Abstract
Introduction:
In this study, we aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale in the Turkish population.
Methods:
353 women aged 18-65 were included in the study. In addition to the 34 questions in the original scale, 8 questions from other scales in the literature were added, which were not included in the scale. Sociodemographic Data Form, World Health Organisation Women’s Violence Against Partner Questionnaire, The Severity of Violence Against Women Scale, Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization, and Relationship Stability Scale were also applied to the participants.
Results:
3 items were removed due to low factor load values in the analyzes performed with the Varimax rotation method. The values obtained as a result of exploratory factor analysis made over 39 items were 21.718%, 24.424%, and 12.901%, respectively. This explained 53.88% of the total variance. The value of the scale was determined in high-level reliability (Cronbach’s alpha:0.96). Subdomains were similar to the original survey. Its correlation with other scales showed a significant and strong relationship.
Conclusion:
In our study, the necessary analyzes for the quality of the measurement tool were applied and this scale is found psychometrically reliable and valid. This scale can evaluate all partner sexual violence, such as subtle and physical force types and their frequency.
Keywords: Intimate partner violence, women, validity, reliability
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as the use of force and power to cause physical or mental injury or loss. Violence against women a universal problem; regardless of geographical region, education level, and development level it is a human rights issue and a form of discrimination (1). Despite the legal measures taken, the rate of violence against women in our country remains high. According to the results of a research conducted by Hacettepe Population Institutes, on behalf of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MoFSP), between 2013 and 2014; 36% of women stated that they were exposed to physical violence, 30% to economic violence, and 12% to sexual violence by their partners and spouses (2). It can be much difficult for people who experience sexual violence to share their experiences with someone else and to reach social support because of the embarrassment (3–5). This difficulty is greater in partner sexual violence.
In studies on violence against women, partner sexual violence remains in the background. Researchers often do not question partner sexual violence in all its dimensions and do not examine in detail the health problems that causes (6). In studies on partner sexual violence, only legally defined types of sexual violence, including rape are questioned (2,7,8). However, sexual violence in intimate partner relationships occurs more frequently with implicit forms of violence, than physical bullying within the legally defined concept of rape. The content of the implication and threat can be: “he would receive opportunities or gifts in return for sexual intercourse”; “he would have sex with others or he wouldn’t provide some opportunities for her if she doesn’t have sexual intercourse” or “if she doesn’t have sexual intercourse, it would be an indication that she doesn’t love him or isn’t committed to him”.
Highlights
The Turkish reliability validity of a detailed scale of sexual violence was investigated.
Implicit sexual violence, that is frequently seen, can also be evaluated in the scale.
We hope that it will contribute to researchers in examining the effects of violence on health.
There are very few studies investigating exposure to partner sexual violence in Turkey. In the current studies, only physical force and physical threat sexual violence types have been questioned (2,8,14). In the scales measuring partner violence in our country, a limited attention is given to sexual violence, and these parts do not include subtle types of sexual violence, which are the most common types of partner sexual violence (2,15). There is no scale measuring partner sexual violence in all its dimensions and frequency of violence in Turkey.
This study aims to perform the Turkish validity and reliability analyzes of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationship (SCIRS), which was developed by Shackelford and Goetz in 2004 (16).
With this study, sexual violence in close partner relations with SCIRS in Turkey would be questioned in all its dimensions and its psychological effects will be examined.
METHODS
Working Group
480 female and 130 female patient relatives who were admitted to the Bakirkoy Prof. Dr. Mazhar Osman Mental Health and Neurological Diseases Training and Research Hospital therapy center between November 2020 and February 2021 were invited to the study. Among 610 people, 370 consecutive people, between the ages of 18-65, at least primary school graduates, living with their partner for a year, willing to participate in the scales to be applied in the study, and who gave written informed consent after the purpose of the research was explained, were included in the study. Other invited persons’ reasons for not participating were that “they did not have time to participate in the research”, and “they had reservations about answering questions about sexuality and violence”, and “they did not have a partner”. 10 people who included in the study left the study voluntarily while answering the scales. 7 people were excluded from the study group because they filled in the form incompletely.
