Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse

Catherine V. Strauss1, William C. Woods2, Tara L. Cornelius3, & Ryan C. Shorey1

1Ohio University2University of Chicago

3Grand Valley State UniversityIntroduction

There are a plethora of data indicating that intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs at high rates in college students (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated these high rates of IPV, some researchers have criticized the reliability and validity of the self-report measures commonly used to assess these rates (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013; Ryan, 2013). There is some research to suggest that subtle factors, such as item order, can impact self-reports of violence victimization and perpetration (Ramirez & Straus, 2006). This phenomenon has been most widely studied in the context of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, et al., 1996), a widely used measure of IPV, which may not comprehensively assess psychological aggression. Thus, in the current study we examined differences in self-reports of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) when it was administered in either the standard format or in a format in which question order was randomized. Given that there may be gender differences in victimization and perpetration, we also examined the impact gender would have on item order effects.

Hypotheses 1. Standard and randomized forms of the MMEA will yield different rates

of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration.2. Females and males will differ in overall psychological victimization and

perpetration rates.

MethodsSampleIn total, 496 college students who were 18 years or older and in current dating relationships were randomly assigned to take either a standard or randomized format of the MMEA. The sample was mostly female (69.7%), heterosexual (94.5%), and Caucasian (85.6%). On average, participants were in dating relationships that had lasted 16.73 months (SD= 15.06). The mean age of participants was 19.26 (SD = 2.79) years old.

Procedure and Instruments The surveys were administered through an online program, and students took either the standard or randomized format of the MMEA. They also answered a series of demographic questions about age, gender, and other variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were then run to examine the effects of item order, gender, and the interaction between item order and gender on self-reports of psychological aggression.

ResultsMeans and standard deviations of MMEA scores for each subscale of the MMEA are presented across genders (Table 1) and formats (Table 2).

As can be see in Table 3, there was a significant main effect for gender, in that women reported more total victimization and perpetration than men. This pattern also occurred specifically on the Hostile Withdrawal scale, victimization on the Domination/Intimidation scale, and perpetration on the Restrictive Engulfment scale.

There was also a significant main effect of measure format on reports of psychological aggression, in that those participants who took the standard version were more likely to report higher total victimization and perpetration than those who took the randomized version. This same effect was seen for both victimization and perpetration on the Restrictive Engulfment scale. However, the participants who took the randomized format reported more victimization on the Denigration scale only. No significant interactions between item order and gender were observed.

DiscussionPrevious research has shown that rates of self-reported victimization and perpetration of IPV can be influenced by small changes to existing measures, such as item order. Our results further support this idea. Researchers have posited that the formats that produce the highest prevalence rates are the most accurate reflections of reality (e.g., Ramirez & Straus, 2006). However, these higher rates may also reflect the results of a consistency effect, in which participants answer in similar ways in specific domains and overall, even if the responses they give do not represent what actually occurred. Similarly, because the measure is quite long, assessing 28 acts of psychological aggression in total, it is possible that fatigue effects could have caused participants to endorse fewer instances of victimization and perpetration later on in the survey in order to get through the measure more quickly.

Though these results are compelling, future research should be conducted in order to understand effects of other nuanced changes in measures, and should investigate these effects in more diverse samples. Furthermore, other commonly used measures should be tested to see if these effects generalize to measures of similar and different types of self-reported IPV victimization and perpetration.

Contact: cs008713@ohio.edu, willcwoods@gmail.com, cornelta@gvsu.edu, shorey@ohio.edu.

ReferencesFollingstad, D.R., & Ryan, K.M. (2013). Contemporary issues in the measurement of partner violence. Sex Roles, 69, 115-119. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0298-8Murphy, C.M. & Hoover, S.A. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 39-53. Ramirez, I.L., & Straus, M.A. (2006). The effect of question order on disclosure of intimate partner violence: An experimental test using the conflict tactics scales. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 1-9. doi: 10.1007/ s10896-005-9000-4Ryan, K.M. (2013). Issues of reliability in measuring intimate partner violence during courtship. Sex Roles, 69, 131-148. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0233-4Shorey, R.C., Cornelius, T.L., & Bell, K.M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185-194. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of MMEA Scores across Genders

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of MMEA Scores across Formats

Table 3 Means Differences between Gender and Format on MMEA Scores