Families for Safe Dates (FSD) Psychological Dating Abuse Perpetration Scale (Foshee et al., 2012)

Psychologically aggressive activity exhibited towards romantic partners in adolescents; 4 Items, Ages 13-15
  • Populations: American 7th grade students
  • Age ranges: 13-15
  • Languages: English
  • Countries: United States

Items

Precise wording not reported, described as,

“how many times the teen had ever:” (Foshee et al., 2012)

  • insulted a date in front of others
  • not let a date do things with other people
  • made a date describe where he/she was every minute of the day
  • threatened to hurt a date

 

Responses

“Response options ranged from “never” to “more than four times.”” (Foshee et al., 2012)

 

Scoring

“Items were summed to create continuous psychological perpetration and victimization composite scores.” (Foshee et al., 2012)

 

Anoter version of the scale used the following coding:

“Response options for each of the items within each scale were coded dichotomously: never (0), any (1).” (Cutbush & Williams, 2016)

Citations

Foshee, V. A., Ph.D, McNaughton Reyes, Heath Luz, M.P.H, Ennett, S. T., Ph.D, Cance, J. D., Ph.D, Bauman, K. E., Ph.D, & Bowling, J. M., Ph.D. (2012). Assessing the effects of families for safe dates, a family-based teen dating abuse prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(4), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.029

 

Cutbush, S., & Williams, J. (2016). Teen Dating Violence, Sexual Harassment, and Bullying Among Middle School Youth: Examining Measurement Invariance by Gender. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12244

Team comments

This scale was developed alongside Families for Safe Dates (FSD) Physical Dating Abuse Perpetration Scale (Foshee et al., 2012)

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

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

Validity

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

Categories

Start a new search

Loading