| Study, Year | Population: N Age Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status Pregnancy Status |
Setting | Screening Instrument(s) |
Findings | Quality Rating Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparison of Screening Instruments | |||||
| Coker et al., 200156 | N: 1,152 age: mean 38 (range 18-65) ethnicity: 62% African American, 38% White socioeconomic status: 100% insured (medicaid or managed care), 89% high school graduate or greater pregnancy status: NR |
2 university-affiliated family practice clinics | 1) WEB, All participants screened with both instruments |
Higher detection rate with WEB scale (16%) than ISA-P (10%) | Fair Questions asked by graduate students (not health care professionals); used modified version of reference standard; administered verbally although designed as written questionnaires |
| Brown et al., 200057 | N: 307 age: mean 46 (range 18-86) ethnicity: 98% White socioeconomic status: 59% employed, 59% with annual household income > $30,000, 45% with post-secondary education pregnancy status: NR |
20 family practice offices | 1) WAST, 8 items 2) ARI, self-report, 25 items |
1) WAST and ARI results were correlated (r = 0.69; P = 0.01) 2) WAST internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75) |
Fair An additional question was added to the original 7-item WAST |
| Sherin et al.,199854 | N: 259 all other demographic information: NR |
Family practice offices, urban/suburban population | 1) HITS, written, 4 items 2) CTS, verbal, 19 items |
1) HITS internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80) 2) HITS and CTS results were correlated (r = 0.85) |
Good |
| Feldhaus et al., 199753 | N: 322 age: mean 36 ethnicity: 45% White, 19% African American, 30% Hispanic socioeconomic status: 54% uninsured, 49% employed, 64% annual income < $15,000, 67% education level high school or greater pregnancy status: NR |
2 urban, hospital-based emergency departments | 1) PVS, verbal, 3 items 2) ISA, written, 30 items 3) CTS, verbal, 19 items |
PVS had a higher sensitivity and specificity when compared to the ISA (65% and 80%) or CTS (71% and 84%) | Good Screening done by research assistant (not health care professional) |
| McFarlane et al., 199262 | N: 691 age: 31% teenagers, 57% age 20-29 ethnicity: 39% African American, 34% Hispanic, 27% White socioeconomic status: 95% below poverty level pregnancy status: 100% pregnant |
Public prenatal clinics | 1) AAS, 3 items 2) ISA 3) CTS 4) DAS |
Women identified as abused on the AAS also scored significantly higher on the ISA, CTS, and DAS | Good |
| Ernst et al., 200215 | N: 488 age: median 36 ethnicity: 47% White, 26% African American, 11% Hispanic socioeconomic status: NR pregnancy status: NR |
Large metropolitan emergency department | 1) AAS 2) OAS 3) Single question "Are you presently a victim of IPV?" |
The OAS had a sensitivity of 30%, a specificity of 100%, and a positive predictive value of 100% | Good |
Comparison of Screening Instrument to Interview | |||||
| Morrison et al., 200055 | N: 1,000 all other demographic information: NR |
Charts reviewed in emergency department, tertiary care hospital | 1) Emergency Department
Domestic Violence Screening Questions,
5 items 2) Standard interview, chart review |
1) Retrospective review of charts identified 4 patients (0.4%) as past
or present victims of domestic violence 2) Higher detection rate with questionnaire (4% acute, 7% probable, 4% past abuse) |
Poor Inappropriate reference standard (interview not defined) |
| Canterino et al., 199951 | N: 224 age: mean age 24 ethnicity: 54% African American, 30% White, 11% Hispanic socioeconomic status: 36% employed pregnancy status: 100% pregnant |
Prenatal clinic, community-based tertiary care center | 1) Domestic Abuse Assessment Questionnaire, self-report, 5 items 2) Directed interview |
Self-report questionnaire yielded higher detection rate (85% vs 59%; P = 0.03) | Poor Inappropriate reference standard (interview not defined) |
| Norton et al., 199552 | N: 334 age: mean 23 ethnicity: 50% White socioeconomic status: 42% uninsured pregnancy status: 100% pregnant |
Prenatal visit, interviewed by social services | 1) AAS, 5 items 2) Standard interview, chart review |
More frequent detection of violence using AAS (41%) compared with interview (14%) | Poor Inappropriate reference standard (interview not defined) |
Internal Consistency of Screening Instrument | |||||
| Pan et al.,199749 | N: 90 age: mean 38 ethnicity: 82% White 6% African American, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian socioeconomic status: 13.7 yrs average education, $32,000 mean annual family income, 38% employed pregnancy status: NR |
Suburban family practice clinic, tertiary care university hospital | 1) Partner Abuse Interview, 11 items, (modified CTS) | Internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82) | Fair Small sample size, inappropriate reference standard (not compared to another method) |
| Smith and Marth, 199563 | N: 389 age: NR ethnicity: 85% White socioeconomic status: 68% employed, 61% education level high school or greater pregnancy status: NR |
Various primary care clinics and community groups | 1) WEB Scale, 10 items | High internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha for full sample = 0.99; battered = 0.93; non-battered = 0.86) |
Fair Inappropriate reference standard (not compared to another method) |
Comparison of Methods of Administration of Screening Instrument | Glass et al., 200142 | N: 4,641 age: 18 and older all other demographic information: NR |
Emergency departments at 11 community hospitals | 1) AAS as part of intake survey; patients chose whether to self administer or have it read by a nurse interviewer | Prevalence of lifetime and past-year abuse was higher with self-administered questions | Fair Patients self-selected method |
| Furbee et al., 199858 | N: 175 age: mean 34 all other demographic information: NR |
Emergency department, rural university-affiliated | 1) Face-to-face interview 2) Tape-recorded questionnaire with written answer sheet |
Comparable results (16% prevalence of abuse detected with face-to-face interview compared with 15% detected with taped interview) | Fair Narrow spectrum of patients |
| McFarlane et al., 199150 | N: 777 age: 59% in age range 20-29 ethnicity: 47% African American, 34% White, 17% Hispanic socioeconomic status: NR pregnancy status: NR |
Planned Parenthood clinic | 1) Self-Report, 4 items 2) Interview, 4 items |
Higher prevalence of abuse was detected by nurse-conducted interview (29%) than by self-report (7%) | Fair Narrow spectrum of patients |
|
Notes: AAS, Abuse Assessment Screen; ARI, Abuse Risk Inventory; CTS, Conflict Tactics Screen; DAS, Danger Assessment Screen; HITS, Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Screamed at; IPV, Intimate Partner Violence; ISA, Index of Spouse Abuse; ISA-P, Index of Spouse Abuse-Physical Scale; NR, not reported; OAS, Ongoing Abuse Screen; PVS, Partner Violence Screen; WAST, Women Abuse Screening Tool; WEB, Women's Experience with Battering Scale. | |||||