Validity of a Common Measure of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: Impact on Study Inference in Trials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: In lower-and middle-income countries (LMICs), studies of interventions to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration are expanding, yet measurement equivalence of the IPV perpetration construct that is the primary outcome in these investigations has not been established. We assessed the measurement equivalence of physical and sexual IPV perpetration item sets used in recent trials in LMICs and tested the impact of non-invariance on trial inference. Methods: With data from three intervention trials among men (sample size 505-1537 across studies) completed in 2019, we calculated tetrachoric correlations among items and used multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis to assess invariance across arms and over time. We also assessed treatment effects adjusting for covariate imbalance and using inverse probability to treatment weights to assess concordance of invariant measures with published results, where warranted. Findings: The average correlation among items measuring IPV perpetration was high and increased by 0.03 to 0.15 for physical IPV and 0.07 to 0.17 for sexual IPV over time with several items in two studies showing correlations ≥ 0.85 at endline. Increases in the degree of correlation for physical IPV were concentrated in the treatment arm in two of the studies. The increase in correlation in sexual IPV differed by arm across studies. Across all studies, a correlated two-factor solution was the best fitting model according to the EFAs and CFAs. One study demonstrated measurement invariance across arms and over time. In two of the studies, longitudinal measurement non-invariance was detected in the intervention arms. In post hoc testing, one study attained invariance with a one-factor model and study inference was concordant with published findings. The other study did not attain even partial invariance. Conclusion: Common measures of physical and sexual IPV perpetration cannot be used validly for comparisons across treatment versus control groups over time without further refinement. The study highlights the need for an expanded item set, content validity assessments, further measurement invariance testing, and then consistent use of the item sets in future intervention trials to ensure valid inferences regarding the effectiveness of IPV perpetration prevention interventions within and across trials.