Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools. A Systematic Review

Rebecca F. Rabin, Jacky Jennings, Jacquelyn C Campbell, Megan H. Bair-Merritt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. Evidence acquisition: From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Evidence synthesis: Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%-100%, specificity 86%-99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%-71%, specificity 80%-94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%-94%, specificity 55%-99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test-retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusions: No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume36
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2009

Fingerprint

Psychometrics
Advisory Committees
Delivery of Health Care
Sensitivity and Specificity
Bibliography
Violence
Reproducibility of Results
Publications
Language
Referral and Consultation
Intimate Partner Violence
Organizations
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools. A Systematic Review. / Rabin, Rebecca F.; Jennings, Jacky; Campbell, Jacquelyn C; Bair-Merritt, Megan H.

In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 5, 05.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1192e5f2bda448e5a83bb0677de43a55,
title = "Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools. A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. Evidence acquisition: From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Evidence synthesis: Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30{\%}-100{\%}, specificity 86{\%}-99{\%}); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47{\%}, specificity 96{\%}); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35{\%}-71{\%}, specificity 80{\%}-94{\%}); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93{\%}-94{\%}, specificity 55{\%}-99{\%}). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test-retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusions: No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.",
author = "Rabin, {Rebecca F.} and Jacky Jennings and Campbell, {Jacquelyn C} and Bair-Merritt, {Megan H.}",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
journal = "American Journal of Preventive Medicine",
issn = "0749-3797",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools. A Systematic Review

AU - Rabin, Rebecca F.

AU - Jennings, Jacky

AU - Campbell, Jacquelyn C

AU - Bair-Merritt, Megan H.

PY - 2009/5

Y1 - 2009/5

N2 - Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. Evidence acquisition: From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Evidence synthesis: Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%-100%, specificity 86%-99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%-71%, specificity 80%-94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%-94%, specificity 55%-99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test-retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusions: No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.

AB - Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. Evidence acquisition: From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Evidence synthesis: Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%-100%, specificity 86%-99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%-71%, specificity 80%-94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%-94%, specificity 55%-99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test-retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusions: No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64349121338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64349121338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024

DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024

M3 - Article

C2 - 19362697

AN - SCOPUS:64349121338

VL - 36

JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine

SN - 0749-3797

IS - 5

ER -