Agreement Between Mother and Father Reports of IPV in a Sample of Child Protection Referred Coparents

Abstract

Accurate assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) using standardized measures can be a challenge as there is often discrepancy between partner reports, with previous research indicating very poor concordance between partners using the Conflict Tactics Scale. This study examines agreement between coparent reports of IPV using the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI) from 282 coparent dyads referred for Fathers for Change, an IPV intervention by the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Differences in partner concordance using intraclass correlations were examined based on type of violence, marital status/cohabitation, race/ethnicity and substance misuse problems. Intraclass correlations were also calculated for eight power and control items unique to the ABI. Overall agreement between coparents was poor. However, there was greater concordance about mothers’ who have used IPV toward fathers than fathers’ use of IPV toward mothers. There was lower agreement between reports of physical than psychological IPV especially for white coparents. All types of coparent relationships showed low levels of agreement, but cohabiting coparents showed the highest levels of agreement when reporting fathers’ IPV. In cases with one parent exhibiting substance misuse, concordance between reports of IPV increased. Results are consistent with prior findings that women report higher IPV than fathers even when assessments are done in the context of a DCF IPV treatment referral.

Keywords

intimate partner violence domestic violence measurement agreement concordance

Introduction

Child Protective Service (CPS) involved families have high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV). While rates of IPV are reported by the World Health Organization to range from 13% to 61% for physical IPV, from 6% to 59% for sexual IPV, and from 20% to 75% for emotional IPV for women. Rates in the CPS population trend on the higher side. Data indicate approximately 30% of CPS cases involve IPV and for those with multiple allegations, IPV rates are just over 50% (O’Dea et al., 2020). Further, IPV reported in the CPS casefile results in a greater likelihood of a new CPS report within 12 months (O’Dea et al., 2020). This makes accurate assessment of IPV important in the context of CPS involvement; however, IPV within a relationship in both clinical and research settings can be a challenge. IPV includes use of physical, psychological, sexual or verbal violence with an intimate partner. Psychological violence includes the use of power and control tactics like limiting access to things like money, friends and family, as well as using children to threaten or manipulate a partner’s behavior. Standardized measures have been developed to assess IPV by both partners, yet, when evaluating self-reported accounts of IPV behaviors, responses between individual members of a couple are often disparate. This discrepancy has been measured by previous researchers to gain a better understanding of concordance between reports by members of a couple, but prior measures did not adequately assess very important aspects of IPV like use of power and control through economic abuse or manipulation of children. Physical violence may cease but this is often accompanied by greater use of economic or psychological abuse (Krigel & Benjamin, 2021). These factors can have implications for continued fear and inability for survivors to leave a relationship and care for her children independently when necessary (Postmus et al., 2020).

Starting in the early 1980s, studies examining concordance using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) have suggested that there are very low levels of agreement in reports of IPV in heterosexual couples (Szinovacz, 1983; Edleson & Brygger, 1986; Kuijpers, 2020; Marshall et al., 2020), and that women are more likely to report experiences of IPV in general (Marshall et al., 2020) including their own use of IPV (Kuijpers, 2020). Previous literature has also shown higher agreement between both partners in reports of female-to-male partner violence (FMPV) than those of male-to-female partner violence (MFPV) (LaMotte et al., 2014). Given these prior findings, it is often proposed that interviewing female partners only is the best approach to assessing the level of IPV in an intimate relationship. However, it is unclear how that may change in the context of child protective services involvement or referral to a family focused IPV intervention program. The CTS also does not measure controlling behaviors like economic abuse or use of children making agreement between partners in these forms of IPV unknown. The current study is designed to examine concordance on reports of IPV, using the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI; Shepard & Campbell, 1992) a measure of IPV that includes power and control tactics like economic abuse and use of children to manipulate, within a child protection referred sample of coparents, where IPV has already been identified and parents know they are being referred for services to address it. These data will provide important information to understand concordance of reports on aspects of IPV that are harder to identify and impose criminal punishment (e.g., economic abuse or manipulation of children) but have significant implications for a child protective services response.

Differences in Concordance Based on Gender, Severity, and Type of Violence

Previous studies have examined factors that may increase or decrease partner agreement on measures of IPV. In studies of heterosexual couples, those who experience violence have been more likely to report IPV incidents than those who have used IPV (Magdol et al., 1997; Browning & Dutton, 1986). The same was found in a study of homosexual male couples (Stephenson et al., 2019). Those who use IPVs may be more ashamed, or they may not want to accept accountability or admit to the potential harm they have caused. However, there is evidence that this may depend on who has experienced the violence and who has used it. Men who experience IPV may be less likely to speak up. Archer and Ray (1989) found that women are more likely to report their own use of IPV and use by their male partners. In other words, even if the IPV was used by the woman, she was still more likely to report it.

Other research has also found that women are more likely to report IPV compared to men (Kuijpers, 2020). This may be due to views around gender roles. Haushofer and colleagues (2020) found that couples with unequal views of women and men were more likely to agree on reports of violence against women. However, if the husband viewed women as equal to men, the two are more likely to disagree on reports of IPV. Women may minimize their experiences of IPV when they believe they are at a lower status than men, and women with unequal gender views may believe they deserve the violence (Haushofer et al., 2020).

Partner reports have also been shown to differ based on the severity of violence. Kuijpers (2020) found that levels of disagreement were greater as the severity of violence increased between two partners. Although women were more likely to report IPV, including their own use, both women and men were more likely to minimize their use of IPV against their partner as severity increased. Overall, studies have shown that agreement is higher for psychological violence than sexual or physical IPV (Haushofer et al., 2020; LaMotte et al., 2014) and more minor reports of IPV compared to more severe IPV (Morse, 1995).

