Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 May;36(5):439-445.e4.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024.

Intimate partner violence screening tools: a systematic review

Rebecca F Rabin  1 , Jacky M Jennings, Jacquelyn C Campbell, Megan H Bair-Merritt
Affiliations
Review

Intimate partner violence screening tools: a systematic review

Rebecca F Rabin et al. Am J Prev Med. 2009 May.

Abstract

Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality.

Evidence acquisition: From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies.

Evidence synthesis: Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%-100%, specificity 86%-99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%-71%, specificity 80%-94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%-94%, specificity 55%-99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test-retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good.

Conclusions: No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reasons for exclusion of articles
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. National Institute of Justice, CDC: Research in Brief. 1998. Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey; pp. 1–15.
    1. Campbell JC, Lewandowski L. Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1997;20(2):353–74. - PubMed
    1. Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, Desai S, Sanderson M, Brandt HM. Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(4):260–8. - PubMed
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for family and intimate partner violence. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(5):382–6. - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Family Physicians. Family violence and abuse. www.aafp.org/x16506.xml.