{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020169851380042462, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021231422505307855, 'mean_word_length': 5.780575539568345, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Brief Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Screening Tools: A Scoping Review

Recent research findings indicate that patients are willing to disclose their use of violence to health-care providers if asked. Health-care providers have a unique opportunity to screen their patients for intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration; however, given the time constraints and limited personnel within medical offices and emergency-care facilities, instrument brevity is critically important. The development and evaluation of tools to screen for IPV perpetration in health-care settings, particularly brief instruments, is limited by the lack of adequate guidelines, clear institutional policies for screening, and reviews of the available literature. Given the need for validated measurement tools, we assessed the psychometric properties of measurement tools designed to quickly detect IPV perpetration by conducting a scoping review. Our search identified five measures meeting eligibility requirements. Inclusion criteria required that study information be published in a peer-reviewed journal, be published in English or Spanish languages, contain 10 or less items, report psychometric testing results, require no additional information, and be designed to detect IPV perpetration. We searched subject-specific databases and the bibliographies of relevant publications to identify studies. As part of appraising and synthesizing the evidence, we found most measures to have good reliability and validity. Most measures contained 2–5 items. Most studies were conducted in the United States and utilized an adequate sample size. There were considerable differences in how each of the measures determined a positive or negative screening. Gaps in the literature and areas for future research pertained to sample diversity, invariance testing, and practice guidelines for implementation.