Attitudes of acceptability of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) are considered one of the main risk factors of this type of violence. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a short version of the acceptability of IPVAW scale, the A-IPVAW-8, for large scale studies where space and time are limited. A panel of experts were asked to assess item content validity. Two samples were recruited to assemble an 8-item short version of the scale using automated test assembly, and to reassess the psychometric properties of the A-IPVAW-8 in an independent sample. Results showed that the A-IPVAW-8 had adequate internal consistency (α = .72-.76, ω = .73-.81), a stable one-factor latent structure (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.94, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.92, root mean square error of approximation = 0.077), validity evidences based on its relationships to other variables in both samples, and was also invariant across gender (ΔCFI < |0.02|). This study provides a short, easy-to-use tool to evaluate attitudes of acceptability of IPVAW for large scale studies.
AbramskyT.WattsC. H.Garcia-MorenoC.DevriesK.KissL.EllsbergM.HeiseL. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-109
2.
Acebes-ArribasB. (2016). Estudio de medios de comunicación online [Study of online mass-media]. IAB.
3.
ArcherJ.Graham-KevanN. (2003). Do beliefs about aggression predict physical aggression to partners?Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10029
BrummelmanE.ThomaesS.NelemansS. A.Orobio de CastroB.BushmanB. J. (2015). My child is God’s gift to humanity: Development and validation of the Parental Overvaluation Scale (POS). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 665–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000012
6.
CapaldiD. M.KnobleN. B.ShorttJ. W.KimH. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231-280. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
7.
CarlsonB. E.WordenA. P. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: I. Definitions of domestic violence, criminal domestic violence, and prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1197-1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278530
8.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
9.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
10.
CraparoG.GoriA.PetruccelliI.CannellaV.SimonelliC. (2014). Intimate partner violence: Relationships between alexithymia, depression, attachment styles, and coping strategies of battered women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(6), 1484-1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12505
11.
CrickN. R.DodgeK. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
12.
DevriesK. M.MakJ. Y.Garcia-MorenoC.PetzoldM.ChildJ. C.FalderG.LimS.BaccuhsL. J.EngelR. E.RosenfeldL.PallittoC.AbrahamsN.WattsC. H. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527-1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937
13.
DiaoQ.van der LindenW. J. (2011). Automated test assembly using lp_solve version 5.5 in R. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(5), 398-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621610392211
14.
DiStefanoC.MorganG. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
15.
EdelenM. O.ReeveB. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
16.
EdwardsK. M.SylaskaK. M.NealA. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038656
17.
EllsbergM.ArangoD. J.MortonM.GennariF.KiplesundS.ContrerasM.WattsC. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say?Lancet, 385(9977), 1555-1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7
18.
EllsbergM.JansenH. A.HeiseL.WattsC. H.Garcia-MorenoC. (2008). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet, 371(9619), 1165-1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X
ExpósitoF.MoyaM. C.GlickP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. [Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates]. Revista de Psicología Social, 13(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641
21.
Fernández GonzálezL.Calvete ZumaldeE.Orue SolaI. (2017). The acceptance of dating violence scale (ADV): Psychometric properties of the Spanish version. Psicothema, 29(2), 241-246. http://psicothema.com/pdf/4390.pdf
22.
FinchamF. D.CuiM.BraithwaiteS.PasleyK. (2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.260
23.
FloodM.PeaseB. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131
24.
FoxC. L.GaddD.SimJ. (2015). Development of the Attitudes to Domestic Violence Questionnaire for children and adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2506-2525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553115
25.
García-MorenoC.ZimmermanC.Morris-GehringA.HeiseL.AminA.AbrahamsN.MontoyaO.Bhate-DeosthaliP.KilonzoN.WattsC. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. Lancet, 385(9978), 1685-1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61830-4
26.
GigerJ. C.GonçalvesG.AlmeidaA. S. (2017). Adaptation of the domestic violence myth acceptance scale to Portuguese and tests of its convergent, divergent, and predictive validities. Violence Against Women, 23(14), 1790-1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012166667
27.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
28.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.AnnetjeB.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.. . . LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763-775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
29.
