Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence among Male Couples: Cross-Sectional and Serial Dyadic Concordance
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence among Male Couples: Cross-Sectional and Serial Dyadic Concordance
Do you wish to request the book?
Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence among Male Couples: Cross-Sectional and Serial Dyadic Concordance
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence among Male Couples: Cross-Sectional and Serial Dyadic Concordance
2023
Overview
PurposeIntimate partner violence (IPV) in male couples is a public health concern, but the reliability of self-reported IPV data from gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) is understudied. Research in heterosexual couples finds IPV-underreporting can be differential between victims/perpetrators and by gender; it is unknown if GBMSM-data has similar limitations.MethodsThis study assessed interpartner agreement (percent agreement; kappa statistics) between self- and partner-reported IPV, and compared agreement between 2 recall periods (1-year; 3-month), 3 granularities (any IPV; IPV domain; IPV behaviors), and across 3 surveys (BL; Wave 1 (W1); Wave 2 (W2)) in a sample of 404 male couples in the U.S. (2016–2017). Longitudinal dyadic concordance-trends were assessed to determine if couples had consistently reliable data over time.ResultsPast-year IPV-victimization prevalence was 66.41% and perpetration, 64.42%; past 3-month IPV-victimization prevalence was 47.30% (W1) and 52.57% (W2), and perpetration, 46.30% (W1) and 46.30% (W2). Interpartner agreement was consistently low across recall periods and granularities. Observed agreement was higher for those who did not report IPV, compared to those who reported experiencing IPV. At an individual-level, interpartner agreement on any given survey was not significantly predictive of subsequent data reliability.ConclusionResearchers should be cognizant of the potential for unpredictable and unreliable IPV reports from GBMSM. Further research on IPV data quality in male couples is needed.
