Buscar en
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
Toda la web
Inicio International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology Validation of Dating Violence Questionnarie-R (DVQ-R)
Journal Information
Vol. 17. Issue 1.
Pages 77-84 (January - April 2017)
Download PDF
Spanish PDF
More article options
Vol. 17. Issue 1.
Pages 77-84 (January - April 2017)
Original article
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.09.001
Open Access
Validation of Dating Violence Questionnarie-R (DVQ-R)
Validación del Cuestionario de Violencia entre Novios-Revisado (CUVINO-R)
Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Díaza,
Corresponding author

Corresponding author: Facultad de Psicología, Plaza Feijoo, s/n, Despacho 202, 33003 Oviedo, Spain.
, Juan Herreroa, Luis Rodríguez-Francob, Carolina Bringas-Molledac, Susana G. Paíno-Quesadad, Beatriz Péreze
a Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
b Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
c Universidad Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
d Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain
e Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile
Article information
Full Text
Download PDF
Figures (1)
Tables (2)
Table 1. Internal consistency and descriptive information for DVQ-R scales (N=6,138).
Show moreShow less

Despite the growing interest in the study of dating violence, relatively few psychometrically sound instruments are available to researchers. To provide an instrument to researchers and professionals to assess victimization in dating relationships, with adequate psychometric properties. Method: Participants were 6,138 adolescents drawn from the general population, 25% of which were university students. Participants responded to the original Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ). Results: Confirmatory analyses results provided evidence of a clear factorial structure that was invariant through sex groups. The DVQ-R measures with 20 items five dimensions of abuse in affective interpersonal relationships of adolescents and youth: Detachment, Humiliation, Coercion, Physical and Sexual violence. Internal consistency indexes were adequate for both each one of the five dimensions as well as for the general scale. Conclusions: The DVQ-R is an useful assessment to be applied in adolescents and youth. Implications for research and intervention are discussed in light of the results obtained.

Instrumental study

La problemática de las relaciones afectivas entre los jóvenes ofrece como punto débil el no contar con un instrumento específico, válido y fiable. El objetivo es ofrecer un instrumento fácil de administrar a los investigadores y los profesionales para evaluar la victimización en las relaciones afectivas de adolescentes y jóvenes. Método: Los participantes son 6.138 adolescentes y jóvenes, con un 25% de universitarios. Se administró la versión original de 42 ítems del Cuestionario de Violencia entre Novios (CUVINO). Resultados: Los datos ofrecen unos índices de bondad de ajuste satisfactorios a través del análisis factorial confirmatorio, a la vez que una buena consistencia interna de la prueba, tanto para el total como para cada uno de los factores; a su vez, el análisis de invarianza factorial por multigrupo indica un ajuste adecuado para la variable sexo. La versión breve de 20 ítems evalúa cinco dimensiones: Desapego, Humillación, Coerción, Violencia física y Violencia sexual. Conclusiones: El CUVINO-R es un instrumento de evaluación útil para ser aplicado en adolescentes y jóvenes. Se discuten implicaciones para la investigación y la intervención desde los resultados obtenidos.

Palabras clave:
Estudio instrumental
Full Text

The violence that occurs in intimate partner violence (IPV) has attracted an increasing interest along the last decades addressing its profound and widespread health and economic implications at an individual, family, and social level (Cunha & Abrunhosa, 2013; Kubicek, McNeeley, & Collins, 2016; Novo, Fariña, Seijo, & Arce, 2012; García-Cueto et al., 2015). Abuse in intimate relationships has been found across all socioeconomic backgrounds and sexual orientations (Glass et al., 2008; Ruiz-Hernández, García Jiménez, Llor-Esteban & Godoy-Fernández, 2015; Llor-Esteban, García-Jimenez, Ruiz-Hernández, & Godoy-Fernández, 2016). Although it is particularly prevalent among young, cohabitating, and dating couples (e.g., Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012a, 2012b; López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Franco, Rodríguez-Díaz, & Bringas, 2014; Vega-Gea, Ortega-Ruiz, & Sánchez, 2016) the former represents a minor fraction of the efforts devoted to detect and prevent IPV (Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail, & Rothman, 2015; Lundgren & Amin, 2015).

Approximately one in four women and one in five men reported experiencing physical violence in an intimate relationship, a none in four women and one in five men in developed nations report perpetrating physical abuse against an intimate partner (Farhat, Haynie, Summersett-Ringgold, Brooks-Russell, & Iannotti, 2015; Niolon et al., 2015). Specifically, data obtained by Straus and Ramirez (2003) indicate prevalence rates between 25 and 45% of the students analyzed, and these percentages are even higher than those obtained between married couples (10-15%).

