Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
In lower-income settings, women more often than men justify intimate partner violence (IPV). Yet, the role of measurement invariance across gender is unstudied. We developed the ATT-IPV scale to measure attitudes about physical violence against wives in 1,055 married men and women ages 18–50 in My Hao district, Vietnam. Across 10 items about transgressions of the wife, women more often than men agreed that a man had good reason to hit his wife (3 % to 92 %; 0 % to 67 %). In random split-half samples, one-factor exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (N 1 = 527) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (N 2 = 528) models for nine items with sufficient variability had significant loadings (0.575–0.883; 0.502–0.897) and good fit (RMSEA = 0.068, 0.048; CFI = 0.951, 0.978, TLI = 0.935, 0.970). Three items had significant uniform differential item functioning (DIF) by gender, and adjustment for DIF revealed that measurement noninvariance was partially masking men’s lower propensity than women to justify IPV. A CFA model for the six items without DIF had excellent fit (RMSEA = 0.019, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.991) and an attitudinal gender gap similar to the DIF-adjusted nine-item model, suggesting that the six-item scale reliably measures attitudes about IPV across gender. Researchers should validate the scale in urban Vietnam and elsewhere and decompose DIF-adjusted gender attitudinal gaps.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewers guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 93–114). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bryant, S. A., & Spencer, G. A. (2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369–376. CrossRef
Cauffman, E., & MacIntosh, R. (2006). A Rasch differential item functioning analysis of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument: Identifying race and gender differential item functioning among juvenile offenders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 502–521. CrossRef
Central Statistical Office (Zimbabwe) and Macro International Inc. (2000). Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey 1999. Calverton, MD: Central Statistical Office and Macro International Inc.
Edelen, M. O., McCaffrey, D. F., Marshall, G. N., & Jaycox, L. H. (2009). Measurement of teen dating violence attitudes: An item response theory evaluation of differential item functioning according to gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1243–1263. CrossRef
EI-Zanaty, F., Hussein, E. M., Shawky, G. A., Way, A. A., & Kishor, S. (1996). Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 1995. Calverton, MD: National Population Council (Egypt) and Macro International Inc.
Fletcher, R., & Hattie, J. (2005). Gender differences in physical self-concept: A multidimensional differential item functioning analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 657–667. CrossRef
Garcia-Moreno, C., & Stöckl, H. (2009). Protection of sexual and reproductive health rights: Addressing violence against women. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 106, 144–147. CrossRef
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. H., on behalf of the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women Study Team. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Lancet, 368, 1260–1269. CrossRef
Gelin, M. N., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Differential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: An illustration with the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 65–74. CrossRef
Gender and Community Development Network (GENCOMNET). (2011). Evaluate the implementation of law on domestic violence prevention and control in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: GENCOMNET.
General Statistics Office (GSO). (2006). Viet Nam Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006, final report. Hanoi, Vietnam: GSO.
General Statistics Office (GSO). (2010). “Keeping silent is dying”: Results from the National Study on Domestic Violence Against Women in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: GSO.
General Statistics Office (GSO). (2011). Viet Nam Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2011, final report. Hanoi, Vietnam: GSO.
Ghuman, S. J., Lee, H. J., & Smith, H. L. (2006). Measurement of women’s autonomy according to women and their husbands: Results from five Asian countries. Social Science Research, 35, 1–28. CrossRef
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430–450. CrossRef
Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Higgins, E., Zureick-Brown, S., VanderEnde, K. E., Hoang, T. A., Tran, H. M., Schuler, S. R., & Yount, K. M. (2013). Determinants of men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence in Vietnam: An observational study. Unpublished manuscript.
Hoang, T. A., Minh, T. H., Duc, N. M., Mai, B. T. T., Thien, P. V., Vu, S. H., & Santillán, D. (2002). Impact of the Cairo Programme of Action on gender, women’s empowerment and reproductive health in four Vietnamese communities. Hanoi, Vietnam: Medical Publishing House.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holleman, B. (1999). The nature of the forbid/allow asymmetry: Two correlational studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 209–244. CrossRef
Horton, P., & Rydstrøm, H. (2011). Heterosexual masculinity in contemporary Vietnam: Privileges, pleasures, and protests. Men and Masculinities, 14, 542–564. CrossRef
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ORC Macro. (2000). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998–99: India. Mumbai, India: IIPS.
Johnson, I. M., & Sigler, R. T. (2000). Public perceptions: Stability of the public’s endorsements of the definition and criminalization of the abuse of women. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 165–179. CrossRef
Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2, 274–290. CrossRef
Khiet, H. (2000, June). Women in 2000: Gender equality, development and peace for the 21st century. Speech at the UN General Assembly’s 23rd Special Session, New York, NY.
Khuat, T. H., Le, B. D., & Huong, N. N. (2010). Easy to joke about, but hard to talk about: Sexuality in contemporary Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: World Publishing House.
Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: A multicountry study. Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.
