This article uses the National Family Health Survey 2005-2006 (NFHS-3) of India to examine the relationship between interview interruption and the reporting of domestic violence. A sample of 65,610 currently married women was used to compare reported acts of physical and sexual violence among women who had been interrupted during their interview and those who had not. Logistic regression analyses indicated that women whose interviews were interrupted by either an adult man or woman were significantly more likely to report intimate partner violence.
AquilanoW. S. (1993). Effects of spouse presence during the interview on survey responses concerning marriage. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 358-376.
2.
AquilanoW. S.LosciutoL. A. (1990). Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 362-395.
3.
BabuB. V.KarS. K. (2009). Domestic violence against women in eastern India: A population-based study on prevalence and related issues. BMC Public Health, 9, Article 129. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-129
4.
ChowdhuryN.PatelV. (2008). The effect of spousal violence on women’s health: Findings from the Stree Arogya Shodh in Goa, India. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 54, 306-312.
5.
ClearyP.MechanicD.WeissN. (1981). The effect of interviewer characteristics on responses to a mental health interview. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 183-193.
6.
DaileyR.ClausR. (2001). The relationship between interviewer characteristics and physical and sexual abuse disclosures among substance users: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 867-888.
7.
DalalK.LindqvistK. (2010). A national study of the prevalence and correlates of domestic violence among women in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 24, 265-277.
8.
EllsbergM. (2006). Addendum to the NFHS-3 interviewer’s training guidelines. Mumbai, India: International Institute for Population Sciences.
9.
EllsbergM.HeiseL. (2002). Bearing witness: Ethics in domestic violence research. The Lancet, 359, 1599-1604.
10.
EllsbergM.HeiseL.PenaR.AgurtoS.WinkvistA. (2001). Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32, 1-16.
11.
FontesL. (2004). Ethics in violence against women research: The sensitive, the dangerous, and the overlooked. Ethics & Behavior, 14, 141-174.
12.
HunterW.SadowskiL.HassanF.JainD.DePaulaC.VizcarraB.AmarilloM. (2004). Training and field methods in the WorldSAFE collaboration to study family violence. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 11, 91-100.
13.
International Institute for Population Sciences. (2009). National Family Health Survey. Mumbai, India: Author.
14.
International Institute for Population Sciences, Macro International. (2009). India Demographic and Health Survey 2005-2006. Calverton, MD: Macro International.
15.
KoenigM. A.StephensonR.AhmedS.JejeebhoyS. J.CampbellJ. (2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 132-138.
16.
KossM. P. (1992). The under-detection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.
17.
MiltiadesH. (2008). Interview as social event: Cultural influences experienced while interviewing older adults in India. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 277-291.
18.
O’MuircheartaighC.CampanelliP. (1998). The relative impact of interviewer effects and sample design on survey precision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 161, 63-77.
19.
SingerE.FrankelM.GlassmanM. (1983). The effect of interviewer characteristics and expectations on response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 68-83.
20.
WilsonS.BrownN.MejiaC.LavoriP. (2002). Effects of interviewer characteristics on reported sexual behavior of California Latino couples. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 38-62.
21.
World Health Organization. (1999). Putting women’s safety first: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women (Report No. WHO/EIP/GPE/99.2). Geneva, Switzerland: Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, World Health Organization.
22.
World Health Organization. (2000). Violence prevention in South-East Asia. New Delhi, India: WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia.
