- Email: [email protected]
Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review
Accepted Manuscript Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review
Cynthia Brown, Kelsey Hegarty PII: DOI: Reference:
S1359-1789(17)30036-8 doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.003 AVB 1184
To appear in:
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
20 January 2017 22 December 2017 5 March 2018
Please cite this article as: Cynthia Brown, Kelsey Hegarty , Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Avb(2017), doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.003
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running head: DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
CR
IP
T
Digital Dating Abuse Measures: A Critical Review
AN
US
Cynthia Brown, PhD Candidate Department of General Practice University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
Kelsey Hegarty, MBBS, PhD Department of General Practice University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Abstract Digital dating abuse is an emerging form of dating violence thought to have serious health effects on young people. In order to fully understand the nature and magnitude of the problem, a clear understanding of the measured construct, and robust measurement instruments
T
are required. To date, a synthesis of available survey instruments and their quality has not been
IP
published, despite the existence of several instruments measuring digital dating abuse in young
CR
people’s relationships. This paper describes existing instruments and their characteristics. A review of the literature from 1990 to 2016 revealed at least 17 different terms representing the
US
digital dating abuse construct, 22 instruments measuring the phenomenon of which 16 were
AN
included in this review, and few clearly defined constructs. Definitional inconsistencies suggest that the instruments may measure various constructs including aggression and abuse, although
M
this remains unclear. Eleven of the 16 instruments reported psychometric properties, at times
ED
limited to reliability evidence. This review highlights the need for delineation between aggressive and abusive digital dating behaviours, stringency in defining the digital dating abuse
AC
Keywords
CE
and validity evidence.
PT
construct, and the development of a robust measurement instrument that yields both reliability
Intimate partner violence, digital dating abuse, technology, measurement, review, youth
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Intimate partner violence is a serious and complex global issue with significant costs to victims and the wider community (Day, McKenna, & Bowlus, 2005; World Health Organization, 2013). Over the last three decades scholars in the field have expanded their research to include dating violence in the intimate relationships of young people. Developmentally, adolescence and
T
early adulthood is a period in which young people form their own values, beliefs, expectations
IP
and attitudes about intimate relationships (Atkinson, Indermaur, & Blagg, 1998; Johnson,
CR
Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2014). While a positive experience for many, it can be associated with discord and abusive behaviour for others (Johnson, Manning, Giordano, &
US
Longmore, 2015). The existence of these negative behaviours in young people’s intimate
AN
relationships renders this stage in the lifespan a seminal point at which to understand early experiences of intimate partner violence (Exner-Cortens, 2014).
M
Dating violence can include verbal, physical and sexual aggression and violence, coercion,
ED
and relational aggression such as controlling behaviours and jealousy (De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2017). A broad range of dating violence risk factors have been identified,
PT
including former exposure to family and community violence (Glass et al., 2003),
CE
neighbourhood factors (Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail, & Rothman, 2015), mental health problems, substance use, peer influence and attitudes toward violence (Leen et al., 2013; Vagi et
AC
al., 2013). A multitude of instruments designed to measure the phenomenon have been developed (Exner-Cortens, Gill, & Eckenrode, 2016a, 2016b) and a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies revealed rates of 20% and 9% for physical and sexual abuse respectively, with prevalence varying by gender and type (Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017). According to Wincentak et al. (2017), significant gender differences exist in physical dating violence perpetration (women 25% versus men 13%) but not victimisation (21% for women and men),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW and a contrasting pattern exists for sexual dating violence perpetration (women 3% versus men 10%) and victimisation (women 14% versus men 8%). Other research suggests however, that young women are more likely to be victims of severe dating violence, to suffer more serious injuries and to experience more psychological effects from dating violence, than young men
T
(Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007; Molidor & Tolman,
IP
1998). Accordingly, a range of adverse health effects are associated with dating violence
CR
including depressive symptomology, suicidal ideation, substance use and antisocial behaviour (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013). To date, school-based dating violence
US
prevention programs show some efficacy in increasing dating violence knowledge and
AN
improving attitudes and beliefs that support dating violence, but little efficacy in reducing incidents of dating violence perpetration or victimisation (De La Rue et al., 2017).
M
A new form of intimate partner violence termed digital dating abuse (DDA) involves the
ED
use of technology to perpetrate abuse in dating relationships. While research suggests that technology- facilitated abuse occurs in some adult relationships (Powell & Henry, 2016;
PT
Woodlock, 2016) youth are the highest users of technology (Anderson, October 2015; Australian
CE
Communications and Media Authority, 2016; Lenhart, Duggan, et al., 2015) and for teenagers, technology is the prevailing form of communication, surpassing even in-person contact (Lenhart,
AC
Anderson, & Smith, 2015). The combination of prolific technology use and a high prevalence of dating violence in youth (Wincentak et al., 2017; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Korchmaros, 2016) makes fertile ground for abusive technology use in young people’s intimate relationships. Indeed, youth are three times more likely than adults to experience some form of digital harassment from a romantic partner (Ybarra, Price-Feeney, Lenhart, & Zickuhr, 2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Digital dating abuse includes the use of technology to threaten, harass, monitor, control, pressure or coerce a dating partner (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2017). Like dating violence, a complicated relationship exists between DDA behaviours, gender, and rates of victimisation and perpetration. For example, Bennett, Guran, Ramos, and Margolin (2011) found that overall,
T
male and female college students experienced electronic victimisation equally, but that young
IP
women were less often victims of electronic hostility, intrusiveness, humiliation and exclusion
CR
(56%, 56%, 36%, and 18% respectively) than young men (60%, 66%, 48% and 35% respectively). Another college sample reported no significant gender differences in frequency of
US
victimisation or perpetration of DDA overall, however a non-significant trend toward more
AN
frequent victimisation by men was noted, as were gender differences on multiple individual items (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2016). In a sample of undergraduates, no gender differences
M
were found on minor cyber abuse victimisation or perpetration, but young men more often
ED
perpetrated, and were more often victims of severe cyber abuse, compared with young women (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014). Zweig, Dank, Lachman, and Yahner (2013) found female middle
PT
and high school students were more often victims of sexual cyber abuse (15%), and less often
CE
victims of non-sexual cyber abuse (21%) than male middle and high school students (7% and 23% respectively). Yet, a large sample of participants aged 15 years and over, in which younger
AC
people were three times more likely to be victims of intimate partner digital abuse than those aged 30 years or over, found that men and women experienced digital abuse from a current or former partner equally across a range of 10 behaviours (Ybarra et al., 2017). The emerging research investigating the effects of DDA provides mixed findings but suggests that DDA may be more harmful to young women than young men. For example, Lippman and Campbell (2014) reported that teenage women were more likely to experience
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW pressure to sext, and were more harshly judged whether they sexted (“slut”) or not (“prude”) when compared with teenage men. Adolescent men viewed DDA as less harmful and easier to stop than in-person dating abuse (through blocking the perpetrator or turning the electronic device off), while adolescent women viewed DDA as more harmful because of the constant,
T
inescapable, enduring nature of the communication, the temptation to re-read it, and the potential
IP
for it to be made public (Stonard, Bowen, Walker, & Price, 2015). Female college students have
CR
reported more negative hypothetical reactions to sexual messaging than male college students (Reed et al., 2016), and recent research in teenagers found that young women were more upset
US
by DDA victimisation behaviours than young men (Reed et al., 2017). These studies support
AN
that the digital medium may be a new channel for perpetrating intimate partner abuse, and that the experience and effects of it may be gendered.
M
Digital dating abuse is thought to be related to other new fields of research such as
ED
cyberbullying, cyberstalking and sexting, and is potentially associated with a devastating range of health outcomes including fear, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal
PT
ideation (e.g. Drouin, Ross, & Tobin, 2015; Fahy et al., 2016; Hamm et al., 2015; Kowalski,
CE
Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Short, Linford, Wheatcroft, & Maple, 2014; Stonard, Bowen, Lawrence, & Price, 2014). The DDA field is also fraught with differing underlying
AC
theories, similar to the intimate partner violence field. Theoretical orientation. Debate in the intimate partner violence field has centred around two conceptually different perspectives of violence; violence as a conflict strategy or as a means of exerting power and control. This debate has been perpetuated in part by one of the most commonly used selfreport measures of marital and courtship violence (Yellow, 2005) - the Conflict Tactics Scale -
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Revised (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) - which asks respondents to report how frequently in the previous 12 months during conflict, they and their partner have engaged in particular behaviours (many of which may be considered physically or sexually abusive). The scale’s restriction of responses to times of conflict has fuelled feminist and postmodern feminist
T
critique of the scale, by its failure to acknowledge the more comprehensive characterisation of
IP
intimate partner abuse which includes psychological and coercive means of gaining power and
CR
control, and for its omission of important factors such as context, intention, intensity and consequences (Cannon, Lauve-Moon, & Buttell, 2015; Dobash & Dobash, 2003; Hegarty, Bush,
US
& Sheehan, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kaura & Allen, 2004; Kelly & Johnson, 2008; Stark, 2010;
AN
Straka & Montminy, 2008). Such scales limit the scope of behaviours under investigation and exclude germane instances of behaviour that occur outside of conflict, such as monitoring and
M
stalking behaviours, manipulation, coercion and other more subtle systematic behaviours aimed
ED
at gaining control (Stark, 2012). When examining any measure of intimate partner abuse, it is important to understand this unresolved theoretical contention because of its potential impact on
PT
the resultant data, including issues of gender equivalence.
CE
Terminology and definitions. Given the rapid advancement of the digital world, DDA is a relatively new phenomenon
AC
for which a range of terms have emerged. These include electronic aggression (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010), electronic dating violence (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011), electronic dating aggression (Cutbush, Williams, Miller, Gibbs, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2012), electronic victimization (Bennett et al., 2011), digital dating abuse (Reed et al., 2016; Tompson, Benz, & Agiesta, 2013), computer mediated communication based teen dating violence (Korchmaros, Ybarra, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Boyd, & Lenhart, 2013), technology assisted adolescent dating
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW violence and abuse (Stonard et al., 2014), tech abuse in dating relationships (Picard, 2007), cyber dating abuse (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013), cyber-harassment (Melander, 2010), cyber aggression (Marganski & Melander, 2015; Schnurr, Mahatmya, & Basche III, 2013),
T
cyber-victimisation (Reyns, Burek, Henson, & Fisher, 2013), cyberstalking (Bocij, 2003;
IP
Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), cyber-violence (Dimond, Fiesler, & Bruckman, 2011), cyber-
CR
teasing (Madlock & Westerman, 2011), cyber-based dating aggression (Attewell, 2013), controlling and monitoring behaviours via technology (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox,
US
2011) and facebook stalking (Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011). By induction each of
AN
these terms has a slightly different definition, some of broad multi-dimensional scope and others employing a narrower lens.
M
In the absence of a definitive definition, the term digital dating abuse (DDA) will be used
ED
throughout this paper to describe the range of behaviours that are occurring. Constructs.
PT
An important conceptual ambiguity related to definitional issues is the confounded use of
CE
the abuse and aggression constructs (Slep, Heyman, & Snarr, 2011). Geffner (2016) provides an excellent discussion in the intimate partner violence context differentiating the two terms, where
AC
aggression involves one partner striking out physically, sexually or psychologically as an isolated event(s) at another, and abuse comprises an ongoing pattern of behaviours involving (potentially) multiple forms of aggression, a power imbalance between the partners, negative effects (such as helplessness, anxiety, fear, physical injury and post-traumatic stress disorder), and a consideration of intent, context and consequences.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Scholars in the field of dating violence are yet to discriminate between these constructs and to isolate which behaviours constitute abuse under what circumstances. Youth and scholars both consider this discrimination to be challenging in the absence of context (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013; Krahé, Bieneck, & Möller, 2005; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Wolfe et
T
al., 2001). Abuse in young people’s dating relationships is thought to overlap with normative
IP
dating behaviours (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007; Wolfe et al., 2001) where
CR
normative interaction styles are often characterized by “…pushing, shoving, bantering, teasing and provoking, as a rudimentary means of signalling intimacy, maintaining relationships and
US
resolving conflicts” (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999 p. 440). Affirming this view Muñoz-Rivas et al.
AN
(2007) found that more than a third of physical aggression within adolescent relationships occurred in the context of joking or playing (for example hitting/kicking, shoving/grabbing,
M
slapping and holding down) and Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) found that more
ED
than a quarter of cyber dating abuse victims reported a playing or joking context in which incidences had occurred (for example, the dissemination of a partner's intimate information or
PT
compromising images, and using a partners password to snoop in their messages and/or
CE
contacts). Furthermore, some scholars have posited DDA as a form of psychological aggression (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014) suggesting it may be more susceptible to subjective interpretation,
AC
and its presence more challenging to measure and define (particularly in the absence of context), than that of physical and sexual abuse (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013). Despite these difficulties, clear delineation between constructs remains vital to reliable and accurate measurement of the phenomenon. Another factor likely to influence whether a recipient interprets a behaviour as abusive or not is the frequency with which aggressive acts occur. One or two instances of some behaviours
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW may be experienced negatively, but not as abuse per se. Some scholars argue that to establish the presence of abuse, a pattern of behaviour needs to be present (DeHart, Follingstad, & Fields, 2010; Hegarty, Sheehan, & Schonfeld, 1999; Loring, 1994; World Health Organization, 2013). Whether this pertains to one behaviour occurring multiple times, a variety of behaviours each
T
occurring once or more, or a combination of the two remains unknown. Further it is unclear
IP
whether particular frequencies of specific behaviours can definitively be classified as abuse,
CR
although Reed et al. (2016) acknowledged that some technology- facilitated behaviours can constitute abuse with only one occurrence (for example, pressure to participate in sexual activity,
US
and digitally communicated threats of physical harm). Despite needing further inquiry, the
AN
frequency of behavioural occurrence clearly holds relevance when discriminating between abusive and aggressive technology use.
M
A further and possibly paramount element in determining whether behaviour is abusive or
ED
not, is the psychological significance of the event to the recipient. Individual differences exist and while scholars have discussed the complexities of establishing intent as a measure of harm
PT
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2015), research in the psychological abuse and cyberbullying fields suggests
CE
that behaviours may be characterised negatively on the basis of the recipient’s reaction, more than on the act itself (DeHart et al., 2010; Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005; Patchin &
AC
Hinduja, 2015; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Indeed, dating violence research suggests that boys define behaviour as abusive if it has negative intent, while girls regard behaviour as abusive if it has a negative impact, such as physical or emotional hurt, uneasiness or fear (Sears, Byers, Whelan, & Saint-Pierre, 2006). This notion is likely to hold relevance when measuring DDA behaviours, and it may be misleading to cast blanket judgements about the abusiveness of certain behaviours. Understanding the construct and determining whether an aggressive
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW behaviour constitutes abuse is a complex task comprising multiple factors, where the circumstances in which the behaviour occurs and the impact on the recipient both hold relevance. In new and popular fields of endeavour multiple instruments each measuring slightly different constructs are often developed (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This could reflect some
T
scholars exploring a narrower or slightly different area of interest than others; it may also reflect
IP
a process of scholarly clarification, whereby constructs are yet to be fully understood,
existing DDA measures that disentangled these issues.
CR
differentiated and operationalised. A search of the DDA literature failed to produce a review of
US
The aim of this paper is to describe and critically review the existing instruments designed
AN
to assess DDA in young people aged 16 to 24 years. Specifically, the paper will 1) present a summary of the existing instruments, 2) explore their conceptual and definitional discrepancies,
M
3) examine their psychometric properties and 4) discuss measurement issues in the existing
ED
instruments. This paper focusses on each study’s gaps however we acknowledge that each instrument contains inherent strengths. Broader conclusions learned from how the field has
PT
begun to develop are highlighted later in the paper.
CE
Method
Literature search.
AC
A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar) spanning the period 1990 to 2016 was undertaken to identify existing instruments designed to measure DDA in young people’s relationships. Because purposefully selected material from a wide range of sources is becoming increasingly important in emerging and dynamic fields, a search of the grey literature was also
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW undertaken (Adams, Smart, & Huff, 2016). The reference lists of all retrieved articles were reviewed. Combinations of words representing “young people” (including young person, youth, adolescen*, teenager, young adult), “technology” (including digital, cyber, electronic, tech,
T
computer), “dating abuse” (including dating abuse/aggression/violence, intimate partner
IP
abuse/aggression/violence) and “measure” (including measure*, scale, instrument, inventory,
CR
survey, assessment) were used. The search was limited to studies published in English. Selection of publications and instruments.
