Reviewer's report
Title:Change over time in factors associated with domestic violence by intimate
partner in Egypt: analysis of two surveys
Version: 1Date:1 February 2008
Reviewer: Muhammad M. M Haj-Yahia
Reviewer's report:
Review of the paper entitled Ã¢Â#Â#Change Over Time in Factors Associated
with Domestic Violence by Intimate Partner in Egypt: Analysis of Two
SurveysÃ¢Â#Â#
This is an interesting paper, which presents partial results of two surveys
Ã¢Â#Â# the 1995 and 2005 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Ã¢Â#Â#
conducted in Egypt. In this paper, the authors assess Ã¢Â#Â#the changes in
prevalence of domestic violence and help seeking and factors associated with
both over the decade 1995-2005 in EgyptÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 2). Undoubtedly, the paper
presents important results from a country where the problems of wife abuse and
battering, in particular, and family violence, in general, have rarely been
investigated.
The following are my major comments on each section of the paper.
Abstract
- The authors use the concept Ã¢Â#Â#prevalence of domestic violenceÃ¢Â#Â#
throughout the paper. However, in the Abstract they also use the concept
Ã¢Â#Â#occurrence of domestic violenceÃ¢Â#Â#. First, they should maintain
consistency in using concepts that indicate the rates of the problem. Second,
based on the authorsÃ¢Â#Â# description as well as on my own acquaintance
with both surveys, I believe the incidence of wife beating was measured rather
than the prevalence of the problem.
- When the authors use the concept Ã¢Â#Â#domestic violenceÃ¢Â#Â#, both of
the surveys examined in the paper have used the concept Ã¢Â#Â#wife
beatingÃ¢Â#Â#. Hence, because the authors of the paper conducted a
secondary analysis of the two surveys, they should refer to the same concepts
used in the surveys.
- The authors use the concept Ã¢Â#Â#decreasing heterogeneityÃ¢Â#Â# in the
Abstract as well as throughout the paper. However, I doubt they have succeeded
in explaining the concept.
- In the Abstract as well as in the Conclusions section, the authors indicate that
Ã¢Â#Â#education programs targeting only women might not be
sufficientÃ¢Â#Â#. Although the authors tested the relevance of education to
domestic violence as well as to help seeking, they did not investigate the extent
to which education programs can be sufficient in combating wife abuse. That
conclusion is not based on the results of the surveys, and is therefore not
acceptable in a scientific paper of this nature. By the way, when the authors
claim that the education programs Ã¢Â#Â#might not be
sufficientÃ¢Â#Â¦Ã¢Â#Â#, what exactly do they mean? It seems to me that the
authors expect the readers to assume that such programs might not be sufficient
to decrease domestic violence and increase help seeking. Nevertheless,
assuming that this factor was tested in both of the surveys analyzed in the paper,
the authors should be more explicit in their description rather than leaving it to
the interpretation of the reader.
Background
- The authors refer to the consequences of wife beating, when this dimension is
neither among the variables that were investigated in the surveys nor among the
variables investigated in the paper. It is commonly agreed and accepted that a
literature review should focus on the specific and main dimensions of the paper
and study(ies) rather than on aspects that the paper and study(ies) have not
addressed.
- The authors correctly use the concept association (Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦ factors
associated with domestic violenceÃ¢Â#Â¦Ã¢Â#Â#, p. 3, 3rd line from the
bottom). However, they mistakenly use the concept Ã¢Â#Â#effectÃ¢Â#Â#
interchangeably with Ã¢Â#Â#associationÃ¢Â#Â# in this section, as well as in
other parts of the paper (e.g., Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦ the effects of
educationÃ¢Â#Â¦Ã¢Â#Â#, p. 3, 2nd line from the bottom). Please note that
Ã¢Â#Â#effectÃ¢Â#Â# reflects causality or semi-causality, whereas the designs
of the two surveys do not elicit information on the causality of domestic violence
factors.
- The authors should clearly state the hypotheses or research questions they
tested in the paper.
Methods
- One major drawback in the comparison conducted in the paper is the reliance
on data that were collected on wife beating in two surveys that used different
operational measures for this variable. More specifically, whereas the first survey
measured womenÃ¢Â#Â#s experience with violence on the basis of one very
general question about being beaten, the second survey used several concrete
questions about being pushed, shaken, having something thrown at them, being
slapped or having their arm twisted, being punched with a fist, kicked or dragged,
strangled or burned, threatened with a knife or gun, or other concrete acts of
violence. Undoubtedly, the measure used in the second survey is more
operational and detailed than the one used in the first survey. As such, it is more
than likely that the womenÃ¢Â#Â#s experience with domestic violence was
measured in a more reliable and valid manner in the second survey.
Theoretically speaking, it is a great idea to compare womenÃ¢Â#Â#s experience
with domestic violence based on measurements conducted 10 years apart.
However, the specific comparison in this paper is implausible and invalid Ã¢Â#Â#
it is like comparing oranges and apples. It should also be noted that the single
question about being beaten leaves it up to the womenÃ¢Â#Â#s personal
discretion as to what they consider beating and what they do not. Hence, I doubt
that the measurement of domestic violence in the first survey has good internal
validity.
- The authors should present the internal reliability of the measure of wife beating
in the second survey.
- In both surveys, the women were asked about Ã¢Â#Â#talking to anyone about
the beating to try and get helpÃ¢Â#Â# (in the first survey) and about trying
Ã¢Â#Â#to get help to prevent or stop him from hurting youÃ¢Â#Â# (in the
second survey) as measures of help seeking. It is clear that in both studies,
different questions were used to measure this construct, i.e., help seeking.
Because the construct of help seeking in both surveys is based on different
measures, the validity and reliability of the comparison is questionable.
Moreover, asking the women only one question about getting help to prevent
being Ã¢Â#Â#physically hurtÃ¢Â#Â# leaves it up to their subjective discretion as
to what they consider being hurt. This is another major drawback in the
measurement that should be taken into consideration with regard to the
comparisons. These drawbacks should also be discussed in the limitations
subsection of the Discussion (on page 9).
- The authors indicate that Ã¢Â#Â#we also included the blood
relationshipÃ¢Â#Â¦with blood relationshipÃ¢Â#Â# (pp. 4-5). I wonder how the
authors provide empirical support for their assumption that Ã¢Â#Â#beating
occurs more frequently in partnerships with blood relationshipÃ¢Â#Â# (pp. 4-5).
- I wonder why the authors treated education as a dichotomous/categorical
variable in their statistical analysis, despite the fact that it was measured as an
ordinal variable. I believe that treating it as an ordinal variable in the analysis
would have produced more valid results.
Results
- Consistent with my above argument regarding the lack of consistency in
measuring domestic violence in both surveys, I believe that most of the
comparisons presented in the Results section are based on invalid
interpretations and statistical conclusions. Although I believe that both surveys
yielded important results that are worth publishing, the findings of each survey
should be presented separately, even in the same paper, without conducting
comparisons.
- I suggest that the authors refrain from indicating that Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦ it was only
higher by 34% in multivariable analysisÃ¢Â#Â¦Ã¢Â#Â# (p. 6). After all, 34% is
not a negligible percentage, and in this case the word Ã¢Â#Â#onlyÃ¢Â#Â# is
unnecessary and even inappropriate.
Discussion
- The use of the concept improvement / no improvement in this section is not
appropriate for reaching conclusions on the basis of the results presented in the
paper.
- As indicated, the authors do not present any hypotheses or research questions.
Hence, I wonder why they are surprised about some of their results
(Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦ with a surprising finding thatÃ¢Â#Â¦Ã¢Â#Â# p. 7).
- The authors indicate that Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦. their behaviour was most likely
affected by recent developmentsÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 8) Ã¢Â#Â# which developments?
- In this section, the authors present numerous interpretations without providing
any theoretical and/or empirical references to support their arguments and
interpretations. In addition, I believe that relying on some theories (e.g., resource
theory could be appropriate) to interpret the results of the study could enrich this
section considerably.
- I wonder why the authors assume that Ã¢Â#Â#Ã¢Â#Â¦ educated women might
face more difficulties in EgyptÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 8).
- I definitely agree with the authors that Ã¢Â#Â#because the topic of domestic
violence isÃ¢Â#Â¦ be expectedÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 9). Nevertheless, they should provide
a reference for that argument.
- I tend to disagree with the authors that Ã¢Â#Â#since population-based studies
Ã¢Â#Â¦ will persist in future surveysÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 9). Although I indicated that
underreporting of domestic violence is likely to happen in surveys, experience
has shown that the problem can be overcome, albeit not totally, through several
methodological techniques, e.g., by using self-report measures rather than
face-to-face interviews, by incorporating social desirability measures in the
questionnaire, and by asking several family members (both partners, a child,
etc.) about domestic violence, among other techniques.
- The authors should provide a reference for their argument that Ã¢Â#Â#in fact,
Ã¢Â#Â¦ forms of violence (p. 9).
- The authors argue that Ã¢Â#Â#finally, studies based on Ã¢Â#Â¦ the same
processÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 9). This argument is not clear, and needs to be illuminated.
Conclusions
- The authors argue that Ã¢Â#Â#thus, selective educationalÃ¢Â#Â¦ reduce
violence levelsÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 9). This is an unclear argument that needs to be
explained further.
- The authors suggest that Ã¢Â#Â#cultural, rather than individual interventions
can be expected to be effectiveÃ¢Â#Â# (p. 9). This recommendation does not
derive directly from the results, and the authors should be cautioned against
reaching conclusions and/or providing recommendations that are not supported
by their findings. Nevertheless, it has been proven that structural changes (e.g.,
enhancing the educational, political, economic, social, and religious status of
women) can be effective in combating violence against women.
Figures
The title of Figure 1 should indicate that it refers to the second survey.
I hope the authors find my review helpful in revising their paper.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.