Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 475–483 | Cite as

Internal Consistency and Factor Structure of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales in a Sample of Deaf Female College Students

Original Article


The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is currently the most widely used measure for identifying cases of intimate partner violence within the hearing population. The CTS2 has been used successfully with individuals from various countries and cultural backgrounds. However, the CTS2 had not yet been used with Deaf individuals. The goal of the present study was to investigate the internal consistency reliability and the factor structure of the CTS2 within a sample of Deaf female college students. Psychometric analyses indicated that subscales measuring Victimization of Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, and Injury proved both reliable and valid in the current sample. Three subscales did not evidence reliability and the factor structure was not valid for Perpetration items.


Intimate partner violence Domestic violence Deaf Revised Conflict Tactics Scales 


  1. ADWAS: Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services. (1997). Justice for all: A domestic violence handbook for Deaf people. Seattle: Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services.Google Scholar
  2. Aldarondo, E., & Straus, M. A. (1994). Screening for physical violence in couple therapy: methodological, practical, and ethical considerations. Family Process, 33, 425–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. L., & Leigh, I. W. (in press). Intimate partner violence against deaf female college students. Violence Against Women. Google Scholar
  4. Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Cassel Educational Limited.Google Scholar
  5. Gallaudet Research Institute. (2003). Literacy and deaf students. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from
  6. Garson, G. D. (2008). Factor analysis. Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from
  7. Glickman, N. S. (1996). What is culturally affirmative psychotherapy? In N. S. Glickman & M. A. Harvey (Eds.), Culturally affirmative psychotherapy with deaf persons (pp. 11–37). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Leigh, I. W., & Anthony-Tolbert, S. (2001). Reliability of the BDI-II with deaf persons. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46(2), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leigh, I. W., Corbett, C. A., Gutman, V. A., & Morere, D. A. (1996). Providing psychological services to deaf individuals: a response to new perceptions of diversity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(4), 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCloskey, K., & Grigsby, N. (2005). The ubiquitous clinical problem of adult intimate partner violence: the need for routine assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitchell, R., Young, T., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. (2006). How many people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies, 6, 306–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  13. Newton, R. R., Connelly, C. D., & Landsverk, J. A. (2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 317–335.Google Scholar
  14. O’Leary, K. D., & Murphy, C. (1992). Clinical issues in the assessment of spouse abuse. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal sourcebook (pp. 26–46). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. O’Leary, K. D., Vivian, D., & Malone, J. (1992). Assessment of physical aggression against women in marriage: the need for multimodal assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 5–14.Google Scholar
  16. Samuelson, S. L., & Campbell, C. D. (2005). Screening for domestic violence: recommendations based on a practice survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 1993, 517–526. December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smithey, M., & Straus, M. A. (2004). Primary prevention of intimate partner violence. In H. Kury & J. Obergfell-Fuchs (Eds.), Crime prevention—New approaches (pp. 239–276). Mainz/Germany: Weisser Ring Gemeinnutzige Verlagsgmbh.Google Scholar
  19. Straus, M. A. (1990). Injury and frequency of assault and the “Representative sample fallacy” in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 75–91). Edison: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19–47). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  21. Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: a study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Straus, M. A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N. A. Jackson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of domestic violence (pp. 190–197). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  24. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The conflict tactics scales handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  26. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gallaudet University, Department of PsychologyWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations