A literature review of survey instruments used to measure staff-to-resident elder abuse in residential care settings

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Background

The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.

Objectives

This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.

Search Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.

Selection Criteria

All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed.

Main Results

We found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty-seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). Ninety-five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one-quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS-EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS-12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL-31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS-EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS-12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

This review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.

"Older people are weak": perceptions and meanings of ageing and abuse against older people

Introduction

This paper addresses the broader issue of elder abuse and seeks to analyse how victims and non-victims of abuse connect and explain the perception of ageing and the phenomenon of violence against older people.

Methods

A qualitative study was conducted based on evidence gathered through 45 semi-structured interviews with people aged 60 or above who are part of the Portuguese EPIPorto population cohort. The interviews were analysed using grounded theory.

Results/discussion

The results show that respondents link the ageist narratives that exist in our societies to the prevalence and naturalisation of violence against older people, that the risk of abuse increases with the weakening of family support networks, and that abuse is both a manifestation of asymmetrical power relations between victims and perpetrators and a severe violation of human rights. The findings also highlight the need to broaden the concept of violence against older people to include offences in the public sphere and not just in the context of the family and institutions.

PROTOCOL: Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring elder abuse and neglect in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Background

The psychometric properties of elder abuse measurement instruments have not been well-studied. Poor psychometric properties of elder abuse measurement instruments may contribute to the inconsistency of elder abuse prevalence estimates and uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem at the national, regional, and global levels.

Objectives

The present review will utilise the COSMIN taxonomy on the quality of outcome measures to identify and review the instruments used in measuring elder abuse, assess the instrument's measurement properties, and identify the definitions of elder abuse and abuse subtypes measured by the instrument.

Search Methods

Searches will be conducted in the following online databases: Ageline, ASSIA, CINAHL, CNKI, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, Proquest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract and WHO Index Medicus. Relevant studies will also be identified by searching the grey literature from several resources such as OpenAIRE, BASE, OISter and Age Concern NZPotential studies by searching the references of related reviews. We will contact experts who have conducted similar work or are currently conducting ongoing studies. Enquiries will also be sent to the relevant authors if any important data is missing, incomplete or unclear.

Selection Criteria

All quantitative, qualitative (that address face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or the grey literature will be included in this review. Studies will be included if they are primary studies that (1) evaluate one or more psychometric properties; (2) contain information on instrument development, or (3) perform content validity of the instruments designed to measure elder abuse in the community or institutional settings. Studies should describe at least one of the psychometric properties, such as reliability, validity and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings (i.e., nursing homes, long-term care facilities, assisted living, residential care institutions, and residential facilities).

Data Collection and Analysis

Screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts of the selected studies will be evaluated based on the preset inclusion criteria by two reviewers. Two reviewers will be assessing the quality appraisal of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence of each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated criteria of good measurement properties. Any dispute between the two reviewers will be resolved through discussions or consensus with a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument will be graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction will be performed using the data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The information includes the characteristic of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on the instrument development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness and interoperability. We will perform a meta-analysis to pool psychometric properties parameters (where possible) or summarise qualitatively.

Development and psychometric properties of the hospitalized elder abuse questionnaire (HEAQ): a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Older patients are more vulnerable and prone to abuse and neglect in hospitals and acute care settings. The present study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a questionnaire for screening abuse in hospitalized older adults.

METHODS

This study was conducted from October 2017 to September 2019 using the exploratory sequential mixed-methods research design. The participants were selected among those admitted to various wards of six teaching hospitals affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. In the qualitative phase of the study, using the inductive content analysis method, the concept of abuse in hospitalized older adults was extracted through individual in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 older patients and 11 family caregivers. Based on qualitative findings and a review of existing literature, an initial version of the questionnaire was developed. In the quantitative phase of the study, the psychometric properties (face, content, construct, and convergent validity; internal consistency and stability) of the questionnaire were examined.

