See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357094722

Psychometric development and validation of victim gaslighting questionnaire

(VGQ): across female sample from Pakistan

Article  in  International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare · December 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJHRH-12-2020-0119

CITATIONS READS

2 2,222

7 authors, including:

Kanwar Hamza Shuja Muhammad Aqeel

National University of Modern Languages Foundation University
32 PUBLICATIONS   640 CITATIONS    102 PUBLICATIONS   1,749 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Medical projects View project

truancy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Aqeel on 13 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychometric development and validation
of victim gaslighting questionnaire (VGQ):
across female sample from Pakistan
Mahnoor Mahmood Bhatti, Kanwar Hamza Shuja, Muhammad Aqeel, Zainab Bokhari,
Syeda Nasreen Gulzar, Tabassum Fatima and Manahil Sama

Mahnoor Mahmood Bhatti

Abstract is based at the Department
Purpose – Gaslighting a form of abusive manipulation both emotional and psychological is a growing of Psychology, Foundation
phenomenon in recent times. However, as of yet, there is a scarcity of a valid and reliable instrument University, Islamabad,
which can measure the severity of gaslighting in victims of interpersonal relationships abuse. The Pakistan. Kanwar Hamza
purpose of this study is the development of an instrument which can effectively measure gaslighting in Shuja is based at the
victims and is psychometrically reliable and valid. Capital University of
Design/methodology/approach – Since the aim of the study was the development of a scale first a Science and Technology,
sample of eight women who were victims of domestic abuse was taken for the focus group. Afterwards Islamabad, Pakistan and
using purposive sampling a sample of 20 women for the pilot study and a sample of 150 women for the Quaid-i-Azam University,
main study was taken with age range 18–40 (M = 23.38, S.D = 4.03). For the development of scale
Islamabad, Pakistan.
theoretical basis along with a focus group was conducted to establish an item pool. Afterwards, subject
Muhammad Aqeel, Zainab
matter experts helped in establishing contend validity followed by Velicer’s minimum average partial
(MAP) method and maximum likelihood factor analysis (FA) was performed for the establishment of the Bokhari, Syeda Nasreen
factorial structure of the instrument. Gulzar, Tabassum Fatima
Findings – Velicer’s MAP method and Maximum Likelihood FA suggested two factor structures including and Manahil Sama are all
peer disagreement and loss of self-trust. Instrument displayed high alpha reliability of a = 0.934, with a = based at the Department of
0.927 and a = 0.854, for the subscale, respectively. Psychology, Foundation
Research limitations/implications – Though all necessary steps were taken to minimize the limitations University, Islamabad,
of the present study, however, some limitations do exist which needs to be addressed. The foremost Pakistan.
limitation of the present scale is that it is being developed with only a female sample, however, the
inclusion of a male sample in future studies can help in identifying whether men also are victims of
gaslighting from peers and other family members or not. The second limitation is of validity though
necessary validities have been established future studies should study on establishing further validities to
further refine the instrument. Additionally, the scale has only been validated and tested on female
samples future studies should be conducted on other specific groups or samples to develop norms.
Moreover, testing the scale on other cultures could also help in establishing cross cultural validation of the
instrument. Finally, though the scale assumes a higher level of scores suggests a higher level of
victimization, a proper cutoff score can help in further identifying proper victims from the normal level of
gaslighting.
Practical implications – The present instrument has its applicability in several domains the most
important being in the criminal justice system as gaslighting comes under gaslighting and even in the UK
is considered as a criminal offense. This instrument can help in determining the severity of gaslighting in
victims. Likewise, it can be used in clinical settings for psychologists to identify possible cases of
gaslighting victims which can enable them to provide specific help and treatment for them. Moreover,
researchers can also benefit from the instrument as it can enable them to explore gaslighting with other
possible variables which can help them explore the concept of gaslighting even further.
Originality/value – This paper is a novel study and has been completed with the purpose of evaluating
the effects of gaslighting in victims of interpersonal relationships abuse as the earlier measures are either
Received 20 December 2020
not psychometrically valid or cannot be generalized to a wider population. The present established scale Revised 15 February 2021
is an effort to construct an instrument that can be used worldwide. Accepted 21 February 2021

DOI 10.1108/IJHRH-12-2020-0119 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-4902 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j
 Keywords Mental health, Gaslighting, Victims, Manipulation, Interpersonal relationships abuse,
Emotional and psychological abuse, Velicer’s minimum average partial method
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Research on psychological and emotional abuse of adult women have significantly
increased in recent years (Follingstad, 2011; Marshall, 1999; Rogers and Follingstad, 2014).
A particular type of covert abuse that has garnered much attention out of other types is
gaslighting (Marshall, 1999; Rogers and Follingstad, 2014; Saif et al., 2021). Gaslighting is
an increasingly pervasive term usually used to describe the mind-manipulating strategies of
abusive people, in both politics and interpersonal relationships (Sweet, 2019; Toqeer et al.,
2021). Gaslighting in the psychological domain is explained as a type of psychological
manipulation that develops doubt in the targeted individual or a group by making them
question their own rationality, memory and perception. It uses use of constant misdirection,
denial, lying and contradiction to destabilize and delegitimize the victim’s belief (Dorpat,
1994; Petric, 2018). However, till now there is a scarcity of empirical research on such types
of psychological and emotional abuse due to the lack of a reliable and valid instrument
(Hightower, 2018). Due to the broadness of the spectrum of gaslighting the present study
aims to focus only on the development of a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument
which can measure the construct of gaslighting empirically in an interpersonal relationship
context.
Typically, gaslighting involves a mental abuser or a group of abusers (gas-lighter), a victim or
a group of victims (gas-lighter) and constant mental abuse (gaslighting) (Weintraub, 2021).
Gaslighting can be consciously or unconsciously and is mostly conducted on a covert level
such that the emotional abuse do not feel overtly abusive (Dorpat, 2013). From this, it can be
discerned that gaslighting can be committed by any peer, relative, partner or colleague and
can be especially detrimental when the perpetrator is someone in a position of power (Simon,
2011). Researchers have suggested several possible linked traits which makes a person more
susceptible to become a victim of gaslighting such as Simon (2010) notes that traits that can
contribute to vulnerability for covert emotional abuse may include over-conscientiousness,
neuroticism, low self-confidence, inexperience, emotional dependency and over-
intellectualization (pp. 140–141). Similarly, Stout (2005) and Stern (2007) suggested a
conscious bound mind, extreme self-doubt, needing the approval of the gas-lighter and the
desire to reduce conflict as vulnerable traits to become a victim of gaslighting.
The Intimate Partner Surveillance Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements by
the center for disease control and prevention are updated with the addition of a definition for
gaslighting and being labelled as a form of psychological aggression (Breiding et al.,
2015). Moreover, due to this attention and popularity of the concept Gaslighting in the UK in
2015 was even made an official part of criminal domestic violence law and up till then more
than 300 people have been charged (Mikhailova, 2018). Nevertheless, despite the
recognition gaslighting has gained as an abusive power tactic, sociologists have ignored it
for long leaving it for the psychologists to study (Sweet, 2019). However, even in the
psychological domain most work done on gaslighting is qualitative rather than quantitative.
Even when there is an abundance of evidence which suggests that emotional and
psychological abuse might be more damaging than physical abuse and has long-lasting
effects (Ali et al., 1999; Hayes and Jeffries, 2015; Lachkar, 2001). The most superlative data
currently available suggests that gaslighting is a distressingly common part of domestic
violence. The data was from a survey of 2,500 hotlines callers about their experiences of
intimidation, conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline (Mistral, 2011).
Although these findings did provide justification for the prevalence of gaslighting, such
methods fall short in helping to understand the underlying causes of such abusive acts and

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

their ability to coerce (Dutton and Goodman, 2005). Though this failure also shed light on
some important aspects as well, one of which was that women may also use such abusive
tactics against men, however, men are less likely to be intimidated by their female
companions, and thus are less inclined to change their behaviour (Anderson, 2005; Hafsa
et al., 2021; Ross, 2012). In other words isolation, fear and entrapment are gendered-
oriented outcomes suggesting gaslighting to have a higher degree of prevalence among
women (Anderson, 2009; Myhill, 2015). This becomes more concerning in countries that are
male dominant or patriarchal as the chances of female partner abuse in such countries are
much higher (Sarfraz et al., 2021; Sikweyiya et al., 2020). One such example is of Pakistan
where the male population dominates over women and every aspect of their life often
leading to physical, emotional and psychological abuse as reported and observed from the
findings of several studies (Ali et al., 2015; Bhattacharya, 2014; Khurram, 2017; Murshid
and Critelli, 2020; Rashid et al., 2021; Zakar et al., 2013).
There are several valid and reliable instruments available to measure intimate partner
violence of different types efficiently such as for measuring physical violence there are
Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2); Composite Abuse Scale; Severity of Violence
Against Women Scale/Severity of Violence Against Men Scale (SVAWS/SVAMS) (Hegarty
et al., 2005; Marshall, 1992; Straus et al., 2003). For sexual victimization there are a Sexual
Experiences Survey (SES) –Victimization Version; Sexual Victimization of College Women
(Belknap et al., 1999; Fisher et al., 2015; Koss et al., 1987; Koss and Gidycz, 1985).
Likewise, the abusive behaviour inventory; index of psychological abuse; and multi-
dimensional measure of emotional abuse for measuring psychological and emotional abuse
(Murphy et al., 1999; Shepard and Campbell, 1992; Sullivan and Bybee, 1999), etc.
However, due to the limitation of the conceptual construct of intimate partner violence as it
measures only abuse done by intimate partners. While gaslighting encompasses peers,
partners, family etc., no quantitative instrument exists to measure gaslighting in interpersonal
relationships. Currently, the best available tool to measure interpersonal gaslighting is based
on a 20 item Checklist adopted from The Gaslight Effect by Stern (2007).
In view of the presented evidence and the imminent need for a valid and reliable
psychometric instrument. Additionally, as discussed in Pakistan where patriarchy has led to
violence against women it is important to have an instrument which could help in reliably
identifying victims of gaslighting. Moreover, a valid instrument can not only be useful in the
identification of victims of gaslighting but also can help in opening new areas in quantitative
research on the subject matter. With these aims, the present study aims to develop a scale
which can measure the extent of gaslighting in victims.

Research methodology
Research method
Approval for this study was obtained from the Foundation University Rawalpindi Campus
Research Ethics Committee of the psychology department, in collaboration with the
National Institute of Psychology (N.I.P), Pakistan.

Questionnaire development
In questionnaire development, the knot theory of mind by Petric (2018) was used which
explains gaslighting as a powerful form of manipulation causing emotional and mental
abuse which can lead to the formation of many knots of negative emotions and thoughts in
an individual’s mind which can then further lead to permanent damage to the victim’s
emotional and cognitive health (Petric, 2018). For additional perspective in relation to the
gaslighting and the associated feelings and thinking of the victims of gaslighting focus
groups were conducted. The sample consisted of a group of domestic violence victims and
was conducted at an NGO during a support group discussion session, which led the

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 victimized women to speak freely about their abusive experiences and emotional and
psychological abuse. Participation was voluntary and 8 participants agreed to the focus
group discussion. The moderators started the discussion by explaining briefly about
gaslighting. They introduced the questions one by one to the participants, for example,
what is the main topic of arguments? How much do your feelings matter to them during an
argument? etc. Afterwards, a thematic analysis was performed to drive out relevant themes
in accordance with the aims and objectives of the study.

Phase 1: item selection pool

A total of 35 items were generated while considering the most important concepts related to
gaslighting in victims. The statements were written in English while complying with the rules
and methods for writing questionnaires. Seven subject matter experts (SME’s) were
approached, based on their qualifications and expertise in scale development, for the
purpose of construct validity. They examined the 35 items independently and removed
those with similar or interconnected meanings and those that were unclear or confusing. In
the end, 15 items remained, considered to be suitable by the SME’s and were selected for
the first version of the Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ). All statements responses
were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale, where 1 denoted “strongly disagree” and 5
as “strongly agree”, whereas the statements order in the developed questionnaire was set
random. The initial part of the VGQ comprised five questions relating to demographic data.

Phase 2: data collection

Sample/participants. The developed scale was initially administered to a sample of N = 20
women from different domains of society with a mean age of 23.38 (range = 18–40) for the
pilot study. Participants included in the pilot study were mainly female samples with
different characteristics as ascertained from their collected demographic data. All the
participants were given the same instructions and guidelines regarding the survey.
Additionally, for ethical concerns anonymity and confidentiality was ensured throughout the
process.
Once the pilot study displayed significant results a main study for the scale validation was
performed using various analyses on a sample of 150 women with a mean age of 23.38
(range = 18–40), gathered using a purposive sampling technique. Similar inclusion criteria
to those of the pilot study was kept. The sample size for the particular development of the
scale with respect to the number of items was selected on the recommendation of Velicer
and Fava (1998), who suggested that at least per item should have a minimum of three
participants and any less to be considered as insufficient (Kline, 2013; Reise et al., 2000).
Nevertheless, for the present development of the instrument only a female sample was
selected as it is established based on the findings of previous literature that women are
more susceptible towards being victims of gaslighting, and, as the present scale is for
victims of gaslighting only female sample was taken. However, no other specific exclusion
criteria were set for the present study.
Procedure for collection of data. The developed questionnaire was administered by two
different researchers all familiar with the research. Like the pilot study, the main study also
included five questions related to demographics followed by items generated regarding
victim gaslighting. The participants were instructed to fill the questionnaire completely with
no answer being right or wrong. Additionally, a consent form was also handed to the
participants which included the same set of instructions related to the questionnaire. The
participation of the participants was voluntary and like pilot study, their identities were kept
anonymous due to ethical and privacy concerns (Figure 1).

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Figure 1 VGQ derivation flowchart, MAP = minimum average partial method, MLM =
maximum likelihood method, FIML= full information maximum likelihood

Phase 1: Item selection based on Theoretical Model & Focus Group

Original pool: 35 items

Phase 2: Data Collection

Pilot Study Sample: 20 Females

Sample: 150 Females

Phase 3: Data Screening

FIML
Missing Data Treatment
Outliers Treatment
Sqr root Transformation

Phase 4: Item Screening

Normality Shapiro-Wilk Test
Inter-Item Correlation
Matrix Skewness & Kurtosis

Phase 5: Reliability and Validity Analysis

Construct Validity MAP, MLM

Content Validity Expert’s Panel

Internal Consistency
Reliability Alpha Coefficient

Phase 3: data screening

Missing data treatment. A FIML technique was selected for the treatment of missing data
using SPSS. The particular technique efficiently estimated parameters and standard errors
by “using data from the observed part of the data set” with omitted data (Field, 2017;
Misago et al., 2015; Shuja et al., 2020a).
Outliers treatment. For the purpose of treatment of outliers, a square root transformation was
used as it is able to detect outliers at both sides of the data for normalizing it between
ranges of 0 and 1 (Cousineau and Chartier, 2010).

Phase 4: item screening

Frequency distribution analysis. Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis analysis
were conducted for the purpose of frequency distribution. A range of “2” for skewness and
“3” for kurtosis was opted based on the recommendations of several researchers (Field,
2017; Meyer-Arendt and Blaker, 1973).
Correlation matrix generation. A correlation matrix analysis was conducted to assess
the correlation among the items and issues of collinearity. All the items displayed adequate
correlation between them which was expected, as all the items measured the same
construct, however, no collinearity between the items was detected (Field, 2017; Shuja
et al., 2020b; Tabri and Elliott, 2012).

