Instruments used to measure dating violence: A systematic review of psychometric properties

Aims To identify, synthesize and evaluate the psychometric properties of instruments that measure dating violence (DV). Design Psychometric systematic literature review. Data Sources The databases SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2021. Review Method We evaluated the psychometric properties of the instruments included and their methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee's quality criteria. The Modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the best available evidence. The entire process was carried out by three independent reviewers. The review was registered at PROSPERO (registry number CRD42020161137). Results A total of 35 studies evaluated 29 instruments measuring DV. Most studies reported data on content validity, structural validity and internal consistency. No studies tested measurement error and responsiveness. Only one instruments tested cross-cultural validity. It is of interest that the data reported for content validity were the worst evaluated, despite the fact that content validity is one of the key properties in developing and validating the measuring instrument. Conclusions There are a significant number of instruments published in this field, and it is important to evaluate and show their psychometric properties to help select evidence-based instruments. After carrying out the evaluation following the COSMIN guidelines, the authors of this study recommend that the three most suitable instruments are CADRI, WAS/Chinese version and PMWI-SF/Portuguese version (in that order). Impact Identifying and evaluating DV is the first step in designing effective interventions. To achieve this, it is necessary to have validated instruments with suitable psychometric properties. To date, this is the only published systematic review evaluating the psychometric properties of instruments that measure DV which reports on their methodological qualities. The results we found show a growing trend in developing new instruments, with the most suitable approach being to make a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the instrument that best suits the value to be measured. In this way, data can be compared between different countries and standardized health care plans and policies designed to achieve better health outcomes. This study may help future researchers to choose the most suitable instrument for their research.