986; 35:377-82.
43. Jouriles EN, O'Leary KD. Interspousal reliability of reports of marital violence. J Consult Clin Psychol 1985; 53:419-21.
44. O'Leary KD, Arias I. Assessing agreement of reports of spousal abuse. In: Hotaling GT, Finkelhorn D, Kirkpatrick JT, Straus MA, editors. Family abuse and its consequences: new directions in research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1989. p. 218-27.
45. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res 1998; 7:323-35.
46. Behling O, Law KS. Translating questionnaires and other research instrument: problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2000.
47. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1996.