Jessica Roberts Williams1, Candace W Burton, Jocelyn C Anderson, Rosa M Gonzalez-Guarda. 1. Jessica Roberts Williams, PhD, MPH, PHNA-BC, is Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing. Candace W. Burton, PhD, RN, AFN-BC, AGN-BC, FNAP, is Assistant Professor, University of California, Irvine Sue & Bill Gross School of Nursing. Jocelyn C. Anderson, PhD, RN, SANE-A, is Assistant Professor, Pennsylvania State University College of Nursing, University Park. Rosa M. Gonzalez-Guarda, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, is Associate Professor, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpersonal violence, such as intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and adverse childhood experiences, is a significant global health concern. A major challenge to nurses and others working in the field of interpersonal violence deals with the complexity involved in measuring interpersonal violence. Numerous validated instruments exist; however, there is no standard approach for scoring these instruments. There is also a tendency to examine different forms of violence separately, not accounting for the known co-occurrence of violence. This has led to confusion as the interpretation of results often differs depending on the specific method used. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to summarize the major methods for scoring interpersonal violence measures and implications of each approach with a specific focus on co-occurrence. METHODS: The article begins with a summary of the primary goals of measuring interpersonal violence, major methods for scoring interpersonal violence measures, along with scoring challenges. We then provide a case exemplar examining the relationship between interpersonal violence and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms to illustrate how scoring methods can affect study results and interpretation of findings. RESULTS: Our article shows that each scoring method provides a different picture of the distribution of interpersonal violence experiences and varies regarding the ease of interpretation. Scoring methods also affect interpretation of associations between interpersonal violence and other factors, such as having statistical power to detect significant associations. Accounting for the co-occurrence is critical for making accurate inferences by identifying potential confounding interactions between different types of violence. DISCUSSION: The application of different scoring methods leading to varying interpretations highlights the need for researchers to be purposeful when selecting a method and even applying multiple methods when possible. Recommendations are provided to assist researchers and providers when making decisions about the use of scoring methods in different contexts.
BACKGROUND: Interpersonal violence, such as intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and adverse childhood experiences, is a significant global health concern. A major challenge to nurses and others working in the field of interpersonal violence deals with the complexity involved in measuring interpersonal violence. Numerous validated instruments exist; however, there is no standard approach for scoring these instruments. There is also a tendency to examine different forms of violence separately, not accounting for the known co-occurrence of violence. This has led to confusion as the interpretation of results often differs depending on the specific method used. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to summarize the major methods for scoring interpersonal violence measures and implications of each approach with a specific focus on co-occurrence. METHODS: The article begins with a summary of the primary goals of measuring interpersonal violence, major methods for scoring interpersonal violence measures, along with scoring challenges. We then provide a case exemplar examining the relationship between interpersonal violence and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms to illustrate how scoring methods can affect study results and interpretation of findings. RESULTS: Our article shows that each scoring method provides a different picture of the distribution of interpersonal violence experiences and varies regarding the ease of interpretation. Scoring methods also affect interpretation of associations between interpersonal violence and other factors, such as having statistical power to detect significant associations. Accounting for the co-occurrence is critical for making accurate inferences by identifying potential confounding interactions between different types of violence. DISCUSSION: The application of different scoring methods leading to varying interpretations highlights the need for researchers to be purposeful when selecting a method and even applying multiple methods when possible. Recommendations are provided to assist researchers and providers when making decisions about the use of scoring methods in different contexts.
Authors: Candace W Burton; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher; Roberta S Rehm; Sally Rankin; Janice C Humphreys Journal: Issues Ment Health Nurs Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.835
Authors: Susan Rees; Derrick Silove; Tien Chey; Lorraine Ivancic; Zachary Steel; Mark Creamer; Maree Teesson; Richard Bryant; Alexander C McFarlane; Katherine L Mills; Tim Slade; Natacha Carragher; Meaghan O'Donnell; David Forbes Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kelly Cue Davis; Amanda K Gilmore; Cynthia A Stappenbeck; Michael J Balsan; William H George; Jeanette Norris Journal: Psychol Violence Date: 2014-10
Authors: V J Felitti; R F Anda; D Nordenberg; D F Williamson; A M Spitz; V Edwards; M P Koss; J S Marks Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 5.043