使用基于共识的有效性标准评估LGBQTIA+亲密伴侣暴力措施

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102620

Sinéad Kelleher, Cal De Nicolas Audoin, Lisa Callaghan, Áine Travers

{"title":"使用基于共识的有效性标准评估LGBQTIA+亲密伴侣暴力措施","authors":"Sinéad Kelleher, Cal De Nicolas Audoin, Lisa Callaghan, Áine Travers","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Evidence suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) people experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at similar or higher rates to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. However, there are also indications that LGBTQ+ people may experience IPV in particular ways, which are not usually included in existing standardised measures of IPV.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A review of existing measures for capturing IPV in LGBTQ+ samples was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Four databases (PubMed, PsychINFO via Ebsco, Cinahl Complete via Ebsco and Web of Science) were systematically searched, to identify all articles that used psychometric measures to capture IPV in the LGBTQ+ community.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-two articles describing twenty-two self-report measures were included. Few articles described a measure development process or assessed content validity. Although a significant proportion of measures were rated ‘very good’ for internal consistency, several received an ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’ rating. All measures that had assessments of structural validity and measurement invariance were rated as ‘very good’. However, invariance testing was absent from most studies. The quality of hypothesis testing varied across studies and all but one carried out reliability analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Due to a lack of high-quality psychometric assessment, more evidence for the validity, reliability, or responsiveness of IPV measures for LGBTQ+ samples is needed. Further psychometric testing is needed to improve the assessment of IPV across contexts and to strengthen the robustness of findings in this field of research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 102620"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating measures of LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence using consensus-based standards of validity\",\"authors\":\"Sinéad Kelleher, Cal De Nicolas Audoin, Lisa Callaghan, Áine Travers\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Evidence suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) people experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at similar or higher rates to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. However, there are also indications that LGBTQ+ people may experience IPV in particular ways, which are not usually included in existing standardised measures of IPV.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A review of existing measures for capturing IPV in LGBTQ+ samples was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Four databases (PubMed, PsychINFO via Ebsco, Cinahl Complete via Ebsco and Web of Science) were systematically searched, to identify all articles that used psychometric measures to capture IPV in the LGBTQ+ community.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-two articles describing twenty-two self-report measures were included. Few articles described a measure development process or assessed content validity. Although a significant proportion of measures were rated ‘very good’ for internal consistency, several received an ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’ rating. All measures that had assessments of structural validity and measurement invariance were rated as ‘very good’. However, invariance testing was absent from most studies. The quality of hypothesis testing varied across studies and all but one carried out reliability analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Due to a lack of high-quality psychometric assessment, more evidence for the validity, reliability, or responsiveness of IPV measures for LGBTQ+ samples is needed. Further psychometric testing is needed to improve the assessment of IPV across contexts and to strengthen the robustness of findings in this field of research.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"120 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102620\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582500087X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582500087X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

有证据表明，女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者、酷儿和同性恋者（LGBTQ+）经历亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）的比例与异性恋和异性恋者相似或更高。然而，也有迹象表明LGBTQ+人群可能以特定的方式经历IPV，这些方式通常不包括在现有的IPV标准化测量中。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Evaluating measures of LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence using consensus-based standards of validity

Background

Evidence suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) people experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at similar or higher rates to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. However, there are also indications that LGBTQ+ people may experience IPV in particular ways, which are not usually included in existing standardised measures of IPV.

Methods

A review of existing measures for capturing IPV in LGBTQ+ samples was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Four databases (PubMed, PsychINFO via Ebsco, Cinahl Complete via Ebsco and Web of Science) were systematically searched, to identify all articles that used psychometric measures to capture IPV in the LGBTQ+ community.

Results

Forty-two articles describing twenty-two self-report measures were included. Few articles described a measure development process or assessed content validity. Although a significant proportion of measures were rated ‘very good’ for internal consistency, several received an ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’ rating. All measures that had assessments of structural validity and measurement invariance were rated as ‘very good’. However, invariance testing was absent from most studies. The quality of hypothesis testing varied across studies and all but one carried out reliability analyses.

Conclusions

Due to a lack of high-quality psychometric assessment, more evidence for the validity, reliability, or responsiveness of IPV measures for LGBTQ+ samples is needed. Further psychometric testing is needed to improve the assessment of IPV across contexts and to strengthen the robustness of findings in this field of research.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.