However, some weaknesses have been highlighted among the self-reported measures available in the literature (Thompson, Basile, Hertz, & Sitterle, 2006). Thus, the systematic review of available tools has concluded that a quarter of the validation studies does not provide information about the structure of the instrument, only 15% make a confirmatory study of the factor structure, and that up to 10% do not provide information about its internal consistency (López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Franco,& Rodríguez-Díaz, 2015). The limited number of studies focused on the violence that occurs in dating relationships, led us to review the specific instruments available to improve the assessment of violence in these relationships.

Although there are over 50 assessment tools with at least one validation study available in literature, two self-administered questionnaires have gathered the main attention in the field: the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979), of which there is a second version (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), and the Index Spouse Abuse (ISA; Hudson & McIntosh, 1981). Both of them have been widely used in evaluation of adolescents and young adults, although they were originally developed for their administration in adult population. In the other side, there are at least four validated questionnaires that were specifically developed to assess dating victimization: the CADRI-Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001); VADRI-Violence in Adolescent's Dating Relationships Inventory (Aizpitarte et al., 2015); VIFFA-Violence faite aux filles dans le contexte des fréquentations à l’adolescence (Lavoie & Vèzina, 2001); and DVQ (Dating Violence Questionnaire -CUVINO-Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios, Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010). Of these, only two have been already validated in more than a language and country: CADRI (validated in English and Spanish, including Canadian, Spanish and Mexican samples -Benítez-Muñoz,& Muñoz-Bandera, 2014; Fernández-Fuertes, Fuertes,& Pulido, 2006; Hokoda et al., 2006; Wolfe et al., 2001), which gathers information on five fields (threatening behaviors, relational abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and verbal emotional abuse) with 25 items; and DVQ (CUVINO), with Spanish, English and Italian versions and psychometric data available from Spanish, Mexican, Argentina (Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010), Italian (Presagy, Manca, Rodríguez-Franco, & Curcio, 2015) and US samples (López-Cepero, Fabelo, Rodríguez-Franco,& Rodríguez-Diaz, 2016), able to provide information in eight different domains of abuse (detachment, humiliation, sexual, coercion, physical, gender-based, instrumental and emotional-punishment), gathered throughout a 42-items set.

Taking into account the need of developing valid and reliable measures for adolescents and young adults in order to match the most accurate intervention to each victim (Bonache, Ramirez-Santana, & González-Méndez, 2016; López-Cepero et al., 2015), as well as the importance of gathering further information that can be compared to the previous body of knowledge, DVQ seems to be a good election. Its length, however, makes it harder to administer when dating violence is not the main target of the study–or when professionals need a faster way to identify potential dating violence. Thereby, the present study is devoted to develop a shorter form of the DVQ, easier to administer, yet capable to provide sound information to both researchers and professionals (practitioners, educators, social workers…) that work in contact with young populations.


The study included a total of 6,138 adolescents and young adults (ages between 15 and 26 years; M=18.5, SD=2.09) of both genders (39.6% males, 60.4% females) from five Spanish provinces (Sevilla, 17.9%; Asturias, 22.9%; Huelva, 57.1%; Coruña, 1.1%; and Pontevedra, 1.4%). Differences on average age for males (M=18.0) and females (M=18.3) were under 1 year (the theoretical measurement error), so they were considered negligible. Only people that had had at least one intimate partner for more than one month in their lifetime took part in the study. All participants were enrolled in secondary (75.8%) or university (24.2%) studies. There was found a significant relationship between sex of respondents and academic level (χ21= 273.24, p<.001, Cramer's V=.211), with a higher proportion on females among university students (78.4%) than in secondary (55.9%) levels. These figures are compatible with demographic information available for Spanish student populations.


DVQ. The original DVQ (Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010) was included in the study. It measures with 42 items different abuses that could take place in intimate relationships, providing information about perceived frequency of victimization and perceived disturbance using a 5-point Likert scale (from 0-never to 4–all of the time). It measures dating violence across eight domains of abuse: Detachment, Humiliation, Sexual, Coercion, Physical, Gender-based, Emotional punishment, and Instrumental. Although the original questionnaire provides both a measure of perceived victimization (i.e. frequency) and a measure of perceived disturbance, we relied in this study only on the frequency of the victimization scores.

