Screening and Assessment Collection

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11990/1547

Open Access Screening and Assessment

search this collection

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 45

Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS)
(Sage Publications, 1992) Soeken, K.L.; McFarlane, J.; Parker, B.; Lominack, M.C.
Soeken, McFarlane, Parker, and Lominack developed the Abuse Assessment Screen (A.A.S.) in 1992 as a clinician-administered sexual and physical violence assessment tool for use in medical practice. A.A.S. includes five questions about the experience of abusive behavior, three of which encourage the respondent to identify who is committing/committed that abuse. In addition to these questions, A.A.S. includes a figure of the female body for respondents to ‘map’ injuries as they appeared on their bodies and score these injuries from one (threat of abuse) to six (wound from weapon). A.A.S. does not use inclusive language and is focused on male-on-female violence. A.A.S. is a public domain tool, and a 1998 validation study by the original authors of the tool found A.A.S. to be a reliable and valid instrument for screening abuse. (CVR Abstract)
Abuse Screening Questions
(Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 2003) Curry, M.A.; Powers, L.E.; Oschwalk, M.;
Curry, Powers, and Oschwalk developed the Abuse Screening Questions in 2003 to screen for abuse unique to women with disabilities, who are at increased risk for violence. The instrument includes eight items - five of which were developed with language unique to women with disabilities, and the remaining three selected from established abuse screening tools. One of the questions asks about sexual abuse. The tool also includes 14 risk assessment questions modeled after the Danger Assessment (1995), but that do not assess for risk of sexual assault. The Abuse Screening Questions were developed for female victims, but the language used is inclusive. ASQ is a public domain tool, and a 2003 field study by the tool's authors with 47 women with physical and cognitive disabilities found the questions to be a valid instrument for screening abuse. (CVR Abstract)
Actual Abuse Tool
(Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 2001) Bass, D.M.; Anetzberger, G.J.; Ejaz, F.K.; Nagpaul, K.;
Bass, Anetzberger, Ejaz, and Nagpaul developed the Actual Abuse Tool in 2001 to assist service providers in detecting elder abuse and/or domestic violence among older American adults. This tool provides a list of the major forms of abuse and violence along with examples of physical abuse, psychological abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The Actual Abuse tool is designed for either the victim, a “reliable party,” or medical and service providers to complete. The tool includes 19 bulleted statements separated into four categories that the person administering the tool is supposed to ask as a question, and place a checkmark in that row if they receive an affirmative answer. According to the authors, a single check indicates the perceived presence of abuse. The tool is validated for English-speaking adult populations. This tool is available for public use, but parties should contact the Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect if they are interested in reprinting this tool. (CVR Abstract)
Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory - Version 2
(Family Development Resources, Inc., 1979) Bavolek, S.J.; Richard, K.G.
Bavolek and Keene developed the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI-2.1) in 2010 to assess the parenting and child rearing attitudes of adult and adolescent parent and pre-parent populations. The APPI-2.1 was updated from the original version of the APPI created in 1979. The APPI-2.1 is a 40-item self-reporting inventory that measures parental behaviors and is commonly used to assess the risk of child abuse and neglect. The AAPI-2.1 provides and index of five subscales: Expectations of Children, Parental Empathy towards Children's Needs, Use of Corporal Punishment, Parent-Child Family Roles, and Children's Power and Independence. The instrument is offered in English, Spanish, Creole, and Arabic, and takes 10-15 minutes to complete. There are two forms of the AAPI-2.1: Form A and Form B. Each form has 40 items presented on a five point Likert Scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree and Uncertain. Traditionally, Form A is offered as a pretest and Form B as a posttest. Responses to the inventory provide an index of risk for practicing behaviors known to be attributable to child abuse and neglect. The APPI-2.1 was validated in 2006 by Nicola Conners, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, David Deere, Toni Ledet, and Mark Edwards. Their findings suggested that the instrument was effective at measuring at least two of the constructs it purports to measure and that the total score may be useful. (CVR Abstract)
Asian Health Services & Banteay Srei CSEC Screening Protocol
(Asian Health Services & Banteay Srei, 2008) Chang, K.S.; Lee, K.; Park, T.; Sy, E.; Quach, T.
Asian Health Services, a community health center in Oakland, California, and Banteay Srei, a youth development program, developed the CSEC screening protocol in 2008 (finalizing the tool itself in 2012) to assist primary care providers in identifying commercially sexually exploited children. This screening protocol aims to guide conversation between a primary care provider and their minor client; it does not include a questionnaire nor specific survey items. The CSEC screening protocol lists 10 “high risk indicators for sexual exploitation” before encouraging medical professionals to speak privately to patients exhibiting these signs. CSEC then gives two examples of “leading questions” medical professionals may ask to start a conversation about sexual exploitation with their patient. The tool closes by encouraging medical professionals to then remind their patients of how they can assist them in connecting with legal, educational, mental, and economic support structures. Chang, Park, Sy, and Quach validated the tool in 2015, finding it effective for use with Asian, African American, Hispanic, Native American, and Caucasian populations aged 13 to 23. (CVR Abstract)
Brief Abuse Screen for the Elderly (BASE)
(National Institute for the Care of the Elderly, 1995) Reis, M.; Nahmiash, D.;
Reis and Nahmiash developed the Brief Abuse Screen for the Elderly (BASE) as part of an intervention model to combat abuse and neglect of older adults in 1995. BASE is designed for home-care workers to screen for abuse in new clients. To use BASE, trained health service workers complete a five-item questionnaire that includes questions about whether the person in question is a caregiver or care-receiver, a scale indicator of the suspicion of abuse, and what an estimated timeline for abuse intervention may need to be. This tool is designed for use with all English-speaking health service clients 60 years or over who are either caregivers or care-receivers. This tool is proprietary and interested parties should request permission from the authors to use it. (CVR Abstract)
Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory
(Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2005) Ondersma, S.J.; Chaffin, M.; Mullins, S.; LeBreton, J.
Ondersma, Chaffin, Mullins, and LeBreton developed the Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (BCAP) in 2005 as a short version of Milner’s CAPI screening instrument. Because CAPI is the most widely used and thoroughly researched measure of parental child abuse risk, Ondersma and team wanted to enhance the tool by creating a version that reduces participant burden and time, simplifies the scoring process, and increases its applicability. BCAP is a 33-item screening tool with 24 abuse risk scales and 9 validity scales. Whereas the CAPI takes 15-20 minutes to complete, the BCAP only takes 5 minutes. Ondersma and team validated the BCAP in 2005 and found that the BCAP and CAPI demonstrated similar patterns of external correlates. The BCAP was further proven that it may be useful as a time-efficient screener for abuse risk. To access the BCAP, interested parties should purchase copies from Psytec of the full version of the CAPI equivalent to the number of brief versions they would like to administer. The CAPI is a proprietary measure and therefore the BCAP is not available for separate purchase and cannot be disseminated independently. (CVR Abstract)
Caregiver Abuse Screen (CASE)
(The Canadian Association of Gerontology, 1995) Reis, M.; Nahmiash, D.;
Reis and Nahmiash developed the Caregiver Abuse Screen (CASE) in 1995 and validated it in 2010 to provide communities with a tool to screen for elder abuse through informal caregivers rather than having individuals rely on professional reporting. CASE is designed as a brief questionnaire that caregivers can complete themselves or other community members can administer to the caregiver in question. CASE includes eight yes-or-no questions, each asking “Do you…” with a space to insert the name of the older adult they care for. The questions center around asking the caregiver whether they have trouble managing the elder’s behavior and whether they are mistreating the elder in their lives. This screening tool is appropriate for use by English-speaking adult caregivers and their community members, and could also be adapted for use by medical professionals. CASE is available for public use, but parties should contact The Canadian Association of Gerontology if they are interested in reprinting this tool. (CVR Abstract)
Child Abuse Potential Inventory
(PAR, 1986) Milner, J.
Milner developed the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI) in 1986 to help protective services workers detect physical child abuse in their investigations of reported child abuse cases. This is a self-report screening instrument given to parents or caregivers suspected of abuse. The test consists of 160-items and uses an “agree/disagree,” forced-choice format. CAPI contains a total of 10 standard scales and 2 specials scales (added to the measure in 1990). The 10 standard scales include a 77-item Child Abuse Scale and 3 validity scales. The primary clinical scale—Abuse Scale—can be divided into six factor scales: Distress; Rigidity; Unhappiness; Problems with Child and Self; Problems with Family; and Problems with Others. The two special scales are Loneliness and Ego-Strength, and the three validity scales are Lie, Random Response, and Inconsistency. There have been multiple studies that have shown that the parent or care-giver’s score on the CAP inventory is predictive of the child’s long-term intelligence, socioemotional outcome, and development as well as future behavior by the parent or care-giver. In the preliminary validation study done by Milner in 1984, he found a significant relationship between CAPI abuse scores and subsequent abuse as well as between abuse scores and later neglect. (CVR Abstract)
Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool (CSE-IT) – version 2.0
(WestCoast Children’s Clinic, 2016) Basson, D.; Fernando, A.D.; Geltman, E.; Haley, H.; Langs, J.; Ritter, L.; Rosenblatt, E.
The WestCoast Children’s Clinic in Oakland, California developed the Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool 2.0 (CSE-IT, pronounced ‘See-It’) in August 2016. CSE-IT is a public domain tool designed for any service providers who work with children and youth; it is designed as an assessment scoring matrix for service providers, healthcare professionals, law enforcement professionals, or educators to use while interviewing their clients. The tool relies on two pages of topical statements the administrator can score their clients on based on how the conversation develops. The 46 question items within these pages all fall within the commercial sexual exploitation domain, but are split into “housing and caregiving,” “prior abuse or trauma,” “physical health and appearance,” “environment and exposure,” “relationships and personal belongings,” “signs of current trauma,” “coercion,” and “exploitation” sub categories. The third page of CSE-IT includes scoring instructions and its continuum of concerning scores— any assessment resulting in a score of nine through 23 demonstrates “clear concern” for commercial sexual exploitation according to the authors. The WestCoast Children’s Clinic evaluated both the criterion validity and the psychometric properties of their CSE-IT tool in 2017, finding that the tool is a valid identification mechanism for commercial sexual exploitation. (CVR Abstract)
Comprehensive Human Trafficking Assessment
(National Human Trafficking Resource Center, 2011) Polaris Project
The Polaris Project developed the Comprehensive Human Trafficking Assessment in 2011 as part of its National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC). The Assessment aims to help agency staff identify victims of human trafficking, and is designed to be administered to clients through an interview process. This tool is intended for use by victim service providers, but also could be adopted for use by appropriately trained health care and shelter workers. The Assessment is 11 pages long, beginning with tips for the administrator to create a comfortable environment and instructions on how to use careful language during the assessment process. It then provides an initial safety check before presenting a set of questions intended to serve as a general trafficking assessment followed by “network/controller specific” questions intended to reveal further details after “a particular type of trafficking has already been identified.” Users will need a separate document to track their client’s answers to the questions. This tool is validated and can be used with a variety of populations with the right adaptations (such as the addition of gender neutral pronouns or an interpreter) by the assessment administrator. (CVR Abstract)
Conflict tactics scales - Parent child
(National Inst. of Mental Health (DHHS), 1995) Straus, M.A.; Hamby, S.L.; Finkelhor, D.; Moore, D.; Runyan, D.
Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, and Runyan developed the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC) as a brief tool to improve the ability of the already existent Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) to obtain data on physical and psychological child maltreatment. The CTSPC is a 35-item parent-report measure that provides information regarding the presence and severity of parenting behaviors associated with child maltreatment. The assessment takes 6-8 minutes to complete and consists of six scales: Nonviolent Discipline; Psychological Aggression; Physical Assault; Supplemental Questions on Discipline in the Previous Week; Neglect; and Sexual Abuse. The CTSPC modified the original CTS to revise the psychological aggression and physical assault scales, replace the reasoning scale with the nonviolent discipline scale, and add supplemental scales to measure neglect and sexual abuse, as well as supplemental questions on discipline methods used in the previous week. The CTSPC was validated in 2018 by Allison Cotter, Kaitlin Proctor and Elizabeth Brestan-Knight. Their study found that observed parent behaviors relate to parents’ reported use of psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and assault, and that the measure should be interpreted at the subscale level. (CVR Abstract)
Danger Assessment (DA)
(Sage Publications, 2004) Campbell, J.C.
Dr. Jaquelyn Campbell and John Hopkins School of Nursing developed the Danger Assessment (DA) screening tool in 1986, finalizing it in 2004, as a proprietary instrument “that helps to determine the level of danger an abused woman has of being killed by her partner.” The DA is designed for use mainly within the medical profession, but is also valid for use by victim service providers. The assessment is constructed in two parts. The first, which requires an outside element, asks women to quantify the severity and frequency of their experience of abuse in the past year by marking incidents on a standard calendar. The second is a 20-item questionnaire asking the respondent to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to detailed questions about their partner’s abusive behavior. After the respondent answers all 20 items, the questionnaire encourages them to total all the ‘yes’ answers and “talk to [their] nurse, advocate, or counselor about what the Danger Assessment means in [their] situation.” Multiple versions of the DA are available, including in multiple languages, for female same-sex relationships, and for immigrant women. DA is validated and, although proprietary to the John Hopkins School of Nursing, available for download and use through this link. (CVR Abstract)
Elder Abuse Suspicion Index (EASI)
(Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 2008) Yaffe, M.J.; Wolfson, C.; Lithwick, M.; Weiss, D.;
Yaffe, Wolfson, Lithwick, and Weiss developed the Elder Abuse Suspicion Index (EASI) in 2008 to assist doctors in determining whether a patient may be at risk of elder abuse. EASI explicitly states that doctors should use the screening tool to decide whether a patient needs further evaluation by social services or adult protective services. The tool has six yes or no questions, five of which are for the doctor to ask the patient while the last question is for the doctor to answer. EASI questions ask the patient whether they have been prevented from getting basic needs by someone, whether anyone has made them feel upset, whether anyone has hurt them, and more; the question for the doctor lists possible physical markers of elder abuse and asks whether the doctor notices them. EASI was validated only for use by “family practitioners of cognitively intact seniors seen in ambulatory settings.” This tool is proprietary and interested parties should request permission to use it. (CVR Abstract)
Elder Assessment Instrument (EAI)
(Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 1984) Fulmer, T.;
Fulmer developed the Elder Assessment Instrument (EAI) in 1984 and updated it in 2003 to allow professionals “in all clinical settings” to screen for suspected elder abuse victims. EAI is designed for use only by clinicians screening their patients. The screening instrument is not a questionnaire with a scoring mechanism like many other tools, but rather a Likert scale and tracker for the clinician to rate whether there is no evidence, possible evidence, probably evidence, or definite evidence of elder abuse along five main categories of 41 health indicators. The instrument categories include a space for general assessment, “Possible Abuse Indicators,” “Possible Neglect Indicators,” “Possible Exploitation Indicators, and “Possible Abandonment Indicators” with room for an overall summary at the end. Fulmer directs clinicians using EAI to refer their patients to social services if there is any positive evidence of abuse (without clinical explanation) on any health indicator, or if the patient complains of mistreatment. There is no target population explicitly outlined in EAI. EAI is available for public use, but parties should contact The Journal of Gerontological Nursing if they are interested in reprinting this tool. (CVR Abstract)
Evaluation and Dissemination of a Screening Tool to Improve the Identification of Trafficking Victims in the US, 2012-2013
(National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, 2016) Simich, L.
Dr. Simich and the Vera Institute of Justice developed their Trafficking Victim Identification Tool in 2013 (and subsequently added an improved control system in 2016) as a proprietary tool for a Vera Institute human trafficking study. While designed for use in a research study, this tool would also suit victim service providers or law enforcement officers completing screening interviews. This 12-page screening tool includes 69 items separated into three domains: migration, work, and working/living conditions. The Trafficking Victim Identification Tool is provided in English, Chinese, Spanish, and Korean, and uses gender-neutral language throughout. A 2014 study by the Vera Institute validated the tool, finding that “87 percent of the questions significantly predicted trafficking victimization.” The tool can be found in the zipped file folder linked here; it is labeled as “Questionnaire.” As this is a proprietary tool, interested parties should contact the Vera Institute of Justice to clarify usage requirements. (CVR Abstract)
Human Trafficking Screening Tool in Child Welfare and Runaway Youth
(Urban Institute, 2017) Dank, Meredith; Yahner, Jennifer; Yu, Lily; Vasquez-Norieda, Carla; Gelatt, Julia; Pergamit, Michael
Dank, Yahner, Yu, Vasquez-Norieda, Gelatt, and Pergamit developed the Human Trafficking Screening Tool in Child Welfare and Runaway Youth (HTST) in 2017 for use by practitioners working with such youth. HTST and its shorter form, HTST-SF, can both be incorporated into victim service practice in youth shelters or agencies. This screening tool covers four main topical domains in its questions: force, fraud, coercion, and commercial sex exploitation. HTST is a 19-item tool with each question asking “did someone you work for...” before presenting specifics like “threaten to harm you.” HTST-SF includes six questions designed to cover the same domains. The authors developed HTST to be accessible for its targeted youth population: “items were written at a 6th-grade level and youth spent only about two minutes completing the HTST and less than a minute completing the HTST-SF.” Both forms of the HTST can be administered by a practitioner or given to clients for self-administration while a practitioner observes. The authors validated the tool in 2017, finding that both forms of the tool “performed equally well at capturing trafficking experiences for most youth,” identifying youth trafficking victims correctly 6 in 10 times and nonvictims 8 in 10 times. HTST is a publicly available tool and does not require specific training to administer. (CVR Abstract)
Humiliation, Afraid, Rape and Kick
(Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, 2007) Sohal, H.; Eldridge, S.; Feder, G.
Sohal, Eldridge, and Feder developed the Humiliation, Afraid, Rape and Kick (HARK) “woman abuse” screening tool as a shorter version of the Abuse Assessment screen in 2007. HARK is a public domain tool currently used by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, and its questions are intended to be used during the intake process in any clinical setting to help medical professionals detect intimate partner violence in their clients' lives. Unlike other tools, HARK is only four questions—one for each letter in the acronym. HARK encourages medical professionals to ask their clients whether, in the past year, their partner has humiliated them, made them afraid, raped them, or kicked (and otherwise physically abused) them. These questions are validated only in English and for adult women in heterosexual relationships. (CVR Abstract)
Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with Harm and Screamed Domestic Violence Tool (HITS)
(1998) Sherin, K.M.; Sinacore, J.M.; Li, X.; Zitter, R.E.; Shakil, A.
Sherin, Sinacore, Li, Zitter, and Shakil developed the public domain Hurt, Insulted, Threatened with Harm and Screamed (HITS) domestic violence screening tool in 1998 to help medical professionals detect abuse. This tool could be integrated into the initial intake process in a family practice or be used if a medical professional suspects abuse may be occurring. HITS encourages clients to quantify the “risk of domestic violence” in their relationship by self-assessing how often toxic behaviors occur. After age, sex, and ethnicity can be entered, HITS centers on a five-by-seven scoring matrix. The left-most column asks “how often does your partner…” and provides the four ‘risk behaviors’ of interest: physical harm, insults, threat of physical harm, and screaming/cursing. Respondents score each of these categories along a continuum of one to five, where one is “Never” and five is “Frequently.” The directions beneath the matrix note that “a score greater than 10 signify that you are at risk of domestic violence abuse” before listing hotlines and providing links to the Baylor Trauma Center in Dallas, Texas, where this tool is currently in use. This tool can be used for both men and women (and nonbinary individuals if the tool administrator adapts proper pronouns). HITS is validated. (CVR Abstract)
Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (H-S/EAST)
(Sage Publications, 1991) Neale, A.V.; Hwalek, M.A.; Scott, R.O.; Stahl, C.;
Neale, Hwalek, Scott, and Stahl developed the Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (H-S/EAST) in 1991 to assist service providers who are interested in identifying people at high risk of the need for protective services. H-S/EAST is designed for service providers to use by interviewing their clients and writing their answers in with the relevant question item. The tool consists of 15 direct questions that range in topic from whether the client experiences loneliness to whether they are forced into uncomfortable situations. The authors note that “A response of ‘no’ to items 1, 6, 12, and 14; a response of ‘someone else’ to item 4; and a response of ‘yes’ to all others is scored in the ‘abused’ direction.” This tool was validated for English-speaking populations of older adults. H-S/EAST is available for public use, but parties should contact Sage Publications if they are interested in reprinting this tool. (CVR Abstract)

Browse

Browsing Screening and Assessment Collection by Title

Results Per Page

Sort Options