ArticleBMC health services research2024
The questions on violence (FOV) tool for interpersonal violence inquiry in Swedish healthcare settings - evaluation of content validity, face validity and test-retest reliability.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Somatization and experience of physical, psychological, and sexual violence among women consulting gynecological clinics: a waiting room survey.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research indicates that routine inquiry or screening conducted by healthcare providers may significantly increase the identification of interpersonal violence. There is a lack of comprehensive instruments to routinely assess patients about interpersonal violence and violence against children in the household. The purpose of this study was to assess the content validity, face validity and reliability of the Questions on Violence (FOV) tool, an instrument specifically designed for routine inquiries about interpersonal violence in healthcare settings within the Swedish context.
methodsThe content validity, face validity and reliability of the FOV instrument was assessed through (1) a content validity index with six experts in the field of intimate partner violence, (2) cognitive interviews with nine patients recruited from a primary healthcare facility, and (3) an evaluation of the test-retest reliability based on responses from 37(50.0%) university students. The intraclass correlation coefficient, model 2.1, was calculated to assess the degree of correlation and agreement between the two measurements.
resultsCalculations based on the content validity index indicated that five out of seven items had excellent content validity (≥ 0.78). The average content validity index of included items was 0.88, which is slightly below the recommended threshold for excellent content validity. The results based on the cognitive interviews revealed that participants found the seven items to be relevant and easy to understand. Overall, the participants agreed that the concept of 'close relationships' primarily encompassed intimate partners, family members, and close friends. The value of the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85 (0.77-0.91; CI 95%), indicating good reliability with an interval of good to excellent test-retest reliability.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that the seven-item FOV instrument has good content and face validity as well as good to excellent test-retest reliability. The current study provides healthcare professionals with a short yet comprehensive instrument for identifying patients who have experienced or perpetrated different forms of interpersonal violence.
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.