ArticleNursing research
Scoring Interpersonal Violence Measures: Methodological Considerations.
Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing interpersonal violence involvement in psychiatric patients: exploratory findings on the Interpersonal Violence Questionnaire (IVIQ).BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- A Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Intimate Partner Violence Measures in Health Research.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterpersonal 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.
objectivesThe 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.