Analysis reveals prevalence rates and psychometric properties of tech-facilitated dating abuse in adolescents, indicating various associations.
Technology-facilitated dating abuse (TFDA) is a prevalent and harmful experience for adolescents. However, the absence of validated instruments in Portugal hinders early detection, prevention, and intervention. To address this gap, this study aims to: (a) analyze the psychometric properties of the Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships (TAR) scale, recognized as one of the most reliable measures in this field; (b) estimate prevalence rates; and (c) examine associations with gender, age, self-esteem, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and in-person dating violence. Between February and May 2023, 859 Portuguese adolescents (48.9% cisgender boys, 48.2% cisgender girls, and 2.9% gender-diverse; M age = 15.27, SD = 1.68) enrolled in grades 7 to 12 across 25 schools in northern and central Portugal completed an online questionnaire. The TAR scale was translated and adapted following international guidelines. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original four-factor structure—humiliation, monitoring/control, sexual coercion, and threats—for both victimization and perpetration, with adequate reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity. Prevalence rates showed that 11.9% reported victimization, 9.4% perpetration, and 34.5% victimization–perpetration. Monitoring/control behaviors were the most prevalent and bidirectional form. Gender and age differences emerged: Cisgender boys were more often uninvolved in monitoring/control, while cisgender girls were more frequently victims-perpetrators; adolescents aged 14 to 16 reported higher rates of victimization, particularly sexual coercion. TFDA was negatively correlated with self-esteem and HRQOL, and positively correlated with in-person dating victimization and perpetration. These results support the Portuguese version of the TAR scale as a valid instrument for research, clinical, and forensic use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vale et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: