Sex Roles

, Volume 69, Issue 3–4, pp 115–119 | Cite as

Contemporary Issues in the Measurement of Partner Violence

Original Article


The construction of this special issue, focusing on measurement of intimate partner violence (IPV), was designed to raise questions and to point out potential limitations by which social scientists have approached measuring IPV. Research on IPV, consisting mostly of United States’ samples, is critiqued with the goal of expanding our conceptions of this phenomenon and energizing future research focused on measurement of IPV. This special issue contains a historical perspective of the measurement of IPV, addresses technical concerns of reliability and validity as they apply to IPV, considers unique aspects of assessment based on gender or same-sex relationships, contains a novel approach proposing assessment of interactional observation units, and proposes methodologies for assessment with different cultures. All contributors provide recommendations for improving the assessment of IPV.


Intimate partner violence (IPV) IPV assessment IPV measurement Cultural assessment Reliability/validity 


  1. Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L. (2012). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0218-3.
  2. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). The Beck Depression Inventory (2nd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. J. (2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5.
  4. McHugh, M. C., Rakowski, S., & Swiderski, C. (2013). Men’s experience of psychological abuse: Conceptualization and measurement issues. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0274-3.
  5. Mechanic, M. B., & Pole, N. (2012). Methodological considerations in conducting ethnoculturally sensitive research on intimate partner abuse and its multidimensional consequences. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0246-z.
  6. Ryan, K. M. (2012). Issues of reliability in measuring intimate partner violence during courtship. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0233-4.
  7. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. White, J. W., Yuan, N. P., Cook, S. L., & Abbey, A. (2012). Ethnic minority women’s experiences with intimate partner violence: Using community-based participatory research to ask the right questions. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0237-0.
  9. Winstok, Z. (2013). From a static to a dynamic approach to the study of partner violence. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0278-z.
  10. Woodin, E. M., Sotskova, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Intimate partner violence assessment in an historical context: Divergent approaches and opportunities for progress. Sex Roles, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0294-z.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Kentucky Medical CollegeLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLycoming CollegeWilliamsportUSA

Personalised recommendations