Validation of a Measure of Psychological Aggression in Same-Sex Couples: Descriptive Data on Perpetration and Victimization and Their Association with Physical Violence

Abstract

Despite its documented elevated prevalence, psychological aggression in couple relationships rarely receives the same degree of attention as physical aggression. Indeed, psychological violence is much more prevalent than physical violence in couples, and its impact can be just as devastating. Research has recently begun to address psychological aggression in same-sex couples, but the most commonly used questionnaire for assessing intimate partner violence has yet to be fully validated with this population. The two objectives of the present study are (1) to present the first data on the psychometric properties of the psychological aggression scale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CST2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) with individuals in same-sex couple relationships, and (2) to examine the relationship between psychological aggression and physical violence in this population. Two hundred eighteen individuals (75 men and 143 women) participated in this study. Results support the factor structure, reliability, and concurrent validity of the psychological aggression scale. Rates of psychological and physical violence are reported, and results indicate that psychological aggression is strongly correlated with physical violence in same-sex couples. Gender differences are highlighted and the importance of developing valid and reliable instruments to measure this construct is emphasized.

KEYWORDS:

• psychological aggression
• psychometric properties
• same-sex couples
• gay men
• lesbians
• intimate partner violence

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Couple Research Lab team for their support during this project.

Notes

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with the same sample are not recommended. However, in order to provide a rationale for using EFA with our male sample, we made the decision to also present results of the CFA with the male sample. Results suggested that our one-dimension model for perpetration was a good fit for the data (χ² = 22.89, p = .12, NFI = .88, IFI = .96 and CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08) but with problematic standardized regression weights ranging from –.03 to .1.17. Standardized regression weights for items 67 and 25 loaded negatively on the factor and were below the recommended cutoff of .30 for items 69 and 29. Results also suggested that our one-dimension model for victimization was a good fit for the data from the male sample (χ² = 28.93, p = .02, NFI = .89, IFI and CFI = .95, RMSEA = .11) with more acceptable standardized regression weights ranging from .06 to .92 and items 26, 30, and 66 below the cutoff of .30. The instability of the male sample's results indicates that CFA is not suitable for small samples. This is particularly true in the present case wherein may items have low variance due to the nature of the variable measured.