Other Factors that Influence Concordance

When addressing the concordance between partner reports of IPV based on race/ethnicity, Caetano and colleagues (2002) described a sample of matched race/ethnicity couples (White = 555, Black = 358, Hispanic = 527) and their reported IPV use from an adapted CTS. In alignment with previous research, when assessing gender differences researchers found that across all three groups women were more likely to report their own experiences of and use of IPV than men, and men underreported both their use and experiences of IPV. Social undesirability and shame associated with being a male who experienced IPV were cited as two reasons for this finding. They also found that race/ethnicity significantly impacted agreement between different types of physical IPV as the White group were more likely to agree on the “pushed, grabbed, or shoved” item whereas the Hispanic group had higher agreement on “choked,” “beat up,” and “threatened with a knife or gun” items. Still, overall agreement was similar across the three groups for both FMPV and MFPV.

Another factor that may decrease partners' agreement on IPV use is cohabitation (Caetano et al., 2002). Researchers found that cohabiting couples who were not married were less likely to agree on reports of IPV than married couples who may have been more invested in their relationships. O’Brien and colleagues (1994) also found that couples were more likely to disagree on reports of IPV when reporting occurrences that happened in the presence of their children, no matter if the couples were cohabiting or married.

Although existing literature has established consistently low concordance rates of reported IPV, other research has also identified factors that can increase agreement between these reports. Studies have shown that greater relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples, especially in women, is associated with underreporting of one partner’s IPV (Panuzio et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2011; LaMotte et al., 2014). Conversely, for men, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with higher agreement in IPV, whereas less relationship satisfaction for men was related to higher reports of men’s use of IPV (Marshall et al., 2011).

In 2006, Panuzio and colleagues found that for psychological conflicts, reduced commitment towards the relationship and greater negative feelings towards a partner were associated with an increase in agreement. Agreement on alcohol use severity in men was also associated with an increase in agreement between reported psychological IPV (Panuzio et al., 2006). This may suggest that couples who are conscious of the severity of alcohol use in a partner are also aware of other adverse experiences in their relationship, including IPV. On balance, despite identification of factors that are associated with greater partner agreement related to physical and psychological IPV on the CTS, consistency between couples’ reports has been shown to be poor overall. Agreement in reporting using other measures of IPV behaviors has not been studied, especially measures of power and control and use of children. Further understanding of these types of IPV are needed, as well as how to overcome the systematic biases across reporters of IPV. This is crucial so that both clinicians and researchers can assess IPV reliably and use valid reports of IPV use to devise targeted and effective care plans in the context of in the context of family focused interventions.

Current Study

Most studies that look at the agreement between partners’ reports of IPV have looked at reports on the CTS, a scale that focuses on psychological, physical, and sexual aggression. The current study examined the prevalence and nature of IPV as reported by heterosexual coparents using the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI), a scale that also includes measures of power and control and use of children to manipulate, which are items not measured by the CTS. Furthermore, many previous studies have used community-based samples. The sample of families in this study is unique in that they were all referred to an intensive family focused IPV intervention by Child Protective Services because they are parents of at least one child together and have had an incident of IPV in the last 6 months. All parents agreed to the referral for service. Examining concordance within this context is different from prior studies and will help provide guidance for program assessment and evaluation of outcomes based on both partners' reports of IPV when they have a shared child.

The study examined how mothers’ and fathers’ reports of IPV differed, as well as how the agreement in reports varied between couples based on race/ethnicity, marital status, and substance misuse by either partner. Substance use was analyzed in the present study to assess whether concordance rates of reports of the use of IPV between male and female partners differed in strength depending on whether one or both partners misused alcohol or drugs. This variable was included given the very high co-occurrence of IPV and substance misuse both by those who use IPV and those who are survivors (e.g., Cafferky et al., 2018; Gilchrist et al., 2017). The study tested the following specific hypotheses: a) there will be low levels of agreement between coparents on their reports of all types of IPV, with lower concordance in reports of physical violence than psychological IPV; b) married couples will have greater concordance than non-married or cohabiting couples; c) concordance will not vary by race/ethnicity; and d) there will be differences in concordance for those with clinical levels of substance misuse.

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 282 mother-father dyads who were referred to receive the Fathers for Change (F4C) treatment at one of six Intimate Partner Violence and Family Assessment Response Programs (IPV-FAIR) funded by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in the state of CT. All referred families had an open case with DCF and had a history of at least one IPV incident in the last 6 months between the coparents of a shared child (either that was the reason they were referred to DCF or IPV was disclosed during the investigation). The age range for fathers was from 19 to 56 (M = 35.58, SD = 8.1) and for mothers from 20 to 57 (M = 32.9, SD = 6.5). The sample was racially diverse: 40.4% of fathers and 46.8% of mothers identified as White/Caucasian; 33% of fathers and 33.7% of mothers identified as Hispanic; 17.4% of fathers and 10.3% of mothers identified as Black/African American; and 9.2% of fathers and of mothers selected “other” race/ethnicity. Forty two percent of coparents were married, 21% were cohabiting (living together but not married), 28% were single/had never been married, 9% were separated or divorced, and 4% did not report their marital status.

