Development of a brief measure of intimate partner violence experiences: the Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)—Short Form (CAS_R-SF)

Abstract

ObjectivesApproaches to measuring intimate partner violence (IPV) in populations often privilege physical violence, with poor assessment of other experiences. This has led to underestimating the scope and impact of IPV. The aim of this study was to develop a brief, reliable and valid self-report measure of IPV that adequately captures its complexity.DesignMixed-methods instrument development and psychometric testing to evolve a brief version of the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) using secondary data analysis and expert feedback.SettingData from 5 Canadian IPV studies; feedback from international IPV experts.Participants31 international IPV experts including academic researchers, service providers and policy actors rated CAS items via an online survey. Pooled data from 6278 adult Canadian women were used for scale development.Primary/secondary outcome measuresScale reliability and validity; robustness of subscales assessing different IPV experiences.ResultsA 15-item version of the CAS has been developed (Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)—Short Form, CASR-SF), including 12 items developed from the original CAS and 3 items suggested through expert consultation and the evolving literature. Items cover 3 abuse domains: physical, sexual and psychological, with questions asked to assess lifetime, recent and current exposure, and abuse frequency. Factor loadings for the final 3-factor solution ranged from 0.81 to 0.91 for the 6 psychological abuse items, 0.63 to 0.92 for the 4 physical abuse items, and 0.85 and 0.93 for the 2 sexual abuse items. Moderate correlations were observed between the CASR-SF and measures of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and coercive control. Internal consistency of the CASR-SF was 0.942. These reliability and validity estimates were comparable to those obtained for the original 30-item CAS.ConclusionsThe CASR-SF is brief self-report measure of IPV experiences among women that has demonstrated initial reliability and validity and is suitable for use in population studies or other studies. Additional validation of the 15-item scale with diverse samples is required.

Longitudinal impacts of an online safety and health intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence: randomized controlled trial

“…Women rated the frequency of each abusive act experienced from a partner in the previous 12 months on a 6-point scale ranging from 'never' (0) to 'daily' (5). In this study, the 3 sexual abuse items were modified to make them more consistent with current theory and measurement approaches in the field [56]. Using established cut scores, women's responses can be categorized as positive or negative for 4 types of abuse: physical abuse, emotional abuse, harassment, severe combined abuse.…”

Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships

“…By contrast, the commonly used Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) measures the act of violence rather than its consequences, which arguably produces findings suggesting an overrepresentation of women as "violent." In much of the available research on IPV, emotional, economic, and sexual abuse as well as gender-specific types of IPV may not be adequately represented (Archer, 2000;DeKeseredy, 2000;Ford-Gilboe et al, 2016;Kimmel, 2002).…”

Construction and validation of the Lebanese fear of relationship commitment scale among a representative sample of the Lebanese population

“…The composite abuse scale (CAS), initially developed in Australia, is considered a preferred measure of intimate partner violence that has been used as a criterion standard for assessing one's self‐reported experiences of abuse. The short form of the CAS (25 items) was used in this study . The CAS total score should be created by summing all answers to all questions.…”