Sociology Mind
2014. Vol.4, No.1, 51-57
Published Online January 2014 in SciRes (
The Construction and Standardization of
a Domestic Violence Questionnaire
Khadije h A bolmaa l i , Hayedeh Saberi, Sousan Saber
Department of Psychology, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran
Email: *
Received October 27th, 2013; revised November 30th, 2013; accepted December 21st, 2013
Copyright © 2014 Khadijeh Abol maali et al. This is an open access article distributed und er the Creative Com-
mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro-
vided the original work is prop erly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all C opy-
rights © 2014 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Khadijeh Abolmaali et al. All
Copyright © 2014 a re guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
The purpose of this research was to standardize the self-reported domestic violence scale. 530 participants
were randomly selected via clustered sampling methods from married students of The Islamic Azad Uni-
versity of district 8 in Iran. According to this scale, a total score was measured for domestic violence and
also, based on exploratory factor analysis, 2 scores were measured for two dimensions of domestic vio-
lence, and these dimensions are: 1) Psycho-physical violence, 2) Control violence (sexual, economic, co-
ercive violence). The reliability of this test was measured with internal consistency (α = 0.915) and the
test retest method (r = 0.987). The criterion validity of this scale was significant and this scale had a sig-
nificant relationship with the quality of marital life test. This scale can be used by psychologists and re-
searchers for diagnostic assessment, intervening programs and identification of domestic violence dimen-
Keywords: Domestic Violence Scale; Psycho-Physical Violence; Control Violence; Standardization;
Reliability; Validity
The term “domestic violence” which is sometimes called fa-
mily violence is an interpersonal violence inc luding the aggres-
sive behaviour and actions between family members and it may
happen among couples, children, parents, old people, sisters
and/or brothers (Hollin & Bloxsom, 2007). Violence towards
an intimate partner (IPV) is a global phenomenon that happens
in many areas of the world (Campbell, 2003). IPV is a pattern
of behaviours with compulsion that may include physical harm,
psychological abuse, sexual annoyance, prevention of social re-
lationships with family and friends, isolating and confining the
partner from any social relationships, prosecution, privation, hu-
miliation or threat (Family Violence Prevention, 1999). Violence
towards the spouse has destructive consequences on the family
climate and children, and it often takes place in four forms:
A. Physical violence towards the spouse includes actions
such as an attack with a weapon, pushing, punching, slapping,
kicking and throwing objects at the spouse; this can happen
bilaterally between the couples.
B. Psychological abuse in domestically relationships, also re-
ferred to as emotional abuse, is characterized by several dimen-
sions. These dimensions include threatening behavior: implicit
or explicit, denigrating damage or under-mining a victim’s self
image or self esteem, passive aggressive withholding of emotio-
nal support and n urturance , restric ting per sona l terr itory and free-
dom (Mariuro, 2001). The psychological abuse often does not
occur clearly and it may have longitudinal and disruptive ef-
fects on victims.
C. Sexual violence includes the unexpected sexual relation-
ship such as hard or unusual and harsh sexual behaviours, forc-
ed sexual activities and the pressure to have sex.
D. Financial or economic violence includes behaviour such
as maintaining control over finance, creating a barrier to spen-
ding money, withholding access to money , making the victim fi-
nancially dependent, not allowing the victi m to work, income co n-
trol and taking credit card or spouse’s money, interpellation for
spending money and financial abuse by the offender (Abolma-
ali & Mousazadeh, 2012).
Zosky (1999) has divided the determinant factors of domestic
violence into three groups: Micro, Middle and Macro. In the
micro level, intra-psychic processes influencing the adults’ be-
haviour have been noticed. Some of these factors have been ex-
plained by experts and researchers, such as: schizophrenia and
other psychotic disorders, mood disorders, drug abuse, impul-
sive control disorders, sexual and gender identity disorders, per-
sonality disorders and cognitive disorders such as delirium, de-
mentia, and amnesia, anxiety disorders, adjustment disorders,
premenstrual dysphoric disorder (Webester & Hucker, 2007),
deficits in social recognition (Abolmaali & Mousazadeh, 2012),
unsafe attachment styles, facing violence at childhood, (Rodri-
guez, 2006; Goudbout, Dutton, & Lussier, 2009), childhood dis-
orders, interpersonal sensitivity (Mohammadkhani & Azadmehr,
2008), low self-esteem, background of PTSD and addiction to
alcohol (Whiting, Simmons, Havens, Smith, & Oka, 2009).