Procedure

A pre-existing, de-identified, dataset was used for this study. The data was collected as part of a program evaluation of the Fathers for Change (F4C) intervention (Stover et al., 2020). Child protection caseworkers deemed families eligible for the F4C intervention when: a) IPV had occurred in the home in the previous 6 months; b) the target child was under age 12; and c) the target child had experienced IPV exposure in the home. Exclusion criteria for F4C included: a) DCF planned to terminate parental rights; b) severe IPV requiring hospitalization or weapon use had occurred; and c) parents had untreated psychosis or suicidality. Data was collected by clinicians in the F4C program via interview with each parent separately and confidentially and entered into Qualtrics. De-identified data was extracted and prepared for analysis. The study was reviewed and deemed exempt by the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center Human Subjects Review Board.

Measures

The abusive behavior inventory

Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of IPV were measured through a modified version of the Abusive Behavior Inventory (Shepard & Campbell, 1992). The ABI comprises 30-items and uses a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 4 = very frequently) to assess the frequency of abusive behaviors committed by each partner in the prior 6 months. For this modified scale, the reporter answered for their own behaviors and their coparent’s. Three subscales make up the measure: physical violence (e.g., “you threw them around” or “they threw you around”); psychological violence including coercive control (e.g., “you said things to scare them” and “they said things to scare you” or “you used their children to threaten them [e.g. told them they would lose custody, said you would leave town with the children]” and “they used your children to threaten you [e.g. told you that you would custody, said they would leave town with the children]”); and for sexual violence (e.g., “you physically forced them to have sex” and “they physically forced you to have sex”). However, for the purposes of this study the three subscales were condensed into two, physical violence and psychological violence, according to classification by Shepard and Campbell (1992). The subscales were condensed by removing items that related to sexual violence. The measure has established good construct validity and reliability (Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Cronbach’s alpha for male ratings of the female partner’s behaviors was .93, and for self-report of their own behaviors was .84. For female ratings of the male partner’s behaviors, it was .95, and for self-report of their own behaviors was .91.

Bidirectional physical IPV

Partners’ reports on each other’s use of physical IPV on the ABI were used to indicate bidirectional IPV. If the mother reported the father had ever used physical IPV on any of the physical IPV items, and the father reported that the mother had used physical IPV, then bidirectional IPV was coded as being present in the relationship. Different approaches to examining bidirectional violence were also explored. IPV reported by only one partner or by either partner were also coded to allow for examination of differences concordance based on any report of IPV by either partner or only when partners agreed on bidirectional violence.

The drug abuse screening test

The Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10) (Skinner, 1982) is a self-report measure comprised of 10 items which assess problematic substance use, such as “have you neglected your family because of your use of drugs?”. Respondents answer yes/no to the 10 items, with scores of 3–5 indicating moderate problems, 6-8 substantial problems, and 9 or 10 indicating severe drug use problems. A cut-off score of 6 was used in this study to define drug misuse. Cronbach’s alpha for father reports in this study was .95, and for mother reports was .71.

The alcohol use disorders identification test

The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) is also a self-report measure comprising 10 items which assess alcohol intake, dependence on alcohol, and adverse consequences arising from alcohol use in the preceding year, such as “how often in the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking?”. A 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = daily or almost daily) is used to total a score from 0 to 40. A score of 8 is the generally accepted cut-off used to identify potentially hazardous or harmful drinking (Saunders et al., 1993), and was also employed in this study. Cronbach’s alpha for father reports in the sample was .86, and for mother reports was .85.

Data analysis

Preliminary data analyses and calculations of Cohen’s Weighted Kappa were conducted using Microsoft Excel (2016). Calculations of Intraclass Correlation (ICC) were conducted using IBM SPSS 26 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Listwise deletion was used to handle missing data since each item as reported by each partner was needed to assess concordance. No data transformation was conducted.

Results

The cross-reports of parents’ IPV indicated higher rates of IPV behaviors for fathers as reported by mothers (M = 21.3, SD = 21.8) than mothers as reported by fathers (M = 15.9, SD = 14.6). Both means are above the cutoff of 10 that constitutes an abusive relationship as measured by the ABI. Reports of psychological violence were higher than reports of physical violence overall. In 66% of the coparenting dyads, at least one of the partners reported bidirectional violence. Twenty six percent of fathers but only 6% of mothers reported scores on the AUDIT that would indicate an alcohol use problem. Rates for drug misuse were even lower with only 9% of fathers and 1% of mothers reporting significant levels of drug use.

Descriptive statistics for IPV and substance use variables are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of IPV.

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
Psychological IPV
Father’s IPV toward mother as reported by father	272	0.00	1.85	0.443	0.358
Father’s IPV toward mother as reported by mother	259	0.00	3.55	0.866	0.849
Mother’s IPV toward father as reported by father	270	0.00	2.55	0.722	0.640
Mother’s IPV toward father as reported by mother	261	0.00	3.15	0.489	0.478
Physical IPV
Father’s IPV toward mother a reported by father	269	0.00	0.89	0.124	0.172
Father’s IPV toward mother a reported by mother	267	0.00	3.78	0.376	0.608
Mother’s IPV toward father as reported by father	272	0.00	1.78	0.183	0.281
Mother’s IPV toward father as reported by mother	265	0.00	3.67	0.140	0.291
Overall IPV
Father’s self-reported score	277	0.00	41.00	10.011	8.058
Father’s score reported by mother	278	0.00	99.00	21.266	21.794
Mother’s score reported by father	277	0.00	60.00	15.953	14.589
Mother’s self-reported score	278	0.00	96.00	11.158	11.225

Interpretations of ICCs were based on Koo and Li (2016), who suggest that an ICC of less than 0.5 is indicative of poor interrater reliability, concordance or agreement, between 0.5 and 0.75 moderate agreement, between 0.75 and 0.9 good agreement, and above 0.90 is indicative of excellent agreement.

Overall, the sample showed very poor concordance in reports of IPV between coparents as shown in Table 2. In general, there was more agreement in reports of mothers’ use of IPV than in reports of fathers’ use of IPV, be it physical (FMPV ICC = 0.288, p = .000; MFPV ICC = 0.115, p = .018), psychological (FMPV ICC = 0.324, p=0.000; MFPV ICC = 0.207, p = .000), or overall (FMPV ICC = 0.342, p = .000; MFPV ICC = 0.175, p = .000). The lowest levels of concordance were generally seen in reports of fathers’ use of physical IPV and the highest in reports of mothers’ use of physical and psychological IPV.

Table 2.

Intraclass Correlation (ICC) of agreement between coparents on the occurrence of Overall IPV, Psychological IPV, and Physical IPV as reported on the ABI.

	N	Overall ABI		Psychological IPV		Physical IPV
	N	Father	Mother	Father	Mother	Father	Mother
Overall	282	0.175***	0.342***	0.207***	0.324***	0.115*	0.288***
Race/Ethnicity
White	95	0.182*	0.341***	0.223**	0.319***	0.090	0.425***
Black	24	0.228	0.336*	0.279	0.321	0.248	0.552**
Hispanic	65	0.221*	0.256*	0.286**	0.272*	0.199*	0.222*
Other	98	0.141*	0.373***	0.133	0.360***	0.106	0.224*
Marital status
Married	105	0.127	0.308***	0.133	0.322***	0.153*	0.123
Separated/Divorced	25	0.100	0.286*	0.114	0.209	0.028	0.236
Single/Never married	79	0.165*	0.327***	0.181*	0.275**	0.099	0.367***
Cohabiting	59	0.284*	0.389***	0.399***	0.388***	0.177	0.223
Bidirectional violence
Present	97	0.046	0.196*	0.069	0.212**	0.045	0.211*
Absent	170	0.150*	0.194**	0.201**	0.229**	0.068	0.366
Drug misuse
Father No drug misuse	250	0.174***	0.342***	0.212***	0.336***	0.129*	0.264***
Only father	23	0.275	0.502**	0.236	0.341	−0.045	0.706***
Neither parent	243	0.175***	0.357***	0.214***	0.351***	0.126*	0.274***
Alcohol misuse
Father misuse	71	0.199*	0.443***	0.251**	0.419***	0.139	0.398***
Father No misuse	206	0.167**	0.322***	0.192***	0.308***	0.106	0.203**
Only father	62	0.218*	0.469***	0.275**	0.447***	0.137	0.404***
Only one parent	70	0.228**	0.451***	0.285***	0.432***	0.148	0.392***
One or both parents	79	0.210**	0.427***	0.262**	0.407***	0.148	0.386***
Neither parent	195	0.162**	0.328***	0.185**	0.314***	0.103	0.207**
Overall substance misuse
Father misuse	85	0.220**	0.433***	0.251**	0.380***	0.120	0.389***
Father No misuse	190	0.165**	0.331***	0.198***	0.328***	0.120*	0.237***
Mother No misuse	257	0.176***	0.362***	0.210***	0.344***	0.110*	0.303***
Only father	75	0.231**	0.449***	0.267**	0.395***	0.114	0.393***
Only one parent	87	0.235**	0.390***	0.268**	0.335***	0.132	0.359***
One or both parents	97	0.224**	0.378***	0.253**	0.325***	0.134	0.356***
Neither parent	175	0.162**	0.354***	0.196***	0.351***	0.115*	0.260***

*<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001.

ICCs for the eight control and use of children items in Tables 3 and 4 showed an approximately even split between higher agreements on fathers’ behaviors and higher agreement on mothers’ behaviors. Levels of agreement were consistently higher for fathers refusing to do housework or child-care than for mothers. Levels of agreement were also generally higher for mothers telling fathers they were a bad parent than for the reverse (FMPV ICC = 0.339, p = .000; MFPV ICC = 0.241, p = .000), with the exception of black couples (FMPV ICC = 0.117, p = .298; MFPV ICC = 0.321, p = .059), and couples that were separated/divorced (FMPV ICC = 0.284, p = .106; MFPV ICC = 0.581, p = .001). However, as with the results of the overall, physical, and psychological ABI, concordance was generally low on these individual items of control and use of children. Furthermore, when looking at the eight specific measures in Tables 3 and 4, some ICC values were negative, indicating that the true ICC level was incredibly low and agreement within pairs was as good as random, and can be interpreted as being 0 (Giraudeau, 1996; Taylor, 2010). Others, shown in the table with no value, could not be calculated due to the lack of variance in the responses.

Table 3.

Intraclass Correlation (ICC) of agreement between coparents on the occurrence of four power and control tactics as reported on the ABI.