US
Measurement instruments were retained in the review if they: (a) included participants
AN
aged within the 16 to 24 year age bracket; (b) measured behaviours specifically within intimate relationships; (c) examined multiple forms of DDA behaviour (for example stalking, harassing,
M
threatening, monitoring, sexual abuse); and (d) investigated behaviour occurring via multiple
ED
digital mediums, because the majority of youth use a suite of devices to connect online (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2016). The process used to review the
PT
instruments and their associated evidence was based on published guidelines for evaluating
CE
psychological tests and assessment instruments (Cicchetti, 1994; Groth-Marnat, 2009). Psychometric evidence.
AC
Psychometric evidence is a form of scientific rigour vital to verifying the consistency and accuracy of measurement instruments. Reliability evidence represents the extent to which a person will achieve the same scores on an instrument when completing it on different occasions, and provides an indication of an instruments’ consistency, predictability, stability and accuracy (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Validity evidence, on the other hand, is used to verify that an instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Follingstad and Rogers (2013)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW provide an excellent discussion of validity threats in the measurement of intimate partner violence, including issues pertaining to gender, motivatio ns in responding, survey design issues, the complexities of measuring forms of abuse that are neither physical or sexual, and discrepancies in couple’s reports. Understanding these issues in relation to the psychometric
T
properties of a given instrument is essential to the appraisal of its merits and application.
IP
In summary, to have enduring utility a measurement instrument requires the scientific
CR
rigour of psychometric evidence, and the stringent operational definition achieved through thorough understanding of its theoretical orientation and careful analysis of the construct under
US
question (Groth-Marnat, 2009; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003).
AN
Results and Discussion
The search revealed 22 instruments measuring DDA in young people’s relationships.
M
Twenty of these originated from scholarly journals and the remaining two from the grey
ED
literature (MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007) having influenced the scholarly development of later instruments. Four instruments were excluded because of their restriction to a single digital
PT
medium (Chaulk & Jones, 2011; Darvell, Walsh, & White, 2011; Lyndon et al., 2011; Tokunaga,
CE
2011), one was excluded due to measuring behaviours not specifically within intimate relationships (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000), and one was excluded due to having only one
AC
question specific to dating relationships (Finn, 2004). A summary of the remaining 16 instruments including sample characteristics, administration method, measurement dimensions, scope of digital mediums and psychometric evidence is presented in Table 1. Prevalence rates. The selected instruments indicate that DDA may involve 6% (Preddy, 2015) to 91% (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014) of the youth population (see Table 2). Two studies reported
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
14
Table 1 Summary of measurement instruments Instrument/Source Electronic Victimization Bennett et al. (2011)
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
Sample Characteristics
M ethod of Administration
n = 437 Total n (after exclusions) = 403 68% female 32% male M ean age = 20 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Hostility (7) Intrusion (7) Humiliation (5) Exclusion (3)
Psychometric Evidence
Text Email Social Networking Sites Internet Chat room M obile phone Instant M essaging Photos
Reliability: Hostility α = .74 Intrusion α = .73 Humiliation α = .74 Exclusion α = .77
T P
I R
C S
U N
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015)
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015)
n = 788 77% female 23% male M ean age = 23 years University Students Spain
Online survey
D E
C A
E C
n = 433 60% female 37% male M ean age = 20 years College Students Spain
T P
Hard-copy questionnaire
A M
Direct Aggression (11) Control/M onitoring (9) Social Networking Sites New Technologies Email M obile Phone Camera Video
Dimensions not identified (9) Social networks Instant messaging Email
Validity: Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Reliability: Victimisation Direct Aggression α = .84 Control/M onitoring α = .87 Perpetration Direct Aggression α = .73 Control/M onitoring α = .81 Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Controlling Partner Inventory Burke et al. (2011)
Perpetration of Psychological Teen Dating Violence Korchmaros et al. (2013)
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 804 67% female 33% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Online survey
Control (2) Jealousy (1) Degradation (1)
D E
E C
Validity: Content and Face validity from in field experts. Principal Components Analysis. Reliability: α = .90
T P
I R
C S
U N
A M
Online M obile Phone Text
T P
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums Photos/Camera/GPS/Spyware (7) Excessive communication (4) Threatening Behaviours (3) Checking Behaviours (4)a Email M obile Phone Text Social Networking sites Photos Global Positioning System Web Cam Spyware
n = 888 50% female 50% male M ean age = 16 years Youth recruited via Harris Poll Online USA
C A
15
Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale Leisring and Giumetti (2014)
16 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 271 79% female 21% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums M inor cyber abuse (6) Severe cyber abuse (3)
Validity: Exploratory factor analysis Principal factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
Technological means such as M obile Phone Email Computers Social Networking Sites
T P
Convergent Validity Various strengths of positive correlations between the Cyber Psychological abuse subscales, and the Facebook Argument Scaleb, M ultidimensional M easure of Emotional Abuse Scale (total and subscale scores)c , Conflict Tactics Scale – Revised Psychological Abuse Subscaled
I R
C S
U N
Cyber Aggression M easure M arganski and M elander (2015)
The Digital Abuse Study M TV-AP (2013), sourced in combination from M TV-AP (2011) and M TV-AP (2009)
n =540 73% female 27% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
T P
E C
C A
n = 1,297 49% female 51% male 38% aged 14-17 years 62% aged 18-24 years General population USA
D E
Online survey
Online survey / Interview
A M
Dimensions not identified (18)
Reliability: Victimisation scale α = .81 M inor Cyber Abuse α = .86 Severe Cyber Abuse α = .78 Perpetration scale α = .82 M inor Cyber Abuse α = .87 Severe Cyber Abuse α = .68 Reliability: α = .91
Socially interactive technologies
Dimensions not identified. (10) Telephone Email Text Instant M essaging Internet M obile phone Social networking sites
Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Tech Abuse in Teen Relationships Picard (2007)
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS) Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
17 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 615 53% female 47% male 40% aged 13-15 years 60% aged 16-18 years General population including urban, suburban and rural. USA
Online survey
n = 77 56% female 44% male M ean age = 16 years High school students Canada
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Not Available
Psychometric Evidence
M obile phone/Text Email Instant M essaging Blog Social networking sites Video Photos Spyware Emotional /Verbal Dominance/Control M onitoring Relational Stalking (130 items in total)
Nil available
T P
C S
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
A M
Telephone Text Email Instant M essaging Social Networking sites
I R
Reliability: Current Relationships (Perpetration only) PATS α = .97 Emotional /Verbal α = .95 Dominance/Control α =.93 M onitoring α = .90 Relational α = .66 Stalking α = .74 Past Relationships PATS α = .97 Emotional /Verbal α = .93 Dominance/Control α = .25 M onitoring α = .90 Relational α = .86 Stalking α = .87
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Partner Electronic Aggression Questionnaire (PEAQ) Preddy (2015)
18 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics Study 1 n = 692 87% female 13% male M ean age = 22 years University Students USA
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Public Electronic Aggression (4) Private Electronic Aggression (4) Social M edia Electronic Communication
U N
A M
T P
Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
Cyber Aggression Perpetration Schnurr, M ahatmya and Basche (2013)
E C
C A
n = 298 50% female 50% male M ean age = 20 years University students USA
T P
Convergent Validity: Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration with Psychological Aggression (Conflict Tactics Scale subscale) r = .44 Discriminant Validity: Public Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by participant r = -.11 Public Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by partner r = -.09 Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by participant r = .18 Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by partner r = .13
C S
D E
n = 307 58% femalee 42% malee M ean age = 19 years University Students USA
Validity: Principal Components Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis
I R
Study 2 n = 513 63% female 37% male M ean age = 19 years University Students USA
Digital Dating Abuse M easure
Psychometric Evidence
Hard-copy questionnaire
Dimensions not identified (19)f Computer Internet M obile Phones
Online survey
Dimensions not identified (5) All technologies
Reliability: PEAQ α = .87 to .94 Public Electronic Aggression α = .97 Private Electronic Aggression α = .93 Public Electronic Aggression - Perpetration α = .89 Private Electronic Aggression - Perpetration α = .81 Public Electronic Aggression - Victimisation α = .88 Private Electronic Aggression - Victimisation α = .81 Reliability Victimisation α = .76 Perpetration α = .73
Internal Validity M ales α = .76 Females α = .71
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source The SmartSafe Survey Woodlock (2016)
Partner-Directed Cyber Aggression Scale Wright (2015), sourced in combination from Linder, Crick, and Collins (2002) and Wright and Li (2013) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
Sample Characteristics
M ethod of Administration
n = 46 100% female M ean age = 35 years Victims of intimate partner violence Australia
Focus groups, Online survey, Interview
n = 600 54% female 46% male M ean age = 18 years Secondary school students USA
Hard-copy questionnaire
n = 5,647 51% female 48% male M ean age = not provided High school students (n = 4,995) M iddle school students (n = 652) USA
Hard-copy questionnaire
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums Stalking Abuse and Harassment (16)
Nil available
Email Text Facebook M obile Technology M obile Phone Social Networking Sites Photos Global Positioning System
D E
T P
T P
U N
A M
Sexual cyber abuse (4) Non-sexual cyber abuse (12) Photos Text Email Instant M essaging Chat Board Social Networking Sites Video M obile Phone
I R
C S
Cyber Relational Aggression (3) Privacy Invasion (2) Online Text M essaging
E C
C A
19
Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Reliability: Cyber Relational Aggression α = .91 Privacy Invasion α = .83 and α = .82
Reliability: Victimisation α = .91 Sexual α = .81 Non-sexual α = .89 Perpetration α = .94 Sexual α = .89 Non-sexual α = .92
Note. a = Number of items per dimension shown is for the victimisation scale. T he perpetration scale had 8 items in the Photos/Camera/Spyware/GPS dimension, and 3 items in the Checking Behaviours dimension, b = Leisring and Giumetti (2014), c = Murphy, Hoover, and T aft (1999), d = Straus et al. (1996), e = Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017. f = three conceptual subscales have been identified in the revised (yet to be published) version of this instrument (Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW overall abuse victimisation rates of 26% (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013) and 38% (MTV-AP, 2013). A further two studies reported overall aggression victimisation rates of 53% (Preddy, 2015) and 73% (Marganski & Melander, 2015). One could infer from these results that aggression prevalence is higher than abuse prevalence, however such an assumption would be premature without greater examination of each measure’s attributes.
PT
While these rates may reflect differences in the true prevalence of aggression and abuse it is
RI
likely they are influenced by variability in terminology use, construct definitions, the specific
SC
behaviours elicited, and other issues related to instrument design.
Adding complexity, some papers reported prevalence of DDA dimensions only
NU
(Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015), others reported prevalence of specific behaviours only (Picard, 2007; Woodlock, 2016), some did not report overall prevalence
MA
(Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Woodlock, 2016), and others did not report
ED
prevalence statistics (Burke et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2016; Schnurr et al., 2013; Wright, 2015). Furthermore, one study reported victimisation prevalence by gender only (Bennett et
EP T
al., 2011), others reported prevalence of perpetration only (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Piitz & Fritz, 2009, as cited in Attewell, 2013), or a combination of perpetration and victimisation
AC C
prevalence (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy, 2015). Because of these reporting differences, cross-study comparisons are problematic, and without a thorough investigation of the measurement attributes, conclusions may be premature. Theoretical orientation. Of the 16 selected instruments all but one investigated behaviours occurring both within and outside of the conflict context. The Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale (Leisring &
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
21
Table 2 Instrument prevalence rates, means and standard deviations, by gender. Instrument/ Source M en & Women Electronic Victimization Bennett et al. (2011)
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment 77%
77%
60% .38 (.51)
56% .28 (.41)
Electronic Hostility
66% .45 (.55)
56% .29 (.41)
Electronic Intrusiveness
48% .32 (.49)
36% .14 (.28)
Electronic Humiliation
35% .34 (.65)
18% .14 (.38)
Electronic Exclusion
Burke et al. (2011)
T P
Overall Electronic Victimisation
I R
C S
Direct Aggression
75%
Control/M onitoring Behaviours
D E
U N
A M
14%
11%
Direct Aggression
82%
Control/M onitoring Behaviours
T P
1-39%
Victimisation prevalence depended on the type of behaviour and digital medium
E C
Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) Controlling Partner Inventory
M en & Women
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
C A
26.21 (9.65)
27.66 (9.07)
Controlling and M onitoring behaviours Females reported victimisation of controlling and monitoring behaviours more often than males. Note: Prevalence rates were reported for each question but not overall.
23.95 (8.50)
26.28 (7.97)
Controlling and M onitoring behaviours Females reported perpetrating more controlling and monitoring behaviours than males. Note: Prevalence rates were reported for each question but not overall.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
22
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women 41%
Perpetration of Psychological Teen Dating Violence Korchmaros et al. (2013)
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment Had perpetrated psychological violence via some form of computer-mediated communication
T P
13%
I R
38%
Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale
91%
30.11 (33.53)
28.88 (33.82)
M inor cyber abuse
Leisring and Giumetti (2014)
13%
3.19 (10.31)
0.64 (3.13)
Severe cyber abuse
C S
A M
U N
Note: Significant gender differences on severe (but not minor) cyber abuse victimisation Cyber Aggression M easure
D E
74%
Had been victims of some type of intimate partner cyber aggression
T P
M arganski and M elander (2015)
C A
E C
Had perpetrated psychological violence online Had perpetrated psychological violence via text message Note: Percentages are calculated from participants who reported perpetrating any form of teen dating violence
94%
26.11 (31.88)
33.00 (36.16)
M inor cyber abuse
13%
2.81 (9.00)
0.85 (3.67)
Severe cyber abuse Note: Significant gender differences on severe (but not minor) cyber abuse perpetration
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source
The Digital Abuse Study M TV-AP (2013), sourced in combination from M TV-AP (2011) and M TV-AP (2009)
M en & Women 38%
23
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
At least one of eight digital dating abuse behaviours.
22%
Been checked up on via internet of mobile phone regarding company, whereabouts and activities.
21%
Had their text messages read without their permission.
13%
Been made to remove former partners from their social networking sites friends lists.
9%
Been called names, put down or had really mean things said to them.
8%
Demanded passwords to their email and internet accounts.
4%
Used information posted online against them to harass or embarrass them.
4%
Used the internet or text messages to try to pressure them into unwanted sexual activity.
D E
19%
17%
A M
E C
Spread rumours about them via the internet or cell phone.
C A
T P
Contacted them online or by cell phone to threaten to hurt them. Feel like their partner tries to check up on them too often. Feel like their partner tries to pressure them into responding to their digital communication.
I R
C S
U N
T P
3%
2%
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source
Tech Abuse in Teen Relationships
M en & Women 30-36%
24
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Had been checked up on.
25%
Called them names, put them down, or said really mean things via digital devices.
25%
Contacted them via digital devices when they didn’t want them to, just to make them mad.
22%
Used digital devices to ask them to engage in sexual acts when they didn’t want to.
19%
Used digital devices to spread rumours about them.
18%
Used information posted online against them.
17%
Pretended to be them via a digital device.
17%
M ade them feel afraid to not respond to their partner’s digital communication.
16%
Purchased them a cellphone or phone credit in order for them to contact their partner.
11%
Shared private or embarrassing images of video of them.
Picard (2007)
D E
A M
E C
C A
Threatened via a digital device, to hurt them physically. Used spyware to track their online activity.
T P
I R
C S
U N
T P
10%
5%
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
25
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS)
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
1.19 (.32) 1.12 (.21) 1.40 (.46) 1.04 (.08) 1.13 (.27) 1.18 (.20)
Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
T P
I R
C S
1.24 (.28) 1.10 (.25) 1.35 (.39) 1.18 (.27) 1.23 (.27) 1.23 (.27)
U N
D E
Partner Electronic Aggression Questionnaire (PEAQ) Preddy (2015)
51% 4.93 (11.05) Digital Dating Abuse M easure Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
E C
74% 2.44 (2.52)
Past Relationship Emotional/verbal aggression Dominance/control M onitoring Relational Stalking Total
25%
Had perpetrated cyber-based dating aggression in current relationship
28%
Had perpetrated cyber-based dating aggression in past relationship
T P
53% 6% 0.24 (1.62)
A M
Current Relationship Emotional/verbal aggression Dominance/control M onitoring Relational Stalking Total
Females perpetrated more relational cyber dating aggression behaviours than males, but no other gender differences existed.
