PURPOSE: The primary goal of this study was to test the reliability of the Partner Violence Interview and examine validity by measuring differential correlates of partner violence. METHODS: Sixty young adults (30 males and 30 females) housed in an urban shelter participated in this study. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and the majority were African-American. The participants were administered two measures of partner violence exposure, one measure of community violence exposure and one measure of depression. A random selection of 30 of the participants was retested after 1 month. RESULTS: As predicted, current and past partner violence was common in this sample, with over 70% endorsing a history of physical violence. The Partner Violence Interview (PVI) had adequate retest reliability (Pearson r for two PVI scales =.7 and.85) and internal consistency (KR-20 for each scale =.78 to.93). Preliminary evidence of convergent validity was suggested by the fact that the PVI lifetime partner violence scale was significantly correlated with a physical violence scale from a second measure (the Conflict Tactics Scale; r =.596, p <.001). Violence in past relationships, as opposed to current relationships, was associated with both lifetime community violence exposure and current level of depression. CONCLUSIONS: The Partner Violence Interview is a reliable, comprehensive instrument suited to high-risk populations. Homeless young adults commonly experience severe partner violence, and preventive intervention is clearly indicated for this group.
PURPOSE: The primary goal of this study was to test the reliability of the Partner Violence Interview and examine validity by measuring differential correlates of partner violence. METHODS: Sixty young adults (30 males and 30 females) housed in an urban shelter participated in this study. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and the majority were African-American. The participants were administered two measures of partner violence exposure, one measure of community violence exposure and one measure of depression. A random selection of 30 of the participants was retested after 1 month. RESULTS: As predicted, current and past partner violence was common in this sample, with over 70% endorsing a history of physical violence. The Partner Violence Interview (PVI) had adequate retest reliability (Pearson r for two PVI scales =.7 and.85) and internal consistency (KR-20 for each scale =.78 to.93). Preliminary evidence of convergent validity was suggested by the fact that the PVI lifetime partner violence scale was significantly correlated with a physical violence scale from a second measure (the Conflict Tactics Scale; r =.596, p <.001). Violence in past relationships, as opposed to current relationships, was associated with both lifetime community violence exposure and current level of depression. CONCLUSIONS: The Partner Violence Interview is a reliable, comprehensive instrument suited to high-risk populations. Homeless young adults commonly experience severe partner violence, and preventive intervention is clearly indicated for this group.