GlickP.Sakalli-UgurluN.FerreiraM. C.SouzaM. A. D. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068
30.
GoetzC.CosteJ.LemetayerF.RatA. C.MontelS.RecchiaS.DebouverieM.PouchotJ.SpitzE.GuilleminF. (2013). Item reduction based on rigorous methodological guidelines is necessary to maintain validity when shortening composite measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(7), 710-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.015
31.
GraciaE.GarciaF.LilaM. (2008). Police involvement in cases of intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. Violence Against Women, 14(6), 697-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208317288
32.
GraciaE.GarciaF.LilaM. (2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner violence against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362892
33.
GraciaE.GarcíaF.LilaM. (2014). Male police officers’ law enforcement preferences in cases of intimate partner violence versus non-intimate interpersonal violence: Do sexist attitudes and empathy matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(10), 1195-1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814541655
34.
GraciaE.LilaM. (2015). Attitudes towards violence against women in the EU. Publication Office of the European Union.
35.
GraciaE.LilaM.SantirsoF. A. (2020b). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 25, 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392
36.
GraciaE.Martín-FernándezM.MarcoM.SantirsoF. A.VargasV.LilaM. (2018). The Willingness to Intervene in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (WI-IPVAW) scale: Development and validation of the long and short versions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01146
GraciaE.RodriguezC. M.LilaM. (2015). Preliminary evaluation of an analog procedure to assess acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: The Partner Violence Acceptability Movie Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01567
39.
GraciaE.RodriguezC. M.Martín-FernándezM.LilaM. (2020a). Acceptability of family violence: Underlying ties between intimate partner violence and child abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17-18), 3217-3236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517707310
40.
HarelD.MillsS. D.KwakkenbosL.CarrierM. E.NielsenK.PortalesA.BartlettS. J.MalcarneV. L.ThombsB. D. (2019). Shortening patient-reported outcome measures through optimal test assembly: Application to the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort. BMJ Open, 9(2), Article e024010. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024010
HeiseL. (2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. STRIVE.
43.
HerreroJ.RodríguezF. J.TorresA. (2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23(3), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870
44.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
IshiharaM.HarelD.LevisB.LevisA. W.RiehmK. E.SaadatN.AzarM.RiceD. B.SanchezT. A.ChiovittiM. J.CuijpersP.GilbodyS.IoannidisJ. P. A.KlodaL. A.McMillanD.PattenS. B.ShrierI.ArrollB.BombardierC. H.CuijpersP. (2019). Shortening self-report mental health symptom measures through optimal test assembly methods: Development and validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression-4. Depression & Anxiety, 36(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22841
47.
JewkesR.FloodM.LangJ. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. Lancet, 385(9977), 1580-1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4
48.
KangT.ChenT. T. (2011). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for the graded response model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9082-4
KruyenP. M.EmonsW. H.SijtsmaK. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13(3), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.703734
51.
LevisA. W.HarelD.KwakkenbosL.CarrierM. E.MouthonL.PoiraudeauS.BartlettS. J.KhannaD.MalcarneV. L.SauveM.van den EndeC. H. M.PooleJ. L.SchouffoerA. A.WellingJ.ThombsB. D., & the Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Investigators. (2016). Using optimal test assembly methods for shortening patient-reported outcome measures: Development and validation of the Cochin Hand Function Scale-6: A scleroderma patient-centered intervention network cohort study. Arthritis Care & Research, 68(11), 1704-1713. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22893
52.
LilaM.GraciaE.GarciaF. (2013). Ambivalent sexism, empathy and law enforcement attitudes towards partner violence against women among male police officers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(10), 907-919. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.719619
53.
LilaM.OliverA.Catalá-MiñanaA.GalianaL.GraciaE. (2014). The intimate partner violence responsibility attribution scale (IPVRAS). European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 6(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2014a4
54.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
55.
