4.2 Article

Accuracy of an Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tool for Female VHA Patients: A Replication and Extension

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRAUMATIC STRESS
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 79-82

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jts.21985

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Services as part of Dr. Iverson's HSR&D Career Development Award [CDA 10-029]
  2. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers [USA 14-275]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 4-item Hurt/Insult/Threaten/Scream (HITS) tool accurately detects past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) among female Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients; however, it lacks a sexual IPV item. This study evaluated the accuracy of an extended HITS (E-HITS), which adds a sexual IPV item, in female VHA patients. A sample of 80 female U.S. veteran VHA patients in New England completed a mail survey (50.0% response rate) that included the 5-item E-HITS and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2). Women were included if they were in an intimate relationship in the past year. The women averaged 49 years of age and 86.0% of the sample was White. Accuracy of the 4-item HITS was compared to the 5-item E-HITS, using the CTS-2 as the reference. There were 20 women (25.0%) who reported past-year IPV on the CTS-2. The receiver operator characteristic curves demonstrated that the HITS and E-HITS performed nearly identically at their optimal cutoff scores of 6 and 7, respectively. At these cutoff scores, the sensitivity of both tools was .75, 95% CI [.55, .95]. The specificities were similar; .83 for the HITS, 95% CI [.73, .92], and .82 for the E-HITS, 95% CI [.72, .90]. Including a sexual IPV item may be clinically beneficial; it also attains the same accuracy of case identification as the HITS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available