ArticleAssessment2024
Interpartner Agreement on Intimate Partner Violence Reports: Evidence From a Community Sample of Different-Sex Couples.
Article in Assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Instruments to Assess Bidirectional Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2026Pooled it
- How to Evaluate Reports of Intimate Partner Violence? Examining Interpartner Agreement in a Forensic Sample of Different-Sex Couples Where Men are Accused of Intimate Partner Violence.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An accurate assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) is crucial to guide public policy and intervention. The Conflict Tactic Scales Revised (CTS-2) is one of the most widely used instruments to do so. Despite its good psychometric properties, research on interpartner agreement has pointed to low-to-moderate estimates, which generated some concerns about the validity of the results obtained through single-partner reports. This cross-sectional study introduces indexes that have not previously been used to assess interpartner agreement. Both partners' reports on perpetration and victimization were analyzed in a community sample of 268 different-sex couples. Our results generally pointed to better agreement levels on IPV occurrence than frequency, suggesting that the proxy method (i.e., using a single-partner report) could be a reliable method for assessing IPV occurrence but not its frequency in this population. Findings are discussed as well as the advantages and constraints of different IPV assessment practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.