Sibling Bullying in Turkish Adolescents: Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Sibling Bullying Questionnaire

The primary aim of this study was to translate the Sibling Bullying Questionnaire (SBQ) into Turkish and validate it. A secondary aim was to estimate the prevalence of sibling bullying in Turkish adolescents. The SBQ was translated by a team of English-Turkish bilinguals. Self-report data were collected from Turkish adolescents (N = 301) aged 10 to 18 years old (mean age = 14.25 years, SD = 2.46). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the factor structure of the newly translated Turkish SBQ (T-SBQ). Descriptive analyses were then conducted to report the characteristics of the sample and the prevalence of sibling bullying. CFA confirmed the original two-factor structure of the T-SBQ indicating that a first-order correlated two-factor model shows the best fit: x2=160.33 (p < 0.001), df = 61, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.95 and TLI = 0.93. The T-SBQ showed satisfactory levels of internal consistency in victimisation (α = 0.84) and perpetration (α = 0.83) subscales, excellent reliability in the overall test scale (α = 0.90), and a high level of convergent validity when compared with the Revised Sibling Bullying Questionnaire (α = 0.79). In terms of sibling bullying prevalence, approximately half of the adolescents (51%) reported having been involved in some form of sibling bullying in the preceding six months, either as pure-victim (18%), pure-bully (3%) or bully-victim (30%). This result aligns with the findings from other countries such as the United States (41%), Israel (51%), and the United Kingdom (49%). The T-SBQ is valid and reliable in measuring sibling bullying in Turkish adolescents and sibling bullying is prevalent in the lives of Turkish adolescents.

“Are you safe to talk?”: Perspectives of Service Providers on Experiences of Domestic Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This study aimed to better understand the factors driving reported trends in domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the effect of the pandemic on survivors’ experiences of violence and ability to seek support. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 DV service providers operating in organizations across 24 U.S. cities. The majority of providers described a decrease in contact volume when shelter-in-place orders were first established, which they attributed to safety concerns, competing survival priorities, and miscommunication about what resources were available. For most organizations, this decrease was followed by an increase in contacts after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, often surpassing typical contact counts from the pre-pandemic period. Providers identified survivors’ ability to return to some aspects of their pre-pandemic lives, increased stress levels, and increased lethality of cases as key factors driving this increase. In addition, providers described several unique challenges faced by DV survivors during the pandemic, such as the use of the virus as an additional tool for control by abusers and an exacerbated lack of social support. These findings provide insight into the lived experiences driving observed trends in DV rates during COVID-19. Understanding the impact of the pandemic on survivors can help to shape public health and policy interventions to better support this vulnerable population during future crises.

Communicating Reproductive Coercion in the Context of Domestic and Family Violence: Perspectives of Service Providers Supporting Migrant and Refugee Women

The current study explored the language barriers to help-seeking in the context of reproductive coercion and abuse (RCA), domestic and family violence (DFV), and sexual violence (SV), drawing on observations by key informants supporting women from migrant and refugee communities. A lack of shared language has been identified as a key barrier to help seeking for migrant and refugee women experiencing DFV more broadly, though how language intersects with help seeking in the context of RCA is yet to be investigated. We conducted 6 focus groups with 38 lawyers, counsellors, and social workers supporting women experiencing DFV in Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia. Our findings address two main areas. First, consistent with past research in DFV, our participants identified language as a barrier for women when communicating about sexual and reproductive issues in the context of health and police encounters. More specifically, our findings suggest that the inability of health professionals and police to communicate with women who have low or no English proficiency not only negatively impacted victims/survivors’ ability to access support, but also facilitated the perpetration of RCA. We conclude that language can be a mechanism through which coercive control is enacted by perpetrators of RCA and health and policing systems may not be equipped to recognise and address this issue. We also suggest that greater conceptual clarity of RCA is needed within the DFV sector in order to tailor responses.

Public Understanding of Coercive Control in Northern Ireland

Coercive control is characterised by negative behaviours which intimidate, threaten, and humiliate a person or restrict a person’s liberty. In addition to being a known risk factor for experiencing other forms of violence, research has linked coercive control to symptoms of psychological distress and suicidality. In the UK, coercive and controlling behaviours within intimate and familial relationships have been legislated as offending behaviours. However, there still exists a lack of international evidence on wider public knowledge and understanding of coercive control. The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (NILT) is an annual cross-sectional representative survey of social policy topics. Participants are adults aged 18 years or over. Concerning coercive control, respondents were presented with two relationship scenarios: obvious and less obvious coercive control. Following each scenario, respondents indicated their level of agreement to ten statements covering attitudes towards coercive control, victims of coercive control, talking about coercive control, and whether coercive control is a crime. Respondents indicated whether they had heard of the term ‘coercive control’. Predictors of coercive control awareness were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. Mixed analysis of variance assessed if agreement levels to the ten statements varied by type of coercive control and victim gender. Most respondents said that they had heard of the term coercive control and knew what it meant. Those who had not heard of coercive control at all were more likely to be on a lower income, less qualified and younger, when compared to those who said they knew what the term meant. Significant interactions between coercive control type and victim gender were evident for all ten statements. While most respondents are aware of the term coercive control, a significant number have not and are therefore unlikely to recognise the signs of this type of abuse.