Cited by 38Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Brief Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Screening Tools: A Scoping Review

Davis, Maxine, Padilla-Medina, Diana M.·2021·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Abstract

Recent research findings indicate that patients are willing to disclose their use of violence to health-care providers if asked. Health-care providers have a unique opportunity to screen their patients for intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration; however, given the time constraints and limited personnel within medical offices and emergency-care facilities, instrument brevity is critically important. The development and evaluation of tools to screen for IPV perpetration in health-care settings, particularly brief instruments, is limited by the lack of adequate guidelines, clear institutional policies for screening, and reviews of the available literature. Given the need for validated measurement tools, we assessed the psychometric properties of measurement tools designed to quickly detect IPV perpetration by conducting a scoping review. Our search identified five measures meeting eligibility requirements. Inclusion criteria required that study information be published in a peer-reviewed journal, be published in English or Spanish languages, contain 10 or less items, report psychometric testing results, require no additional information, and be designed to detect IPV perpetration. We searched subject-specific databases and the bibliographies of relevant publications to identify studies. As part of appraising and synthesizing the evidence, we found most measures to have good reliability and validity. Most measures contained 2–5 items. Most studies were conducted in the United States and utilized an adequate sample size. There were considerable differences in how each of the measures determined a positive or negative screening. Gaps in the literature and areas for future research pertained to sample diversity, invariance testing, and practice guidelines for implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838019888545

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M., & Padilla-Medina, D. M.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Maxine
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Published
2019-11-27
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
900-913
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
OpenAlex
W2989672439
Cited by
38
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, IPV perpetration, screening tool, brief screening tool, psychometric properties, reliability and validity, healthcare settings, disclosure of violence, measurement invariance, screening guidelines
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Health Personnel, Humans, Mass Screening, Psychometrics, United States, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review