Other researchers have considered the weakness of anger man-
agement and communicative skills in the appearance of the vi-
*Corresponding authors.
olence towards the partner (Mohammadkhani, 2005). Winters,
Clift and Dutton (2004) in a study showed that the scores of the
offenders are lower in the components of emotional intelligence
than others.
The family systems theory gives a description in the middle
level of the processes and dynamics of interpersonal issues
among domestic violence and its role with regard to this (Rod-
riguez, 2006). For instance, coercive control (CC) explains the
patterns of sexual and economic compulsion where a partner
controls the other one dominantly. Of course, it is stated that
men usually do this action and pattern more. Intimidation, and
isolating the partner and as well forbidding the comings and
goings have been seen in the CC pattern (Jackson, 2009). Dif-
ferent patterns of the couples’ relationships can be a reflection
of cultu re in societies. It see ms that in male-dominated cultures
such as our society, the pattern of CC represents a suitable ex-
planation for the middle domestic violence. Factors such as pe-
nalty background (Taheri, 2000), socio-economic status of fa-
mily (Fattahi, 2000; Aghabigloie, Aghajani, & Chehreii, 2002;
Bagrezaiee, 2003), and family intervention (Arshi, 2004) can
also have an influence in domestic violence.
In the Macro level, it often considers feminist perspectives.
Feminists consider the whole objections and protests from the
gender categorizations and male-dominated attitudes that lead
to domestic violence (Zoski, 1999). In some cultures, women
usually are considered as low-status people and any violence
happens against them (Sterne & Pool, 2010).
Violence towards the spouse happens in both genders; of
course the studies have shown that most victims are women
(Andarabi, 2009). Studies indicate that the violence towards
women is being intensified due to their lifestyle and the lack of
economic self-support and social supports in various situations
(MirMajidi, 2009). Women also apply violence against their
husbands; most men who have encountered violence feel reluc-
tant to seek support (Stern & Pool, 2010; Keeling & Mason,
2009). The scenario of domestic violence against men is a sub-
ject that some researchers believe requires justice in this case.
Moore (2008) believes that the number of men facing domestic
violence is increasing. Due to the private territory of the fami-
lies, the accurate statistics of the occurrence of domestic vio-
lence is not available in Iran and other societies. However, the
highest degree of violence is related to the psychological vio-
lence towards women. For example, Occurrence of psycholo-
gical violence was reported by Marabi (2007) 100%, but Belali,
Meibodi and Hassani (2009) reported an occurrence of 76.6%
in their studies. In a national plan in Iran, conducted by the Mi-
nistry of Social Affairs and presidential women participation
affairs in two provinces, verbal and psychological violence
(52%), physical violence (37.8%), violence of prevention in so-
cial-educational relations and sexual violence (10%) were esti-
mated, respectively (Saeidzadeh, 2009). Marabi (2007) has re-
ported the economic violence towards women is 81.6% in soci-
ety. Of course, due to the nature of private and hidden issues of
domestic violence, the violence may be occurring beyond the
degree of the reported statistics.
One of the biggest challenges in the area of domestic vio-
lence is diagnosis and assessment of it. Therefore, construction
of a suitable and precise questionnaire is a necessity for provi-
ding an opportunity to measure the occurrence of family vio-
lence, the prevention of family and children problems and in-
tervention for the reduction or ceasing of it. Thus, the main
question of this research is whether the domestic violence ques-
tionnaire which was made by researchers has enough reliability
and validity among married students from the university.
The main purpose of this study is to construct a valid and re-
liable tool for measuring domestic violence among married stu-
dents and the special purposes are as follows:
1) Determining the validity (construct, criterion and differen-
tial validity) of the domestic violence questionnaire.
2) Determining reliability (internal consistency and test-retest
reliability) of the domestic violence questionnaire.
3) Access to quantitative norms (T standard scores and quar-
tile scores) to determine the relative situation of people in the
domestic violence questionnaire.