RESULTS

Based on qualitative findings and literature review, a pool of 154 candidate items was defined. These items were reduced to 37 after initial refinement, qualitative and quantitative face and content validity, and item analysis. The outcome of principal component analysis further reduced the number of items to 27, which were grouped into 5 components, namely "Shortcomings in management and care facility", "Neglect of professional commitments", "Physical and psychological abuse", "Protracted treatment process", and "Invasion of privacy". The explained variance of these 5 components was 50.09% of the overall variability of the questionnaire. The convergent validity of the questionnaire was acceptable (P < 0.00, r = - 0.44). Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient for the entire questionnaire were 0.89 and 0.92, respectively; indicating high reliability and stability of the questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The hospitalized elder abuse questionnaire (HEAQ) has acceptable psychometric properties. It is recommended to use HEAQ to screen for suspected cases of abuse of hospitalized older adults.

Validation of the professional good care scale in nursing homes (GCS-NH)

BACKGROUND

There is extensive concern about older people's care in institutions, especially recently in the past years. One of the reasons is linked to the cases of elder abuse, not only shown by academic and scientific sources, but also by social and mass media and their impact on public perception of the institutional setting. What is more, current COVID-19 pandemic consequences on older people have provoked alarm and worry especially about what is happening in institutions.

METHODS

The sample for this study consists of 286 staff working in nursing homes in Spain. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Professional Good Care Scale in Nursing Homes (GCS-NH).

RESULTS

Results of parallel analyses and exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) showed a four-factor model for the 32-item scale: humanization (9 items), non-infantilization (10 items), respect (7 items) and empowerment (6 items). Then, psychometric properties were tested analysing internal consistency (reliability) and convergent, divergent and criterion validity. High internal consistency (reliability) and different validity evidence were obtained for the total scores of the GCS-NH and its subscales. GCS-NH scores were also capable of detecting risk of probable institutional elder abuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that this scale is an appropriate, valid, and reliable multidimensional instrument to evaluate good care in older institutionalized people by staff. Good care is an outcome of a complex construct in which a wide range of factors converge (staff, older people, and environmental characteristics). The GCS-NH has potential to be used as a multidimensional tool to assess good care.

Factors associated with staff-to-resident abuse in Norwegian nursing homes: a cross-sectional exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Elder abuse is a public health problem that is gaining attention due to its serious impacts on people's health and well-being, and it is predicted to increase along with the world's rapidly ageing population. Staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon associated with multiple factors on different levels of the ecological model. This study aimed to explore individual, relational, and institutional characteristics associated with perpetrated staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes, using a multilevel hierarchical approach.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional exploratory study of 3693 nursing staff (response rate 60.1%) in 100 randomly selected nursing homes in Norway. We explored the characteristics of nursing staff, their relationship with residents, and institutional features associated with three types of abuse: psychological abuse, physical abuse, and neglect. These were modelled using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Individual staff factors found to be associated with all three types of abuse were 1) being a registered nurse/social educator (OR 1.77-2.49) or licensed practical nurse (OR 1.64-1.92), 2) reporting symptoms of psychological distress (OR 1.44-1.46), 3) intention to leave the job (OR 1.35-1.40), and 4) reporting poor attitudes towards people with dementia (OR 1.02-1.15). Also, staff who reported poorer quality of childhood were more likely to perpetrate neglect (OR 1.14). Relational factors such as care-related conflicts (OR 1.97-2.33) and resident aggression (OR 1.36-2.09) were associated with all three types of abuse. Of institutional factors, lack of support from a manager was associated with perpetrating psychological abuse (OR 1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

We found several predictors of staff-to-resident abuse on different levels of the ecological model, which underlines the importance of using a multifaceted approach to identify risk factors of elder abuse in nursing homes. However, future studies should explore the underlying mechanism and causes with a prospective or qualitative design and target the multifaceted nature of risk factors when designing preventive interventions.