Acceptance of Dating Violence scale (Foshee et al., 1998)
- 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)
- Completely untrue [Totalmente falso]
- Most times untrue [La mayoría de veces falso]
- More untrue than true [Más falso que verdadero]
- More true than untrue [Más verdadero que falso]
- Most times true [La mayoría de veces verdadero]
- 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