Introduction of the Materials and Scale Used in the Research
Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale (SCIRS): SCIRS was developed by Shackelford and Goetz in 2004 (16). The scale was developed with the determination of sexual violence in intimate partner relationships is more common with implied verbal manipulations rather than physical bullying or the threat of physical bullying. The scale groups partner sexual violence into three subtypes as resource manipulation/violence (RM/V), commitment manipulation (CM), and defection threat (DT), and provides a measurement by scoring according to the frequency of the violence experienced.
Socio-demographic and Clinical Data Form: It is a structured questionnaire developed to be used in this study to determine the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the cases.
Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV): The scale was developed by Koss et al. in 2006 (17). SES-SFV consists of ten questions and the frequency of victimization is questioned. The Turkish reliability and validity of the scale were performed by Tuz et al. in 2015 (15).
The Severity of Violence Against Women Scale (SVAWS): The scale was developed by Marshall in 1992 (18). SVAWAS consists of short sentences with 46 items. The Turkish reliability and validity of the scale were performed by Tuz et al. in 2015 (15).
World Health Organisation Domestic Violence against Women Questionnaire (WHO-DVWQ): WHO used a 1204-question form in a study conducted in 12 countries in 2005 to measure women’s health and partner violence that women are exposed to (19). This form was adapted into Turkish by MoFSP and used to measure violence against women between 2008 and 2014 (2). In our study, 9th section of this form that question partner violence against women and controlling behavior exposure were used.
Relationship Stability Scale (RSS): The scale was developed by Rusbult et al. in 1998 (20). The scale consists of 30 items: Relationship Satisfaction (RS) (10 items), Relationship Investment (10 items), Evaluation of the Quality of Options (10 items). The Turkish validity and reliability analysis of this scale were performed by Büyükşahin et al. in 2005 (21). In our study, only the RS part of the scale was used.
Ethical Issues Followed in the Scale Adaptation Process
Dr. Shackelford, one of the developers of the original scale, was contacted and permission was obtained for the adaptation to Turkish. The Participants were informed that all information was provided on a voluntary basis and would be used for research purposes only. Ethical permission was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of İstanbul Bilgi University with the decision number 2020-40016-79 on 19.10.2020.
Translation of the scale into Turkish
After obtaining the necessary permissions for the use of SCIRS, 8 additional items were added by obtaining the approval and opinions of the scale owners from other scales (17,18) in the literature. the 35th, 36th, 37th, 40th, and 41st items included forms of digital violence that emerged with the increasing use of social media and technologies as the United Nations Women’s Commission has drawn attention in recent years (22). The 38th and 39th items were about the threat of separation and the 42nd item was about the use of sexual violence by impairing the individual decision-making ability. These items were adapted to the language and nature of the scale and added to the scale as follows.
35) My partner forced me to do something that I found not sexually appropriate.
36) My partner showed or made me watch a pornographic picture or video, even though I stated that I did not want it.
37) My partner took a photo/video of me in underwear, nude or during sex without my consent
38) My partner hinted he would end our relationship if I did not have sex with him.
39) My partner threatened to end our relationship if I did not have sex with him.
40) My partner hinted he would breach the privacy of our sexual life with my relatives if I did not have sex with him.
41) My partner threatened to breach the privacy of our sexual life with my relatives if I did not have sex with him.
42) My partner encouraged me to use alcohol and other substances to have sex with me, even though he knew that I did not want to.
The Turkish scale was translated back into English by another psychiatrist who is an expert in both English and mental trauma studies. This scale, which was translated from Turkish to English was compared with the original English scale and revised in terms of suitability for Turkish. The Turkish scale was given its final form by submitting it for the approval of the researchers who developed the scale.
Analysis of Data
Various statistical analyzes were carried out for the adaptation of the scale to Turkish. First of all, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to examine the factor structure of the scale’s scores obtained from women exposed to violence. In order to evaluate the factor analysis, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) value is examined and the Bartlett test is also performed. In literature, it is expected that the KMO coefficient will be higher than 0.60 and the Barlett sphere test will be significant as an indicator of the suitability of the data for factor analysis (23,24).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the factor structure determined by EFA. With CFA, it is aimed to test whether the distribution of the variables over the determining factors complies with the preliminary expectations (25). Chi-Square Goodness test, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, Goodness of Fit Index, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, and Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index were used to demonstrate the adequacy of CFA.
The reliability coefficient of the data was calculated with the Cronbach α value. In order to determine the adequacy of the items in the scale related to distinguishing individuals, the corrected item-total correlation was calculated and 27% lower-upper group comparisons were made.
SPSS 22.0 package program was used for EFA, Cronbach alpha, and item analysis, and Lisrel 8.54 was used for CFA.
RESULTS
The mean age of the participants was 35.5±8 years. 20.4% were primary school graduates, 21.2% were high school graduates, 58.4% were undergraduate and graduate students. 99.7% of the participants were married, 0.03% were single, and lived in the same house with their partner. 99.4% of the participants reported that they and/or their partners did not have alcohol and psychoactive substance use problems, and 0.36% reported that they and/or their partner frequently used alcohol and/or psychoactive substances. The rate of women who were exposed to any type of sexual violence by their partners was 41.4%.
Findings on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
While the KMO value of the scale was estimated as 0.852-0.793, Barlett’s spherical test was significant (χ2=1538.59, p<0.01). 40th, 41th, 42nd items that were below the 0.30 factor load criterion determined for eligibility as a result of the analyzes made with the Varimax rotation method. These items were removed from the survey (40-My partner hinted he would breach the privacy of our sexual life with my relatives if I did not have sex with him., 41-My partner threatened to breach the privacy of our sexual life with my relatives if I did not have sex with him., 42-My partner encouraged me to use alcohol and other substances to have sex with me, even though he knew that I did not want to.). After these 3 items were removed, a three-factor structure emerged as a result of the principal components analysis made on the remaining 39 items.
The data was also supported by the parallel analysis method developed by Horn (26). Considering the contents of the items collected in the factors and the theoretical structure, the first factor consisting of 20 items was named “xxx”, the second factor consisting of 12 items was named “yyy”, and the third factor consisting of 7 items was named “zzz”. These three factors explain 53.88% of the total variance with values of 21.718%, 24.424%, and 12.901%, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1.
Findings on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
| Item No |
ACTS | Factor 1: xxx RM/V | Factor 2: yyy DT | Factor 3: zzz CM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | My partner hinted that he would withhold benefits that I depend on if I did not have sex with him. | 0.746 | ||
| I2 | My partner threatened to withhold benefits that I depend on if I did not have sex with him. | 0.634 | ||
| I3 | My partner withheld benefits that I depend on to get me to have sex with him. | 0.750 | ||
| I4 | My partner hinted that he would give me gifts or other benefits if I had sex with him. | 0.388 | ||
| I5 | My partner gave me gifts or other benefits so that I would feel obligated to have sex with him. | 0.527 | ||
| I6 | My partner reminded me of gifts or other benefits he gave me so that I would feel obligated to have sex with him. | 0.546 | ||
| I7 | My partner persisted in asking me to have sex with him, even though he knew that I did not want to. | 0.521 | ||
| I9 | My partner initiated sex with me when I was unaware (for example, I was asleep, drunk, or on medication) and continued against my will. | 0.662 | ||
| I10 | My partner threatened to physically force me to have sex with him. | 0.596 | ||
| I11 | My partner physically forced me to have sex with him. | 0.691 | ||
| I12 | My partner made me feel obligated to have sex with him. | 0.507 | ||
| I14 | My partner threatened to have sex with another woman if I did not have sex with him. | 0.628 | ||
| I15 | My partner told me that other couples have sex more than we do, to make me feel like I should have sex with him. | 0.630 | ||
| I22 | My partner threatened violence against me if I did not have sex with him. | 0.732 | ||
| I23 | My partner threatened violence against someone or something I care about if I did not have sex with him. | 0.703 | ||
| I35 | My partner forced me to do something that I found not sexually appropriate. | 0.513 | ||
| I36 | My partner showed or made me watch a pornographic picture or video, even though I stated that I did not want it. | 0.564 | ||
