NCJ Number
196092
Journal
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse Volume: 3 Issue: 3 Dated: July 2002 Pages: 181-193
Date Published
July 2002
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article examines studies that focus on agreement within the field of intimate partner violence (IPV)
Abstract
Given that IPV 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. National surveys use two main methods of data collection about violence. The first is the proxy method and the second, a method that involves obtaining information at the couple level. There has been some controversy as to whether the proxy method is a valid method for data collection and whether couples agree about the occurrence of violence in their relationships. Certain subpopulations, when using this method, may be systematically over- or underrepresented in prevalence rates. Memory and other cognitive abilities as possible mechanisms for disagreement about the occurrence of IPV have been shown to be a factor in polysubstance-abusing men. Once data have been collected at the couple level, researchers use different indexes to assess agreement between the members of the couple. There are also problems surrounding the interpretation of these indexes. Researchers tend to subjectively decide what values represent good agreement. Ten of the studies reviewed suggest that there is disagreement between partners as to the occurrence of IPV in their relationships. Five studies found some level of agreement between the partners. The tendency in all of the reviewed research was to find that couples agree about the nonoccurrence of violence. This can inflate the aggregate agreement statistic to make it appear as though there is more agreement than there actually is. 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 constitutes good agreement. In the future, researchers may want to focus on different aspects of agreement and adopt a multidimensional approach to agreement assessment. 1 table, 1 note, 36 references