The Dating Violence Questionnaire: Validation of the Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios Using a College Sample From the United States

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Springer Publishing in Violence and Victims: López-Cepero, J., Fabelo, H. E., Rodríguez-Franco, L., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J. (2016). The Dating Violence Questionnaire: Validation of the Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios Using a College Sample From the United States. Violence and Victims, 31(3), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00077 Running head: THE DATING VIOLENCE QUESTIONNAIRE 1 The Dating Violence Questionnaire: Validation of the Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios (CUVINO) Using a College Sample from the U.S. Abstract Present study provides psychometric information of the Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ), an instrument developed to assess intimate partner victimization among adolescents and youths. This instrument, English version of Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios (CUVINO), gives information regarding both frequency and discomfort associated to eight types of abuse (detachment, humiliation, sexual, coercion, physical, gender-based, emotional punishment, and instrumental). Participant were included N=859 US students enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses in a mid-Atlantic university (X=19yr; sd=1.5). One third of participants were males and two thirds were women. Regarding racial identity, around 55% of participants identified themselves as White, 22% as African-American, 12% as Asian, while 11% selected other identities. Around a 9% of participants identified themselves as Hispanic. The confirmatory factor analysis shown that DVQ achieved adequate goodness of fit indexes for the original eight factor model (CMIN/df<5; RMSEA<.080), as well as higher parsimony when compared to simpler alternative models. The eight scales shown acceptable internal consistency indexes (alpha>.700), surpassing these found in original Spanish validation. Descriptive analysis shown higher victimization experience on subtle aggressions (detachment, coercion and emotional punishment), with overt abuses (physical, instrumental) obtaining the smallest means; these findings were similar across sex, race-identity and ethnicity. Results of this validation study encourage the inclusion of DVQ in both research and applied contexts. Keywords: dating violence, intimate partner violence, assessment, college students Dating Violence Questionnaire: Validation of the Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios Using a College Sample from the U.S. The existence of dating violence in young people is a phenomenon that has been widely documented in many countries around the world (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford & Fiebert, 2012; Esquivel-Santoveña, Lambert & Hamel, 2013) and there is ample empirical evidence of the negative effects on the physical and mental health of the victims (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Holmes & Sher, 2013). Consequently, the scientific literature has reflected a growing interest in the development of prevention programs that target young people (De Grace & Clarke, 2012; Muñoz-Rivas, Grana & González, 2011). Several authors, however, agree about the lack of studies where behavioral change is assessed over time (Shorey et al., 2012; De Grace et al., 2012) and this highlights the need to develop assessment tools that are sensitive to the most frequent and significant experiences among the adolescent and young adult populations (Shorey et al., 2012). Despite this, few validated tools have been created and validated to assess dating violence experiences among adolescents and youths. Previous reviews (Almendros et al., 2009; Hays & Emelianchik, 2009; López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Franco, & Rodriguez-Diaz, 2015; Rabin, Jennings, Campbell & Bair-Merritt, 2009) refer to only three available validated instruments: the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationship Inventory (CADRI) (Wolfe et al., 2001), which assesses both perpetration and victimization, and that is validated with Canadian, Mexican, and Spanish samples; the Violence Faite Aux Dans les Filles à l' Adolescence Fréquentations (VIFFA) (Lavoie & Vézina, 2001), that measures victimization and was validated with a Canadian sample, and the Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios (CUVINO) or Dating Violence Questionnaire (Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2007; Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010 ), which assesses victimization and was validated with Spanish, Mexican and Argentine samples. However, none of these instruments have been as widely used as the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) or the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA; Hudson & McIntosh, 1981), tools originally developed for adult populations (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2011; López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Franco & Rodríguez-Díaz, 2015). Provided that set of items contained in an instrument determine the universe of phenomena that can be assessed, thus providing an empirical definition of what violence is (Schinkel, 2010), developing tools focused on dating relationships seems fully justified. Many authors have claimed the need for a standard tool to measure dating violence among youth (Mulford & Blachman-Demner, 2013). This lack of a standard or golden rule, in part, results in major difference in the prevalence rates reported based on the variability of the behaviors assessed, as well as the method used to conduct the assessment (e.g., paper and pencil or online versus data collection methods; Murphy, Pierre & Gydicz, 2012). Among teen and young adult population in the U.S., for example, we find prevalence rates from around 20% to 35% for physical victimization (Desmarais et al., 2012), about 3% for sexual assault victimization (Hamby & Turner, 2013), and 15% for suffering any aggression among Internet users (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, & Yahner, 2013). Among those who have also experienced some form of psychological abuse, 80% also reported experiencing physical abuse (Johnson et al., 2013), with up to 12% of these reporting being stalked (Spitzberg, Cupach, & Ciceraro, 2010). Beyond the question of prevalence, the literature also reflects interest in the possible influence of certain variables on violent personal experiences. Among these, the respondent’s sex has been the most widely studied, especially through the so-called gender symmetry debate (Archer, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn & Rohling, 2012). In general, the literature notes increased physical victimization among males as compared to young women in community samples (with some remarkable exceptions, such as the results extracted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013), although conclusions are the opposite among prison and shelter populations (Desmarais et al., 2012; Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2013; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). This phenomenon has been explained due to existence of different types of violence: intimate terrorism, in which control and gender constructions are central and that would be perpetrated mainly by men against women; and situational couple violence, that is less related to control and more influenced by immediate context, and which frequency rates would be similar among males and females (Johnson, 2006, 2008; Johnson, Leone & Xu, 2014; Laroche, 2005). In a similar way, literature shows mixed data regarding severity of physical violence, with higher severity of aggression directed to males when studies included students and youth populations (Coker, McKeown, Sanderson, Davis et al., 2000; Katz, Kuffel & Coblentz, 2002), but with higher prevalence of injuries among female when including adults (Laroche, 2005) or selected groups, as military population (Cantos, Neidig & O’Leary, 1994). Although scant attention has been given to the effect of sex in other types of violence, several studies agree that women experience more sexual victimization within the context of an intimate relationship than do men, with double the prevalence rates of abuse both in person (Hamby & Turner, 2013) as well as through electronic means (Zweig et al., 2013). Finally, with the exception of stalking which is experienced more by women (Spitzberg & Cupach; 2007; Spitzberg et al., 2010) recent studies have found statistical similarity in psychological victimization between men and women (Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Rey-Anacona, 2013; Zweig et al.). Race identity and ethnicity have also attracted the attention of researchers, with literature presenting mixed results. In adults, some studies indicate a greater prevalence of victimization among persons self-identified as African Americans and Hispanics as compared to those who self-identify as White (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012), while Asians present the lowest rate (Cho, 2012). Other studies, however, found similarities between Whites and Blacks (Barrick, Krebs, & Lindquist, 2013) and Hispanics and non-Hispanics (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), while highlighting greater prevalence among Native Americans (Tjaden et al., 2000). Among young people, Halpern, Spriggs, Martin and Kupper (2009) found that Hispanics and African Americans reported more victimization than other groups in a representative sample from the U.S. It is possible that the inconsistencies around these studies are related, at least in part, to socioeconomic differences (Barrick et al., 2013) or the presentation of results that combine race and ethnicity (Ellison , Trinitapoli, Anderson, & Johnson, 2007) . In the light of this background, present study has two objectives. First, to assess the psychometric properties of the Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ), the English version of the CUVINO (Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010) using a sample of young adults enrolled at a large university in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. And second, to provide data on the relationship between victimization experience and the sex, race, and ethnic identity of the respondents. Method Participants There was a total of 859 participants, all students at a public university in the mid- Atlantic region of the U.S. Respondents’ age ranged between 18 and 26 years (M = 19.0 years, SD = 1.5 years), and all reported having had at least one relationship of more than one month in duration at some point of their lifespan. Over ninety percent (91.7 %) of participants reported about a heterosexual relationship and 4.5% reported about a same-sex relationship (3.7 % of cases had missing data for this variable). All participants were enrolled in some undergraduate psychology course and agreed to participate through informed consent. All were rewarded with research credits related to a course they were in. Two thirds of the sample identified as women (n = 569) and a third, men (n = 280). In terms of racial identity, just over half (54.8 %) reported being White, compared to 21.6 % African American, 12.0% Asian, and 11.7% other identities. Almost 9 percent (8.8%) of those who provided information about their ethnicity indicated Hispanic ethnicity. Regarding socioeconomic status, 80.5% of participants considered themselves as middle, 11.9% selected low, and 7.6% reported being high class. No statistically significant contingency relationship among sex, racial, ethnic identity, and/or perceived social class was found (p > 0.10 in all cases). Instruments The Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ), the English translation of the original Spanish version of the CUVINO, is a behavioral assessment tool based on 42 different abuse situations that could occur within the context of an intimate relationship (Rodríguez- Franco et al., 2007; Rodríguez- Franco et al., 2010 (please refer to Appendix). Previous validations of the CUVINO (DVQ), carried out with over 5,000 subjects from Spain, Mexico, and Argentina, support an 8-factor structure, providing a novel empirical definition that distinguishes eight ways to sustain aggression (detachment, humiliation, sexual, coercion, physical, gender-based, emotional punishment, and instrumental violence; Rodriguez-Franco et al., 2010), assessing types of violence that are unattended in alternative instruments (such as VIFFA, CADRI, CTS, ISA, etc.). Construct validity has been demonstrated by convergence with attitudes towards violence (Rodríguez-Franco, Antuña, López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Díaz & Molleda, 2012), gender roles attitudes (López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Franco, Rodríguez-Díaz & Molleda, 2013) and labeling of dating experience (López-Cepero, Lana, Rodríguez-Franco, Paíno & Rodríguez-Díaz, 2015). In addition, the CUVINO (DVQ) has strong internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha equal to .93 for the full set of items and alpha values greater than .700 in six of the eight scales (emotional punishment and instrumental had Cronbach's alphas equal to .68 and .59, respectively). The DVQ assesses two aspects of victimization within a selected intimate relationship: frequency and discomfort. Frequency is measured with five response levels between “never” and “continuously,” and level of discomfort associated with each abusive behavior described with five levels of response between “not at all” and “a lot”. Respondents endorsed discomfort items even if they have never experienced the abusive behavior. The instrument also included demographic variables such as sex, age, and socioeconomic indicators for the respondent as well as their partner. Race and ethnicity were also collected, using the same categories used by U.S. Census Bureau. Procedure The CUVINO (DVQ) was translated into English and back translated into Spanish by members of the research team who were proficient in both languages. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university prior to data collection. Subsequently, the instrument was ready for online use through a web portal designed to ensure anonymity (the research team did not have access to contact details, IP addresses or other identifiers that would permit it to recognize any participant). The resulting database was downloaded and kept in a password-protected file stored in a locked environment. When respondents logged on to participate in the research, they received information about the purpose of the investigation and the contents of the evaluation. Contact information was provided to respondents, so inquiries and/or questions could be made in the event they experienced any discomfort. Participants were informed of their right not participate or to discontinue at any time without any penalty beyond not receiving credit for this particular activity. In this case, participants could elect to participate in other research or complete a homework assignment. Data Analysis The database was created using SPSS software, version 16. Descriptive and inferential analyses included frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion, bivariate Pearson correlations (p < .05), comparison of means (using univariate variance; p < .05), internal consistency of the scales (Cronbach's alpha > .70) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Provided that each scale of DVQ included from 3 to 7 items, means were divided among the number of items, making them range from 0 to 4 points in all cases. The CFA was performed using the statistical package AMOS 16 by combining two complementary strategies, as recommended by DiStefano and Hess (2005). The first strategy used measures of fit based on minimum sample discrepancy function, CMIN/df (< 5), population discrepancy, RMSEA (< progress). It should also be highlighted that DVQ can be used to assess a wide range of abuses within intimate relationships and that it provides not only frequency, but also tolerance, which is relevant information in addressing the specific needs of individuals as well as entire groups. Thereby, present study provides information that encourages the inclusion of DVQ in both research and applied contexts. References Arbuckle, J.L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. US: IBM. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.697 Arias, B. (2008). Desarrollo de un ejemplo de análisis factorial confirmatorio con LISREL, AMOS y SAS. Seminario de Actualización en Investigación sobre Discapacidad SAID. Salamanca, España, 5-6 de junio. Almendros, C., Gámez-Guadix, M., Carrobles, J.A., Rodríguez-Carballeira, & A., & Porrúa, C. (2009). Abuso psicológico: Aportaciones recientes, concepto y medición. Psicología Conductual, 17, 433-451. Banyard, V.L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998-1013. doi: 10.1177/1077801208322058 Barrick, K., Krebs, C.P., & Lindquist, C.H. (2013). Intimate partner violence victimization among undergraduate women at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Violence Against Women, 19, 1014-1033. doi: 10.1177/1077801213499243 Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 113-124. doi: 10.1007/BF01531958 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Youth Risk Behaviors Surveillance System. Retrieved from http://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/ Cho, H. (2012). Racial differences in the prevalence of intimate partner violence against women and associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 344-363. doi: 10.1177/0886260511416469 Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 220-227. doi: 10.1016/S0749- 3797(00)00227-0 Desmarais, S.L., Reeves, K.A., Nicholls, T.L., Telford R.P., & Fiebert, M.S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 1: rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3, 140-169. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.140 De Grace, A., & Clark, A. (2012). Promising practices in the prevention of intimate partner violence among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 27, 849-859. doi: 10.1891/0886- 6708.27.6.849 DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 225-241. doi: 10.1177/073428290502300303 Esquivel-Santoveña, E.E., Lambert, T., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse Worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4, 6-75. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.6 Ellison, C.G., Trinitapoli, J.A., Anderson, K.L., & Johnson, B.R. (2007). Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 1094-1112. doi: 10.1177/1077801207308259 Halpern, C.T., Spriggs, A.L., Martin, S.L., & Kupper, L.L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 508-516. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011 Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the National survey of children’s exposure to violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323-339. doi: 10.1037/a0029706 Hays, D.G., & Emelianchik, K. (2009). A content analysis of intimate partner assessments. Measuring and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 42, 139-152. doi: 10.1177/0748175609344090 Hines, D.A., Armstrong, J.L., Reed, K.P., & Cameron, A.Y. (2012). Gender differences in sexual assault victimization among college students. Violence and Victims, 27, 922-940. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.27.6.922 Holmes, K., & Sher, L. (2013). Dating violence and suicidal behaviour in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25, 257-261. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2013-0059 Hudson, W., & McIntosh, S.R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 873-885 (+888). doi: 10.2307/351344 Johnson, M.D., Anderson, J.R., Liu, W., Zheng, F., Ratcliffe, G.C., Jordan, R., & Rutter, R. (2013). Prevalence and correlates of psychological aggression in male and female college students from Mainland China: An exploratory study. Partner Abuse, 4, 314-331. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.4.3.314 Johnson, M.P. (2006). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018. doi: 10.1177/1077801206293328 Johnson, M.P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence. Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, EEUU: Northeastern University Press. Johnson, M.P., Leone, J.M., &Xu, Y. (2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys: ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women, 20, 186-207. doi: 10.1177/1077801214521324 Jones, S., Davidson II, W.S., Bogat, G.A., Levendosky, A., & von Eye, A. (2005). Validation of the subtle and overt psychological abuse scale. An examination of construct validity. Violence and Victims, 20, 407-416. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.20.4.407 Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247-271. doi: 10.1023/A:1016005312091 Langhinrichsen-Rohling, A., Misra, T.A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M.L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 199-230. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199 Laroche, D. (2005). Context and Consecuences of Domestic Violence Against Men and Women in Canada in 2004. Québec, Canadá: Institut de la Statistique du Québec. Lavoie, F., & Vèzina, L. (2001). Violence faite aux filles dans le contexte des fréquentations à l’adolescence. Élaboration d’un instrument (VIFFA). Revue Canadienne de Santé Mentale, 20, 153-171. López-Cepero, J., Lana, A., Rodríguez-Franco, L., Paíno, S.G., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J. (2015). Percepción y etiquetado de la experiencia violenta en las relaciones de noviazgo juvenil. Gaceta Sanitaria, 29, 21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.07.006 López-Cepero, J., Rodríguez-Franco, L., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J. (2015) Evaluación de la violencia de pareja. Una revisión de instrumentos de evaluación conductual. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica (in press). López-Cepero, J., Rodríguez-Franco, L., Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J., & Bringas, C. (2013). Validación de la versión corta del Social Roles Questionnaire (SRQ-R) con una muestra adolescente y juvenil española. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 18, 1-16. López-Cepero, J., Rodríguez-Franco, L., Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J., & Bringas, C. (2014). Violencia en el noviazgo y violencia del compañero íntimo. Revisión bibliográfica y bibliométrica. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicología, 66, 1-17. Murphy, M., Pierre, V.S., & Gydicz, C. (2012). Assessing acknowledge of rape: a comparison of paper/pencil and Internet surveys. Paper presented at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference, New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://cola.unh.edu/ Mulford, C.F., & Blachman-Demner, D.R. (2013). Teen dating violence: Building a research program through collaborative insights. Violence Against Women, 19, 756-770. doi: 10.1177/1077801213494705 Muñoz-Rivas, M.J., Graña, J.L., & González, M.P. (2011). Abuso psicológico en parejas jóvenes. Psicología Conductual, 19, 117-131. Rabin, R.F., Jennings, J.M., Campbell, J.C., & Bair-Merritt, M.H. (2009). Intimate partner screening tools. A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 439- 445.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024. Rey-Anacona, C.A. (2013). Prevalence and types of dating violence in adolescents and young adults. Terapia Psicológica, 31, 143-154. Rodríguez- Franco, L., Antuña, A., Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J., Herrero, F.J. et al. (2007). Violencia de género en relaciones de pareja durante la adolescencia. Análisis diferencial del cuestionario de violencia entre novios (Cuvino). In R. Arce, Fca. Fariña, E. Alfaro, C. Civera y Fco. Tortosa (Eds.), Psicología Jurídica. Violencia y Víctimas (pp. 137-146). Valencia: Diputación de Valencia. Rodríguez-Franco, L., Antuña, M.A., López-Cepero, J., Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J., & Bringas, C. (2012). Tolerance towards dating violence in Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 24, 236- 242. Rodríguez-Franco, L., López-Cepero, J., Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J., Bringas, C., Antuña, A., & Estrada, C. (2010). Validation of the Dating Violence Questionnaire, DVQ (Cuestionario de Violencia entre Novios, CUVINO) among Spanish-speaking youth: Analysis of results in Spain, Mexico and Argentina. Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 6, 43-50. Schinkel, W. (2010). Aspects of Violence: a Critical Theory. NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Shorey, R.C., Zucosky, H., Bradsfield, H., Febres, J., Cornelius, T.L., Sage, C., & Stuart, G.L. (2012). Dating violence prevention programming: directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 289-296. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.001 Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64-86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001 Spitzberg, B.H., Cupach, W.R., & Ciceraro, L.D.L. (2010). Sex differences in stalking and obsessive relational intrusion: two meta-analyses. Partner Abuse, 1, 259-285. doi:10.1891/1946–6560.1.3.259 Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (TC) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. doi: 10.2307/351733 Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 Wolfe, D.A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatmen, A-L. (2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277 Zweig, J.M., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. (2013). Technology, teen dating violence and abuse, and bullying. Washington DC: Urban Institute. Appendix Dating Violence Questionnaire First, we would like to know how often you have experienced each of the following behaviors in the intimate partnership you selected. There are five levels of Frequency in the scale: 0 = “Never” and 4 = “Continuously” Second, we would like to know how much did these behaviors distress/disturb you, if you ever experienced them, or how much you think they would distress you, if never happened. There are five levels of Disturbance: 0 = “None” and 4 = “Very Much” Frequ ency Disturbance Scale 6 Is a good student, but is always late at meetings, does not fulfil his/her promises, and is irresponsible D 14 Does not acknowledge any responsibility regarding the relationship or what happens to both of you D 22 Imposes rules on the relationship (days, times, types of outings), at his/her exclusive convenience D 30 Has ignored your feelings D 32 Stops talking to you or disappears for several days, without any explanation, to show their annoyance D 33 Manipulates you with lies D 37 Has refused to help you when you were in real need D 7 Humiliates you in public H 15 Criticizes you, underestimates the way you are, or humiliates your self-esteem H 23 Ridicules your way of expressing yourself H 31 Criticizes, insults you, or yells at you H 36 Insults you in the presence of friends or relatives H 40 Has ridiculed or insulted your beliefs, religion or social class H 41 Ridicules or insults you for the ideas you uphold H 2 You feel compelled to have sex as long as you don’t have to explain why S 10 Insists on touching you in ways and places which you don’t like and don’t want S 18 Has treated you as a sexual object S 26 You feel forced to perform certain sexual acts S 34 Doesn’t consider your feelings about sex S 39 Forces you to undress even if you don’t want to S 1 “Tests” your love, setting traps to find out if you are cheating C 9 Talks to you about relationships he/she imagines you have C 17 Threatens to commit suicide or hurt himself/herself if you leave him/her C 25 Has physically kept you from leaving C 38 Invades your space (listening to aloud music when you are studying, listening your phone calls…) C 42 You feel you can’t argue with him/her because he/she is almost always annoyed with you C 5 Has beaten you P 13 Has slapped your face, pushed or shaken you P 20 Has thrown blunt instruments at you P 21 Has hurt you with an object P 29 Damages or destroys objects that mean a lot to you P 3 Mocks women or men in general G 11 Believes that the opposite sex is inferior, and says that its members should obey men (or women) G 19 Has ridiculed or insulted women or men as a group G 27 Has made fun of or discredited your feminity/masculinity G 35 You feel he/she unjustly criticizes your sexuality G 8 Refuses to have sex with you or give you affection to express his/her anger/annoyance E 16 Refuses to give you support or affection as a punishment E 24 Threatens to abandon you E 4 Has stolen from you I 12 Takes car keys or money away from you I 28 Made you go into financial debt I Note. Translated and adapted from original Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios (CUVINO); Rodríguez-Franco et al. (2010). D-detachment; H-Humiliation; S-Sexual; C-Coercion; P- Physical; G-Gender based; E-Emotional Punishment; I-Instrumental. Figure 3. DVQ Scales Weighted Means by Ethnic Group 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 Detachment Humiliation Sexual Coercion Physical Gender b. Em. Punish. Instrum. Hispanic Non Hispanic Total Appendix (Alternative) First, we would like to know how often you have experienced each of the following behaviors in the intimate partnership you selected. There are five levels of Frequency in the scale: 0 = “Never” and 4 = “Continuously” Second, we would like to know how much did these behaviors distress/disturb you, if you ever experienced them, or how much you think they would distress you, if never happened. There are five levels of Disturbance: 0 = “None” and 4 = “Very Much” Frequency Disturbance 1 “Tests” your love, setting traps to find out if you are cheating 2 You feel compelled to have sex as long as you don’t have to explain why 3 Mocks women or men in general 4 Has stolen from you 5 Has beaten you 6 Is a good student, but is always late at meetings, does not fulfil his/her promises, and is irresponsible 7 Humiliates you in public 8 Refuses to have sex with you or give you affection to express his/her anger/annoyance 9 Talks to you about relationships he/she imagines you have 10 Insists on touching you in ways and places which you don’t like and don’t want 11 Believes that the opposite sex is inferior, and says that its members should obey men (or women) 12 Takes car keys or money away from you 13 Has slapped your face, pushed or shaken you 14 Does not acknowledge any responsibility regarding the relationship or what happens to both of you 15 Criticizes you, underestimates the way you are, or humiliates your self-esteem 16 Refuses to give you support or affection as a punishment 17 Threatens to commit suicide or hurt himself/herself if you leave him/her 18 Has treated you as a sexual object 19 Has ridiculed or insulted women or men as a group 20 Has thrown blunt instruments at you 21 Has hurt you with an object 22 Imposes rules on the relationship (days, times, types of outings), at his/her exclusive convenience 23 Ridicules your way of expressing yourself 24 Threatens to abandon you 25 Has physically kept you from leaving 26 You feel forced to perform certain sexual acts 27 Has made fun of or discredited your feminity/masculinity 28 Made you go into financial debt 29 Damages or destroys objects that mean a lot to you 30 Has ignored your feelings 31 Criticizes, insults you, or yells at you 32 Stops talking to you or disappears for several days, without any explanation, to show their annoyance 33 Manipulates you with lies 34 Doesn’t consider your feelings about sex 35 You feel he/she unjustly criticizes your sexuality 36 Insults you in the presence of friends or relatives 37 Has refused to help you when you were in real need 38 Invades your space (listening to aloud music when you are studying, listening your phone calls…) 39 Forces you to undress even if you don’t want to 40 Has ridiculed or insulted your beliefs, religion or social class 41 Ridicules or insults you for the ideas you uphold 42 You feel you can’t argue with him/her because he/she is almost always annoyed with you