	N	You Prevented Them from Having Money for Their Own Use		You Put Them on an Allowance		You Checked up on Them		You Stopped/Tried to Stop Them from Going to Work/School
	N	Father	Mother	Father	Mother	Father	Mother	Father	Mother
Overall	282	0.096	0.160**	0.226***	0.211***	0.200***	0.237***	0.010	0.173**
Race/Ethnicity
White	95	0.081	0.247**	0.022	0.198*	0.184*	0.291**	0.034	0.057
Black	24	–	–	–	0.433*	–	0.237	–	–
Hispanic	65	0.151	0.200	–	–	0.300**	0.397**	–	0.291**
Other	98	0.072	0.119	0.522***	0.188*	0.182*	0.090	–	0.189*
Marital status
Married	105	0.018	0.195*	–	0.264**	0.331***	0.234**	–	0.351***
Separated/Divorced	25	–	0.086	–	0.345*	–	0.129	–	–
Single/Never married	79	0.175*	0.123	0.301**	0.231*	0.137	–	–	0.064
Living together, not married	59	0.222	0.178	0.119	–	0.192	0.424***	0.153	0.516***
Bidirectional violence
Present	97	0.085	0.096	0.293***	0.110	0.140*	0.185*	0.024	0.205*
Absent	185	0.135*	0.186**	–	0.322***	0.237***	0.263***	–	0.005
Overall substance misuse
Father substance misuse	85	0.148	0.112	–	0.094	0.279**	0.278**	–	0.244*
Father No substance misuse	190	0.048	0.195**	0.341***	0.283***	0.169**	0.234***	0.027	0.159*
Father, but not mother	75	0.151	0.120	–	0.102	0.343**	0.297**	–	0.249*
One but not the other	87	0.159*	0.110	0.076	0.107	0.339***	0.339***	–	0.245*
One or both	97	0.157*	0.102	0.058	0.098	0.281**	0.324***	–	0.239*
Neither mother nor father	175	0.038	0.203**	0.344***	0.283***	0.168**	0.218**	0.031	0.156*

– scores were negative or lacked variability so could not be calculated. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001.

Table 4.

Intraclass Correlation (ICC) of agreement between coparents on the occurrence of four child and home related power and control tactics as reported on the ABI.

	N	You Used Their Children to Threaten Them		You Became Very Upset with Them because Dinner/Housework		You Refused to do Housework or Child-Care		You Told Them that They Were a Bad Parent
	N	Father	Mother	Father	Mother	Father	Mother	Father	Mother
Overall	282	0.109*	0.121*	0.291***	0.243***	0.190***	0.100*	0.241***	0.339***
Couple race
White	95	0.019	0.083	0.344***	0.330***	0.278**	0.120	0.319***	0.422***
Black	24	–	0.058	0.229	–	0.750***	–	0.321	0.117
Hispanic	65	0.212*	0.149	0.314**	0.128	0.151	0.092	0.206*	0.304**
Other	98	0.123	0.152	0.237*	0.312**	0.053	0.080	0.143	0.333**
Marital status
Married	105	0.118	0.045	0.178*	0.276**	0.116	–	0.026	0.196*
Separated/Divorced	25	0.005	0.055	0.199	0.210	0.285*	0.083	0.581**	0.284
Single/Never married	79	0.099	0.145	0.327**	0.129	0.189*	0.210*	0.251**	0.272**
Cohabiting	59	0.165	0.189	0.476***	0.358**	0.198	0.115	0.233*	0.636***
Bidirectional violence
Present	97	0.108	0.131	0.373***	0.231**	0.161*	0.068	0.275***	0.359***
Absent	185	0.030	–	0.168*	0.224**	0.187**	0.124	0.057	0.211**
Overall substance misuse
Father misuse	85	0.164*	0.277**	0.330**	0.262**	0.157*	0.130	0.232**	0.308**
Father No misuse	190	0.094	0.087	0.267***	0.242***	0.211***	0.089	0.244***	0.359***
Father, but not mother	75	0.178*	0.261*	0.334**	0.321**	0.163	0.148	0.276**	0.317**
Only one parent	87	0.153	0.243*	0.358***	0.328**	0.193*	0.123	0.278**	0.326**
One or both parents	97	0.141	0.255**	0.352***	0.275**	0.188*	0.111	0.238**	0.317**
Neither parent	175	0.102*	0.087	0.247**	0.234**	0.196**	0.102	0.241***	0.354***

– scores were negative or lacked variability so could not be calculated. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001.

Marital Status

Consistent with the overall sample, levels of concordance were very low across all categories of couple relationships. Coparents who were cohabiting showed the highest levels of concordance (ICC = 0.284, p = .013) in the overall reports of fathers’ use of IPV, almost double the ICC observed in the other groups.

Cohabiting coparents generally had higher levels of agreement on the power- and control-tactic items than the other coparenting dyads. They reported moderate agreement on mothers stopping/trying to stop fathers from going to work/school (FMPV ICC = 0.516, p = .000), but the reverse was low (MFPV ICC = 0.153, p = .118). Despite being low, agreement was more than double for cohabiting mothers checking up on fathers (FMPV ICC = 0.424, p = .000) than for fathers checking up on mothers (MFPV ICC = 0.192, p = .067). Cohabiting coparents had moderate agreement on mothers telling fathers that they were a bad parent (FMPV ICC = 0.636, p = .000) and much lower agreement on fathers telling mothers they were a bad parent (MFPV ICC = 0.233, p = .031) while separated/divorced couples saw the opposite, with moderate agreement on fathers telling mothers they were a bad parent (MFPV ICC = 0.581, p = .001) and low agreement on the reverse (FMPV ICC = 0.284, p = .106).

Couple Race/Ethnicity

ICCs by race and type of IPV indicate there is more agreement in reports of FMPV than MFPV. The highest levels of agreement were among Black coparents. They had moderate levels of concordance for mothers’ use of physical IPV (ICC = 0.552, p = .004) and reported the highest agreement for fathers’ use of physical IPV (0.248, p = .123). White coparents had the lowest levels of agreement for fathers’ use of physical IPV with an ICC = .090 (p = .164). White and Black couples had higher levels of concordance on reports of mother’s use of physical violence (White ICC = 0.425, p = .000; Black ICC = 0.552, p = .004) than Hispanic (ICC = 0.222, p = .045) or Multiracial/Other (ICC = 0.224, p = .019) coparents.

Similarly, ICCs by coparents’ race in the eight power- and control items generally continued to show higher levels of agreement on FMPV than MFPV. The main exceptions to this general observation were Black couples on the four child- and home-related control measures, as well as coparents that identified as other than Black, White or Hispanic. Black coparents had good agreement on the father refusing to do housework/childcare (ICC = 0.750, p = .000). Coparents that identified as Other showed moderate agreement for fathers putting mothers on an allowance (MFPV ICC = 0.522, p = .000), but low agreement for the reverse (FMPV = 0.188, p = .040).

Bidirectional Physical IPV

In 97 cases (34%) both members of the couple agreed there was no bidirectional violence. In the remaining dyads (66%) at least one member reported bidirectional IPV When looking at cross reporting of mothers about fathers’ and fathers about mothers’ behaviors, 97 dyads (33%) reported that bidirectional violence was present. Bidirectional violence rates mildly increased when examining father report only (42%) or mother report only (44%). Concordance rates did not change regardless of how bidirectional violence was coded (mother report only, father report only or partner report only). Levels of concordance were generally higher (although still low) among coparents where there was agreement on bidirectional IPV.

Agreement was low on all eight of the power- and control items. However, the difference in ICC between coparents where bidirectional IPV was present and where it was absent was more pronounced for reports of fathers becoming upset with mothers because dinner or housework was not done when/how they wanted it to be done (Present ICC = 0.373, p = .000; Absent ICC = 0.161, p = .020), as well as in reports of fathers telling mothers they were a bad parent (Present ICC = 0.275, p = .001; Absent ICC = 0.117, p = .047). In both cases, ICC was more than double where bidirectional violence was present than when it was absent.

Alcohol and Drug Misuse

Five fathers had missing data for this variable leaving 277 available for analysis. Of these, 71 fathers had AUDIT scores of 8 or higher, and were therefore identified as exhibiting alcohol misuse. Of the 282 mothers in the sample, only 17 self-reported levels of alcohol use that constituted misuse, thus any comparison of concordance between the sample for mothers or father alcohol misuse was not possible. Only 25 fathers and 4 mothers self-reported drug misuse on the DAST, such that the sample where drug misuse was present was too small to reasonably allow comparison between couples with and without drug misuse.

Low levels of concordance persisted whether the father exhibited alcohol misuse or not, and the same pattern of higher concordance for FMPV remained. Generally, concordance was lowest when neither partner exhibited alcohol misuse, and highest when one partner but not the other exhibited alcohol misuse.

Overall, 85 fathers self-reported substance misuse (alcohol, drug, or both), but only 22 mothers, therefore comparisons could not be done based on mothers’ substance misuse alone. Concordance levels were low and consistently lower for MFPV than FMPV. Generally, concordance was highest among couples where the father exhibited substance misuse, but the mother did not, and lowest when the father did not exhibit any substance misuse.

The presence or absence of substance misuse gave statistically significant results in most cases for the eight control tactics items. However, the actual levels of agreement were low.

Discussion

The current study examined agreement between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of IPV using the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI) in a child welfare referred sample of coparents who were referred for intervention due to IPV and child welfare involvement. Concordance between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of IPV is important to ensure the reports are valid for the development of targeted, effective interventions. Agreement between partners enables clinicians and researchers to ensure the treatment focus is on the primary issues within the relationship. Consistent with prior findings and our hypotheses, the current sample showed very low levels of agreement between coparents on their reports of IPV using the ABI. Although agreement on both physical and psychological violence was poor, there was more disagreement on reports of physical IPV compared to psychological IPV. Couples who were cohabiting but not married showed the highest level of agreement compared to those who were married, divorced, or single. Still, the overall level of agreement was low even for this group. This is contrary to previous research showing that married couples were more likely to agree about IPV; this may be due to the fact that the sample consisted of families referred by child protection for IPV use, rather than a community sample. As such, there may be relational and marital issues at play which are not present in a community sample. To illustrate, Caetano and colleagues (2002) state that married couples are more likely to agree on reports of IPV as they may have more investment in their relationships. In this sample, however, levels of IPV may be higher and more chronic, such that this sense of investment is not present in the married couples.

The general results of this study are consistent with previous literature using the CTS as concordance levels between partners have historically been poor (Szinovacz, 1983; Edleson & Brygger, 1986; Kuijpers, 2020; Marshall et al., 2020) and women are more likely to report all types of IPV as either the individual who experiences or uses IPV (Marshall et al., 2020; Archer & Ray, 1989). These findings also revealed greater agreement in reports of mothers’ use of IPV than in reports of fathers’ use of IPV. This may be attributed to evidence showing those who experience IPV are more likely to report it than those that use IPV. Since women are more likely to experience IPV, it may be that they feel more motivated or supported to report it (Browning & Dutton, 1986). Women may also be more likely to report their use of IPV due to a sociocultural assumption that their violence can be rationalized and attributed to some other reason such as provocation by their partner, self-defense, or other personal circumstances, and so is more acceptable (Bates et al., 2019). Additionally, as previously mentioned, men may be less likely to report having experienced IPV due to feelings of shame and social undesirability (Caetano et al., 2002).

Our results were contrary to those of a prior study indicating that race/ethnicity would not be associated with agreement. The results showed that the highest levels of agreement were among Black couples for use of both physical and psychological IPV by either coparent. White coparents had the lowest levels of agreement, especially for fathers' use of physical IPV, with men reporting less of their use of physical IPV than their coparents. Other authors state that ethnic minority groups may under-report and have lower agreement rates than White groups due to social desirability, mistrust of societal institutions, mistrust of confidentiality in surveys, and more fear of legal consequences (Aquilino & LoSciuto, 1990). This sample was already referred to authorities and was facing system consequences so they may have been more motivated to make changes in IPV in their families; or they may have been more compliant as they believed it would aid their case with authorities. This may be less true of White fathers who may feel if they deny accountability or use of IPV, they can argue their case effectively in court. Experiences of racism in systems may impact reporting for parents of color. The inconsistency of findings related to race suggests that further studies examining agreement with a finer examination of not only race, but ethnicity would be important to better understand differences. Feelings or experiences of discrimination in systems would be an important addition when examining self-reports within a child protection context.

There were no overall differences in agreement for physical and psychological IPV. Instead, agreement was better for reports of mothers’ use of both physical and psychological IPV. This contrasts some with the prior literature which found that there was higher agreement for psychological than physical IPV (Haushofer et al., 2020; LaMotte et al., 2014; Morse, 1995). This may be associated with differences in items on the ABI compared with the CTS used in prior studies. For example, the psychological scale of the ABI includes more power and control tactics including use of children. Panuzio and colleagues (2006) found that lower relationship commitment and higher negative feelings about a partner indicate more agreement on psychological IPV: these issues may be less pronounced for the individuals in this sample as many of the coparents were still in or wanted to resume a relationship following DCF involvement and had agreed to family focused intervention.

Consistent with our results of higher agreement regarding mother’s use of IPV, when exclusively examining the eight statements regarding coercive control tactics, it was found that agreement between FMPV was greater than MFPV among most racial groups. Also, couples living together reported more agreement between the use of coercive control than non-cohabiting couples, especially in FMPV. As Robertson and Murachver (2011) reported, coercive control is associated with physical IPV, but physical IPV is not required and those who experience IPV are more likely to use controlling behaviors than individuals in nonviolent relationships, and coercive control is commonly reciprocated.

Concordance was also higher for those in which one partner (more typically the father) had a substance misuse problem, consistent with previous findings explaining that awareness of substance misuse severity may be correlated with an increase in awareness of other relational issues including IPV (Panuzio et al., 2006). Substance misuse and IPV often co-occur (Crane et al., 2014). When substance misuse is disclosed, there may also be a greater ability to discuss IPV because individuals and their coparents may feel the substance misuse is causing the IPV and may feel it has less stigma to report the two conditions together. Substance misuse does not cause IPV, but it can facilitate IPV episodes, which may make them feel more explainable to parents when they disclose them and make them more likely to report them consistently in an effort to seek help.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has several limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results. The study lacked a comparison group that was not involved with DCF. The current sample were all heterosexual parents referred for intervention by child welfare due to IPV who agreed to assessment by a family focused IPV program (Stover et al., 2020), and data were collected by clinicians prior to beginning treatment. This is a very specific sample that cannot be generalized to homosexual couples, those without children or non-child protection involved families. Parents may have minimized their reports of IPV owing to these circumstances due to concerns about adversely influencing their case or on the contrary may have been more likely to report as they felt their honesty and disclosure would help them in some way. Additionally, data on household income or socioeconomic status was not available. This decreases the reliability of the findings as it is unclear what effect ethnicity would have on concordance rates of IPV, if socioeconomic status had been controlled. Moreover, substance misuse was based on self-report without collateral reports which may mean some who had substance misuse problems were not identified. Additionally, substance misuse was based on self-report without collateral reports which may mean some who had substance misuse problems were not identified. Lastly, previous literature has been inconsistent in defining race and ethnicity. While some research has provided a clear distinction between the two, others have interchanged or combined them. Caetano and colleagues (2002) listed ethnicities as either White, Black, or Hispanic. Marshall et al. (2020) listed race as Caucasian, African American, biracial/multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. Other researchers specify Hispanic status. For example, Kuijpers (2020) listed race as White (non-Hispanic), Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, or other. Broader classification and inclusion of different ethnic, racial and sexual orientation groups would add greater clarity and information to findings in the future. Acculturation, immigration status, and experiences of discrimination/racism would also be important factors to consider related to IPV agreement especially in the context of systems involvement and treatment assessments.

Future research on IPV agreement should continue to use the ABI as opposed to solely the CTS, as the ABI also considers the dynamics of power and control in partner violence. Additionally, literature seldom addresses the dynamic of shared guardianship of a child in coparent relationships that use IPV. Research should investigate methods of coercive control between coparents regarding the use of their children through psychological tactics such as threatening to leave with the child and use of economic/financial abuse. A better understanding of how the involvement of a child influences coercive control between couples will advance research related to coparents with reports of IPV.

Overall, considering the inconsistencies between the results of extant literature as well as with the findings of our own study, there is still work to do in understanding concordance between partner reports of IPV. Still, overall agreement tends to be poor with women/mothers reporting greater use of IPV by their partners and themselves suggesting generally use of mothers’ reports of IPV may be the most accurate. However, this may be case and circumstance specific.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Meghan Clough and Rebecca Beebe from the Injury Prevention Center at Connecticut Children's Medical Center for their contributions to the original data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Carla S. Stover

Author Biographies

Carla S. Stover, PhD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and Associate Professor at the Yale Child Study Center. She was awarded a Career Award from NIDA to develop and evaluate an intervention for fathers with co-occurring substance misuse and intimate partner violence (IPV) that targets their roles as fathers. She developed Fathers for Change and is conducting outpatient, residential treatment, and community implementation studies on the intervention. She has presented trainings nationally and internationally on the topics of family violence, engaging and treating fathers with IPV and substance misuse and interventions for childhood trauma.

