Spanish-Language Measures of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Evidence and Translation Methodology

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent worldwide, including in Latinx populations. Reported rates of IPV in Latinx populations vary widely, indicating that measurement errors may be impeding researchers’ and clinicians’ understanding of IPV in these populations. We conducted a systematic review across a range of social science databases to evaluate psychometric properties and translation methodologies of Spanish-language IPV measures. Records were included if they included Spanish measures assessing IPV victimization. We identified 91 records with a total of 70 measures and evaluated the measures’ extant psychometric evidence using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. For the measures translated from English to Spanish, we evaluated the translation methodology based on best-practice recommendations for achieving translations that are psychometrically equivalent to their original versions. We found that validation information about measures was sparse and that few translations adhered to best-practice recommendations. Based on our a priori criteria we recommend the Plazaola-Castaño translation of the Index of Spouse Abuse. In closing, we discuss the validity evidence of translated measures independent of the original language version and best-practice recommendations in translating psychological measures.

Keywords

assessment intimate partner violence translation Spanish validity victimization

Intimate partner violence (IPV) can be defined as physical, sexual, or psychological violence directed at an individual by a spouse, dating, or sexual partner (Breiding et al., 2015). About one in three women and one in five men experience IPV in their lifetimes, both within the United States and worldwide (Breiding et al., 2015; WHO, 2021). Experiencing IPV has been associated with various negative physical, psychological, and economic outcomes for survivors, including injuries from physical violence (Sheridan & Nash, 2007), increased risk for internalizing disorders and serious mental illness (Chandan et al., 2020), and reduced lifetime earning potential (Greeson et al., 2011). There is no reason to believe that IPV in Latinx communities would be distinct from that of the rest of the domestic population, but reported prevalence rates vary widely (Gonzalez et al., 2020).

In this article, we systematically review the validity of Spanish-language measures of IPV, including the translation methods for measures translated into Spanish, and provide recommended measures based on a priori criteria. The validity problems of many English-language IPV measures (Alexander et al., 2022), including significant limitations in detecting IPV victimization using self-report and clinician-administered IPV assessments (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013; Kataoka et al., 2010), suggest that there may be similar problems with Spanish-language IPV measures. While there is no inherent reason the validity of measures developed in Spanish would be better or worse than those developed in English, the act of translating IPV assessment instruments from one language to another adds another potential source of measurement error. In any case, given that 36% of Latinx individuals living in the U.S. are not proficient in English (Pew Research Center, 2019), we feel that the time is right for a review of Spanish-language IPV measures.

Challenges in Assessing for IPV

Despite the prevalence and impact of IPV, there are significant challenges associated with its accurate assessment. Although screening for IPV in healthcare settings is beneficial (Curry et al., 2018), several barriers exist that prevent detecting IPV victimization. We outline these challenges below.

Challenges Associated with Measurement Format

A primary issue associated with accurate assessment of IPV is measurement format (e.g., face-to-face interview, self-report checklist, etc.), and results are mixed as to which formats are best suited to assess IPV experiences. Indeed, reported rates of IPV may vary based on the format of assessment, from 19.4% through interviews to 29.4% through self-administered questionnaires (Kataoka et al., 2010). Some studies suggest that patients prefer or are more likely to disclose abuse in a self-report format (MacMillan et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2006). However, another study comparing reporting in interviews to self-report formats found that participants were more likely to disclose physical abuse in the interview than emotional abuse in the self-report checklist (Svavarsdottir, 2010). These findings indicate that there are limitations to assessing IPV across formats.

There are challenges associated with both clinician-administered and self-report formats for assessing IPV. Commonly cited barriers for clinician-administered measures include discomfort among healthcare workers, lack of time, and lack of knowledge of appropriate screening methods (Sprague et al., 2012). Across both assessment formats issues may include respondent underreporting, differing definitions of what constitutes psychological or emotional abuse, and lack of context in assessments leading to lack of consideration for self-defense (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013). Furthermore, IPV reporting may not be consistent over time, indicating that assessments may be subject to problems with memory or item interpretation and should be paired with complimentary assessment methods (Abramsky et al., 2022; Loxton et al., 2019). Thus, not only are IPV assessments subject to response inconsistency associated with format but also with characteristics of administrators and respondents.

Challenges Associated with Validation Evidence

While many assessment measures exist in both clinician-administered and self-report formats, very few are validated. Alexander et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review evaluating the validity evidence of all available English measures of IPV. They identified over 80 measures of IPV but found that less than a quarter of these measures met established standards of psychometric quality. The use of measures with insufficient evidence of validity may lead to overlooking individuals experiencing IPV, who will then be unable to access appropriate services. Thus, lack of sufficient validation information about IPV measures represents an additional challenge to assessing for IPV broadly.

IPV in Latinx Communities

The prevalence of IPV in Latinx communities in the U.S. has been found to be similar to that of the overall population (e.g., Sabina et al., 2015), although rates have also been found to range widely from 4% (Latta et al., 2016) to 80% (Cavanaugh et al., 2014). A systematic review by Gonzalez et al. (2020) found that 41% of studies examining prevalence of IPV in Latinx populations had prevalence rates that were higher than the national average. These widely varied rates of reported IPV may be due to a number of factors, including reporting hesitance due to immigration status and other sources of mistrust of the criminal justice system (Messing et al., 2015). While one source of variation in prevalence rates may be group differences, given the challenges associated with assessing IPV in Latinx communities, we hypothesize that differences in prevalence rates are due in part to measurement error.

Contributing to difficulties in assessing IPV in Latinx communities are challenges associated with participants’ English-language proficiency (Bauer et al., 2000). About 13% of the total U.S. population speaks Spanish at home (United States Census Bureau, 2020) and over a third of Latinx individuals in the U.S. are not proficient in English (Pew Research Center, 2019), indicating a need for Spanish-language measures of IPV. Although there are a number of IPV measures developed in Spanish (e.g., Inventario de Abuso Psicológico en las Relaciones de Pareja; Calvete Zumalde et al., 2005; la Escala Multidimensional de Violencia en el Noviazgo; García-Carpintero et al., 2018), the most commonly used measures tend to be translations of measures developed in English (e.g., Abuse Assessment Screen; Escribà-Agüir et al., 2016; Modified Conflict Tactics Scale; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2007). Translated measures may not always share the same psychometric properties as their original language versions (Budruk, 2010) and translated measures must be validated separately to ensure that they are adequately assessing IPV in Spanish-speaking populations. Despite the importance of validating translations, translations are often produced and used before rigorous validity testing occurs, indicating that results from these translations must be interpreted cautiously. These problems compound the aforementioned issues associated with assessing IPV more broadly and further diminish the potential validity of IPV assessments among those whose first language is Spanish.

Best Practices in Translating Measures

Best practices for translation of psychological measures emphasize multi-phase, multi-method processes for achieving final translations. Processes such as Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pre-testing, and Documentation (Harkness et al., 2003) and the International Test Committee Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Bartram et al., 2018) exemplify this approach. These recommendations include using team-based approaches to developing initial translations, which can prevent individual biases, lack of cultural familiarity, or lack of knowledge about psychological test construction from negatively influencing translation quality. They also recommend thorough pre-testing, or gathering data on the performance of a translated measure, prior to its formal use. Pre-testing is most informative when it is done with members of the target population for a particular measure (e.g., Goerman, 2006), and often takes the form of small focus groups targeting comprehensibility of the translation (e.g., Daniel et al., 2011). These methods also advocate for use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in pre-testing translations, as quantitative methods allow for more precise examination of language-group differences in response patterns and qualitative methods provide insight into how participants are thinking of and understanding items or responses options (Boateng et al., 2018).

Commonly Used Translation Methods

Despite consensus regarding which methods are preferable to achieve conceptually and psychometrically equivalent translations of existing measures, these methods are not consistently used. Frequently used translation methods that are known to produce nonequivalent translations when used in isolation include back-translation (Bolaños-Medina & González-Ruiz, 2012) and translation from single individuals, even if those individuals are trained in translation (Wild et al., 2005). Additionally, few studies conduct formal pre-tests with their target population prior to using newly translated measures (Rios & Sireci, 2014). Measures that are not developed using thorough translation methods may lack conceptual or psychometric equivalence to their original language versions (Bolaños-Medina & González-Ruiz, 2012). A lack of equivalence between language versions of a measure may lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding the presence of the constructs purported to be measured by a translation.

Aims

In the current article, we address a clear gap in the literature by systematically evaluating the psychometric evidence supporting Spanish-language measures of IPV and the methods used in developing Spanish translations of IPV. Our aims for this review were: (a) to evaluate the available reliability and validity evidence for Spanish-language measures of IPV, (b) to evaluate the methods used in translating measures of IPV into Spanish and compare them with best-practice recommendations, and (c) to provide a list of recommended measures for use. We also discuss next steps for the field with regard to translating and validating Spanish-language IPV measures.

Method

Search

We conducted a systematic search during February of 2022 through PsycINFO, PSYCArticles, MEDLINE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Chicano Database, Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, Social Work Abstracts, Social Sciences Full Text, Sociology Source Ultimate, and PubMed. We included all items published prior to the date of the search. Our Boolean operator search terms were as follows: (IPV OR “intimate partner violence” OR “domestic violence” OR “partner violence” OR “domestic abuse” OR “partner abuse” OR “couple violence” OR “marital abuse” OR “marital violence” OR “couple abuse”) AND (Spanish OR Latin* OR Hispanic OR Mexic*) AND (measure* OR assess* OR inventory OR questionnaire OR instrument OR index OR scale). Two years elapsed between the initial search and the publication of this review, therefore a second identical search was conducted prior to publication to capture any articles published since the initial search. The numbers presented below represent both searches.

Our search yielded 4,608 results, including articles, books, chapters, theses, and dissertations. Fifty-one additional records were found through the reference sections of items that reported their Spanish measures as having been translated or validated in a previous study. Four additional records were located through a search informed by a review of IPV measures by Gómez Fernández et al. (2019). These records were included in the following evaluation of reliability and validity evidence.

Article Selection Criteria

After duplicates were removed, 3,199 records remained for evaluation. Records were excluded if they were not available in English or Spanish. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance and were excluded if they were not related to IPV in Spanish-speaking women. After screening records by title for relevance, 2,470 remained. Of these, 1,056 were removed through abstract screening, leaving 1,414 for full-text evaluation. Full-text exclusion criteria included records that included only measures of violence against children, elders, or family, measures of sexual violence outside the context of an intimate relationship, measures of individuals’ perceptions of violence, measures of IPV perpetration, or outcome measures. After full-text evaluation, 470 records were identified as having Spanish measures of IPV. These records included measures that had been developed in or validated on participants in a range of Spanish-speaking countries, including, but not limited to, Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia. Of these records, 91 reported relevant validity evidence. All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined a priori. The results of the search are presented in Figure 1 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Figure 1.

Identification and sorting of records according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines.

Data Extraction Process

After finalizing the list of relevant records, we identified the IPV measures used in each record, whether measures were translated from English or developed in Spanish, and the psychometric evidence for each Spanish-language measure. We then evaluated the reported reliability and validity evidence for each measure in an article according to the standards established by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN; Prinsen et al., 2018). COSMIN standards provide a standardized structure for evaluating psychometric properties of psychological instruments. Measures were identified as having sufficient (+), indeterminate (?), or insufficient (−) evidence supporting structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing for construct validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, criterion validity, and responsiveness (Prinsen et al., 2018, p. 28). Reliability and validity evidence were then aggregated across all articles that reported relevant evidence for a particular measure, providing an overall evaluation of psychometric evidence for each measure.

For measures that were translated from English into Spanish, we also evaluated the rigor of translation methodology. We considered measures to be well-translated if they: (a) described using a well-supported method of initial translation, (b) pre-tested translations prior to their use, and (c) made subsequent revisions to translations after pre-testing. These criteria are based on existing recommendations for translation best practices (Harkness et al., 2003; Hendershot et al., under review).

Recommendation Criteria

We identified a priori the criteria needed in order to recommend a measure for use, based in part on criteria identified in a review conducted by Alexander et al. (2022). First, each measure must be evaluated in at least two validation studies. Second, if translated, the original English measures utilized must show sufficient validity evidence, as evaluated by Alexander et al. (2022). Third, recommended measures must display at least half positive (+) COSMIN ratings across the identified records utilizing the measure, indicating that evidence supporting reliability and validity of a measure is stronger than evidence against it. Finally, translated measures must be developed through recommended methods for achieving psychometrically equivalent translations.

Results

Our search resulted in a total of N = 305 Spanish-language IPV measures being located, including informal measures and alternate, adapted, or shortened forms of currently existing measures. Of the N = 305 measures located, n = 148 (n = 74 of which were adapted or shortened forms) were originally developed in English and translated into Spanish, n = 50 (n = 4 of which were adapted or shortened forms) were originally developed in Spanish, and n = 107 were informal measures (e.g., measures that were unnamed or described as items assessing IPV, etc.). The majority of measures identified were excluded due to not having valid evidence reported in the records located in our search (n = 235). The remaining measures (n = 70) had validity evidence reported in the items located in our search and were eligible to be assessed by our evaluation criteria (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Measures meeting criteria for recommendation.

Aim 1: Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Spanish IPV Measures

We evaluated psychometric evidence across all measures with available validity information. We found that the most common rating received across all areas of COSMIN criteria was indeterminate (?; 86.6%). This indicates that studies largely lacked sufficient information to accurately assess the validity of the measures being used. The second most common rating was sufficient (+; 8.7%), which indicates that the psychometric evidence presented does meet COSMIN criteria. The least common rating was insufficient (−; 4.6%), which indicates that there is insufficient evidence to determine if the psychometric evidence presented meets COSMIN criteria.

Aim 2: Evaluating Translation Methodology of Spanish IPV Measures

Across all translated measures with psychometric evidence (N = 48), we found that n = 22 reported that measures were translated without pre-testing, n = 14 reported that measures were translated with pre-testing, and n = 12 reported that there was no information regarding translation methods. Of the items that reported that translation methods included pre-testing, only n = 8 reported that changes were made subsequent to pre-testing.

In addressing this aim, we found that some English IPV measures were translated by multiple research teams independently. For example, the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA; Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) was translated independently by Carrasco (2002) and Plazaola-Castaño et al. (2009). As these independent translations varied considerably in phrasing and evidence of validity, we treat independent translations as unique measures in our assessment of which measures met criteria for recommendation (see Table 1 for all translation versions for each measure). Thus, some measures had independent translations that met all or most of our criteria while other independent translations of the same measure did not.

Table 1.

Critical Findings: Spanish Measures of IPV with 2+ Articles with Validity Evidence with Recommended Measures Identified.

Measure Name	Developed in	Author(s) of Original Version	Author(s) of Translation	Number of Items	Description	Number of Studies Evaluating Validity	Recommended by Alexander et al. (2022)
Abuse Assessment Screen	English	McFarlane et al. (1992)	Escribà-Agüir et al. (2016)	5 (Two added for Spanish version)	A structured interview designed to be administered by clinicians during prenatal care visits	2	Y
Composite Abuse Scale	English	Hegarty et al. (1999)	Tirado-Muñoz et al. (2015)	30	A self-report measure differentiating physical and emotional intimate partner violence (IPV)	2	N
Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory*	English	Wolfe et al. (2001)	Fernández-Fuertes et al. (2006), Hokoda et al. (2006)	25	A self-report measure assessing frequency of conflict behaviors among adolescents	8	N
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)	English	Straus (1979)	Armenta et al. (2003)	18	A self-report measure assessing physical and psychological aggression	3	N
Conflict Tactics Scale 2	English	Straus et al. (1996)	Calvete et al. (2007), Connelly et al. (2005), Grana et al. (2013)	39	A revision of the self-report measure, CTS, assessing physical and psychological aggression	12	N
Dominating and Jealous Tactics Scale	English	Kasian and Painter (1992)	Muñoz-Rivas et al. (2019)	11	A self-report measure differentiating dominant and jealous subtypes of psychological IPV among adolescents	2	N
Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with Harm, Screamed	English	Sherin et al. (1998)	Caldentey et al. (2017), Chen et al. (2005)	4	A measure assessing physical and psychological IPV designed either for self-report or to be administered by clinicians	3	Y
Index of Spouse Abuse	English	Hudson and McIntosh (1981)	Carrasco (2002), Plazaola-Castaño et al. (2009) , Santos-Iglesias et al. (2013), Sierra et al. (2011), Torres et al. (2010)	30	A self-report measure assessing presence and severity of physical and psychological IPV	6	Y
Inventario de Abuso Psicológico en las Relaciones de Pareja	Spanish	Calvete Zumalde et al. (2005)	N/A	17	A self-report measure assessing psychological IPV	3	N/A
Modified Conflict Tactics Scale	English	Neidig et al. (1986)	Muñoz-Rivas et al. (2007)	18	A self-report measure assessing perpetration and victimization of physical and psychological violence	5	N
Subtle and Overt Psychological Abuse of Women Scale	English	Marshall (1999)	Almendros et al. (2010)	35	A self-report measure assessing previously unevaluated dimensions of women’s psychological abuse	2	N
Women Abuse Screening Tool*	English	Brown et al. (1996)	Fogarty and Brown (2002)	8	A measure assessing emotional and physical abuse designed to be administered by family physicians	5	Y

Bolded measures indicate that a measure met all our criteria for recommendation.

Asterisks indicate measures that met all our criteria for recommendation except translation methodology.

Furthermore, we found that some articles reported using a particular independent translation version of a measure, but that reported using items that differed significantly from the items outlined in the cited translation. For example, Santos-Iglesias et al. (2013) reported using a translation of the ISA that was developed by Carrasco (2002). However, when items were compared between those reported by Santos-Iglesias and those reported by Cáceres Carrasco, we found significant differences in item phrasing and length across both articles. Again, we identified articles that presented item phrasing that differed from the items’ phrasing in the cited translations and treated these as independent translations of the original English measure, as described above.

Aim 3: Measures Meeting Criteria for Recommendation

Measures Assessed in at Least Two Studies

Of the N = 305 measures identified, n = 70 had available validity information. Of these, n = 12 met our criteria for having at least two studies with validity information. Eleven (n = 11) of these measures were developed in English and translated into Spanish and one (n = 1) was developed in Spanish (see Figure 2).

Measures Translated from Well-Validated Original Versions

We found that n = 4 of the remaining measures met our criteria for being developed from well-validated original English versions. Measures met this criterion if they were developed from measures that were recommended in Alexander et al. (2022) evaluation of English-language IPV measures. The measure developed in Spanish that met previous criteria was exempt from this criterion and was retained, for a total of n = 5 measures meeting criteria up to this point in our evaluation (see Figure 2).

Measures with More Positive Psychometric Evidence than Negative

Of the n = 5 measures retained, n = 3 met criteria for having more positive (+; sufficient) ratings regarding psychometric properties than negative (−; insufficient), according to COSMIN criteria (Prinsen et al., 2018). The n = 3 measures remaining after this added criterion were all translations of English measures.

Translation Quality

Of the remaining n = 3 measures, only n = 1 met our threshold for translation methodology.

Excluded at this Step

The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001) is a 50-item measure assessing IPV perpetration (25 items) and victimization (25 items). The CADRI was developed to assess IPV in high school-age populations and assesses a range of abusive behaviors including sexual, physical, and psychological abuse. The Spanish version of the CADRI assessed here was developed by Fernández-Fuentes et al. (2006). Although it meets our criterion for displaying good psychometric properties, the developers do not provide any information about how CADRI was translated. Thus, we are not able to evaluate if this measure meets our criterion for translation methodology. Given the good psychometric properties of the Spanish translation of the CADRI and its lack of information about translation methodology, we cautiously recommend this measure for use.

The Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST; Brown et al., 1996) is a brief measure of physical and emotional abuse, designed to be administered by family physicians. The Spanish version of the WAST was developed by Fogarty and Brown (2002). We identified four articles that evaluated the validity of this translation of the WAST. Although the WAST met all psychometric criteria for recommendation, we did not find evidence that developers made changes to translations after pre-testing the WAST. Thus, it did not meet our criteria for translation methodology. However, given its positive psychometric evidence, we cautiously recommend this measure for use.

Recommended Measure: Plazaola-Castaño et al. Translation of the ISA

Figure 2 displays how many measures were eliminated at each threshold for recommending a measure. Only one measure met all criteria for recommendation: the ISA (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) is a 30-item self-report measure that assesses both presence and severity of physical and psychological IPV. The translation reviewed here was developed by Plazaola-Castaño (2009; see Supplemental Material Appendix). We found four articles with psychometric evidence for this translation. Collectively, they indicated that this translation of the ISA has evidence of both reliability and validity, and development followed best-practice recommendations for translation, including back-translation to achieve an initial translation, expert content analysis, and pre-testing with a small group of women.

Discussion

In this review, we sought to provide better insight into the psychometric evidence available for Spanish measures of IPV and the methods being used to develop Spanish translations of IPV measures. We identified that the majority of measures located lacked any sort of information that could be used to assess psychometric properties through COSMIN criteria. Of measures that did have relevant reliability and validity information, most information led to “indeterminate” ratings, rather than providing evidence for or against adequate psychometric properties. We similarly found that most studies did not report using best practices in developing translations nor provide any information regarding translation methodology. Our evaluation of located measures resulted in the identification of a single measure that met all of our a priori criteria for recommendation as well as two additional measures that met all criteria except that of translation methodology. With this review, we were able to address several gaps in the literature, namely, a lack of systematic evaluations of translation methodology and a lack of evaluations of psychometric evidence of Spanish measures of IPV. We were also able to provide a measure to recommend for use.

This review builds on prior reviews by assessing a wide range of measures without limiting our search to specific categories or formats for measures, evaluating measures not just on their psychometric properties but also the psychometric properties of their original versions if they were translated, and adding additional criteria for recommendation based on previous reviews. Gómez-Fernández et al. (2019) provide a broad overview of available measures of IPV victimization, including a description of measures and an overview of reliability and validity evidence, but did not apply strict COSMIN criteria. Similar to our review, Martínez Soto and Ibabe (2022) use COSMIN criteria to evaluate measures specifically assessing cyber dating violence victimization and perpetration. We hope our review builds on these reviews and highlights the availability of validated measures of IPV available in Spanish.

