Screening for Brain Injury Sustained in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Measure Development and Preliminary Utility of the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire IPV Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with risk for multi-etiology brain injury (BI), including repetitive head impacts, isolated traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and anoxic/hypoxic injury secondary to nonfatal strangulation (NFS). IPV-related injuries are often unreported, but evidence suggests that survivors are more likely to report when asked directly. There are currently no validated tools for screening of brain injury related to IPV that meet World Health Organization guidelines for this population. Here, we describe measure development methods and preliminary utility of the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire IPV (BISQ-IPV) module. We culled items from existing IPV and TBI screening tools and sought two rounds of stakeholder feedback regarding content coverage, terminology, and safety of administration. The resulting stakeholder-informed BISQ-IPV module is a seven-item self-report measure that uses contextual cues (e.g., being shoved, shaken, strangled) to query lifetime history of IPV-related head/neck injury. We introduced the BISQ-IPV module into the Late Effects of TBI (LETBI) study to investigate rates of violent and IPV-specific head/neck injury reporting in a TBI sample. Among those who completed the BISQ-IPV module ( n = 142), 8% of the sample (and 20% of women) reported IPV-related TBI, and 15% of the sample (34% of women) reported IPV-related head or neck injury events that did not result in loss or alteration of consciousness. No men reported NFS; one woman reported inferred BI secondary to NFS, and 6% of women reported NFS events. Those who endorsed IPV-BI were all women, many were highly educated, and many reported low incomes. We then compared reporting of violent TBIs and head/neck injury events among individuals who completed the core BISQ wherein IPV is not specifically queried (administered from 2015-2018; n = 156) to that of individuals who completed the core BISQ preceded by the BISQ-IPV module (BISQ+IPV, administered from 2019-2021; n = 142). We found that 9% of those who completed the core BISQ reported violent TBI (e.g., abuse, assault), whereas 19% of those who completed the BISQ+IPV immediately preceding the core BISQ reported non-IPV-related violent TBI on the core BISQ. These findings suggest that standard TBI screening tools are inadequate for identifying IPV-BI and structured cueing of IPV-related contexts yields greater reporting of both IPV- and non-IPV-related violent BI. When not queried directly, IPV-BI remains a hidden variable in TBI research studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".