Next Article in Journal
Risk Factors Associated with Endoscopic Intervention in Pediatric Patients Presenting with Foreign Body Ingestion to the Emergency Department
Previous Article in Journal
Salivary Biomarkers in Pediatric Acute Appendicitis: Current Evidence and Future Directions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/children12101343
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Psychometric Properties of the Violence Exposure Scale in Ecuadorian Adolescents and Its Relationship with Child-to-Parent Violence

by
Paola Bustos-Benítez
1,
Andrés Ramírez
2,*,
Javier Herrero Díez
3 and
M. Carmen Cano-Lozano
4
1
Department of Psychology, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Bogotá 110231, Colombia
2
Grupo de Investigación en Neurociencia Clínica Aplicada (GINCA), Department of Clinical Psychology, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca 010107, Ecuador
3
Department of Psychology, Universidad de Oviedo, 33003 Oviedo, Spain
4
Department of Psychology, Universidad de Jaen, 23071 Jaen, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2025, 12(10), 1343; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101343
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 26 September 2025 / Accepted: 30 September 2025 / Published: 6 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Youth Vulnerability and Maladjustment: A Look at Its Effects)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Introduction: Exposure to violence is an adverse experience associated with the perpetration of violent future behaviors such as child-to-parent violence. Objective: The objectives were to analyze the psychometric properties of the Violence Exposure Scale (VES) in a sample of Ecuadorian adolescents as well as its measurement invariance by sex and age; analyze the differences in exposure to violence across four settings (home, school, street, and TV), in two time frames (last year and childhood), according to sex and age; and analyze the relationship between exposure to violence in the four settings and in both time frames with child-to-parent violence. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a probabilistic sample of 2150 Ecuadorian adolescents (55% female), aged 12 to 18 years (M = 14.53; SD = 1.55). Participants completed the adapted version of the VES and the Child-to-Parent Violence Questionnaire (CPV-Q). Confirmatory factor analyses, reliability testing, convergent and discriminant validity analyses, and measurement invariance assessments were performed. Results: The VES showed excellent model fit in both versions, VES1 (last year) and VES2 (before age 10), with strong goodness-of-fit indices (VES1: CFI = 0.988; RMSEA = 0.055; VES2: CFI = 0.994; RMSEA = 0.044). Reliability was good (αo and ωo ≤ 0.80; G.6 and CR ≤ 0.70). Effect sizes ranged from 0.11 to 0.31 for violence by children toward parents and reached up to 0.83 among the different forms of victimization. Conclusions: The adaptation of the VES in Ecuadorian adolescents showed validity and reliability in assessing exposure to violence. Girls were more at risk at home, while boys were more exposed at school and in the community.

1. Introduction

Family violence can be defined as any violent act or pattern of behavior perpetrated by a family member or intimate partner that causes or has the potential to cause physical or psychological harm to the victim [1]. The literature has identified five categories of family violence: (1) child abuse, (2) intimate partner violence (IPV), (3) elder abuse, (4) child-to-parent violence (CPV), and (5) sibling violence [1]. Although the nature of the behaviors is different for each category of violence, there are specific associations between the different violent behaviors [2]. Although the nature of the behaviors is different in each of these categories, two dimensions have been proposed that show their interconnectedness: the threat dimension, mainly related to physical and psychological violence, and the deprivation dimension, which includes physical and psychological neglect [2].
Childhood exposure to violent events such as physical, emotional or sexual abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction constitutes an adverse experience [3], which is associated with psychological, social, physical and cognitive impairments [4], as well as increased risk of violent behaviors in adolescence. These experiences are not restricted to the family setting, as they can also manifest themselves at school, through bullying and peer victimization, and in the community, through urban violence, armed conflict or structural discrimination [5].
An important part of the literature indicates that exposure to violent situations can generate vicarious victimization, when violent acts directed at others within or outside the family nucleus are witnessed [6], and direct victimization, when there are physical aggressions between parents and children or intimate partner violence in the home [7]. Both forms often coexist and increase vulnerability to developing internalizing behaviors such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders and externalizing behaviors such as aggression, substance abuse, and criminal behavior [2,8,9,10]. These experiences affect mental health in the short and long term, impair quality of life and constitute one of the strongest predictors of intimate partner violence in adulthood.
Exposure to family violence and the presence of dysfunctional relationships, characterized by persistent conflict and high levels of stress, create an environment conducive to the reproduction of aggressive behaviors. From social learning theory, it is argued that the normalization of violent patterns leads to the modeling of aggressive behaviors, perceived as effective forms of conflict resolution. This dynamic increases the acceptance of violence in intimate relationships and, with it, the risk of both perpetration and victimization [4]. In this framework, exposure to violence is a significant risk factor in the development of child-to-parent violence (FPV), in which children assume the role of aggressors and parents the role of victims [2,8]. Both direct and indirect exposure to violent situations in the home are positively associated with the occurrence of aggressive behavior towards parents [6].
Studies indicate that adolescents who perpetrate violence against their parents tend to have a history of family victimization and a greater perception of social hostility [8]. In this line, it has been identified that many have been victims of family abuse, both direct and indirect [9]. Likewise, it has been found that young people involved in child-to-parent violence have suffered parental abuse and exposure to interparental violence, which evidences the influence of adverse childhood experiences in the reproduction of violent behaviors towards parents [10].
As demonstrated so far, exposure to violence in the home has received the most attention in international research [11,12,13,14,15,16], but little research has been performed on the relationship between exposure to violence experienced in other contexts, such as on the street or through observing violence in technological media (television), and consequently with CVP. It is understood that the environment in which the individual develops is a relevant mediating factor for subsequent violence [10].
However, it is important to point out that to analyze this association between experiences of violence towards children and the relationship with the perpetration of future violent behaviors or with other variables, it is necessary to have standardized tools that facilitate assessment supported by psychometric evidence. It is currently known that there are several methodological limitations that make it difficult to assess this issue [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. This is despite various strategies that the literature has identified to improve measurement strategies [25].
In a recent systematic review [16], it was identified that there are 10 measures that focus on children’s exposure to violence, but it left out instruments such as the Violence Exposure Scale [26], which is a tool widely used in Spanish-speaking countries to assess exposure to violence in four settings, so this review leaves out relevant literature in this field and leads to a bias of excluding important information for this area of study, focusing instead on instruments from specific contexts and high-income settings.
Most studies on exposure to violence (EV) and child-to-parent violence (CPV) have been conducted in high-income countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain [16,27]. As a result, global evidence on the impact of EV on CPV is extremely limited and largely confined to specific sociocultural contexts [28]. In this sense, the most widely used questionnaire to analyze the relationship between EV and CPV is the Violence Exposure Scale (VES) [7,9,22,23,29,30,31]. This scale was developed for a Spanish-speaking population and has demonstrated strong evidence of its validity and adequate psychometric properties [26], including the results of the Colombian validation. However, to our knowledge, this has not been adapted or validated for the Ecuadorian population.
For this reason, this study aims to provide a standardized instrument that allows for the reliable assessment of exposure to violence at home, at school, in the street, and on TV. To this end, we have set the following objectives: (1) to analyze the psychometric properties of the Violence Exposure Scale (VES) in a sample of Ecuadorian adolescents as well as its measurement invariance by sex and age; (2) to analyze the differences in exposure to violence across four settings (home, school, street, and TV), in two time frames (last year and childhood), according to sex and age; and (3) to analyze the relationship between exposure to violence in the four settings and in both time frames with child-to-parent violence.
For this study, the following hypotheses were proposed: (1) The VES is expected to have strong psychometric properties, as well as evidence of validity and reliability for assessing exposure to violence, and to show invariance across genders and age groups. (2) Significant differences in levels of victimization are expected based on gender and age, considering the setting and type of violence. (3) Exposure to violence in the four settings and in both time periods is expected to be significantly associated with children’s violence toward parents.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 2150 Ecuadorian adolescents (55% female, 45% male) between 12 and 18 years of age (M = 14.53, SD = 1.55); 998 (46%) lived in Azuay, 602 (28%) in Cañar, and 550 (26%) in Carchi. The inclusion criteria were adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 residing in the three provinces of Ecuador (Azuay, Cañar, and Carchi), enrolled in an educational institution, and who agreed to participate in the study through informed consent. The exclusion criteria were adolescents who were using psychoactive substances or who had a disability.

2.2. Measures

The Violence Exposure Scale (VES) [26]: This questionnaire consists of 21 items and assesses exposure to violence (direct and vicarious victimization) in four contexts: (1) home, (2) school, (3) street, and (4) TV. In the version adapted to Ecuador, a differentiation based on time frame was included, that is, for the last year (VES1) and for childhood/before 10 years of age (VES2). This instrument uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = never to 4 = every day). The reliability of the VES factors in the initial study ranged from α of 0.71 to 0.80 [26].
The Child-to-Parent Violence Questionnaire (CPV-Q) adolescents’ version was initially developed by Contreras and collaborators [32] and later adapted to the Ecuadorian population by [33]. It evaluates the four typologies of CPV: (1) psychological CPV, (2) physical CPV, (3) financial CPV, and (4) behavior of control/domain. The temporality of the behaviors was measured for the last 12 months using a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = never to 4 = very often/six times or more). The questions were answered separately for the fathers and mothers. The reliability of the father scale was ω = 0.82, and for the mother it was ω = 0.77.

2.3. Procedure

While the questionnaire was initially designed for a Spanish-speaking audience, a linguistic evaluation was performed by native experts in psychometrics and violence to ensure the items were suitable for the Ecuadorian context. Additionally, a pilot study was carried out with a small group of adolescents to analyze the language used, confirming that the cultural interpretation aligned with the objectives of each factor and the overall questionnaire. These steps adhered to the guidelines of the International Test Commission [34].
Following this, approval was secured from Ecuador’s Ministry of Education as well as from the chosen institutions across various provinces, including Azuay, Cañar, and Carchi. The selection of both schools and participants was performed using simple random sampling. Subsequently, individuals aged 12 to 18 were invited to participate, and they were provided with a paper consent form to take home for their parents or legal guardian to sign. Consent was obtained from both the parents and the children involved.
Participation in the study was both voluntary and anonymous, conducted in groups within the classrooms of educational institutions. Adolescents were instructed to complete the paper-and-pencil instruments in a guided manner to minimize variations in response times and prevent external distractions like loss of focus. The individuals overseeing the process were researchers who had received specific training for administering these instruments. Participants remained entirely anonymous, and no incentives were offered for taking part in the study.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analyses were performed using R version 4.4.2 [35]. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated to summarize the participants’ characteristics. To achieve our first objective, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the Lavvan statistical package [36] for VES1 (last year) and VES2 (childhood/before the age of 10). These two-time frames are an original adaptation of this study to differentiate between EV before the age of 10 years and during the last year. The items were treated as ordinal data, and because the data did not present non-normality, the diagonal weighted least squares method (DWLS) was used [37], which is based on a polychoric correlation matrix and asymptotic covariance matrix [38]. The classical psychometric fit criteria used were RMSEA ≤ 0.05, SRMR ≤ 0.080, CFI ≥ 0.95, and TLI ≥ 0.95 [37], as widely referenced [38].
Reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and composite reliability (CR) coefficients [38,39]. The acceptable reliability criterion was ≥ 0.65 [39], and the use of the omega coefficient or the CR is recommended. Subsequently, convergent validity was calculated by means of the mean variance extracted (AVE), using the classic reference criterion (AVE ≥ 0.50) [38] as a criterion, indicating that the factor explains more than 50% of the variance [40]. The discriminant validity between the factors was calculated using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT ≤ 0.85) [38,40].
To achieve the second objective, invariance tests of VES1 and VES2 were performed. Invariance was tested as a function of the sex (male vs. female) of the participants and age group (younger adolescents: 12–14 years; older adolescents: 15–18 years). The invariance was calculated as follows: (a) configural (equal factor structure), (b) metric, (c) scalar, and (d) strict [38,41]. To establish whether the VES was invariant according to sex and age, classical suggestions for establishing comparisons between successive models were as follows: (a) CFI ≤ 0.010; (b) RMSEA ≤ 0.015; and SRMR ≤ 0.025 [38,41].
For the third objective, both sex (male and female) and age (12 to 14 years, and 15 to 18 years) were compared as independent groups. A non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to compare the scores of exposures to violence at home, at school, in the street, and on television according to sex and age. This procedure was repeated both for the last year and for childhood (before the age of 10). Additionally, the effect size was calculated using the Rank–Biserial Correlation, which is a standardized value and is suggested to be interpreted according to Cohen’s criteria. Finally, for the fulfillment of the fourth objective, a correlation was calculated using the Spearman coefficient to analyze the relationship between exposure to violence in different settings and CPV.

3. Results

3.1. Psychometric Analysis

The CFA of VES1, which evaluates the EV of the last year, presented an excellent model fit: χ2 = 1265.004 (df = 168; n = 2150; χ2/df = 7.52); p = 0.000; CFI = 0.988; TLI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.055, 90% de CI (0.052–0.058), SRMR = 0.050; GFI = 0.991; PGFI = 0.567; PNFI = 0.763; ECVI = 1.322. All factor loadings were high and statistically significant for all items (min = 0.688, max = 0.885, see Table A1 for more details).
Subsequently, the structure of the VES2 assessing exposure to violence during childhood was tested and presented an excellent model fit: χ2 = 848.716 (df = 168; n = 2150; χ2/df = 5.05); p = 0.000; CFI = 0.994; TLI = 0.992; RMSEA = 0.044, 90% de CI (0.041–0.047), SRMR = 0.042; GFI = 0.995; PGFI = 0.569; PNFI = 0.794; ECVI = 1.131. All factor loadings were high and statistically significant for all items (min = 0.743, max = 0.914; λ = ≥ 0.50).
Internal consistency was acceptable in all cases (ωo was > 0.80, 95% CI, and CR > 0.70). In addition, other internal consistency coefficients such as ordinal alpha and G.6 were calculated to provide solid evidence of the reliability of the questionnaire. The convergent validity of the five factors of VES1,2 explained more than 50% of the variance (AVE > 0.50). Discriminant validity was safe in all cases (HTMT < 0.85); however, the VV at school during childhood and the VV in street factor are at the limit of discriminant validity (see Table 1).

