There are a plethora of data indicating that intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs at high rates in college students (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated these high rates of IPV, some researchers have criticized the reliability and validity of the self-report measures commonly used to assess these rates (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013; Ryan, 2013). There is some research to suggest that subtle factors, such as item order, can impact self-reports of violence victimization and perpetration (Ramirez & Straus, 2006). This phenomenon has been most widely studied in the context of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, et al., 1996), a widely used measure of IPV, which may not comprehensively assess psychological aggression. Thus, in the current study we examined differences in self-reports of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) when it was administered in either the standard format or in a format in which question order was randomized. Given that there may be gender differences in victimization and perpetration, we also examined the impact gender would have on item order effects. Presented at ABCT, Nov. 2015.

1. Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the Multidimensional
Measure of Emotional Abuse
Catherine V. Strauss1, William C. Woods2, Tara L. Cornelius3, & Ryan C. Shorey1
1Ohio University
2University of Chicago
3Grand Valley State University
Introduction
There are a plethora of data indicating that intimate partner violence (IPV)
occurs at high rates in college students (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008).
Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated these high rates of IPV,
some researchers have criticized the reliability and validity of the self-report
measures commonly used to assess these rates (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013;
Ryan, 2013). There is some research to suggest that subtle factors, such as
item order, can impact self-reports of violence victimization and
perpetration (Ramirez & Straus, 2006). This phenomenon has been most
widely studied in the context of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2;
Straus, et al., 1996), a widely used measure of IPV, which may not
comprehensively assess psychological aggression. Thus, in the current study
we examined differences in self-reports of psychological aggression
victimization and perpetration using the Multidimensional Measure of
Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) when it was
administered in either the standard format or in a format in which question
order was randomized. Given that there may be gender differences in
victimization and perpetration, we also examined the impact gender would
have on item order effects.
Hypotheses
1. Standard and randomized forms of the MMEA will yield different rates
of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration.
2. Females and males will differ in overall psychological victimization and
perpetration rates.
Methods
Sample
In total, 496 college students who were 18 years or older and in current
dating relationships were randomly assigned to take either a standard or
randomized format of the MMEA. The sample was mostly female (69.7%),
heterosexual (94.5%), and Caucasian (85.6%). On average, participants
were in dating relationships that had lasted 16.73 months (SD= 15.06). The
mean age of participants was 19.26 (SD = 2.79) years old.
Procedure and Instruments
The surveys were administered through an online program, and students
took either the standard or randomized format of the MMEA. They also
answered a series of demographic questions about age, gender, and other
variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were then run
to examine the effects of item order, gender, and the interaction between
item order and gender on self-reports of psychological aggression.
Results
Means and standard deviations of MMEA scores for each subscale of the
MMEA are presented across genders (Table 1) and formats (Table 2).
As can be see in Table 3, there was a significant main effect for gender, in
that women reported more total victimization and perpetration than men.
This pattern also occurred specifically on the Hostile Withdrawal scale,
victimization on the Domination/Intimidation scale, and perpetration on the
Restrictive Engulfment scale.
There was also a significant main effect of measure format on reports of
psychological aggression, in that those participants who took the standard
version were more likely to report higher total victimization and
perpetration than those who took the randomized version. This same effect
was seen for both victimization and perpetration on the Restrictive
Engulfment scale. However, the participants who took the randomized
format reported more victimization on the Denigration scale only. No
significant interactions between item order and gender were observed.
Discussion
Previous research has shown that rates of self-reported victimization and
perpetration of IPV can be influenced by small changes to existing
measures, such as item order. Our results further support this idea.
Researchers have posited that the formats that produce the highest
prevalence rates are the most accurate reflections of reality (e.g., Ramirez &
Straus, 2006). However, these higher rates may also reflect the results of a
consistency effect, in which participants answer in similar ways in specific
domains and overall, even if the responses they give do not represent what
actually occurred. Similarly, because the measure is quite long, assessing 28
acts of psychological aggression in total, it is possible that fatigue effects
could have caused participants to endorse fewer instances of victimization
and perpetration later on in the survey in order to get through the measure
more quickly.
Though these results are compelling, future research should be conducted in
order to understand effects of other nuanced changes in measures, and
should investigate these effects in more diverse samples. Furthermore, other
commonly used measures should be tested to see if these effects generalize
to measures of similar and different types of self-reported IPV victimization
and perpetration.
Contact: cs008713@ohio.edu, willcwoods@gmail.com, cornelta@gvsu.edu, shorey@ohio.edu.
References
Follingstad, D.R., & Ryan, K.M. (2013). Contemporary issues in the measurement of partner violence. Sex
Roles, 69, 115-119. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0298-8
Murphy, C.M. & Hoover, S.A. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial
construct. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 39-53.
Ramirez, I.L., & Straus, M.A. (2006). The effect of question order on disclosure of intimate partner violence:
An experimental test using the conflict tactics scales. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 1-9. doi: 10.1007/
s10896-005-9000-4
Ryan, K.M. (2013). Issues of reliability in measuring intimate partner violence during courtship.
Sex Roles, 69, 131-148. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0233-4
Shorey, R.C., Cornelius, T.L., & Bell, K.M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating
violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185-194. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003
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(3), 283-316. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Standard
M(SD)
Randomized
M(SD)
Restrictive Engulfment
Victimization 10.90 (18.93) 7.62 (17.40)
Perpetration 8.59 (15.17) 6.38 (12.39)
Denigration
Victimization 2.92 (9.91) 3.21 (8.15)
Perpetration 2.47 (7.04) 1.59 (4.04)
Domination/Intimidation
Victimization 1.32 (5.05) 1.61 (4.61)
Perpetration .80 (3.43) .74 (2.43)
Hostile Withdrawal
Victimization 11.04 (21.79) 10.50 (17.49)
Perpetration 9.49 (14.80) 7.47 (11.10)
Total
Victimization 26.17 (41.43) 22.94 (38.75)
Perpetration 21.36 (29.53) 16.18 (22.68)
Men
M(SD)
Women
M(SD)
Restrictive Engulfment
Victimization 9.46 (16.37) 9.20 (19.02)
Perpetration 5.02 (9.11) 8.58 (15.41)
Denigration
Victimization 3.07 (8.54) 3.06 (9.31)
Perpetration 1.85 (6.50) 2.12 (5.43)
Domination/Intimidation
Victimization .78 (3.35) 1.76 (5.33)
Perpetration .72 (.266) .80 (3.11)
Hostile Withdrawal
Victimization 8.35 (14.67) 11.82 (21.54)
Perpetration 6.58 (10.97) 9.32 (13.90)
Total
Victimization 21.66 (34.40) 25.84 (42.35)
Perpetration 14.17 (23.30) 20.81 (27.52)
F
Gender Format Gender × Group
Restrictive Engulfment
Victimization .04 12.51*** .23
Perpetration 11.306*** 11.31*** .51
Denigration
Victimization .16 4.22* .07
Perpetration 3.31 .13 .02
Domination/Intimidation
Victimization 7.19** .21 .38
Perpetration 1.51 .05 3.07
Hostile Withdrawal
Victimization 5.99* 1.95 .53
Perpetration 20.87*** 3.24 1.29
Total
Victimization 6.41* 7.57** .27
Perpetration 19.94*** 8.259** .85
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of MMEA Scores across Genders
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of MMEA Scores across Formats
Table 3 Means Differences between Gender and Format on MMEA Scores