Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38727183›Full record

ArticleJournal of interpersonal violence2025

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.

Marta Capinha, Daniel Rijo, Marlene Matos, Marco Pereira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interpersonal violence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marta CapinhaCenter for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive and Behavioural Intervention, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2585-1357
Daniel RijoCenter for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive and Behavioural Intervention, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5368-0770
Marlene MatosPsychology Research Center, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2194-839X
Marco PereiraCenter for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive and Behavioural Intervention, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6086-2329

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research about interpartner agreement on intimate partner violence (IPV) is mainly based on community and clinical samples, with forensic or court-related samples being overlooked. This study assesses interpartner agreement on IPV reports based on the Revised Conflict Tactic Scales, aiming to explore if the proxy method would be reliable in a court-related setting. The study sample comprised 62 different-sex couples identified in the Portuguese judicial system due to an IPV-related crime perpetrated by men. Agreement was assessed based on different indexes: percent agreement and Gwet's AC1 for occurrence, and Tau-b and intraclass correlations for frequency. Men's and women's perpetration were considered. Results showed that interpartner agreement on IPV occurrence (ranging from poor-to-very good) tended to be higher and more consistent among indexes than agreement on IPV frequency (ranging from non-existent to strong). This study highlights the need to collect both partners' reports in court-related settings.

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolenceAdultFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleMiddle AgedPortugalSexual PartnersYoung Adultassessmentbattered womenbatterersdomestic violencepredicting domestic violence

Identifiers

PMID38727183
PMCPMC11673307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.