3.2. Invariance Measures

The VES1 and VES2 invariance tests were analyzed as a function of adolescent sex and age and were tested under four added models of configural, metric, scalar and strict invariance. Both models were found to be fully invariant under all four invariance assumptions (See Table 2).

3.3. Differences in Exposure to Violence According to the Sex and Age of the Children

In the last year, differences were observed according to sex. At home, women scored significantly higher than men. At school, men showed higher scores than women in both types of victimization. In the street, differences were found only in direct victimization, with men reporting it more frequently. Regarding age differences, it was found that the older group reported higher scores of vicarious victimization at school. Additionally, vicarious violence experienced in the street was higher for the older group.
In childhood, differences were found according to sex. At home, vicarious victimization was mostly reported by girls. At school, boys reported significantly higher scores than girls in both types of victimization. In the street, boys reported higher scores in direct victimization. With regard to age, at home the older group showed higher scores in both types of victimization, and in the street, the older group had higher scores in vicarious victimization (See Table 3).

3.4. Relationship Between Exposure to Violence in Different Contexts and CPV

All correlations between CPV and exposure to violence in different contexts were significant. In the last year, a stronger association was observed between CPV toward the father and vicarious victimization in the home (r = 0.291, p < 0.001) followed by direct victimization in the home (r = 0.278, p < 0.001). The following contexts with the closest relation were direct exposure to violence at school (r = 0.196, p < 0.001) and vicarious violence (r = 0.175, p < 0.001). Exposure to vicarious violence in the street showed a similar association with exposure to violence on TV. Direct exposure to violence in the street showed the weakest association (r = 0.113, p < 0.001).
In childhood, exposure to vicarious violence in the home and CPV towards the father was the strongest association (r = 0.291, p < 0.001), followed by direct victimization (r = 0.266, p < 0.001). At school, it was found that vicarious victimization showed a greater association (r = 0.200, p < 0.001), following exposure to violence on TV (r = 0.187, p < 0.001), vicarious victimization in the street (r = 0.177, p = 0.001) and direct victimization at school (r = 0.170, p < 0.001). Exposure to direct violence in the street showed the weakest association (r = 0.118, p < 0.001).
In the last year, the relationship between direct exposure to violence at home and CPV toward the mother showed the strongest association (r = 0.317, p < 0.001), followed by vicarious victimization in the home (r = 0.294, p < 0.001). In the school, it was observed that the association was slightly greater when it came to direct victimization (r = 0.210, p < 0.001), followed by vicarious violence (r = 0.192, p < 0.001), and exposure to violence on TV showed a similar association (r = 0.192, p < 0.001). In the street, the relationship was stronger when it came to vicarious victimization (r = 0.154, p < 0.001) and the least association was with direct victimization in this context (r = 0.119, p < 0.001).
In childhood, exposure to direct violence and CPV towards the mother showed the strongest association (r = 0.305, p < 0.001), followed by vicarious victimization (r = 0.283, p < 0.001). At school, the association was greater when it came to vicarious victimization (r = 0.204, p = 0.001), followed by direct violence (r = 0.199, p < 0.001). The next scenario with the highest exposure was TV (r = 0.179, p < 0.001). In the street, the association was greater for vicarious victimization (r = 0.165, p < 0.001), and the weakest association among all contexts was direct victimization in the street (r = 0.132, p < 0.001) (Table 4 and Table 5).

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, the VES has not been adapted to and validated in the Ecuadorian population. Therefore, this is the first study to report psychometric properties and validity evidence in a sample of this population. The second original contribution was that the instrument was adapted to differentiate EV experiences in two-time frames, which will allow us to know in detail the effects of EV over time.

4.1. Psychometric Properties of the Exposure to Violence Scale

The first objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and validity of the VES. This study adapted the original structure of the VES [26] to evaluate the last years of EV (VES1) and during childhood/before the age of 10 years (VES2). This original contribution showed that both models have an excellent fit for evaluating VE in four settings: home, school, street and TV. The results showed that the VES2 version had better goodness-of-fit indices, in addition to being more parsimonious. The internal consistency of VES1,2 was acceptable overall and for each of the factors (αo and ωo ≤ 0.80; G.6 and CR ≤ 0.70). Both the model’s goodness-of-fit and internal consistency indices were consistent with other studies that have used this instrument to assess EV in Spanish-speaking populations in other contexts [8,9,22,23].
Previous studies have not analyzed evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Therefore, this study provides novel information on this type of validity. All the factors of VES1,2 explained more than 50% of the variance. Discriminant validity was satisfactory among the factors of the VES1 but in the VES2 caution should be exercised between the factors of VV at school and VV in the street, since the value of HTMT (<0.85) was slightly higher than the criterion value to assume adequate discriminant validity. These findings should be examined in future studies that delve deeper into the effect and contextual differences between the VV of these two scenarios. So far, this contribution suggests that the patterns of victimization between these two contexts may have a high similarity and effect on those who suffer from violence. Since during adolescence there is a growing need for recognition and status among peers, who are agents of socialization outside the home, such as in peer groups and the community, this increases exposure to violence in social contexts, increasing the likelihood of perpetration and victimization of violent behaviors.

4.2. Measures of Invariance by Sex and Age

Another objective of this study was to examine the measurement invariance of the VES1,2 instrument based on sex and age. The results obtained show that the scale demonstrates full invariance, meaning that configural, metric, and scalar invariance were confirmed across both groups. From a psychometric perspective, these findings are highly relevant, as they indicate that the factorial structure of the instrument is stable and equivalent regardless of the participants’ group membership.
Achieving full invariance implies that the underlying construct of exposure to violence is measured consistently and without bias in both males and females, as well as across different age groups. Technically, this means that the items are interpreted similarly (configural invariance), the strength of the association between the items and the latent factor is equivalent (metric invariance), and the intercepts of the responses are also comparable (scalar invariance). Therefore, any differences found between groups can be attributed to actual differences in exposure to violence rather than to measurement errors or divergent interpretations [41,42].
This psychometric evidence significantly strengthens the internal validity of the instrument and supports its use in future research aimed at comparing populations by sex or age. As a result, it ensures that VES1,2 can be confidently used to conduct meaningful, equitable, and unbiased comparisons in both clinical contexts and in epidemiological or intervention studies.
Moreover, confirming invariance across demographic groups broadens the instrument’s applicability in longitudinal studies, cross-cultural evaluations, and differential analyses, which is essential for the development of public policies and prevention strategies tailored to the characteristics of each group. In this way, VES1,2 is established as a psychometrically robust tool for assessing exposure to violence across diverse populations.

