Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 189–203 | Cite as

The Severity of Violence Against Men Scales

  • Linda L. Marshall


In response to the need to differentiate the effects of female and male violence, scales were developed applicable to female violence against men. Two versions of the Severity of Violence Against Men Scale (SVAMS) were devised as a counterpart to the Severity of Violence Against Women Scales (SVAWS). On 10-point rating scales, college males (N = 570) rated how serious, aggressive, abusive, violent, and threatening it would be if a woman did each of 46 acts to a man. The mean of each act across the ratings was calculated and then submitted to factor analysis. Eight factors emerged representing threats of mild, moderate, and serous violence, actual mild, minor, moderate, and serious violence and sexual violence. Community men (N = 115) rated the same acts on seriousness, aggressiveness, and abusiveness. All factors were unidimensional. Second order factor analysis confirmed that two dimensions (physical threats and actual violence) were represented. In contrast to the SVAWS, sexual violence loaded with threats of physical violence. The groups' ratings of physical and emotional harm provided the weightings for future research with student (SVAMS-S) and adult (SVAMS) samples.

Key words

abuse assessment dating violence martial violence, conflict 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arias, L, and Johnson, P. J. (1986).Evaluations of physical aggression in marriage, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Barling, J., O'Leary, K. D., Jouriles, E. N., Vivian, P., and MacEwen, K. E. (1987). Factor similarity of the conflict tactics scales across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications.J. Fam. Viol. 2: 37–54.Google Scholar
  3. Finkelhor, P., Hotaling, G. T., and Yllo, K. (1988).Stopping family violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Gondolf, E. W. (1987). Evaluation programs for men who batter: Problems and prospects.J. Fam. Viol. 2: 95–108.Google Scholar
  5. Hudson, W. W., and McIntosh, S. R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions.J. Marr. Fam. 43: 873–885.Google Scholar
  6. Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization.Fam. Relat. 35: 383–388.Google Scholar
  7. Marshall, L. L. (1992). Development of the Severity of violence against women scales.J. Fam. Viol. 7: 103–121.Google Scholar
  8. O'Leary, K. D., and Arias, I. (1988). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In Hotaling, G. T., Finkelhor, A., Kirkpatrick, J. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds).Family Abuse and Its Consequences, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E. (1989). The help-seeking behavior of physically and sexually abused college students. In Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E. (eds.),Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales.J. Man. Fam. 41: 75–86.Google Scholar
  11. Sugarman, D. B., and Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E., (eds.),Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Weis, J. G. (1989). Family violence research methodology and design. In Ohlin, L. L., and Tonry, M. (eds.),Family Violence, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Windle, M. (1988). Psychometric strategies of measures of temperment: A methodological critique.Int. J. Behav. Devel. 11: 171–201.Google Scholar
  14. Yllo, K. (1989). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In Yllo, K. and Bograd M. (eds.),Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda L. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDenton

Personalised recommendations