Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Graham-Kevan, Nicola
Publications (3 of 3) Show all publications
Tiwari, A., Fong, D. Y., Chan, K. L., Yan, E. C., Lam, G. L., Tang, D. H. & Graham-Kevan, N. (2015). Evaluating the Chinese Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(2), 314-332
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Evaluating the Chinese Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale
Show others...
2015 (English)In: Journal of Interpersonal Violence, ISSN 0886-2605, E-ISSN 1552-6518, Vol. 30, no 2, p. 314-332Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The present study evaluated the utility of the Chinese version of the Revised Controlling Behaviors Scale (C-CBS-R) as a measure of controlling behaviors in violent Chinese intimate relationships. Using a mixed-methods approach, in-depth, individual interviews were conducted with 200 Chinese women survivors to elicit qualitative data about their personal experiences of control in intimate relationships. The use of controlling behaviors was also assessed using the C-CBS-R. Interview accounts suggested that the experiences of 91 of the women were consistent with the description of coercive control according to Dutton and Goodman's conceptualization of coercion. Using the split-half validation procedure, a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was conducted with the first half of the sample. The area under the curve (AUC) for using the C-CBS-R to identify high control was .99, and the cutoff score of 1.145 maximized both sensitivity and specificity. Applying the cutoff score to the second half gave a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 95%. Overall, the C-CBS-R has demonstrated utility as a measure of controlling behaviors with a cutoff score for distinguishing high from low levels of control in violent Chinese intimate relationships.

Chinese, controlling behavior assessment, intimate partner violence
National Category
Forensic Science Psychology
urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-24048 (URN)10.1177/0886260514534778 (DOI)000345589000007 ()2-s2.0-84912009219 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2015-01-09 Created: 2015-01-07 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Graham-Kevan, N., Zacarias, A. & Soares, J. J. F. (2012). Investigating Violence and Control Dyadically in a Help-seeking Sample from Mozambique. Scientific World Journal, Art. no. 590973
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Investigating Violence and Control Dyadically in a Help-seeking Sample from Mozambique
2012 (English)In: Scientific World Journal, ISSN 1537-744X, E-ISSN 1537-744X, p. Art. no. 590973-Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A sample of 1442 women attending a Forensic Healthcare Service provided information on their own and their partners' use of controlling behaviors, partner violence, and sexual abuse, as well as their own experiences of childhood abuse. Using Johnson's typology, the relationships were categorized as Nonviolent, Intimate Terrorism, or Situational Couple Violence. Findings suggest that help-seeking women’s experiences of intimate violence may be diverse, with their roles ranging from victim to perpetrator.1. Introduc

adolescent; adult; article; child abuse; domestic violence; female; help seeking behavior; human; Mozambique; partner violence; sexual abuse; violence
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences Social Sciences
urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-15836 (URN)10.1100/2012/590973 (DOI)000307066800001 ()2-s2.0-84862319322 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2012-05-24 Created: 2012-02-02 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved
Archer, J., Dixon, L. & Graham-Kevan, N. (2012). Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A rejoinder to Respect. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(2), 225-232
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A rejoinder to Respect
2012 (English)In: Legal and Criminological Psychology, ISSN 1355-3259, E-ISSN 2044-8333, Vol. 17, no 2, p. 225-232Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose. To reply to the comments made by Debbonaire and Todd (2012) in relation to our critique of Respect's Position Statement. Method. We examined their reply in relation to our original article and to the wider research literature. Results. We show that Debbonaire and Todd's reply is largely a series of assertions, for which little or no supporting evidence is offered. Their argument is first that we are misplaced in criticizing their Position Statement, and second that the main points of the statement are defendable. We indicate why our criticisms of the statement still stand. Conclusions. We argue that Respect have not countered our overall criticism of their position that intimate partner violence (IPV) can only be addressed as a gendered issue, that is as a consequence of patriarchal values enacted at the individual level. Instead we advocate a gender-inclusive approach applying a knowledge base derived from robust empirical research on IPV and more widely from research on human aggression.

domestic violence; feminism; gender bias; health service; homicide; human; medical practice; medical research; offender; partner violence; police; prevalence; priority journal; victim
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Social Sciences
urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-17279 (URN)10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02061.x (DOI)000306647700004 ()2-s2.0-84864208052 (Scopus ID)

Preceding article by the same authors: Archer, J; et al. "Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: Are they based on ideology or evidence?" Legal and criminological psychology. Sep 2012. 17 (2). pp196-215. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02029.x

Available from: 2012-10-30 Created: 2012-10-29 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Search in DiVA

Show all publications