English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Psychological aggression in females' dating relationships has received increased empirical attention in recent years. However, researchers' have used numerous measures of psychological aggression and various scoring methods with these measures, making it difficult to compare across studies on psychological aggression. In addition, research has yet to examine whether different scoring methods for psychological aggression measures may affect the psychometric properties of these instruments. This study examined three self-report measures of psychological aggression within a sample of female college students (N = 108), including their psychometric properties when scored using frequency, sum, and variety scores. Results showed that the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) had variable internal consistency depending on the scoring method used and good validity; the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA) and the Follingstad Psychological Aggression Scale (FPAS) both had good internal consistency and validity across scoring methods. Implications of these findings for the assessment of psychological aggression and future research are discussed.

A Comparison of Three Different Scoring Methods for Self-Report Measures of Psychological Aggression in a Sample of College Females