Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27927659›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Development of a brief measure of intimate partner violence experiences: the Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)-Short Form (CASR-SF).

Marilyn Ford-Gilboe, C Nadine Wathen, Colleen Varcoe, Harriet L MacMillan, Kelly Scott-Storey, Tara Mantler, Kelsey Hegarty, Nancy Perrin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 210 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Partner-inflicted brain injury may cognitively age survivors by over a decade.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Marilyn Ford-GilboeArthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
C Nadine WathenFaculty of Information & Media Studies, Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Colleen VarcoeSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Harriet L MacMillanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kelly Scott-StoreyFaculty of Nursing, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Tara MantlerArthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Kelsey HegartyDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nancy PerrinSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Western University · CAJohns Hopkins University · USMcMaster University · CAThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of New Brunswick · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproaches to measuring intimate partner violence (IPV) in populations often privilege physical violence, with poor assessment of other experiences. This has led to underestimating the scope and impact of IPV. The aim of this study was to develop a brief, reliable and valid self-report measure of IPV that adequately captures its complexity.

designMixed-methods instrument development and psychometric testing to evolve a brief version of the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) using secondary data analysis and expert feedback.

settingData from 5 Canadian IPV studies; feedback from international IPV experts.

participants31 international IPV experts including academic researchers, service providers and policy actors rated CAS items via an online survey. Pooled data from 6278 adult Canadian women were used for scale development. PRIMARY/SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Scale reliability and validity; robustness of subscales assessing different IPV experiences.

resultsA 15-item version of the CAS has been developed (Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)-Short Form, CAS

conclusionsThe CAS

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolenceAdultCanadaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrevalencePsychometricsReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSelf Reportintimate partner violenceintimate partner violence against womenmeasurementpsychomotricquestionnairespouse abuse

Identifiers

PMID27927659
PMCPMC5168640
OpenAlexW2559802746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.