Response bias. The lie-scale of the reduced and revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RA;Eysenck& Eysenck, 1985; adapted to Spanish by Ibáñez, Ortet, Moro, Ávila, & Parcet, 1999) was used to evaluate to what extent participants were deliberately attempting to control their responses. The lie-scale is a 6-item scale in a no/yes response format. Responses were summed up and averaged (M=0.51, SD=0.27).


Sampling. Authors invited to take part in the study to all educational centers based on provinces where the research team had some collaborator (A Coruña, Pontevedra, and Principado de Asturias in the north; Huelva and Sevilla in the south of Spain), sending postal and/o electronic mails to valid addresses from official registers. The final sample included data gathered in educative centers that accepted to participate in the study. Participants were explained the main objectives of the study and, also, they were informed that they could drop off from the study at any moment without any penalties.

Provided that IPV represents a main concern in Spanish education, it was already included in academic curricula as a transversal theme to deal with. Anyway, in order to fulfill ethical requirements regarding minor participants (under 18 years old in Spain), schools provided information and asked for explicit consent among parents or legal tutors of potential participants, and assent among adolescents. In the case of people over 18 years old, informed assent was asked before starting the assessment. Anonymity was ensured by developing the evaluation in class groups and delivering analysis only for the complete samples, never for individual cases. Researchers included contact information to give response to any possible discomfort or doubts associated to the study.

Participants were told to select a single dating relationship in order to respond to the DVQ-R. More specifically, instructions asked to “select the most problematic dating relationship you have ever experienced or, if you have had none like this, choose the most important for you”.

Development of short version of DVQ. Although the original questionnaire has shown adequate psychometric characteristics in several countries (so far: Spain, Mexico, and Argentina, Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010; Italy et al., 2015; and US, López-Cepero et al., 2016), we considered that it could be significantly shortened if several criteria were applied. First, the gender-based scale (including items 3, 11, 17, 19, and 35) measures behaviors directed to the opposite sex (in broad terms) and not necessarily to the couple. Second, the instrumental and emotional punishment scales were also removed due to potentially content overlap with other scales (8, 16, 24, 4, 12, and 28). For instance, item 8 ‘Refuses to have sex with you or give you affection to express his/her anger/annoyance’ might be regarded as a combination of the sexual and coercion scales. Third, some items were removed due to their potential content overlap with other items present in the same scale (7, 17, 18, 22, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, and 42) (among similar items, those with lower factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis were not retained for further analyses). To obtain a brief, useful but still valid measure, 20 items were finally retained, with four items in each of five the domains of abuse: physical, sexual, humiliation, coercion, and detachment (see Appendix).

Statistical analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out using EQS software, version 6, measuring the fitting of the model throughout robust TLI, CFI (values>90 for good fit) and robust RMSEA (values<08 for good fit; Bentler, 1995) using Maximum Likelihood estimation. Regarding statistical analysis, the present study developed descriptive procedures (central tendency, dispersion and position measures), means comparisons (MANOVA-multivariate analysis of variance; p<.05) and two-step cluster analyses using IBM SPSS, version 23. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988).

ResultsConfirmatory Factor Analyses

Measurement Model. First, we tested the measurement model of the 20 items of the DVQ-R through a series of confirmatory factor analysis. The measurement model was first estimated in a random independent sample of 3,069 participants and next cross-validated in the remaining 3,069 participants. The initial model was a 5 correlated factors model. In this model, all items loaded in their corresponding factors, all factors were correlated and no factor cross loadings were allowed for any of the 20 items. Model fit was far from adequate: S-B χ2160=551.60, p< .001, robust TLI=.81, robust CFI=.84, robust RMSEA=.028, 95% C.I.=.026, .031. Inspection of the Lagrange Multiplier Test suggested that releasing four fixed parameters should significantly improve model fit. All of these fixed parameters were initially set to zero and corresponded to correlation among item error terms. After a closer inspection of these correlated error terms we found that all of them corresponded to within-factor item error terms. These covariations were among items 1-9, 3-15, 20-21, and 40-41 of the original scale (see Appendix). Freely estimating these parameters significantly improved model fit: S-B χ2156=305.69, p< .001, robust TLI=.94, robust CFI=.95, robust RMSEA=.018, 95% C.I.=.015, .021. This final model was also estimated using data from the random independent sample (N= 3,069) and model fit was adequate: S-B χ2156=223.15, p< .001, robust TLI=.94, robust CFI=.95, robust RMSEA=.017, 95% C.I.=.011, .021. To obtain more accurate parameter estimates, the final model was estimated using the complete sample (N=6,138) (see Figure 1): S-B χ2156=462.12, p< .001, robust TLI=.94, robust CFI=.95, robust RMSEA=.018, 95% C.I.=.016, .020.

