The current study addresses the validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB), an 84-item domestic violence assessment instrument that can be used to address multiple levels of violence and coercive control in violent relationships. Derived from clinical observation and current theories, the CCB makes use of intimate partner violence survivor reports to identify the intensity and frequency of relationship violence. The instrument is divided into 10 subscales including (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) male privilege, (4) isolation, (5) minimizing and denying, (6) blaming, (7) intimidation, (8) threats, (9) emotional abuse, and (10) economic abuse. To assess validity and reliability of the CCB, 2,135 female volunteers taking refuge at a domestic violence shelter were administered the instrument. Results of principal component analysis of the individual subscales revealed 10 factors having goodness-of-fit values above the desired normative level of .90
AdamsA. E.SullivanC. M.BybeeD.GreesonM. R. (2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.
2.
Agnew-DaviesR. (2006, June). Experience of Abuse Questionnaire (EAQ). In Society for Psychotherapy Research book of abstracts: From research to practice. 37th International meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland.
3.
BabcockJ. C.WaltzJ.JacobsonN. S.GottmannJ. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relationship between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40-50.
4.
BrewsterM. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 207-217.
5.
ByrneB. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
6.
CassidyM. A. (1995). Power-control theory: Its potential application to women battering. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(2), 1-15.
7.
CookS. L.SnowS. C. (Eds.). (2006). Special issue: Gender symmetry in domestic violenceViolence Against Women, 12(11).
8.
DasguptaS. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 8, 1364-1389.
9.
DeKeseredyW. S.SchwartzM. D. (1998). Male peer support and woman abuse in postsecondary school courtship: Suggestions for new directions in sociological research. In BergenR. K. (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 83-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DuttonM. A.GoodmanL. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756.
11.
DuttonM. A.GoodmanL. A.SchmidtR. J. (2005). Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report (US DOJ Report No. 214438). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
12.
EhrensaftM. K.Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ.HeymanR. E.O’LearyK. D.LawrenceE. (1999). Feeling controlled in marriage, a phenomenon specific to physically aggressive couples?Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 20-32.
13.
FrenchJ. R.RavenB. (1959). The bases of social power. In CartwrightD. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
14.
GondolfE. W. (1995). Alcohol abuse, wife assault, and power needs. Social Service Review, 69, 274-284.
15.
GondolfE. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues outcomes and recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Graham-KevanN. (2007). Power and control in relationship aggression. In HamelJ.NichollsT. L. (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence (pp. 87-108). New York: Springer.
17.
Graham-KevanN.ArcherJ. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247-1270.
18.
HannawaA. F.SpitzbergB. H.WieringL.TeranishiC. (2006). “If I can’t have you, no one can”: Development of a Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale (REPS). Violence and Victims, 21, 539-560.
19.
HanrahanD. M. (1997). Gender and spousal violence: A test of social control and power-control theories. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 25, 189-197.
20.
Holtzworth-MunroeA. (2000). A typology of men who are violent toward their female partners: Making sense of the heterogeneity in husband violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 140-143.
21.
Holtzworth-MunroeA.MeehanJ. C.HerrronK.RehmanU.StuartG. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019.
22.
JaffeP. G.JohnstonJ. R.CrooksC. V.BalaN. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46, 500-522.
23.
JohnsonM. J. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57, 283-294.
24.
JohnsonM. J. (2004). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. In ReisH. T.RusbultC. E. (Eds.), Closerelationships: Key readings (pp. 471-482). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
25.
JohnsonM. J. (2006a). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
26.
JohnsonM. J. (2006b). Violence and abuse in personal relationships: Conflict, terror, and resistance in intimate partnerships. In VangelistiA. L.PerlmanD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 557-576). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
JohnsonM. J. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance and situational couple violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
28.
JohnsonM. J.FerraroK. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 948-963.
29.
JonesA.SchecterA. (1993). When love goes wrong: What to do when you can’t do anything right. New York: HarperCollins.
30.
KellyJ. B.JohnsonM. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499.
31.
LehmannP.SimmonsC. (2009). The state of batterer intervention programs: An analytical discussion. In LehmannP.SimmonsC. (Eds.), Strengths-based batterer intervention: A new paradigm in ending family violence (pp. 3-38). New York: Springer.
32.
LeoneJ. M.JohnsonM. P.CohanC. L.LloydS. E. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 472-490.
PenceE.PaymarM. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program Development.
35.
PenceE.PaymarM. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.
36.
RavenB. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In SteinerI. D.FishbeinM. (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–381). New York: Wiley.
37.
RavenB. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 217-244.
38.
RavenB. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 227-251.
39.
ShepardM. F.PenceE. L. (Eds.). (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
SmithP. H.SmithJ. B.EarpJ. A. (1999). Beyond the measurement trap: A reconstructed conceptualization and measurement of woman battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 177-193.
41.
StarkE. (2006). Commentary on Johnson’s “Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.”Violence Against Women, 12, 1019-1025.
42.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
StrauchlerO.McCloskeyK.MalloyK.SitakerM.GrigsbyN.GilligP. (2004). Humiliation, manipulation, and control: Evidence of centrality in domestic violence against an adult partner. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 339-354.
44.
TangC. S. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 586-602.
45.
TolmanR. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-177.
46.
UmbersonD.AndersonK.GlickJ.ShapiroA. (1998). Domestic violence, personal control and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 442-452.
47.
YlloK. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In GellesR. J.LoskeD. R. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