MarshH. W.EllisL. A.ParadaR. H.RichardsG.HeubeckB. G. (2005). A short version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.81
56.
Martín-FernándezM.GraciaE.LilaM. (2018). Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW scale. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(3), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2018a18
57.
Martín-FernándezM.GraciaE.LilaM. (2019). Psychological intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A cross-national invariance study. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7998-0
58.
Martín-FernándezM.GraciaE.LilaM. (2020). Ensuring the comparability of cross-national survey data on intimate partner violence against women: A cross-sectional, population-based study in the European Union. BMJ Open, 10(3), Article e032231. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032231
59.
Martín-FernándezM.GraciaE.MarcoM.VargasV.SantirsoF. A.LilaM. (2018). Measuring acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the A-IPVAW scale. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 10(1), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a3
60.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.JoeH. (2014). Assessing approximate fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(4), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.911075
61.
McKinneyC. M.CaetanoR.Ramisetty-MiklerS.NelsonS. (2009). Childhood family violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence: Findings from a national population-based study of couples. Annals of Epidemiology, 19(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.08.008
62.
MegíasJ. L.Toro-GarcíaV.Carretero-DiosH. (2018). The acceptance of myths about intimate partner violence against women (AMIVAW) scale: Development and validation in Spanish and English. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317742638
63.
MilfontT. L.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
PowellA.WebsterK. (2018). Cultures of gendered violence: An integrative review of measures of attitudinal support for violence against women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816675669
66.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
67.
RammstedtB.BeierleinC. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and way to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 212-220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141
68.
RizoC. F.MacyR. J. (2011). Help seeking and barriers of Hispanic partner violence survivors: A systematic review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.004
69.
RolleroC.GlickP.TartagliaS. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 149-159. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
70.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(1), 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372160
71.
Sánchez-HernándezM. D.Herrera-EnríquezM. C.ExpósitoF. (2020). Controlling behaviors in couple relationships in the digital age: Acceptability of gender violence, sexism, and myths about romantic love. Psychosocial Intervention, 29(2), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a1
72.
Sanduvete-ChavesS.Chacón-MoscosoS.Sánchez-MartínM.Pérez-GilJ. A. (2013). The revised Osterlind index: A comparative analysis in content validity studies. Acción Psicológica, 10(2), 10-26. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.11821
73.
SassD. A.SchmittT. A.MarshH. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.882658
74.
SchipolowskiS.SchroedersU.WilhelmO. (2014). Pitfalls and challenges in constructing short forms of cognitive ability measures. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000134
75.
SmithG. T.McCarthyD. M.AndersonK. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
76.
StantonJ. M.SinarE. F.BalzerW. K.SmithP. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x
77.
StöcklH.DevriesK.RotsteinA.AbrahamsN.CampbellJ.WattsC.García-MorenoC. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. Lancet, 382(9895), 859-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62358-2
78.
ThorntonL.BatterhamP. J.FassnachtD. B.Kay-LambkinF.CalearA. L.HuntS. (2016). Recruiting for health, medical or psychosocial research using Facebook: Systematic review. Internet Interventions, 4(Part 1), 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2016.02.001
79.
Topolovec-VranicJ.NatarajanK. (2016). The use of social media in recruitment for medical research studies: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(11), Article e286. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5698
80.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.17
van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (2013). Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
83.
VilariñoM.AmadoB. G.VázquezM. J.ArceR. (2018). Psychological harm in women victims of intimate partner violence: Epidemiology and quantification of injury in mental health markers. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(3), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2018a23
84.
Vives-CasesC.Torrubiano-DomÍnguezJ.Escribà-AgüirV.Ruiz-PérezI.Montero-PiñarM. I.Gil-GonzálezD. (2011). Social determinants and health effects of low and high severity intimate partner violence. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(12), 907-913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.02.003
85.
WaltermaurerE. (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699
WestA.WandreiM. L. (2002). Intimate partner violence: A model for predicting interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 972-986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017009004
88.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Author.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
