3 THE CHALLENGES OF MEASURINGdistribute VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN or DIANE R. FOLLINGSTAD post, he primary aim of measurement is to pro- choices are made as to which data are reported or vide information about a phenomenon, highlighted that support a particular stance. Con- Tand developing methodology for this sequently, persons utilizing data from IPV litera- purpose has been an important focus for many ture may be unaware of potential problems with professionals in the area of violence againstcopy, developed scales, interview strategies, statistical women (VAW) and intimate partner violence approaches, or even interpretations of data. (IPV). Initially, the most important motivator for Unfortunately, there are numerous fallacies IPV researchers to engage in measurement was that many people hold about IPV measurement to document the frequency with whichnot various that, with some basic understanding, would forms of violence against women took place as a allow them to be more critical consumers of the way to focus a spotlight on this societal problem. research literature in this area. The word critical Quickly, however, this initial goal was expanded is meant to imply that a person will bring an to measure and identify causalDo factors, risk fac- evaluative filter to his or her reading of IPV tors, and/or prevention- factors in the area of source material to make judgments regarding the VAW that would have implications for develop- relative quality of research studies to select the ing intervention and prevention programs. better ones on which to base conclusions. Being With such important goals and the good inten- a more sophisticated consumer of research tions of professionals to accomplish these goals, it does not imply holding impossible standards for seems almost heresy to critique the measurement research areas such as IPV, which cannot attain strategiesProof of VAW researchers. Nevertheless, the most rigorous requirements for experimenta- measurement within the field of VAW is often tion, such as the government might require when problematic, at times resulting in contradictory testing the efficacy of new drugs. When women’s findings or not allowing for definitive statements. lives are being studied, we often cannot apply the With the goal in mind to sensitize policy makers same standards as experimental research because Draftand laypersons alike to this significant issue, typically, we are making assessments after a 57 Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 58 • PART I: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCHING violent experience. Also, a researcher would the background for developing a more sophisti- never place a person in an experimental condi- cated “filter” when utilizing IPV literature. tion where violence would occur in order to compare her or him to a person in a parallel con- trol condition where violence did not occur. ROBLEMATIC SSUMPTIONS FOR Rather, a critical consumer of this literature P A knows the difficulties and pitfalls of research and ­MEASURING IPV OR INTERPRETING measurement, especially for understanding VAW RESEARCH FINDINGS and IPV, and is therefore able to make reasonable interpretations and avoid using flawed studies Assumption 1: Most people agree on when making assertions. what violence and abuse are. distribute The goal of this chapter is to raise the critical quotient for those wishing to read and use IPV Although most people would agree that par- and VAW literature in the most effective manner. ticularly horrendous behaviors (e.g.,or one spouse To accomplish this, I will raise and address threatening to kill the children if the other spouse numerous fallacies, both general to social-sci- does not comply with demands) are absolute ence measurement and specific to IPV research. violations of the norms of interpersonal behav- These fallacies stem from such issues as whether ior, there can be substantial variability when definitions exist for types of IPV, whether there researchers and/or practitioners label actions as is agreement about the definitions, and whether abuse or violence,post, especially for less egregious we can measure all forms of IPV through similar behaviors. (Note: Although the terms violence methods. The discussion will also include techni- and abuse are used interchangeably, violence is cal issues of how we might know whether the usually reserved for physical (and sexual) actions way a particular variable (e.g., psychological while abuse is more likely to be used in reference harm from physical abuse) was measured used a to nonphysical actions.) This is also true for lay- valid method; whether our use of surveys, ques-copy,persons (Follingstad, Helff, Binford, Runge, & tionnaires, and interview questions are appropri- White, 2004). Professionals demonstrate the ately scored or interpreted; and the difficulty of most consistency when labeling behavior as vio- applying particular standards that are commonly lence or abuse when they are confronted with used in the social sciences. For example, some individuals using physical force toward their discussion will center on the premisenot that not all partners. Among mental-health professionals, statistical approaches employed by the social sci- practitioners, and advocates, there appears to be ences for reliability (i.e., consistency of items in consensus that any use of physical force should a scale and consistency ofDo a person’s answers be labeled violence. Some disagreement exists, from one time to the next) or validity (i.e., degree however, when labeling actions of individuals of accuracy of how well- the researcher’s approach who threaten to use physical force (Hegarty, actually measures the concept) may be appropri- Bush, & Sheehan, 2005) or who perform intimi- ate for determining the quality of research on dating physical actions near their partner (e.g., IPV and VAW topics. Combining theory, expo- hitting a wall next to them). Some researchers sure of fallacious thinking, knowledge of scale have suggested that physical force directed development and data collection strategies, and toward a partner in self-defense should not be psychometricProof considerations should result in an counted as a violent action (Dobash, Dobash, analytical perceptiveness leading to more refined Wilson, & Daly, 1992), but no agreed-upon cri- conclusions for those willing to delve into the teria have been developed for helping a person intriguing facets of measurement. It is my hope screen his or her own actions to determine that this approach to considering the intricacies whether or not the potentially self-defensive use Draftof measuring IPV and VAW will provide readers of force should be divulged on a survey. Further, Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. Chapter 3: The Challenges of Measuring Violence Against Women • 59 different behavioral patterns or characteristics of abounds with descriptions of psychological participants (e.g., gender) may influence whether actions that are considered abuse, practicing psy- physical force is labeled as violence; for instance, chologists do not always label these as abuse, the more (unfortunately) common use of milder and certain factors (e.g., frequency or the inten- physical behaviors, such as slapping or pushing tions of the person engaging in the behavior) that is engaged in reciprocally by young adults influence their willingness to label such behav- and that recedes with maturity, is not as quickly iors as abuse (Follingstad & DeHart, 2000). One labeled violence by professionals. study determined that actions are more likely to Deciding what is violence for adult sexual be considered abuse when exhibited by a man behaviors has been determined mostly by crimi- toward his partner than when a woman engages nal statutes defining sexual assault. For reporting in those actions toward her partner (Follingstad,distribute purposes, however, the concern is not whether DeHart, & Green, 2004), a phenomenon that there is agreement as to the violent and noncon- would not be expected if a particular behavior is, sensual nature of the actions but, rather, whether in and of itself, abusive. Psychologistsor appeared persons experiencing sexual assault within their to endorse some stereotypical sex roles, such as intimate relationships would recognize and/or viewing a woman’s monitoring of her husband’s label it as assault or violence. Some women have behavior as less problematic than the reverse, as reported that they believed that their partners had well as believing that some actions by a woman a “marital right” to have sex with them even would not have the same negative impact as the against their will or that because they had con- same actions post,engaged in by a man. Laypersons sented to sex within the relationship in the past, are more likely than psychologists to consider their partners have the right to force sex cur- emotionally hurtful behaviors as abuse, whereas rently (e.g., E. K. Martin, Taft, & Resick, 2007). psychologists are more likely to consider behav- For behaviors that might not fit criteria for vio- iors indicative of severe jealousy to be abusive lent sexual assaults but still appear offensive or (Follingstad, Helff, et al., 2004). Overall, psy- problematic, it is more difficult to define or pro-copy,chological