Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?
Identifieur interne : 001133 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001132; suivant : 001134Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?
Auteurs : Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong ; Julia Y. Wernke ; Krista Lisdahl Medina ; John SchaferSource :
- Trauma, Violence, & Abuse [ 1524-8380 ] ; 2002-07.
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/15248380020033002
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99ECLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><author><name sortKey="Armstrong, Tisha Gangopadhyay" sort="Armstrong, Tisha Gangopadhyay" uniqKey="Armstrong T" first="Tisha Gangopadhyay" last="Armstrong">Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: gangopt@email.uc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati, gangopt@email.uc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wernke, Julia Y" sort="Wernke, Julia Y" uniqKey="Wernke J" first="Julia Y." last="Wernke">Julia Y. Wernke</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Medina, Krista Lisdahl" sort="Medina, Krista Lisdahl" uniqKey="Medina K" first="Krista Lisdahl" last="Medina">Krista Lisdahl Medina</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schafer, John" sort="Schafer, John" uniqKey="Schafer J" first="John" last="Schafer">John Schafer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/15248380020033002</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001133</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001133</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><author><name sortKey="Armstrong, Tisha Gangopadhyay" sort="Armstrong, Tisha Gangopadhyay" uniqKey="Armstrong T" first="Tisha Gangopadhyay" last="Armstrong">Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: gangopt@email.uc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati, gangopt@email.uc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wernke, Julia Y" sort="Wernke, Julia Y" uniqKey="Wernke J" first="Julia Y." last="Wernke">Julia Y. Wernke</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Medina, Krista Lisdahl" sort="Medina, Krista Lisdahl" uniqKey="Medina K" first="Krista Lisdahl" last="Medina">Krista Lisdahl Medina</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schafer, John" sort="Schafer, John" uniqKey="Schafer J" first="John" last="Schafer">John Schafer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Cincinnati</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Trauma, Violence, & Abuse</title><idno type="ISSN">1524-8380</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-8324</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-07">2002-07</date><biblScope unit="volume">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="181">181</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="193">193</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1524-8380</idno></series><idno type="istex">CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/15248380020033002</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_15248380020033002</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1524-8380</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>TISHA GANGOPADHYAY ARMSTRONG</name><affiliations><json:null></json:null><json:string>E-mail: gangopt@email.uc.edu</json:string><json:string>University of Cincinnati, gangopt@email.uc.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>JULIA Y. WERNKE</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>KRISTA LISDAHL MEDINA</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>JOHN SCHAFER</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string><json:string>University of Cincinnati</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>agreement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>measurement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>intimate partner violence</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>domestic violence</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>concordance rates</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_15248380020033002</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>967</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6914</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>44272</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>150</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>3</volume><publisherId><json:string>TVA</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>193</last><first>181</first></pages><issn><json:string>1524-8380</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1552-8324</json:string></eissn><title>Trauma, Violence, & Abuse</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>social work</json:string><json:string>family studies</json:string><json:string>criminology & penology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>criminology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/15248380020033002</json:string></doi><id>CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A Review of the Current Literature</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A Review of the Current Literature</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">TISHA GANGOPADHYAY</forename><surname>ARMSTRONG</surname></persName><email>gangopt@email.uc.edu</email><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati, gangopt@email.uc.edu</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">JULIA Y.</forename><surname>WERNKE</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">KRISTA LISDAHL</forename><surname>MEDINA</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">JOHN</forename><surname>SCHAFER</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Trauma, Violence, & Abuse</title><idno type="pISSN">1524-8380</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-8324</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-07"></date><biblScope unit="volume">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="181">181</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="193">193</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/15248380020033002</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_15248380020033002</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>agreement</term></item><item><term>measurement</term></item><item><term>intimate partner violence</term></item><item><term>domestic violence</term></item><item><term>concordance rates</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-07">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">sptva</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">TVA</journal-id><journal-title>Trauma, Violence, & Abuse</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1524-8380</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/15248380020033002</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_15248380020033002</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</article-title><subtitle>A Review of the Current Literature</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ARMSTRONG</surname><given-names>TISHA GANGOPADHYAY</given-names></name><aff>University of Cincinnati, <email xlink:type="simple">gangopt@email.uc.edu</email></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>WERNKE</surname><given-names>JULIA Y.</given-names></name><aff>University of Cincinnati</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>MEDINA</surname><given-names>KRISTA LISDAHL</given-names></name><aff>University of Cincinnati</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>SCHAFER</surname><given-names>JOHN</given-names></name><aff>University of Cincinnati</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>07</month><year>2002</year></pub-date><volume>3</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>181</fpage><lpage>193</lpage><abstract><p><italic>Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.</italic></p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>agreement</kwd><kwd>measurement</kwd><kwd>intimate partner violence</kwd><kwd>domestic violence</kwd><kwd>concordance rates</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW DO PARTNERS AGREE ABOUT THE OCCURRENCE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE? A Review of the Current Literature TISHA GANGOPADHYAY ARMSTRONG JULIA Y. WERNKE KRISTA LISDAHL MEDINA JOHN SCHAFER University of Cincinnati Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains informa- tion from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been as- sessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by sev- eral indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates. Key words: agreement, measurement, intimate partner violence, domestic violence, concordance rates INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE (IPV) isa se- riouspublic health concern for women world- wide. It has been estimated that approximately one woman in every three will be assaulted by an intimate male partner within her lifetime (Browne, 1993; Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999). National surveys suggest that between 16% and 22% of couplesin the general U.S. pop- ulation have experienced one or more episodes of IPV within the previousyear (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998; Straus& Kantor, 1994).1 Within these couples, women are more likely than men to be physically and psychologically harmed, and women report significantly more violent actsoverall (i.e., victimization and per- petration) than do men (Schafer et al., 1998). Given that IPV isan important