Materials and Methods
The statistical population of the present study includes the
married students in the 8th district of The Islamic Azad Univer-
sity in 2012 Iran. In order to select a sample group, first all
universities of the 8th district 3 branches were chosen and then
each branch was randomly selected from several educational
fields, and then from each field, several classes were selected
and all married students of these classes were tested.
Domestic Violence Questionnaire
This is a self-report tool put together by the researchers.
Domestic violence is a multi-dimensional structure and the con-
sidered dimensions of this questionnaire are including as fol-
1) Physi ca l vi olenc e , 2) Psychological violence, 3) Sexual vi-
olence and 4) Economic violence.
In this research for each dimension several items were de-
signed. In this questionnaire the response of each option is scor-
ed on a Likert scale: Not at all true of my spouse (0); slightly
true of my spouse (1); moderately true of my spouse (2); very
true of my spouse (3), and extremely true of my spouse (4). The
highest score of this questionnaire shows the highest level of
violence in this study.
Hudson’s Life Quality Questionnaire
This test was standardized in a cross-sectional study on 520
couples dwelling in Tehran by Saberi and Abolmaali (2012).
Based on factor analysis methods, only one cohesive factor sig-
nificantly has been extracted. The concurrent validity of this
scale was significant and this scale had a significant relation-
ship with the test of life satisfaction. In addition, the differential
validity of the test also showed it can recognize people suffer-
ing from th e weak li fe qual ity . The rel iabili ty of the test wa s es-
timated by Cronbach’s Alpha method 0.92 and by the test-re-
test reliability was 0.93.
Construction Steps and the Admi ni st er i n g of the
Domestic Violence Questionnaire
For each field of domestic violence (psychological, economic,
physical and sexual), some questions were designed based on
their features. To determine the proportion and number of ques-
tions, it firstly referred to the occurrence statistics of domestic
violence in Iran. But due to the lack of accurate statistics in this
case, the researcher decided to evaluate the proportion of do-
mestic violence occurrence via an introductory study. Based on
this, 30 married students were sel ected from the statistical popu-
lation as accessible and were interviewed; then, the proportion
of each domestic violence field was determined due to the re-
port of the degree of violence from them. Therefore, the related
statistics were obtained: Psychological violence: 0.66, econo-
mic violence: 0.14, sexual and physical violence: 0.10. It should
be mentioned that the determined proportions were only based
on those peoples’ experiences who participated in this experi-
mental study. These proportions only represent experienced
violence, not their importance with regard to this. After deter-
mining the proportion of questions, 120 questions were design-
ed for the preliminary form. The validity of the preliminary
form was studied based on the experts’ views in this case. This
questionnaire was administered in three steps: preliminary,
experimental and final steps. In the preliminary step, the ques-
tionnaire with 120 items was administered on 30 people who
were selected as available in this study. In this step the am-
biguous questions were amended or removed and the number of
questions was minimized to 110 with regard to this. In the ex-
perimental step, 110 items were administered on 150 people
who were selected randomly from the statistical population. In
this step, questions that have no significant correlation with the
total score of the domestic violence test were eliminated. (That
is, when Cronbach’s alpha was negative or near to zero). Then,
the number of the questions was minimized to 72. In the final
step, the questionnaire was administered on 530 people that
were randomly selected from the statistical population and en-
tire psychometric analyses were fulfilled on the obtained data
from the final version. The statistical indices of question analy-
sis like reliability and validity of the test (via Cronbach’s alpha
and test-retest method) were measured. Construct validity of
domestic violence was also estimated by the exploratory factor
analysis and criterion validity. In this step, the number of the
questions was minimized to 42 with regard to this.
Descriptions of the Domestic Violence Test and
Its Factors among Men and Women
After the factor analysis, the scores of the participants in the
questionnaire were descripting, as shown in Table 1 for men
and women separately.
It should be mentioned that of the 530 people that completed
the test 371 of them were female and 159 were male. Based on
the above mentioned ta ble, the description of the sc ores in males
and females (based on skewness and kurtosis) show that the
distribution of scores tends towards the normal distribution.