Electronic aggression
C A 2.59 (2.86)
2.34 (2.24)
Public electronic aggression
4% 0.23 (1.85)
Public electronic aggression
Private electronic aggression
52% 4.74 (10.67)
Private electronic aggression
Had experienced any DDA victimisation ever in their relationships a
69% 1.98 (2.04)
2.02 (2.17)
1.96 (1.94)
Had reported any DDA perpetration ever in their relationships a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
26
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Cyber Aggression Perpetrationb
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment 1.93 (1.66)
Schnurr, M ahatmya and Basche (2013)
1.55 (1.43)
The SmartSafe Survey 80%
Stalking Experiences Received texts that made them feel afraid.
65%
Received calls that made them feel afraid.
63%
M ade to feel like they were being tracked.
T P
I R
Woodlock (2016)
6-78%
D E
Wright (2015), sourced in combination from Linder et al. (2002) and Wright and Li (2013) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
26% 1.44
23% 1.45
Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
11% 1.63
7% 1.75
22% 1.41
21% 1.42
U N
Abuse and Harassment Experiences Various forms of abuse and harassment from partners via technology.
Partner-Directed Cyber Aggression Scale
C S
A M
1.79 (.84) 1.79 (.94)
Time 1 Cyber relational aggression Cyber privacy invasion Time 2 Cyber relational aggression Cyber privacy invasion
T P
1.80 (.83) 1.77 (.98)
Cyber dating abuse
12% 1.34
9% 1.35
14% 1.33
Cyber dating abuse
15% 1.56
Sexual cyber abuse
3% 1.52
4% 1.53
2% 1.45
Sexual cyber abuse
23% 1.39
Non-sexual cyber abuse
11% 1.34
7% 1.32
13% 1.34
Non-sexual cyber abuse
E C
29% 1.42
C A
Note. An absence of prevalence estimates, means or standard deviations indicates they were not provided in the cited papers. a = Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017. b = T he opposite sex’s victimisation reports were subrogated for perpetration data. c = Mean frequency calculations were among teens who had reported dating violence and abuse victimisation, standard deviations were not provided.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Giumetti, 2014) assessed behaviours that occurred only in the context of conflict, by asking participants to report how often behaviours had occurred during an argument. Asking questions in this way excludes important behaviours such as stalking, coercion and subtle systematic behaviours aimed at gaining control, that can occur both during and outside of the argument context. Such exclusions are likely to lead to an underestimation of an individual’s
PT
experience of DDA.
RI
Terminology and definitions.
Across the 16 instruments, 13 different terms were used to reference DDA in young
SC
people’s relationships, of which four provided explicit definitions of the measured construct
NU
(see Table 3). In each case, an issue relating to the definition or operationalisation of the terms was identified.
MA
To understand DDA each element of the construct – digital, dating, abuse - must be clearly defined. Five of the selected studies defined the digital technologies referenced by
ED
their respective instruments (Marganski & Melander, 2015; Piitz & Fritz, 2009, as cited in Attewell (2013); Reed et al., 2016; Woodlock, 2016; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013)
EP T
while 10 studies relied upon the wording within the instruments to define the targeted technologies (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo,
AC C
Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTVAP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Preddy, 2015; Wright, 2015). Some of the instruments targeted a limited range of digital mediums (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Picard, 2007; Reed et al., 2016) while others targeted several digital mediums but neglected important technologies such as digital tracking software and devices (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Marganski & Melander, 2015; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Piitz & Fritz, 2009; Preddy, 2015; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013), thereby omitting behaviours relevant to the measurement of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW DDA. Two studies provided insufficient information to determine which digital mediums were targeted (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Schnurr et al., 2013). The instruments referred to the notion of dating via at least seven different terms, including partner, dating relationship/partner, romantic relationship/partner and boyfriend/girlfriend. Three of the studies provided definitions for the type(s) of relationships
PT
(Marganski & Melander, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013).
RI
Three instruments referred only to current relationships (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTV-
SC
AP, 2013; Picard, 2007), six instruments referred to current and former relationships (Attewell, 2013; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Korchmaros et al., 2013;
NU
Marganski & Melander, 2015; D. Woodlock (personal communication, October 7, 2014); Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013), four did not specify whether the relationship was
MA
current or former (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Preddy, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Schnurr et al., 2013), one referred to romantic relationships of duration greater than
ED
one year (Wright, 2015) and two did not provide a specific relationship reference (Bennett et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2011). In addition, it is unclear whether the instruments refer to
EP T
intimate relationships that are sexual or non-sexual, monogamous or open. Such variation across the instruments impedes cross-study comparisons.
AC C
Finally, the measured behavioural construct (abuse or aggression) was defined in four studies (see Table 3), while 11 of the selected studies relied upon wording within the instruments to define the targeted behaviours (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Korchmaros et al., 2013; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Preddy, 2015; Woodlock, 2016; Wright, 2015). Schnurr et al. (2013) did not provide specific behavioural information. Some instruments focussed on a limited range of DDA behaviours
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
29
Table 3 Terms, Definitions and Associated Ambiguities for Abuse and Aggression Instrument Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
Term
Definition
Cyber Dating Abuse
“…abusive behaviours perpetrated by romantic partners via technology/new media, including threats via technology, harassing contacts, and using a partner’s social networking page without permission; it can be sexual or non-sexual in nature…”a
Definitional issue: This definition of digital dating abuse uses the word abusive within its description, creating a ‘circular definition’. Circular definitions are discouraged because of their failure to clearly denote the construct (Pepper & Driscoll, 2015; Western Oregon University).
“…aggression through communication technology within a dating relationship”b
Definitional issue: The use of aggression in the explanation creates a circular definition.
Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS)
Cyber-Based Dating Aggression
Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
Cyber Aggression M easure
D E
Cyber Aggression
M arganski and M elander (2015)
Digital Dating Abuse M easure Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
T P
I R
Operationalisation issue: The measure asks questions such as “…[has a dating partner written] nasty things about [you] on his/her profile page…?” and counts one instance of this behaviour as abuse. The question of whether a behaviour such as this constitutes abuse, aggression or another construct is likely to depend on a range of additional contextual factors.
C S
U N
A M
T P
Operationalisation issue: While the measure elicits several behaviours that could constitute aggression, it also asks multiple questions that would likely embody abuse, for example “phoned/emailed/instant messaged...your partner and threatened to hurt yourself if your partner left?”.
“…the use of socially interactive technologies such as texting and social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.) by one individual to facilitate harassing behaviour against another individual.”c
Definitional issue: This definition introduces another construct – harassment – which may contribute further ambiguity rather than clarity.
“The term has three elements: “digital,” which in our conceptualization includes cell phones, computers, and Internet communication rather than face-to-face interaction; “dating,” which refers to current or former adolescent and young adult romantic relationships; and “abuse,” which implies a pattern of behavior that controls, pressures, harasses, threatens, or otherwise harms a dating partner.”d
Definitional issues: The use of the word romantic to define dating relationships between young people does not clearly identify what types of relationships are included in the definition, for example does the relationship require a sexual component to be considered romantic? The emerging and exploratory nature of intimate relationships in youth dating relationships is likely to span a range of intimacy levels.
E C
C A
Digital Dating Abuse
Comment
Note. a = Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., (2013) p. viii, b = Attewell, (2013) p. 5,
c
The authors acknowledge that single instances of certain behaviours my constitute abuse (for example, pressure to engage in sexual activity). However, the definition references the presence of a “pattern of behaviour” for abuse to have occurred. This may exclude some of the more pernicious behaviours from investigation.
= Marganski & Melander, (2015) p. 9, d = Reed, T olman and Ward (2016) p. 3.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW (Burke et al., 2011; MTV-AP, 2013; Wright, 2015). Collectively however, the instruments suggest that DDA comprises a broad scope of behaviours. Constructs In addition to issues of definition, it is unclear which DDA behaviours constitute aggression and which constitute abuse. The terms are used interchangeably in the literature
PT
at times, and prevalence rates pertaining to each are sometimes discussed as if a single
RI
phenomenon. While the aggression and abuse constructs are likely related (Follingstad &
SC
Rogers, 2013; Slep et al., 2011) and abuse possibly a subset of aggression, they have not been clearly delineated in the context of their associated measures. Irrespective of the relationship
NU
between aggression and abuse, differences between them (subtle or otherwise) must be acknowledged if sound measurement is to occur.
MA
Some behaviours may be considered abuse after just one instance, for example My partner...has threatened to hurt me physically via new technologies (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix,
ED
Pereda, et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2016) but other behaviours may not constitute abuse if experienced only once or twice, for example Has you partner insulted you? (Leisring &
EP T
Giumetti, 2014). During the instrument development process Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) selected victims of cyber dating abuse for further interview, based on
AC C
their higher frequency of responses (two or more times on at least three of the elicited behaviours) revealing the authors’ assumption that greater frequency is required for a victim’s experience to constitute abuse. This is consistent with Attewell (2013)’s criteria that “…a pattern of behaviour” (p. 5) is required for the presence of abuse. Furthermore, Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) used the frequency of perpetration to measure DDA chronicity suggesting that higher behavioural frequency is associated with higher levels of abuse. Although in need of further research, the frequency of behavioural occurrence holds
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW utility when discerning between technology- facilitated abuse and aggression in young people’s dating relationships. Psychological significance. Also important in measuring DDA is the psychological significance of the events to the individual. For example, some instruments measure behaviours that involve swearing
PT
(e.g. Attewell, 2013; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014). A couple’s usual diction may influence
RI
how a partner’s comments are experienced, such that a relationship in which swear words are
SC
a regular part of communication may result in a vastly different interpretation, than a relationship in which swearing is uncommon. Likewise, other behaviours may be interpreted
NU
in differing ways. For example, receiving excessive text messages from a partner (Burke et al., 2011) may be experienced as a mild annoyance by one person, but as threatening and
MA
harassing by another. Bennett et al. (2011) asks if a dating partner has taken “…a phone picture of me to embarrass me”. This behaviour could occur in the context of a joke, and
ED
while embarrassing, be experienced with goodwill and light- heartedness. It could equally be
2015).
EP T
received with great offense and distress. It depends on the individual (Patchin & Hinduja,
Scholars have begun to address these contextual issues in varying ways. Borrajo,
AC C
Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) measured the context within which behaviours occurred (jealousy, game/joke, anger/frustration, discussions, personality [he/she is], I did/did it first or otherwise) using a multiple-choice question. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) measured context by asking respondents to indicate up to four contexts (jealousy, game/joke, reciprocity, anger/wanted to annoy the victim). Alternatively, scholars have asked individuals to rate their anticipated level of distress relating to specific behaviours (Bennett et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2016). Through measuring anticipated level of distress, authors acknowledge the psychological importance of DDA behaviours to victims, although possibly
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW overlook the individual’s felt experience of actual events. In yet another approach, Schnurr et al. (2013) investigated cyber aggression and asked if partners had used technology toward participants in the following ways: to embarrass, make you feel bad, control, monitor, and argue with you. This approach bypasses the behaviours entirely and appears to elicit effect on the victim, however the questions assume the victim holds knowledge of the perpetrator’s
PT
intent, which is unlikely to be reliably known (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). This approach,
RI
therefore, may not constitute a sound measure of effect (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015).
SC
The most explicit measures of psychological significance have been undertaken by two different authors. Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013) featured two of 16 questions that
NU
elicited behaviours based on their emotional effect (…sent me messages or chats that made me feel scared? and …sent me so many messages (like texts, e-mails, chats) that it made me
MA
feel unsafe?). D. Woodlock (personal communication, October 7, 2014) elicited the level of fear resulting from specific behaviours, for example “Has a partner or ex-partner ever made
ED
you feel afraid by doing the following? ...use mobile technology to check where you are? …share private pictures of you without your permission? …demand your electronic
EP T
passwords? While fear may not be a pre-requisite for all forms of DDA, it is for some (Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000;
AC C
Sears et al., 2006), and it is one useful indication of whether behaviours are experienced as abusive by the individual. Ultimately, it is the experience of the individual that determines whether the behaviour is perceived as abusive or not, and the existing literature does little to take this important factor into consideration. Determining whether an aggressive behaviour qualifies as DDA is a complex task involving a multitude of factors. Existing measures have incorporated some of these factors, however there remains considerable scope to elucidate the DDA construct further, and to understand the factors that shape the effects of DDA on victims.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Psychometric evidence. Reliability evidence was assessed. As shown in Table 1, 10 of the 16 instruments provide acceptable evidence of internal reliability, suggesting they are sufficiently consistent and free from measurement error (Urbina, 2004). No other reliability evidence was provided. Validity has been addressed to varying degrees in existing instruments. Two of the 16
PT
instruments provide evidence of convergent validity (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy,
RI
2015). Burke et al. (2011) made reference to having established content and face validity
SC
from experts in the field, the detail of which is unclear as according to Groth-Marnat (2009) content validity relates to judgements made by experts in the field and face validity pertains
NU
to judgements made by users of the test. One instrument provides evidence of discriminant validity (Preddy, 2015), and another provides evidence of internal validity (Schnurr et al.,
MA
2013). Factor analysis and principal components analysis, which both serve to provide evidence of construct validity (Williams, Brown, & Onsman, 2012), were undertaken on four
ED
instruments (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy, 2015). Validity evidence for the remaining instruments was absent.
EP T
The irregular reporting of validity evidence across existing instruments suggests a need for caution when drawing inferences from the associated data.
AC C
Measurement specific issues. Victimisation/Perpetration. Variability across the measurement of victimisation and perpetration also exists between the instruments. Of the 16 measures, seven investigate victimisation only (Bennett et al., 2011; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Piitz & Fritz, 2009; Woodlock, 2016) and two investigate perpetration only (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Wright, 2015). The remaining seven instruments measure both victimisation and perpetration of DDA behaviours. Reciprocal dating relationship abuse has been reported in both offline and digital realms (e.g. Basile &
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Hamburger, 2010; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; O'Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008; Viejo, Monks, Sanchez, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2016; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, et al., 2013), and Follingstad and Rogers (2013) highlight the frequency of discrepancy between a couple’s reporting of intimate partner violence, and the potential for
These findings suggest that unidirectional
RI
actual use/experiences of abusive behaviours.
PT
gender bias as a result of differing perceptions of aggressive actions and their impact, and
measurement may overlook important information about the abuse dynamic in young
SC
peoples’ relationships.
NU
Timeframe reference.
The duration of time referenced in the instruments also varies. Two instruments
MA
elicited DDA behaviours which occurred in the last six months (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Preddy, 2015), seven instruments elicited behaviours which occurred within
ED
the last 12 months (Attewell, 2013; Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Korchmaros et al., 2013; Marganski & Melander, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Zweig,
EP T
Dank, Yahner, et al., 2013), one elicited behaviours which had ever occurred (Reed et al., 2016), two elicited behaviours that had ever occurred with their current partner (Picard, 2007;
AC C
Schnurr et al., 2013), and four did not specify a timeframe. Greater prevalence is likely to emerge from longer reporting periods (Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009) and caution should be taken in comparing prevalence rates from different time frames. Quality of survey items. Finally, the quality of survey items impacts survey usability and data quality (Passmore, Dobbie, Parchman, & Tysinger, 2002). Survey’s that contain a large number of questions (e.g. Piitz & Fritz, 2009) as cited in (Attewell, 2013) can impede survey completion (Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009). Survey questions that attempt to elicit responses from the victim
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW about the intent of the aggressor (e.g. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Marganski & Melander, 2015; Preddy, 2015) may garner misleading data because of the potentially erroneous assumption that the victim has knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). Additionally, double-barrelled questions (e.g. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015;
PT
Picard, 2007) reduce accuracy of survey data (Passmore et al., 2002). Ambiguous wording
RI
may also cause issues of data accuracy and consistency (Krosnick & Presser, 2010; Passmore et al., 2002; Stehr-Green et al., 2003), for example in “My partner threatens to break up with
SC
me publicly through social media” (Preddy, 2015), it is unclear whether the question elicits
NU
the scenario of “public threatening”, “public breaking-up”, or both. Finally, sophisticated language may result in issues of comprehension in younger or less-educated samples,
MA
hindering data accuracy and consistency (Hinkin, 1998; Passmore et al., 2002; Stehr-Green et al., 2003). For example, the terms derogatory (Marganski & Melander, 2015), and
ED
humiliating, disseminated, and compromising (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015) may impair comprehension in some young people.
EP T
In summary, the emerging research into DDA has provided some valuable and thought-provoking findings including an expansive compilation of DDA behaviours, insights
AC C
into the gender and context complexities of the phenomenon, and some acknowledgement of the importance of victim experience to the measurement of DDA. Scope remains to more clearly understand and define relevant terms, increase the scientific rigour of measurement instruments, clarify methodology, and better understand the role of victim experience in the definition of DDA and the acknowledgement of its effects. To obtain a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of DDA, survey research could benefit from: reflecting a clear definition of what constitutes “digital”, “dating” and “abuse”, eliciting both victimisation and perpetration rates, providing comprehensive psychometric evidence, advancing the quality of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW survey items, including survey items that acknowledge the role of psychological, coercive and more subtle means aimed at gaining control in the perpetration of DDA, clarifying relationship and timeframe references when eliciting data from respondents, and examining the psychological significance of DDA experienced by victims. This review contains both strengths and limitations. One strength is its inclusion of
PT
grey literature instruments, thereby incorporating material important to the development of
RI
the field which would typically have been excluded in a review of this nature. Another
SC
strength is its concise but comprehensive summary of existing instruments, providing scholars with an overview of the current position regarding DDA measurement.
NU
Furthermore, the review’s illumination of the ambiguity of constructs, and diversity of DDA instruments, presents scholars in the field with an opportunity to advance research in a more
MA
cohesive manner. One limitation of the review is its exclusion of non-English studies, and measures that investigate only one form of DDA or digital medium, which may result in
ED
relevant contributions to the review being overlooked. In addition, the reviewed instruments span a range of aggressive and abusive behaviours, making it difficult to demarcate the
EP T
conceptual basis of the constructs under measurement, and it therefore remains unclear what is being investigated and whether these behaviours adequately represent the DDA construct.
AC C
Summary Discussion
This critical review identified 16 instruments measuring DDA in young people’s relationships, of which 14 were published between 2011 and 2016. Few fields of research have accumulated such a collection of assessment instruments in such a short period, suggesting a high level of concern about DDA in young people’s lives. This study summarises the current state of play regarding the measurement of DDA, and advances a growing interest in abusive technology use and related assessment tools. Our findings illuminate a lack of consensus across the field regarding definitions and constructs, and an
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW inconsistency in measurement attributes. It also highlights the pressing need for a wellestablished and validated tool to unite the field. It is hoped that this review will assist scholars in further refining the way we measure the phenomenon, and strengthen assessment approaches in the field generally, particularly in relation to the more abusive experiences endured by youth. With a rapidly growing reliance on technology, an accurate understanding
PT
of its negative use in intimate relationships is vital for supporting youth in an important
RI
formative life stage, and to advance the generation of effective prevention and treatment
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
NU
SC
interventions.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW References Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2016). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 00, 1-23. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 Anderson, M. (October 2015). Technology Device Ownership: 2015. Retrieved from
PT
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/10/PI_2015-10-29_device-ownership
RI
_FINAL.pdf
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent Dating Violence Do Adolescents Follow
SC
in Their Friends’, Or Their Parents’, Footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
NU
19(2), 162-184. Retrieved from http://jiv.sagepub.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/ 19/2/162.full.pdf
MA
Atkinson, L., Indermaur, D., & Blagg, H. (1998). From dating violence to domestic violence: Putting a Spoke in the Wheel of the Cycle of Violence. Paper presented at the
ED
Partnerships in Crime Prevention, Hobart, Australia. Attewell, V. (2013). Exploring Cyber-Based Dating Aggression in Adolescent Romantic
EP T
Relationships: Past, Present, and Future. (Master of Science Thesis), University of Calgary, Calgery, Alberta.
AC C
Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2016). Aussie teens and kids online. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engageblogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-and-kids-online Basile, K., & Hamburger, M. (2010). Nonreciprocal and reciprocal dating violence and injury occurrence among urban youth: A Commentary. West J Emerg Med, 11(5), 423. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3027431/pdf/ wjem11_5p423.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410-429. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.4.410 Bocij, P. (2003). Victims of cyberstalking: An exploratory study of harassment perpetrated
PT
via the internet. First Monday, 8(10). doi:10.5210/fm.v8i10.1086
RI
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence,
565-585. doi:10.2466/21.16.PR0.116k22w4
SC
context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2),
NU
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., Pereda, N., & Calvete, E. (2015). The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in
MA
Human Behavior, 48, 358-365. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.063 Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control
ED
intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1162-1167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010
EP T
Cannon, C., Lauve-Moon, K., & Buttell, F. (2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social
AC C
Sciences, 4(3), 668-687. doi:10.3390/socsci4030668 Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns about Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 245-254. doi:s10.1007/s10896-011-9360x Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ovftpdfs/
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW FPDDNCOBOEGPAH00/fs047/ovft/live/gv024/00012030/00012030-19941200000003.pdf Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 357-372. doi:0.4135/9781412958479.n380
PT
Cutbush, S. L., Williams, J., Miller, S., Gibbs, D., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2012). Electronic
RI
dating aggression among middle school students: Demographic correlates and
SC
associations with other types of violence. Poster presented at the American Public Health Association, Annual Meeting, October, 2012.
NU
Darvell, M. J., Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-monitoring behavior on Facebook.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0035
MA
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 717-722.
ED
Day, T., McKenna, K., & Bowlus, A. (2005). The economic costs of violence against women: An evaluation of the literature. Retrieved from Ontario, Canada:
EP T
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/expert%20brief%20costs.pdf De La Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of
AC C
school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of educational research, 87(1), 7-34. doi:10.3102/0034654316632061 DeHart, D. D., Follingstad, D. R., & Fields, A. M. (2010). Does context matter in determining psychological abuse? Effects of pattern, harm, relationship, and norms. Journal of Family Violence, 25(5), 461-474. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9307-7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Dimond, J. P., Fiesler, C., & Bruckman, A. S. (2011). Domestic violence and informatio n communication technologies. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 413-421. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.006 Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2003). Women, violence and social change. London: Routledge.
PT
Draucker, C. B., & Martsolf, D. S. (2010). The role of electronic communication technology
RI
in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing,
SC
23(3), 133-142. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00235.x
Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large
NU
sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0231
MA
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61-67.
Drouin, M., Ross, J., & Tobin, E. (2015). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner
ED
aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 197-204. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001
EP T
Exner-Cortens, D. (2014). Theory and teen dating violence victimization: Considering adolescent development. Developmental Review, 34(2), 168-188.
AC C
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.03.001
Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 7178. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1029 Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016a). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 1, behaviors). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 64-78. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.007
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016b). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 2, attitudes). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 93-106. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.011 Fahy, A. E., Stansfeld, S. A., Smuk, M., Smith, N. R., Cummins, S., & Clark, C. (2016).
health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(5), 502-509.
RI
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.006
PT
Longitudinal associations between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental
SC
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442039.pdf
NU
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a University campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468-483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
MA
Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence and Victims, 20(1), 25-38.
ED
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=2005-08490-002&site=ehost-live
EP T
Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. J. (2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3-4), 149-167.
AC C
doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5 Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 498-519. Retrieved from http://jiv.sagepub.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/22/5/498.full.pdf Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349360. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp031
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Geffner, R. (2016). Partner aggression versus partner abuse terminology: Moving the field forward and resolving controversies. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 923-925. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/pdf/ 10.1007%2Fs10896-016-9898-8.pdf Glass, N., Fredland, N., Campbell, J., Yonas, M., Sharps, P., & Kub, J. (2003). Adolescent
PT
dating violence: Prevalence, risk factors, health outcomes, and implications for clinical
RI
practice. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, & neonatal nursing, 32(2), 227-238.
SC
doi:10.1177/0884217503252033
Griezel, L. (2007). Out of the school yard and into cyber space: Elucidating the nature of
NU
psychosocial consequences of traditional and cyber bullying for Australia secondary students. (Unpublished honour's thesis), University of Western Sydney, Sydney,
MA
Australia.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
ED
Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., . . . Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A
EP T
scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 770-777. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
AC C
Hegarty, K., Bush, R., & Sheehan, M. (2005). The Composite Abuse Scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 529-547. Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (1999). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 399-415.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2011). Electronic Dating Violence: A brief guide for educators and parents. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/electronic_dating_violence_ fact_sheet.pdf Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
PT
doi:10.1177/109442819800100106
RI
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic
SC
violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003-1018. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328
NU
Johnson, R. M., Parker, E. M., Rinehart, J., Nail, J., & Rothman, E. F. (2015). Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth: A systematic review. American Journal of
MA
Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 458-466. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.020 Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2014). The Age–IPV
ED
Curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708-726.
EP T
doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z
Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Relationship
AC C
context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(6), 631-636. doi:101016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014. Kaura, S. A., & Allen, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5), 576-588. doi:10.1177/0886260504262966 Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476-499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D., & Lenhart, A. (2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 561-567. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0627 Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among
PT
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618
RI
Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Möller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner
SC
violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 807-827. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0
NU
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. Handbook of survey research, 2(3), 263-314.
MA
Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., & Bowen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for
ED
adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015
EP T
Leisring, P. A., & Giumetti, G. W. (2014). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages also hurt: Development and validation of the cyber psychological
AC C
abuse scale. Partner Abuse, 5(3), 323-341. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.5.3.323 Lenhart, A., Anderson, M., & Smith, A. (2015). Teens, technology and romantic relationships. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teenstechnology-and-romantic-relationships/ Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/ files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults' romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11(1), 69-86. doi:10.1111/14679507.00187 Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don't… if
RI
states. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371-386.
PT
you're a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the united
SC
doi:10.1080/17482798.2014.923009
Loring, M. T. (1994). Emotional abuse. New York: Lexington Books.
NU
Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students' Facebook stalking
doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0588
MA
of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 711-716.
Madlock, P. E., & Westerman, D. (2011). Hurtful cyber-teasing and violence: Who’s
ED
laughing out loud? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(17), 3542-3560. doi:10.1177/0886260511403749
EP T
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2015). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its
AC C
association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-25. doi:10.1177/0886260515614283 Melander, L. A. (2010). College students' perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 263-268. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0221 Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 180-194.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW MTV-AP. (2009). 2009 AP-MTV Digital Abuse Study Retrieved from http://www.athinline.org/MTV-AP_Digital_Abuse_Study_Executive_Summary.pdf MTV-AP. (2011). Associated Press-MTV Digital Abuse Survey 2011. Retrieved from Palo Alto, C.A.: http://www.athinline.org/pdfs/MTV-AP_2011_Research_StudyExec_Summary.pdf
PT
MTV-AP. (2013). The Digital Abuse Study: A Survey from MTV & The Associated Press-
RI
NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Retrieved from Chicago:
SC
http://surveys.ap.org/data%5CNORC%5CAP-MTV%202013%20Digital%20 Abuse_Topline%20TREND%20v5_onlinebullying-sexting%20v5.pdf
NU
Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Graña, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & González, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences.
MA
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298-304. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137 Murphy, C., Hoover, S., & Taft, C. (1999). The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional
ED
Abuse: Factor structure and subscale validity. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual
Canada.
EP T
Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Toronto,
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
AC C
McGraw-Hill.
O'Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5), 473-479. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012 Passmore, C., Dobbie, A. E., Parchman, M., & Tysinger, J. (2002). Guidelines for constructing a survey. Family Medicine, 34(4), 281-286.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69-74. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013 Pepper, M., & Driscoll, D. L. (2015, 10/10/2016). Writing Definitions.
Retrieved from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/
PT
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use
RI
of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks,
SC
CA: Sage.
Picard, P. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships study. Retrieved from Chicago, IL.:
NU
http://www.loveisrespect.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/liz-claiborne-2007-techrelationship-abuse.pdf
MA
Piitz, J., & Fritz, P. (2009). Cyber-bullying: Its prevalence and relation with partner aggression and psychological functioning. Department of Psychology. University of
ED
Windsor, Windsor, Canada. Unpublished manuscript. Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2016). Technology- facilitated sexual violence victimization results
EP T
from an online survey of Australian adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-29. doi:10.1177/0886260516672055
AC C
Preddy, T. M. (2015). Assessment and investigation of electronic aggression in the romantic relationships of emerging adults. (Doctoral Dissertation), The University of Tennessee, Tennessee, Knoxville. Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2016). Snooping and sexting digital media as a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women, 1-21. doi:10.1177/1077801216630143
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 79-89. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.015 Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and
PT
cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1-17.
RI
doi:10.1080/0735648x.2011.641816
SC
Schnurr, M. P., Mahatmya, D., & Basche III, R. A. (2013). The role of dominance, cyber aggression perpetration, and gender on emerging adults' perpetration of intimate partner
NU
violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 70. doi:10.1037/a0030601 Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). 'If it hurts you, then it is
MA
not a joke': Adolescents' ideas about girls' and boys' use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1191-1207.
ED
doi:10.1177/0886260506290423
Short, E., Linford, S., Wheatcroft, J. M., & Maple, C. (2014). The impact of cyberstalking:
EP T
The lived experience - A thematic analysis. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 199, 133-137. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-401-5-133
AC C
Slep, A. M. S., Heyman, R. E., & Snarr, J. D. (2011). Child emotional aggression and abuse: Definitions and prevalence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(10), 783-796. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.002 Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71-92. doi:10.1177/14614440222226271 Stark, E. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62(3-4), 201-211. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9717-2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Stark, E. (2012). Looking Beyond Domestic Violence: Policing Coercive Control. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 199-217. doi:10.1080/15332586.2012.725016 Stehr-Green, P. A., Stehr-Green, J. K., Nelson, A., Alexander, L., Mejia, G. C., & MacDonald, P. D. (2003). Developing a questionnaire. Focus on Field Epidemiology, 2(2), 1-6.
PT
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance of
RI
technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence and
SC
abuse: A research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 390-417. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.005
NU
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & Price, S. A. (2015). “They’ll Always Find a Way to Get to You”: Technology Use in Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Its Role in
doi:10.1177/0886260515590787
MA
Dating Violence and Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
ED
Straka, S. M., & Montminy, L. (2008). Family violence: Through the lens of power and control. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(3), 255-279. doi:10.1080/10926790802262499
EP T
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.
AC C
Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001 Teten, A. L., Ball, B., Valle, L. A., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Women's Health, 18(7), 923-927. doi:10.1089=jwh.2009.1515 Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705-713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Tompson, T., Benz, J., & Agiesta, J. (2013). The digital abuse study: Experiences of teens and young adults. Retrieved from Chicago: http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Digital%20 Abuse /AP-NORC%20Center%20and%20MTV_Digital%20Abuse%20Study _FINAL.pdf Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
PT
Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J.
RI
(2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating
SC
violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633-649. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7
NU
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
MA
into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.
Viejo, C., Monks, C., Sanchez, V., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2016). Physical dating violence in
ED
Spain and the United Kingdom and the importance of relationship quality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(8), 1453-1475. doi:10.1177/0886260514567963
EP T
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention intiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4),
AC C
435-456. doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00091-9 Western Oregon University. (date unknown). How to write an extended definition. Retrieved from http://www.wou.edu/~corninr/wr135/definition.html Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941-947.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Williams, B., Brown, T., & Onsman, A. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1-13. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2). doi:10.1037/a0040194 Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A.-L.
PT
(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships
RI
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277-293. doi:10.1037//1040-
SC
3590.13.2.277
Woodlock, D. (2016). The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking.
NU
Violence Against Women, 1-19. doi:10.1177/1077801216646277 World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against
MA
women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and nonpartner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
ED
Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber aggression within adolescents’ romantic relationships: Linkages to parental and partner attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(37), 1-11.
EP T
doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0147-2
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent
AC C
cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 662-674. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3 Ybarra, M., Price-Feeney, M., Lenhart, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2017). Intimate Partner Digital Abuse. New York: Data and Society Research Institute, and Center for Innovative Publich Health Research. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Korchmaros, J. D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of sexual behavior, 45(5), 1083-1099. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9 Yllo, K. (2005). Theories and Methodology. In O. Barnett, C. Miller-Perrin, & R. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PT
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. (2013). Technology, Teen Dating
RI
Violence and Abuse, and Bullying. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from
SC
http://www.iacpyouth.org/portals/0/resources/teen_dating_violence.pdf. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse
NU
among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
and Adolescence, 42, 1063-1077. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
PT
Highlights
A wide range of digital dating abuse behaviours are occurring
The digital dating abuse construct is yet to be clearly defined
More scientific rigour in measurement and consistent use of terms is required
The effect of digital dating abuse on the victim is important to measurement
Further research into digital dating abuse is still needed
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
NU
SC
RI
Cynthia Brown, Kelsey Hegarty PII: DOI: Reference:
S1359-1789(17)30036-8 doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.003 AVB 1184
To appear in:
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
20 January 2017 22 December 2017 5 March 2018
Please cite this article as: Cynthia Brown, Kelsey Hegarty , Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Avb(2017), doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.003
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running head: DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
CR
IP
T
Digital Dating Abuse Measures: A Critical Review
AN
US
Cynthia Brown, PhD Candidate Department of General Practice University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
Kelsey Hegarty, MBBS, PhD Department of General Practice University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Abstract Digital dating abuse is an emerging form of dating violence thought to have serious health effects on young people. In order to fully understand the nature and magnitude of the problem, a clear understanding of the measured construct, and robust measurement instruments
T
are required. To date, a synthesis of available survey instruments and their quality has not been
IP
published, despite the existence of several instruments measuring digital dating abuse in young
CR
people’s relationships. This paper describes existing instruments and their characteristics. A review of the literature from 1990 to 2016 revealed at least 17 different terms representing the
US
digital dating abuse construct, 22 instruments measuring the phenomenon of which 16 were
AN
included in this review, and few clearly defined constructs. Definitional inconsistencies suggest that the instruments may measure various constructs including aggression and abuse, although
M
this remains unclear. Eleven of the 16 instruments reported psychometric properties, at times
ED
limited to reliability evidence. This review highlights the need for delineation between aggressive and abusive digital dating behaviours, stringency in defining the digital dating abuse
AC
Keywords
CE
and validity evidence.