This review also identifies a critical concern that, to our knowledge, has not been outlined elsewhere. We found that users of translated measures often made changes to the measures they used without reporting that revisions to the measure had been made. This presents a barrier to developing a thorough understanding of the psychometrics of translated measures, as even small changes to item phrasing can change their functioning (see Hendershot et al., under review), and researchers or clinicians seeking to identify valid and reliable measures for use may not recognize that articles may be referring to using a particular translation while presenting psychometric information on a significantly altered version of that translation. It is possible that researchers and practitioners feel comfortable revising translated measures in ways that they would not with measures that had not been translated. It is worth noting that there may be legitimate reasons for these edits, such as nuances in regional language use or variations in the meaning of translated phrases (Lopez et al., 2008). Nevertheless, as with measures developed in their target language, changing item phrasing can result in significant changes in item- or measure-level psychometric functioning (Hambleton, 2006). Although this review focuses on IPV, it is likely that this issue is present in other areas where researchers and practitioners are using translated measures.

Another area for concern is an overall lack of cross-cultural validation of IPV measures. As noted in the method, one of the COSMIN criteria is that of cross-cultural validity. Although we do not discuss measures’ ratings within each COSMIN criteria in the results, we note that measures were tested for cross-cultural validity, either across language groups or across Spanish-speaking regions. As cross-regional and cross-linguistic differences can change measurement functioning (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004), it is critical to evaluate the cross-cultural functioning of measures across countries or regions prior to their use for research or clinical purposes. It is especially important to consider the measures’ cross-cultural relevance because many of the measures evaluated were translations of measures originally developed in English. Thus, the lack of evaluation of measures’ psychometric properties across Spanish-speaking regions represents a limitation in the research in this area.

Limitations

We identified a number of limitations in this review. First, we encountered some challenges in identifying relevant articles. Validation and measures’ psychometric properties were not the focus of the majority of articles that were collected. This meant that we had to cast a fairly wide net, both in terms of the search terms utilized and the databases in which we searched, to identify relevant articles. Through these methods, we were able to access a sufficient number of measures to overcome this barrier. Second, similar to the first limitation, the focus of most of the articles we accessed was not on translation methodology. Translation is a cross-disciplinary topic, with articles on translation methodology appearing across different databases, including those focused on linguistics, cross-cultural social science, and medicine. This presented a barrier to our accessing of relevant articles. We believe that the varied search terms used and databases accessed minimized the impact of this limitation. Third, information about translation processes themselves can be difficult to label and categorize, given the range of terminologies and definitions for similar processes (Bardaji, 2009; Wild et al., 2005). However, given that most studies located discussed translation as a byproduct of their aims, rather than the focus, we believe that this limitation did not result in any substantial overlooking of relevant articles or measures. Finally, we used fairly blunt categorization methods in assessing the original language of measures and the quality of their translation methodology. If the language of a measure was not made explicit (e.g., participants spoke Spanish but the language of the measure was not stated), the measure was excluded. Similarly, if methods used for translation were not explicit (e.g., the study stated that translation methods were used but did not specifically describe procedures), then the translation method was labeled as “unclear” and would not meet our translation criteria. However, we believe that adhering to these strict methods was critical in maintaining rigor in our evaluation of measures both developed in and translated into Spanish.

Strengths

Despite these limitations, our review had a number of notable strengths. First, as we described, we made an effort to locate and evaluate any articles that indicated that they had Spanish-language IPV measures, whether they were translated into or developed in Spanish. As we recognized that neither translation methodology nor validation of measures was likely to be the focus of many articles that discussed these elements, we chose not to focus on them exclusively in our search terms, resulting in a broad range of results. Second, we developed rigorous a priori criteria for evaluating all measures located. In addition to using an established method of evaluating psychometric properties, we also had a set of criteria for measures both translated and developed in Spanish, allowing us to be more confident in the psychometric properties of the measures recommended for use. Finally, we provide recommendations for which measures display adequate evidence of reliability and validity and follow best practices in their translation methods, which has not been frequently done in similar reviews of IPV measures.

Next Steps

There are several directions for future research that follow from this review. First, we identified that best-practice recommendations for translation are not always followed or are followed only in part (Rios & Sireci, 2014). It is understandable that researchers seeking to conduct translations may not have the resources to follow these recommendations in their entirety, which may be contributing to the number of translations that are developed without pre-testing or revision. However, this practice limits the cross-cultural equivalence of the translations being developed (Bolaños-Medina & González-Ruiz, 2012). One potential solution is for researchers to seek, revise, and pre-test existing translations prior to using them, and document this process as well as associated validity information of the revised translation (see Hendershot et al., under review, for a review of this method). In this way, translations can be improved across multiple research teams, improving the quality and validity of translations over time. Second, we aim to develop a new Spanish measure of IPV based on the items in existing measures. To do this, we plan to access all items from each measure identified in this review, both formal and informal, and use item response theory to identify the items that are most predictive of IPV victimization across all existing measures (see Funk & Rogge, 2007, for a description of this method). Through this method, we aim to develop and validate a measure capitalizing on the strengths of items across existing Spanish measures of IPV. In this process, we will evaluate items for cross-cultural appropriateness. As regional differences in Spanish-language terms and phrases may contribute to lack of measurement validity (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004), emphasizing comprehensibility across Spanish-speaking regions will improve the cross-cultural applicability of the measure we develop. Given the sparse evidence of validity and reliability for currently existing measures and the concerns outlined around revisions to measures that are not documented, this work is timely and much needed.

Conclusion

In this review, we present an evaluation of the psychometric properties of Spanish IPV measures and methods used in translating measures into Spanish. We identified an overall lack of sufficient validity evidence for most measures being used. We also found that methods used to develop translations rarely met translation standards for assessment instruments. We were able to recommend one measure for use based on a priori criteria. Based on these findings we present recommendations for researchers’ and practitioners’ use of Spanish-language IPV measures. This review presents an important step in providing rigorous evaluation not just of psychometric evidence but also of translation methodology.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

Based on the results of this review, we can provide several recommendations for researchers and practitioners seeking to use translated measures or develop their own translations. To assess IPV in Spanish, we recommend using the measure we recommended. If using a measure without validity evidence, especially to evaluate individuals in a particular demographic group (e.g., pregnant women, adolescents, etc.), we recommend interpreting results with caution and describing the results as qualified by the lack of validity evidence.

For researchers and practitioners using translated assessment instruments more broadly, we recommend ensuring that the original versions of translated measures are themselves valid and separately investigating validity evidence for translations. When investigating validity evidence, we recommend confirming that items are consistent across articles purporting to be using the same version of a translation.

For researchers and practitioners seeking to develop their own translations, we recommend following the iterative best-practice recommendations for achieving conceptually equivalent translations (see Bartram et al., 2018). After translating measures, we strongly recommend validating them with their target population for use to ensure that the translations are functioning as intended. Before endeavoring to develop a new translation, we also recommend that researchers identify whether there are any existing translations that may be utilized. We came across several measures that had multiple translations (e.g., Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream, translated independently by both Caldentey et al., 2017, and Chen et al., 2005), each version with insufficient psychometric evidence to meet our criteria for recommendation, although if combined the measure would have met criteria. Furthermore, we recommend that all revisions of a translation be carefully documented and clearly stated in published works. It is possible that some translations may benefit from revision, but efforts should be taken to follow best practices for revising measures (see Hendershot et al., under review).

This review aligns with U.S. Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) priority areas of study. As our review demonstrated, the use of valid Spanish-language measures of IPV would facilitate coping, healing, and achieving safety and justice. The use of the recommended measure also aligns with OVW’s effort to diminish the cultural differences in responding to IPV victimization and social inequalities associated with language barriers. By focusing on the most prevalent non-English language in the U.S., we hope to improve access to justice and services that are useful to victims of IPV crimes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380241259999 – Supplemental material for Spanish-Language Measures of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Evidence and Translation Methodology

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380241259999 for Spanish-Language Measures of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Evidence and Translation Methodology by Quinn E. Hendershot, Erin F. Reto, Alberto D. Torres-Aragón and Matthew D. Johnson in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jesse Smith and Saul Padilla for their help in data extraction for this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Quinn E. Hendershot

Erin F. Reto

Matthew D. Johnson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Quinn E. Hendershot, MS, is a PhD student in the Clinical Psychology program at Binghamton University (SUNY). Her research focuses on the role of cultural competence in shaping intimate relationship functioning, with a special focus on Latinx couples. She is also interested in cross-cultural measurement equivalence and best-practice methods to translate psychological measures.

Erin F. Reto, PhD, is a clinical psychologist with Cornerstone Therapy and Wellness in Malvern, Pennsylvania. She has expertise in intimate partner violence, focusing on assessment and typology of intimate partner violence. She has a secondary interest in dispelling pseudoscience and discredited psychological treatments.

Alberto D. Torres-Aragón, BA, graduated with his BA in Psychology from Binghamton University (SUNY) in May 2024. His research focuses on interpersonal violence assessment and prevention in Spanish-speaking populations and has included qualitative examination of Spanish-language IPV items, review of translation methodology, and examination of situational cues on men’s perceptions of sexual consent.

Matthew D. Johnson, PhD, is a professor of psychology and Director of the Clinical Psychology PhD program at Binghamton University (SUNY). He conducts research examining the developmental course of marital distress and family dysfunction. Board certified in Couple and Family Psychology by the American Board of Professional Psychology, he has fellow status in the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science.

References

Abramsky

Harvey

Mosha

Mtolela

Gibbs

Mshana

Lees

Kapiga

Stöckl

(2022). Longitudinal inconsistencies in women’s self-reports of lifetime experience of physical and sexual IPV: Evidence from the MAISHA trial and follow-on study in North-Western Tanzania. BMC Women’s Health, 22(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01697-y

Alexander

E. F.

Backes

B. L.

Johnson

M. D.

(2022). Evaluating measures of intimate partner violence using consensus-based standards of validity. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(5), 1549–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211013413

*Almendros

Rodríguez-Carballeira

Porrúa

Carrobles

J. A.

Gámez-Guadix

(2010). Evidencias psicométricas preliminares de la escala de abuso psicológico sutil y manifiesto [Paper presentation]. 7th Congreso Iberoamericano de Psicología, Oviedo, Spain.

*Armenta

M. F.

Rodríguez

Romero

J. C. G.

(2003). Efectos conductuales y sociales de la violencia familiar en niños Mexicanos. Revista de Psicología, 21(1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.200301.002

Bardaji

A. G.

(2009). Procedures, techniques, strategies: Translation process operators. Perspectives, Studies in Translatology, 17(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903249372

Bartram

Berberoglu

Grégoire

Hambleton

Muñiz

Van de Vijver

(2018). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 18, 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166

Bauer

Rodriguez

M. A.

Quiroga

S. S.

Flores-Ortiz

Y. G.

(2000). Barriers to health care for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 11(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0590

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in PublicHhealth, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Bolaños-Medina

González-Ruiz

(2012). Deconstructing the translation of psychological tests. Meta (Montréal), 57(3), 715–739. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017088ar

10.

Breiding

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

R. R.

(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements (Version 2.0). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/intimatepartnerviolence.pdf

11.

Brown

J. B.

Lent

Brett

P. J.

Sas

Pederson

L. L.

(1996). Development of the woman abuse screening tool for use in family practice. Family Medicine, 28(6), 422–428.

12.

Budruk

(2010). Cross-language measurement equivalence of the place attachment scale: A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2010.11950193

13.

Caldentey

Tirado Muñoz

Ferrer

Fonseca Casals

Rossi

Mestre-Pintó

J. I.

Torrens Melich

(2017). Intimate partner violence among female drug users admitted to the general hospital: Screening and prevalence. Adicciones, 29(3), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.738

14.

*Calvete

Corral

Estévez

(2007). Factor structure and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for Spanish women. Violence Against Women, 13(10), 1072–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207305933

15.