Phase 5: reliability and validity analysis

Construct validity. To verify the factor structure a more recent extraction method called
Velicer’s minimum average partial method (MAP) was used for determining the factor
structure of the constructed instrument (Velicer et al., 2000), which suggested a two factor
structure. The results from several studies including continuous variables have suggested

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 that MAP and parallel analysis procedures are the two most accurate methods for factor
extraction (Garrido et al., 2011).
Afterwards, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the Maximum Likelihood method
(MLM) of extraction was applied for determining the factor structure of the developed
instrument (Briggs and MacCallum, 2003). The MLM of extraction is best for data which is
normally distributed. Additionally, maximum-likelihood extraction also has an advantage
over other factor analysis (FA) techniques (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Squared multiple
correlations have been used to estimate communalities (Gorsuch, 2009). Kaiser-Meyers-
Olkin value was used for sampling sufficiency and the Bartlett method was used to
distinguish unbiased factors, which correlate only with their own factor (Vieira, 2011).
A direct oblimin method of rotation was used, as it was assumed that all the items were
correlated which was observed from the component correlation matrix. The total number of
factors determined by the Scree-test retain was two factor structures. The two-factor
structure obtained comprising nine items for the first factor and five for the second, with
high factor loadings (>0.5) for each item and a satisfactory inter-factor correlation
(approximately 25). There were no reverse items in the present scale, whereas one item was
dropped due to double loading.
Content validity. An additional group of five expert psychologists’ panel was briefed about
the purpose and aim of the development of the instrument and were asked to label the two
achieved factors. A benchmark arrangement of 70% cut-off interrater was decided. The first
factor suggested the disagreement on part of the peer in relation to each act of the victim,
blaming them for everything and so it was labelled as “peer-disagreement”. The second
factor reflected losing trust in one’s own ability to make decisions, judgment, realities, etc.,
and for this reason, was named “loss of self-trust”.
Internal consistency reliability. For measuring internal consistency reliability, an alpha
coefficient analysis for each of the subscales (factor) was examined separately (Field,
2017).

Results
The results for the current study include descriptive relating to the demographical data
collected along with the mean values of the data. The other analysis included alpha
reliability, EFA and Velicer’s MAP method as follows.
Table 1 revealed the Item Total correlation of items generated during the pilot study. The
values of the corrected item-total correlation were all positive indicating that all the items
should be retained. As seen in the table, the corrected item-total correlation ranged
between 0.32 and 0.7, suggesting the items of the scale to be reliable and can be retained.
Table 2 constitutes the socio-demographic information of the participants of the current
study. The results include the mean, standard deviation, range, skewness and kurtosis of
the secondary variables, such as age, education occupation, marriage status and family
system. The age range selected for the current study was from 18 to 40 (M = 23.38, S.D =
4.03). Other descriptive involved education (M = 2.56, S.D = 0.789), occupation (M = 1.58,
S.D = 0.495), family system (M = 1.35, S.D = 0.478) and marital status (M = 1.61, S.D =
0.489). All the skewness and kurtosis were within normal Ranges 2 and 3, respectively, as
well.
Table 3 highlights the results of the test of normality for the present data set and includes
the values of the Shapiro-Wilk test which displayed a significance value of 0.381 higher than
p > 0.05, suggesting the data to be normally distributed. Additionally, Figure 2 presents a
histogram which also indicates towards the normalcy of the data with the majority of the
data falling in the middle of the graph with the mean value of 42.01 (Table 4).

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Table 1 Inter-item total correlation analysis of the pilot study (N = 20)
Inter-item correlation matrix
Scale mean Corrected item Cronbach’s alpha
Items if item deleted total correlation if item deleted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

VGQ1 39.1375 0.673 0.937 – 0.695 0.569 0.516 0.617 0.569 0.459 0.434 0.547 0.312 0.306 0.517 0.479 0.502 0.447
VGQ2 39.0625 0.673 0.937 0.623 0.371 0.464 0.649 0.510 0.584 0.431 0.417 0.412 0.451 0.485 0.485 0.408
VGQ3 39.1000 0.648 0.938 0.545 0.496 0.519 0.480 0.569 0.386 0.380 0.384 0.430 0.443 0.488 0.412
VGQ4 39.2000 0.561 0.940 0.523 0.496 0.423 0.399 0.345 0.375 0.377 0.344 0.384 0.351 0.440
VGQ5 39.2500 0.645 0.937 0.575 0.553 0.371 0.610 0.337 0.418 0.490 0.366 0.415 0.470
VGQ6 39.0875 0.775 0.934 0.580 0.642 0.443 0.604 0.583 0.649 0.561 0.557 0.558
VGQ7 39.1875 0.727 0.935 0.654 0.584 0.459 0.656 0.539 0.517 0.445 0.689
VGQ8 39.2125 0.750 0.935 0.503 0.568 0.506 0.599 0.653 0.641 0.625
VGQ9 39.2000 0.695 0.936 0.449 0.455 0.634 0.610 0.571 0.670
VGQ10 39.2500 0.641 0.938 0.574 0.623 0.575 0.488 0.554
VGQ11 39.2625 0.666 0.937 0.587 0.590 0.448 0.666
VGQ12 39.3125 0.761 0.935 0.644 0.702 0.685
VGQ13 39.2625 0.741 0.935 0.684 0.688
VGQ14 39.4375 0.709 0.936 0.577
VGQ15 39.2125 0.762 0.935 –

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Table 2 Descriptive analysis of the socio-demographic profile of respondents (N = 500)
Range
Demographic variables M SD Min Max S K

Age 23.38 4.03 18 40 2.18 5.418

Education 2.56 0.798 1.00 4.00 0.403 0.565
Occupation 1.58 0.495 1.00 2.00 0.227 0.919
Marital status 1.61 0.489 1.00 2.00 0.47 0.803
Family system 1.35 0.478 1.00 2.00 0.051 1.598
Notes: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Min = minimum, max = maximum, S = skewness and K =
kurtosis

Table 3 Test of normality of data (N = 150)

Tests of normality

VGQ total Shapiro-Wilk test

Statistic df Sig.
0.983 80 0.381

The table suggests the values of factor loadings for the present scale based on the squared
partial correlation and 4th power, respectively. The smallest average squared partial
correlation suggested by the MAP analysis was 0.0348 and the smallest average 4th power
partial correlation was 0.0031 both of which suggested two component structures for the
present scale.
Table 5 reveals the EFA factor loadings performed using Maximum Likelihood Analysis
extraction with a high Kaiser-Meyers-Olkin (0.908), the value which suggested that
correlations were enough to create separate and reliable factors with Bartlett’s test of
sphericity x 2 (df) = 811.43 (105), at p < 0.01, all of which signified suitability of data for FA.

Figure 2 Histogram for testing normality of the present study data (N = 150)

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

Table 4 Velicer MAP method for VGQ (N = 150)
No. of factor(s) Average squared partial correlation Average 4th power partial correlation

14 1.00 1.00
13 0.476 0.3428
12 0.292 0.1727
11 0.207 0.0962
10 0.155 0.0520
9 0.122 0.0328
8 0.097 0.0244
7 0.077 0.0170
6 0.063 0.0128
5 0.056 0.0081
4 0.044 0.0047
3 0.039 0.0036
2 0.035 0.0031
1 0.037 0.0031
0 0.276 0.0872

Table 5 EFA of the VGQ (N = 150)

Factor loading of 15 items through MLM using a direct Obliman method
Score
Items range M (S.D) S K Statements Two factor

1 VGQ15 1–5 2.8(1.072) 0.096 0.684 You often find yourself questioning your own sanity 0.913
because of their words
2 VGQ11 1–5 2.75(0.974) 0.063 0.768 Their positive actions do not complement their 0.838
degrading words
3 VGQ13 1–5 2.75(1.013) 0.075 0.762 You feel unsure of your decision-making abilities 0.784
because of their disagreement
4 VGQ12 1–5 2.7(1.107) 0.510 0.543 They accused you of lying and manipulation when 0.766
in reality they are the ones doing it
5 VGQ10 1–5 2.76(1.07) 0.366 0.359 You often find them denying things even when 0.751
there is proof
6 VGQ8 1–5 2.8(1.13) 0.082 0.777 You often feel that you have to defend your reality 0.643
from them
7 VGQ7 1–5 2.83(1.1) 0.053 0.946 They assign motives to your actions that are 0.619
opposite to your intentions
8 VGQ14 1–5 2.58(1.09) 0.437 0.490 You find yourself questioning your beliefs and 0.599
opinions because of their opposition
9 VGQ9 1–5 2.81(1.092) 0.384 0.486 They make you believe that nobody can be trusted 0.575
except them
10 VGQ6 1–5 2.93(0.991) 0.327 0.453 They act in a way that contradict their statements 0.430 0.430
11 VGQ1 1–5 2.88(1.084) 0.052 0.752 You constantly change your words or thoughts 0.933
before speaking
12 VGQ2 1–5 2.95(1.135) 0.166 0.841 Your point of view is dismissed or said to be 0.789
“wrong” completely
13 VGQ3 1–5 2.91(1.193) 0.173 0.879 You get accused for “overreacting” when you try to 0.681
explain your feelings
14 VGQ5 1–5 2.76(1.034) 0.144 0.684 Most interactions leave you feeling small or 0.611
ashamed of yourself
15 VGQ4 1–5 2.81(1.181) 0.233 0.732 You apologize without knowing what you did wrong 0.513
Eigenvalues 8.26 1.32
% of 55.08 8.79
variance
Cumulative 55.08 63.87
variance
Notes: M = mean, S.D = standard deviation, S = skewness, K = kurtosis; factor 1 = personal freedom; factor 2 = equal rights; factor
3 = women empowerment-related fears

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Figure 3 Scree plot for the Eigen value of the factor structure for VGQ (N = 150)

Table 6 Alpha reliability and inter-item correlation of scale and subscales (N = 150)
Variables No. of items Mean Std. deviation a 1 2 3

VGQ total 14 42.013 12.02 0.934 – 0.955 0.871

Peer disagreement 9 24.775 7.67 0.927 – – 0.690
Loss of self-trust 5 14.312 4.48 0.854 – – –

Initially, 15 items of VSQ were proposed based on their eigenvalues more of more than 1
(Cattell, 1966). However, item no 6 was rejected as the item was double loading. While 2
factors that were created included factor 1 as peer disagreement containing Items 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; and factor 2 relating to the loss of self-trust consisting of Items 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5. The input of seven subject specialists: 3 were university Professors and the
other 4 of them were PhD scholars; was used for the purpose of establishing content validity
for the present instrument (Figure 3).
Table 6 shows the correlation between the whole scale and three of its subscales as
suggested by EFA. The table suggests a highly significant correlation between the main
scale and its subscales with r = 0.955 and 0.871, respectively. The currently achieved
Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the overall instrument was a = 0.934 which is above the
acceptable ranges suggesting high reliability of the scale. Additionally, the alpha reliability
for the subscale was a = 0.927 and a = 0.854, respectively.
Table 7 shows the derived two factors suggested by EFA along with their remaining items.

Discussion
Gaslighting is a very serious issue and requires attention especially in a patriarchal country
where the male population mostly dominate women as this kind of abuse is covert in nature
and can damage the victim emotionally and psychologically leaving a long-lasting effect (Ali
et al., 1999; Hayes and Jeffries, 2015; Lachkar, 2001). Pakistan due to a male dominant
country also have several instances of domestic violence cases against women and several
research studies indicates towards the presence of emotional and psychological abuse in
women (Ali et al., 2015; Bhattacharya, 2014; Khurram, 2017; Murshid and Critelli, 2020;
Rashid et al., 2021; Zakar et al., 2013). However, due to the scarcity of a valid instrument to

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Table 7 Final item list with factors
No Domains Item No. Item statement

1 Peer disagreement 15 You often find yourself questioning your own sanity because
of their words
13 Their positive actions do not complement their degrading
words
11 You feel unsure of your decision-making abilities because of
their disagreement
12 They accused you of lying and manipulation when in reality
they are the ones doing it
10 You often find them denying things even when there is proof
8 You often feel that you have to defend your reality from them
7 They assign motives to your actions that are opposite to your
intentions
14 You find yourself questioning your beliefs and opinions
because of their opposition
9 They make you believe that nobody can be trusted except
them
2 Loss of self-trust 1 You constantly change your words or thoughts before
speaking
2 Your point of view is dismissed or said to be “wrong”
completely
3 You get accused for “overreacting” when you try to explain
your feelings
5 Most interactions leave you feeling small or ashamed of
yourself
4 You apologize without knowing what you did wrong

measure gaslighting on a broader scale is deemed difficult, thus resulting in limited

identification of victims of gaslighting. With this purpose in mind, the present study aimed to
develop an instrument which can be psychometrically reliable and valid to measure the
severity of gaslighting in victims of interpersonal relationships.
The construction of the scale was based on a rigorous in-depth literature review on
gaslighting, along with elaborate focus group discussion with victims of domestic violence.
The current scale was tested and validated using a female sample as previous literature
suggests that gaslighting is more women centric (Anderson, 2009; Myhill, 2015). The final
version of the present scale consisted of self-reporting 14 items measures of the victim’s
feelings, beliefs and behaviours due to gaslighting. Each item scoring is based on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total possible
scores ranged between 14 and 70, with higher scores suggesting higher levels of
victimization of gaslighting in the individual. The present scale had no reverse items and
only 1 item was dropped due to double loading as evident from Table 5. Additionally, the
present scale consists of two subscales including peer disagreement and loss of self-trust
as evident from Table 7. The two-factor structure for the scale was first found through
Velicer’s MAP method in Table 4 and then was reconfirmed using EFA in Table 5. For the
present scale content validity was established through the help of SMEs as they helped in
the initial selection of items from the item pool as well as during the selection of appropriate
labels for the obtained factors.
The present study did not try to establish discriminate or convergent validity as it is been
suggested that the longer the questionnaire, the less likely potential participants will be to
volunteer for the study or to complete all the items or items from the other scales could
influence the responses from the participant on the developing instrument (Raubenheimer,
2004). Despite this shortcoming, the developed gaslighting scale showed high overall
reliability for the complete scale, as well as the subscales as evident from Table 6, where

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 results of correlation between the main scale and its subscales show significant
correlations. Overall, the present study was successful in developing a valid and reliable
instrument to measure gaslighting in victims.

Implications of the instrument

The present instrument has its applicability in several domains the most important being in
the criminal justice system as gaslighting comes under gaslighting and even in the UK is
considered as a criminal offence. This instrument can help in determining the severity of
gaslighting in victims. Likewise, it can be used in clinical settings for psychologists to
identify possible cases of gaslighting victims which can enable them to provide specific
help and treatment for them. Moreover, researchers can also benefit from the instrument as
it can enable them to explore gaslighting with other possible variables which can help them
explore the concept of gaslighting even further.

Limitations and future recommendations

Though all necessary steps were taken to minimize the limitations of the present study,
however, some limitations do exist which needs to be addressed:
䊏 The foremost limitation of the present scale is that it is being developed with only a
female sample, however, the inclusion of a male sample in future studies can help in
identifying whether men also are victims of gaslighting from peers and other family
members or not.
䊏 The second limitation is of validity though necessary validities have been established
future studies should work on establishing further validities to further refine the
instrument.
䊏 Additionally, the scale has only been validated and tested on female samples future
studies should be conducted on other specific groups or samples to develop norms.
Moreover, testing the scale on other cultures could also help in establishing cross
cultural validation of the instrument.
䊏 Though the scale assumes a higher level of scores suggests a higher level of
victimization, a proper cutoff score can help in further identifying proper victims from
the normal level of gaslighting.

Conclusion
The aim of the present study was the development of a reliable and valid instrument which
can measure the severity of gaslighting in victims of it. The study was successful in
achieving its goal. The instrument can be used in several settings, such as those of criminal
justice, clinical and research, to further the knowledge and understanding of the concept of
gaslighting and its prevalence in various groups and countries. Additionally, the tool can be
beneficial as it can help in identifying possible relationships with other variables more
efficiently and can be used on larger samples which were not mostly possible before.

References
Ali, P.A., Naylor, P.B., Croot, E. and O’Cathain, A. (2015), “Intimate partner violence in Pakistan: a
systematic review”, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 299-315.
Ali, A., Toner, B.B. and Oatley, K. (1999), “Emotional abuse as a precipitating factor for depression in
women”, Journal of Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1300/J135v01n04_01.
Anderson, K.L. (2005), “Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research”, Sex Roles, Vol. 52
Nos 11/12, pp. 853-865, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4204-x.

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

Anderson, K.L. (2009), “Gendering coercive control”, Violence against Women, Vol. 15 No. 12,
pp. 1444-1457, doi: 10.1177/1077801209346837.
Belknap, J., Fisher, B.S. and Cullen, F.T. (1999), “The development of a comprehensive measure of the
sexual victimization of college women”, Violence against Women, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 185-214.

Bhattacharya, S. (2014), “Status of women in Pakistan”, Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 179-211, available at: http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/history/PDF-FILES/7v51_No1_14.pdf

Breiding, M.J., Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Black, M.C. and Mahendra, R. (2015), “Intimate partner violence
surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements”, National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pp. 1-164, available at: www.pubmedcentral.
nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2943729&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

Briggs, N.E. and MacCallum, R.C. (2003), “Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood
and ordinary least squares estimation”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 25-56, doi:
10.1207/S15327906MBR3801_2.
Cattell, R.B. (1966), “The scree test for the number of factors”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 245-276, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
Cousineau, D. and Chartier, S. (2010), “Outliers detection and treatment: a review”, International Journal
of Psychological Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 58-67, doi: 10.21500/20112084.844.
Dorpat, T. (1994), “On the double whammy and gaslighting”, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 91-96.
Dorpat, T.L. (2013), Crimes of Punishment: America’s Culture of Violence, Vol. 53 No. 9, Algora Publishing.
Dutton, M.A. and Goodman, L.A. (2005), “Coercion in intimate partner violence: toward a new
conceptualization”, Sex Roles, Vol. 52 Nos 11/12, pp. 743-756, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6.
Field, A. (2017), “Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition”, Statistics,
Vol. 58, Sage.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T. and Turner, M.G. (2015), “The sexual victimization of college women”, Sexual
Violence on Campus: Overview, Issues and Actions, pp. 38-65, doi: 10.4135/9781452229454.n22.

Follingstad, D.R. (2011), “A measure of severe psychological abuse normed on a nationally

representative sample of adults”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1194-1214, doi:
10.1177/0886260510368157.
Garrido, L.E., Abad, F.J. and Ponsoda, V. (2011), “Performance of velicer’s minimum average partial
factor retention method with categorical variables”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 71
No. 3, pp. 551-570, doi: 10.1177/0013164410389489.

Gorsuch, T. (2009), “Dual mode unit for short range, high rate and long range, lower rate data
communications”, In US Patent 7,616,970. Google Patents, available at: www.google.com/patents/
US7616970
Hafsa, S., Aqeel, M. and Shuja, K.H. (2021), “The moderating role of emotional intelligence between Inter-
Parental conflicts and loneliness in male and female adolescents”, Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 38-48, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/5

Hayes, S. and Jeffries, S. (2015), “Romantic terrorism: an auto-ethnography of domestic violence,

victimization and survival”, Romantic Terrorism: An Auto-Ethnography of Domestic Violence,
Victimization and Survival, Springer, doi: 10.1057/9781137468499
Hegarty, K., Bush, R. and Sheehan, M. (2005), “The composite abuse scale: further development and
assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings”,
Violence and Victims, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 529-547.

Hightower, E. (2018), “An exploratory study of personality factors related to psychological abuse and
gaslighting”, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 79
No. 8-B(E), William James College, available at: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=
reference&D=psyc14&NEWS=N&AN=2018-26097-157
Khurram, E. (2017), Factors that contribute to the violence against women: a study from Karachi,
Pakistan, pp. 1-77.
Kline, R. (2013), “Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis”, Applied Quantitative Analysis in
Education and the Social Sciences. American Psychological Association, doi: 10.4324/9780203108550

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Koss, M.P. and Gidycz, C.A. (1985), “Sexual experiences survey: reliability and validity”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, p. 422.
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A. and Wisniewski, N. (1987), “The scope of rape: incidence and prevalence of
sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 2, p. 162.
Lachkar, J. (2001), “Emotional abuse of high-functioning professional women: a psychodynamic
perspective”, Journal of Emotional Abuse, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 73-91, doi: 10.1300/J135v02n01_06.

Marshall, L.L. (1992), “Development of the severity of violence against women scales”, Journal of Family
Violence, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 103-121.
Marshall, L.L. (1999), “Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low-income women”,
Violence and Victims, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-88, doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.69.

Meyer-Arendt, J.R. and Blaker, J.W. (1973), “Introduction to classical and modern optics”, American
Journal of Physics, Vol. 41 No. 1, doi: 10.1119/1.1987159, ERIC.
Mikhailova, A. (2018), Theresa May Pledges to Tighten the Law on ‘Gaslighting’Abuse, The Telegraph.
Misago, J.P., Freemantle, I. and Landau, L.B. (2015), Protection from Xenophobia: An Evaluation of
UNHCR’s Regional Office for Southern Africa’s Xenophobia Related Programmes, University of
Witwatersrand, ACMS.
Mistral, W. (2011), “Mental health and substance use”, British Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 17
No. 7, pp. 298-301, doi: 10.12968/bjhc.2011.17.7.298.

Murphy, C.M., Hoover, S.A. and Taft, C. (1999), The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse:
Factor Structure and Subscale Validity, Toronto, Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy.
Murshid, N.S. and Critelli, F.M. (2020), “Empowerment and intimate partner violence in Pakistan: results
from a nationally representative survey”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 854-875,
doi: 10.1177/0886260517690873.
Myhill, A. (2015), “Measuring coercive control: what can We learn from national population surveys?”,
Violence against Women, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 355-375, doi: 10.1177/1077801214568032.
Petric, D. (2018), The Knot Theory of Mind (Issue September, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30838.86082.
Rashid, A., Aqeel, M., Malik, D.B. and Salim, D.S. (2021), “The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in
breast cancer patients; a Cross-Sectional study of breast cancer patients experience in Pakistan”,
Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 1-7, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/
index.php/psychology/article/view/1
Raubenheimer, J. (2004), “An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 59-64, doi: 10.4102/sajip.v30i4.168.
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. and Comrey, A.L. (2000), “Factor analysis and scale revision”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 287.
Rogers, M.J. and Follingstad, D.R. (2014), “Women’s exposure to psychological abuse: does that
experience predict mental health outcomes?”, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 595-611, doi:
10.1007/s10896-014-9621-6.
Ross, J.M. (2012), “Self-reported fear in partner violent relationships: findings on gender differences from
two samples”, Psychology of Violence, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 58-74, doi: 10.1037/a0026285.

Saif, J., Rohail, D.I. and Aqeel, M. (2021), “Quality of life, coping strategies, and psychological distress in
women with primary and secondary infertility; a mediating model”, Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-17, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/6
Sarfraz, R., Aqeel, M., Lactao, D.J. and Khan, D.S. (2021), “Coping strategies, pain severity, pain anxiety,
depression, positive and negative affect in osteoarthritis patients; a mediating and moderating model”,
Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 18-28, available at: https://thenaturenurture.
org/index.php/psychology/article/view/8
Shepard, M.F. and Campbell, J.A. (1992), “The abusive behavior inventory: a measure of psychological
and physical abuse”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 291-305.
Shuja, K.H., Aqeel, M. and Khan, K.R. (2020a), “Psychometric development and validation of attitude
rating scale towards women empowerment: across male and female university population in Pakistan”,
International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, Vol. 13 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/IJHRH-12-2019-0090.

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

 Shuja, K.H., Aqeel, M. and Sarfaraz, R. (2020b), “Chronic pain management a fundamental human right:
adaptation and examination of psychometric properties of pain anxiety symptoms scale among
osteoporosis sample from Pakistan”, International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, doi: 10.1108/
IJHRH-07-2020-0057.
Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A.A., Alangea, D.O., Dako-Gyeke, P., Chirwa, E.D., Coker-Appiah, D.,
Adanu, R.M.K. and Jewkes, R. (2020), “Patriarchy and gender-inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate
partner violence against women in the Central region of Ghana”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08825-z.

Simon, G.K. (2010), In Sheep’s Clothing : understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, Tantor
Media, Incorporated.
Simon, G. (2011), “Gaslighting as a manipulation tactic: what it is, who does it, and why”, Counselling
Resources, available at: https://counsellingresource.com/features/2011/11/08/gaslighting/
Stern, R. (2007), The GASLIGHT EFFECT How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulations Other
People Use to Control Your Life, Harmony.

Stout, M. (2005), “The sociopath next door : the ruthless versus the rest of us”, Harmony, available at:
http://translibri.com/pdf/Sociopath_Sample.pdf
Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L. and Warren, W.L. (2003), “The conflict tactics scales handbook: Revised
conflict tactics scales (CTS2)”, CTS: Parent-Child Version (CTSPC), Los Angeles, CA, Western
Psychological Services.
Sullivan, C.M. and Bybee, D.I. (1999), “Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women
with abusive partners”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, p. 43.
Sweet, P.L. (2019), “The sociology of gaslighting”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 84 No. 5,
pp. 851-875, doi: 10.1177/0003122419874843.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2001), Using Multivariate Statisitcs, pp. 72-80, Boston.

Tabri, N. and Elliott, C.M. (2012), “Principles and practice of structural equation modeling”, Canadian
Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 59, doi: 10.15353/cgjsc-rcessc.v1i1.25.
Toqeer, S., Aqeel, M., Shuja, K.H., Bibi, D.A. and Abbas, D.J. (2021), “Attachment styles, Facebook
addiction, dissociation and alexithymia in university students; a mediational model”, Nature-Nurture
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 28-37, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/
psychology/article/view/2

Velicer, W.F., Eaton, C.A. and Fava, J.L. (2000), “Construct explication through factor or component
analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors
or components”, Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment, pp. 41-71, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-
4397-8_3.
Velicer, W.F. and Fava, J.L. (1998), “Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 231-251, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231.

Vieira, V.A. (2011), “Experimental designs using ANOVA”, Revista de Administração Contemporânea,
Vol. 15 No. 2, Thomson/Brooks/Cole Belmont, CA, doi: 10.1590/s1415-65552011000200016
Weintraub, P. (2021), “What gaslighting does in exploiting trust, therapy can repair”, Aeon Essays,
available at: https://aeon.co/essays/what-gaslighting-does-in-exploiting-trust-therapy-can-repair
Zakar, R., Zakar, M.Z. and Kraemer, A. (2013), “Men’s beliefs and attitudes toward intimate partner
violence against women in Pakistan”, Violence against Women, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 246-268, doi: 10.1177/
1077801213478028.

Corresponding author
Kanwar Hamza Shuja can be contacted at: rockyjin999666@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j

View publication stats