The questions on violence (FOV) tool for interpersonal violence inquiry in Swedish healthcare settings - evaluation of content validity, face validity and test-retest reliability.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11708-3
Solveig Lövestad, Karin Sjöström, Josefin Björk, Karin Örmon
{"title":"The questions on violence (FOV) tool for interpersonal violence inquiry in Swedish healthcare settings - evaluation of content validity, face validity and test-retest reliability.","authors":"Solveig Lövestad, Karin Sjöström, Josefin Björk, Karin Örmon","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11708-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Calculations 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1240"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11481745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11708-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous 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.

Methods: The 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.

Results: Calculations 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.

Conclusions: The 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于瑞典医疗机构人际暴力调查的暴力问题(FOV)工具--内容有效性、表面有效性和重复测试可靠性评估。
背景:以往的研究表明,医疗服务提供者进行的常规询问或筛查可显著提高人际暴力的识别率。目前还缺乏对患者进行人际暴力和家庭中暴力侵害儿童行为常规评估的综合工具。本研究旨在评估 "暴力问题"(FOV)工具的内容效度、表面效度和可靠性:FOV 工具的内容效度、表面效度和可靠性通过以下方法进行了评估:(1)与亲密伴侣暴力领域的六位专家进行内容效度指数分析;(2)对从一家初级医疗机构招募的九名患者进行认知访谈;(3)根据 37 名(50.0%)大学生的回答对测试-再测可靠性进行评估。通过计算类内相关系数(模型 2.1)来评估两次测量之间的相关性和一致性:基于内容效度指数的计算表明,7 个项目中有 5 个项目的内容效度极佳(≥ 0.78)。所含项目的平均内容效度指数为 0.88,略低于推荐的优秀内容效度临界值。基于认知访谈的结果显示,参与者认为七个项目是相关和易于理解的。总体而言,参与者一致认为 "亲密关系 "的概念主要包括亲密伴侣、家庭成员和亲密朋友。类内相关系数为 0.85 (0.77-0.91; CI 95%),表明信度良好,测试-再测信度介于良好和优秀之间:研究结果表明,7 个项目的 FOV 工具具有良好的内容效度和表面效度,以及良好至极佳的重测可靠性。本研究为医护人员提供了一个简短而全面的工具,用于识别曾经历或实施过不同形式人际暴力的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Recent research on rehabilitation interventions for post-stroke gait and balance in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Predictors of migration intentions among Turkish physicians: a lasso logistic regression approach. Adapting the WHO ICOPE framework to design an integrated frailty and intrinsic capacity management community-based programme in Singapore: a programme description using the updated and modified TIDieR checklist. Heterogeneity in nurses' attitudes toward artificial intelligence: a latent profile analysis. Mapping multidomain assessment tools for home-visit nursing and rehabilitation: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1