PT
construct, and the development of a robust measurement instrument that yields both reliability
Intimate partner violence, digital dating abuse, technology, measurement, review, youth
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Intimate partner violence is a serious and complex global issue with significant costs to victims and the wider community (Day, McKenna, & Bowlus, 2005; World Health Organization, 2013). Over the last three decades scholars in the field have expanded their research to include dating violence in the intimate relationships of young people. Developmentally, adolescence and
T
early adulthood is a period in which young people form their own values, beliefs, expectations
IP
and attitudes about intimate relationships (Atkinson, Indermaur, & Blagg, 1998; Johnson,
CR
Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2014). While a positive experience for many, it can be associated with discord and abusive behaviour for others (Johnson, Manning, Giordano, &
US
Longmore, 2015). The existence of these negative behaviours in young people’s intimate
AN
relationships renders this stage in the lifespan a seminal point at which to understand early experiences of intimate partner violence (Exner-Cortens, 2014).
M
Dating violence can include verbal, physical and sexual aggression and violence, coercion,
ED
and relational aggression such as controlling behaviours and jealousy (De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2017). A broad range of dating violence risk factors have been identified,
PT
including former exposure to family and community violence (Glass et al., 2003),
CE
neighbourhood factors (Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail, & Rothman, 2015), mental health problems, substance use, peer influence and attitudes toward violence (Leen et al., 2013; Vagi et
AC
al., 2013). A multitude of instruments designed to measure the phenomenon have been developed (Exner-Cortens, Gill, & Eckenrode, 2016a, 2016b) and a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies revealed rates of 20% and 9% for physical and sexual abuse respectively, with prevalence varying by gender and type (Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017). According to Wincentak et al. (2017), significant gender differences exist in physical dating violence perpetration (women 25% versus men 13%) but not victimisation (21% for women and men),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW and a contrasting pattern exists for sexual dating violence perpetration (women 3% versus men 10%) and victimisation (women 14% versus men 8%). Other research suggests however, that young women are more likely to be victims of severe dating violence, to suffer more serious injuries and to experience more psychological effects from dating violence, than young men
T
(Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007; Molidor & Tolman,
IP
1998). Accordingly, a range of adverse health effects are associated with dating violence
CR
including depressive symptomology, suicidal ideation, substance use and antisocial behaviour (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013). To date, school-based dating violence
US
prevention programs show some efficacy in increasing dating violence knowledge and
AN
improving attitudes and beliefs that support dating violence, but little efficacy in reducing incidents of dating violence perpetration or victimisation (De La Rue et al., 2017).
M
A new form of intimate partner violence termed digital dating abuse (DDA) involves the
ED
use of technology to perpetrate abuse in dating relationships. While research suggests that technology- facilitated abuse occurs in some adult relationships (Powell & Henry, 2016;
PT
Woodlock, 2016) youth are the highest users of technology (Anderson, October 2015; Australian
CE
Communications and Media Authority, 2016; Lenhart, Duggan, et al., 2015) and for teenagers, technology is the prevailing form of communication, surpassing even in-person contact (Lenhart,
AC
Anderson, & Smith, 2015). The combination of prolific technology use and a high prevalence of dating violence in youth (Wincentak et al., 2017; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Korchmaros, 2016) makes fertile ground for abusive technology use in young people’s intimate relationships. Indeed, youth are three times more likely than adults to experience some form of digital harassment from a romantic partner (Ybarra, Price-Feeney, Lenhart, & Zickuhr, 2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Digital dating abuse includes the use of technology to threaten, harass, monitor, control, pressure or coerce a dating partner (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2017). Like dating violence, a complicated relationship exists between DDA behaviours, gender, and rates of victimisation and perpetration. For example, Bennett, Guran, Ramos, and Margolin (2011) found that overall,
T
male and female college students experienced electronic victimisation equally, but that young
IP
women were less often victims of electronic hostility, intrusiveness, humiliation and exclusion
CR
(56%, 56%, 36%, and 18% respectively) than young men (60%, 66%, 48% and 35% respectively). Another college sample reported no significant gender differences in frequency of
US
victimisation or perpetration of DDA overall, however a non-significant trend toward more
AN
frequent victimisation by men was noted, as were gender differences on multiple individual items (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2016). In a sample of undergraduates, no gender differences
M
were found on minor cyber abuse victimisation or perpetration, but young men more often
ED
perpetrated, and were more often victims of severe cyber abuse, compared with young women (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014). Zweig, Dank, Lachman, and Yahner (2013) found female middle
PT
and high school students were more often victims of sexual cyber abuse (15%), and less often
CE
victims of non-sexual cyber abuse (21%) than male middle and high school students (7% and 23% respectively). Yet, a large sample of participants aged 15 years and over, in which younger
AC
people were three times more likely to be victims of intimate partner digital abuse than those aged 30 years or over, found that men and women experienced digital abuse from a current or former partner equally across a range of 10 behaviours (Ybarra et al., 2017). The emerging research investigating the effects of DDA provides mixed findings but suggests that DDA may be more harmful to young women than young men. For example, Lippman and Campbell (2014) reported that teenage women were more likely to experience
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW pressure to sext, and were more harshly judged whether they sexted (“slut”) or not (“prude”) when compared with teenage men. Adolescent men viewed DDA as less harmful and easier to stop than in-person dating abuse (through blocking the perpetrator or turning the electronic device off), while adolescent women viewed DDA as more harmful because of the constant,
T
inescapable, enduring nature of the communication, the temptation to re-read it, and the potential
IP
for it to be made public (Stonard, Bowen, Walker, & Price, 2015). Female college students have
CR
reported more negative hypothetical reactions to sexual messaging than male college students (Reed et al., 2016), and recent research in teenagers found that young women were more upset
US
by DDA victimisation behaviours than young men (Reed et al., 2017). These studies support
AN
that the digital medium may be a new channel for perpetrating intimate partner abuse, and that the experience and effects of it may be gendered.
M
Digital dating abuse is thought to be related to other new fields of research such as
ED
cyberbullying, cyberstalking and sexting, and is potentially associated with a devastating range of health outcomes including fear, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal
PT
ideation (e.g. Drouin, Ross, & Tobin, 2015; Fahy et al., 2016; Hamm et al., 2015; Kowalski,
CE
Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Short, Linford, Wheatcroft, & Maple, 2014; Stonard, Bowen, Lawrence, & Price, 2014). The DDA field is also fraught with differing underlying
AC
theories, similar to the intimate partner violence field. Theoretical orientation. Debate in the intimate partner violence field has centred around two conceptually different perspectives of violence; violence as a conflict strategy or as a means of exerting power and control. This debate has been perpetuated in part by one of the most commonly used selfreport measures of marital and courtship violence (Yellow, 2005) - the Conflict Tactics Scale -
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Revised (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) - which asks respondents to report how frequently in the previous 12 months during conflict, they and their partner have engaged in particular behaviours (many of which may be considered physically or sexually abusive). The scale’s restriction of responses to times of conflict has fuelled feminist and postmodern feminist
T
critique of the scale, by its failure to acknowledge the more comprehensive characterisation of
IP
intimate partner abuse which includes psychological and coercive means of gaining power and
CR
control, and for its omission of important factors such as context, intention, intensity and consequences (Cannon, Lauve-Moon, & Buttell, 2015; Dobash & Dobash, 2003; Hegarty, Bush,
US
& Sheehan, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kaura & Allen, 2004; Kelly & Johnson, 2008; Stark, 2010;
AN
Straka & Montminy, 2008). Such scales limit the scope of behaviours under investigation and exclude germane instances of behaviour that occur outside of conflict, such as monitoring and
M
stalking behaviours, manipulation, coercion and other more subtle systematic behaviours aimed
ED
at gaining control (Stark, 2012). When examining any measure of intimate partner abuse, it is important to understand this unresolved theoretical contention because of its potential impact on
PT
the resultant data, including issues of gender equivalence.
CE
Terminology and definitions. Given the rapid advancement of the digital world, DDA is a relatively new phenomenon
AC
for which a range of terms have emerged. These include electronic aggression (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010), electronic dating violence (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011), electronic dating aggression (Cutbush, Williams, Miller, Gibbs, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2012), electronic victimization (Bennett et al., 2011), digital dating abuse (Reed et al., 2016; Tompson, Benz, & Agiesta, 2013), computer mediated communication based teen dating violence (Korchmaros, Ybarra, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Boyd, & Lenhart, 2013), technology assisted adolescent dating
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW violence and abuse (Stonard et al., 2014), tech abuse in dating relationships (Picard, 2007), cyber dating abuse (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013), cyber-harassment (Melander, 2010), cyber aggression (Marganski & Melander, 2015; Schnurr, Mahatmya, & Basche III, 2013),
T
cyber-victimisation (Reyns, Burek, Henson, & Fisher, 2013), cyberstalking (Bocij, 2003;
IP
Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), cyber-violence (Dimond, Fiesler, & Bruckman, 2011), cyber-
CR
teasing (Madlock & Westerman, 2011), cyber-based dating aggression (Attewell, 2013), controlling and monitoring behaviours via technology (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox,
US
2011) and facebook stalking (Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011). By induction each of
AN
these terms has a slightly different definition, some of broad multi-dimensional scope and others employing a narrower lens.
M
In the absence of a definitive definition, the term digital dating abuse (DDA) will be used
ED
throughout this paper to describe the range of behaviours that are occurring. Constructs.
PT
An important conceptual ambiguity related to definitional issues is the confounded use of
CE
the abuse and aggression constructs (Slep, Heyman, & Snarr, 2011). Geffner (2016) provides an excellent discussion in the intimate partner violence context differentiating the two terms, where
AC
aggression involves one partner striking out physically, sexually or psychologically as an isolated event(s) at another, and abuse comprises an ongoing pattern of behaviours involving (potentially) multiple forms of aggression, a power imbalance between the partners, negative effects (such as helplessness, anxiety, fear, physical injury and post-traumatic stress disorder), and a consideration of intent, context and consequences.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Scholars in the field of dating violence are yet to discriminate between these constructs and to isolate which behaviours constitute abuse under what circumstances. Youth and scholars both consider this discrimination to be challenging in the absence of context (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013; Krahé, Bieneck, & Möller, 2005; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Wolfe et
T
al., 2001). Abuse in young people’s dating relationships is thought to overlap with normative
IP
dating behaviours (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007; Wolfe et al., 2001) where
CR
normative interaction styles are often characterized by “…pushing, shoving, bantering, teasing and provoking, as a rudimentary means of signalling intimacy, maintaining relationships and
US
resolving conflicts” (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999 p. 440). Affirming this view Muñoz-Rivas et al.
AN
(2007) found that more than a third of physical aggression within adolescent relationships occurred in the context of joking or playing (for example hitting/kicking, shoving/grabbing,
M
slapping and holding down) and Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) found that more
ED
than a quarter of cyber dating abuse victims reported a playing or joking context in which incidences had occurred (for example, the dissemination of a partner's intimate information or
PT
compromising images, and using a partners password to snoop in their messages and/or
CE
contacts). Furthermore, some scholars have posited DDA as a form of psychological aggression (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014) suggesting it may be more susceptible to subjective interpretation,
AC
and its presence more challenging to measure and define (particularly in the absence of context), than that of physical and sexual abuse (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013). Despite these difficulties, clear delineation between constructs remains vital to reliable and accurate measurement of the phenomenon. Another factor likely to influence whether a recipient interprets a behaviour as abusive or not is the frequency with which aggressive acts occur. One or two instances of some behaviours
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW may be experienced negatively, but not as abuse per se. Some scholars argue that to establish the presence of abuse, a pattern of behaviour needs to be present (DeHart, Follingstad, & Fields, 2010; Hegarty, Sheehan, & Schonfeld, 1999; Loring, 1994; World Health Organization, 2013). Whether this pertains to one behaviour occurring multiple times, a variety of behaviours each
T
occurring once or more, or a combination of the two remains unknown. Further it is unclear
IP
whether particular frequencies of specific behaviours can definitively be classified as abuse,
CR
although Reed et al. (2016) acknowledged that some technology- facilitated behaviours can constitute abuse with only one occurrence (for example, pressure to participate in sexual activity,
US
and digitally communicated threats of physical harm). Despite needing further inquiry, the
AN
frequency of behavioural occurrence clearly holds relevance when discriminating between abusive and aggressive technology use.
M
A further and possibly paramount element in determining whether behaviour is abusive or
ED
not, is the psychological significance of the event to the recipient. Individual differences exist and while scholars have discussed the complexities of establishing intent as a measure of harm
PT
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2015), research in the psychological abuse and cyberbullying fields suggests
CE
that behaviours may be characterised negatively on the basis of the recipient’s reaction, more than on the act itself (DeHart et al., 2010; Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005; Patchin &
AC
Hinduja, 2015; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Indeed, dating violence research suggests that boys define behaviour as abusive if it has negative intent, while girls regard behaviour as abusive if it has a negative impact, such as physical or emotional hurt, uneasiness or fear (Sears, Byers, Whelan, & Saint-Pierre, 2006). This notion is likely to hold relevance when measuring DDA behaviours, and it may be misleading to cast blanket judgements about the abusiveness of certain behaviours. Understanding the construct and determining whether an aggressive
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW behaviour constitutes abuse is a complex task comprising multiple factors, where the circumstances in which the behaviour occurs and the impact on the recipient both hold relevance. In new and popular fields of endeavour multiple instruments each measuring slightly different constructs are often developed (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This could reflect some
T
scholars exploring a narrower or slightly different area of interest than others; it may also reflect
IP
a process of scholarly clarification, whereby constructs are yet to be fully understood,
existing DDA measures that disentangled these issues.
CR
differentiated and operationalised. A search of the DDA literature failed to produce a review of
US
The aim of this paper is to describe and critically review the existing instruments designed
AN
to assess DDA in young people aged 16 to 24 years. Specifically, the paper will 1) present a summary of the existing instruments, 2) explore their conceptual and definitional discrepancies,
M
3) examine their psychometric properties and 4) discuss measurement issues in the existing
ED
instruments. This paper focusses on each study’s gaps however we acknowledge that each instrument contains inherent strengths. Broader conclusions learned from how the field has
PT
begun to develop are highlighted later in the paper.
CE
Method
Literature search.
AC
A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar) spanning the period 1990 to 2016 was undertaken to identify existing instruments designed to measure DDA in young people’s relationships. Because purposefully selected material from a wide range of sources is becoming increasingly important in emerging and dynamic fields, a search of the grey literature was also
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW undertaken (Adams, Smart, & Huff, 2016). The reference lists of all retrieved articles were reviewed. Combinations of words representing “young people” (including young person, youth, adolescen*, teenager, young adult), “technology” (including digital, cyber, electronic, tech,
T
computer), “dating abuse” (including dating abuse/aggression/violence, intimate partner
IP
abuse/aggression/violence) and “measure” (including measure*, scale, instrument, inventory,
CR
survey, assessment) were used. The search was limited to studies published in English. Selection of publications and instruments.
US
Measurement instruments were retained in the review if they: (a) included participants
AN
aged within the 16 to 24 year age bracket; (b) measured behaviours specifically within intimate relationships; (c) examined multiple forms of DDA behaviour (for example stalking, harassing,
M
threatening, monitoring, sexual abuse); and (d) investigated behaviour occurring via multiple
ED
digital mediums, because the majority of youth use a suite of devices to connect online (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2016). The process used to review the
PT
instruments and their associated evidence was based on published guidelines for evaluating
CE
psychological tests and assessment instruments (Cicchetti, 1994; Groth-Marnat, 2009). Psychometric evidence.
AC
Psychometric evidence is a form of scientific rigour vital to verifying the consistency and accuracy of measurement instruments. Reliability evidence represents the extent to which a person will achieve the same scores on an instrument when completing it on different occasions, and provides an indication of an instruments’ consistency, predictability, stability and accuracy (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Validity evidence, on the other hand, is used to verify that an instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Follingstad and Rogers (2013)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW provide an excellent discussion of validity threats in the measurement of intimate partner violence, including issues pertaining to gender, motivatio ns in responding, survey design issues, the complexities of measuring forms of abuse that are neither physical or sexual, and discrepancies in couple’s reports. Understanding these issues in relation to the psychometric
T
properties of a given instrument is essential to the appraisal of its merits and application.
IP
In summary, to have enduring utility a measurement instrument requires the scientific
CR
rigour of psychometric evidence, and the stringent operational definition achieved through thorough understanding of its theoretical orientation and careful analysis of the construct under
US
question (Groth-Marnat, 2009; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003).
AN
Results and Discussion
The search revealed 22 instruments measuring DDA in young people’s relationships.
M
Twenty of these originated from scholarly journals and the remaining two from the grey
ED
literature (MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007) having influenced the scholarly development of later instruments. Four instruments were excluded because of their restriction to a single digital
PT
medium (Chaulk & Jones, 2011; Darvell, Walsh, & White, 2011; Lyndon et al., 2011; Tokunaga,
CE
2011), one was excluded due to measuring behaviours not specifically within intimate relationships (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000), and one was excluded due to having only one
AC
question specific to dating relationships (Finn, 2004). A summary of the remaining 16 instruments including sample characteristics, administration method, measurement dimensions, scope of digital mediums and psychometric evidence is presented in Table 1. Prevalence rates. The selected instruments indicate that DDA may involve 6% (Preddy, 2015) to 91% (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014) of the youth population (see Table 2). Two studies reported
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
14
Table 1 Summary of measurement instruments Instrument/Source Electronic Victimization Bennett et al. (2011)
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
Sample Characteristics
M ethod of Administration
n = 437 Total n (after exclusions) = 403 68% female 32% male M ean age = 20 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Hostility (7) Intrusion (7) Humiliation (5) Exclusion (3)
Psychometric Evidence
Text Email Social Networking Sites Internet Chat room M obile phone Instant M essaging Photos
Reliability: Hostility α = .74 Intrusion α = .73 Humiliation α = .74 Exclusion α = .77
T P
I R
C S
U N
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015)
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015)
n = 788 77% female 23% male M ean age = 23 years University Students Spain
Online survey
D E
C A
E C
n = 433 60% female 37% male M ean age = 20 years College Students Spain
T P
Hard-copy questionnaire
A M
Direct Aggression (11) Control/M onitoring (9) Social Networking Sites New Technologies Email M obile Phone Camera Video
Dimensions not identified (9) Social networks Instant messaging Email
Validity: Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Reliability: Victimisation Direct Aggression α = .84 Control/M onitoring α = .87 Perpetration Direct Aggression α = .73 Control/M onitoring α = .81 Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Controlling Partner Inventory Burke et al. (2011)
Perpetration of Psychological Teen Dating Violence Korchmaros et al. (2013)
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 804 67% female 33% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Online survey
Control (2) Jealousy (1) Degradation (1)
D E
E C
Validity: Content and Face validity from in field experts. Principal Components Analysis. Reliability: α = .90
T P
I R
C S
U N
A M
Online M obile Phone Text
T P
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums Photos/Camera/GPS/Spyware (7) Excessive communication (4) Threatening Behaviours (3) Checking Behaviours (4)a Email M obile Phone Text Social Networking sites Photos Global Positioning System Web Cam Spyware
n = 888 50% female 50% male M ean age = 16 years Youth recruited via Harris Poll Online USA
C A
15
Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale Leisring and Giumetti (2014)
16 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 271 79% female 21% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
Online survey
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums M inor cyber abuse (6) Severe cyber abuse (3)
Validity: Exploratory factor analysis Principal factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
Technological means such as M obile Phone Email Computers Social Networking Sites
T P
Convergent Validity Various strengths of positive correlations between the Cyber Psychological abuse subscales, and the Facebook Argument Scaleb, M ultidimensional M easure of Emotional Abuse Scale (total and subscale scores)c , Conflict Tactics Scale – Revised Psychological Abuse Subscaled
I R
C S
U N
Cyber Aggression M easure M arganski and M elander (2015)
The Digital Abuse Study M TV-AP (2013), sourced in combination from M TV-AP (2011) and M TV-AP (2009)
n =540 73% female 27% male M ean age = 19 years Undergraduate students USA
T P
E C
C A
n = 1,297 49% female 51% male 38% aged 14-17 years 62% aged 18-24 years General population USA
D E
Online survey
Online survey / Interview
A M
Dimensions not identified (18)
Reliability: Victimisation scale α = .81 M inor Cyber Abuse α = .86 Severe Cyber Abuse α = .78 Perpetration scale α = .82 M inor Cyber Abuse α = .87 Severe Cyber Abuse α = .68 Reliability: α = .91
Socially interactive technologies
Dimensions not identified. (10) Telephone Email Text Instant M essaging Internet M obile phone Social networking sites
Nil available
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Tech Abuse in Teen Relationships Picard (2007)
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS) Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
17 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics n = 615 53% female 47% male 40% aged 13-15 years 60% aged 16-18 years General population including urban, suburban and rural. USA
Online survey
n = 77 56% female 44% male M ean age = 16 years High school students Canada
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Not Available
Psychometric Evidence
M obile phone/Text Email Instant M essaging Blog Social networking sites Video Photos Spyware Emotional /Verbal Dominance/Control M onitoring Relational Stalking (130 items in total)
Nil available
T P
C S
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
A M
Telephone Text Email Instant M essaging Social Networking sites
I R
Reliability: Current Relationships (Perpetration only) PATS α = .97 Emotional /Verbal α = .95 Dominance/Control α =.93 M onitoring α = .90 Relational α = .66 Stalking α = .74 Past Relationships PATS α = .97 Emotional /Verbal α = .93 Dominance/Control α = .25 M onitoring α = .90 Relational α = .86 Stalking α = .87
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source Partner Electronic Aggression Questionnaire (PEAQ) Preddy (2015)
18 Dimensions (number of relevant items)
M ethod of Administration
Sample Characteristics Study 1 n = 692 87% female 13% male M ean age = 22 years University Students USA
Online survey
Scope of Digital M ediums Public Electronic Aggression (4) Private Electronic Aggression (4) Social M edia Electronic Communication
U N
A M
T P
Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
Cyber Aggression Perpetration Schnurr, M ahatmya and Basche (2013)
E C
C A
n = 298 50% female 50% male M ean age = 20 years University students USA
T P
Convergent Validity: Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration with Psychological Aggression (Conflict Tactics Scale subscale) r = .44 Discriminant Validity: Public Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by participant r = -.11 Public Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by partner r = -.09 Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by participant r = .18 Private Electronic Aggression–Perpetration, with negotiation suggested by partner r = .13
C S
D E
n = 307 58% femalee 42% malee M ean age = 19 years University Students USA
Validity: Principal Components Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis
I R
Study 2 n = 513 63% female 37% male M ean age = 19 years University Students USA
Digital Dating Abuse M easure
Psychometric Evidence
Hard-copy questionnaire
Dimensions not identified (19)f Computer Internet M obile Phones
Online survey
Dimensions not identified (5) All technologies
Reliability: PEAQ α = .87 to .94 Public Electronic Aggression α = .97 Private Electronic Aggression α = .93 Public Electronic Aggression - Perpetration α = .89 Private Electronic Aggression - Perpetration α = .81 Public Electronic Aggression - Victimisation α = .88 Private Electronic Aggression - Victimisation α = .81 Reliability Victimisation α = .76 Perpetration α = .73
Internal Validity M ales α = .76 Females α = .71
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Instrument/Source The SmartSafe Survey Woodlock (2016)
Partner-Directed Cyber Aggression Scale Wright (2015), sourced in combination from Linder, Crick, and Collins (2002) and Wright and Li (2013) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
Sample Characteristics
M ethod of Administration
n = 46 100% female M ean age = 35 years Victims of intimate partner violence Australia
Focus groups, Online survey, Interview
n = 600 54% female 46% male M ean age = 18 years Secondary school students USA
Hard-copy questionnaire
n = 5,647 51% female 48% male M ean age = not provided High school students (n = 4,995) M iddle school students (n = 652) USA
Hard-copy questionnaire
Dimensions (number of relevant items)
Psychometric Evidence
Scope of Digital M ediums Stalking Abuse and Harassment (16)
Nil available
Email Text Facebook M obile Technology M obile Phone Social Networking Sites Photos Global Positioning System
D E
T P
T P
U N
A M
Sexual cyber abuse (4) Non-sexual cyber abuse (12) Photos Text Email Instant M essaging Chat Board Social Networking Sites Video M obile Phone
I R
C S
Cyber Relational Aggression (3) Privacy Invasion (2) Online Text M essaging
E C
C A
19
Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Reliability: Cyber Relational Aggression α = .91 Privacy Invasion α = .83 and α = .82
Reliability: Victimisation α = .91 Sexual α = .81 Non-sexual α = .89 Perpetration α = .94 Sexual α = .89 Non-sexual α = .92
Note. a = Number of items per dimension shown is for the victimisation scale. T he perpetration scale had 8 items in the Photos/Camera/Spyware/GPS dimension, and 3 items in the Checking Behaviours dimension, b = Leisring and Giumetti (2014), c = Murphy, Hoover, and T aft (1999), d = Straus et al. (1996), e = Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017. f = three conceptual subscales have been identified in the revised (yet to be published) version of this instrument (Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW overall abuse victimisation rates of 26% (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013) and 38% (MTV-AP, 2013). A further two studies reported overall aggression victimisation rates of 53% (Preddy, 2015) and 73% (Marganski & Melander, 2015). One could infer from these results that aggression prevalence is higher than abuse prevalence, however such an assumption would be premature without greater examination of each measure’s attributes.
PT
While these rates may reflect differences in the true prevalence of aggression and abuse it is
RI
likely they are influenced by variability in terminology use, construct definitions, the specific
SC
behaviours elicited, and other issues related to instrument design.
Adding complexity, some papers reported prevalence of DDA dimensions only
NU
(Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015), others reported prevalence of specific behaviours only (Picard, 2007; Woodlock, 2016), some did not report overall prevalence
MA
(Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Woodlock, 2016), and others did not report
ED
prevalence statistics (Burke et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2016; Schnurr et al., 2013; Wright, 2015). Furthermore, one study reported victimisation prevalence by gender only (Bennett et
EP T
al., 2011), others reported prevalence of perpetration only (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Piitz & Fritz, 2009, as cited in Attewell, 2013), or a combination of perpetration and victimisation
AC C
prevalence (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy, 2015). Because of these reporting differences, cross-study comparisons are problematic, and without a thorough investigation of the measurement attributes, conclusions may be premature. Theoretical orientation. Of the 16 selected instruments all but one investigated behaviours occurring both within and outside of the conflict context. The Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale (Leisring &
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
21
Table 2 Instrument prevalence rates, means and standard deviations, by gender. Instrument/ Source M en & Women Electronic Victimization Bennett et al. (2011)
Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment 77%
77%
60% .38 (.51)
56% .28 (.41)
Electronic Hostility
66% .45 (.55)
56% .29 (.41)
Electronic Intrusiveness
48% .32 (.49)
36% .14 (.28)
Electronic Humiliation
35% .34 (.65)
18% .14 (.38)
Electronic Exclusion
Burke et al. (2011)
T P
Overall Electronic Victimisation
I R
C S
Direct Aggression
75%
Control/M onitoring Behaviours
D E
U N
A M
14%
11%
Direct Aggression
82%
Control/M onitoring Behaviours
T P
1-39%
Victimisation prevalence depended on the type of behaviour and digital medium
E C
Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) Controlling Partner Inventory
M en & Women
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
C A
26.21 (9.65)
27.66 (9.07)
Controlling and M onitoring behaviours Females reported victimisation of controlling and monitoring behaviours more often than males. Note: Prevalence rates were reported for each question but not overall.
23.95 (8.50)
26.28 (7.97)
Controlling and M onitoring behaviours Females reported perpetrating more controlling and monitoring behaviours than males. Note: Prevalence rates were reported for each question but not overall.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
22
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women 41%
Perpetration of Psychological Teen Dating Violence Korchmaros et al. (2013)
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment Had perpetrated psychological violence via some form of computer-mediated communication
T P
13%
I R
38%
Cyber Psychological Abuse Scale
91%
30.11 (33.53)
28.88 (33.82)
M inor cyber abuse
Leisring and Giumetti (2014)
13%
3.19 (10.31)
0.64 (3.13)
Severe cyber abuse
C S
A M
U N
Note: Significant gender differences on severe (but not minor) cyber abuse victimisation Cyber Aggression M easure
D E
74%
Had been victims of some type of intimate partner cyber aggression
T P
M arganski and M elander (2015)
C A
E C
Had perpetrated psychological violence online Had perpetrated psychological violence via text message Note: Percentages are calculated from participants who reported perpetrating any form of teen dating violence
94%
26.11 (31.88)
33.00 (36.16)
M inor cyber abuse
13%
2.81 (9.00)
0.85 (3.67)
Severe cyber abuse Note: Significant gender differences on severe (but not minor) cyber abuse perpetration
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source
The Digital Abuse Study M TV-AP (2013), sourced in combination from M TV-AP (2011) and M TV-AP (2009)
M en & Women 38%
23
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
At least one of eight digital dating abuse behaviours.
22%
Been checked up on via internet of mobile phone regarding company, whereabouts and activities.
21%
Had their text messages read without their permission.
13%
Been made to remove former partners from their social networking sites friends lists.
9%
Been called names, put down or had really mean things said to them.
8%
Demanded passwords to their email and internet accounts.
4%
Used information posted online against them to harass or embarrass them.
4%
Used the internet or text messages to try to pressure them into unwanted sexual activity.
D E
19%
17%
A M
E C
Spread rumours about them via the internet or cell phone.
C A
T P
Contacted them online or by cell phone to threaten to hurt them. Feel like their partner tries to check up on them too often. Feel like their partner tries to pressure them into responding to their digital communication.
I R
C S
U N
T P
3%
2%
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source
Tech Abuse in Teen Relationships
M en & Women 30-36%
24
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Had been checked up on.
25%
Called them names, put them down, or said really mean things via digital devices.
25%
Contacted them via digital devices when they didn’t want them to, just to make them mad.
22%
Used digital devices to ask them to engage in sexual acts when they didn’t want to.
19%
Used digital devices to spread rumours about them.
18%
Used information posted online against them.
17%
Pretended to be them via a digital device.
17%
M ade them feel afraid to not respond to their partner’s digital communication.
16%
Purchased them a cellphone or phone credit in order for them to contact their partner.
11%
Shared private or embarrassing images of video of them.
Picard (2007)
D E
A M
E C
C A
Threatened via a digital device, to hurt them physically. Used spyware to track their online activity.
T P
I R
C S
U N
T P
10%
5%
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
25
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS)
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
1.19 (.32) 1.12 (.21) 1.40 (.46) 1.04 (.08) 1.13 (.27) 1.18 (.20)
Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
T P
I R
C S
1.24 (.28) 1.10 (.25) 1.35 (.39) 1.18 (.27) 1.23 (.27) 1.23 (.27)
U N
D E
Partner Electronic Aggression Questionnaire (PEAQ) Preddy (2015)
51% 4.93 (11.05) Digital Dating Abuse M easure Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
E C
74% 2.44 (2.52)
Past Relationship Emotional/verbal aggression Dominance/control M onitoring Relational Stalking Total
25%
Had perpetrated cyber-based dating aggression in current relationship
28%
Had perpetrated cyber-based dating aggression in past relationship
T P
53% 6% 0.24 (1.62)
A M
Current Relationship Emotional/verbal aggression Dominance/control M onitoring Relational Stalking Total
Females perpetrated more relational cyber dating aggression behaviours than males, but no other gender differences existed.
Electronic aggression
C A 2.59 (2.86)
2.34 (2.24)
Public electronic aggression
4% 0.23 (1.85)
Public electronic aggression
Private electronic aggression
52% 4.74 (10.67)
Private electronic aggression
Had experienced any DDA victimisation ever in their relationships a
69% 1.98 (2.04)
2.02 (2.17)
1.96 (1.94)
Had reported any DDA perpetration ever in their relationships a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Instrument/ Source M en & Women
26
Victimisation Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment
M en & Women
Cyber Aggression Perpetrationb
Perpetration Prevalence % and M ean (Standard Deviation) M en Women Description/Comment 1.93 (1.66)
Schnurr, M ahatmya and Basche (2013)
1.55 (1.43)
The SmartSafe Survey 80%
Stalking Experiences Received texts that made them feel afraid.
