Developing an Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tool for the College Health Setting

Background and Purpose: Studies show that 10-50% of college students experience intimate partner violence (IPV). Identifying IPV experiences within the college health setting is critical as college students have low rates of help-seeking after an IPV incident; IPV experiences are linked to unfavorable health, academic, and social outcomes; and early detection provides opportunities for early intervention such as delivering appropriate healthcare, and to positively impact student retention and success. However, IPV screening is neither common nor standardized across universities. In addition, there are little to no questions related to stalking or technology-facilitated abuse and no items using language inclusive of gender and sexual minorities.

Methods: Using a community-based participatory research method, this mixed-methods pilot project aimed to develop an initial IPV screener for validation within the college health setting. After reviewing screeners identified in prior literature on IPV screening on college campuses and the general health setting, a 13-item screener was developed. The initial screener was reviewed by violence experts and then cognitively tested with campus stakeholders and a diverse set of students to ensure content validity and identify appropriate, gender-neutral language to be used within the IPV screener. Ten campus stakeholders and 27 students participated in the cognitive testing and eight campus stakeholders, who were also part of the larger, collaborative research team, weighed in on final decisions for the IPV screener. The development and testing of the IPV screener took place at a large, southeastern, Hispanic-Serving Institution with a diverse student population.

Results: Cognitive interviews found that student participants thought less severe forms of violence happened more frequently, but they were less important to include into the screener compared to more severe forms. Findings also identified language students use to refer to “romantic partners”, preferences for methods to receive referrals to campus victim services, and students' views on the normalcy of domestic violence types. Based on the data from interviews, the initial screener was narrowed down to a 10-item, behaviorally-defined IPV screener plus two additional items to ascertain current fear and disruption of daily activities. Language used in the screener broadly define the various relationships that exist in the college context (e.g., hook ups, talking to) and are not gender-specific to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ college students. Indicators selected include a range of abusive behaviors and tactics such as stalking, technology-facilitated abuse, and coercive control. Implementation guidance was developed for clinical staff to administer the screener as part of routine health visits.

Conclusion and Implications: Healthcare providers within the college health setting are uniquely positioned to screen students for past-year IPV experiences and to intervene through appropriate healthcare services and referrals to campus-based and off campus resources. The 10-item, behaviorally-defined IPV screener developed through the qualitative phase of this project is currently being piloted within the university’s Student Health Services center for initial validation. The screener, as developed, modernizes existing approaches to adequately screen young adults on college campuses for past year experiences with IPV and has potential for replication and validation at other U.S. colleges and universities.