NCJ Number
113016
Journal
Journal of Family Violence Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1988) Pages: 91-104
Date Published
1988
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses methodological issues that may have contributed to some of the inconsistencies in the marital violence literature and makes suggestions for the design and interpretation of research.
Abstract
Comparisons among studies often are complicated by sampling differences and definitions of abuse. These relate to the behaviors considered to constitute abuse, their measurement, the timeframe in which violence occurs (i.e., incidence versus prevalence), and how samples are recruited (random samples, advertisements, clinical populations). Reliability issues also make assessment of such studies difficult: use of aggregate data may obscure actual reliability; levels of interspouse agreement often are only moderate; and most studies fail to operationalize dependent variables adequately or use quantitative measurements. Also needed are appropriate comparison groups and means to overcome difficulties in matching groups on degree of marital discord. Further, the majority of studies have employed retrospective, correlational, and cross-sectional designs. Additional problems arise in relation to ethical issues including confidentiality and reporting of abuse, consent, and the safety of subjects. In treatment outcome studies, problems exist concerning selection of outcomes (i.e., reduction or elimination of violence), the nature and sources of outcome data, and the selection of an appropriate followup interval. Suggestions for overcoming some of these problems are offered, and future research needs are delineated. 29 references.