| I37 | My partner took a photo/video of me in underwear, nude or during sex without my consent. | 0.695 | ||
| I38 | My partner hinted he would end our relationship if I did not have sex with him. | 0.557 | ||
| I39 | My partner threatened to end our relationship if I did not have sex with him. | 0.667 | ||
| I13 | My partner hinted that he would have sex with another woman if I did not have sex with him. | 0.671 | ||
| I16 | My partner hinted that he might pursue a long-term relationship with another woman if I did not have sex with him. | 0.828 | ||
| I17 | My partner threatened to pursue a long-term relationship with another woman if I did not have sex with him. | 0.625 | ||
| I24 | My partner hinted that other women were interested in a relationship with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.829 | ||
| I25 | My partner told me that other women were interested in a relationship with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.867 | ||
| I26 | My partner hinted that other women were interested in having sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.836 | ||
| I27 | My partner told me that other women were interested in having sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.858 | ||
| I28 | My partner hinted that other women were willing to have sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.880 | ||
| I29 | My partner told me that other women were willing to have sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. | 0.872 | ||
| I31 | My partner told me that it was my obligation or duty to have sex with him. | 0.455 | ||
| I32 | My partner hinted that I was cheating on him, in an effort to get me to have sex with him. | 0.601 | ||
| I33 | My partner accused me of cheating on him, in an effort to get me to have sex with him. | 0.692 | ||
| I8 | My partner pressured me to have sex with him against my will. | 0.633 | ||
| I18 | My partner hinted that if I were truly committed to him I would have sex with him. | 0.697 | ||
| I19 | My partner told me that if I were truly committed to him I would have sex with him. | 0.648 | ||
| I20 | My partner hinted that if I loved him I would have sex with him. | 0.742 | ||
| I21 | My partner told me that if I loved him I would have sex with him. | 0.733 | ||
| I30 | My partner hinted that it was my obligation or duty to have sex with him. | 0.483 | ||
| I34 | My partner and I had sex, even though I did not want to. | 0.649 | ||
| Total Variance Explained = 5.04% | 21.72% | 24.42% | 12.90% | |
CM: Commitment Manipulation; DT: Defection Threat; EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis; RM/V: Resource Manipulation/Violence
Findings on Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
The fit indices evaluated in this study, the criterion values for these indices, and the fit index values obtained from the CFA are given in Table 2.
Table 2.
Sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale-turkish confirmatory factor analysis results
| Examined Fit Indices | Fit Indices | Obtained Index Value | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perfect | Acceptable | |||
| χ2/sd | 0≤ χ2/sd ≤2 | 2≤ χ2/sd ≤3 | 2.83 | Acceptable fit |
| RMSEA | 0.00≤ RMSEA ≤0.05 | 0.05≤ RMSEA ≤0.08 | 0.068 | |
| SRMR | 0.00≤ SRMR ≤0.05 | 0.05≤ SRMR ≤0.10 | 0.065 | |
| GFI | 0.95≤ GFI ≤1.00 | 0.90≤ GFI ≤0.95 | 0.90 | |
| AGFI | 0.90≤ AGFI ≤1.00 | 0.85≤ AGFI ≤0.90 | 0.87 | |
| PGFI | 0.95≤ PGFI ≤1.00 | 0.50≤ PGFI ≤0.95 | 0.71 | |
AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; EFA= Exploratory Factor Analysis; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; PGFI = Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
When the values in the literature and the CFA results are compared, it is seen that all of them are compatible at an acceptable level. The results show that the model is in good agreement (Table 2).
Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.96.
The correlation of SCIRS with other scales showed a significant and strong relationship (Table 3).
Table 3.
Correlation table of scales
| RS | WH0-CB | SVAWS | SES-SFV | SCIRS | WHO-DVWQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS | 1 | |||||
| WH0-CB | -0.559** | 1 | ||||
| SVAWS | -0.660** | 0.630** | 1 | |||
| SES-SFV | -0.610** | 0.596** | 0.800** | 1 | ||
| SCIRS | -0.620** | 0.602** | 0.780** | 0.821** | 1 | |
| WHO-DVWQ | -0.660** | 0.630** | 1.000** | 0.800** | 780** | 1 |
*The correlation is significant at the p<0.01 level (double-tailed).
SCIRS = Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale, SES-SFV = Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization; SVAWS = Severity of Violence Against Women Scale, RS=Relationship Satisfaction; WHO-DVWQ=World Health Organisation Domestic Violence against Women Questionnaire; WH0-CB= World Health Organisation-Controlling Behaviours
DISCUSSION
It is aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of SCIRS on Turkish society in this study.
The subgroup distributions in the original scale and this study were the same. It was distributed in three subgroups as 1.RM/V, 2. DT, 3. CM.
The distinction in gender roles in our country is as sharp as in the rest of the world (27). As noted in the studies of Vovodinos et al. and Arcienego et al., gender norms assign women a passive, fragile, self-sacrificing role that needs protection, does not demand sexuality, and is unwelcome to have premarital sex. On the other hand, males are assigned as dominant, protective, powerful, and always sexually demanding roles. Gender norms also bless the institution of marriage and require women to play a tolerant role in marriage and to always approve of her husband to avoid any problems. These roles, which include power imbalances, pave the way for partner violence unfortunately (28). Since the distinction is sharp in our country, in order not to miss any details, all other sexual violence scales (13,18,30) in the literature were scanned. The eight questions that were not included in the SCIRS were added to the scale with the consent and opinions of the researchers who developed the SCIRS.
Five of the newly added items were included in the RM/V group as types of sexual violence involving bullying. Three items were not included in the factor analysis. It is known that it is much difficult to define sexual violence within a marital relationship (12,31,32). However, there is conflicting information in the literature regarding the effect of being married or not, on sexual violence in intimate partner relationships. In a study, it was shown that women who are not married and do not live with their parents are more likely to be exposed to partner sexual violence (33). In the study conducted by MoSFP in Turkey, it was determined that being married increases exposure to all forms of violence, and divorced women have the highest exposure (2). The fact that the majority of the participants in this study were married may have created bias in the exposure rates. For example, exposure to the type of sexual violence in the 40th and 41st items related to spreading rumor has been detected very low. Gender roles impose that women experience their first sexual intercourse in a marital relationship (27, 34-36). It is known that forcing sexual intercourse during sex before marriage and the threat of spreading rumor about sexual intercourse is frequently used as a form of sexual violence (33-37). In the marital relationship, the woman is often defined with the concepts of property and honor, and so spreading rumor can harm the man himself (34). In this study, since the majority of the participants were married, it was thought that the type of sexual violence related to spreading gossip in these items was not frequent and could not be included in the factor analysis. The 42nd item, which is related to alcohol and substance use, was thought to have not been included in the factor analysis because alcohol and substance use of the women and their partners were very low. These three items were not included in the factor analysis due to the small sample size, which is a limitation of this study. It is thought that it is important to question these forms of sexual violence in clinical interviews with unmarried people.
While the 12th and 15th items were in the CM subgroup in the original scale, they were included in the RM/V subgroup in this study. The fact that definitions such as ‘necessity, obligation’ includes the concept of strain and force more in Turkish can be considered as a reason for this. While the 17th item was in the CM group and, the 32nd and 33rd items were in the RM/V group on the original scale, in this study it was in the DT group. The content of these items is better explained by the threat of separation in Turkish. Approval was obtained from the researchers who developed the SCIRS for the addition of questions, factor distribution, and changes.
Sexual violence is also frequently encountered in abused relationship patterns. Studies show that when a form of abuse is in a relationship, women are more likely to experience sexual violence in that relationship (38–42). Therefore, if SCIRS is a valid scale for measuring sexual violence, it was expected to correlate with other scales measuring emotional violence, economic violence, physical violence, and controlling behaviors. SES-SFV, SVAWS, WHO-DVWQ were applied to the participants. Although SES-SFV measures sexual violence in the last one year or lifetime, the number of 10 questions is limited and it evaluates the types of sexual violence without detailing (15). SVAWS, on the other hand, consists of 46 questions including insults, threats, physical and sexual violence; the last 4 questions measure sexual violence (15). WHO-DVWQ questions controlling behaviors, emotional violence, moderate physical violence, severe physical violence, sexual violence, and controlling behaviors (19). With all these scales, SCIRS correlated as expected. Although sexual violence is questioned in all these scales, there is no detailed questioning of implicit sexual violence types. Therefore, SCIRS will make an important contribution to researchers in Turkey by questioning and giving the frequency of all types of sexual violence, including the type of implicit sexual violence that is most likely to be overlooked.