public health issue, it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV to help secure funds for the prevention, treatment, and research related to it. Currently, 181 AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Chad Beck and Cheryl Kemp. This work was funded in part by grants to the last author from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K02AA00319) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R29DA09650). Please address correspondence and reprint requests to Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong, 416A Dyer Hall ML 376, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0376; e-mail: gangopt@email.uc.edu. TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 3, No. 3, July 2002 181-193 2002 Sage Publications measurement issues are an obstacle to obtaining accurate estimates of the frequency and occur- rence of IPV. National surveys on IPV use two main meth- odsof collecting data from people about vio- lence in their relation- ships: (a) the proxy method and (b) a method that in- volvesobtaining infor- mation from both mem- bersof the couple. The proxy method entailsob- taining information about the occurrence of violence from only one member of the couple chosen at random. This method assumes that one partner'sreport can be used as a proxy for the other partner 'sreport and assumes that couples agree completely on the occurrence of violence in their relationship. Some researchers including Moffit et al. (1997) support this methodology and indicate that their findings suggest that reports of abuse can be aggre- gated to form internally consistent scales that show strong interpartner agreement, thereby fulfilling cri- teria for reliability. Moreover, under research condi- tionsthat guarantee confidentiality, either abuser reportsor victimsreportsare suitable methodsfor use in research on partner abuse. (p. 47) The second method of collecting data in na- tional surveysinvolvesobtaining information from both members of the couple and assessing the agreement between the partners. There are a number of different waysto obtain prevalence ratesfrom thiscouple-level information: (a) One possibility is to count an occurrence when both membersreport a violent event, and any information in which only one member of the couple reports a violent episode is disregarded. Thismethod isreferred to asthe lower-bound estimate of IPV prevalence (Schafer et al., 1998). (b) Another possibility for obtaining prevalence ratesisby counting any reported violent event whether corroborated by the partner or not. Thisistermed the upper-bound estimate of IPV prevalence and hasbeen recommended by a number of researchers(e.g., Miller, 1990; Straus& Gelles, 1990). When all couples agree perfectly 182 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 Given that intimate partner violence is an important public health issue, it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV to help secure funds for the prevention, treatment, and research related to it. KEY POINTS OF THE RESEARCH REVIEW Important Points Thisarticle reviews15 studiesthat focuson agreement within the field of intimate partner vi- olence (IPV). Ten of these studies suggest that there is disagree- ment between partnersasto the occurrence of IPV in their relationships. Five studies found some level of agreement be- tween the partners. Background It is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV because partner violence is a serious public health concern for women worldwide. National surveys use two main methods of data collection about violence: (a) the proxy method and (b) a method that involvesobtaining infor- mation at the couple level. There has been some controversy as to whether couplesagree about the occurrence of violence in their relationships and whether the proxy method is a valid method for data collection. Once data have been collected at the couple level, a further problem involves researchers using dif- ferent indexes to assess agreement between the members of the couple. In addition, there are problemssurrounding the interpretation of these indexes. Researchers tend to subjectively decide what values represent good agreement. Findings The tendency in all of the reviewed research was to find that couplesagree about the nonoccur- rence of violence, and thiscan inflate the aggre- gate agreement statistic to make it appear as though there ismore agreement than there actu- ally is. Also, the statistical index used can have an effect on research results. No single aggregate index of agreement is likely to be sufficient in helping to define what consti- tutes good agreement. Researchersmay want to focuson different as- pectsof agreement and adopt a multidimen- sional approach to agreement assessment. It has been estimated that approximately one woman in every three will be assaulted by an intimate male partner within her lifetime. on the occurrence of IPV in their relationship, the upper- and the lower-bound estimates will be the same. When there is disagreement be- tween the membersof the couple, the level of this disagreement will be reflected by the size of the discrepancy between the two estimates. Thus, the difference between these two esti- mateswill increase with greater amountsof ag- gregate disagreement. (c) The final possibility for estimating IPV prevalence ratesinvolvesus- ing stochastic or probabilistic methods (Schafer & Caetano, 2000). These methods treat individ- ual reportsfrom each of the partnersasfallible indicatorsof IPV and estimate the prevalence of IPV using latent class analysis with the violence itemsasprobabilistic indicatorsfor the classes or typesof violence (McCutcheon, 1987). This method isa recent development in the area of estimating prevalence rates of IPV. Several issues must be considered when studying agreement between couples on IPV. Determining the extent to which partnersagree about the occurrence of IPV is essential for gain- ing accurate prevalence rates. National studies based on large probability samples traditionally have used the proxy method of data collection, primarily because it is cost effective and time ef- ficient. Examplesof nationally representative studies that rely on the proxy method include the National Family Violence Surveysin 1975, 1985, and 1992 (Straus& Gelles, 1990) and the National Violence Against Women Survey in 1995 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Prevalence ratesdetermined from surveyssuch asthese may vary depending on who isreporting the vi- olence (i.e., victim or perpetrator). Research conducted using clinical or community samples tendsto be nonprobability or convenience sam- ples; however, these studies generally tend to collect information from both membersof the couple. There has been some controversy as to whether couplesagree about the occurrence of violence in their relationships and whether the proxy method isa valid method of collecting in- formation about IPV (e.g., Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, in press). Obtaining couple-level data, al- though more time intensive and expensive, may be a better way to collect information about inci- dentsof violence within an intimate relation- ship. If couples agree, then the proxy method is a more cost-effective and time-saving method to use because it requires recruitment of and data collection from only one partner. However, if they do not agree, researchers must begin to talk to both partnersor use other methodsthat take into account this lack of agreement. A further problem illustrated in the literature isthat once researchersdecide to obtain infor- mation from both membersof the couple, they often use different indexes to assess the agree- ment between them. Sometimes, these indexes are a function of the data being collected. For ex- ample, the kappa statistic is often used when as- sessing agreement about the occurrence of IPV, whereasthe correlation coefficient hasbeen used to assess agreement about the frequency of particular actsof violence. In addition, conclu- sions about agreement may vary with the type of index being used (O'Leary & Arias, 1988). Schafer et al. (in press) have discussed the prob- lems associated with different aggregate in- dexes used to index (dis)agreement in research on IPV and suggested instead that multiple in- dexes be used that reflect different aspects of the data being studied. O'Leary and Arias (1988) purported that in situations in which research- ers are interested in the presence or absence of an abusive behavior as perceived by a male and a female, "it seems legitimate to present agree- ment data using several different agreement in- dices" (p. 225). In addition to the problem of varying indexes of assessment, there are problems surrounding the interpretation of these indexes. Researchers tend to subjectively decide what values of these sta- tistics represent good agreement. For example, one researcher may de- cide that a correlation of .1 isconsidered poor agree- ment, .3 isgood agreement, whereas.5 isexcel- lent agreement (e.g., Kenny, 1998). Another re- searcher may consider different cutoff values as representing different qualitative levels of agreement (e.g., Fleiss, 1981). Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 183 In addition to the problem of varying indexes of assessment, there are problems surrounding the interpretation of these indexes. Thisarticle will review the literature on agreement within the field of IPV. We will re- view the major studies that have collected and reported couple-level data about IPV. Agreement between membersof the coupleshasbeen as- sessed in all of the reviewed studies, with vary- ing results related to agreement. Archer (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of self-agreement and partners' agreement of physical violence in intimate relationships. However, his article used different inclusion criteria and was not as comprehensive as the current review. In sum, (a) there is controversy as to whether couplesagree on the occurrence of IPV; (b) re- searchers are using differ- ent indexes to assess agreement, at timeseven for the same data; and (c) if they are using the same index, researchers are then interpreting the re- sults differently and sub- jectively. Thus, IPV re- searchers do not appear to agree on what consti- tutes agreement. METHOD We conducted an ex- tensive literature search using the database PsychInfo with key- wordsincluding agreement, concordance, con- currence with IPV, domestic violence, and spousal abuse. Relevant articles were chosen based on whether they focused on agreement about IPV and whether they were peer-reviewed pub- lished research found in journals indexed in PsycINFO. We summarized each relevant arti- cle based on the subject population, the index used to measure agreement, the specific statistic found, and how the results were interpreted by each of the authors. Table 1 depictsthisinforma- tion in table form. The first and second authors independently divided the articlesinto two cat- egories: (a) those articles for which the research- ersfound disagreement between the partners and (b) those articles for which the researchers found agreement between the partners. The au- thorswere in 100% agreement asto the categori- zation of the chosen articles. RESULTS Findings: Couples Do Not Agree on IPV Nationally representative studies. In a partner agreement study, Szinovacz and Egley (1995) analyzed data from 4,088 couplesgathered as part of the National Survey of Familiesand Households. Using percentage agreement, the researchers found that the overall agreement on the occurrence of IPV washigh among all cou- ples(greater than 88%). However, when analyz- ing the data from couplesin which at least one partner reported violence in the relationship, agreement waslow (17%-29%). The researchers claim that these results indicate a response pat- tern in which violent couplestend to have only one spouse that reports the violence. The results indicated a gender biasin violence reporting with wivesshowing a tendency to report more violence, especially when the violence resulted in injury to the wife. It wasagreement about the nonoccurrence of violence in thisstudy that in- flated the overall agreement rates. In a national survey of 1,599 couples, Schafer et al. (1998) studied agreement between part- nersrelating to actsof IPV. Resultsof thisstudy indicated significant disagreement between partnersregarding the occurrence of IPV. Women were more likely to report that violence had occurred within their relationships. The re- searchers constructed lower-bound and upper- bound estimates of IPV to reflect the conflicting reportsof partners. Agreement about each of the violence itemsand overall violence wasas- sessed with Cohen's (1960) kappa statistic. Studies based on community samples. Szinovacz (1983) conducted one of the first studies of part- ner agreement regarding IPV. Of the 103 couples studied, approximately 80% were obtained through random telephone solicitation, whereas 20% were parentsof children in a university- based day care center. Participants were inter- viewed about conflict tacticsemployed by themselvesaswell astheir spousesand com- pleted the Conflict TacticsScales(CTS). Both 184 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 In sum, (a) there is controversy as to whether couples agree on the occurrence of IPV; (b) researchers are using different indexes to assess agreement, at times even for the same data; and (c) if they are using the same index, researchers are then interpreting the results differently and subjectively. partnersreported similar overall levelsof husband-to-wife violence in their relationships, whereaswivesreported more wife-to-husband violence than did their husbands. Using data from only those couples that indicated some de- gree of violence in their relationship, the re- searchers found that spouses disagreed considerably on the occurrence and frequency of specific acts of violence within their relation- ship, with agreement ratios ranging from 0% to 38%. For these couples, overall agreement about the occurrence of husband-to-wife violence was 27% and wife-to-husband violence was 40%. These results provide more evidence for the need to use separate reports by gender for dif- ferent typesof IPV (e.g., nonoccurrence, male to female, female to male). In Jourilesand O'Leary's(1985) study on interspousal reliability of reports on marital vio- lence, results again indicated that spouses disagreed on the frequency and occurrence of marital violence. Using the CTS with 65 couples beginning marital therapy and 37 couplesfrom a community sample, overall agreement be- tween spouses was high. However, among cou- plesin which at least one partner reported the occurrence of violence, agreement was substan- tially lower. When looking at reportsof marital violence occurring in the past 12 months, the re- searchers found that the occurrence agreement percentage for husbandswas50% in the clinical sample and 38% in the community sample and for wiveswas45% and 36%, respectively. In ad- dition, the percentage agreement on husbands' use of violence was 72% in the clinical sample and 77% in the community sample, whereas the percentage agreement on wives' use of violence was 72% and 80%, respectively. The study Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 185 TABLE 1: Summary of Methodology Used to Assess Agreement and Interpretation of Results Author Methodology Representative Statistic a Interpretation Bohannon, Dosser, and Lindley (1995) Percentage agreement Agreement about M-F physical aggression when it has occurred = 42% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Browning and Dutton (1986) ANOVA compari- son of means and correlations Mean for M-F violence as rated by wife = 17.33 and as rated by husband = 9.27 Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Edleson and Brygger (1986) Correlational analysis Agreement about use of a weapon (at intake M-F); Spearman's rho = .0514 Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Heckert and Gondolf (2000) Percentage agreement Occurrence agreement at follow-up for M-F violence = 17% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Jouriles and O'Leary (1985) Percentage agreement Occurrence agreement for F-M violence = 36% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Vivian (1994) Percentage agreement Disagreement about M-F violence = 32% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Margolin (1987) Frequency counts Severe F-M violence = 7 agreements versus 11 disagreements Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Schafer, Caetano, and Clark (1998) Kappa statistic Occurrence agreement for M-F violence = .39 and F-M violence = .36 Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Szinovacz and Egley (1995) Percentage agreement Agreement about wife's injuries = 17% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Szinovacz (1983) Percentage agreement Occurrence agreement for M-F violence = 27% Spouses disagree on occurrence of IPV Archer and Ray (1989) Kappa statistic Occurrence agreement for M-F violence = .47 and F-M violence = .39 Spouses agree on occurrence of IPV Cantos, Neidig, and O'Leary (1994) Percentage agreement Agreement that there was some M-F physical aggression = 90% Spouses agree on occurrence of IPV McLaughlin, Leonard, and Senchak (1992) Percentage agreement Occurrence agreement for IPV in the relationship = 83% Spouses agree on occurrence of IPV Moffitt et al. (1997) Kappa statistic and correlation Latent correlation of M-F violence on an aggregated physical abuse scale = .83 Spouses agree on occurrence of IPV O'Leary, Vivian, and Malone (1992) Kappa statistic Agreement on severe M-F violence (kappa = .67) Spouses agree on occurrence of IPV NOTE: IPV = intimate partner violence; M-F = male-to-female intimate partner violence; F-M = female-to-male intimate partner violence. a. This table contains selected representative statistics from each of the reviewed articles. found "considerable variability in the reliability of items measuring specific forms of marital vi- olence." Pearson product-moment correlations for these items ranged from .07 to 1.00, with a mean correlation of .41. Analysis of the eight itemsindicating the pres- ence or absence of hus- bands' use of violence in- dicated that for three of the items, wives reported significantly more vio- lence than did their hus- bands (p < .05). Margolin (1987) collected frequency data from a community sample of 103 couples con- cerning husband-to-wife violence, wife-to- husband violence, and bidirectional violence using the CTS. The data showed considerable discrepanciesbetween the reportsof husbands and wives. For example, of the 50 couples that reported some form of physical aggression dur- ing the past 12 months, 25 of the couples agreed that husband-to-wife violence occurred, 4 wivesreported the occurrence of husband-to- wife violence that their husbands did not report, and 10 husbands reported the occurrence of husband-to-wife violence that their wives did not report. In fact, the incidence levelsdeter- mined by including the reports of either spouse were 100% greater than incidence levelsdeter- mined by including only reportsthat were agreed on by both spouses. Therefore, consider- able inconsistenciesin the couple'sreportswere found depending on whose report was used (i.e., husband or wife). Studies based on clinical samples. Using the CTS, Browning and Dutton (1986) conducted an agreement study with a sample of 30 assaultive couplesin which the husband wasundergoing treatment for IPV. When comparing the mean levels of violence reported by spouses, wives re- ported significantly more violence perpetrated by their husbands than the husbands reported perpetrating (p < .01). In addition, husbands re- ported more violence perpetrated by their wives, although the difference was not statisti- cally significant. The researchers computed cor- relation coefficients between spouses' ratings of male-to-female and female-to-male violence on each CTS item and the total violence score. The correlations showed significant positive corre- lations for spousal ratings of male-to-female vi- olence and nonsignificant positive correlations for spousal ratings of female-to-male violence. The correlationsindicated that agreement strength increased for the reports of more severe forms of husband violence. Edleson and Brygger (1986) conducted a study of gender differences in the reporting of battering incidenceswith a group of 29 couples in which the male partnerswere undergoing treatment for battering. Using the modified CTS, preintervention and postintervention data regarding IPV were collected from both part- ners. Results of the study showed low levels of agreement on particular CTS itemsbetween male and female responses at the time of intake. Of the 20 itemsrelated to threatsand actsof vio- lence, only 5 items showed a significant correla- tion between husbands' and wives' reports (p < .05). The level of disagreement was greater for itemsrelated to threatsof violence than those re- lated to actsof violence. Postintervention, agreement levels were more consistent with 16 of the 20 items showing a significant correlation between husbands' and wives' reports (p < .05). The researchers attributed the higher degree of agreement at follow-up in part to the lack of vio- lence reported by couplesfollowing the inter- vention. Thus, the higher correlation at follow- up may have reflected agreement about the non- occurrence of violence rather than the occur- rence of violence. Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Vivian (1994) studied partner agreement about the occurrence and nature of IPV in a clinical sample of 97 cou- ples using the ACTS, an expanded version of the modified CTS. In thissample, 32% of couples disagreed about whether the husband was nonaggressive, mildly aggressive, or severely aggressive. Of those couples who disagreed about the occurrence and nature of violence in their relationship, 65% of the husbands reported less aggressiveness in the relationship than did their wives, 35% of the husbands reported more aggressiveness in the relationship than did their wives, and 52% of the couples reported differ- ences in whether aggressive behaviors existed 186 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 The study found "considerable variability in the reliability of items measuring specific forms of marital violence." within the relationship. In addition, 31% of the couplesdisagreed asto the occurrence of wife- to-husband violence within the relationship. Bohannon, Dosser, and Lindley (1995) ad- ministered the CTS to 94 military couples to as- sess agreement on the occurrence of violence in their marriages. Their goal was to replicate Svinovacz's(1983) study that found that higher ratesof violence were found when considering both partners' reports of IPV. The results of Bohannon et al.'s study were consistent with Svinovacz's results. The researchers found that when both spouse's responses were included, ratesof violence were greater than when one spouse's report was included. In addition, rates of violence were greater than when only inci- dents in which both spouses agreed were in- cluded. Using percentage agreement, the study's results also indicated that the level of agreement between spouses is lower when considering rates of husband-to-wife violence. Seventy-one percent of all couplesagreed on the occurrence of husband-to-wife violence. How- ever, of the couples in which at least one spouse reported husband-to-wife violence, only 42% agreement was found between the spousal re- ports. Similarly, 73% of all couples agreed on the occurrence of wife-to-husband violence. When considering only those couples in which at least one spouse reported wife-to-husband violence, only 43% agreement was demonstrated. Heckert and Gondolf (2000) investigated agreement regarding the occurrence of IPV in a sample of 558 couplesin which the maleswere undergoing court-ordered treatment for batter- ing. On intake, data were collected from males and femalesusing the CTS aswell asan inter- view involving open-ended questions. Police reports were analyzed using the physical vio- lence questions from the CTS. Follow-up data were collected every 3 monthsover a 12-month follow-up period. At intake, overall agreement between partnerswas63.8%, whereasat follow- up, overall agreement was73.5%. However, agreement about the occurrence of assault was 61.4% at intake, whereas occurrence of assault agreement wasonly 17.3% at follow-up. The au- thorsattributed thisdrop in occurrence agree- ment to males' tendency to underreport vio- lence following treatment. Findings: Couples Do Agree on IPV Studies based on community samples. Moffitt et al. (1997) conducted an analysis of partner agreement about physical and psychological abuse on a representative sample of 360 primar- ily dating and some married couples in New Zealand. To assess physical abuse, the research- ersadministered the CTS plusfour additional itemsrelated to physical violence within inti- mate relationships. To assess psychological abuse, the researchers administered a measure consisting of 2 items from the CTS and 18 items that assessed other forms of psychological abuse. When analyzing agreement about spe- cific behaviors, results indicated poor-to-fair levels of agreement about perpetrators' physi- cal and psychological abuse with mean kappa of .26 for male perpetration and .29 for female perpetration. Unlike results of similar studies, results of this study did not show differences in agreement levelsbetween lesssevere typesof abuse and more severe types of abuse. Slightly better agreement levelswere found when ana- lyzing whether perpetratorsengaged in any acts of physical or psychological violence (aver- age kappa = .36). In addition, mean levelsof abuse reported by victims were statistically greater than mean levelsof abuse reported by perpetrators. When grouping the physical abuse items into one physical abuse scale and using confirmatory factor analysis, this study found good agreement between partnersre- garding the overall level of physical abuse in the relationship, with r = .58 for husband-to-wife vi- olence and r = .54 for wife-to-husband violence. The authorsinterpreted these resultsasindicat- ing that the couplesagreed about the occurrence of violence. McLaughlin, Leonard, and Senchak (1992) in- vestigated partner agreement about IPV as part of a larger longitudinal study of marital func- tioning and alcohol abuse. In this community sample of 625 newlywed couples, recently mar- ried couplescompleted the modified version of the CTS, which did not include CTS itemsthat measure more severe forms of violence. The re- sults indicated that there was significant agree- ment between husbands and wives, yet 17% of the couples disagreed about the existence of IPV Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 187 within the relationship. When asked to report the frequency of husband-to-wife violence, 27% of husbands and 28% of wives indicated that mild or moderate levelsof husband-to-wife vio- lence occurred in their relationships within the past 12 months. This study did not consider wife-to-husband violence. Using the CTS, Archer and Ray (1989) investi- gated the occurrence, frequency, and intensity of dating violence within a sample of 23 dating couplesin the United Kingdom. One member of each couple was a university student. The study's results indicated a high measure of agreement between partnersregarding the fre- quency of physical violence in the relationship, with r = .78 for male-to-female violence and r = .80 for female-to-male violence. In addition, high agreement wasfound between partnersre- garding the intensity of violence in the relation- ship, with r = .63 for male-to-female violence and r = .83 for female-to-male violence. How- ever, interpartner agreement about the occur- rence or nonoccurrence of violence wasmoder- ate (asdefined by the authors), with kappa valuesof .47 for male-to-female violence and .39 for female-to-male violence. Study based on a clinical sample. O'Leary, Vivian, and Malone (1992) studied partner agreement as part of a study on IPV in a sample of 132 couples from a university-based marital therapy clinic. Levels of violence were assessed using written self-reports about problems in the relationship, the CTS, and direct interviewing techniques. The study's results indicated mod- erate agreement between partnersregarding husband-to-wife aggression using responses to the CTS (kappa = .56) aswell aswhen using in- terviewing techniques(kappa = .56). In addi- tion, the researchers found moderate agreement between partners regarding severe husband-to- wife violence (kappa = .67). Written self-reports of presenting problems in the relationship indi- cated much lower levelsof violence than either direct interviewing or the CTS indicated. Cantos, Neidig, and O'Leary (1994) studied the IPV in a sample of 180 couples referred to a domestic violence treatment program in a mili- tary setting. The frequency and nature of IPV was assessed using the modified CTS as well as structured interviews. Agreement between partnersabout the overall level of physical ag- gression was moderate for both husband-to- wife aggression and wife-to-husband aggres- sion, r = .50, p < .0001; and r = .51, p < .001, respec- tively. The authorsalso found that percentage agreement about the occurrence of some hus- band-to-wife physical aggression was 90%. In addition, agreement about the occurrence of some wife-to-husband physical aggression was 84%. DISCUSSION Why do couplesdisagree on the occurrence of violence in their relationships? Researchers have postulated a number of different theories about why couplesdisagree about the occur- rence of violence in their relationships. One ma- jor possibility is the underreporting of aggres- sive incidents (Schwartz, 2000). People may be reluctant to reveal abuse, especially if trust has not been established between the interviewee and the researcher. Many people may consider domestic violence to be a private matter that must be kept hidden because of the potential shame associated with it. Biased recall may also contribute to disagreement and underreporting (Armstrong et al., 2001; Medina, Shear, Schafer, & Armstrong, under review; Schwartz, 2000). It is possible that for many victims, abuse is a daily event. Thus, they are no longer able to keep track of the number of abusive incidents even within a short time period (i.e., the past 6 months). Thisproblem isapparent with the use of the CTS and its revised version (the most widely used instruments on survey research in domestic violence). The CTS counts the fre- quency and occurrence of specified incidents, requiring the respondent to remember every single incident that occurred during the past year. Memory and other cognitive abilitiesaspos- sible mechanisms for disagreement about the occurrence of IPV have also been shown to be a factor in polysubstance-abusing men. Poor per- formance by the substance-abusing men and their partnerson tasksthat require verbal mem- ory, visual memory, problem-solving ability, and the ability to inhibit overlearned responses 188 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 were significantly related to increased levels of disagreement on the CTS-2 (modified for the most recent conflict) (Medina et al., under re- view). This same study also showed that verbal ability, amount of education, ethnic identifica- tion, and length of drug use are also related to disagreement about IPV (Medina et al., under review). Consequently, certain subpopulations, when using the proxy method, may be system- atically over- or underrepresented in U.S. prev- alence rates. Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Vivian (1994) found that disagreement about the occurrence of husband-to-wife violence was correlated with reportsof affective and relationship func- tioning. Anderson (1997) found that marital sta- tus, ethnicity, education, and income were re- lated to agreement about the occurrence of IPV. In addition, social desirability and denial are possibilities for why perpetrator's reports of vi- olence may not agree with the victim'sreports (Armstrong et al., 2001; O'Leary & Arias, 1988). Lying and intentional falsification also have been postulated by researchers as reasons for partner disagreement (Armstrong et al., 2001; Riggs, Murphy, & O'Leary, 1989). For a more complete discussion of the possible reasons for disagreement about the occurrence of violence in relationships as indicated by a community sample, refer to Armstrong et al. (2001). CONCLUSIONS Based on this review, we believe that couples disagree on the occurrence of IPV in their rela- tionship. Fifteen studies were reviewed within which 10 suggested that there is disagreement between partnersasto the occurrence of vio- lence in their relationships. Five of these re- viewed studies found some level of agreement between the partners on IPV. There is controversy among researchers over whether partner agreement about IPV exists. Some researchersargue that there isgood agree- ment between membersof couples(e.g., Moffit et al., 1997), whereasothersbelieve that there is poor agreement about violence (e.g., Schafer et al., 1998). In the majority of these studies, it is clear that couplestend to agree on the nonoccurrence of violence. Often thiscan inflate aggregate agree- ment statistics to make it appear asif there ismore agreement than there ac- tually isabout IPV. The statistical index used to assess agreement can have a significant effect on research results. The study sample is also a pos- sible reason for research- ers' disagreement about the level of IPV agree- ment. For example, the ar- ticle written by Moffit et al. (1997) is the strongest study that suggests agree- ment between membersof a couple on IPV. However, it isimportant to note that their sample was not na- tionally representative and instead was a cohort sample from one community in New Zealand. On the other hand, Schafer et al. (1998) con- ducted a study using a nationally representative sample of married and cohabiting couples in the United States to demonstrate considerable dis- agreement among partnersabout the occur- rence of IPV. To date, there isno nationally rep- resentative study in the United States that indicatesthat couplesdo agree on the occur- rence of IPV in their relationships. Finally, women tend to report higher levelsof violence than do men. Thus, agreement between part- nersisaffected by thisgender response difference. The data for most agree- ment studies are readily available, and researchers are encouraged to analyze the data and to determine their own position on partner agreement about IPV. To improve our un- derstanding, we must consider the use of different statistics to mea- sure agreement. Reliance on only one aggregate index of agreement isprobably not sufficient; instead, as pointed out by Cicchetti and Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 189 Memory and other cognitive abilities as possible mechanisms for disagreement about the occurrence of IPV have also been shown to be a factor in polysubstance- abusing men. Consequently, certain subpopulations, when using the proxy method, may be systematically over- or underrepresented in U.S. prevalence rates. Based on this review, we believe that couples disagree on the occurrence of intimate partner violence in their relationship. Feinstein (1990), agreement might best be viewed asmultidimensional. Such an approach, although not as simple as some researchers might wish, could resolve much of the seem- ingly irresolvable conflicts that researchers in IPV currently have on the agreement issue. Partner agreement about IPV is an issue that hasclinical relevance. When cliniciansconduct couples therapy, they may assume that there is consensus between the partners as to the events in their relationship. Thisreview indicatesthat many studiesare finding that couplesdo not agree. Thus, clinicians may not obtain truthful answersfrom partnerswhen they are in therapy together. In such a situation, it is possible that a battered woman may be less likely to disagree with a batterer's suggestion that "nothing hap- pened" and that he "didn't do it" out of fear of the possibility of further abuse. This could be very discouraging to her and could result in the violence being hidden from the therapist. When interviewed separately, studies show that cou- plesgive different answersto questionsabout IPV. Thus, clinicians may find the results of these couple-level agreement studies to be im- portant in giving them information about whether to treat domestically violent couples separately rather than together as a couple. How should researchers decide what consti- tutesgood agreement? Some researchersmay consider a correlation of .30 to indicate poor agreement, whereasothersmay say that same level isadequate. A future direction for re- searchers is to review the literature on the vary- ing indexes used to assess agreement and the different interpretationsof the valuesderived by these indexes. Again, as noted above, no sin- gle aggregate index of agreement islikely to "do the job"; instead, researchers may want to focus on different aspects of agreement and adopt a multidimensional approach to agreement assessment. We believe that the agreement level should be high asindicated by several indexesif the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates. Review of the agreement literature shows that the agreement level between partnersisnot suf- ficient to convince usthat the proxy method ac- curately assesses the prevalence of IPV. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH Practice Cliniciansmay not want to do therapy with couples where violence isa significant factor. Lack of agree- ment between couplesindicatesto cliniciansthat they may not be obtaining truthful answers from do- mestically violent couples in therapy together. Whenever screenings are conducted for IPV, one partner's report should not be used as a proxy for the other partner's report. Whenever possible and safe, reports should be obtained from both partners. Policy Agenciesshould commit fundsonly to projectsin which the issue of partner disagreement about vio- lence is adequately addressed. Policy makers should not consider simple point esti- matesof the prevalence ratesof intimate partner vio- lence only. Given that partnersdisagree on their reports of IPV, prevalence of IPV should be consid- ered asan interval (e.g., 16%-22%) instead of a point estimate (e.g., 16%). Research Researchers should not assume that one partner's report can act asa proxy for the other partner'sre- port of IPV. Where couple-level data are available, the couple's responses should be modeled as separate variables. Further Research Implications A future direction for researchersisto review the lit- erature on the varying indexes used to assess agree- ment and the different interpretationsof the values derived by these indexes. 