4.3. Analysis of the Differences in Exposure to Violence in Different Scenarios According to Sex and Age in Children

The third objective was to examine the differences between EV a function of different scenarios, sex and age. The differences found provide new information on the role of sex, which is one of the most discussed moderators, as males and females may be affected differently by violence [43,44]. We found that women reported having experienced greater EV at home; specifically, they experienced greater VV during childhood and greater DV and VV in the last year. To some extent, these findings are consistent with worldwide studies showing that females are at risk of experiencing EV [44,45,46] and that child maltreatment is more prevalent in females, so they may be more vulnerable to the effects of child maltreatment and other adverse experiences [47,48].
Secondly, males experienced greater EV in other contexts such as school and the street; in the latter context, it is mostly present as DV. These findings are in line with other research worldwide, which has found that victims of violence at schools were mostly represented by males [49,50]. Street EV, also called “street violence,” was mostly a DV experience and was more often suffered by males, which is consistent with other studies [43,51]. One possible explanation is that males have riskier lifestyles; therefore, they are more likely to be victims or to participate in activities in which they are exposed to situations where violence is more likely to occur [51].
Finally, no differences were found in EV and TV according to sex, and other studies have also found no differences associated with the use of technology [52,53]. In addition, it is important that future studies explore the role of EV on TV, as some studies suggest that such exposure is a risk factor during the preschool years as it contributes to the learning of aggressive behaviors [54,55].
Age plays an important role, as deviant behaviors peak during adolescence [43]. In general, the older adolescent group (15–18 years) presented higher VV in different contexts: VV at school and in the street during the last year, DV and VV at home during childhood, and VV in the street. One possible explanation is that older adolescents have more time to accumulate EV experiences than younger adolescents do [9]. In addition, as they get older, adolescents tend to have greater independence and more activities outside the home, which can lead to a greater likelihood of experiencing victimization in contexts such as school or the street [43,46]. These findings suggest that victimization increases as the age of adolescents increases.

4.4. Analysis of the Relationship Between Exposure to Violence and CPV

The data showed that child-to-parent violence (CPV), both toward mothers and fathers, is strongly associated with prior exposure to violence at home, either during childhood or the last year. Specifically, direct exposure to violence at home demonstrated the strongest association with CPV, particularly in the case of violence directed at the mother. The vicarious exposure to violence at home also showed a significant relationship, slightly more pronounced in cases of CPV toward the father. These findings are consistent with previous research that has established both direct and indirect effects of intrafamilial violence on CPV [12,56]. Similarly, prior studies [10,22,33] have reported that a substantial percentage of adolescents who engage in CPV were recurrent victims of either direct or indirect family maltreatment, reinforcing the link between earlier victimization and aggressive behaviors toward parents.
This supports the idea that the way adolescents experience violence within the family whether directly or indirectly can differentially influence abusive behaviors depending on the parent involved. In the school context, both direct and vicarious victimization were moderately associated with CPV, with slight differences between maternal and paternal targets. CPV toward the father showed a slightly stronger association with recent direct victimization at school, whereas, for the mother, both forms of school victimization had similar effects. This suggests that school violence, though less central in explaining CPV, still warrants further exploration, especially given that other studies have shown that higher exposure to violence at home, bullying, and a lower sense of school belonging increase the likelihood of adolescents externalizing their adverse experiences through disruptive or antisocial behaviors.
Exposure to violent television content showed a weak relationship with CPV, though there was a slightly stronger link with CPV toward the mother in the last year. Finally, street violence, whether witnessed or experienced directly, was weakly associated with CPV. In this context, vicarious exposure appeared slightly more relevant than direct exposure, which showed the weakest association with violence toward both parents.

4.5. Limitations and Further Research

This study presented limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the results. First, due to its cross-sectional design, causal relationships cannot be established, and it remains uncertain whether sex differences in child-to-parent violence (CPV) would persist or vary over time. Second, important contextual variables such as socioeconomic status, parental marital status, educational level, and household composition were not included in the analyses, which may have influenced the findings. Third, all data were obtained through adolescent self-reports, which may be subject to biases such as social desirability or recall errors. Future research should consider dyadic methodologies that incorporate the perspectives of both adolescents and their parents. Moreover, exposure to violence was assessed only in the context of television, while current forms of victimization also emerge from social media, video games, and online pornography. Future studies should expand the scope of media-related exposure to better capture its impact on CPV. Finally, from a psychometric standpoint, although the instruments used showed adequate internal consistency and factorial validity, the study did not include longitudinal analysis or pretest–posttest designs. Future research should adopt longitudinal methodologies and include pre- and post-intervention assessments to evaluate test–retest reliability, temporal stability, and sensitivity to change.
This study has a significant theoretical limitation, as it is difficult to contrast the findings with existing theories and the Latin American context. Nevertheless, the research continues to contribute to the theoretical and empirical development of contexts of exposure to violence in adolescents and its relationship to child-perpetrated violence against parents (CPV), especially in Latin America, a region with social and cultural characteristics different from those of Europe or the United States, where most of the existing literature originates. Additionally, a relevant limitation lies in the scarce availability of previous research specifically addressing the relationship between exposure to violent content in media, such as television, and child-to-parent violence, as well as the influence of violence witnessed or experienced in public spaces, such as the street. This lack of background studies hinders the comparison and contextualization of findings. Therefore, it is necessary to deepen future research on these contexts of exposure. On the other hand, the results of this study support previous findings that show how experiences of violence during childhood and adolescence vary according to sex, age, and the context in which they occur, influencing the later expression of abusive behavior toward parental figures. In this regard, the need to direct prevention and intervention strategies primarily toward the early stages of adolescent development is emphasized, considering the social, cultural, and structural particularities of each group.
Furthermore, the importance of deepening the analysis of variables that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of family and parental violence dynamics is highlighted. This is especially relevant considering that child-to-parent violence (CPV) tends to occur in family contexts characterized by low levels of cohesion and control [57]. Moreover, since the school environment constitutes a key space for adolescents’ socialization, it is pertinent to examine which school-related factors might be associated with the emergence or maintenance of CPV, such as peer influence, bullying, low academic performance, or involvement in risky behaviors.
Finally, this study has several strengths such as the probabilistic sample design, where the participants were randomly selected, in addition to the fact that they lived in geographically separated provinces. Because Ecuador is a culturally diverse country, this finding provides additional information. The effects of settings such as school, street and TV could not be easily contrasted with previous literature; to our knowledge, this is the first study to study separately the effect of VE in different contexts.

4.6. Implications

First, the findings of this study can be applied to a standardized test with robust psychometric properties for psychologists and other professionals interested in assessing EV in Ecuadorian adolescents. Second, this study suggests that CPV interventions should contemplate that EV at home has a greater effect than EV in other contexts; therefore, prevention strategies should be focused primarily on the family. However, although with less effect, EV in other contexts is an adverse experience that contributes to explaining CPV towards both parents; therefore, a second study should be carried out for the school and the community.
In the same way, this is a standardized test with robust psychometric properties, making it a useful tool for psychologists and other professionals interested in assessing exposure to violence (EV) among Ecuadorian adolescents. The scale demonstrated a clear and replicable factorial structure, evidenced by satisfactory fit indices in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFI > 0.95; RMSEA < 0.06), as well as adequate levels of internal reliability in its dimensions (α and ω > 0.80). Furthermore, factorial invariance by sex and age was confirmed, ensuring that scores are comparable across groups, a fundamental aspect for studies aiming to identify population differences. Convergent and discriminant validity were also supported through significant correlations with other theoretically related measures. However, it is recommended that future research conduct longitudinal evaluations and test–retest stability studies to strengthen the evidence on the consistency and sensitivity to change of this tool in intervention or clinical follow-up contexts.
Secondly, this study suggests that CPV interventions should consider that exposure to violence (EV) within the home has a greater impact than EV in other contexts. Therefore, prevention strategies should focus primarily on the family, since its involvement in the therapeutic process is key to achieving more effective intervention [13]. On the other hand, although cognitive–behavioral interventions targeting criminogenic needs are effective in some cases, these approaches should be complemented with clinical interventions for youth exhibiting higher levels of dangerousness or relevant clinical symptoms. It is important to consider factors such as mental health, trauma, environmental precariousness, and substance use [58]. Nonetheless, although with less impact, EV in other contexts constitutes adverse experiences that also contribute to explaining CPV toward both parents. Therefore, a secondary effort should be directed at the school and the community.

5. Conclusions

This study validated the adapted version of the Violence Exposure Scale (VES) in Ecuadorian adolescents, confirming its reliability and usefulness in different contexts: home, school, street, and television. The scale showed adequate psychometric properties and maintains its validity regardless of gender or age, allowing for the comparison of results between groups and the design of specific intervention strategies from different contexts in which adolescents may interact, such as school, psychotherapeutic, or medical settings.
The results also revealed significant differences in patterns of victimization based on gender, age, and context. In terms of exposure to violence, girls reported higher levels of vicarious victimization at home, while boys experienced higher levels of both direct and vicarious victimization at school and on the street. In addition, older adolescents tended to report more experiences of violence, both at home and on the street, which may reflect a cumulative effect related to greater independence and increased time spent in various environments.
When associating this variable with child-to-parent violence (CPV), the findings show that violence in the home, especially direct violence, is mainly related to aggressive behavior toward the mother, while indirect violence is more closely linked to violence toward the father. Likewise, exposure to school violence shows a significant influence, in contrast to violence on the street or on television, whose relationship is weaker. Overall, the study confirms the relationship between violence experienced or witnessed, particularly at home, and CPV, highlighting the central role of the family environment in the development of these behaviors. In conclusion, the results highlight the importance of the family environment as a key factor and the need to consider variables such as gender, age, and context of exposure when designing preventive strategies and clinical interventions. This research constitutes a significant advance in the study of violence in Latin American contexts and reinforces the relevance of comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based approaches to addressing domestic violence in adolescence.

Author Contributions

Contribution to the conception and design: P.B.-B.; contribution to data collection: P.B.-B., A.R. and M.C.C.-L.; contribution to data analysis and interpretation: A.R. and J.H.D.; drafting: A.R. and M.C.C.-L.; approval of the final version for publication: A.R., J.H.D. and M.C.C.-L.; authorization for the scale: M.C.C.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana Sede Cuenca, Ecuador (Receipt number: 0H931764GT881325K).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee (CEISH) at the University of Cuenca under code 2022-017EO-IE on 13 February 2023, for studies involving humans. This study was authorized and supervised by the Ministry of Education (Ecuador).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical approval requirements.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Ecuador, and especially Dr. Juan Cárdenas Tapia, Sdb. Ph.D.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Factor loadings.
Table A1. Factor loadings.
FactorItemVES1 (Last Year)VES2 (Childhood/Before 10 Years of Age)
λMean (SD)SKKTλMean (SD)SKKT
Home1A0.7940.980 (1.389)1.181−0.0260.8241.216 (1.556)0.845−0.901
3A0.8850.781 (1.323) 1.5350.9110.8900.949 (1.479)1.224−0.123
5A0.8801.280 (1.612)0.782−1.0610.9141.258 (1.636)0.797−1.084
2A0.7781.217 (1.478)0.831−0.8100.8381.448 (1.596)0.562−1.293
4A0.8391.229 (1.503)0.812−0.8730.8771.300 (1.591)0.725−1.121
6A0.8531.350 (1.581)0.667−1.1720.8771.153 (1.557)0.918−0.818
School1B0.7000.773 (0.987)1.2090.8910.7540.610 (0.963) 1.6322.062
3B0.8290.830 (1.018)1.0920.4600.8390.616 (0.971)1.5691.743
5B0.8221.215 (1.255)0.693−0.6190.8480.760 (1.084)1.3310.845
2B0.6880.317 (0.739)2.8358.6950.7820.395 (0.835)2.4135.675
4B0.7830.392 (0.792)2.3045.3740.8400.361 (0.794)2.5276.371
6B0.8280.844 (1.203)1.2030.5890.8580.601 (1.011)1.7742.452
Street1C0.7181.121 (1.115)0.667−0.4920.7430.775 (1.056)1.2240.591
3C0.7560.926 (1.089)0.947−0.0630.7860.680 (1.028)1.4061.052
5C0.8031.239 (1.224)0.590−0.7640.8030.839 (1.118)1.1710.408
2C0.7270.253 (0.667)3.14310.7050.7740.221 (0.630)3.37212.199
4C0.8170.290 (0.734)2.9498.8910.8110.214 (0.644)3.64714.351
6C0.8150.466 (0.873)2.0373.7820.8330.339 (0.787)2.6997.376
TV1D0.7901.671 (1.309)0.136−1.1510.8151.168 (1.312)0.734−0.754
3D0.8501.335 (1.313)0.493−1.0340.8630.955 (1.229)0.999−0.224
5D0.8501.438 (1.340)0.405−1.1200.8511.005 (1.270)0.981−0.300