Knodel, J., Vu, M. L., Jayakody, R., & Vu, T. H. (2005). Gender roles in the family: Change and stability in Vietnam. Asian Population Studies, 1, 69–92. CrossRef
Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3, 187–216. CrossRef
Lan, A. H., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2011). Breadwinning wives and “left-behind” husbands: Men and masculinities in the Vietnamese transnational family. Gender & Society, 25, 717–739. CrossRef
Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues. Sex Roles, 49, 227–247. CrossRef
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143. CrossRef
Merry, S. A. (1995). Resistance and the cultural power of law. Law and Society Review, 29, 11–26. CrossRef
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (NAGSRV). (2007). Law on Domestic Violence Prevention and Control (Law No. 02/2007/QH12).
Nguyen, D. V., Ostergren, P.–O., & Krantz, G. (2008). Intimate partner violence against women in rural Vietnam—Different socio-demographic factors are associated with different forms of violence: Need for new intervention guidelines? BMC Public Health, 8, 55. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-55
Nguyen, D. V., Ostergren, P.–O., & Krantz, G. (2009). Intimate partner violence against women, health effects and health care seeking in rural Vietnam. European Journal of Public Health, 19, 178–182.
Nguyen, T. H. (2012). Rape disclosure: The interplay of gender, culture and kinship in contemporary Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 14(Suppl. 1), S39–S52.
Nguyen, T. P. T., Khuat, T. H., & Le, B. D. (2011). “A real man must be active, a real woman must be submissive”: The discourse of sexuality in today’s Vietnam. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 13(Suppl. 1), S22–S23.
Phan, T. T. H. (2008). Sexual coercion within marriage in Quang Tri, Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 10(Suppl. 1), S177–S187.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566. CrossRef
Rydstrøm, H. (2003). Encountering “hot” anger: Domestic violence in contemporary Vietnam. Violence Against Women, 9, 676–697. CrossRef
Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley, G. A. (2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Schuler, S. R., Hoang, T. A., Vu, S. H., Tran, H. M., Bui, T. T. M., & Pham, V. T. (2006). Constructions of gender in Vietnam: In pursuit of the “three criteria.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8, 383–394.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, H. L., Gager, C. T., & Morgan, S. P. (1998). Identifying underlying dimensions in spouses’ evaluations of fairness in the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 27, 305–327. CrossRef
Thanh, C. B., Markham, C. M., Ross, M. W., Williams, M. L., Beasley, R. P., Ly, T. H. T., & Thach, N. L. (2012). Dimensions of gender relations and reproductive health inequity perceived by female undergraduate students in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam: A qualitative exploration. International Journal for Equity in Health, 63, 1–11.
Tourangeau, R., Singer, E., & Presser, S. (2003). Context effects in attitude surveys: Effects on remote items and impact on predictive validity. Sociological Methods & Research, 31, 486–513. CrossRef
United Nations General Assembly. (2006). The Secretary-General’s in-depth study on all forms of violence against women. (A/61/122/Add.1).
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (2012). Domestic violence prevention and response in Vietnam: Lessons learned from the intervention model in Phu Tho and Ben Tre Provinces. Hanoi, Vietnam: UNFPA.
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435–456. CrossRef
Weldon, S. L. (2002). Protest, policy, and the problem of violence against women: A cross-national comparison. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
Werner, J. (2009). Gender, household and state in post-revolutionary Vietnam. New York, NY: Routledge.
World Bank. (2011). Vietnam country gender assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2012). Well begun, not yet done: Vietnam’s remarkable progress on poverty reduction and the emerging challenges. Hanoi, Vietnam: World Bank.
World Bank. (2013). World DataBank gender statistics. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/tableview.aspx
World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). Putting women first: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
World Values Survey Association. (2013). World Values Survey databank. Retrieved from http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeQuestion.jsp
Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655–675. CrossRef
Yount, K. M. (2011). Women’s conformity as resistance to intimate partner violence in Assiut, Egypt. Sex Roles, 64, 43–58. CrossRef
Yount, K. M., & Carrera, J. S. (2006). Domestic violence against married women in Cambodia. Social Forces, 85, 355–387. CrossRef
Yount, K. M., DiGirolamo, A., & Ramakrishnan, U. (2011a). Impacts of domestic violence on child growth and nutrition: A conceptual review of the pathways of influence. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1534–1554.
Yount, K. M., Halim, N., Head, S., & Schuler, S. R. (2012). A survey experiment of women’s attitudes about intimate partner violence against women in rural Bangladesh. Demography, 50, 333–357.
Yount, K. M., Halim, N., Hynes, M., & Hillman, E. (2011b). Response effects to attitudinal questions about domestic violence against women: A comparative perspective. Social Science Research, 40, 873–884.
Yount, K. M., & Li, L. (2009). Women’s “justification” of domestic violence in Egypt. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1125–1140. CrossRef
Yount, K. M., & Li, L. (2012). Spousal disagreement in reporting of physical violence against wives in Southern Egypt. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1540–1563. CrossRef
Yount, K. M., VanderEnde, K. E., Schuler, S. R., & Hoang, T. A. (2013). Women’s attitudes about recourse after intimate partner violence in Vietnam. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Yount, K. M., VanderEnde, K. E., Zureick-Brown, S., Minh, T. H., Schuler, S. R., & Hoang, T. A. (2014). Measuring attitudes about women’s recourse after exposure to intimate partner violence: The ATT-RECOURSE scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1579–1605.
- Measuring Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The ATT-IPV Scale
Kathryn M. Yount
Hoang Tu Anh
Sidney Ruth Schuler
Tran Hung Minh
- Springer US