Objective: Although many scholars have questioned, on a logical basis, the validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) to adequately measure intimate partner violence (IPV), relatively few critiques have used extensive empirical data gathered specifically for this purpose. This research analyzed these types of data to investigate an important mechanism of potential validity problems, IPV misreporting, by adding context questions to determine whether participants endorsed (as if actual IPV) accidents or other acts that neither party took seriously. The objective was to determine not only the extent to which this form of overreporting occurs but also how males and females differed in misreporting patterns. Method: Students from 1 U.S. and 1 Australian university (Total N = 1,758) completed a computer-administered survey. Multilevel logistic regression subsequently assessed the degree to which several factors predicted whether participants overreported CTS items. Results: Of the 1,174 event endorsements, 22.1% were classified as overreports. Whether males or females were more prone to overreporting, however, differed across event type, sample, age, relationship status, perpetration versus victimization, and current versus former partnerships. There were statistically significant interactions between gender and many of these factors. Among the most important of the findings was that males were more likely to overreport victimizations by female partners, whereas females were more likely to overreport perpetrations against male partners. Conclusions: The magnitude and intricate gendered nature of the overreporting problem imply that overreporting is a substantial problem, having the potential to negatively affect scale validity and thus the testing of partner-violence theories.