References

  1. Warren, A.; Blundell, B.; Chung, D.; Waters, R. Exploring Categories of Family Violence Across the Lifespan: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2023, 25, 965–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Matsumoto, M.; Piersiak, H.A.; Letterie, M.C.; Humphreys, K.L. Population-Based Estimates of Associations Between Child Maltreatment Types: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abus. 2023, 24, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tanner, M.A.; Francis, S. Protective Factors for Adverse Childhood Experiences: The Role of Emotion Regulation and Attachment. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2025, 34, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaufman-Parks, A.M.; Longmore, M.A.; Manning, W.D.; Giordano, P. Prospective Analysis of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adults’ Physical Intimate Partner Violence Victimization. J. Child Adolesc. Trauma 2025, 18, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Beckmann, L. Additive and Interactive Effects of Victimization on Adolescent Aggression Across Social Settings. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, NP8933–NP8960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bautista-Aranda, N.; Contreras, L.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Exposure to Violence during Childhood and Child-to-Parent Violence: The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Calvete, E. Are All Child-to-Parent Violence Profiles Associated with Exposure to Family Violence? Findings from a Sample of Spanish Adolescents. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cano-Lozano, M.C.; Contreras, L.; Navas-Martínez, M.J.; León, S.P.; Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J. Child-to-Parent Violence Offenders (Specialists vs. Generalists): The Role of Direct Victimization at Home. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 2023, 15, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cano-Lozano, M.C.; Navas-Martínez, M.J.; Contreras, L. Lagged and Simultaneous Effects of Exposure to Violence at Home on Child-to-Parent Violence: Gender Differences. Front. Psychiatry 2024, 15, 1441871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nowakowski-Sims, E.; Rowe, A. The Relationship between Childhood Adversity, Attachment, and Internalizing Behaviors in a Diversion Program for Child-to-Mother Violence. Child Abus. Negl. 2017, 72, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matjasko, J.L.; Herbst, J.H.; Estefan, L.F. Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences: The Role of Etiological, Evaluation, and Implementation Research. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2022, 62, S6–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gallego, R.; Novo, M.; Fariña, F.; Arce, R. Child-to-Parent Violence and Parent-to-Child Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 2019, 11, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Toole-Anstey, C.; Keevers, L.; Townsend, M.L. A Systematic Review of Child to Parent Violence Interventions. Trauma Violence Abus. 2023, 24, 1157–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Beckmann, L. Exposure to Family Violence and Adolescent Aggression in Multiple Social Contexts: Classroom Social Resources as Moderators. J. Fam. Violence 2020, 35, 471–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mastorakos, T.; Scott, K.L. Attention Biases and Social-Emotional Development in Preschool-Aged Children Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence. Child Abus. Negl. 2019, 89, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harris, R.J.; Channon, A.A.; Morgan, S.A. Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence: Can Global Estimates on the Scale of Exposure Be Obtained Using Existing Measures? Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1181837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eads, R.; Guerrero, X.A.; Benavides, J.L.; Shen, L. Overcoming Childhood Exposure to Violence in the Home: The Role of Parental Equanimity in Interrupting Intergenerational Trauma. J. Fam. Violence 2025, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Miranda, J.K.; Domedel, C.; Crockett, M.A.; Azócar, E.; Thatcher, K. Growing up in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: Experiences and Meanings for Adolescents in Chile. Child Abus. Negl. 2021, 120, 105220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baek, H.; Han, S.; Seepersad, R. Exposure to Violence at Home and Bullying in School: A Test of an Additional Layer of General Strain Theory. Deviant Behav. 2024, 2423684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Álvarez-García, D.; García, T.; Núñez, J.C. Predictors of School Bullying Perpetration in Adolescence: A Systematic Review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2015, 23, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nieuwenhuis, J.; Best, M.; Vogel, M.; van Ham, M.; Branje, S.; Meeus, W. Exposure to Neighborhood Violence and Child-Parent Conflict among a Longitudinal Sample of Dutch Adolescents. Cities 2023, 136, 104258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Navas-Martínez, M.J.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Profile of the Victimized Aggressors in Child-to-Parent Violence: Differences According to the Type of Victimization. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2022, 22, 100302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Navas-Martínez, M.J.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Risk Factors in Specialists and Generalists of Child-to-Parent Violence: Gender Differences and Predictors of Reactive and Proactive Reasons. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Contreras, L.; del Carmen Cano, M. Child-to-Parent Violence: The Role of Exposure to Violence and Its Relationship to Social-Cognitive Processing. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 2016, 8, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Latzman, N.E.; Vivolo-Kantor, A.M.; Clinton-Sherrod, A.M.; Casanueva, C.; Carr, C. Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Measurement Strategies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2017, 37, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Orue, I.; Calvete, E. Elaboración y Validación de Un Cuestionario Para Medir La Exposición a La Violencia En Infancia y Adolescencia. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 2010, 10, 279–292. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rogers, M.M.; Ashworth, C. Child-to-Parent Violence and Abuse: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2024, 25, 3285–3298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Junco-Guerrero, M.; Fernández-Baena, F.J.; Cantón-Cortés, D. Risk Factors for Child-to-Parent Violence: A Scoping Review. J. Fam. Violence 2023, 40, 139–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Contreras, L.; León, S.P.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Socio-cognitive Variables Involved in the Relationship between Violence Exposure at Home and Child-to-parent Violence. J. Adolesc. 2020, 80, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Junco-Guerrero, M.; Ruiz-Fernandez, A.; Cantón-Cortés, D. Family Environment and Child-To-Parent Violence: The Role of Emotional Insecurity. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP13581–NP13602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Martín, A.M.; De la Fuente, L.; Hernández, A.; Zaldívar, F.; Ortega-Campos, E.; García-García, J. Psychosocial Profile of Juvenile and Adult Offenders Who Acknowledge Having Committed Child-to-Parent Violence. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Contreras, L.; Bustos-Navarrete, C.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Child-to-Parent Violence Questionnaire (CPV-Q): Validation among Spanish Adolescents. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2019, 19, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Burgos-Benavides, L.; Cano-Lozano, M.C.; Suevos-Rodríguez, I.; Bustos-Benítez, P.; Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J. Mediating Effects of Exposure to Violence in Different Contexts of Child-to-Parent Violence: Validation of the Exposure to Violence Scale. Children 2025, 12, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. International Test Commission. The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests, 2nd ed.; International Test Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. R Core Team. R: A Lenguage and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023.
