Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
[Preprint]. 2024 Jan 29:2024.01.28.24301897.
doi: 10.1101/2024.01.28.24301897.

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

Cari Jo Clark  1 , Irina Bergenfeld  1 , Abbie Shervinskie  1 , Erin R Johnson  1 , Yuk Fai Cheong  2 , Nadine J Kaslow  3 , Kathryn M Yount  1   4
Affiliations

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

Cari Jo Clark et al. medRxiv. .

Update in

Abstract

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.

Keywords: intimate partner violence; measurement; measurement invariance; perpetration; prevention; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations of interest: none

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ballinger B. C. III (2000). Factor analysis of the partner and stranger versions of the Conflict Tactics Scale, Texas Tech University.
    1. Cheung G. and Rensvold R. (2002). "Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance." Structural Equation Modeling 9(2): 233–255.
    1. Christofides N. J., Hatcher A. M., Pino A., Rebombo D., McBride R. S., Anderson A. and Peacock D. (2018). "A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of community mobilisation and advocacy on men’s use of violence in periurban South Africa: study protocol." BMJ open 8(3): e017579. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Christofides N. J., Hatcher A. M., Rebombo D., McBride R.-S., Munshi S., Pino A., Abdelatif N., Peacock D., Levin J. and Jewkes R. K. (2020). "Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to reduce men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial." Trials 21(1): 1–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clark C. J., Bergenfeld I., Cheong Y. F., Kaslow N. J. and Yount K. M. (2023). "Impact of measurement variability on study inference in partner violence prevention trials in low-and middle-income countries." Assessment 30(5): 1339–1353. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types