Compared to other national sources of data on violent injury, the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) had relatively relatively narrow participation and purpose. NVAWS, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All-Injury Program (NEISS) all report national statistics on violent injuries. Government organizations with well-established and well-institutionalized statistical expertise administer NCVS and NEISS yearly for broad public purposes. Official NCVS and NEISS reports broadly summarize facts. A wide range of users cite facts from these reports in a wide range of deliberative contexts.

NVAWS, in contrast, integrated from data collection to final report relatively narrow purposes. The NVAWS Full Report describes NVAWS’ purpose as to “further the understanding of violence against women.”^ NVAWS reports are framed by concern “to stop violence against women and alleviate the suffering of its victims.”^ NVAWS was an integrated project of a specific government grant, beginning in 1994, given to a small, non-governmental organization to serve that purpose. That non-governmental organization specialized in policy-oriented research on such topics as child support enforcement and family law. Two female principal investigators ran NVAWS from survey design in the early 1990s to authoring the full research report in 2000:

The authors of this report designed the survey, edited the data, and conducted the analysis.^

These principle investigators, who designed and administered the NVAWS, affirmed in their full report the value of NVAWS:

The NVAW Survey provides compelling data on the prevalence, incidence, and physical consequences of violence against women, as well as victims’ utilization of medical services. Information presented in this report can help inform policy and intervention directed at violence against women.^

From survey design and administration to reporting of results, knowledge from NVAWS is less diversely invested and more vertically integrated than knowledge from the NCVS and NEISS. That makes NVAWS findings less credible than findings from NCVS or NEISS.

NVAWS’ emphasis on lifetime victimization prevalence shows relatively little concern for objective measurement. Lifetime recall of events with a wide range of salience has a large margin for respondent mis-recall. Vaguely recalled events enhance the importance of survey officials’ judging and coding of respondents’ reports. Lifetime prevalence rates are useful for attracting public attention. Lifetime prevalence rates provide a poor basis for statistically tracking over several years changes in a problem and the effectiveness of programs addressing that problem.

In addition to relatively narrow investment and data use, NVAWS has other serious weaknesses. The U.S. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All-Injury Program (NEISS AIP) provides much better quality national estimates of serious incidents of domestic violence than does NVAWS.