Need a hand analyzing a study

iainmf · 2015-01-04T11:13:00+00:00

I'm no expert, but there are two things that I think you should look at in more depth.

1) There's no indication if the women who have been victims of violence are violent themselves. It's possible that a significant proportion of the women were aggressors and got struck in self defense. There can't be any kind of comprehensive strategy to address violence against women with acknowledging violent women.

2) I recall that the questionnaires like this are based on the idea that violence against women is under reported and a 'better' method should be employed. I followed some leads about this a while ago and found that when they talk about things like 'methods accepted by the experts' those experts are referring back to other experts who are referring back to 1 or 2 studies whose methods were intended to increase reporting of 'violence against women'. In other words, I'm not sure if the method they are using is the best method. Some else might have to weigh in on this one though. like I said, I'm not an expert.

edit: I did some more poking around and found the document 'Interviewer Training in the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence'

I skimmed it but found a couple of things interesting.

One, the interviewers are trained 'To develop a basic understanding of gender-based violence, its characteristics,causes, and impact on the health of women and children'.

Two, when discussing under-reporting of violence they reference Mary Koss' 1993 'Detecting the scope of rape: A review of prevalence research methods.' That's the paper that redefines rape as penetration so male rape numbers look much lower than female rape numbers.

doctor_doob · 2015-01-04T14:44:55+00:00

here p5 gives a brief outline of how violence was measured in what appears to be the WHO study they cite for the questionnaire.

MRSPArchiver · 2015-01-04T09:41:52+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

jamminnummeruno · 2015-01-04T11:25:17+00:00

These might help the perspective on DV in NZ :

http://www.menz.org.nz/Information/dvhistory.htm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8897510/Embarrassment-barrier-for-abused-men

Ted8367 · 2015-01-05T10:18:32+00:00

This is a cross-sectional study. One of the limitations of a cross-sectional study is that it provides no information about causality. See, for example,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4VOtjO9rvs

Of course, you can make arguments based on guesswork. Page 9 of the report says

While causation cannot be determined from a cross-sectional survey, the temporal relationship (ie, lifetime exposure and current health), the strength of associations (odds ratios ranging from 1.3–7.6), and the dose-response relationship between experience of moderate versus severe violence all strongly support the notion of a causal link between IPV and ill-health in women.

When it comes to guesswork, anyone can play. For example, the multi-country WHO study,

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43310/1/9241593512_eng.pdf?ua=1

shows great variations over the different countries; so I could argue that could be down to cultural factors, economic factors, climate, position of the moon in the sky, and do on.

iainmf · 2015-01-06T23:50:20+00:00

How feminists corrupt domestic violence research by Dr. Murray Straus

Title	Need a hand analyzing a study
Author	Kolz
Upvotes	5
Comments	8
Date	January 4, 2015 9:41 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2rag2z/need_a_hand_analyzing_a_study/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/need-a-hand-analyzing-a-study.991335 https://theredarchive.com/post/991335

Comments