ArticleJournal of family violence2022
Psychometric Evaluation of the Healing After Gender-Based Violence Scale: An Instrument for Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Assessment of Recovery Progress for Women-Identifying Survivors.
Article in Journal of family violence, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Recovery from Intimate Partner Violence: Recovery and Hope.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Healing after Gender-Based Violence Scale (GBV-Heal): An Instrument to Measure Recovery Progress in Women-Identifying Survivors.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The Healing after Gender-based Violence Scale (GBV-Heal) was developed to measure the holistic recovery processes of woman-identifying survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). The GBV-Heal asks survivors to evaluate a series of statements based on perceptions of one's lowest point and how they currently feel. These scale response options create lowest point, current feelings, and difference scores to evaluate the healing outcome cross-sectionally. This manuscript aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the GBV-Heal to understand its usefulness for research and practice. Method: Instrument evaluation consisted of two phases analyzing online survey data from two GBV survivor samples recruited from online health research portals in the United States. In Phase One ( Results: Results showed that the scale's final model included 4 components with 18 items, explaining 61.2% and 65% of the overall scale variances for "at my lowest point" and "my current feelings," respectively. The GBV-Heal difference score showed a weak positive correlation with wellbeing and posttraumatic growth scores and a weak negative correlation with depression, anxiety, and PTSD scores. Test-retest revealed Pearson Conclusion: These findings substantiate the reliability and validity of our instrument as an outcome measure that can be used both cross-sectionally and longitudinally with survivors of GBV.
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.