190 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 NOTE 1. One national telephone survey of the United States, Tjaden and Thoennes(1998), hasfound 12-month prevalence ratesof inti- mate partner violence much lower than those found in other na- tional surveys. Some possible reasons for these discrepancies are discussed in Straus (1999). REFERENCES Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic vio- lence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655- 669. Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Con- flict TacticsScales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 1263-1289. Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. Armstrong, T. G, Heideman, G., Corcoran, K. J., Fisher, B., Medina, K. L., & Schafer, J. (2001). Disagreement about the occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner vio- lence: A qualitative study. Journal of Family and Commu- nity Health, 24(1), 55-75. Bohannon, J. R., Dosser, D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previouswork. Violence and Victims, 10(2), 133-141. Browne A. (1993). Violence against women by male part- ners. American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087. Browning, J., & Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 375-379. Cantos, A. I., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9(2), 113-124. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543-549. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37- 46. Edleson, J. L., & Brygger, M. P. (1986). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences. Family Relations, 35, 377-382. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley. Heckert, D. A., & Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Assessing assault self-reportsby batterer program participantsand their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2), 181-197. Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Popula- tion report: Ending violence against women. Issues in World Health, 27(4), 1-44. Jouriles, E. N., & O'Leary, K. D. (1985). Interspousal reli- ability of reportsof marital violence. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 419-421. Kenny, D. A. (1998). Couples, gender, and time: Comments on method. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 410-422). New York: Cambridge University Press. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Vivian, D. (1994). The corre- lates of spouses' incongruent reports of marital aggres- sion. Journal of Family Violence, 9(3), 265-283. Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: How do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13(1), 77-84. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McLaughlin, I. G., Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1992). Prevalence and distribution of premarital aggression among couplesapplying for a marriage license. Journal of Family Violence, 7(4), 309-319. Medina, K. L., Schafer, J., Shear, P. K., & Armstrong, T. G. (in press). Memory ability is associated with disagree- ment about the most recent conflict in polysubstance abusing couples. Journal of Family Violence. Miller, B. A. (1990). The interrelationships between alcohol and drugsand family violence. In National Institute on Drug Abuse: Research monograph series (pp. 177-207). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P., et al. (1997). Do partnersagree about abuse in the relationship? A psychometric evaluation of inter- partner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 47-56. O'Leary, K. D., & Arias, I. (1988). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kilpatrick, & M. A. Straus(Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences (pp. 218-227). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 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. Riggs, D. S., Murphy, C. M, & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Inten- tional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 220-232. Schafer, J., & Caetano, R. (2000, October). Weighting single- partner violence data to estimate dyadic level intimate part- ner violence data. Paper presented at the 128th American Public Health Association Meeting and Exposition, Boston. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Ratesof inti- mate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (2002). Agreement about violence in U.S. couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 457-470. Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6(8), 815-838. Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 191 Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic vio- lence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17- 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994, July 19). Change in spouse assault rates from 1975 to 1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the United States. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a method- ological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(3), 633-644. Szinovacz, M. E., & Egley, L. C. (1995). Comparing one- partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995-1010. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. SUGGESTED FUTURE READINGS Browning, J., & Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 375-379. O'Leary, K. D., & Arias, I. (1988). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kilpatrick, & M. A. Straus(Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences (pp. 218-227). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Ratesof inti- mate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a method- ological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(3), 633-644. Szinovacz, M. E., & Egley, L. C. (1995). Comparing one- partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995-1010. Tisha Gangopadhyay Armstrong is a doctoral candi- date in clinical psychology at the University of Cincinnati. She obtained her M.A. from the University of Cincinnati in 2000 and received her B.A. in 1997 from McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She is currently working under the supervision of John Schafer, Ph.D., and her research to date has focused on agreement about intimate partner violence. Her master's research focused on the reasons why men and women disagree about the occurrence of intimate partner violence in their relationship. Currently, she is conducting research on the help-seeking behavior of victims/survivors of intimate partner violence. Her work involves conducting in-depth semistructured interviews with victims/survivors who have and have not sought the helpof community resources to address partner violence in their relationships. Her clin- ical interests also focus on working with victims/survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Julia Y. Wernke is a graduate student pursuing her Ph.D. in clinical psychology at the University of Cincinnati. She received her undergraduate degree in accounting from Ohio State University in 1991. She worked in a large public accounting firm from 1991 to 1999 as a tax consultant and human resource manager. She took psychology courses at Loyola University Chicago and Northwestern University from 1997 to 2000. Cur- rently, her research involves understanding the percep- tions about single persons. Krista Lisdahl Medina, M.A., is graduate student in clinical psychology, with an emphasis in neuropsychol- ogy, at the University of Cincinnati. She received her B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. In Minnesota, she worked closely with Drs. Matt Kushner and Kenneth Adams on a series of experi- ments examining the relationshipbetween alcohol con- sumption and phobic anxiety. Her master's thesis work focused on the relationshipbetween memory functioning and disagreement about the occurrence and nonoccur- rence of intimate partner violence among polysubstance- abusing couples. Her other research interests include cog- nitive correlates of violence, risk factors associated with intimate partner violence (IPV), measurement issues in IPV and substance abuse research, neuropsychological correlates to drug and alcohol treatment success, cognitive deficits associated with substance abuse among women, recovery of cognitive functioning with abstinence, and cognitive deficits associated with MDMA ("Ecstasy") abuse. John Schafer, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psy- chology at the University of Cincinnati. His dissertation work, begun in 1989, focused on long-term cognitive func- tioning as a variable mediating the relationshipbetween substance abuse and intimate partner violence. His super- visor for this research was the late Nelson Butters, Ph.D. This work was extended and funded by the National Insti- tute on Drug Abuse from 1995 to 2001. He is currently 192 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / July 2002 interested in studying agreement about intimate partner violence and advancing statistics used to describe agree- ment. Dr. Schafer is funded in this endeavor by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) with an Independent Scientist Award (2001- 2006). He continues to work closely with his mentor, Raul Caetano, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., on a 14-year longitudinal study of intimate partner violence and drinking in a large, nationally representative sample of couples funded by NIAAA. Armstrong et al. / AGREEMENT REVIEW 193 </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p>1. One national telephone survey of the United States, Tjaden and Thoennes(1998), hasfound 12-month prevalence rates of intimate partner violence much lower than those found in other national surveys. Some possible reasons for these discrepancies are discussed in Straus (1999).</p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anderson, K. L.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>59</volume>, <fpage>655</fpage>-<lpage>669</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Archer, J.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: A meta-analytic review</article-title>. <source>Journal of Interpersonal Violence</source>, <volume>14</volume>(<issue>12</issue>), <fpage>1263</fpage>-<lpage>1289</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Archer, J.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Ray, N.</surname></name> (<year>1989</year>). <article-title>Dating violence in the United Kingdom: A preliminary study</article-title>. <source>Aggressive Behavior</source>, <volume>15</volume>, <fpage>337</fpage>-<lpage>343</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Armstrong, T. G</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Heideman, G.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Corcoran, K. J.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Fisher, B.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Medina, K. L.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Disagreement about the occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner violence: A qualitative study</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family and Community Health</source>, <volume>24</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>55</fpage>-<lpage>75</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bohannon, J. R.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Dosser, D. A.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Lindley, S. E.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previouswork</article-title>. <source>Violence and Victims</source>, <volume>10</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>133</fpage>-<lpage>141</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Browne A.</surname></name> (<year>1993</year>). <article-title>Violence against women by male partners</article-title>. <source>American Psychologist</source>, <volume>48</volume>, <fpage>1077</fpage>-<lpage>1087</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Browning, J.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Dutton, D.</surname></name> (<year>1986</year>). <article-title>Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>48</volume>, <fpage>375</fpage>-<lpage>379</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cantos, A. I.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Neidig, P. H.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>). <article-title>Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family Violence</source>, <volume>9</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>113</fpage>-<lpage>124</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cicchetti, D. V.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Feinstein, A. R.</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>). <article-title>High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes</article-title>. <source>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</source>, <volume>43</volume>, <fpage>543</fpage>-<lpage>549</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cohen, J.</surname></name> (<year>1960</year>). <article-title>A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales</article-title>. <source>Educational and Psychological Measurement</source>, <volume>20</volume>, <fpage>37</fpage>-<lpage>46</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Edleson, J. L.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Brygger, M. P.</surname></name> (<year>1986</year>). <article-title>Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences</article-title>. <source>Family Relations</source>, <volume>35</volume>, <fpage>377</fpage>-<lpage>382</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fleiss, J. L.</surname></name> (<year>1981</year>). <source>Statistical methods for rates and proportions</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>John Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Heckert, D. A.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gondolf, E. W.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Assessing assault self-reports by batterer program participants and their partners</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family Violence</source>, <volume>15</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>181</fpage>-<lpage>197</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Heise, L.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Ellsberg, M.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gottemoeller, M.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Population report: Ending violence against women</article-title>. <source>Issues in World Health</source>, <volume>27</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>-<lpage>44</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jouriles, E. N.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> (<year>1985</year>). <article-title>Interspousal reliability of reports of marital violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</source>, <volume>53</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>419</fpage>-<lpage>421</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kenny, D. A.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Couples, gender, and time: Comments on method</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>T. N. Bradbury</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>The developmental course of marital dysfunction</source> (pp. <fpage>410</fpage>-<lpage>422</lpage>). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Vivian, D.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>). <article-title>The correlates of spouses' incongruent reports of marital aggression</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family Violence</source>, <volume>9</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>265</fpage>-<lpage>283</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Margolin, G.</surname></name> (<year>1987</year>). <article-title>The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: How do we identify them?</article-title><source>Journal of Marital and Family Therapy</source>, <volume>13</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>77</fpage>-<lpage>84</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McCutcheon, A. L.</surname></name> (<year>1987</year>). <source>Latent class analysis</source>. <publisher-loc>Newbury Park, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McLaughlin, I. G.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Leonard, K. E.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Senchak, M.</surname></name> (<year>1992</year>). <article-title>Prevalence and distribution of premarital aggression among couples applying for a marriage license</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family Violence</source>, <volume>7</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>309</fpage>-<lpage>319</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Medina, K. L.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Shear, P. K.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Armstrong, T. G.</surname></name> (in press). <article-title>Memory ability is associated with disagreement about the most recent conflict in polysubstance abusing couples</article-title>. <source>Journal of Family Violence</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Miller, B. A.</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>). <article-title>The interrelationships between alcohol and drugs and family violence</article-title>. In <source>National Institute on Drug Abuse: Research monograph series</source> (pp. <fpage>177</fpage>-<lpage>207</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Bethesda, MD</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>National Institute on Drug Abuse</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moffitt, T. E.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Caspi, A.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Krueger, R.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Magdol, L.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Margolin, G.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Silva, P.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>et al.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Do partners agree about abuse in the relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement</article-title>. <source>Psychological Assessment</source>, <volume>9</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>47</fpage>-<lpage>56</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Arias, I.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>). <article-title>Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>G. T. Hotaling</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>D. Finkelhor</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>J. T. Kilpatrick</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>M. A. Straus</surname></name>(Eds.), <source>Family abuse and its consequences</source> (pp. <fpage>218</fpage>-<lpage>227</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Newbury Park, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Vivian, D.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Malone, J.</surname></name> (<year>1992</year>). <article-title>Assessment of physical aggression against women in marriage: The need for multimodal assessment</article-title>. <source>Behavioral Assessment</source>, <volume>14</volume>, <fpage>5</fpage>-<lpage>14</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Riggs, D. S.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Murphy, C. M</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> (<year>1989</year>). <article-title>Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression</article-title>. <source>Journal of Interpersonal Violence</source>, <volume>4</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>220</fpage>-<lpage>232</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Caetano, R.</surname></name> (2000, October). <article-title>Weighting single-partner violence data to estimate dyadic level intimate partner violence data</article-title>. Paper presented at the <conf-name>128th American Public Health Association Meeting and Exposition</conf-name>, <conf-loc>Boston</conf-loc>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Caetano, R.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Clark, C. L.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States</article-title>. <source>American Journal of Public Health</source>, <volume>88</volume>, <fpage>1702</fpage>-<lpage>1704</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Caetano, R.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Clark, C. L.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Agreement about violence in U.S. couples</article-title>. <source>Journal of Interpersonal Violence</source>, <volume>17</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>457</fpage>-<lpage>470</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schwartz, M. D.</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women</article-title>. <source>Violence Against Women</source>, <volume>6</volume>(<issue>8</issue>), <fpage>815</fpage>-<lpage>838</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Straus, M. A.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>X. B. Arriaga</surname></name> & <name name-style="western"><surname>S. Oskamp</surname></name> (Eds.), <source>Violence in intimate relationships</source> (pp. <fpage>17</fpage>-<lpage>44</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Straus, M. A.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gelles, R. J.</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>). <source>Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families</source>. <publisher-loc>New Brunswick, NJ</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Transaction Publishers</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Straus, M. A.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kantor, G. K.</surname></name> (1994, July 19). <article-title>Change in spouse assault rates from 1975 to 1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the United States</article-title>. Paper presented at the <conf-name>13th World Congress of Sociology</conf-name>, <conf-loc>Bielefeld, Germany</conf-loc>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Szinovacz, M. E.</surname></name> (<year>1983</year>). <article-title>Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>45</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>633</fpage>-<lpage>644</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Szinovacz, M. E.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Egley, L. C.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>57</volume>, <fpage>995</fpage>-<lpage>1010</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tjaden, P.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Thoennes, N.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <source>Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey</source>. <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>U.S. Department of Justice</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Browning, J.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Dutton, D.</surname></name> (<year>1986</year>). <article-title>Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>48</volume>, <fpage>375</fpage>-<lpage>379</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O'Leary, K. D.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Arias, I.</surname></name> (<year>1988</year>). <article-title>Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>G. T. Hotaling</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>D. Finkelhor</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>J. T. Kilpatrick</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>M. A. Straus</surname></name>(Eds.), <source>Family abuse and its consequences</source> (pp. <fpage>218</fpage>-<lpage>227</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Newbury Park, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schafer, J.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Caetano, R.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Clark, C. L.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States</article-title>. <source>American Journal of Public Health</source>, <volume>88</volume>, <fpage>1702</fpage>-<lpage>1704</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Szinovacz, M. E.</surname></name> (<year>1983</year>). <article-title>Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>45</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>633</fpage>-<lpage>644</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Szinovacz, M. E.</surname></name> , & <name name-style="western"><surname>Egley, L. C.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence</article-title>. <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>, <volume>57</volume>, <fpage>995</fpage>-<lpage>1010</lpage>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><subTitle>A Review of the Current Literature</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?</title><subTitle>A Review of the Current Literature</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">TISHA GANGOPADHYAY</namePart><namePart type="family">ARMSTRONG</namePart><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: gangopt@email.uc.edu</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati, gangopt@email.uc.edu</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">JULIA Y.</namePart><namePart type="family">WERNKE</namePart><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">KRISTA LISDAHL</namePart><namePart type="family">MEDINA</namePart><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">JOHN</namePart><namePart type="family">SCHAFER</namePart><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><affiliation>University of Cincinnati</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-07</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern, and thus it is necessary to obtain accurate estimates of IPV. National surveys use two main methods of data collection: the proxy method and/or a method that obtains information from both members of the couple. There is controversy as to whether couples agree about the occurrence of IPV. Determining the extent to which partners agree about this is essential for gaining accurate prevalence rates. This article reviews literature on agreement within this field. The authors surveyed the major studies that have reported couple-level data. Agreement between the couples has been assessed in all of the reviewed research, with varying results. The majority of studies under consideration suggest that there is disagreement between partners about IPV. The authors propose that agreement levels should be high (indicated by several indexes) if the proxy method is to be used to assess prevalence rates.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>agreement</topic><topic>measurement</topic><topic>intimate partner violence</topic><topic>domestic violence</topic><topic>concordance rates</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Trauma, Violence, & Abuse</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1524-8380</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1552-8324</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">TVA</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">sptva</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>3</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>181</start><end>193</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/15248380020033002</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_15248380020033002</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/TherFamFrancoV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001133 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001133 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= TherFamFrancoV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:CB71950BB69304FD88B48059823A8C62E3AF99EC
|texte= Do Partners Agree about the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.29. |  |