Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Invisible Violence Against Women Questionnaire
1- Department of Nursing, Asadabad School of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
2- Nursing Care Research Center, Clinical Sciences Institute
3- Psychosomatic Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran ; Department of Nursing, Amol School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
4- Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- Lahore School of Nursing, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan; Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey ,rezaghanei30@yahoo.com
2- Nursing Care Research Center, Clinical Sciences Institute
3- Psychosomatic Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran ; Department of Nursing, Amol School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
4- Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- Lahore School of Nursing, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan; Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey ,
Abstract: (63 Views)
Background: Some men use a nuanced set of attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs referred to as “invisible violence” to exert control over women. Although these behaviors are culturally accepted, they remain risk factors for intimate partner violence. Early detection of invisible violence can prevent domestic violence and its negative consequences. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Questionnaire for the Invisible Violence Against Women (Q-IVAW).
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 520 married women who were referred to health centers in Western Iran (Asadabad) in 2023. Sampling was performed using a convenience sampling method. After forward-backward translation, face, content, and construct validity (through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) were conducted. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients and stability was assessed using a test-retest. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 16 and Amos version 26 software.
Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors, including ‘utilitarian-benevolent sexist behaviors’, ‘crisis sexist behaviors’, ‘coercive sexist behaviors’, and ‘ambivalent sexist behaviors’, were extracted using the maximum likelihood method and Promax rotation. Cronbach's alpha for the four factors was 0.803, 0.724, 0.733, and 0.704, respectively. These factors account for 47.17% of the total variance. In confirmatory factor analysis, the final model demonstrated a good fit (CMIN/DF = 2.140, GFI = 0.952, AGFI = 0.932, NFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.958, CFI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.047).
Conclusion: The Persian version of the Q-IVAW has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to measure invisible violence in Iranian women.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 520 married women who were referred to health centers in Western Iran (Asadabad) in 2023. Sampling was performed using a convenience sampling method. After forward-backward translation, face, content, and construct validity (through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) were conducted. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients and stability was assessed using a test-retest. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 16 and Amos version 26 software.
Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors, including ‘utilitarian-benevolent sexist behaviors’, ‘crisis sexist behaviors’, ‘coercive sexist behaviors’, and ‘ambivalent sexist behaviors’, were extracted using the maximum likelihood method and Promax rotation. Cronbach's alpha for the four factors was 0.803, 0.724, 0.733, and 0.704, respectively. These factors account for 47.17% of the total variance. In confirmatory factor analysis, the final model demonstrated a good fit (CMIN/DF = 2.140, GFI = 0.952, AGFI = 0.932, NFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.958, CFI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.047).
Conclusion: The Persian version of the Q-IVAW has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to measure invisible violence in Iranian women.
Type of study: Original Article |
Subject:
Midwifery
References
1. Bodaghabadi M. Prevalence of violence and related factors in pregnant women referring to Shahid Mobini hospital, Sabzevar. Hormozgan Medical Journal (HMJ). 2007;11(1):71-6. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
2. Alijani F, Khosravi A, Mousavi MS, Delarosa V. The associated factors of domestic violence against infertile women. J Res Dev Nurs Midw. 2019;16(2):61-70. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Knight M TD, Kenyon S, Shakespeare J, Gray R, Kurinczuk J, editors. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers' Care; Surveillance of maternal deaths in the UK 2011‐13 and lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009‐13. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2015. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
4. Piquero AR, Jennings WG, Jemison E, Kaukinen C, Knaul FM. Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic-Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crim Justice. 2021;74:101806. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
5. Bifftu BB, Dachew BA, Tiruneh BT, Gezie LD, Guracho YD. Domestic violence related disclosure among women and girls in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):184. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
6. Nakamura IB, Silva MT, Garcia LP, Galvao TF. Prevalence of physical violence against Brazilian women: systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023;24(2):329-39. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Hajnasiri H, Gheshlagh RG, Sayehmiri K, Moafi F, Farajzadeh M. Domestic violence among Iranian women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18(6):e34971. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
8. Raziani Y, Hasheminasab L, Gheshlagh RG, Dalvand P, Baghi V, Aslani M. The prevalence of intimate partner violence among Iranian pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2024;52(1):108-18. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. Dey T, Thakar R. Domestic violence: an invisible pandemic. Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;24(2):90-2. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
10. Trevillion K, Oram S, Feder G, Howard LM. Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2012;7(12):e51740. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
