Families for Safe Dates physical dating violence perpetration scale (Foshee et al., 2012)
- Populations: adolescents; 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)
- slapped or scratched a date
- physically twisted a date’s arm or bent back his or her fingers
- pushed, grabbed, shoved, or kicked a date
- hit a date with a fist or something hard
- assaulted a date with a knife or gun
“Teens were instructed not to count acts perpetrated in self-defense.” (Foshee et al., 2012)
Responses
Responses Ranged from “never” to “more than four times,” (Foshee et al., 2012)
Scoring
Responses were coded dichotomously as below due to skewedness of data towards no violence (Foshee et al., 2012)
“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) Psychological 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