Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Culturally Responsive Domestic Violence Measures

Ravi, Kristen E.; Rai, Abha; Lindsey, Savannah

doi:10.1177/15248380211073844

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the first review evaluating the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instrument in the community and institutional settings using the COSMIN checklist. A few reviews have been conducted on other types of interpersonal violence, such as child abuse, cyber dating and domestic violence (Georgieva et al, 2021;Georgieva et al, 2023;Meinck et al, 2023;Ravi et al, 2023;Saini et al, 2019;Soto & Ibabe, 2022;Steele et al, 2023;Tarriño-Concejero et al, 2023;Yoon et al, 2021aYoon et al, , 2021b. Our findings are consistent with reviews of the psychometric properties of other types of interpersonal violence, including emerging cyber-dating violence.…”

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Other Studies Or Reviewssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…A review of studies of culturally responsive domestic violence measurements found that the most commonly reported psychometric properties were content validity, criterion validity and construct validity (Ravi et al, 2023). Likewise, in this review, it was observed that most assessments regarding instrument reliability predominantly relied on internal consistency measures rather than test-retest methodologies.…”

Section: O S F P R E P R I N T S N O V E M B E Rmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychometric Properties of Instruments for Measuring Abuse of Older People in Community and Institutional Settings: A Systematic Review

Mohd Mydin,

Mikton,

Choo

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) has been an area of study that has received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments may contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates and lead to uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.Objectives: This review utilized the consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments’ measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments.Search methods: The following online databases were searched: AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar, and WHO Global Index Medicus. Relevant studies were also identified by searching the grey literature from several resources, such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.Selection criteria: All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.Data collection and analysis: The screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts of the selected studies was evaluated by two reviewers based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. All data were synthesized and summarized qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed.Main results: We found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which we screened 482 in full text and included 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. Eighty-seven studies were reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (94 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). Ninety-five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults; and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one-quarter of the studies included reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS-EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS-12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL-31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian), and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS-EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS-12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality. Conclusions: This review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments that measure AOP in community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack evidence to support their validity and reliability.

show abstract

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Other Studies Or Reviewssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: O S F P R E P R I N T S N O V E M B E Rmentioning

confidence: 73%

Psychometric Properties of Instruments for Measuring Abuse of Older People in Community and Institutional Settings: A Systematic Review

Mohd Mydin,

Mikton,

Choo

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Mohd Mydin,

Mikton,

Choo

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.ObjectivesThis review rigorously employed the Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.Search MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.Selection CriteriaAll quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed‐method empirical studies published in peer‐reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross‐cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta‐analysis was performed.Main ResultsWe found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty‐seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high‐income countries (69 studies). Ninety‐five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one‐quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS‐EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS‐12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL‐31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS‐EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS‐12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThis review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.

show abstract

A Latent Class Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Experiences in Kosovo

Kelmendi

Konjufca

2023

J Fam Viol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Culturally Responsive Domestic Violence Measures

Cited by 9 publications

References 50 publications

Psychometric Properties of Instruments for Measuring Abuse of Older People in Community and Institutional Settings: A Systematic Review

Psychometric Properties of Instruments for Measuring Abuse of Older People in Community and Institutional Settings: A Systematic Review

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

A Latent Class Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Experiences in Kosovo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About