Psychometric Properties of the Coercion in Intimate Partner Relationships Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coercive control is defined as the systematic use of demands, threats, and surveillance behaviors to gain control over an individual. Content validity appears to be an issue for existing measures of coercive control tactics, as they do not assess all of these behaviors. This study investigated the validity and reliability of the Demand, Threat, Surveillance, and Response to Demands subscales of the Coercion in Intimate Partner Relationships (CIPR) scale. Participants ( N = 541) completed online measures of coercive control, physical intimate partner violence, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology. Confirmatory factor analyses, linear regressions, and correlational analyses investigated the construct (i.e., concurrent, convergent, and discriminant) validity of the CIPR subscales. Internal consistency of the subscales and test–retest reliability were also examined. Results provided support for the validity and reliability of the CIPR. Implications and usage of the CIPR in research and practice are discussed. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".