Panamerican Journal of Trauma, Critical Care & Emergency Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Community-engaged Design of a Pragmatic Interpersonal Violence Measure to Facilitate Effective Evaluation and Equitable Translation of Prevention Interventions in Low-resource Contexts

Julie Martin, Leila Wood, Cassandra E Gamble, Alexandria Sedar, Abdel E Montoya, Julio C Mejia, Angelina Sosa-Lovera, Julio A Canario-Guzmán, Elizabeth D Torres, Elizabeth Baumler, Jeff R Temple, Jonathan Pettigrew, Heidi S Luft

Keywords : Community survey, Latin America, Lower-middle income countries, Pragmatic measure development, Violence

Citation Information : Martin J, Wood L, Gamble CE, Sedar A, Montoya AE, Mejia JC, Sosa-Lovera A, Canario-Guzmán JA, Torres ED, Baumler E, Temple JR, Pettigrew J, Luft HS. Community-engaged Design of a Pragmatic Interpersonal Violence Measure to Facilitate Effective Evaluation and Equitable Translation of Prevention Interventions in Low-resource Contexts. Panam J Trauma Crit Care Emerg Surg 2024; 13 (1):48-56.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10030-1451

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim and background: Short, pragmatic measures of interpersonal violence are needed to facilitate effective evaluation and equitable translation of prevention interventions in low-resource contexts. Measures need to be (1) valid in contexts of high vulnerability, (2) capable of efficiently evaluating multiple forms of violence perpetration/victimization in diverse settings, (3) brief and inexpensive to users/implementers, and (4) sensitive to change. This study reports on the development and evaluation of a measure of adolescent interpersonal violence for use in low-resource contexts. Materials and methods: Informed by the “Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale” (PAPERS) process, we followed a four-step process: (1) define violence using qualitative interviews with local stakeholders, (2) develop items for a pragmatic measure, (3) pilot the survey measure with target populations in two different low-resource contexts to evaluate the psychometric properties, and (4) review and revise the measure to maximize future use. Results: We synthesized qualitative interviews, community engagement (CE) studios, and expert reviews to generate 20 perpetration and 20 matched victimization items across eight categories of interpersonal violence. We then deployed the measure on adolescents from Nicaragua (N = 101) and the Dominican Republic (DR) (N = 111) who were participating in school-based violence prevention interventions. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) resulted in an eight-item, one-factor measure in Nicaragua and a 10-item, one-factor measure in the DR. The psychometric evaluation demonstrates acceptable reliability but limited statistically significant findings for some validity tests. Conclusion: Drawing from existing measures and sequential mixed methods analysis in low-resource contexts in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), we present a pragmatic measure for tapping into adolescent interpersonal violence. Additional refinement and cultural adaptation may be needed in each specific context to achieve maximum practicality. Clinical significance: Synthesizing existing measures into pragmatic ones improves researchers’ ability to evaluate outcomes of psychosocial health interventions.

PDF Share
  1. Mercy JA, Hillis SD, Butchart A, et al. Interpersonal Violence: Global Impact and Paths to Prevention. in Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. Mock CN, Nugent R, Kobusingye O, Smith KR (Eds). Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2017.
  2. Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, et al. Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy 2016;37 Suppl 1:13–31. DOI: 10.1057/s41271-016-0002-7
  3. Brownson RC. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. Oxford University Press; 2017.
  4. Baumann AA, Cabassa LJ. Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20(1):190. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-4975-3
  5. Baumann AA, Long PD. Equity in implementation science is long overdue. Stanford Soc Innov Rev 2021;19(3):A15–A17. DOI: 10.48558/GG1H-A223
  6. van Zyl C, Badenhorst M, Hanekom S, et al. Unravelling ‘low-resource settings’: a systematic scoping review with qualitative content analysis. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6(6). DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005190
  7. The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk.
  8. Lu Y, Shin Y, Le VD, et al. Prevalence of teen dating violence and the associations with substance use and externalizing behaviors in Nicaraguan early adolescents. Health Educ 2020;120:165–177. DOI: 10.1108/HE-01-2020-0006
  9. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, et al. Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychol Assess 2001;13(2):277–293. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277
  10. Lu Y, Pettigrew J, Shin Y, et al. How does family communication relate to adolescent dating violence and externalizing behaviors? The role of parent-adolescent risk communication and attitudes toward violence in a Nicaraguan sample. Health Commun 2021;36(10):1268–1277. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1750763
  11. Van Ouytsel J, Lu Y, Shin Y, et al. Sexting, pressured sexting and associations with dating violence among early adolescents. Computers in human behavior 2021;125:106969. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106969
  12. Bott S, Guedes A, Ruiz-Celis AP, et al. Intimate partner violence in the Americas: a systematic review and reanalysis of national prevalence estimates. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2019;43:e26. DOI: 10.26633/RPSP.2019.26
  13. Luft HS, Mersky JP, Choi C, et al. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and association with dating violence and symptoms of mental illness among adolescents in the Dominican Republic. Child Abuse Negl 2022;129:105668. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105668
  14. Ma N, Chen S, Kong Y, et al. Prevalence and changes of intimate partner violence against women aged 15 to 49 years in 53 low-income and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2021: a secondary analysis of population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health 2023;11(12):e1863–e1873. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00417-5
  15. Lewis CC, Mettert KD, Stanick CF, et al. The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation. Implement Res Pract 2021;2:26334895211037391. DOI: 10.1177/26334895211037391
  16. Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(2):237–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010
  17. Lambert V, Lambert C. Qualitative descriptive research: an acceptable design. Pacific Rim Int J Nursing Res 2012;16(4).
  18. Pettigrew J, Luft H, Castillo M, et al. Dissemination and implementation of school-based health promotion programs: a descriptive comparison of case studies in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Glob Implement Res Appl 2023;3:112–128. DOI: 10.1007/s43477-023-00079-2
  19. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62(1):107–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  20. Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena. Washington, DC, United States of America: American Psychological Association; 2012.
  21. Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools, 2nd edition. 2018.
  22. Bratica RB. A compendium of assessment tools for measuring bullying. Children Schools 2020;42:67–69. DOI: 10.1093/cs/cdz027
  23. Violence Against Women and Girls: A Compendium of Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators.
  24. Arkins B, Begley C, Higgins A. Measures for screening for intimate partner violence: a systematic review. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2016;23(3-4):217–235. DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12289
  25. Steele B, Neelakantan L, Jochim J, et al. Measuring violence against children: a COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric and administrative properties of adult retrospective self-report instruments on child abuse and neglect. Trauma Violence Abuse 2024;25(1):183–196. DOI: 10.1177/15248380221145912
  26. Exner-Cortens D, Gill L, Eckenrode J. Measurement of adolescent dating violence: a comprehensive review (part 1, behaviors). Aggress Violent Behav 2016;27:64–78. DOI: 10.14349/sumapsi.2022.v29.n2.6
  27. Pacheco JR, Thorrens DMM, Rodríguez SP, et al. Tipos de violencia y factores sociodemográficos asociados a la violencia intragénero en Colombia. Avances en Psicología 2023;31(1):e2842–e2842. DOI: 10.33539/avpsicol.2023.v31n1.2842
  28. Aizpitarte A, Rojas-Solís JL. Factor structure of the violence in adolescents’ dating relationships inventory for Mexican youth (VADRI-MX). Int J Psychol Res (Medellin) 2019;12(2):29–36. DOI: 10.21500/20112084.4222
  29. Gómez JAM, Gutiérrez RV, Gómez MN. Relación entre la violencia en el noviazgo y observación de modelos parentales de maltrato. Psychologia Avances de la Disciplina 2016;10(1):101–112. DOI: 10.21500/19002386.2470
  30. Rasmussen CH, Juárez PJ, Aguilar KZ. et al. Adaptación transcultural del “cuestionario de abuso cibernético en la pareja” (CDAQ) para adolescentes mexicanos. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2020;28(3):435–453.
  31. Gage AJ. Exposure to spousal violence in the family, attitudes and dating violence perpetration among high school students in Port-au-Prince. J Interpers Violence 2016;31(14):2445–2474. DOI: 10.1177/0886260515576971
  32. Beserra MA, da Cruz, Fernandes MID, et al. Prevalence of dating violence among adolescents from Brazilian public schools of Recife/Pe - Brazil. Rev Enf Ref 2015;4(7):91–99. DOI: 10.12707/RIV15006
  33. Sánchez Jiménez V, Muñoz Fernández N, Lucio López LA, et al. Ciberagresión en parejas adolescentes: un estudio transcultural España-México [Cyber-aggression in adolescent couples: a cross-cultural study Spain-Mexico]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología 2017;34(1):46–54.
  34. Ronzón-Tirado RC, Muñoz-Rivas MJ, Zamarrón Cassinello, MD, et al. Cultural adaptation of the modified version of the conflicts tactics scale (M-CTS) in Mexican adolescents. Frontiers Psychol 2019;10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00619
  35. Baumler E, Wood L, Temple JR. Three-year outcomes from a middle school dating violence prevention program. Pediatrics 2023;152(4): DOI: 10.1542/peds.2023-062281
  36. Shorey RC, Fite PJ, Torres L, et al. Bidirectional associations between acceptability of violence and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Psychol Violence 2019;9(1):108–116. DOI: 10.1037/vio0000180
  37. Ordoñez J, Luft H. Implementación y diseminación de programas para la prevención de la violencia escolar en República Dominicana: un enfoque de salud global. 2023. DOI: 10.53766/RECENI/2022.34.07
  38. Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance. Community Engagement. Studio Toolkit 2.0.
  39. Crooks CV, Scott K, Ellis W, et al. Impact of a universal school-based violence prevention program on violent delinquency: distinctive benefits for youth with maltreatment histories. Child Abuse Negl 2011;35(6):393–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.002
  40. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Belmont, California: Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2007.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.