Figure 1.

Standardized parameter estimates for the Measurement Model of the 20 items of the DVQ-R (N=6,138). All p‘s<.001.


Figure 1 presents standardized parameter estimates for final model. The internal consistency of the five scales was between .64 and .74. Breakdown of descriptive information regarding DVQ-R scales is included in Table 1. As for the frequency of victimization, it was found that detachment was the most common, followed by coercion, while the scales of sexual and physical violence obtained the lowest scores.

Table 1.

Internal consistency and descriptive information for DVQ-R scales (N=6,138).

  Alpha  M  DT 
Detachment  .68  2.12  2.40 
Humiliation  .72  1.04  1.78 
Sexual  .74  0.63  1.63 
Coercion  .64  1.88  2.22 
Physical  .75  0.41  1.22 
Total  .85  6.09  6.77 
Measurement invariance across groups of sex

To test for the factorial invariance of the instrument we conducted a series of multigroup analyses for males and females. First, a highly constrained model was initially estimated simultaneously for the two groups. This model imposed that all factor loadings, all factor correlations and all error term covariations were equal across groups. This model showed an adequate fit to the data: S-B χ2339=694.29, p< .001, robust CFI=.93, robust RMSEA=.018, 95% C.I.=.017, .020. Inspection of the Lagrange Multiplier Test results for releasing constraints across groups showed, however, that four parameters were significantly different for male and female participants and should be released. The final model with the released cross-group constraints showed a better fit to the data: S-B χ2335= 637.40, p< .001, robust CFI=.94, robust RMSEA=.017, 95% C.I.=.015, .019. The Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) between these two models showed that the model with the four released constraints fitted significantly better to the data: ΔS-B χ2=56.89, Δ d.f.=4, p< .001. LRT was not significant when releasing additional constraints. The released cross-group constraints were the covariation of one error term, two item loadings, and one covariation between factors. The covariation of errors for the items has beaten you and has slapped your face, pushed or shaken you was greater for men (.072, p< .001) than for women (.022, p<.01). The unstandardized relationship between the item forces you to undress even if you don’t want to and the sexual factor was greater for men (1.148, p< .001) than for women (.780, p< .001). The unstandardized relationship between the item ridicules or insults you for the ideas you uphold and the humiliation factor was lower for men (.960, p< .001) than for women (1.112, p< .001). Finally, the covariation between coercion and physical factors was greater for men (.058, p< .001) than form women (.049, p< .001). Despite these trivial differences in models for men and women, all the estimated parameters were statistically significant and factorial invariance for men and women might be tenable. Overall, results from the multigroup analyses showed that the 20 items of the DVQ-R reflected an invariant structure across sex, thus adding generalizability to the general model.

Scale scores and socio-demographic variables

In a first step, univariate ANOVA was carried out in order to compare victimization frequencies reported by males and females. Physical, sexual and coercion scales showed statistically significant differences, although only two of them (physical violence and coercion) reached an appreciable (although small) effect size.

In a second step, relationships between victimization and sex, age and educational attainment were analyzed, including the bivariate relationships among age and educational attainment and the DVQ-R scale scores. First, the five scale scores of the DVQ-R were submitted to a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to ascertain if dimensions of the DVQ-R were different across sex: Wilk's λ=.963, F (5, 6132)=47.26, p< .001, η2=⋅037)⋅ Male and female participants scored significantly different on the scales of the DVQ-R. Univariate tests showed that men scored significantly higher on the physical (F=160.68, p< .001, men=.16; women=.06), coercion (F=86.03, p< .001, men=.55; women=.42), and sexual (F=26.69, p< .001, men=.19; women=.14) scales. Bivariate Pearson's correlations showed that age was positively related to humiliation (r=.04, p< .001) and negatively related to sexual (r=-.04, p< .001) and coercion (r=-.05, p< .001), although these relationships were almost trivial. Finally, given the significant relationship between sex and age (r=.06, p< .001) we re-estimated the MANOVA of sex on DVQ-R scales now including age as another factor. To do so, we clustered the age variable into two groups, as suggested by two-step cluster analysis results. The first group (15-18 years-old) included 65.9% of participants and the second group (older than 18 years-old) included 34.1% of participants. Results from MANOVA indicated a significant interaction effect sex*age groups on DVQ-R scale scores: Wilk's λ=.997, F (5, 6130)=47.26, p=.002, η2=⋅003)⋅ Thus, although we previously found that men scored higher on several DVQ-R scale scores, we should be cautious about this result given that; a) female participants were older than males; and, b) older participants scored lower on various DVQ-R scales.

