Acceptance of Dating Violence scale (Foshee et al., 1998)

Degree of attitude towards dating and relationship violence in adolescents; 9 Items, Ages 14-18
  • Populations: Spanish Adolescents
  • Age ranges: 14-18
  • Languages: Spanish, English
  • Countries: Spain; United States

Items

Spanish Translation of Acceptance of Dating Violence (Foshee et al., 1998).

  • It is OK for a boy/girl to hit his/her dating partner if she/he did something to make him/her mad [Está bien que un/a chico/a pegue a su pareja si ésta hizo algo para enfadarle] 
  • It is OK for a boy to force a girl to have sex if she got him sexually excited [Es correcto que el chico fuerce a la chica a tener sexo si ella le ha excitado sexualmente] 
  • Hitting a dating partner may be OK [Pegar a tu pareja puede estar bien] 
  • It is OK for a boy/girl to hit his/her dating partner if she/he insulted him/her in front of friends [Está bien que un/a chico/a pegue a su pareja si ésta le insulta delante de sus amigos] 
  • Girls/boys sometimes deserve to be hit by the boys/girls they date [Los/as chicos/as a veces merecen ser pegados por su pareja en sus citas]
  • Sometimes boys/girls have to hit their dating partners to get them back under control [A veces los/as chicos/as tienen que pegar a sus parejas para mantenerlas bajo su control] 
  • It is OK for a boy/girl to hit her/his dating partner if she/he hit him/her first [Es correcto que el/la chico/a pegue a su pareja si ésta le ha pegado primero] 
  • It is OK for a boy to force a girl to have sex if he paid for all the costs of a date [Está bien que el chico fuerce a la chica a tener sexo si él ha pagado todos los gastos de la cita] 
  • A girl/boy who makes her/his dating partner jealous on purpose, deserves to be hit [El/la chico/a que pone celosa/o a su pareja a propósito merece ser pegado/a] 
  • I think it is very wrong to force a dating partner to have sex on a date [Creo que está muy mal forzar a tu pareja a tener sexo en una cita]

Note: Item 10 was deleted from the final version of the scale because it did not show adequate psychometric properties

 

Responses:

Below is a list of sentences that a boy/girl can use to describe him/herself. Please read each sentence and decide how accurately it describes you for the past year. Choose and circle the score from 1 to 6 that best describes you. When you are not sure, answer what you feel.

[A continuación encontrarás una lista de frases que un chico/a puede utilizar para describirse a sí mismo/a. Por favor, lee cada frase y decide el grado de exactitud con que te describe durante el último año. Escoge y rodea con un círculo la puntuación desde 1 a 6 que mejor te describe. Cuando no estés seguro/a, contesta lo que sientes]” (Fernández-González, Calvete, Orue, 2017)

  1. Completely untrue [Totalmente falso]
  2. Most times untrue [La mayoría de veces falso]
  3. More untrue than true [Más falso que verdadero]
  4. More true than untrue [Más verdadero que falso]
  5. Most times true [La mayoría de veces verdadero]
  6. Completely true [Me describe perfectamente]

(Fernández-González, Calvete, Orue, 2017)

Scoring

“Item responses are averaged across all items to create an ordinal outcome score ranging between 1 and 4 with higher scores indicating greater ADV.” (McMillan et al., 2024)

Citations

  • Fernández-González, L., Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2017). The Acceptance of Dating Violence scale (ADV): Psychometric properties of the Spanish version. Psicothema, 29(2), 241-246. https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/4390.pdf
  • Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence pre-vention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45–50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584032/
  • McMillan, I. F., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Mennicke, A., & Montanaro, E. (2024). Attitude is everything: Examining acceptance of violence items for differential item functioning across heterosexual and sexual minority youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(23-24), 4828-4851. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38581249/

 

 

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

  • Significant design input from young people
  • Cognitive interviews with young people
  • Expert input

Validity

  • Unknown: Face validity
  • Green: Convergent validity
  • Green: Construct validity

Reliability

  • Green: Internal consistency
  • Unknown: Test-retest

Ease of use

  • Unknown: Readability

Definitions

Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.

Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.

Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.

Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.

Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).

Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.

Key

  • Green: Meets validation criteria
  • Red: Does not meet validation criteria
  • Unknown: Evidence not available

Categories

Start a new search

Loading