ArticleBMJ open2026
Validation of the Coercive-Composite Abuse Scale (C-CAS) in an Australian sample of women experiencing intimate partner abuse.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCoercive control is a complex behavioural phenomenon where severity, frequency and patterns need to be examined collectively. However, approaches to measuring coercive control to date have demonstrated limited understanding of these patterns of behaviour by a partner or ex-partner that reflect an individual woman's experience. The aim of this study was to develop a holistic contemporary valid self-report measure of coercive control by partners.
designStandard instrument development, with academic and lived experience feedback and psychometric testing, using secondary data analysis, to develop the Coercive-Composite Abuse Scale (C-CAS).
settingAustralian survey of women: feedback from experts.
participantsData for scale development from 854 adult women in Australia, where items assessed 5-year and 12-month abuse frequency. Feedback from five survivors and eight expert researchers. PRIMARY/SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Scale reliability and validity; robustness of subscales; association with fear of a partner.
resultsDeveloped from existing scales and informed by academic and lived-experience expertise, the C-CAS factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure accounting for 57% of variance - Psychological Control (13 items, α=0.928), Sexual and Reproductive Coercion (6 items, α=0.887), Severe Coercive Control (8 items, α=0.820) and Technology-Facilitated Threats (3 items, α=0.754), showing excellent internal consistency. Evidence of the scale's face, content and construct validity was demonstrated, with further testing needed to confirm these findings. The factors combined into four key patterns- three of combined abuse and psychological control, which were experienced alone by some women. Our hypotheses asserting distinct patterns of abuse types for individuals, with severe combined patterns eliciting greater fear of a partner/ex-partner, were confirmed.
conclusionsThe C-CAS, a self-report measure of coercive control experiences among women, has demonstrated initial reliability and validity and is suitable for use in population or clinical studies. Additional validation with diverse samples is required.
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.