65%
Received calls that made them feel afraid.
63%
M ade to feel like they were being tracked.
T P
I R
Woodlock (2016)
6-78%
D E
Wright (2015), sourced in combination from Linder et al. (2002) and Wright and Li (2013) Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
26% 1.44
23% 1.45
Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
11% 1.63
7% 1.75
22% 1.41
21% 1.42
U N
Abuse and Harassment Experiences Various forms of abuse and harassment from partners via technology.
Partner-Directed Cyber Aggression Scale
C S
A M
1.79 (.84) 1.79 (.94)
Time 1 Cyber relational aggression Cyber privacy invasion Time 2 Cyber relational aggression Cyber privacy invasion
T P
1.80 (.83) 1.77 (.98)
Cyber dating abuse
12% 1.34
9% 1.35
14% 1.33
Cyber dating abuse
15% 1.56
Sexual cyber abuse
3% 1.52
4% 1.53
2% 1.45
Sexual cyber abuse
23% 1.39
Non-sexual cyber abuse
11% 1.34
7% 1.32
13% 1.34
Non-sexual cyber abuse
E C
29% 1.42
C A
Note. An absence of prevalence estimates, means or standard deviations indicates they were not provided in the cited papers. a = Personal communication with L. Reed, January 10, 2017. b = T he opposite sex’s victimisation reports were subrogated for perpetration data. c = Mean frequency calculations were among teens who had reported dating violence and abuse victimisation, standard deviations were not provided.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Giumetti, 2014) assessed behaviours that occurred only in the context of conflict, by asking participants to report how often behaviours had occurred during an argument. Asking questions in this way excludes important behaviours such as stalking, coercion and subtle systematic behaviours aimed at gaining control, that can occur both during and outside of the argument context. Such exclusions are likely to lead to an underestimation of an individual’s
PT
experience of DDA.
RI
Terminology and definitions.
Across the 16 instruments, 13 different terms were used to reference DDA in young
SC
people’s relationships, of which four provided explicit definitions of the measured construct
NU
(see Table 3). In each case, an issue relating to the definition or operationalisation of the terms was identified.
MA
To understand DDA each element of the construct – digital, dating, abuse - must be clearly defined. Five of the selected studies defined the digital technologies referenced by
ED
their respective instruments (Marganski & Melander, 2015; Piitz & Fritz, 2009, as cited in Attewell (2013); Reed et al., 2016; Woodlock, 2016; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013)
EP T
while 10 studies relied upon the wording within the instruments to define the targeted technologies (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo,
AC C
Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTVAP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Preddy, 2015; Wright, 2015). Some of the instruments targeted a limited range of digital mediums (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Picard, 2007; Reed et al., 2016) while others targeted several digital mediums but neglected important technologies such as digital tracking software and devices (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Marganski & Melander, 2015; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Piitz & Fritz, 2009; Preddy, 2015; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013), thereby omitting behaviours relevant to the measurement of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW DDA. Two studies provided insufficient information to determine which digital mediums were targeted (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Schnurr et al., 2013). The instruments referred to the notion of dating via at least seven different terms, including partner, dating relationship/partner, romantic relationship/partner and boyfriend/girlfriend. Three of the studies provided definitions for the type(s) of relationships
PT
(Marganski & Melander, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013).
RI
Three instruments referred only to current relationships (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTV-
SC
AP, 2013; Picard, 2007), six instruments referred to current and former relationships (Attewell, 2013; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Korchmaros et al., 2013;
NU
Marganski & Melander, 2015; D. Woodlock (personal communication, October 7, 2014); Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., 2013), four did not specify whether the relationship was
MA
current or former (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Preddy, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Schnurr et al., 2013), one referred to romantic relationships of duration greater than
ED
one year (Wright, 2015) and two did not provide a specific relationship reference (Bennett et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2011). In addition, it is unclear whether the instruments refer to
EP T
intimate relationships that are sexual or non-sexual, monogamous or open. Such variation across the instruments impedes cross-study comparisons.
AC C
Finally, the measured behavioural construct (abuse or aggression) was defined in four studies (see Table 3), while 11 of the selected studies relied upon wording within the instruments to define the targeted behaviours (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Korchmaros et al., 2013; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Preddy, 2015; Woodlock, 2016; Wright, 2015). Schnurr et al. (2013) did not provide specific behavioural information. Some instruments focussed on a limited range of DDA behaviours
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
29
Table 3 Terms, Definitions and Associated Ambiguities for Abuse and Aggression Instrument Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire
Term
Definition
Cyber Dating Abuse
“…abusive behaviours perpetrated by romantic partners via technology/new media, including threats via technology, harassing contacts, and using a partner’s social networking page without permission; it can be sexual or non-sexual in nature…”a
Definitional issue: This definition of digital dating abuse uses the word abusive within its description, creating a ‘circular definition’. Circular definitions are discouraged because of their failure to clearly denote the construct (Pepper & Driscoll, 2015; Western Oregon University).
“…aggression through communication technology within a dating relationship”b
Definitional issue: The use of aggression in the explanation creates a circular definition.
Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013), sourced in combination from Picard (2007) and Griezel (2007)
Partner Aggression Technology Scale (PATS)
Cyber-Based Dating Aggression
Piitz and Fritz (2009), as cited in Attewell (2013)
Cyber Aggression M easure
D E
Cyber Aggression
M arganski and M elander (2015)
Digital Dating Abuse M easure Reed, Tolman and Ward (2016)
T P
I R
Operationalisation issue: The measure asks questions such as “…[has a dating partner written] nasty things about [you] on his/her profile page…?” and counts one instance of this behaviour as abuse. The question of whether a behaviour such as this constitutes abuse, aggression or another construct is likely to depend on a range of additional contextual factors.
C S
U N
A M
T P
Operationalisation issue: While the measure elicits several behaviours that could constitute aggression, it also asks multiple questions that would likely embody abuse, for example “phoned/emailed/instant messaged...your partner and threatened to hurt yourself if your partner left?”.
“…the use of socially interactive technologies such as texting and social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.) by one individual to facilitate harassing behaviour against another individual.”c
Definitional issue: This definition introduces another construct – harassment – which may contribute further ambiguity rather than clarity.
“The term has three elements: “digital,” which in our conceptualization includes cell phones, computers, and Internet communication rather than face-to-face interaction; “dating,” which refers to current or former adolescent and young adult romantic relationships; and “abuse,” which implies a pattern of behavior that controls, pressures, harasses, threatens, or otherwise harms a dating partner.”d
Definitional issues: The use of the word romantic to define dating relationships between young people does not clearly identify what types of relationships are included in the definition, for example does the relationship require a sexual component to be considered romantic? The emerging and exploratory nature of intimate relationships in youth dating relationships is likely to span a range of intimacy levels.
E C
C A
Digital Dating Abuse
Comment
Note. a = Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al., (2013) p. viii, b = Attewell, (2013) p. 5,
c
The authors acknowledge that single instances of certain behaviours my constitute abuse (for example, pressure to engage in sexual activity). However, the definition references the presence of a “pattern of behaviour” for abuse to have occurred. This may exclude some of the more pernicious behaviours from investigation.
= Marganski & Melander, (2015) p. 9, d = Reed, T olman and Ward (2016) p. 3.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW (Burke et al., 2011; MTV-AP, 2013; Wright, 2015). Collectively however, the instruments suggest that DDA comprises a broad scope of behaviours. Constructs In addition to issues of definition, it is unclear which DDA behaviours constitute aggression and which constitute abuse. The terms are used interchangeably in the literature
PT
at times, and prevalence rates pertaining to each are sometimes discussed as if a single
RI
phenomenon. While the aggression and abuse constructs are likely related (Follingstad &
SC
Rogers, 2013; Slep et al., 2011) and abuse possibly a subset of aggression, they have not been clearly delineated in the context of their associated measures. Irrespective of the relationship
NU
between aggression and abuse, differences between them (subtle or otherwise) must be acknowledged if sound measurement is to occur.
MA
Some behaviours may be considered abuse after just one instance, for example My partner...has threatened to hurt me physically via new technologies (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix,
ED
Pereda, et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2016) but other behaviours may not constitute abuse if experienced only once or twice, for example Has you partner insulted you? (Leisring &
EP T
Giumetti, 2014). During the instrument development process Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) selected victims of cyber dating abuse for further interview, based on
AC C
their higher frequency of responses (two or more times on at least three of the elicited behaviours) revealing the authors’ assumption that greater frequency is required for a victim’s experience to constitute abuse. This is consistent with Attewell (2013)’s criteria that “…a pattern of behaviour” (p. 5) is required for the presence of abuse. Furthermore, Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) used the frequency of perpetration to measure DDA chronicity suggesting that higher behavioural frequency is associated with higher levels of abuse. Although in need of further research, the frequency of behavioural occurrence holds
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW utility when discerning between technology- facilitated abuse and aggression in young people’s dating relationships. Psychological significance. Also important in measuring DDA is the psychological significance of the events to the individual. For example, some instruments measure behaviours that involve swearing
PT
(e.g. Attewell, 2013; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014). A couple’s usual diction may influence
RI
how a partner’s comments are experienced, such that a relationship in which swear words are
SC
a regular part of communication may result in a vastly different interpretation, than a relationship in which swearing is uncommon. Likewise, other behaviours may be interpreted
NU
in differing ways. For example, receiving excessive text messages from a partner (Burke et al., 2011) may be experienced as a mild annoyance by one person, but as threatening and
MA
harassing by another. Bennett et al. (2011) asks if a dating partner has taken “…a phone picture of me to embarrass me”. This behaviour could occur in the context of a joke, and
ED
while embarrassing, be experienced with goodwill and light- heartedness. It could equally be
2015).
EP T
received with great offense and distress. It depends on the individual (Patchin & Hinduja,
Scholars have begun to address these contextual issues in varying ways. Borrajo,
AC C
Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al. (2015) measured the context within which behaviours occurred (jealousy, game/joke, anger/frustration, discussions, personality [he/she is], I did/did it first or otherwise) using a multiple-choice question. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) measured context by asking respondents to indicate up to four contexts (jealousy, game/joke, reciprocity, anger/wanted to annoy the victim). Alternatively, scholars have asked individuals to rate their anticipated level of distress relating to specific behaviours (Bennett et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2016). Through measuring anticipated level of distress, authors acknowledge the psychological importance of DDA behaviours to victims, although possibly
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW overlook the individual’s felt experience of actual events. In yet another approach, Schnurr et al. (2013) investigated cyber aggression and asked if partners had used technology toward participants in the following ways: to embarrass, make you feel bad, control, monitor, and argue with you. This approach bypasses the behaviours entirely and appears to elicit effect on the victim, however the questions assume the victim holds knowledge of the perpetrator’s
PT
intent, which is unlikely to be reliably known (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). This approach,
RI
therefore, may not constitute a sound measure of effect (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015).
SC
The most explicit measures of psychological significance have been undertaken by two different authors. Zweig, Dank, Lachman, et al. (2013) featured two of 16 questions that
NU
elicited behaviours based on their emotional effect (…sent me messages or chats that made me feel scared? and …sent me so many messages (like texts, e-mails, chats) that it made me
MA
feel unsafe?). D. Woodlock (personal communication, October 7, 2014) elicited the level of fear resulting from specific behaviours, for example “Has a partner or ex-partner ever made
ED
you feel afraid by doing the following? ...use mobile technology to check where you are? …share private pictures of you without your permission? …demand your electronic
EP T
passwords? While fear may not be a pre-requisite for all forms of DDA, it is for some (Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000;
AC C
Sears et al., 2006), and it is one useful indication of whether behaviours are experienced as abusive by the individual. Ultimately, it is the experience of the individual that determines whether the behaviour is perceived as abusive or not, and the existing literature does little to take this important factor into consideration. Determining whether an aggressive behaviour qualifies as DDA is a complex task involving a multitude of factors. Existing measures have incorporated some of these factors, however there remains considerable scope to elucidate the DDA construct further, and to understand the factors that shape the effects of DDA on victims.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Psychometric evidence. Reliability evidence was assessed. As shown in Table 1, 10 of the 16 instruments provide acceptable evidence of internal reliability, suggesting they are sufficiently consistent and free from measurement error (Urbina, 2004). No other reliability evidence was provided. Validity has been addressed to varying degrees in existing instruments. Two of the 16
PT
instruments provide evidence of convergent validity (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy,
RI
2015). Burke et al. (2011) made reference to having established content and face validity
SC
from experts in the field, the detail of which is unclear as according to Groth-Marnat (2009) content validity relates to judgements made by experts in the field and face validity pertains
NU
to judgements made by users of the test. One instrument provides evidence of discriminant validity (Preddy, 2015), and another provides evidence of internal validity (Schnurr et al.,
MA
2013). Factor analysis and principal components analysis, which both serve to provide evidence of construct validity (Williams, Brown, & Onsman, 2012), were undertaken on four
ED
instruments (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Preddy, 2015). Validity evidence for the remaining instruments was absent.
EP T
The irregular reporting of validity evidence across existing instruments suggests a need for caution when drawing inferences from the associated data.
AC C
Measurement specific issues. Victimisation/Perpetration. Variability across the measurement of victimisation and perpetration also exists between the instruments. Of the 16 measures, seven investigate victimisation only (Bennett et al., 2011; MTV-AP, 2013; Picard, 2007; Piitz & Fritz, 2009; Woodlock, 2016) and two investigate perpetration only (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Wright, 2015). The remaining seven instruments measure both victimisation and perpetration of DDA behaviours. Reciprocal dating relationship abuse has been reported in both offline and digital realms (e.g. Basile &
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Hamburger, 2010; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; O'Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008; Viejo, Monks, Sanchez, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2016; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, et al., 2013), and Follingstad and Rogers (2013) highlight the frequency of discrepancy between a couple’s reporting of intimate partner violence, and the potential for
These findings suggest that unidirectional
RI
actual use/experiences of abusive behaviours.
PT
gender bias as a result of differing perceptions of aggressive actions and their impact, and
measurement may overlook important information about the abuse dynamic in young
SC
peoples’ relationships.
NU
Timeframe reference.
The duration of time referenced in the instruments also varies. Two instruments
MA
elicited DDA behaviours which occurred in the last six months (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Preddy, 2015), seven instruments elicited behaviours which occurred within
ED
the last 12 months (Attewell, 2013; Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015; Korchmaros et al., 2013; Marganski & Melander, 2015; Reed et al., 2016; Zweig,
EP T
Dank, Yahner, et al., 2013), one elicited behaviours which had ever occurred (Reed et al., 2016), two elicited behaviours that had ever occurred with their current partner (Picard, 2007;
AC C
Schnurr et al., 2013), and four did not specify a timeframe. Greater prevalence is likely to emerge from longer reporting periods (Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009) and caution should be taken in comparing prevalence rates from different time frames. Quality of survey items. Finally, the quality of survey items impacts survey usability and data quality (Passmore, Dobbie, Parchman, & Tysinger, 2002). Survey’s that contain a large number of questions (e.g. Piitz & Fritz, 2009) as cited in (Attewell, 2013) can impede survey completion (Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009). Survey questions that attempt to elicit responses from the victim
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW about the intent of the aggressor (e.g. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Marganski & Melander, 2015; Preddy, 2015) may garner misleading data because of the potentially erroneous assumption that the victim has knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). Additionally, double-barrelled questions (e.g. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, et al., 2015;
PT
Picard, 2007) reduce accuracy of survey data (Passmore et al., 2002). Ambiguous wording
RI
may also cause issues of data accuracy and consistency (Krosnick & Presser, 2010; Passmore et al., 2002; Stehr-Green et al., 2003), for example in “My partner threatens to break up with
SC
me publicly through social media” (Preddy, 2015), it is unclear whether the question elicits
NU
the scenario of “public threatening”, “public breaking-up”, or both. Finally, sophisticated language may result in issues of comprehension in younger or less-educated samples,
MA
hindering data accuracy and consistency (Hinkin, 1998; Passmore et al., 2002; Stehr-Green et al., 2003). For example, the terms derogatory (Marganski & Melander, 2015), and
ED
humiliating, disseminated, and compromising (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015) may impair comprehension in some young people.
EP T
In summary, the emerging research into DDA has provided some valuable and thought-provoking findings including an expansive compilation of DDA behaviours, insights
AC C
into the gender and context complexities of the phenomenon, and some acknowledgement of the importance of victim experience to the measurement of DDA. Scope remains to more clearly understand and define relevant terms, increase the scientific rigour of measurement instruments, clarify methodology, and better understand the role of victim experience in the definition of DDA and the acknowledgement of its effects. To obtain a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of DDA, survey research could benefit from: reflecting a clear definition of what constitutes “digital”, “dating” and “abuse”, eliciting both victimisation and perpetration rates, providing comprehensive psychometric evidence, advancing the quality of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW survey items, including survey items that acknowledge the role of psychological, coercive and more subtle means aimed at gaining control in the perpetration of DDA, clarifying relationship and timeframe references when eliciting data from respondents, and examining the psychological significance of DDA experienced by victims. This review contains both strengths and limitations. One strength is its inclusion of
PT
grey literature instruments, thereby incorporating material important to the development of
RI
the field which would typically have been excluded in a review of this nature. Another
SC
strength is its concise but comprehensive summary of existing instruments, providing scholars with an overview of the current position regarding DDA measurement.
NU
Furthermore, the review’s illumination of the ambiguity of constructs, and diversity of DDA instruments, presents scholars in the field with an opportunity to advance research in a more
MA
cohesive manner. One limitation of the review is its exclusion of non-English studies, and measures that investigate only one form of DDA or digital medium, which may result in
ED
relevant contributions to the review being overlooked. In addition, the reviewed instruments span a range of aggressive and abusive behaviours, making it difficult to demarcate the
EP T
conceptual basis of the constructs under measurement, and it therefore remains unclear what is being investigated and whether these behaviours adequately represent the DDA construct.
AC C
Summary Discussion
This critical review identified 16 instruments measuring DDA in young people’s relationships, of which 14 were published between 2011 and 2016. Few fields of research have accumulated such a collection of assessment instruments in such a short period, suggesting a high level of concern about DDA in young people’s lives. This study summarises the current state of play regarding the measurement of DDA, and advances a growing interest in abusive technology use and related assessment tools. Our findings illuminate a lack of consensus across the field regarding definitions and constructs, and an
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW inconsistency in measurement attributes. It also highlights the pressing need for a wellestablished and validated tool to unite the field. It is hoped that this review will assist scholars in further refining the way we measure the phenomenon, and strengthen assessment approaches in the field generally, particularly in relation to the more abusive experiences endured by youth. With a rapidly growing reliance on technology, an accurate understanding
PT
of its negative use in intimate relationships is vital for supporting youth in an important
RI
formative life stage, and to advance the generation of effective prevention and treatment
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
NU
SC
interventions.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW References Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2016). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 00, 1-23. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 Anderson, M. (October 2015). Technology Device Ownership: 2015. Retrieved from
PT
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/10/PI_2015-10-29_device-ownership
RI
_FINAL.pdf
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent Dating Violence Do Adolescents Follow
SC
in Their Friends’, Or Their Parents’, Footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
NU
19(2), 162-184. Retrieved from http://jiv.sagepub.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/ 19/2/162.full.pdf
MA
Atkinson, L., Indermaur, D., & Blagg, H. (1998). From dating violence to domestic violence: Putting a Spoke in the Wheel of the Cycle of Violence. Paper presented at the
ED
Partnerships in Crime Prevention, Hobart, Australia. Attewell, V. (2013). Exploring Cyber-Based Dating Aggression in Adolescent Romantic
EP T
Relationships: Past, Present, and Future. (Master of Science Thesis), University of Calgary, Calgery, Alberta.
AC C
Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2016). Aussie teens and kids online. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engageblogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-and-kids-online Basile, K., & Hamburger, M. (2010). Nonreciprocal and reciprocal dating violence and injury occurrence among urban youth: A Commentary. West J Emerg Med, 11(5), 423. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3027431/pdf/ wjem11_5p423.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410-429. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.4.410 Bocij, P. (2003). Victims of cyberstalking: An exploratory study of harassment perpetrated
PT
via the internet. First Monday, 8(10). doi:10.5210/fm.v8i10.1086
RI
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence,
565-585. doi:10.2466/21.16.PR0.116k22w4
SC
context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2),
NU
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., Pereda, N., & Calvete, E. (2015). The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in
MA
Human Behavior, 48, 358-365. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.063 Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control
ED
intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1162-1167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010
EP T
Cannon, C., Lauve-Moon, K., & Buttell, F. (2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social
AC C
Sciences, 4(3), 668-687. doi:10.3390/socsci4030668 Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns about Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 245-254. doi:s10.1007/s10896-011-9360x Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ovftpdfs/
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW FPDDNCOBOEGPAH00/fs047/ovft/live/gv024/00012030/00012030-19941200000003.pdf Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 357-372. doi:0.4135/9781412958479.n380
PT
Cutbush, S. L., Williams, J., Miller, S., Gibbs, D., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2012). Electronic
RI
dating aggression among middle school students: Demographic correlates and
SC
associations with other types of violence. Poster presented at the American Public Health Association, Annual Meeting, October, 2012.
NU
Darvell, M. J., Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-monitoring behavior on Facebook.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0035
MA
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 717-722.
ED
Day, T., McKenna, K., & Bowlus, A. (2005). The economic costs of violence against women: An evaluation of the literature. Retrieved from Ontario, Canada:
EP T
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/expert%20brief%20costs.pdf De La Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of
AC C
school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of educational research, 87(1), 7-34. doi:10.3102/0034654316632061 DeHart, D. D., Follingstad, D. R., & Fields, A. M. (2010). Does context matter in determining psychological abuse? Effects of pattern, harm, relationship, and norms. Journal of Family Violence, 25(5), 461-474. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9307-7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Dimond, J. P., Fiesler, C., & Bruckman, A. S. (2011). Domestic violence and informatio n communication technologies. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 413-421. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.006 Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2003). Women, violence and social change. London: Routledge.
PT
Draucker, C. B., & Martsolf, D. S. (2010). The role of electronic communication technology
RI
in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing,
SC
23(3), 133-142. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00235.x
Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large
NU
sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0231
MA
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61-67.
Drouin, M., Ross, J., & Tobin, E. (2015). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner
ED
aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 197-204. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001
EP T
Exner-Cortens, D. (2014). Theory and teen dating violence victimization: Considering adolescent development. Developmental Review, 34(2), 168-188.
AC C
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.03.001
Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 7178. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1029 Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016a). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 1, behaviors). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 64-78. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.007
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016b). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 2, attitudes). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 93-106. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.011 Fahy, A. E., Stansfeld, S. A., Smuk, M., Smith, N. R., Cummins, S., & Clark, C. (2016).
health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(5), 502-509.
RI
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.006
PT
Longitudinal associations between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental
SC
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442039.pdf
NU
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a University campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468-483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
MA
Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence and Victims, 20(1), 25-38.
ED
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=2005-08490-002&site=ehost-live
EP T
Follingstad, D. R., & Rogers, M. J. (2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3-4), 149-167.
AC C
doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5 Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 498-519. Retrieved from http://jiv.sagepub.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/22/5/498.full.pdf Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349360. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp031
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Geffner, R. (2016). Partner aggression versus partner abuse terminology: Moving the field forward and resolving controversies. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 923-925. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/pdf/ 10.1007%2Fs10896-016-9898-8.pdf Glass, N., Fredland, N., Campbell, J., Yonas, M., Sharps, P., & Kub, J. (2003). Adolescent
PT
dating violence: Prevalence, risk factors, health outcomes, and implications for clinical
RI
practice. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, & neonatal nursing, 32(2), 227-238.
SC
doi:10.1177/0884217503252033
Griezel, L. (2007). Out of the school yard and into cyber space: Elucidating the nature of
NU
psychosocial consequences of traditional and cyber bullying for Australia secondary students. (Unpublished honour's thesis), University of Western Sydney, Sydney,
MA
Australia.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
ED
Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., . . . Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A
EP T
scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 770-777. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
AC C
Hegarty, K., Bush, R., & Sheehan, M. (2005). The Composite Abuse Scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 529-547. Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (1999). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 399-415.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2011). Electronic Dating Violence: A brief guide for educators and parents. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/electronic_dating_violence_ fact_sheet.pdf Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
PT
doi:10.1177/109442819800100106
RI
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic
SC
violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003-1018. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328
NU
Johnson, R. M., Parker, E. M., Rinehart, J., Nail, J., & Rothman, E. F. (2015). Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth: A systematic review. American Journal of
MA
Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 458-466. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.020 Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2014). The Age–IPV
ED
Curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708-726.
EP T
doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z
Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Relationship
AC C
context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(6), 631-636. doi:101016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014. Kaura, S. A., & Allen, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5), 576-588. doi:10.1177/0886260504262966 Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476-499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D., & Lenhart, A. (2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 561-567. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0627 Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among
PT
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618
RI
Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Möller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner
SC
violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 807-827. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0
NU
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. Handbook of survey research, 2(3), 263-314.
MA
Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., & Bowen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for
ED
adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015
EP T
Leisring, P. A., & Giumetti, G. W. (2014). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages also hurt: Development and validation of the cyber psychological
AC C
abuse scale. Partner Abuse, 5(3), 323-341. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.5.3.323 Lenhart, A., Anderson, M., & Smith, A. (2015). Teens, technology and romantic relationships. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teenstechnology-and-romantic-relationships/ Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/ files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults' romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11(1), 69-86. doi:10.1111/14679507.00187 Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don't… if
RI
states. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371-386.
PT
you're a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the united
SC
doi:10.1080/17482798.2014.923009
Loring, M. T. (1994). Emotional abuse. New York: Lexington Books.
NU
Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students' Facebook stalking
doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0588
MA
of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 711-716.
Madlock, P. E., & Westerman, D. (2011). Hurtful cyber-teasing and violence: Who’s
ED
laughing out loud? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(17), 3542-3560. doi:10.1177/0886260511403749
EP T
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2015). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its
AC C
association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-25. doi:10.1177/0886260515614283 Melander, L. A. (2010). College students' perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 263-268. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0221 Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 180-194.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW MTV-AP. (2009). 2009 AP-MTV Digital Abuse Study Retrieved from http://www.athinline.org/MTV-AP_Digital_Abuse_Study_Executive_Summary.pdf MTV-AP. (2011). Associated Press-MTV Digital Abuse Survey 2011. Retrieved from Palo Alto, C.A.: http://www.athinline.org/pdfs/MTV-AP_2011_Research_StudyExec_Summary.pdf
PT
MTV-AP. (2013). The Digital Abuse Study: A Survey from MTV & The Associated Press-
RI
NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Retrieved from Chicago:
SC
http://surveys.ap.org/data%5CNORC%5CAP-MTV%202013%20Digital%20 Abuse_Topline%20TREND%20v5_onlinebullying-sexting%20v5.pdf
NU
Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Graña, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & González, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences.
MA
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298-304. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137 Murphy, C., Hoover, S., & Taft, C. (1999). The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional
ED
Abuse: Factor structure and subscale validity. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual
Canada.
EP T
Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Toronto,
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
AC C
McGraw-Hill.
O'Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5), 473-479. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012 Passmore, C., Dobbie, A. E., Parchman, M., & Tysinger, J. (2002). Guidelines for constructing a survey. Family Medicine, 34(4), 281-286.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69-74. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013 Pepper, M., & Driscoll, D. L. (2015, 10/10/2016). Writing Definitions.
Retrieved from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/
PT
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use
RI
of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks,
SC
CA: Sage.
Picard, P. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships study. Retrieved from Chicago, IL.:
NU
http://www.loveisrespect.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/liz-claiborne-2007-techrelationship-abuse.pdf
MA
Piitz, J., & Fritz, P. (2009). Cyber-bullying: Its prevalence and relation with partner aggression and psychological functioning. Department of Psychology. University of
ED
Windsor, Windsor, Canada. Unpublished manuscript. Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2016). Technology- facilitated sexual violence victimization results
EP T
from an online survey of Australian adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-29. doi:10.1177/0886260516672055
AC C
Preddy, T. M. (2015). Assessment and investigation of electronic aggression in the romantic relationships of emerging adults. (Doctoral Dissertation), The University of Tennessee, Tennessee, Knoxville. Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2016). Snooping and sexting digital media as a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women, 1-21. doi:10.1177/1077801216630143
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 79-89. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.015 Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and
PT
cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1-17.
RI
doi:10.1080/0735648x.2011.641816
SC
Schnurr, M. P., Mahatmya, D., & Basche III, R. A. (2013). The role of dominance, cyber aggression perpetration, and gender on emerging adults' perpetration of intimate partner
NU
violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 70. doi:10.1037/a0030601 Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). 'If it hurts you, then it is
MA
not a joke': Adolescents' ideas about girls' and boys' use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1191-1207.
ED
doi:10.1177/0886260506290423
Short, E., Linford, S., Wheatcroft, J. M., & Maple, C. (2014). The impact of cyberstalking:
EP T
The lived experience - A thematic analysis. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 199, 133-137. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-401-5-133
AC C
Slep, A. M. S., Heyman, R. E., & Snarr, J. D. (2011). Child emotional aggression and abuse: Definitions and prevalence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(10), 783-796. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.002 Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71-92. doi:10.1177/14614440222226271 Stark, E. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62(3-4), 201-211. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9717-2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Stark, E. (2012). Looking Beyond Domestic Violence: Policing Coercive Control. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 199-217. doi:10.1080/15332586.2012.725016 Stehr-Green, P. A., Stehr-Green, J. K., Nelson, A., Alexander, L., Mejia, G. C., & MacDonald, P. D. (2003). Developing a questionnaire. Focus on Field Epidemiology, 2(2), 1-6.
PT
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance of
RI
technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence and
SC
abuse: A research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 390-417. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.005
NU
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & Price, S. A. (2015). “They’ll Always Find a Way to Get to You”: Technology Use in Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Its Role in
doi:10.1177/0886260515590787
MA
Dating Violence and Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
ED
Straka, S. M., & Montminy, L. (2008). Family violence: Through the lens of power and control. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(3), 255-279. doi:10.1080/10926790802262499
EP T
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.
AC C
Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001 Teten, A. L., Ball, B., Valle, L. A., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Women's Health, 18(7), 923-927. doi:10.1089=jwh.2009.1515 Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705-713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Tompson, T., Benz, J., & Agiesta, J. (2013). The digital abuse study: Experiences of teens and young adults. Retrieved from Chicago: http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Digital%20 Abuse /AP-NORC%20Center%20and%20MTV_Digital%20Abuse%20Study _FINAL.pdf Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
PT
Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J.
RI
(2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating
SC
violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633-649. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7
NU
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
MA
into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.
Viejo, C., Monks, C., Sanchez, V., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2016). Physical dating violence in
ED
Spain and the United Kingdom and the importance of relationship quality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(8), 1453-1475. doi:10.1177/0886260514567963
EP T
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention intiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4),
AC C
435-456. doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00091-9 Western Oregon University. (date unknown). How to write an extended definition. Retrieved from http://www.wou.edu/~corninr/wr135/definition.html Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941-947.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Williams, B., Brown, T., & Onsman, A. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1-13. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2). doi:10.1037/a0040194 Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A.-L.
PT
(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships
RI
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277-293. doi:10.1037//1040-
SC
3590.13.2.277
Woodlock, D. (2016). The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking.
NU
Violence Against Women, 1-19. doi:10.1177/1077801216646277 World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against
MA
women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and nonpartner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
ED
Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber aggression within adolescents’ romantic relationships: Linkages to parental and partner attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(37), 1-11.
EP T
doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0147-2
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent
AC C
cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 662-674. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3 Ybarra, M., Price-Feeney, M., Lenhart, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2017). Intimate Partner Digital Abuse. New York: Data and Society Research Institute, and Center for Innovative Publich Health Research. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Korchmaros, J. D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of sexual behavior, 45(5), 1083-1099. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9 Yllo, K. (2005). Theories and Methodology. In O. Barnett, C. Miller-Perrin, & R. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PT
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. (2013). Technology, Teen Dating
RI
Violence and Abuse, and Bullying. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from
SC
http://www.iacpyouth.org/portals/0/resources/teen_dating_violence.pdf. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse
NU
among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
and Adolescence, 42, 1063-1077. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT DIGITAL DATING ABUSE MEASURES: A CRITICAL REVIEW
PT
Highlights
A wide range of digital dating abuse behaviours are occurring
The digital dating abuse construct is yet to be clearly defined
More scientific rigour in measurement and consistent use of terms is required
The effect of digital dating abuse on the victim is important to measurement
Further research into digital dating abuse is still needed
AC C
EP T
ED
MA
NU
SC
RI