11. Lee MS, Lee JJ, Lee H. Domestic Violence Experience, Past Depressive Disorder, Unplanned Pregnancy, and Suicide Risk in the First Year Postpartum: Mediating Effect of Postpartum Depression. Psychiatry Investig. 2024;21(10):1129-36. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
12. Jackson EC, Renner LM, Flowers NI, Logeais ME, Clark CJ. Process evaluation of a systemic intervention to identify and support partner violence survivors in a multi-specialty health system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):996. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. Van der Wath A. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: a Foucauldian discourse analysis of South African emergency nurses' perceptions. Afr Health Sci. 2019;19(2):1849-57. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. Sönmez T, Apay SE, Taşgin A. The questionnaire for the detection of invisible violence against women. African Journal of Reproductive Health/La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive. 2025;29(1):144-52. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
15. Ayala A, Vives‐Cases C, Davó‐Blanes C, Rodríguez‐Blázquez C, Forjaz MJ, Bowes N, et al. Sexism and its associated factors among adolescents in Europe: Lights4Violence baseline results. Aggress Behav. 2021;47(3):354-63. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
16. Bermúdez Figueroa E, Dabetić V, Yuste RP, Saeidzadeh Z. Gender and structural inequalities from a socio-legal perspective. InGender-competent legal education. Cham:Springer International Publishing;2023. p.95-142. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17. Tlostanova M, Thapar-Björkert S, Koobak R. the postsocialist 'missing other'of transnational feminism? Feminist Review. 2019;121(1):81-7. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18. Fernández-Antelo I, Cuadrado-Gordillo I, Martín-Mora Parra G. Synergy between acceptance of violence and sexist attitudes as a dating violence risk factor. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5209. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
19. Martín-Fernández M, Gracia E, Lila M. A short measure of acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: development and validation of the A-IPVAW-8 scale. Assessment. 2022;29(5):896-908. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
20. Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Barzanji A, Amini F, Zahednezhad H. Psychometric properties of the Farsi version of the Disaster Nursing Readiness Evaluation Index (F-DNREI). BMC Emerg Med. 2024;24(1):151. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
21. Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation. 2019;10(1):7. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22. Yu DS, Lee DT, Woo J. Issues and challenges of instrument translation. West J Nurs Res. 2004;26(3):307-20. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
23. Dobarrio-Sanz I, Fernández-Vargas A, Fernández-Férez A, Vanegas-Coveña DP, Cordero-Ahiman OV, Granero-Molina J, et al. Development and psychometric assessment of a questionnaire for the detection of invisible violence against women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):11127. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
24. Netemeyer RG BW, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. sage publications;2003. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
25. Baharuddin IH, Ismail N, Naing NN, Ibrahim K, Yasin SM, Patterson MS. Content and face validity of Workplace COVID-19 Knowledge & Stigma Scale (WoCKSS). BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):874. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
26. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications;2021. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
27. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor Analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ. 2020;11:245. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
28. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29. Ebadi A Ausili D, Albatineh AN, Salarvand S, Ghanei Ghashlagh R. Psychometric evaluation of the Farsi version of the self-care of diabetes inventory in Iranian patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:2775-84. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
30. Vearrier L, Henderson CM, editors. Utilitarian principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. HEC forum. 2021;33(1-2):45-60. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
31. Dardenne B, Dumont M, Bollier T. Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women's performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93(5):764-79. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
32. Mastari L, Spruyt B, Siongers J. Benevolent and hostile sexism in social spheres: The impact of parents, school and romance on Belgian adolescents' sexist attitudes.Front Sociol. 2019;4:47. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
33. Lee TL, Fiske ST, Glick P, Chen Z. Ambivalent sexism in close relationships:(Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles. 2010;62(7-8):583-601. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
34. Corradi C, Stöckl H. The lessons of history: The role of the nation-states and the EU in fighting violence against women in 10 European countries. Current Sociology. 2016;64(4):671-88. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35. Policastro C, Finn MA. Coercive control in intimate relationships: Differences across age and sex. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(3-4):1520-43. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
36. Loveland JE, Raghavan C. Coercive control, physical violence, and masculinity. Violence and Gender. 2017;4(1):5-10. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37. Glick P, Lameiras M, Fiske ST, Eckes T, Masser B, Volpato C, et al. Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86(5):713-28. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
38. Barreto M, Doyle DM. Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context. Nat Rev Psychol. 2023;2(2):98-111. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
39. Adamczyk A, Hayes BE. Religion and sexual behaviors: Understanding the influence of Islamic cultures and religious affiliation for explaining sex outside of marriage. American sociological review. 2012;77(5):723-46. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40. Ahmadi S, Hamidpoor K, Sedaghat H, Karami F. Violence against Women: The Rule of Patriarchal Ideology and the Hegemony of Male Domination (Case study: Women in Bushehr. Woman in Development and Politics. 2021;19(4):545-72. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