Anahita Shafai, MRes, completed her master’s degree at the University College London. She spent a year at the Yale Child Study Center conducting research on family violence as part of her training. She is now an assistant psychologist with the NHS.

Sharon Kwinjo, BA, graduated from Yale College. She completed a post graduate associate position at the Yale Child Study Center.

Angela Farren, BS, graduated from Quinnipiac University with a degree in psychology. She is a post graduate associate at the Yale Child Study Center assisting with studies of IPV interventions for fathers.

Elizabeth Mazany, BS, graduated from Quinnipiac University with her Bachelors. She completed an internship at Yale University Child Study Center. She is now working as an advocate for Wheeler Clinic.

References

Aquilino

W. S.

LoSciuto

L. A.

(1990). Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(3), 362–395. https://doi.org/10.1086/269212

Archer

Ray

(1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15(5), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1989)15:5<337::AID-AB2480150502>3.0.CO;2-0

Bates

Klement

K. R.

Kaye

L. K.

Pennington

C. R.

(2019). The impact of gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary. Sex Roles, 81(1-2), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01029-9

Browning

Dutton

(1986). Assessment of wife assault with the conflict tactics scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48(2), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.2307/352404

Caetano

Schafer

Field

Nelson

S. M.

(2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(12), 1308–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237858

Cafferky

B. M.

Mendez

Anderson

J. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2018). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000074

Crane

C. A.

Oberleitner

L. M.

Devine

Easton

C. J.

(2014). Substance use disorders and intimate partner violence perpetration among male and female offenders. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034338

Edleson

J. L.

Brygger

M. P.

(1986). Gender differences in reporting of battering incidences. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 35(3), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/584364

Gilchrist

Radcliffe

Noto

Flavia

(2017). Prevalence and risk factors for IPV among males attending substance misuse treatment in England and Brazil. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12436

10.

Giraudeau

(1996). Negative values of the intraclass correlation coefficient are not theoretically possible. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(10), 1205–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00053-4

11.

Haushofer

Ringdal

Shapiro

Wang

X. Y.

(2020). Spousal disagreement in reporting of intimate partner violence in Kenya. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110, 620–624. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201049

12.

Koo

T. K.

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

13.

Krigel

Benjamin

(2021). From physical violence to intensified economic abuse: Transitions between the types of IPV over survivors’ life courses. Violence Against Women, 27(9), 1211–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220940397

14.

Kuijpers

K. F.

(2020). Partner disagreement on the occurrence of intimate partner violence among a national sample of heterosexual young-adult couples. Violence against Women, 26(8), 889–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219850343

15.

LaMotte

A. D.

Taft

C. T.

Weatherill

R. P.

Scott

J. P.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2014). Examining intimate partner aggression assessment among returning veterans and their partners. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034579

16.

Magdol

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Newman

D. L.

Fagan

Silva

P. A.

(1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.1.68

17.

Marshall

A. D.

Mattern

A. C.

Wong

J. D.

(2020). Concordance of reports of intimate partner violence across partners and measures: The impact of posttraumatic stress disorder. Assessment, 28(6), 1601–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120911097

18.

Marshall

A. D.

Panuzio

Makin-Byrd

K. N.

Taft

C. T.

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2011). A multilevel examination of interpartner intimate partner violence and psychological aggression reporting concordance. Behavior Therapy, 42(3), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.09.003

19.

Morse

B. J.

(1995). Beyond the conflict tactics scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.10.4.251

20.

O'Brien

John

R. S.

Margolin

Erel

(1994). Reliability and diagnostic efficacy of parents’ reports regarding children’s exposure to marital aggression. Violence and Victims, 9(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.9.1.45

21.

O'Dea

Clough

Beebe

DiVietro

Lapidus

Grasso

(2020). Using child protective services case record data to quantify family-level severity of adversity types, poly-victimization, and poly-deprivation. 08, 104688 (2020). Child Abuse & Neglect, 08, 1046–1088.

22.

Panuzio

O’Farrell

T. J.

Marshall

A. D.

Murphy

C. M.

Murphy

Taft

C. T.

(2006). Intimate partner aggression reporting concordance and correlates of agreement among men with alcohol use disorders and their female partners. Assessment, 13(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287792

23.

Postmus

J. L.

Hoge

G. L.

Breckenridge

Sharp-Jeffs

Chung

(2020). Economic abuse as an invisible form of domestic violence: A multicountry review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018764160

24.

Robertson

Murachver

(2011). Women and men’s use of coercive control in intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 26(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.2.208

25.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

de la Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption–II. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 88(6), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x

26.

Shepard

M. F.

Campbell

J. A.

(1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007003001

27.

Skinner

H. A.

(1982). The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors, 7(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3

28.

Stephenson

Sharma

Mimiaga

M. J.

Garofalo

Brown

Bratcher

Wimbly

Hidalgo

M. A.

Hoehnle

Thai

Sullivan

P. S.

Suarez

N. A.

(2019). Concordance in the reporting of intimate partner violence among male-male couples. Journal of Family Violence, 34(7), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00076-w

29.

Stover

C. S.

Beebe

Clough

DiVietro

Madigan

Grasso

D. J.

(2020). Evaluation of a statewide implementation of fathers for change: A fathering intervention for families impacted by partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 1-11(3), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00199-5

30.

Straus

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

31.

Szinovacz

(1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(3), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.2307/351668

32.

Taylor

(2010). An Introduction to Intraclass Correlation that Resolves Some Common Confusions.