*Calvete Zumalde

Corral

Estévez

. (2005). Desarrollo de un inventario para evaluar el abuso psicológico en las relaciones de pareja. Clínica y Salud, 16(3), 203–221.

16.

Carrasco

J. C.

(2002). Análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo de la violencia doméstica en la pareja. Cuadernos de Medicina Psicosomática y Psiquiatría de Enlace, 60, 57–67.

17.

Cavanaugh

Messing

Amanor-Boadu

O’Sullivan

Webster

Campbell

(2014). Intimate partner sexual violence: A comparison of foreign- versus US-born physically abused Latinas . Journal of Urban Health, 91(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-013-9817-8

18.

Chandan

J. S.

Thomas

Bradbury-Jones

Russell

Bandyopadhyay

Nirantharakumar

Taylor

(2020). Female survivors of intimate partner violence and risk of depression, anxiety and serious mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 217(4), 562–567. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.124

19.

Chen

P.-H.

Rovi

Vega

Jacobs

Johnson

M. S.

(2005). Screening for domestic violence in a predominantly Hispanic clinical setting. Family Practice, 22(6), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmi075

20.

Connelly

C. D.

Newton

R. R.

Aarons

G. A.

(2005). A psychometric examination of english and spanish versions of the revised conflict tactics scales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(12), 1560–1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505280341

21.

Curry

S. J.

Krist

A. H.

Owens

D. K.

Barry

M. J.

Caughey

A. B.

Davidson

K. W.

Doubeni

C. A.

Epling

J. W.

Grossman

D. C.

Kemper

A. R.

Kubik

Kurth

Landefeld

C. S.

Mangione

C. M.

Silverstein

Simon

M. A.

Tseng

C.-W.

Wong

J. B.

(2018). Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force final recommendation statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 320(16), 1678–1687. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14741

22.

Daniel

Miller

Wilbur

(2011). Multiple instrument translation for use with South Asian Indian immigrants. Research in Nursing & Health, 34(5), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20450

23.

*Escribà-Agüir

Ruiz-Pérez

Artazcoz

Martín-Baena

Royo-Marqués

Vanaclocha-Espí

(2016). Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the “Abuse Assessment Screen” among pregnant women. Public Health Nursing, 33(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12232

24.

*Fernández-Fuertes

A. A.

Fuertes

Pulido

R. F.

(2006). Evaluación de la violencia en las relaciones de pareja de los adolescentes validación del Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)—Versión Española. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6(2), 339–358.

25.

*Fogarty

C. T.

Brown

J. B.

(2002). Screening for abuse in Spanish-speaking women. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 15(2), 101–111.

26.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rogers

M. J.

(2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3–4), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5

27.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of family psychology, 21(4), 572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

28.

García-Carpintero

M. Á.

Rodríguez-Santero

Porcel-Gálvez

A. M.

(2018). Diseño y validación de la escala para la detección de violencia en el noviazgo en jóvenes en la Universidad de Sevilla. Gaceta Sanitaria, 32(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.09.006

29.

Goerman

(2006). Adapting cognitive interview techniques for use in pretesting spanish language survey instruments. Statistical Research Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2006/adrm/rsm2006-03.pdf

30.

Gómez Fernández

M. A.

Goberna Tricas

Payá Sánchez

. (2019). Characteristics and clinical applicability of the validated scales and tools for screening, evaluating and measuring the risk of intimate partner violence. Systematic literature review (2003–2017). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 44, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.006

31.

Gonzalez

F. R.

Benuto

L. T.

Casas

J. B.

(2020). Prevalence of interpersonal violence among Latinas: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 21(5), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018806507

32.

*Grana

J. L.

Andreu

J. M.

Pena

M. E.

Rodriguez-Biezma

M. J.

(2013). Validez factorial y fiabilidad de la “Escala de tacticas para el conflicto revisada” (Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2) en poblacion adulta Española. Psicología Conductual, 21(3), 525–543.

33.

Greeson

J. K. P.

Briggs

E. C.

Kisiel

C. L.

Layne

C. M.

Ake Iii

G. S.

S. J.

Gerrity

E. T.

Steinberg

A. M.

Howard

M. L.

Pynoos

R. S.

Fairbank

J. A.

(2011). Complex trauma and mental health in children and adolescents placed in foster care: Findings from the national child traumatic stress network. Child Welfare, 90(6), 91–108.

34.

Hambleton

R. K.

(2006). Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Medical Care, 44(11), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245443.86671.c4

35.

Harkness

J. A.

van de Vijver

F. J.

Mohler

P. P.

Wiley

(2003). Cross-cultural survey methods (vol. 325). Wiley-Interscience Hoboken, NJ.

36.

Hegarty

Sheehan

Schonfeld

(1999). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022834215681

37.

Hendershot

Q. E.

Aizaga

Polo

A. J.

Kirschen

Johnson

M. D

. (under review). From “El Grado de Felicidad” to “Cuán Feliz Se Encuentra”: Improving Spanish Translations of Relationship Measures.

38.

*Hokoda

Ramos-Lira

Celaya

Vilhauer

Angeles

Ruíz

Malcarne

V. L.

Mora

M. D.

(2006). Reliability of translated measures assessing dating violence among Mexican adolescents. Violence and Victims, 21(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.21.1.117

39.

*Hudson

W. W.

McIntosh

S. R.

(1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(4), 873–888.

40.

*Kasian

Painter

S. L.

(1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007003005

41.

Kataoka

Yaju

Eto

Horiuchi

(2010). Self-administered questionnaire versus interview as a screening method for intimate partner violence in the prenatal setting in Japan: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 10(1), 84–84. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-84

42.

Latta

R. E.

Elwy

A. R.

Ngo

T. A.

Kelly

M. M.

(2016). Intimate partner violence screening in a women veterans’ health clinic: Assessing feasibility. Journal of Family Violence, 31(5), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9798-y

43.

Lopez

G. I.

Figueroa

Connor

S. E.

Maliski

S. L.

(2008). Translation barriers in conducting qualitative research with Spanish speakers. Qualitative Health Research, 18(12), 1729–1737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308325857

44.

Loxton

Powers

Townsend

Harris

M. L.

Forder

(2019). Longitudinal inconsistency in responses to survey items that ask women about intimate partner violence. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 201–201. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0835-4

45.

MacMillan

H. L.

Wathen

C. N.

Jamieson

Boyle

McNutt

L.-A.

Worster

Lent

Webb

(2006). Approaches to screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(5), 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.5.530

46.

Marshall

L. L.

(1999). Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low-income women. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.69

47.

Martínez Soto

Ibabe

. (2022). Recommended instruments for analyzing cyber dating violence: A systematic review. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 25, e4. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2021.50

48.

McFarlane

Parker

Soeken

Bullock

(1992). Assessing for abuse during pregnancy: Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(23), 3176–3178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(93)90813-C

49.

Messing

J. T.

Becerra

Ward-Lasher

Androff

D. K.

(2015). Latinas’ perceptions of law enforcement: Fear of deportation, crime reporting, and trust in the system. Affilia, 30(3), 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109915576520

50.

*Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

Andreu Rodríguez

J. M.

Graña Gómez

J. L.

Daniel

K. O. L.

del Pilar Gonzalez

(2007). Validación de la versión modificada de la Conflicts Tactics Scale (M-CTS) en población juvenil Española. Psicothema, 19(4), 693.

51.

Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

Redondo

Zamarrón

González

M. P.

(2019). Violence in dating relationships: Validation of the Dominating and Jealous Tactics Scale in Spanish youth. Anales de Psicología, 35(1), 11–18.

52.

Neidig

P. H.

Friedman

D. H.

Collins

B. S.

(1986). Attitudinal characteristics of males who have engaged in spouse abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 1(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00978561

53.

Pew Research Center. (2019). English proficiency of Hispanic population in the U.S. Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/chart/u-s-hispanics-english-proficiency/

54.

Plazaola-Castaño

Ruiz-Pérez

Escribá -Agüir

Jiménez-Martín

J. M.

Hernández-Torres

(2009). Validation of the spanish version of the index of spouse abuse. Journal of Women’s Health, 18(4), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2008.0944

55.

Prinsen

C. A. C.

Mokkink

L. B.

Bouter

L. M.

Alonso

Patrick

D. L.

de Vet

H. C. W.

Terwee

C. B.

(2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

56.

Rhodes

K. V.

Drum

Anliker

Frankel

R. M.

Howes

D. S.

Levinson

(2006). Lowering the threshold for discussions of domestic violence: A randomized controlled trial of computer screening. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1107

57.

Rios

J. A.

Sireci

S. G.

(2014). Guidelines versus practices in cross-lingual assessment: A disconcerting disconnect. International Journal of Testing, 14(4), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2014.924006

58.

*Rodríguez Franco

López-Cepero Borrego

Rodríguez Díaz

F. J.

Bringas Molleda

Antuña Bellerín

M. d. l. Á.

Estrada Pineda

. (2010). Validation of the dating violence questionnaire, DVQ (Cuestionario de Volencia entre Novios CUVINO) among Spanish-speaking youth: Analysis of results in Spain, Mexico and Argentina. Anuario de Psicologia Clinica y de la Salud, 6, 43–50.

59.

Sabina

Cuevas

C. A.

Schally

J. L.

(2015). The influence of ethnic group variation on victimization and help seeking among Latino women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036526

60.

Santos-Iglesias

Sierra

J. C.

Vallejo-Medina

(2013). Propiedades psicométricas del Index of Spouse Abuse en una muestra de varones Españoles. Terapia Psicológica, 31(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082013000200007

61.

Sheridan

D. J.

Nash

K. R.

(2007). Acute injury patterns of intimate partner violence victims. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838007303504

62.

*Sherin

K. M.

Sinacore

J. M.

X. Q.

Zitter

R. E.

Shakil

(1998). HITS: A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Family Medicine, 30(7), 508–512.

63.

Sierra

J. C.

Monge

F. S.

Santos-lglesias

Paz Bermúdez

Salinas

J. M.

(2011). Validation of a reduced Spanish version of the Index of Spouse Abuse. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(2), 363–383.

64.

Sprague

Madden

Dosanjh

Petrisor

Schemitsch

E. H.

Bhandari

(2012). Screening for intimate partner violence in orthopedic patients: A comparison of three screening tools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511423246

65.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

66.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

S. U. E.

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001

67.

Svavarsdottir

E. K.

(2010). Detecting intimate partner abuse within clinical settings: Self-report or an interview: Detecting IPA in clinical settings. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2009.00709.x

68.

*Tirado-Muñoz

Gilchrist

Lligoña

Gilbert

Torrens

(2015). A group intervention to reduce intimate partner violence among female drug users. Results from a randomized controlled pilot trial in a community substance-abuse center. Adicciones, 27(3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.703

69.

Torres

Navarro

García-Esteve

Tarragona

M. J.

Ascaso

Herreras

Gelabert

Imaz

M. L.

Roca

Subirà

Martín-Santos

(2010). Detecting domestic violence: Spanish external validation of the Index of Spouse Abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9290-z

70.

United States Census Bureau. (2020). Explore census data. 2020: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Data Profile. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDP5Y2010.DP02

71.

Van de Vijver

Tanzer

N. K.

(2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119–135.

72.

World Health Organization. (2021). Devastatingly pervasive: 1 in 3 women globally experience violence. https://www.who.int/news/item/09-03-2021-devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence

73.

Wild

Grove

Martin

Eremenco

McElroy

Verjee-Lorenz

Erikson

(2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

74.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Straatman

A.-L.

(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB