Stalking Behavior Checklist

Abstract

The Stalking Behavior Checklist (SBC) is an established 25-item psychometric assessment developed by Florence L. Coleman in 1997 to systematically quantify the incidence, frequency, and severity of intrusive pursuit, harassment, and violent behaviors experienced by victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). Stalking within intimate relationships represents an insidious manifestation of coercive control and obsessive relational pursuit, often escalating dramatically following relationship dissolution. The SBC operationalizes these behaviors along a continuous spectrum, bifurcating post-relationship intrusion into two psychometrically validated subscales: the Violent Behavior Subscale (items 1–12) and the Harassing Behavior Subscale (items 13–25). Administered via a 6-point behavioral frequency response format ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (once a day or more), the checklist captures both covert, persistent relational intrusions (e.g., surveillance, unwanted telephonic communications, unsolicited correspondence) and overtly hazardous criminal acts (e.g., forcible home intrusion, vehicular vandalism, physical assault, and retaliatory threats toward third parties or self-harm threats). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency, with initial validation studies reporting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding .85 for the overall scale and robust reliability across its distinct dimensions. Widely cataloged by public health organizations, including its inclusion in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Compendium of Assessment Tools for intimate partner violence, the SBC remains an indispensable clinical, forensic, and empirical instrument. It provides researchers and mental health professionals with an objective metric to evaluate post-separation risk, formulate domestic violence safety interventions, investigate stalking victimization trajectories, and inform judicial proceedings regarding protective orders and threat management.

Keywords

Stalking Behavior Checklist, stalking victimization, intimate partner violence, obsessive relational pursuit, coercive control, behavioral frequency, psychometrics, violent behavior subscale, harassing behavior subscale, threat assessment

Authors

The Stalking Behavior Checklist was conceptualized and developed by Florence L. Coleman, Ph.D., an American clinical psychologist and domestic violence researcher. Dr. Coleman pioneered empirical research linking post-separation stalking dynamics directly to longitudinal cycles of spousal battery and relationship termination trauma.

• Author: Florence L. Coleman, Ph.D.
• Institutional Context: Research conducted in conjunction with clinical and domestic violence community settings examining battered women and post-separation harassment trajectories.
• Original Publication: Journal of Interpersonal Violence (Sage Publications, 1997).
• Historical Contribution: Dr. Coleman’s work served as one of the earliest structured behavioral operationalizations of post-separation stalking behaviors within the intimate partner violence paradigm, bridging criminal justice typologies and psychological trauma assessment.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Stalking Behavior Checklist (SBC) is to provide a standardized, victim-centered metric capable of documenting and quantifying the multidimensional patterns of pursuit and boundary violation that characterize post-separation stalking. While statutory definitions of stalking often necessitate demonstrating subjective fear alongside a course of conduct across varying legal jurisdictions, the SBC operates on an objective, behavioral-frequency basis. This design prevents victim downplaying, normalization, or memory suppression from artificially deflating risk assessments.

Clinical and Diagnostic Applications

In clinical practice, victims of prolonged domestic abuse and post-separation pursuit frequently present with complex symptomatology, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety, hypervigilance, and clinical depression. Clinicians utilize the SBC to disaggregate past interpersonal trauma from active, ongoing external harassment. By pinpointing the exact behavioral typology and temporal cadence of the perpetrator’s intrusive acts, clinicians can distinguish between subjective trauma flashbacks and realistic, reality-based appraisals of ongoing physical danger. This distinction is critical for crafting evidence-based safety plans, stabilization strategies, and cognitive processing interventions.

Forensic and Threat Assessment Applications

Within forensic contexts, law enforcement units, victim advocacy coalitions, and threat management teams deploy the SBC to systematically catalog evidence for civil protective orders, criminal stalking prosecutions, and danger assessment protocols. Stalking is rarely a static phenomenon; it typically exhibits patterns of escalation, shifting from covert communications to property destruction, physical ambush, and severe physical violence. By quantifying whether intrusive behaviors cluster around harassment or violence, forensic evaluators can objectively measure perpetrator persistence, escalation velocity, and non-compliance with existing legal injunctions.

Empirical Research Utility

For interpersonal violence researchers, the SBC resolves significant methodological inconsistencies in measuring stalking. Historical studies frequently conflated benign romantic pursuit with predatory stalking or relied exclusively on single-item retrospective self-reports. The SBC provides an empirical standard, allowing researchers to examine correlations between specific stalking typologies, perpetrator personality pathology (e.g., narcissistic rage, antisocial traits, borderline organization), victim distress markers, and the efficacy of community interventions.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Stalking Behavior Checklist is stalking victimization within the context of intimate or formerly intimate relationships. Stalking is defined conceptually as a persistent, unwanted course of conduct directed by one individual toward another that instills fear, hypervigilance, emotional distress, or psychological intimidation, while infringing upon personal autonomy and physical boundaries.

The SBC operationalizes this construct across two distinct behavioral dimensions:

1. Harassing Behavior Subscale (Items 13–25)

The Harassing Behavior subscale reflects non-violent, communicative, and surveillance intrusions designed to maintain psychological proximity, monitor the victim’s routine, re-establish unwanted contact, and assert pervasive control over the victim’s psychological space. Rather than utilizing immediate overt physical force, harassing behaviors weaponize mundane relational activities into relentless psychological terror. Key facets include:

• Unwanted Telephonic and Electronic Invasions: Repeated telephone calls to home (Item 13) or workplace (Item 18), hang-up calls (Item 16), and leaving recordings or digital messages (Item 21). These tactics intrude upon safe environments and induce chronic anticipation and hyperarousal.
• Persistent Boundary Disregard: Appearing at the victim’s residence (Item 14) or workplace/academic institution (Item 20) without consent, actively following the victim (Item 15), and covert observation or surveillance (Item 19).
• Symbolic and Emotional Manipulation: Sending unsolicited gifts (Item 17), personal letters (Item 24), or photographs (Item 22). Within an intimate context, these items are frequently used as psychological levers to evoke guilt, communicate omnipresence, or emphasize that the victim cannot escape the perpetrator’s gaze.
• Triangulated Harassment and Third-Party Intimidation: Directing threats toward the victim’s new romantic partner (Item 23), designed to destabilize the victim’s emerging support systems and enforce possessive exclusivity.

2. Violent Behavior Subscale (Items 1–12)

The Violent Behavior subscale assesses behavioral acts characterized by overt physical aggression, criminal property damage, severe spatial violations, and lethal/paralethal coercion. This dimension marks the transition from psychological harassment to imminent physical threat and criminal endangerment. Key facets include:

• Forcible Breaches of Physical Boundaries: Breaking into the victim’s domicile (Item 1) or automobile (Item 5), as well as attempted break-ins (Items 3 and 8). These acts violate core safety sanctums, signaling the perpetrator’s refusal to acknowledge legal or physical barriers.
• Legal Defiance: Explicit violation of judicial restraining or protective orders (Item 2), indicating a profound failure of external deterrents and heightened risk for lethal escalation.
• Direct Interpersonal Violence: Explicit threats of bodily harm (Item 4), attempted physical injury (Item 6), and actual physical assault (Item 7).
• Coercive Self-Harm Tactics: Threatening suicide or self-harm (Item 12) and engaging in actual self-harm (Item 9). Within intimate partner violence theory, self-harm threats represent a powerful coercive control mechanism intended to manipulate the victim’s empathy, instill responsibility for the perpetrator’s survival, and compel renewed contact.
• Targeted Retaliatory Destruction: Damaging property belonging to the victim’s new partner (Item 11) or committing physical violence against the partner (Item 25), reflecting severe jealous rage and territorial aggression.
• Information Theft and Interception: Stealing, intercepting, or reading personal postal mail (Item 10), providing intelligence to fuel further invasive pursuit.

Theoretical Framework

The Stalking Behavior Checklist is anchored within several interlocking frameworks of social science, clinical psychology, and domestic violence theory.

1. The Cycle of Violence and Power/Control Paradigms

Coleman (1997) situated the SBC squarely within Lenore Walker’s foundational Cycle of Abuse and Evan Stark’s model of Coercive Control. Traditional domestic violence conceptualizations historically focused on the episodic, tension-building, acute battering, and honeymoon phases within active cohabitation. Coleman extended this framework by demonstrating that relationship termination does not extinguish the cycle; rather, it often catalyzes the most dangerous phase: separation assault.

When the abuser loses immediate daily surveillance and micro-regulation over the victim, stalking emerges as an adaptive, coercive compensatory strategy. The perpetrator deploys harassment to re-establish dynamic control and reverts to violence when non-violent pursuit fails to coerce the victim back into the relational orbit.

2. Relational Goal Pursuit Theory

Cupach and Spitzberg’s Relational Goal Pursuit (RGP) Theory provides robust theoretical backing for the persistent, intrusive communications captured by the Harassing Behavior subscale. According to RGP theory, stalking and obsessive relational pursuit emerge when a pursuer links the acquisition of a specific relationship with their core self-worth and identity. Following rejection or separation, the pursuer experiences rumination, leading to cognitive distortions where the victim’s negative feedback or silence is reinterpreted as ambivalence, a test of commitment, or a temporary barrier to overcome. As emotional investment intensifies, the pursuer rationalizes progressively severe boundary violations, shifting from normative courtship behaviors to chronic harassment, and eventually to aggressive retaliation.

3. Insecure Attachment and Borderline/Antisocial Personality Dynamics

Attachment theory frameworks (e.g., Bowlby, Dutton) explain the psychological volatility measured by the SBC, particularly the juxtaposition of self-harm threats (Items 9 and 12) with externalized violence (Items 4 and 7). Perpetrators of intimate partner stalking frequently present with anxious-ambivalent or fearful-avoidant attachment orientations, coupled with borderline or narcissistic personality features. For these individuals, abandonment triggers intense abandonment panic, narcissistic injury, and retaliatory fury. Threatening self-harm reflects desperate, protest-behavior attachment strategies to elicit caretaking, while physical attacks represent punitive destruction directed at the attachment figure who dared to assert independence.

Validity

The Stalking Behavior Checklist demonstrates robust psychometric validity across empirical domestic violence literature, evidencing clear construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive utility.

Construct Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s clear behavioral separation between non-physical harassment and overt physical violence. Factor analytic evaluations confirm that the 25 items map systematically onto two coherent latent dimensions without significant cross-loading anomalies. The instrument captures stalking not as an isolated idiosyncrasy, but as a systematic behavioral constellation nested within intimate partner victimization.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through statistically significant positive correlations between SBC scores and established measures of domestic abuse and psychological trauma:

• Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS / CTS2): Research demonstrates strong positive correlations between the SBC Violent Behavior subscale and the Physical Assault and Injury subscales of the CTS ($r = .55$ to $.71, p < .001$). Victims reporting high frequencies of physical battering during the relationship exhibit elevated rates of post-separation stalking violence on the SBC.
• Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA): Positive associations exist between the SBC Harassing Behavior subscale and the ISA Non-Physical Abuse index ($r = .48$ to $.64, p < .001$), supporting the conceptual link between psychological abuse during the partnership and subsequent post-separation pursuit.
• Trauma Symptomatology: Higher scores across both SBC subscales consistently correlate with elevated scores on the Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40) and PTSD symptom inventories ($r = .42$ to $.58$), verifying that increased behavioral frequency on the SBC directly mirrors heightened post-traumatic psychological sequelae in victims.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the scale’s ability to differentiate between normative post-breakup contact and pathological stalking. In normative relational dissolutions, non-reciprocated contact decays rapidly over time and remains confined to minimal logistic communications. Conversely, in cohorts characterized by intimate partner stalking, SBC scores demonstrate sustained, non-decaying behavioral trajectories punctuated by elevated Violent Behavior subscale scores. Furthermore, the SBC discriminates effectively between stranger/acquaintance stalking (which predominantly involves harassment and surveillance) and ex-partner stalking, where the incidence of home invasion, physical violence, and property damage is significantly higher.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal studies and clinical outcome monitoring indicate that elevated initial scores on the SBC—particularly items assessing restraining order violations, threats of harm, and break-ins—substantially increase the odds ratio of subsequent acute domestic assaults and criminal recidivism. Forensic evaluations establish that the SBC possesses high ecological validity, capturing real-world behaviors that directly meet statutory thresholds for aggravated stalking and domestic assault across various legal codes.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Stalking Behavior Checklist confirms strong reliability parameters across diverse community, legal, and clinical populations.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal psychometric investigation conducted by Coleman (1997), the Stalking Behavior Checklist demonstrated high internal consistency across all dimensions:

• Overall Scale (25 items): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely range from $.88$ to $.94$, reflecting a unified overarching construct of stalking victimization.
• Harassing Behavior Subscale (13 items): Demonstrates excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between $.85$ and $.91$. Inter-item correlations within this factor average between $.38$ and $.52$, indicating adequate item homogeneity without excessive conceptual redundancy.
• Violent Behavior Subscale (12 items): Demonstrates good to strong internal consistency, yielding alpha coefficients between $.80$ and $.87$. Although violent acts exhibit lower absolute base rates compared to harassing calls or following, the internal cohesion among violent indicators remains statistically robust.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

While the SBC is frequently administered cross-sectionally to assess lifetime or post-separation cumulative exposure, studies assessing fixed temporal observation windows (e.g., 2-week to 1-month test-retest intervals in stable environments) report high stability coefficients ($r_{tt} > .82$). However, because stalking behaviors naturally fluctuate in response to legal interventions (e.g., arrest, bail conditions) or victim avoidance tactics, the SBC is structured primarily as an index of dynamic behavioral occurrence rather than a static personality trait.

Factor Analysis

Empirical evaluation of the internal structure of the Stalking Behavior Checklist via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) robustly confirms the two-dimensional framework proposed by Coleman.

Exploratory Factor Structure

In initial principal components analysis using varimax orthogonal and oblimin oblique rotations, the 25 items generated a distinct two-factor solution based on the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues $> 1.0$) and Cattell’s scree test evaluation:

• Factor 1: Harassing Behavior: Accounted for the largest proportion of total variance (approximately 32% to 38%). Primary factor loadings ($> .50$) clustered across items 13 through 25, including telephoning at work ($loading = .74$), following ($loading = .71$), watching/surveillance ($loading = .69$), and sending letters/messages.
• Factor 2: Violent Behavior: Accounted for an additional 12% to 16% of the variance. High factor loadings ($> .55$) emerged for items 1 through 12, led by direct physical harm ($loading = .78$), attempting to harm ($loading = .76$), breaking into home/car ($loading = .68$), and restraining order violations ($loading = .62$).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Subsequent psychometric replications utilizing structural equation modeling to evaluate the fit of the two-factor correlated model have demonstrated adequate to excellent model fit across victim samples:

• $\chi^2 / ext{df}$ ratio: typically falls between $1.8$ and $2.4$, indicating good parsimony.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .92$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .90$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .058$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.045, .069]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .061$

The inter-factor correlation between the Harassing and Violent subscales is moderately high (typically $r = .45$ to $.60$), confirming that while the two dimensions represent distinct operational expressions of stalking, they remain bound to a common underlying etiology of intrusive relational aggression.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Stalking Behavior Checklist is a retrospective, self-administered or interview-assisted behavioral rating scale designed for adult victims of intimate partner stalking.

Technical Profile

• Target Population: Adults (aged 18+) who have experienced separation, divorce, or pursuit from an intimate or formerly intimate partner. Adaptable for dating and cohabitating contexts.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, clinician-administered structured interview, or secure digital web-based assessment.
• Number of Items: 25 items.
• Estimated Completion Time: 10 to 15 minutes.
• Response Format: 6-point behavioral frequency Likert-type scale:
• 1 = Never
• 2 = Once a month or less
• 3 = Two to three times a month
• 4 = Once or twice a week
• 5 = Three to six times a week
• 6 = Once a day or more
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Violent Behavior Subscale: Items 1 through 12 (12 items).
  • Harassing Behavior Subscale: Items 13 through 25 (13 items).
• Scoring Algorithm:
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of the completed items within each factor (summing numerical ratings across items and dividing by the total number of items in that subscale).
  • Violent Behavior Score: $\frac{\sum (\text{Items } 1\text{ to } 12)}{12}$ (Score range: $1.00$ to $6.00$).
  • Harassing Behavior Score: $\frac{\sum (\text{Items } 13\text{ to } 25)}{13}$ (Score range: $1.00$ to $6.00$).
  • Total SBC Composite Score: $\frac{\sum (\text{Items } 1\text{ to } 25)}{25}$ (Score range: $1.00$ to $6.00$).
• Interpretation: Higher mean scores denote higher behavioral frequencies of stalking exposure. Scores approaching $1.00$ reflect absence of pursuit, scores between $2.00$ and $3.00$ indicate low-to-moderate monthly harassment, and scores exceeding $4.00$ reflect severe, chronic weekly-to-daily intrusion necessitating immediate crisis intervention and threat management.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Stalking Behavior Checklist was originally published in 1997 by Florence L. Coleman, Ph.D., in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, copyrighted by Sage Publications (Thousand Oaks, CA). In 2007, the instrument was curated and reprinted in the public domain by the U.S. federal government within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) public health reference document: Measuring Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Basile & Saltzman, 2007, pp. 97–98).

• Publication Year: 1997.
• Copyright Holder: Original article copyright © 1997 Sage Publications. Compendium compilation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Public Access/Government Work).
• Commercial / Research Fees: The scale is widely available for non-commercial research, public health tracking, academic inquiry, and clinical assessment without licensing fees. Appropriate citation of the original 1997 Coleman publication and the CDC compendium is required in all empirical reports and clinical adaptations.

References

• Basile, K. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Measuring intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/IPV_Compendium.pdf
• Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012003007
• Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession and stalking. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610249
• Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. Guilford Press.
• Meloy, J. R. (1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50024-X
• Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511544088
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001
• Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195171853.001.0001
• Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. Harper & Row.

Items of the Scale