OBJECTIVE: Gender patterns in intimate partner violence (IPV) remain a controversial topic. Some self-report measures produce gender parity in IPV rates. However, other self-report surveys do produce gender parity, nor do arrests, reports to law enforcement, homicide data, helpseeking data, or witness reports. This methodological inconsistency is still poorly understood. The objective of these studies is to explore the effects of item wording on gender patterns for victimization reports in a range of samples. METHOD: In Study 1, 238 undergraduates were randomly assigned either the standard Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) physical victimization items or a version which changed the partner-specific wording to generic wording (Someone instead of My partner), with perpetrator information collected in follow-up. Studies 2 and 3 compared the standard approach to items with stems intended to reduce false positives (either Not including horseplay or around. . or When my partner was angry. .), among 251 college students and 98 agency-involved women, respectively. Study 4 implemented the not joking alternative from Study 3 in a large rural community sample (n = 1,207). RESULTS: In Studies 1 and 2, significant Wording × Gender analyses indicated that some item wordings yielded higher rates of female than male victimization. Study 3 showed similar patterns across forms for highly victimized women. Study 4 found higher female than male victimization for a new scale and every item. CONCLUSION: The CTS and similar behavioral checklists are unusual in their inattention to false positives. Self-report measures designed to minimize false positives produce results consistent with other IPV methodologies; that is, they do demonstrate gender parity. The Partner Victimization Scale, described here, can be used when a scale that has multimethod convergence with other IPV methodologies is desired. ©2016 American Psychological Association Language: en
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 132 citations exist upstream.