Measuring Family Violence

When considering the effectiveness of surveys measuring family violence, it is important to clearly define the terms "family" and "violence." Determining the point of view and the depth of the survey is additionally valuable. The first chapter of Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives; fourth edition (Wallace, 2005) discusses these factors of consideration. Wallace remains fairly objective concerning varying definitions as well as the accuracy of the surveys themselves.

One common dispute, presented by Wallace, is that the term family is often considered "too restrictive" and should be replaced with "intimate" (p.2). This argument is based on a very "traditional" image of family. Current surveys may include the members of what make up an "intimate" in their definition of family. The National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey asked about abuse done by spouses or cohabitations, from adult "care takers" as children, and assaults from "any" type of perpetrator. Data were retrieved focused on male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner victimization. Additionally, included was abuse by same-sex partners. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) did not illustrate, as clearly, a definition for family rather focused on forms of assault.

Two popular surveys were presented by Murray Straus and Richard J. Gelled. The Physical Violence in America Survey (1976, 7733) explains "eligible families" as being a couple who were married or identified themselves as being "a couple". Further specified is that this is a "Man" and a "women" living together "as a conjugal unit". The Physical Violence in America Survey, 1985 was a follow up survey to the 1976 one. The description of the main components of this survey design explain family criteria including (1) adults in the United States who either (1) were currently married or living together, (2) were single parents with children under 18 in the household, or (3) had been married or had lived with a partner of the opposite sex within the past two years. Nearly two thirds of American households reflected these criteria. Both of the surveys assessed various relationships: "parent to child, child to parent, wife to husband, husband to wife, and sibling interactions (Wallace, 2005, p.5)."

Violence is another topic of debate and variation. For Wallace, violence "implies physical acts that result in injuries to the victim (p.2)." Further explored he suggest variances such as acts of withholding physical or emotions support may also produce devastating consequences. With that Wallace finalizes his definition of violence to include "physical or mental acts or omissions that result in injuries to the victim" and may also "be directed at restricting or denying another person certain rights or liberties (p.2)." The NVAW included emotional abuse, physical abuse, rape, and threats of assault in their definition of violence. The NCVS measures crime but includes acts and attempted act of violence such as rape and assault, with or without weapons. According to Wallace both National Family Violence Surveys defined violence as "an act carried out with the intention or perceived intention of causing physical pain or injury to another person (p.4)" This included acts that had "a high probability of causing injury" regardless of the occurrence of injury.

Many surveys, including the two Family Violence Surveys, are measured using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). With this tool three variable are measured: "use of rational discussion and agreement, use of verbal and nonverbal expressions of hostility, and use of physical force or violence (Wallace, 2005, p.5)." This measuring instruments validity is one of the reasons presented by Wallace for why the two NFVS studies held as reliable. In the Journal of Marriage and Family, Murray A. Straus discusses the use of CTS. He informs that the CTS are used to measure "the use of Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, and Violence within the family (Straus, 1979)." Straus further asserts that theorists consider conflict resolution whereas other professions concerned with family wellness aim for avoidance of conflict.

In addition to questionable surveys are questionable means of measuring the information provided by them. The CTS is challenged by others such as the Measure of Wife Abuse (MWA). The MWA is a self reporting source of information. It was designed to improve upon the weakness of previous scales. The MWA is said to be a more detailed tool of measurement that looks deeper into the issue of spousal abuse. The CTS according to Straus (February 1979) measures "Reasoning", "Verbal Aggression", and "Violence". The MWA also measures the frequency of the abuse (Yamazawa, n.d.). Additionally "the MWA consists of four factors: physical, verbal, psychological, and sexual abuse. The sexual and psychological abuses are new items which are beyond the scope of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) (Yamazawa, n.d.)." According to this author the MWA has a higher degree of proven validity. Surveys and other sources of Data measuring family violence are generally formulated reflecting the pursuant.

The purpose of the survey begets the point of view of the survey. Likewise the point of view derives from the purpose. The duality of certain perspectives is clearly depicted by Richard Gelles article in The Journal of Marriage and Family (February 1982).

My one year on Sabbatical from research and the role of researcher and my tentative entry into clinical practice were both sobering and exhilarating. It was sobering to find that after only after a few months of clinical work I would find myself forgetting or ignoring results of my research as I struggled with the emotions, complexities, and responsibilities of conducting clinical diagnoses and doing therapy. On more than one occasion I found myself publicly stating that I though alleged abusers of a child were crazy. Once, when I was reminded that I had earlier written a paper which tried to discredit the psychological perspective (Gelles, 1973), I replied, "I don't care what I wrote-these people are nuts!" (Gelles, February 1982).

The surveys discussed above are tools used by researchers in order to determine any significant trends in their specific study as well as any changes in trends. Wallace offers additional examples of "social" surveys such as Rape in America which was conducted by the National Victims Center and used to "shed new light on this form of aggression" (Wallace, 2005, p.6).

Medical professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors also conduct studies. Clinical studies are generally preformed through actual case studies and information collected from "hospitals, clinics, and therapy sessions." Shortcomings of such studies are in the small sampling. However clinical studies provide beneficial information for intervention needs in addition to initiating further necessary studies. (Wallace, 2005, p.6).

Social Service and Police Departments where offenses are reported are another significant source for data collection. Mandatory child abuse reporting has increased the amount of information held regarding family violence. Statistics are created through examination of these reports along with spousal abuse reports. The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provides criminal statistics. Information is vastly gathered to support these statistics. "Statistical computation" involves "more than 1,600 cities, counties, and state law enforcement agencies (p.7)." This statistical system has been upgraded to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Wallace explains that the NCVS "attempts to correct the problems on nonreporting inherent in the UCR by contacting a nationwide sample and interviewing citizens regarding victimization (p.8)."

Though important information can be found and utilized by most of these sources each survey has its questionable aspects of validity. The NCVS is questionable in that respondents may under report or over report crimes. Additionally they amount to an estimate of a sampling and require a large margin of error and report criminal activity not the actual occurrence of crime. Wallace does give a little more credit to the NVAW in that the questions were precise, eliminating any chance of confusion and that the sampling included men. He concludes that regardless to validity issues the point remains that further investigations and actions are necessary. That is one thing that all reports can agree on. (Wallace, 2005, p.9).

References

Gelles, Richard (February 1982). Journal of Marriage and Family: Applying Research on Family Violence to Clinical Practice.

Straus, Murray (February 1979) Journal of Marriage and Family: Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactic (CT) Scales.

Wallace, Harvey (2005). Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspective, 4th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

National Family Violence Survey 1975; 7733 Physical Violence in American Families 1976

National Family violence Survey 1985; 9211 Physical Violence in American Families 1985

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS); 4276 National Crime Victimization Survey 1992-2004

National Violence against Women Survey (NVAW) 2566 Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women and Men in the United States, 1994-1996

Yamazawa, Naomi (n.d.). Spouse Abuse: Two different assessments, University of Oregon. Retrieved on September 15, 2007 from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rlweiss/473/assesdf1.htm