Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Internal Consistency and Factor Structure of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales in a Sample of Deaf Female College Students

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is currently the most widely used measure for identifying cases of intimate partner violence within the hearing population. The CTS2 has been used successfully with individuals from various countries and cultural backgrounds. However, the CTS2 had not yet been used with Deaf individuals. The goal of the present study was to investigate the internal consistency reliability and the factor structure of the CTS2 within a sample of Deaf female college students. Psychometric analyses indicated that subscales measuring Victimization of Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, and Injury proved both reliable and valid in the current sample. Three subscales did not evidence reliability and the factor structure was not valid for Perpetration items.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While deaf individuals vary greatly with respect to language-use, the focus of the current study was on culturally Deaf individuals who primarily utilize American Sign Language, as delineated by the capital letter d in Deaf.

References

  • ADWAS: Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services. (1997). Justice for all: A domestic violence handbook for Deaf people. Seattle: Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldarondo, E., & Straus, M. A. (1994). Screening for physical violence in couple therapy: methodological, practical, and ethical considerations. Family Process, 33, 425–439.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. L., & Leigh, I. W. (in press). Intimate partner violence against deaf female college students. Violence Against Women.

  • Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Cassel Educational Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallaudet Research Institute. (2003). Literacy and deaf students. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Literacy/#reading.

  • Garson, G. D. (2008). Factor analysis. Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm

  • Glickman, N. S. (1996). What is culturally affirmative psychotherapy? In N. S. Glickman & M. A. Harvey (Eds.), Culturally affirmative psychotherapy with deaf persons (pp. 11–37). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, I. W., & Anthony-Tolbert, S. (2001). Reliability of the BDI-II with deaf persons. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46(2), 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, I. W., Corbett, C. A., Gutman, V. A., & Morere, D. A. (1996). Providing psychological services to deaf individuals: a response to new perceptions of diversity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(4), 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, K., & Grigsby, N. (2005). The ubiquitous clinical problem of adult intimate partner violence: the need for routine assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 264–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Young, T., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. (2006). How many people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies, 6, 306–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, R. R., Connelly, C. D., & Landsverk, J. A. (2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K. D., & Murphy, C. (1992). Clinical issues in the assessment of spouse abuse. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal sourcebook (pp. 26–46). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K. D., Vivian, D., & Malone, J. (1992). Assessment of physical aggression against women in marriage: the need for multimodal assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, S. L., & Campbell, C. D. (2005). Screening for domestic violence: recommendations based on a practice survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 276–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 1993, 517–526. December.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithey, M., & Straus, M. A. (2004). Primary prevention of intimate partner violence. In H. Kury & J. Obergfell-Fuchs (Eds.), Crime prevention—New approaches (pp. 239–276). Mainz/Germany: Weisser Ring Gemeinnutzige Verlagsgmbh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1990). Injury and frequency of assault and the “Representative sample fallacy” in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 75–91). Edison: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19–47). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: a study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N. A. Jackson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of domestic violence (pp. 190–197). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The conflict tactics scales handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gallaudet University, Department of Psychology, 800 Florida Ave NE, Washington, DC, 20002, USA

    Melissa L. Anderson & Irene W. Leigh

Authors
  1. Melissa L. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irene W. Leigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa L. Anderson.

Additional information

This research is based on a pre-dissertation study that was supported by a Small Research Grant from the Gallaudet University Research Institute. We would like to acknowledge the support provided by Drs. Dennis Galvan and Carolyn Corbett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, M.L., Leigh, I.W. Internal Consistency and Factor Structure of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales in a Sample of Deaf Female College Students. J Fam Viol 25, 475–483 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9308-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9308-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation