Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Controlling Behaviors in Adolescent Dating Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In adolescent dating relationships, controlling behaviors are typically used to alter the partner’s behavior and beliefs. Control has deleterious consequences for the victims’ well-being and has been shown to lead to the perpetration and escalation of other forms of violence (e.g., physical or sexual). Despite the importance of assessing controlling behaviors in adolescent dating relationships, no specific measure is currently available. To address this gap, the current study aimed to develop and validate the Control in Dating Relationships Scale (CDRS) which measures controlling behaviors in adolescent dating relationships. Two samples of French-speaking dating adolescents were recruited via social media ( n 1 = 311; n 2 = 325). Results of the exploratory factor analyses conducted in the first study revealed a two-factor structure of Isolation (α = .88) and Domination (α = .84), as well as strong temporal stability of scores over 3 months for both Isolation ( r = .63) and Domination ( r = .59). These results were cross-validated in the second sample, with evidence of convergent validity and support for measurement invariance across the victimization and perpetration scales. The CDRS is a promising tool to aid researchers in assessing the presence of controlling behaviors in adolescent dating relationships and, consequently, help inform dating violence prevention programs on controlling behaviors, their consequences, and the risk of escalation into other forms of violence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| 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".