WHAT WILL BE COVERED The crucial role of measurement in science Variables measured by the CTS

1. WHAT WILL BE COVERED • The crucial role of measurement in science • Variables measured by the CTS • History of the CTS • Theoretical basis • Measurement strategy • Reliability and validity • Uses of the CTS • Criticisms of the CTS and attempts to ban the CTS • The controversy about partner violence (PV) by women

2. THE ROLE OF MEASUREMENT IN SCIENCE • To understand any field of science, requires understanding of the way the it measures what it studies • No one can be an astronomer without understanding the Hubble space telescope – revolutionized astronomy • No one can understand family violence as a field of science without understanding the CTS • Applies regardless of opinion of the CTS • A large part of what is known about family violence is based on data obtained with the CTS

4. LIKE THE INVENTION OF THE TELESCOPE • Could see things that could not be seen before, even though they were there • Led to a tremendous expansion of research • RESEARCH USING THE CTS • 10+ Books • 600+ Scientific Journal Articles • 5+ Scientific Journal Articles Published every month • These are minimum estimates

5. VARIABLES MEASURED BY THE CTS CTS2 (FOR MEASURING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MARRIED OR DATING PARTNERS) • PHYSICAL ASSAULT • INJURY • SEXUAL COERCION • PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION • NEGOTIATION CTSPC(FOR MEASURING PARENT-T0-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS Non-Violent Discipline Physical Assault Minor = Corporal Punishment, Severe = Physical Abuse Psychological Aggression

6. Relationship BehaviorsNo matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood, are tired, or for some other reason. Couples also have many different ways of trying to settle their differences. This is a list of things that might happen when you have differences. Please circle how many times you did each of these things in the past year, and how many times your partner did them in the past year. If you or your partner did not do one of these things in the past year, but if happened before that, circle “7.” 1 = Once in the past year 2 = Twice in the past year 3 = 3-5 times in the past year 4 = 6-10 times in the past year 5 = 11-20 times in the past year 6 = More than 20 times in past year 7 = Not in the past year, but it did happen before 0 = This has never happened THE CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES (CTS2)

10. HISTORY OF THE CTS ILLUSTRATES THE INVESTMENT NEEDED TO DEVELOP ADEQUATE MEASURES * QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION (1970-71) ACTS, VOCABULARY, MEANING  * FORM A (1971-72) STUDENT RESPONDENT STUDY ILLUSTRATES REPLICATION FOR SEVERAL ROLES  * FORM N 1975 NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEY R 1985 NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEY * MANY MODIFICATIONS BY OTHERS • REVISED CTS • CTS2, 1996 • CTSPC, 1998 • ADULT-RECALL/CHILD-REPORT VERSIONS, 1999 • SHORT FORMS 2004

11. THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE CTS CONFLICT THEORY CONFLICT VERSUS CONFLICT TACTICSCTS MEASURES CONFLICT TACTICS, NOT CONFLICT, EXCEPT BY INFERENCE EXAMPLE OF A MEASURE OF CONFLICT

12. 4. MEASUREMENT STRATEGY ·  * MEASURES BEHAVIOR, NOT ATTITUDES OR MOTIVES * DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN ACTS AND INJURIES * INTENDED FOR USE WITH OTHER INSTRUMENTS * PROVIDES DATA ON MINOR AND SEVERE LEVELS ·      * MODULAR AND SYMMETRICAL ( Analogous to a fully crossed experiment · ·

13. RELIABILITY OF THE CTS • * PURPOSE: To explain the concept of reliability and • how it is measured • WHAT IS RELIABILITY? • The consistency of measurement • An instrument can be highly reliable and be consistently wrong • * INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY • Alpha coefficient • Factor Structure • Not a necessary characteristic of a measure • * TEMPORAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY • Test-Retest Correlation • An essential characteristic of a measure - necessary • * EXAMPLES OF HIGH RELIABILITY AND ZERO VALIDITY • Dot test for admission to graduate school • Color as measure of wine quality

16. VALIDITY OF THE CTS * WHAT IS VALIDITY The extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure* MEASURES OF VALIDITY - Content Validity – spelling test example - High Disclosure Rate - Concurrent Validity Correlation of partner reports Correlation with other instruments - Construct Validity`

17. HIGH DISCLOSURE RATE CTS RATE ISCOMPARISON OF CTS WITHGREATERNATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY 18 TIMES NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY 15 TIMESCLIENTS OF COUPLE AND FAMILY THERAPY 4 TIMES NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT DATA SYSTEM 16 TIMESNATIONAL INCIDENCE STUDY OF CHILD ABUSE 8 TIMES

