Search

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 lowresource 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]