CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 700Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Sexual Relationship Power in HIV/STD Research

Pulerwitz, Julie, Gortmaker, Steven L., DeJong, William·2000·Sex Roles
DOI 10.1023/a:1007051506972
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1007051506972

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) is a theoretically grounded, validated measure of power in sexual relationships that has been widely used in sub-Saharan Africa.

    “The SRPS is a theoretically-based and validated measure of power within a sexual relationship that has been extensively used in sub-Saharan Africa [35].”

    From Relationship power and sexual violence among HIV-positive women in rural Uganda (2016) · cites this paper as [46]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Amaro, H., & Gornemann, I. (1992). HIV/AIDS related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among Hispanics: Report of findings and recommendations. Boston: Boston University School of Public Health and Northeast Hispanic Consortium.
  2. Ehrhardt, A., & Wasserheit, J. (1991). Age, gender, and sexual risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. In J. Wasserheit, S. Aral, K. Holmes, & P. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research issues in human behavior and sexually transmitted diseases in the AIDS era (pp. 97–121). Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
  3. Miller, L. C., Burns, D. M., & Rothspan, S. (1995). Negotiating safer sex: The dynamics of African-American relationships. In P. Kalbfleisch, M. J. Cody, et al. (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 163–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & DeJong, W.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Sex Roles
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2000-04
Volume
42
Issue
7-8
Pages
637-660
ISSN
  • 0360-0025 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2762
DOI
10.1023/a:1007051506972
OpenAlex
W1509874540
Cited by
700
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 30
FWCI
9.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Sex Roles (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ford Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
sexual relationship power, power dynamics in relationships, intimate partner violence, relationship control, condom use, Hispanic women, Spanish-language scale, scale validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review