Cyber Abuse in Dating Relationships (Peskin et al., 2017)

Perpretration of various abusive behaviours in electronic contexts among early and middle adolescents; 13 Items, Ages 11-15

Populations: Early and Middle Adolescents
Age ranges: 11-15
Languages: English
Countries: United States

Items

I posted embarrassing photos or other images of him/her online
I sent threatening text messages to him/her
I used his/her social networking account (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) without his/her permission
I wrote nasty things about him/her on my profile page/timeline (on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.)
I sent him/her so many messages (like texts, emails, chats) that it made him/her feel unsafe
I sent him/her text messages to check up on him/her (where are you, what are you doing, who are you with)
I spread rumors about him/her using a cell phone, email, IM, web chat, or socialnetworking site (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.)
I used information from his/her social networking profile page/timeline to harass him/her or put him/her down
I made him/her afraid when he/she did not respond to my phone call, text, posting on social networking page, instant message, etc
I threatened to harm him/her physically through a cell phone, text message, social networking page, etc
I sent him/her sexual photos or naked photos of me that I knew he/she did not want
I pressured him/her to send a sexual or naked photo of him/herself

Scoring

Perpetration of cyber dating abuse was defined as ever reporting one or more occurrences of 13 behaviors that have been classified as such in the relevant literature

Citations

Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., Hernandez, B., Cuccaro, P., Gabay, E. K., Thiel, M., & Emery, S. T. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 358-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0568-1

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

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

Validity

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

Reliability

Unknown: 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