18. WHY DOES THE CTS SECURE • MORE DISCLOSURE? • * CONTEXT OF LEGITIMATION (“WE ALL DO IT” APPROACH) • EXCULPATORY INTRODUCTION • HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO IT, NOT WHETHER DONE • ASKS WHAT BOTH RESPONDENT AND PARTNER DID  • * FAMILY PROBLEMS CONTEXT RATHER THAN SAFETY, INJURY CRIME, OR FEAR  • FOCUS IS ON BEHAVIOR RATHER THAN OUTCOMES SUCH AS INJURY (INJURY IS RELATIVELY RARE) • AVOIDS DISPARAGING TERMS SUCH AS ABUSE OR VIOLENCE  • ALSO MEASURES NEGOTIATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION, WHICH CAN JUSTIFY HITTING (TRIED EVERYTHING) • DOES NOT DEPEND ON BEHAVIOR BEING KNOWN OR REPORTED BY OTHERS

19. EXAMPLE OF CONCURRENT VALIDITY WHY DOES THIS INDICATE VALIDITY?

23. EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY EVIDENCE E

24. USE OF THE CTS2 TO MEASURE WHETHER GROUP TREATMENT WORKS TO REDUCE PARTNER VIOLENCE BY WOMEN WHO HAVE PTSD AND THOSE WHO DO NOT WHAT DO THE RESULTS IN EACH ROW SHOW?

25. THE CTS AND THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT VIOLENCE BY WOMEN • Previous slides are a small fraction of the evidence showing that the CTS is a valid instrument - Hundreds of studies • At the same time many books and articles assert that the CTS is not valid and that it produces misleading results • Why? Studies using the CTS show that women perpetrate partner violence (PV) at about the same rate as men. Therefore the CTS must be invalid.

26. CENSORSHIP OF SCIENCE WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS OR CONTRADICTS THOSE IN POWER • LATE 16th century: Rejection of the evidence from the newly invented telescope that the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentric nature of the solar system) • LATE 20th century and continuing: Rejection of the evidence from the newly invented CTS that about the same percent of women assault their partners as men • LATE 20th century and continuing: Rejection of the evidence that spanking children is harmful • MANY OTHER EXAMPLES • Global warming • Evolution • Abstinence only sex education • Boot camps and “Scared Straight”

27. Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts By JAMES GLANZ New York Times February 18, 2004 The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today. The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

28. THE TELESCOPE AND THE “LIES” IT REVEALED • GALILEO GALILEI • Born in Pisa, Italy in 1564. Professor of mathematics • Most famous invention was the telescope (1609) • Discovered the four satellites of Jupiter, observed a supernova, verified the phases of Venus, and discovered sunspots • His discoveries proved the Copernican system which states that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun • Was tried and sentenced to lifetime confinement in his home • BRUNO • Published book in 1585 defending the heliocentric theory of Copernicus • Was tried as a heretic. Even after a long imprisonment, would not recant • Burned at the stake • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GALILEO AND BRUNO • Galileo was a prudent man and accepted his sentence • Bruno was a firebrand and insisted on defying the church

29. THE CTS AND THE LIES THAT IT REVEALED WOMEN PERPETRATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AT ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS MEN U.S. NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEYS,AS REPORTED BY WOMEN ASSAULTS BY: MenWOMEN A. MINOR ASSAULTS ` 1975 8.6 8.3 ` 1985 7.2 7.4 1992 10.5 10.0 B. SEVERE ASSAULTS 1975 4.1 4.4 1985 4.2 4.2 1992 2.4 2.9

30. ASSAULTS BY: MEN WOMEN Minor assaults as reported by female partner 17.4% 17.7% Severe assaults as reported by female partner 6.5% 6.2%

31. Fig. 6. Couple Symmetry Types By Sex of Respondent (All Assaults) UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS STUDENTS Male Aggressor Male Aggressor Female Aggressor Both Aggress Both Aggress Female Aggressor MALE RESPONDENTS N=177 FEMALE RESPONDENTS N=376 Chi-square = 1.803, p .406 N for Male Respondents = 177 (Male Aggressor=19, Female Aggressor=28, Both Aggress=130) N for Female Respondents = 376 (Male Aggressor=35, Female Aggressor=77, Both Aggress=264) ID12 E1a

32. NATIONAL SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD & FAMILIES (BENSON, FOX & DEMARIS, 2000) SUDIES USING OTHER METHODS WHAT ARE 3 RESULTS SHOWN? African American White Hispanic

33. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SURVEY, 1999 MENWOMEN ASSAULTED BY A PARTNER IN LAST 5 YEARS 7% 8% PHYSICALLY INJURED BY PARTNER 13% 40% RECEIVED MEDICAL ATTENTION 3% 15% FEARED FOR THEIR LIFE 7% 38% Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000. Statistics Canada, July 2000. Publication 85-224-XIE

35. WOMEN'S SHARE OF HOMICIDE OF PARTNERS

36. D. WHAT EXPLAINS THE BELIEF THAT PARTNER VIOLENCE IS PRIMARILY A MALE CRIME? • AMONG CASES RECORDED BY POLICE 80-99% ARE BY MEN • SYMPATHY FOR VICTIMS (WHO ARE PREDOMINANTLY WOMEN) • OUTSIDE THE FAMILY, MALE VIOLENCE IS 10 TIMES GREATER • EFFORTS OF FEMINISTS IS WHAT BROUGHT THE ISSUE ISSUE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE TO PUBLIC ATTENTION • VIOLATES CULTURAL NORM OF "NEVER HIT A WOMAN" VERSUS • IMPLICIT NORM TOLERATING VIOLENCE BY WOMEN • MEDIA DISTORTIONS • SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE BY RESEARCHERS • Feminist researchers • Fear of reprisal by other researchers

37. MEDIA COVERAGE OFTEN MISREPRESENTS

40. SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE: • TWO VERSIONS OF THE SAME STUDY • 1987 VERSIONRate Per 100 Couples • Husband-to-Wife USALBERTA • Overall Violence (1-8) 11.3 11.2 • Severe Violence (4-8) 3.0 2.3 • Wife-to-Husband • Overall Violence (1-8) 12.1 12.4 • Severe Violence (4-8) 4.4 4.7 • 1989 PUBLISHED VERSIONRate Per 100 Couples • `` USALBERTA • Husband-to-Wife • Overall Violence (1-8) 11.3 11.2 • Severe Violence (4-8) 3.0 2.3 MISSING

41. * UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE • Campaign to have Suzanne Steinmetz fired • Bomb threat at daughter's wedding • * UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA • Lecturer's contract not renewed • * MY EXPERIENCES • Prevented from speaking at U of Mass. • Accused of wife beating • Accused of sexually exploiting students • Walk out at my SSSP presidential address • Presidential address published with rejoinders • Graduate student warned she will never get a job if she does her dissertation research with me • MANY OTHER CASES • A CLIMATE OF FEAR LED TO SELF-CENSORSHIP EXAMPLES OF OTHER EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS

42. MAIN REASON FOR REJECTION OF THE CTS AS A VALID MEASURE • STUDIES USING THE CTS SHOW THAT WOMEN PERPETRATE ASSAULTS ON PARTNERS AS OFTEN AS MEN • CRITICS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS TRUE • THEREFORE, THE CTS MUST BE INVALID • "BLAMING THE MESSANGER FOR THE BAD NEWS" • IGNORES THE FACT THAT STUDIES USING OTHER MEASURES ALSO FIND THIS • THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS STUDIES USING POLICE CALLS, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CASES IN WHICH THE POLICE ARE INVOLVED.

43. 7. OTHER CRITICISMS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE CTS • PURPORTEDLY FEMINIST CRITICISMS • ·RESTRICTED TO CONFLICT RELATED VIOLENCE • ·IGNORES CONTEXT • ·IGNORES NON-CONFLICT ASSAULTS • ·DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SMALLER AVERAGE SIZE OF WOMEN • ·DOES NOT MEASURE INJURY • ·EQUATES ACTS THAT DIFFER IN SERIOUSNESS • ·IGNORES WHO INITIATES THE ASSAULTS • OTHER CRITICISMS OF THE CTS • ·FREQUENCY RESPONSE CATEGORIES ARE UNREALISTIC • ·ONE YEAR REFERENT PERIOD IS UNREALISTIC • ·LIMITED SET OF VIOLENT ACTS • ·CTS2: LONG IF ALL 5 SCALES ARE ASKED FOR RESPONDENT AND PARTNER • AS A PARENT-CHILD MEASURE • ·STILL NOT WELL SUITED TO INFANTS • ONE YEAR REFERENT PERIOD TOO LONG • FOR ACTS THAT OCCUR DAILY, LIKE SPANKING

44. POINTS TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND • What the CTS2 measures • How it measures these variable • Reliability and validity of a measure • Evidence of validity of the CTS2 • Disclosure rate • Concurrent validity • Construct validity • Limitations of the CTS2 • Difference between men and women in partner violence (PV) • Why the vitriolic criticism of the CTS and attacks on the author?