Validation of a Measure of Psychological Aggression in Same-Sex Couples: Descriptive Data on Perpetration and Victimization and Their Association with Physical Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its documented elevated prevalence, psychological aggression in couple relationships rarely receives the same degree of attention as physical aggression. Indeed, psychological violence is much more prevalent than physical violence in couples, and its impact can be just as devastating. Research has recently begun to address psychological aggression in same-sex couples, but the most commonly used questionnaire for assessing intimate partner violence has yet to be fully validated with this population. The two objectives of the present study are (1) to present the first data on the psychometric properties of the psychological aggression scale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CST2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) with individuals in same-sex couple relationships, and (2) to examine the relationship between psychological aggression and physical violence in this population. Two hundred eighteen individuals (75 men and 143 women) participated in this study. Results support the factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity of the psychological aggression scale. Rates of psychological and physical violence are reported, and results indicate that psychological aggression is strongly correlated with physical violence in same-sex couples. Gender differences are highlighted and the importance of developing valid and reliable instruments to measure this construct is emphasized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".