Response bias

We submitted the lie-scale scores of the EPQ to a two-step cluster analyses to estimate the number of potential clusters that better classify participants. Results showed that three clusters better described the distribution of lie-scores across participants. A first group of potentially heavy liars ranged their scores from 0.60 to 1.00 (41.3%); a second group of potentially moderate liars ranged their scores from 0.33 to 0.50 (39.4%); and a third group of non-liars ranged their scores from 0.00 to 0.17 (19.3%). Next, we analyzed if sex, age and educational background were statistically related to the belonging to the three groups. Chi-square analyses revealed that there were more men in the potentially heavy liars group than expected (1200 counted and 995 expected, p< .001). The reverse tendency was found for women: there were more women in the non-liars group than expected (776 counted and 716 expected, p< .001). Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that participants in the group of potentially heavy liars were significantly younger than non-liars (17.99<18.27, p< .001). Also, potentially heavy liars had lower educational attainment (M=3.76) than moderate liars (M=3.86, p=.014) and non-liars (M=4.05, p< .001). Finally, we performed a Multivariate Analysis of Variance to estimate differences in the DVQ-R scale scores across groups of liars. Results showed significant differences in the DVQ-R scores across groups of liars: Wilk's λ=.996, F (10, 11412)=2.49, p=.005, η2=⋅002⋅ Given the previously found relationship among sex, age groups and groups of liars, we re-run the analysis now including sex, age group, and group of liars as factors. This inclusion led to a non-significance of the differences previously found of the DVQ-R scores across groups of liars: Wilk'sλ=.997, F (10, 11402)=1.58, p=.10, η2=⋅001⋅ Overall, DVQ-R scale scores seemed to be free of reporting bias once age and sex were taken into account.


This study provides information on the factorial structure and internal consistency of the behavioral assessment of victimization in affective relationships of adolescents through the revised DVQ (DVQ-R) using a large sample of 6,138 participants aged 15-26 years of both sexes.

The five scales of the DVQ-R cover the domains present in the scientific literature (Esquivel-Santoveña, Lambert, & Hamel, 2013). Compared to the longer version of 42 items, the DVQ-R has been considerably shortened without missing the adequate psychometric characteristics of its predecessor (DVQ). In any case, internal consistencies of scales were similar to those obtained in the validation of the original DVQ (Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010).

Results from Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed that the 20-items clustered into five theoretically meaningful dimensions of victimization: Humiliation, Sexual, Physical, Detachment, and Coercion. This measurement model was found to be invariant across groups of sex, thus adding additional generalizability to the factorial structure of the questionnaire.

Although initial analyses of the distribution of scale scores across groups of sex indicated that male respondents were reporting higher levels of physical and sexual victimization as well as coercion, these results need to be taken cautiously given the significant relationship found between sex and age: a) female participants were older than males; and, b) older participants scored lower on various DVQ-R scales.

Analyses of potentially biased responses to the questionnaire showed that the DVQ-R scales scores significantly varied across groups of liars, initially indicating response bias to the items of the questionnaire. Further analyses, however, showed that once sex and age of participants are taken into account, the DVQ-R scales scores are free of response bias, which might be considered as strength of the questionnaire.

Also, the number of participants (over 6,000) exceeds the sample size included in most studies available in the area (even among those using probability sampling methods), which might considered as another strength of the study. The DVQ-R is one of the few assessment tools developed specifically for adolescents and youth available in the literature, allowing their application regardless of gender and sexual orientation of the respondent, which can cover a wide spectrum of objectives evaluation. With respect to its predecessor (DVQ),its length has been shortened (from 42 to 20 items), thus becoming a potential screening tool in educational and community contexts. These issues, combined with the increasing acceptance that the DVQ has in different countries and languages make the DVQ-R a tool of interest for research and applied fields.


This research was funded by the Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality (SUBMINMU012/009), and formed part of a research project financed by AECID (CYTED) reference number: AP/035718/11

Appendix A

Dating Violence Questionnaire-DVQ (Original version). Bolded items were retained in the DVQ-R version.

We would like to know how often you have experimented each of the following behaviors in the intimate partnership you selected. There are five different levels in the scale, from:
never-0 to all of the time-4.
Tick the option which fits better to your experience.
1  “Tests” your love, setting traps to find out if you are cheating(Pone a prueba tu amor, poniéndote trampas para comprobar si le engañas, le quieres o si le eres fiel)  C 
2  You feel compelled to have sex as long as you don’t have to explain why(Te sientes obligada/o a mantener sexo con tal de no dar explicaciones de por qué)  S 
Mocks women or men in general (Se burla acerca de las mujeres u hombres en general) 
Has stolen from you (Teha robado) 
5  Has beaten you(Teha golpeado)  P 
6  Is a good student, but is always late at meetings, does not fulfil his/her promises, and is irresponsible(Es cumplidor/a con el estudio, pero llega tarde a las citas, no cumple lo prometido y se muestra irresponsable)  D 
Humiliates you in public (Te humilla en público) 
Refuses to have sex with you or give you affection to express his/her anger/annoyance (Te niega sexo o afecto como forma de enfadarse) 
9  Talks to you about relationships he/she imagines you have(Te habla sobre relaciones que imagina que tienes)  C 
10  Insists on touching you in ways and places which you don’t like and don’t want(Insiste en tocamientos que no te son agradables y que tú no quieres)  S 
11  Believes that the opposite sex is inferior, and says that its members should obey men (or women) (Piensa que los del otro sexo son inferiores y manifiesta que deben obedecer a los hombres (o mujeres), o no lo dice, pero actúa de acuerdo con este principio) 
12  Takes car keys or money away from you (Te quita las llaves del coche o el dinero) 
13  Has slapped your face, pushed or shaken you(Teha abofeteado, empujado o zarandeado)  P 
14  Does not acknowledge any responsibility regarding the relationship or what happens to both of you(No reconoce responsabilidad alguna sobre la relación de pareja, ni sobre lo que os sucede a ambos)  D 
15  Criticizes you, underestimates the way you are, or humiliates your self-esteem(Te critica, subestima tu forma de ser, o humilla tu amor propio)  H 
16  Refuses to give you support or affection as a punishment (Te niega apoyo, afecto o aprecio como forma de castigarte) 
17  Threatens to commit suicide or hurt himself/herself if you leave him/her (Amenaza con suicidarse o hacerse daño si lo/la dejas) 
18  Has treated you as a sexual object (Teha tratado como un objeto sexual) 
19  Has ridiculed or insulted women or men as a group (Ha ridiculizado o insultado a las mujeres u hombres como grupo) 
20  Has thrown blunt instruments at you(Ha lanzado objetos contundentes contra ti)  P 
21  Has hurt you with an object(Teha herido con algún objeto)  P 
22  Imposes rules on the relationship (days, times, types of outings), at his/her exclusive convenience (Impone reglas sobre la relación (días, horarios, tipos de salidas), de acuerdo con su conveniencia exclusiva) 
23  Ridicules your way of expressing yourself(Ridiculiza tu forma de expresarte)  H 
24  Threatens to abandon you (Te amenaza con abandonarte) 
25  Has physically kept you from leaving(Teha retenido para que no te vayas)  C 
26  You feel forced to perform certain sexual acts(Te sientes forzado/a a realizar determinados actos sexuales)  S 
27  Has made fun of or discredited your feminity/masculinity (Ha bromeado o desprestigiado tu condición de mujer/hombre) 
28  Made you go into financial debt (Teha hecho endeudar) 
29  Damages or destroys objects that mean a lot to you (Estropea objetos muy queridos por ti) 
30  Has ignored your feelings(Ha ignorado tus sentimientos)  D 
31  Criticizes, insults you, or yells at you (Te critica, te insulta o grita) 
32  Stops talking to you or disappears for several days, without any explanation, to show their annoyance (Deja de hablarte o desaparece por varios días, sin dar explicaciones, como manera de demostrar su enfado)  D 
33  Manipulates you with lies (Te manipula con mentiras) 
34  Doesn’t consider your feelings about sex (Noha tenido en cuenta tus sentimientos sobre el sexo) 
35  You feel he/she unjustly criticizes your sexuality (Sientes que critica injustamente tu sexualidad) 
36  Insults you in the presence of friends or relatives (Te insulta en presencia de amigos o familiares) 
37  Has refused to help you when you were in real need (Ha rehusado ayudarte cuando de verdad lo necesitabas) 
38  Invades your space (listening to a loud music when you are studying, listening your phone calls…)(Invade tu espacio (escucha la radio muy fuerte cuando estás estudiando, te interrumpe cuando estás solo/a…) o privacidad (abre cartas dirigidas a ti, escucha tus conversaciones telefónicas…)  C 
39  Forces you to undress even if you don’t want to(Te fuerza a desnudarte cuando tu no quieres)  S 
40  Has ridiculed or insulted your beliefs, religion or social class(Ha ridiculizado o insultado tus creencias, religión o clase social)  H 
41  Ridicules or insults you for the ideas you uphold(Te ridiculiza o insulta por las ideas que mantienes)  H 
42  You feel you can’t argue with him/her because he/she is almost always annoyed with you (Sientes que no puedes discutir con él/ella, porque está casi siempre enfadado/a contigo) 

Note. D= Detachment; H= Humiliation; S= Sexual; C=Coercion; P=Physical; G=Gender-based; E=Emotional punishment; I= Instrumental. Translated and adapted from original “Validation of the Dating Violence Questionnaire, DVQ (Cuestionario de Violencia entre Novios, CUVINO).

Note: Numbers refer to original DVQ 42-item set (López-Cepero et al., 2016).

[Aizpitarte et al., 2015]
A. Aizpitarte, I. Alonso-Arbiol, F.J. Van de Vijver, M.C. Perdomo, J.A. Galvez-Sobral, E. García-López.
Development of a Dating Violence Assessment Tool for Late Adolescence Across Three Countries. The Violence in Adolescents’ Dating Relationships Inventory (VADRI).
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (2015), pp. 1-21
[Benítez-Muñoz and Muñoz-Bandera, 2014]
J.L. Benítez-Muñoz, J.F. Muñoz-Bandera.
Análisis factorial de las puntuaciones del CADRI en adolescentes universitarios españoles.
Universitas Psychologica, 13 (2014), pp. 175-186
[Bentler, 1995]
P.M. Bentler.
EQS structural equations program manual.
Multivariate Software, (1995),
[Bonache et al., 2016]
H. Bonache, G. Ramírez-Santana, R. González-Méndez.
Conflict resolution styles and teen dating violence.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16 (2016), pp. 276-286
[Cohen, 1988]
J. Cohen.
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
2nded., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1988),
[Cunha and Abrunhosa, 2013]
O. Cunha, R. Abrunhosa.
Intimate partner violence offenders: Generating a data-based typology of batterers and implications for treatment.
The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5 (2013), pp. 131-139
[Desmarais et al., 2012a]
S.L. Desmarais, K.A. Reeves, T.L. Nicholls, R. Telford, M.S. Fiebert.
Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 1. Rates of male and female victimization.
Partner Abuse, 3 (2012), pp. 140-169
[Desmarais et al., 2012b]
S.L. Desmarais, K.A. Reeves, T.L. Nicholls, R. Telford, M.S. Fiebert.
Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 2. Rates of male and female perpetration.
Partner Abuse, 3 (2012), pp. 170-198
[Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2013]
E.E. Esquivel-Santoveña, T.L. Lambert, J. Hamel.
Partner abuse Worldwide.
Partner Abuse, 4 (2013), pp. 6-75
[Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985]
H.J. Eysenck, S.B.G. Eysenck.
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) and Short Scale (EPQ-RS).
Hodder & Stoughton, (1985),
[Farhat et al., 2015]
T. Farhat, D. Haynie, F. Summersett-Ringgold, A. Brooks-Russell, R.J. Iannotti.
Weight perceptions, misperceptions, and dating violence victimization among U.S. adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (2015), pp. 1511-1532
[Fernández-Fuertes et al., 2006]
A.A. Fernández-Fuertes, A. Fuertes, R.F. Pulido.
Evaluación de la violencia en las relaciones de pareja de los adolescentes. Validación del Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)-versión española.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6 (2006), pp. 339-358
[García-Cueto et al., 2015]
E. García-Cueto, F.J. Rodríguez-Díaz, C. Bringas-Molleda, J. López-Cepero, S. Paíno-Quesada, L. Rodríguez-Franco.
Development of the Gender Role Attitudes Scale (GRAS) amongst young Spanish people.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15 (2015), pp. 61-68
[Glass et al., 2008]
N. Glass, N. Perrin, G. Hanson, T. Bloom, E. Gardner, J.C. Campbell.
Risk for assault in abusive female same-sex relationships.
American Journal of Public Health, 98 (2008), pp. 1021-1027
[Hokoda et al., 2006]
A. Hokoda, L. Ramos-Lira, P. Celaya, K. Vilhauer, M. Angeles, S. Ruíz, V.L. Malcarne, M. Duque.
Reliability of translated measures assessing dating violence among Mexican adolescents.
Violence and Victims, 21 (2006), pp. 117-127
[Hudson and McIntosh, 1981]
W.W. Hudson, S.R. McIntosh.
The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43 (1981), pp. 873-885
[Ibáñez et al., 1999]
M.I. Ibáñez, G. Ortet, M. Moro, C. Ávila, M.A. Parcet.
Versión reducida del cuestionario revisado de personalidad de Eysenck (EPQ-RA).
Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 25 (1999), pp. 849-863
[Johnson et al., 2015]
R.M. Johnson, E.M. Parker, J. Rinehart, J. Nail, E.F. Rothman.
Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth: A systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49 (2015), pp. 458-466
[Kubicek et al., 2016]
K. Kubicek, M. McNeeley, S. Collins.
Young Men Who Have Sex With Men's Experiences With Intimate Partner Violence.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 31 (2016), pp. 143-175
[Lavoie and Vèzina, 2001]
F. Lavoie, L. Vèzina.
Violence faite aux filles dans le contexte des fréquentations à l’adolescence. Élaborationd’uninstrument (VIFFA).
Revue Canadienne de Santé Mentale, 20 (2001), pp. 153-171
[López-Cepero et al., 2016]
J. López-Cepero, H.E. Fabelo, L. Rodríguez-Franco, F.J. Rodríguez-Díaz.
Validation of the English version of Cuestionario de Violencia de Novios (Dating Violence Questionnaire) on an US college students sample.
[López-Cepero et al., 2015]
J. López-Cepero, L. Rodríguez-Franco, F.J. Rodríguez-Díaz.
Evaluación de la violencia de pareja. Una revisión de instrumentos de evaluación conductual.
Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 40 (2015), pp. 37-50
[López-Cepero et al., 2014]
J. López-Cepero, L. Rodríguez-Franco, F.J. Rodríguez-Díaz, C. Bringas.
Violencia en el noviazgo: revisión bibliográfica y bibliométrica.
Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicología, 66 (2014), pp. 1-17
[Lundgren and Amin, 2015]
R. Lundgren, A. Amin.
Addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: Emerging evidence of effectiveness.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 56 (2015), pp. S42-S50
[Llor-Esteban et al., 2016]
B. Llor-Esteban, J.J. García-Jiménez, J.A. Ruiz-Hernández, C. Godoy-Fernández.
Profile of partner aggressors as a function of risk of recidivism.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16 (2016), pp. 39-46
[Niolon et al., 2015]
P.H. Niolon, A. Vivolo-Kantor, N.E. Latzman, L.A. Valle, H. Kuoh, T. Burton, A.T. Tharp.
Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban communities.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 56 (2015), pp. S5-S13
[Novo et al., 2012]
M. Novo, F. Fariña, M.D. Seijo, R. Arce.
Assessment of a community rehabilitation programme in convicted male intimate-partner violence offenders.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12 (2012), pp. 219-232
[Presagy et al., 2015]
F. Presagy, M. Manca, L. Rodríguez-Franco, G. Curcio.
A questionnaire for the assessment of violent behaviors in young couples: The Italian version of Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ).
[Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2010]
L. Rodríguez-Franco, J. López-Cepero, F.J. Rodríguez-Díaz, C. Bringas, A. Antuña, C. Estrada.
Validación del cuestionario de violencia entre novios (CUVINO) en jóvenes hispanohablantes: Análisis de resultados en España, México y Argentina.
Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 6 (2010), pp. 45-52
[Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2015]
J.A. Ruiz-Hernández, J.J. García-Jiménez, B. Llor-Esteban, C. Godoy-Fernández.
Risk factors for intimate partner violence in prison inmates.
The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7 (2015), pp. 41-49
[Straus, 1979]
M.A. Straus.
Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (TC) scales.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41 (1979), pp. 75-88
[Straus et al., 1996]
M.A. Straus, S.L. Hamby, S. Boney-McCoy, D.B. Sugarman.
The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.
Journal of Family Issues, 17 (1996), pp. 283-316
[Straus and Ramírez, 2003]
M.A. Straus, I.L. Ramírez.
International dating violence study.
Family Research Laboratory, (2003),
[Thompson et al., 2006]
M.P. Thompson, K.C. Basile, M.F. Hertz, D. Sitterle.
Measuring intimate partner violence. A compendium of assessment tools.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (2006),
[Vega-Gea et al., 2016]
E. Vega-Gea, R. Ortega-Ruiz, V. Sánchez.
Peer sexual harassment in adolescence: Dimensions of the sexual harassment survey in boys and girls.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16 (2016), pp. 47-57
[Wolfe et al., 2001]
D.A. Wolfe, K. Scott, D. Reitzel-Jaffe, C. Wekerle, C. Grasley, A.L. Straatmen.
Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent relationships inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 13 (2001), pp. 277-293
Copyright © 2016. Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual
Article options