When men apply pressure when women do not want to have sex, they interfere with women’s “goal” of stopping having sex. This situation causes negative emotions in women (43). As expected, scores in SCIRS and RS scores were negatively correlated in this study. This result shows that women who experience more sexual violence in their relationships have lower relationship satisfaction. In the study conducted by Panuzio and DiLillo, in parallel with the findings of this study, physical, psychological, and sexual violence exposure and relationship satisfaction of women in the first year of marriage were measured, and exposure to all types of violence and relationship satisfaction were found to be inversely related (44).
An important limitation is that the majority of the participants in the study were married. The reason for this may be that unmarried people were reluctant to participate in a study on sexuality and sexual violence due to their gender roles.
In summary, this is a detailed scale that measures sexual violence in intimate partner relationships, from verbal manipulation to a spectrum that includes physical bullying. It can also measure the frequency of exposure to sexual violence. We think that having this scale in Turkish will be beneficial for researchers and clinicians. In the original scale, the authors stated that the scale could be used in all cultures and types of sexual orientation, not only in western countries or to measure sexual violence in the relationships of heterosexual couples (45). This study showed that this scale can also be used in a Middle Eastern country. The scale was designed to question the last month in the form of a self-report. However, as suggested in the original scale, the scale can also be used during an interview or, depending on the researcher, to cover periods such as the last two months or the last year.
There was no conflict of interest among the authors in this study. No financial support was received from any institution in our study.
| Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale | |
| Sexuality is an important part of romantic relationships and can sometimes be a source of conflict. Your honest responses to the following questions will contribute profoundly to what is known about sexuality in romantic relationships and may help couples improve the sexual aspects of their relationships. We appreciate that some of the questions may be uncomfortable for you to answer, but keep in mind that your responses will remain confidential. Below is a list of acts that can occur in a romantic relationship. Please use the following scale to indicate HOW OFTEN in the past ONE month these acts have occurred in your current romantic relationship. Write the number that best represents your response in the blank space to the left of each act. | |
| = Act did NOT occur in the past month = Act occurred 1 time in the past month = Act occurred 2 times in the past month = Act occurred 3 to 5 times in the past month = Act occurred 6 to 10 times in the past month = Act occurred 11 OR MORE times in the past month | |
| ____ | My partner hinted that he would withhold benefits that I depend on if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened to withhold benefits that I depend on if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner withheld benefits that I depend on to get me to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that he would give me gifts or other benefits if I had sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner gave me gifts or other benefits so that I would feel obligated to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner reminded me of gifts or other benefits he gave me so that I would feel obligated to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner persisted in asking me to have sex with him, even though he knew that I did not want to. |
| ____ | My partner pressured me to have sex with him against my will. |
| ____ | My partner initiated sex with me when I was unaware (for example, I was asleep, drunk, or on medication) and continued against my will. |
| ____ | My partner threatened to physically force me to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner physically forced me to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner made me feel obligated to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that he would have sex with another woman if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened to have sex with another woman if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that other couples have sex more than we do, to make me feel like I should have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that he might pursue a long-term relationship with another woman if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened to pursue a long-term relationship with another woman if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that if I were truly committed to him I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that if I were truly committed to him I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that if I loved him I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that if I loved him I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened violence against me if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened violence against someone or something I care about if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that other women were interested in a relationship with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that other women were interested in a relationship with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that other women were interested in having sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that other women were interested in having sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that other women were willing to have sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that other women were willing to have sex with him, so that I would have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that it was my obligation or duty to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner told me that it was my obligation or duty to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner hinted that I was cheating on him, in an effort to get me to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner accused me of cheating on him, in an effort to get me to have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner and I had sex, even though I did not want to |
| ____ | My partner forced me to do something that I found not sexually appropriate. |
| ____ | My partner showed or made me watch a pornographic picture or video, even though I stated that I did not want it. |
| ____ | My partner took a photo/video of me in underwear, nude or during sex without my consent. |
| ____ | My partner hinted he would end our relationship if I did not have sex with him. |
| ____ | My partner threatened to end our relationship if I did not have sex with him. |
Acknowledgment:
As the authors, we would like to thank Prof. Dr. Yeşim Şenol from the Department of Public Health at Akdeniz University for contributing to the statistical analysis of the study.
Footnotes
Ethic Committee Approval: Ethical permission was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of İstanbul Bilgi University with the decision number 2020-40016-79 on 19.10.2020.
Informed Consent: Who gave written informed consent afer the purpose of the research was explained, were included in the study.
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed
Author Contributions: Concept– RG, MHY, EAY; Design– RG, MHY, EAY; Supervision– RG, MHY, EAY; Resources– RG, MHY, EAY; Materials– RG, MHY, EAY; Data Collection and/or Processing– RG, MHY, EAY; Analysis and/or Interpretation– RG, MHY, EAY; Literature Search– RG, MHY, EAY; Writing Manuscript– RG, MHY, EAY; Critical Review– RG, MHY, EAY.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Financial Disclosure: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
REFERENCES
- 1.World report on violence and health:summary. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. https: //www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf . [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu İ, Çavlin A, AkadlıErgöçmen B. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. Basım: Elma Teknik Basım Matbaacılık; 2015. Türkiye'de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddet araştırması. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kahn AS, Jackson J, Kully C, Badger K, Halvorsen J. Calling it Rape:Differences in Experiences of Women Who do or do not Label their Sexual Assault as Rape. Psychol Women Q. 2003;27:233–242. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Littleton H, Axsom D, Grills-Taquechel A. Sexual Assault Victims'Acknowledgment Status and Revictimization Risk. Psychol Women Q. 2009;33:34–42. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Logan T, Cole J. Exploring the Intersection of Partner Stalking and Sexual Abuse. Violence Against Women. 2011;17:904–924. doi: 10.1177/1077801211412715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Campbell R, Dworkin E, Cabral G. An Ecological Model of the Impact of Sexual Assault On Women's Mental Health. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2009;10:225–246. doi: 10.1177/1524838009334456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hastuti L, Suriadi Kardiatun T, Ligita T. The Relationship between Domestic Violence and Women's Sexual Function in the City of Puntianak. International Journal of Public Health Research, Special Issue. 2011. pp. 139–145. https: //core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11492525.pdf .
- 8.Sahin HA, Sahin HG. An unaddressed issue:domestic violence and unplanned pregnancies among pregnant women in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003;8:93–98. doi: 10.1080/713604421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Clay-Warner J. The context of sexual violence:situational predictors of self-protective actions. Violence Vict. 2003;18:543–556. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.5.543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ullman SE, Townsend SM, Filipas HH, Starzynski LL. Structural Models of the Relations of Assault Severity, Social Support, Avoidance Coping, Self-Blame, and PTSD Among Sexual Assault Survivors. Psychol Women Q. 2007;31:23–37. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Finkelhor D, Yllö K. License to rape:Sexual Abuse of Wives. New York: Free Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Logan TK, Walker R, Cole J. Silenced Suffering:The need for a better understanding of partner sexual violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2015;16:111–135. doi: 10.1177/1524838013517560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bagwell-Gray ME, Messing JT, Baldwin-White A. Intimate Partner Sexual Violence:A Review of Terms, Definitions, and Prevalence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2015;16:316–335. doi: 10.1177/1524838014557290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sen S, Bolsoy N. Violence against women:Prevalence and risk factors in Turkish sample. BMC Womens Health. 2017;17:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12905-017-0454-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tuz C, Öksüz ME, Tekiner SA. Kadına Yönelik Şiddet Derecelendirme Ölçeği ve Mağdurların Cinsel Deneyimleri Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği. Euras J Fam Med. 2015;4:83–89. http: //ejfm.trakya.edu.tr/userfiles/2015/August/8-canan-tuz.pdf . [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shackelford TK, Goetz AT. Men's sexual coercion in intimate relationships:development and initial validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships scale. Violence Vict. 2004;19:541–556. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.5.541.63681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Koss MP, Oros CJ. Sexual Experiences Survey:a research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1982;50:455–457. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.50.3.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Marshall LL. Development of the severity of violence against women scales. J Fam Viol. 1992;7:103–121. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HA, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team. Prevalence of intimate partner violence:findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet. 2006;368:1260–1269. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rusbult CE, Martz JM, Agnew CR. The Investment Model Scale:Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Pers Relatsh. 1998;5:357–391. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Büyükşahin A, Hasta D, Hovardaoğlu S. İlişki İstikrarıÖlçeği:Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2005;8:25–35. https: //toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/iliski-istikrari-olcegi-toad.pdf . [Google Scholar]
- 22.UN Women. Online and ICT-facilitated violence against women and girls during COVID-19. EVAW COVID-19 briefs. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) 2020. https: //www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/brief-online-and-ict-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls-during-covid-19-en.pdf?la=en&vs=2519 .
- 23.Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual. 7th Ed. London: Routledge Press; 2020. Designing a study. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Büyüköztürk Ş, Çokluk-Bökeoğlu Ö. Discriminant function analysis:Concept and application. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2008;33:73–92. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sümer N. Yapisal Eşitlik Modelleri:Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2000. pp. 349–74. http: //www.nebisumer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SumerN.2000.YEM_TPY.pdf .
- 26.Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kağıtçıbaşı Ç, Sunar D. Family and socialization in Turkey. In:Parent-child relations in diverse cultural settings:Socialization for instrumental competency. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1992. pp. 75–88. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Valdovinos MG, Mechanic MB. Sexual Coercion in Marriage:Narrative Accounts of Abused Mexican-American Women. J Ethn Cult Divers Soc Work. 2017;26:326–45. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Arciniega GM, Anderson TC, Tovar-Blank ZG, Tracey TJG. Toward a Fuller Conception of Machismo:Development of a Traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale. J Couns Psychol. 2008;55:19–33. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Basile KC. Prevalence of Wife Rape and Other in a Nationally Representative Sample of Women. Violence Vict. 2002;17:511–524. doi: 10.1891/vivi.17.5.511.33717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.DeGue S, DiLillo D. “You would if you loved me”:Toward an improved conceptual and etiological understanding of nonphysical male sexual coercion. Aggress Violent Behav. 2005;10:513–532. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Erulkar AS. The Experience of Sexual Coercion among Young People in Kenya. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2004;30:182–189. doi: 10.1363/3018204. https: //www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2004/experience-sexual-coercion-among-young-people-kenya . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sunar D. Rita Liljestrom., editor. Change and continuity in the Turkish middle class family. Autonomy and Dependence in Family:Turkey and Sweden in Critical Perspective. Taylor &Francis. 2003:217–238. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ayotte BL. State-control of female virginity in Turkey:the role of physicians. J Ambul Care Manage. 2000;23:89–91. doi: 10.1097/00004479-200001000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Olson RMK, García-Moreno C. Virginity testing:a systematic review. Reprod Health. 2017;14:61. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0319-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.He S, Tsang S, Li C. A revision of the sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale for young adults in China. Violence Vict. 2013;28:483–495. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.11-00124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Apt C, Hurlbert DF. The sexuality of women in physically abusive marriages:A comparative study. J Fam Violence. 1993;8:57–69. doi: 10.1007/BF00986993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.DeMaris A. Elevated sexual activity in violent marriages:Hypersexuality or sexual extortion? J Sex Res. 1997;34:361–373. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Donnelly DA. Sexually Inactive Marriages. J Sex Res. 1993;30:171–179. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hogben M, Waterman CK. Patterns of conflict resolution within relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and women. Sex Roles. 2000;43:341–357. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Koziol-McLain J, Coates CJ, Lowenstein SR. Predictive validity of a screen for partner violence against women. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:93–100. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00325-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Buss DM. From vigilance to violence. Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethol Sociobiol. 1988;9:291–317. https: //labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/09/From-Vigilance-to-Violence-1988.pdf . [Google Scholar]
- 43.Panuzio J, DiLillo D. Physical, Psychological, and Sexual Intimate Partner Aggression Among Newlywed Couples:Longitudinal Prediction of Marital Satisfaction. J Fam Viol. 2010;25:689–699. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Briere J, Runtz M. Post Sexual Abuse Trauma:Data and Implications for Clinical Practice. J Interpers Viol. 1987;2:367–379. [Google Scholar]