  36. Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Soft. 2012, 48, 1–36. Available online: https://www.jstatsoft.org/index.php/jss/article/view/v048i02 (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  37. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ramírez, A.; Burgos-Benavides, L.; Sinchi, H.; Quito-Calle, J.V.; Herrero Díez, F.; Rodríguez-Díaz, F.J. Adaptation and Validation of Psychological Assessment Questionnaires Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial for Planning and Reporting Analysis. Preprints 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kalkbrenner, M.T. Choosing Between Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha, McDonald’s Coefficient Omega, and Coefficient H: Confidence Intervals and the Advantages and Drawbacks of Interpretive Guidelines. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2024, 57, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. -A Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14, 464–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boer, D.; Hanke, K.; He, J. On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2018, 49, 713–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Turanovic, J.J. Exposure to Violence and Victimization: Reflections on 25 Years of Research From the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. J. Adolesc. Health 2022, 71, S14–S23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Lu, N. Adverse Childhood Experiences and Self-esteem among Adolescents: The Role of Social Capital and Gender. J. Adolesc. 2024, 96, 1539–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mrejen, M.; Rosa, L.; Rosa, D.; Hone, T. Gender Inequalities in Violence Victimization and Depression in Brazil: Results from the 2019 National Health Survey. Int. J. Equity Health 2023, 22, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Almeida, T.C.; Ramos, C.; Brito, J.; Cardoso, J. The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Poly-Victimization among Portuguese Youth. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 113, 105001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fitton, L.; Yu, R.; Fazel, S. Childhood Maltreatment and Violent Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. Trauma Violence Abus. 2020, 21, 754–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gilbreath, S.; Cheng, Y.; de Francisco Lopes, V.; Novak, A. Adolescent Domestic Violence Referrals and Adverse Childhood Experiences: Race and Sex Differences. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2024, 22, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhou, Y.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, X. Latent Profiles of Bullying Perpetration and Victimization: Gender Differences and Family Variables. Child Abus. Negl. 2024, 149, 106682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Olivier, E.; Morin, A.J.S.; Vitaro, F.; Galand, B. Challenging the “‘Mean Kid”’ Perception: Boys’ and Girls’ Profiles of Peer Victimization and Aggression from 4th to 10th Grades. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP15095–NP15129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smith, M.; Mitchell, C.; Jin, H.R. Gender Differences in the Impact of Adolescent Maltreatment Victimization on Subsequent Sexual Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 2022, 31, 1379–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hao, F.; Li, P.; Liang, Z.; Geng, J. The Association between Childhood Adverse Experiences and Internet Addiction: A Meta-Analysis. Acta Psychol. 2024, 246, 104270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shi, L.; Wang, Y.; Yu, H.; Wilson, A.; Cook, S.; Duan, Z.; Peng, K.; Hu, Z.; Ou, J.; Duan, S.; et al. The Relationship between Childhood Trauma and Internet Gaming Disorder among College Students: A Structural Equation Model. J. Behav. Addict. 2020, 9, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fitzpatrick, C.; Oghia, M.J.; Melki, J.; Pagani, L.S. Early Childhood Exposure to Media Violence: What Parents and Policymakers Ought to Know. S. Afr. J. Child. Educ. 2016, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Junco-Guerrero, M.; Ruiz-Fernández, A.; Cantón-Cortés, D. Video Games, Violence Justification and Child-to-Parent Violence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2024, 33, 3154–3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ibabe, I. Adolescent-to-Parent Violence and Family Environment: The Perceptions of Same Reality? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Svensson, R.; Andersson, L.; Johnson, B. Does the Association Between Individual Crime Propensity and Child-to-Parent Violence Vary by Family Social Environment? Crime Delinq. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fandiño, R.; Basanta, J.; Fariña, F.; Arce, R. Prevalence of Dangerousness to the Public, Criminogenic Risk Factors and Psychopathic Traits in Child-to-Parent Offenders and Contrast with Non-Child-to-Parent Offenders. Healthcare 2024, 12, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the VES.
Table 1. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the VES.
αoG.6ωoCRAVEHTMT
DV
Home		VV HomeDV SchoolVV SchoolDV
Street		VV StreetTV
VES1 (Last year)
DV home0.860.810.870.8110.679-
VV home0.890.840.890.8300.7290.849-
DV school0.800.750.820.7390.5910.4650.385-
VV school0.820.770.840.7880.6180.3910.3750.803-
DV street0.830.770.840.7250.6200.2810.2130.7680.429-
VV street0.800.730.810.7640.5770.3100.2750.5090.8250.602-
TV0.870.820.870.8350.6890.3800.3420.3920.6080.3490.7251
VES2 Childhood (before 10 years of age)
DV home0.890.850.900.8470.747-
VV home0.910.870.910.8500.7680.848-
DV school0.860.810.870.7920.6850.4280.368-
VV school0.850.800.860.7990.6640.4550.4220.842-
DV street0.840.790.850.7280.6500.2950.2830.7110.550-
VV street0.820.750.820.7590.6050.4190.3760.5430.8880.635-
TV0.880.830.880.8370.7110.4350.3920.4470.6620.4000.803-
Note. αo = Cronbach’s alpha ordinal; G.6 = reliability coefficient G6; ωo = McDonald’s omega ordinal; CR: reliability coefficient; AVE = average variance extracted; HTMT = heterotrait–monotrait ratio; DV = direct victimization; VV = vicarious victimization.
Table 2. Invariance of the violence exposure scale by sex and age of the children.
Table 2. Invariance of the violence exposure scale by sex and age of the children.
x2/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMRΔCFIΔRMSEAΔSRMR
VES1 sex
MC667.532/3360.9900.9870.030 (0.027–0.034)0.045
MC⟷MM703.139/3500.9890.9870.031 (0.027–0.034)0.0460.0010.0010.001
MM⟷ME716.808/3640.9890.9870.030 (0.027–0.033)0.0470.0000.0010.001
ME⟷MS741.726/3850.9890.9880.029 (0.026–0.033)0.0490.0000.0010.002
VES1 age
MC664.912/3360.9900.9870.030 (0.027–0.034)0.044
MC⟷MM683.051/3500.9900.9880.030 (0.026–0.033)0.0450.0000.0000.001
MM⟷ME706.302/3640.9890.9880.030 (0.026–0.033)0.0450.0010.0000.000
ME⟷MS720.278/3850.9900.9890.028 (0.025–0.032)0.0460.0010.0020.001
VES2 sex
MC402.548/3360.9980.9970.014 (0.008–0.018)0.037
MC⟷MM452.612/3500.9970.9960.017 (0.012–0.021)0.0390.0010.0030.002
MM⟷ME464.458/3640.9970.9960.016 (0.011–0.020)0.0400.0000.0000.001
ME⟷MS490.104/3850.9970.9970.016 (0.011–0.020)0.0430.0000.0000.003
VES2 age
MC414.767/3360.9980.9970.015 (0.009–0.019)0.037
MC⟷MM459.565/3500.9970.9960.017 (0.013–0.021)0.0390.0010.0020.002
MM⟷ME463.928/3640.9970.9970.016 (0.011–0.020)0.0390.0000.0010.000
ME⟷MS475.579/1950.9970.9970.015 (0.010–0.019)0.0410.0000.0010.002
Note. MC = configural invariance; MM = metric invariance; ME = scalar invariance; MS = strict invariance; ΔRMSEA < 0.015; ΔCFI < 0.010.
Table 3. Differences in average violence exposure scores according to the sex and age of the children.
Table 3. Differences in average violence exposure scores according to the sex and age of the children.
Last YearChildhood
GM (SD)UpR-B CM (SD)UpR-B C
Sex
DV homeM3.508 (3.748)525,679,0000.001−0.0803.764 (4.048)552,751,0000.185−0.032
F4.029 (3.949)4.012 (4.153)
VV homeM2.660 (3.468)506,731,000<0.001−0.1133.213 (4.005)534,784,5000.008−0.064
F3.351 (3.826)3.591 (4.107)
DV schoolM1.845 (2.231)655,853,500<0.0010.1481.607 (2.340)635,716,500<0.0010.113
F1.317 (1.951)1.156 (2.050)
VV schoolM3.113 (2.775)635,804,000<0.0010.1132.261 (2.705)623,598,000<0.0010.092
F2.579 (2.600)1.762 (2.338)
DV streetM1.289 (2.059)651,423,500<0.0010.1400.985 (1.868)630,110,000<0.0010.104
F0.781 (1.537)0.603 (1.402)
VV streetM3.446 (2.920)597,351,5000.0660.0462.396 (2.731)583,585,5000.3760.021
F3.156 (2.681)2.210 (2.497)
TVM4.427 (3.600)560,053,5000.429−0.0203.197 (3.405)561,608,0000.7670.007
F4.458 (3.271)3.045 (3.179)
Age
DV homeG13.904 (3.859)598,903,5000.1360.0373.651 (3.987)540,168,0000.008−0.065
G23.690 (3.876)4.147 (4.210)
VV homeG12.948 (3.618)567,886,5000.476−0.0173.115 (3.923)527,200,500<0.001−0.088
G23.135 (3.750)3.725 (4.180)
DV schoolG11.629 (2.153)599,390,0000.1140.0371.396 (2.261)587,961,0000.4360.018
G21.478 (2.038)1.319 (2.129)
VV schoolG12.730 (2.735)549,366,0000.045−0.0491.924 (2.548)555,492,0000.106−0.039
G22.904 (2.647)2.045 (2.492)
DV streetG10.934 (1.659)567,774,5000.425−0.0170.775 (1.590)579,530,5000.8430.004
G21.081 (1.939)0.773 (1.683)
VV streetG13.020 (2.708)515,865,500<0.001−0.1072.157 (2.511)547,199,0000.028−0.053
G23.548 (2.853)2.428 (2.689)
TVG14.306 (3.356)553,473,0000.089−0.0423.034 (3.191)557,044,0000.621−0.012
G24.581 (3.480)3.190 (3.369)
Note. M = male; F = female; G1 = 12 to 14 years; G2 = 15 to 18 years; R-B C = Rank–Biserial Correlation; DV = direct victimization; VV = vicarious victimization; U = Mann–Whitney U test; Childhood = before 10 years of age.
Table 4. Correlations of child-to-parent violence with exposure to violence in different childhood settings.
Table 4. Correlations of child-to-parent violence with exposure to violence in different childhood settings.
Variable CPVDVAVVADVBVVBDVCVVCTV
1. CPVSpearman’s rho—0.3170.2940.2100.1920.1190.1540.192
p-value—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)—0.3280.3030.2130.1940.1190.1550.195
SE effect size—0.0240.0230.0230.0230.0230.0230.023
2. DVArho0.278—0.6700.3250.2810.1890.2370.311
p-value<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.285—0.8100.3370.2880.1910.2420.322
SE effect size0.026—0.0240.0240.0230.0230.0230.024
3. VVArho0.2910.666—0.2910.3620.2080.3320.347
p-value<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.3000.803—0.3000.3790.2110.3450.362
SE effect size0.0260.027—0.0260.0260.0250.0260.026
4. DVBrho0.1960.3190.259—0.5640.5020.3950.328
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1990.3310.265—0.6390.5530.4180.341
SE effect size0.0250.0260.026—0.0240.0240.0240.024
5. VVBrho0.1750.2760.2770.557—0.2850.6430.500
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1770.2830.2850.629—0.2930.7630.549
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0260.026—0.0230.0240.024
6. DVCrho0.1130.1640.1410.4740.247—0.4030.248
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1140.1650.1420.5160.252—0.4270.254
SE effect size0.0250.0250.0250.0260.026—0.0240.023
7. VVCrho0.1690.2370.2320.3760.6450.370—0.574
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1710.2420.2370.3950.7670.389—0.654
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0260.0260.0270.026—0.024
8. TVrho0.1690.2870.2680.3020.4940.2050.583—
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1700.2960.2750.3120.5410.2080.667—
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0260.0260.0260.0250.026—
Note. CPV: child-to-parent violence (the lower triangle represents the father, while the upper triangle represents the mother). DVA = direct victimization at home; VVA = vicarious victimization at home; DVB = direct victimization at school; VVB = vicarious victimization at school; DVC = direct victimization on the street; VVC = vicarious victimization on the street; rho = Spearman’s rho.
Table 5. Correlations of child-to-parent violence with exposure to violence in different settings in the last year.
Table 5. Correlations of child-to-parent violence with exposure to violence in different settings in the last year.
Variable CPVDVA2VVA2DVB2VVB2DVC2VVC2TV2
1. CPVrho—0.3050.2830.1990.2040.1320.1650.179
p-value—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)—0.3150.2910.2010.2060.1330.1670.181
SE effect size—0.0230.0230.0230.0230.0230.0230.023
2. DVArho0.266—0.6800.3540.3770.2340.3520.379
p-value<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.273—0.8300.3700.3960.2380.3670.399
SE effect size0.026—0.0240.0240.0240.0230.0240.024
3. VVArho0.2910.685—0.2760.3460.2080.3050.326
p-value<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.3000.838—0.2830.3610.2110.3150.338
SE effect size0.0260.027—0.0230.0240.0230.0230.024
4. DVBrho0.1700.3420.291—0.6010.5110.4310.373
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1720.3560.300—0.6950.5640.4620.391
SE effect size0.0250.0260.026—0.0240.0240.0240.024
5. VVBrho0.2000.3720.3620.599—0.3470.6680.542
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.2030.3910.3790.691—0.3620.8060.607
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0260.026—0.0240.0240.024
6. DVC2rho0.1180.2150.2080.4970.338—0.4310.284
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1190.2190.2110.5450.352—0.4610.292
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0250.0260.026—0.0240.024
7. VVCrho0.1770.3650.3320.4220.6630.431—0.620
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—<0.001
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1780.3830.3450.4500.7990.461—0.725
SE effect size0.0250.0260.0260.0260.0270.026—0.024
8. TVrho0.1870.3810.3470.3670.5410.2820.638—
p-value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001—
Effect size (Fisher’s z)0.1890.4010.3620.3850.6060.2900.755—
SE effect size0.0260.0260.0260.0260.0260.0260.027—
Note. CPV: child-to-parent violence (the lower triangle represents the father, while the upper triangle represents the mother). DVA = direct victimization at home; VVA = vicarious victimization at home; DVB = direct victimization at school; VVB = vicarious victimization at school; DVC = direct victimization on the street; VVC = vicarious victimization on the street; rho = Spearman’s rho.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bustos-Benítez, P.; Ramírez, A.; Herrero Díez, J.; Cano-Lozano, M.C. Psychometric Properties of the Violence Exposure Scale in Ecuadorian Adolescents and Its Relationship with Child-to-Parent Violence. Children 2025, 12, 1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101343

AMA Style

Bustos-Benítez P, Ramírez A, Herrero Díez J, Cano-Lozano MC. Psychometric Properties of the Violence Exposure Scale in Ecuadorian Adolescents and Its Relationship with Child-to-Parent Violence. Children. 2025; 12(10):1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101343

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bustos-Benítez, Paola, Andrés Ramírez, Javier Herrero Díez, and M. Carmen Cano-Lozano. 2025. "Psychometric Properties of the Violence Exposure Scale in Ecuadorian Adolescents and Its Relationship with Child-to-Parent Violence" Children 12, no. 10: 1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101343

APA Style

Bustos-Benítez, P., Ramírez, A., Herrero Díez, J., & Cano-Lozano, M. C. (2025). Psychometric Properties of the Violence Exposure Scale in Ecuadorian Adolescents and Its Relationship with Child-to-Parent Violence. Children, 12(10), 1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12101343

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop