Scoring Interpersonal Violence Measures: Methodological Considerations.
Scoring Interpersonal Violence Measures: Methodological Considerations.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/nnr.0000000000000461
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Gonzalez-Guarda RM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Williams JR;Burton CW;Anderson JC;Gonzalez-Guarda RM
人际暴力，如亲密伴侣暴力、性侵犯和不良童年经历，是一个重大的全球健康问题。护士和其他在人际暴力领域工作的人面临的一个主要挑战是测量人际暴力的复杂性。存在许多经验证的工具;然而，没有标准方法来对这些工具进行评分。还有一种倾向是分别审查不同形式的暴力，而不考虑已知的同时发生的暴力。这导致了混乱，因为对结果的解释往往因所使用的具体方法而异。本文的目的是总结的主要方法来衡量人际暴力的措施和每种方法的影响，特别是集中在共现。本文首先总结了测量人际暴力的主要目标，人际暴力测量的主要方法，沿着评分的挑战。然后，我们提供了一个案例范例，研究人际暴力和创伤后应激障碍症状之间的关系，以说明评分方法如何影响研究结果和结果的解释。我们的论文表明，每种评分方法提供了一个不同的图片的分布的人际暴力的经验和不同的解释的容易程度。评分方法也会影响对人际暴力与其他因素之间关联的解释，例如是否具有检测重大关联的统计能力。说明共同发生的情况对于通过确定不同类型暴力之间潜在的混杂相互作用来做出准确的推断至关重要。不同评分方法的应用导致不同的解释，这突出表明研究人员在选择方法时需要有目的性，甚至在可能的情况下应用多种方法。提供的建议，以协助研究人员和供应商时，在不同的情况下使用评分方法的决定。
Interpersonal 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. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the major methods for scoring interpersonal violence measures and implications of each approach with a specific focus on co-occurrence. The paper 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. Our paper 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. 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.