The mean total score of domestic violence in women is 15.45
and 10.86 in men, respectively. The mean score of psycho-
physical violence is 7.73 in the sample group and is 6.9 in fe-
males and 8 in males. The mean score of control violence is
4.96 and the total score is 3.9 and 7.43 related to males and fe-
males, respectively.
The Evaluation of Test Validity
Content Validity
In relation to this, after designing the preliminary question
form, the experts confirmed the content of the test, according to
4 criteri a: simp lici ty an d clarity , scie ntif ic acce ptan ce, ne cessi ty
of the given questions and to pertain to the designed questions
the purpose of the test. Then consistency of their comments was
obtained as 0.961.
Construct Validity
In order to evaluate the construct validity of the question-
naire and to access the constructs and possible factors, explora-
tory factor analysis with principal axis factoring based on Va-
rimax rotation was used. According to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling and a degree of KMO = 0.856 and the ap-
proximate Chi-square degree in Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
(10896.745) and df = 2415 and sig. = 0.000, it is shown that the
data has factorial ability with regard to this. The communality
amount represents the degree of variable variance that is ac-
counted for by the extracted factor and it shows the proportion
of the extracted variance. The communality is the squared mul-
tiple correlation (R2) between the test and the factor emerging
from the factor analy sis (Kinnear & Gray, 2004). In this re search
the items with communalities lower than 0.2 were eliminated.
Based on the scree plot and due to the Eigen values, more than
two factors were shown, but in general when these questions
were loaded under more than two factors, it does not introduce
Table 1.
Descriptions of the domestic violence test and its factors among m en and women.
Statistical indices Domestic violen ce q uestionn ai re Psycho-physical violence Contr ol vio le nc e
Ma Wb Tc M W T M W T
Mean 10.9 16 12. 6.9 8 7.7 3.9 7.4 5
Median 6 12 9 4 5 4 3 6 5
Variance 154 17 16 82 75 87 19 31 25
Sde 12.4 13 13 9.1 8.7 9.3 4.3 7.5 4.9
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum 54 52 54 38 34 39 21 23 23
Skewness 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.8 1.2
Std error of skewness 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1
Kurtosis 1.4 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.1 1.0
Std error of kurtosis 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3
aMen, bWomen, cTotal, eSta ndard devia tio n .
an integrative and significant construct with regard to this.
However, when the questions were loaded under two factors,
two integrative and significant constructs are being introduced
in this case. The first factor could explain a result of 15.54%
and the second factor of 9.93% could explain the total score
variance of the test. And these two factors explain 25.47% of
the total variance of the test. Since the purpose of the factor
analysis is to link variables together into factors, those variables
must be related to one another and therefore have correlation
coefficients larger than about 0.3 (Kinnear & Gray, 2004: p.
411). In this research, the coefficient was considered as 0.4 (cut
off point). In attention to the content of questions loaded under
each factor, the first factor was labelled psycho-physical vio-
lence and the second factor was labelled control violence (sex-
ual-economic-coercive). Finally, 42 questions remained in this
test. The degree of communalities and factor load of questions
are shown in Tabl e 2 separately.
Based on the above mentioned table, the highest factorial
load and communalities degree in the first and second factors
are related to questions 38 and 20, respectively and the maxi-
mum and minimum factorial load and communalities in the se-
cond factor is subjected to questions 25 and 32 in this study as
Criterion Validity
In order to obtain the criterion validity, the couples’ life qua-
lity test was used as external criteria with regard to this. In the
below table, the correlation of total score with the score of do-
mestic violence test and two factors were reported. The correla-
tion of total score with the life quality test is 0.625 and the
correlation of factors 1 and 2 are 0.69 and 0.56, respectively
and the level of significant is equal (sig. = 0.0000) in this case.
Deferential Validity
In this research, 30 people had referred to Avin consultation
centre for domestic violence in Tehran City and completed the
domestic violence questionnaire. The mean total score of do-
mestic violence was 42, minimum 32, maximum 72 and stan-
dard deviation was 10.86 in this study. According to the t test in
independent groups showed this test has the ability of separa-
tion in people with domestic violence with normal ones (sig. =
The reliability of the total test and each of the factors by
Cronbach’s alpha and test-retest was reported. By the use of
Cronbach’s alpha method, the entire reliability of the domestic
violence test with 42 questions equals 0.915. The reliability of
the first factor (psycho-physical violence) with 28 questions
equals 0.907, and the second factor reliability (control violence)
with 14 questions is 0.79 as a suitable degree. In order to an-
ticipate the consistency and precision of the domestic violence
scale, the test-retest method was applied during a two week pe-
riod on 60 people and the correlation between these was com-
puted twice and the reliability of the total test became 0.987 and
in the first and second factors the degree got to 0.98 and 0.97,
Transformation of Test Scores
Z and T score were accounted for obtaining a suitable norm.
These can be used for comparing scores of different individu-
In the following Table 3, raw scores, z scores and T scores
are shown.
In order to compare different individual’s scores, quartiles of
the total score of domestic violence and two factors have been
reported. For the tota l score of dome stic vi olence test and factor
1 and 2, Q1 is equal to 3, 2, 1; and Q2 is 9, 4 and 5; and for Q3
is 16, 10 and 7, respectively. For comparison, domestic vio-
lence and 2 of their factors were applied to the t test for inde-
pendent samples.
The main purpose of the study was to construct and account
validity and reliability to the domestic violence questionnaire.
Based on the obtained results, this scale is suitable for assessing
domestic violence and its two components. According to Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient, this test has a satisfactory internal con-
sistency. In addition, the accounting of reliability with test-re-
test method represents the degree of accuracy and stability of
the test results over the time. According to the fact that domes-
tic violence is a multi-dimensions structure (Ramirez, 2003), no
violence figures were seen separately in this research. For ex-
ample, in the first factor, psycho-physical violence, two dimen-
sions were together as a multi-dimension structure. In the sec-
ond factor, as it mentioned before, different dimensions of sex-
ual-economic and coercive violence were loaded under factor 2.
This result corresponds to Abolmaali’s research (2012) that
showed aggression is a multi-dimension structure. As it men-
tioned before, in this research the first determined factor is call-
ed psycho-physical violence, it seems that the psychological
violence stems from low communication skills and a deficit in
social problem solving that leads to impulsive behaviour. This
explanation suggested that teaching social problem solving and
communication skills can reduce domestic violence. Whitening
et al. (2009) concluded that mental health problems can predict
domestic violence. Mohammadkhani (2006) also showed that
the psychic profile of domestic violence perpetrators have many
problems, such as: low anger and conflict management skills,
communication problems, sexual hostility, negative attribution,
jealousy, and low self-control. It seems that psychological pro-
blems do not just appertain to men or women and some of the
couples’ problems often go along with psychological violence,
such as humiliating, blaming, mocking and undermining a vic-
tim’s self-worth and self-esteem.
As it mentioned earlier, one of the extracted factors of the
domestic violence test appertained to control violence. Many
people use violent behaviour because they cannot state their
feeling and they cannot solve their daily problems (Abolmaali,
Saberi, & Haghshenas, 2011). Jackson’s coercive control (CC)
theory (2009) represents a suitable explanation in this case.
Based on this theory, this can be explained as sexual-economic
violence. Control encompasses forms of regulation, isolation,
and exploitation that limit a victim’s option, transfer her (his)
resources to the controller, ensure her dependence on him (her),
and maximize the benefits of personal service. Control tactics
affect this outcome through three means, primarily: by mono-
polizing the tangible and intangible resources needed to de-
velop and enjoy personhood, by orchestrating a partner’s be-
haviour through rules and by eliminating opportunities for the
victim to outside anger support (Jackson, 2009: 168). CC the-
ory is mostly progressive and it includes unfair behaviour,
Table 2.
Factorial load and the degree of left common questions.
Questions Factor load and communality
Questions of first factor Factor l oad Communality
1. He (she) shouts at me and says I am a fool. 0.5 0.27
2. He (she) makes me feel humiliated. 0.46 0.22
3. He (she) blam es me for his anger. 0.53 0.30
4. He (she) insults the ones I love. 0.67 0.46
7. He (she) gets angry at every situation. 0.59 0.37
12. He (she) m akes me responsible for his problems. 0.54 0.32
15. He (she) does not care about m y comments. 0.57 0.35
16. He (she) shouts at me. 0.66 0.44
17. He (she) calls me using bad language. 0.60 0.76
18. He (she) does not care about m y i nt erests. 0.63 0.48
19. He (she) does not respect my feelings. 0.69 0.51
20. He (she) insults me using bad la nguage. 0.41 0.21
21. He (she) gets annoyed about my family relations. 0.58 0.48
22. He (she) does not respect me near others. 0.43 0.21
23. He (she) makes others angry with me. 0.45 0.21
24. He (she) pushes me when he is angry.
26. He (she) throws my personal objects when he (she) is angry. 0.47 0.28
27. He (she) loves revenging. 0.46 0.22
28. He (she) threatens me with divorce. 0.59 0.36
33. He (she) comes nea r me only to sle ep or to eat lunc h. 0.57 0.33
34. He (she) changes his bed for tiny th ings. 0.43 0.29
35. He (she) does not care about m y s adness. 0.62 0.41
36. He (she) does not care about m y i l l ness. 0.57 0.35
37. I (she) tolerate him just for my shame. 0.67 0.45
38. He (she) swears at me when he (she) is anger. 0.81 0.68
39. He (she) swears at my family. 0.75 0.56
40. I do not mention my problems for his annoyance. 0.40 0.56
41. He (she) stops my progression. 0.34 0.59
42. He (she) kicks me. 0.48 0.33
Questions of second factor Factor l oad Communality
5. He (she) forces me to do unfavourable things. 0.52 0.24
6. He (she) controls my behaviour and actions. 0.45 0.21
8. He (she) st ops me going out independen tly. 0.42 0.21
9. He (she) confines me for making purchases. 0.52 0.27
10. He (she) stops visiting my family and friends. 0.44 0.23
11. He (she) blames me for buying. 0.49 0.27
13. When sex time, he (she) does not care about my tiredness. 0.44 0.21
14. He (she) gets anger when it is sex time. 0.38 0.23
37. He (she) controls my text messages. 0.49 0.25
25. He (she) is curious about my calls. 0.63 0.36
29. He (she) looks in my purse. 0.47 0.22
30. He (she) puts me under pressure to make a lot of money. 0.40 0.27
31. His (her) material requests are not adapted to mine. 0.43 0.21
32. I cannot s pend my money without his (her) permi s sion. 0.39 0.21
Table 3.
Row scores, z scores and T scores.
Raw, Z, and T scores
Raw score in factor 1 T Raw score in factor 1 T Raw score in factor 1 T Raw score in factor 1 T
39 83 26 69.5 16 59 6 48
38 5.82 25 68.5 15 58 5 47
37 81 24 67.5 14 57 4 46
36 80 23 66 13 56 3 45
35 79 22 65 12 54.5 2 44
34 78 21 64 11 53.5 1 43
33 77 20 63 10 52.5 0 42
30 74 19 62 9 51
29 73 18 61 8 50
28 72 17 60 7 49
regular tactics for controlling the partner and reinforces gender
stereotypes. Finally it leads to the destruction of self-autonomy.
Jackson believes that based on this theory, one partner controls
another one with this violence.
Based on the findings, the mean difference of coercive con-
trol in women was higher than men. That is, women are put
under more coercive control (MirMajidi, 2009). In Reality men
apply violence as a tool for controlling the behaviour of a fe-
male until she obeys him. It seems that control violence is laid
on the male’s cultural background. According to the gender
stereotype existing in our society and the related women’s ex-
pectations in relation to their pains and problems, with regard to
this they would give their dissatisfaction causing the increase of
their coercive control.
It seems that one of the most particular challenges of our so-
ciety is related to the lack of knowledge in relation to domestic
violence. Based on the obtained factors in this research, it can
be defined that domestic violence is based on real data. For this
reason, the first factor represents the psycho-physical violence
in the study that is shown as physical and verbal violence with
regard to this. According to the content of the research ques-
tions, those behaviours with disrespect, swearing and insulting
and other impulsive behaviours such as pushing and kicking are
called violence with regard to this. The coercive control is a
symbol of compulsive control and is defined with behaviours
like prevention of the spouse from family meetings or friends,
control over comings and goings, controlling telephone com-
munications, texts and the spouse’s private belongings, forcing
economic issues and sexual relationships.
It is recommended to apply some supportive and social ap-
proaches in relation to the psycho-physical violence for both
genders. Moreover, making a great information base for awak-
ening people in relation to domestic violence is an essential
factor in the prevention of the problem in society. Therefore,
holding group educational sessions, educational workshops and
different scientific seminars are suggested with regard to this.
The results of this research showed that, the self-reported
questionnaire of domestic violence can measure two dimen-
sions (based on factor analysis): 1) Psy c h o-physical violence, 2)
Control violence (sexual, economic and coercive violence).
This test has good validity and reliability. The criterion validity
of this scale was significant and this scale had a significant
relationship with the quality of marital life test. In addition, this
test has suitable differential validity, so that this test has the
ability of separation in people with domestic violence from nor-
mal ones.
The entir e relia bili ty of the dome sti c viole nce te st and it s two
dimensions with internal consistency and test-retest method is
suitable. Also for comparing scores of different individuals, Z
standard scores and T standardized scores are calculated for
total scores test and separately in relation to each factor.
One of the most important features of the test is subjected to
the low numbers of questions and the possibility of its easy
administration on groups or individuals and this test can be
used for the nonclinical population. Thus, it can be completed
on married college students as well. According to the validity
and reliability of this scale, it is suggested that this question-
naire can be applied to the diagnosis of domestic violence di-
mensions as well. But like every other test, this should only
measure the samples of the behaviour and using it as an only
diagnostic tool is not recommended. In addition, it can be ap-
plied in research-based activities.
Abolmaali, K. H. (2012). The construction and standardization of ag-
gressive scale. Th e Psychometric Journ al of Islamic Azad University,
Roudhen Branch, 1, 5-25.
Abolmaali, K. H., & Mousazadeh, Z. (2012). The aggression: The na-
ture, causes, and prevention. Tehran: Arjmand.
Abolmaali, Kh., Saberi, H., & Haghshenas, T. (2011). Conference of
the role of specialist in prevention of crime.
Aghabigloie, A., Aghajani, K., & Cheh reii, A. (2002). Evaluation phy-
sical violence by spou se ag ain st women ref ering to fo rens ic medicine
of Tehran. Iranian Journal of Medical Science, 9, 485-490.
Andarabi, Z. (2009). Prevention of women offence against domestic
violence, by the struggle of Moh a mmad Farajiha and Abb as Sh eikh a-
leslami. The abstract articles o f ap plied-scien tif ic natio nal con f erence
in the prevention of Judiciary criminals. Mashad.
Arshi, M. (2004). The study of effective factors on spouse-offending
violence tolerance in Tehran in 2003. Tehran Wellfare project.
Bagharzaiee, P. (2003). The study of effective factors on men violence
degree towards women, Ilam City. Ma Dissertation. Allameh Taba-
baiee university, Tehran.
Belali-Meibodi, F., & Hassani, M. (2009). The distribution of v iolence
against women by their mates in Kerman City. Psychology and Cli-
Nical Psychology Journal, 15, 300-307.
Belmont, J. (2008). Domestic violence and abuse.
Campbell, J. C. (2003). Risk factor for homicide in abusive relationship:
Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of
Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.
Family Violence Prevention Fund (1999). Preventing do mestic violence:
Clinical guid elines on routine screening. San Francisco , CA: Family
Violence Prevention Fund.
Fatthi, H. (2000). The study of violence situation towards women in
tehranian families. MA Dissertation, Tehran University.
Gannon, A., Ward, T., Beech, A. R., & Fisher, D. (2007). Aggressive
offenders’ cognition. Chichester: John Willy & Sons, Ltd.
Goudbout, N., Dutton, D. G., Lu ssier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2009). Ea rly
exposure to violence, domestic violence, attachment representations
and marita adjustment. Personal Relationships, 16, 365 -384.
Higginbotham, B. J., Ketring, S. A., Hibbert, J., Wright, D. W., Gua-
rino, A., Goudbout, N., Dutton, D. G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S.
(2009). Early exposure to violence, d omestic violence attachment re-
presentations and marital adjustment. Personal Relationships, 16,
Hollin, C. R., & Bloxsom, C. A. J. (2007). Treatments for angry aggres-
sion. In T. A. Gannon, T. Ward, A. R. Beech , & D. Fisher (Eds.), Ag-
gressive offenders’ cognition. Chichester: John Willy & Sons, Ltd.
Jackson, A. N. (2009). Encyclopaedia of d omestic violence. Routledge:
New York and London.
Keeling, J., & Ma son. (2009). Domestic violence: A multi-professional
approach for healthcare practitioners. Open University Press.
Kinnear, P. A., & Gray, C. D. (2 004). SPSS 12 made simple. Ho ve and
New York: Psychology Press.
Mahmoud, G. M., Mohseni, T. A., Marjani, S. H., & Shaditalab, Z.
(2003). The study of domestic vio lence against wo men. Tehran: Moj e
Marabi, M. (2005). The study of effective factors of family in the vio-
lence against women in Kamyaran C ou nty. MA Dissertation, Tehran:
Allameh Tababaeiee University.
Mariuro, R. D. (2001). But names will also hurt me: Psychological
abuse in domestically relationsh ips. In K. D. O’Leary, & R. D. Mari -
uro (Eds.), Psych olo g ical a buse in violent do mestic r elatio n s (pp. vii-
ix). New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Mertous, J. (2003). The education of women and girls’ humanistic
rights. Translated by Fariborz Majidi, Tehran: Donyaye Madar.
MirMajidi, S. (2009). Physical domestic violence and its prevention
methods by the struggle of Mohammad Farajiha and Abbas Sheik-
haleslami. The abstract articles of nation al applied-scientific research
centre in the prevention of Judiciary criminals, Mashad.
Mohammadkhani, P., & Azadmehr, H. (2008). The pathology and per-
sonal-relation problems of sacrificed women. Seasonal Scientific
Journal of Social Wealth Centre, 7, 65-74.
Mohammadkhani, P. (2005). The repor t of domestic violence, with em-
phasis on the determination of spouse-offending issues: Psychologi-
cal aspects and psychopathology. Medical Sciences Research Centre
and Rehabilitation Centre. Tehran: The National Medical Sciences
Research Centre.
Moore, E. N. (2008). Domestic violence aga inst men. Bloomington: Au-
Ramirez, M. J. (2003). Human aggression: A multifaceted phenomenon.
Madrid: Centreur.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2006). Emotional functioning, attachment style, and
attribution as predictors of child abu se potential in domestic violence
victims. Violence and Victims, 21, 199-212.
Saberi, H. and Abolmaali, K. H. ( 2012). Standardization of life quality
test. Research Project in Islamic Azad University, Roudhen Branch.
Saeidzadeh, Z. (2009). Sacrifices women of violence. Ira ndokht Weekly
Paper, 27, 14.
Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., & Collier-Tenison, S. (2008). Women
arrested for IPV offen ses: Abuse experiences yet low trauma pathol-
ogy. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 755-765.
Sterne, A., Poo le, L., Chadwick, D., Lawler, C., & Dodd, L. W. (2010).
Domestic violence and children. London: Routledge.
Taheri , S. H . (19 99 ). The study of violence quality degree against women.
Zandjan: Khodabandeh Count Legal Medicine Centre. [Persian].
Webster, C. D., & Hucker, S. J. (2007). Violence risk assessment and
management. Chichester: John Wi ley & Sons, Ltd.
Winters, J., Clift, R. J. W., & Dutton, D. G. (2004). An explanatory
study of e motional intell igence and d omestic abuse. Journal of Fa mily
Violence, 19, 255-265.
Whiting, J. B., Simmons, L. A., Havens, J. R., Smith, D. B., & Ok a, M.
(2009). Intergenerational transmission of violence: The influence
self-appraisals, mental disorders and substance abuse. Journal of
Family Violence, 24, 639-648.
Winters, J., Clift, R. J. W., & Dutton, D. G. (2004). An explanatory
study of e motional intell igence and d omestic abuse. Jou rnal of Family
Violence, 19, 255-265.
Zosky, D. L. (1999). The application of object relations theory to do-
mestic violence. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 55-69.