Att_D.1_Existing validated IPV and TDV screening tools

Att_D.1_Existing validated IPV and TDV screening tools_Oct 10 2016.docx

Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship Programs (RIViR)

Att_D.1_Existing validated IPV and TDV screening tools

OMB: 0970-0503

Document [docx]
Download: docx | pdf

Attachment D.1


Existing Validated IPV and TDV Screening Tools







Empirically Validated IPV and TDV Disclosure Tools1


TOOL

FORM(S) OF IPV MEASURED

FOCUS

# OF ITEMS

# STUDIES2

POPULATION(S) WITH WHICH VALIDATED


Empirically Validated, Behaviorally Specific Tools (Multiple Forms of IPV)

Abuse Screening Inventory

Emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (separate scales)

Victimization

1 each

1 of 1

Swedish women, 15-58 years, 24.5% high school degree, 20.8% senior high school degree


Unnamed Bonomi (2005) Measure

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

3

1 of 1

English- and Spanish-speaking women > 18 who had previously reported an IPV incident to police or who had received an IPV-related civil protection order, < high school degree = 11%, high school degree or vocational training = 32%


Brief Inpatient Screen

Emotional, physical, sexual

Victimization

1 (with 3 parts)

1 of 1

Women ages 18-64 admitted to medical or surgical services (inpatient)


Composite Abuse Scale

Physical, emotional abuse, severe combined abuse, and harassment

Victimization

10, 9, 17, and 7

1 of 1

Australian women nurses


Gay Abuse Screening Protocol (GASP)

Physical violence Emotional abuse Sexual violence

Victimization

2

1 of 1

English-speaking gay men > 18 years old, involved in a gay relationship for > 6 months, 9% < high school degree


Humiliation, Afraid, Rape, Kick (HARK)

Physical violence Emotional abuse Sexual violence

Victimization

4

1 of 1

Women > 17 years old in an intimate relationship in the last year recruited from a primary practice


Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS)

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

4

3 of 4

Tested with various adult populations:

  • Female patients > 21 years old at a family medicine clinic who had lived with the same partner for at least 12 months

  • Self-identified victims of IPV residing in crisis shelters or presenting to an emergency department

  • Female veterans seen for medical appointments, > 18 years old, in a relationship in the past year, 17% < high school degree or GED

  • English-speaking bilingual men > 18 years old living with a male or female partner for the past year, presenting for a health visit at a clinic or emergency department; Phase II: English speaking or bilingual males > 18 years old identifying as IPV victims for treatment

Partnered women > 18 years old


(Extended) Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (E-HITS)

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Sexual violence

Victimization

5

1 of 1

Female veterans seen for medical appointments who were in a relationship in the past year, 22.5% < high school degree or GED


Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Concerns (MASIC)

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Sexual violence

Coercive control

Victimization

37

1 of 1

Family mediation clinic clients in a heterosexual relationship


NorVold Abuse Questionnaire

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Sexual violence (sub-scales separately validated)

Victimization

13

1 of 1

Swedish women aged 18-64


Ongoing Abuse Screen (OAS)

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Sexual violence

Fear

Victimization

5

1 of 2


Emergency department patients


Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool (OVAT)

Severe physical violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

4

2 of 2

Emergency department patients


Partner Violence Screen (PVS)

Physical violence Perceived safety

(sub-scales separately validated)

Victimization

3

2 of 4

Various adult populations:

  • English-speaking female emergency department patients with noncritical medical problems

  • Spanish- and English-speaking female patients > 18 years old admitted to a trauma service


Partner Violence Interview

Physical violence Sexual violence

Victimization Perpetration

14

1 of 1

Homeless young men and women 18-21 years old in a private non-profit shelter/transitional housing facility


Perpetrator Rapid Scale (PERPS)

Sexual abuse

Physical abuse

Victimization

3

1 of 1

Spanish or English speaking males and females >18 in the triage or lobby area of ED


Relationship Behavior Rating Scale (RBRS) - Revised3

Psychological abuse

Sexual abuse

Physical abuse

Physical injury

Victimization

30

1 of 1

Male and female undergraduates enrolled in psychology courses who reported a current romantic relationship of at least 3 months during the past year


STaT (Slaps, Throws, and Threatens) Screen

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Sexual violence

Victimization

3

2 of 2

Two adult populations:

  • English-speaking women 18-65 seen in urgent care

  • English-speaking women 18-64, seen in the non-acute section of the emergency department, < 8th grade education = 3%, some high school = 23%


STaT Spanish version

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

2

1 of 1

Spanish-speaking female hospital outpatients, 18-64 years old


Teen Screen for Dating Violence

Physical violence Sexual violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

Perpetration

27

21

1 of 1

Convenience sample of youth aged 13-21 recruited through mental health and school counselors, clinicians, and college campus faculty; primarily White (67%), heterosexual (88%), and female (70%).


Universal Violence Prevention Screen

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Coercive control


Victimization

3 4 (single items)

1 of 1

Low-income, African American female emergency department patients who indicated experiencing some form of intimate partner violence


Women Abuse Screening Tool (WAST)

Physical violence

Emotional abuse

Victimization

7 (and 1 total)


1 of 1

  • Women living at a shelter for women abused by a male partner

  • Convenience sample of nurses, social workers, clerical staff, etc. who had not experienced abuse


Women’s Abuse Screening Tool-Short Form (WAST-Short)

Abuse

Victimization

2 of 7 WAST items

2 of 3

  • Women ages 18-6 at their own health care visit

  • Women living at a shelter for women abused by a male partner

  • Convenience sample of nurses, social workers, clerical staff, etc. who had not experienced abuse



Unnamed Zink (2007) Measure5

Relationship conflict

Perceived safety

Victimization

5

1 of 1

English-speaking mothers in primary care waiting rooms with > 1 child age 3-13 in a relationship with a steady partner for > 1 year, 60% < high school degree


Empirically Validated, Behaviorally Specific Tools or Scales from Larger Measures (Single Form of IPV)

Checklist of Controlling Behaviors

Coercive control

Perpetration

16

1 of 1

Male undergraduate, graduate, and professional students


Coercive Control Survey – Coercion subscale (Dutton, 2006

Coercive control

Victimization


31

1 of 1

Urban men and women > 17 years old


Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA)- Physical

Physical violence

Victimization

15

1 (full ISA not validated)

Women 18-65 years, insured by a managed care organization or Medicaid, who had ever been in an intimate, sexual relationship with a man for > 3 months

< High school: 11%


Intimate Justice Scale

Coercive control6

(scored to estimate risk of physical violence)

Victimization

15

1 of 1

Women > 19 years old; clients in mental health, social service, and medical agencies; in a heterosexual relationship > 1 year; 26% high school degree


Jellinek Inventory for Assessing Partner Violence

Physical violence

Victimization Perpetration

2

2

1 of 1


Dutch substance abuse treatment patients > 18 years old who met DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse or dependence


Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse

Emotional abuse:

Restrictive Engulfment

Hostile Withdrawal

Denigration

Domination/

Intimidation

Victimization

Perpetration


13


9


17

15

1 of 1

Undergraduate in college, never married, in current dating relationship



Partner-Directed Insults Scale

Emotional abuse

Controlling behavior

Victimization (women) Perpetration (men)

47

1 of 1


Two student populations:

  • US university students > 18 years old in a committed heterosexual relationship

  • New Zealand university students


*Subtle and Overt Scale of Psycho-logical Abuse

Emotional abuse

Victimization

65

1 of 1

New mothers 18 -40 years old involved in a romantic relationship for at least 6 weeks, 20% < high school degree


Trauma Quest-ionnaire

Domestic violence

Threats of domestic violence

Victimization

27 (single items)

1 of 1

Female veterans seen for medical appointments


Women’s Experiences with Battering (WEB) Scale

Coercive control


Victimization

10

2 of 2

  • Convenience samples of women served by domestic violence programs and women not served by domestic violence programs

  • Women 18-65 years, insured by a managed care organization or Medicaid, who had ever been in an intimate, sexual relationship with a man for > 3 months


Empirically Validated, Risk-Based Tools

Chinese Risk Assessment Tool for Victims

(CRAT-V)

Risk of any IPV

Victimization

268

1 of 1

Women of Chinese ethnicity > 16 years old, married or cohabiting, and able to speak Cantonese, Mandarin, or English


Chinese Risk Assessment Tool for Perpetrators (CRAT-P)

Risk of any IPV

Perpetration

359

1 of 1

Men of Chinese ethnicity > 16 years old, married or cohabiting, and able to speak Cantonese, Putonghua, or English


Domestic Violence Screening Instrument – Revised (DVSI-R)

Risk of any IPV

Perpetration

11

1 of 1

Persons > 16 years old convicted of any family violence


Unnamed Datner risk (2007) Measure

Physical violence

Victimization

5

1 of 1

Pregnant teens and pregnant adult women




Published, Non-Validated Tools Tested with Special Populations

TOOL

FORM(S) OF IPV MEASURED

FOCUS

# OF ITEMS

POPULATION(S) WITH WHICH TESTED

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)

Physical violence Emotional abuse Sexual violence Coercive control

Victimization Perpetration

25

Two youth populations:

  • Students in 9th to 11th grade

  • Community sample of dating couples, 14-19 years old

Intimate Partner Violence Assessment Icon Form

Physical violence

Sexual violence Perceived safety

Victimization

NA

Female Latino seasonal and migrant farm workers (some with limited literacy)

Lesbian Partner Abuse Scale – Revised (LE-PAS-R)

Power imbalance

NA

25

Lesbian women

Partner Violence Interview

Physical violence Sexual violence

Victimization Perpetration

26

Homeless young men and women 18-21 years old in a private non-profit shelter/transitional housing facility

Safe Dates Evaluation Tool

(Physical)

Physical violence

Victimization

Perpetration

16 each

Middle school aged youth in rural North Carolina

Safe Dates Evaluation Tool (Emotional)

Emotional abuse

Coercive control

Victimization

Perpetration

16

each

Middle school aged youth in rural North Carolina



1 This table includes empirically validated tools, defined as those with a published measure of accuracy or validity (e.g., correlation with another known measure) or sensitivity greater than or equal to 50%. The final section of the table includes four additional tools tested in specific populations, which did not meet review criteria for empirical validation based on published studies, but may be of interest to readers due to a lack of empirically validated IPV tools tested in those populations.

2 # studies meeting criteria/#total # studies with data

3 Shortened and revised from RBRS

4Universal Violence Prevention Screen includes 5 single items; 3 of the 5 items had adequate sensitivity

5 This tool may be of interest to some practitioners because it avoids using graphic language and was designed for use with mothers in front of their children. However, the sensitivity is very low (46% for the 3-item combination).

6Author calls it ethical dynamics of couple relationships

7There are 10 items on the scale and a composite, each was validated individually and all but the two included here are not IPV.

8 CRAT-V included one factor – sexual abuse history in past year – without a number of items; we’ve considered it to be 1 item.

9 CRAT-P doesn’t explicitly say that one of the factors – Criminal History – is only 1 item but the text says it is categorical; we’ve considered it to be 1 item.

1


File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
AuthorTasseli McKay
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created2021-01-23

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy