Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 399–415 | Cite as

A Multidimensional Definition of Partner Abuse: Development and Preliminary Validation of the Composite Abuse Scale

Article

Abstract

The lack of definitional consistency about domestic violence and the absence of a well-validated comprehensive abuse screening questionnaire have been major methodological flaws in domestic violence research. While there are several screening questionnaires in use, they either are narrowly defined and do not have discrete measures of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse or have not been validated on both abused and nonabused samples. This study presents the development and preliminary validation of a new partner abuse screening questionnaire (Composite Abuse Scale; CAS). Items measuring the three areas of partner abuse were extracted from four published scales: the Conflict Tactics Scale, Measure of Wife Abuse, Inventory of Spouse Abuse, and Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. A survey using these items was sent to all nurses working at a large Australian public, inner-city teaching hospital. Factor analyses of the responses of 427 participants revealed four dimensions: Severe Combined Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment. Preliminary evidence is presented on validity and a high scale reliability is reported fof each subscale.

emotional abuse severe partner abuse harassment definition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abramson, J. H. (1990). Survey Methods in Community Medicine, Churchill Livingstone, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (1993). Wife-battering—An Australian perspective. J. Family Violence 8: 229–251.Google Scholar
  3. Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, Newberry Park, CA, pp. 11–25.Google Scholar
  4. Candib, L. M. (1989). Violence against women: No more excuses. Family Med. 21: 339–341.Google Scholar
  5. Candib, L. M. (1990). Naming the contradiction: Family medicine's failure to face violence against women. Family Commun. Health 13: 47–57.Google Scholar
  6. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (1992). Knowledge and social change. In Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (eds.), Women, Violence and Social Change, Routledge, London, pp. 251–283.Google Scholar
  7. Hoff, L. A. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. In Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Collaborative Feminist Research and the Myth of Objectivity, Sage, Newberry Park, CA, pp. 269–281.Google Scholar
  8. Hudson, W., and McIntosh, S. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions. J. Marriage Family 43: 873–888.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. J. Marriage Family 57: 283–294.Google Scholar
  10. Koss, M. (1990). The Women's Mental Health Research Agenda. Am. Psychol. 45: 374–380.Google Scholar
  11. Loring, M. T. (1994). Emotional Abuse Lexington Books, New York.Google Scholar
  12. McLennan, W. (1996) Womens Safety in Australia Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. Neidig, P. H., and Freidman, D. H. (1984). Spouse Abuse: A Treatment Program for Couples Research Press, IL.Google Scholar
  14. Rodenberg, F., and Fantuzzo, J. (1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique. J. Family Violence 8: 203–217.Google Scholar
  15. Sassetti, M. R. (1993). Domestic violence. Primary Care 20: 289–304.Google Scholar
  16. Saunders, D. G. (1988). Wife abuse, husband abuse or mutual combat. A feminist perspective on the empirical findings. In Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse Sage, Newberry Park, CA, pp. 91–113.Google Scholar
  17. Statulevicius, E. (1991). Measuring Incidence of Domestic Violence: An Investigation of Gender Differences and Methodologically Flawed Research Unpublished honours thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  18. Straus, M. A. (1990). Injury and frequency of assault and the “representative sample fallacy” in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptation in 8145 Families Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
  19. Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. J. Marriage Family 48: 465–479.Google Scholar
  20. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Violence in the home. In Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. K. (eds.), Behind Closed Doors. Violence in the American Family Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 4–28.Google Scholar
  21. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D. (1996). The Revised Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS2)—Development and preliminary psychometric data. J. Family Issues 17: 283–316.Google Scholar
  22. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Tolman, R. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence Victims 4: 159–177.Google Scholar
  24. Yegidis, B. L. (1989). Abuse Risk Inventory for Women Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Yllo, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and violence. In Gelles, R. J., and Loseke, D. R. (eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence Sage, Newberry Park, CA, pp. 47–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelsey Hegarty
    • 1
  • Mary Sheehan
    • 2
  • Cynthia Schonfeld
    • 2
  1. 1.Social and Preventive Medicine DepartmentUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social ScienceQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations