The Community Composite Abuse Scale: Reliability and Validity of a Measure of Intimate Partner Violence in a Community Survey from the ALSWH

2013 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Taft and Kelsey Hegar
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Survey ◽  
Scale Reliability

scholarly journals Screening for Partner Violence Among Family Mediation Clients: Differentiating Types of Abuse

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1118-1146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Cleak ◽  
Margot J. Schofield ◽  
Lauren Axelsen ◽  
Andrew Bickerdike
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Psychological Aggression ◽  
Financial Control ◽  
Screening Instruments ◽  
Family Mediation ◽  
Parenting Alliance ◽  
History Of

Family mediation is mandated in Australia for couples in dispute over separation and parenting as a first step in dispute resolution, except where there is a history of intimate partner violence. However, validation of effective well-differentiated partner violence screening instruments suitable for mediation settings is at an early phase of development. This study contributes to calls for better violence screening instruments in the mediation context to detect a differentiated range of abusive behaviors by examining the reliability and validity of both established scales, and newly developed scales that measured intimate partner violence by partner and by self. The study also aimed to examine relationships between types of abuse, and between gender and types of abuse. A third aim was to examine associations between types of abuse and other relationship indicators such as acrimony and parenting alliance. The data reported here are part of a larger mixed method, naturalistic longitudinal study of clients attending nine family mediation centers in Victoria, Australia. The current analyses on baseline cross-sectional screening data confirmed the reliability of three subscales of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), and the reliability and validity of three new scales measuring intimidation, controlling and jealous behavior, and financial control. Most clients disclosed a history of at least one type of violence by partner: 95% reported psychological aggression, 72% controlling and jealous behavior, 50% financial control, and 35% physical assault. Higher rates of abuse perpetration were reported by partner versus by self, and gender differences were identified. There were strong associations between certain patterns of psychologically abusive behavior and both acrimony and parenting alliance. The implications for family mediation services and future research are discussed.

Evaluating Measures of Intimate Partner Violence Using Consensus-Based Standards of Validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110134
Author(s):  
Erin F. Alexander ◽  
Bethany L. Backes ◽  
Matthew D. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Psychometric Evidence

The assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) by mental health, medical, and criminal justice practitioners occurs routinely. The validity of the assessment instrument they use impacts practitioners’ ability to judge ongoing risk, establish the type of IPV occurring, protect potential victims, and intervene effectively. Yet, there is no known compendium of existing assessment measures. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to present a systematic review of measures used to identify or predict IPV, (2) to determine which of these measures have psychometric evidence to support their use, and (3) to determine whether any existing measure is capable of differentiating between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. A systematic search was conducted using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies on the reliability or validity of specific measures of IPV were included, regardless of format, length, discipline, or type of IPV assessed. A total of 222 studies, on the psychometric properties of 87 unique measures, met our a priori criteria and were included in the review. We described the reliability and validity of the 87 measures. We rated the measures based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments–revised criteria and other established validity criteria, which allowed us to generate a list of recommended measures. We also discussed measures designed to differentiate IPV types. We conclude by describing the strengths and weaknesses of existing measures and by suggesting new avenues for researchers to enhance the assessment of IPV.

Familias con Voz: Community Survey Results from an Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Prevention Project with Migrant Workers

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 649-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace Kugel ◽  
Carmen Retzlaff ◽  
Suellen Hopfer ◽  
David M. Lawson ◽  
Erin Daley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Survey ◽  
Prevention Project ◽  
Survey Results

Development of a Novel Tool to Assess Intimate Partner Violence Against Transgender Individuals

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2376-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Peitzmeier ◽  
Jaclyn M. W. Hughto ◽  
Jennifer Potter ◽  
Madeline B. Deutsch ◽  
Sari L. Reisner
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
Sexually Transmitted ◽  
Number Of Sexual Partners ◽  
Gender Presentation

Intimate partner violence (IPV) takes on unique dimensions when directed against transgender individuals, with perpetrators leveraging transphobia to assert power and control. Standard IPV measurement tools do not assess this type of IPV. Four questions to assess transgender-related IPV (T-IPV) were developed: (a) being forced to conform to an undesired gender presentation or to stop pursuing gender transition; (b) being pressured to remain in a relationship by being told no one would date a transgender person; (c) being “outed” as a form of blackmail; and (d) having transition-related hormones, prosthetics, or clothing hidden or destroyed. The T-IPV tool was administered to 150 female-to-male transmasculine individuals completing a study of cervical cancer screening in Boston from March 2015-September 2016. Construct validity was assessed by examining correlations between T-IPV and two validated screeners of other forms of IPV (convergent) and employment status and fruit consumption (divergent). The association between T-IPV and negative health outcomes (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], depression, psychological symptoms, binge drinking, number of sexual partners, and sexually transmitted infection [STI] diagnosis) were also calculated. Lifetime T-IPV was reported by 38.9%, and 10.1% reported past-year T-IPV. T-IPV was more prevalent among those who reported lifetime physical (51.7% vs. 31.7%, p = .01) and sexual (58.7% vs. 19.4%, p < .001) IPV than those who did not. Lifetime T-IPV was associated with PTSD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.04, 4.80]), depression (AOR = 2.70, 95% CI = [1.22, 5.96]), and psychological distress (AOR = 2.82, 95% CI = [1.10, 7.26]). The T-IPV assessment tool demonstrated adequate reliability and validity and measures a novel type of abuse that is prevalent and associated with significant mental health burden. Future work should further validate the measure and pilot it with male-to-female transfeminine individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document