Psychometric evidence of the transcultural adaptation of the Vulnerability Abuse Screening Scale (VASS) for the detection of violence against the elderly

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.

Assessment tools for elder abuse: scoping review

OBJECTIVE

to map assessment tools for elder abuse and determine the psychometric properties of each one.

METHOD

scoping review developed according to recommendations of the JBI Institute Reviewer's Manual in databases and gray literature.

RESULTS

seventeen tools were identified for measuring situations of elder abuse. They were categorized into 1) Tools for assessment of risk for abuse, and 2) Tools for identification of abuse. According to risk for abuse, Vulnerability to Abuse Screening Scale was the most prevalent in the literature, with factorial analysis acceptable through four domains, and good internal reliability (0,74). Therefore, Assessment Tool for Domestic Elder Abuse comprises the assessment of six types of elder abuse; however, the study shows psychometric limitation since the internal structure was not evaluated by validity evidences.

CONCLUSION

seventeen tools to determine the occurrence or risk for elder abuse were identified with different psychometric properties. We recommend the use of more than one of the tools identified for an appropriate measurement of elder abuse situations given the complexity of the phenomenon and the lack of a single instrument that contemplates all its consequences and forms of expression.

Elder abuse in Brazil: an integrative review

Abstract Objective: the present study aimed to carry out an integrative review of literature on the scientific knowledge relating to the occurrence of elder abuse produced in Brazil between the years of 2013 to 2017. Method: a bibliographic survey was carried out through publications indexed in the Virtual Health Library (VHL) database: the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO), Latin American Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS) and the CAPES Portal of Periodicals (CAPES). The data collection instrument, created by the authors, included characteristics such as: year of publication, main journals, research design, topics covered, main areas of knowledge, sampling and study objectives. Results: 28 publications were analyzed. The main types of violence were psychological (28%), physical (28%), unspecified (16%), financial (12%), self-abandonment (8%), neglect and verbal violence (4%). The majority of the victims were female (64%), of unspecified gender (28%) and male (8%). Conclusion: the present integrative review found that the main violence suffered was psychological together with physical, with the elderly the main victims. The main place of maltreatment was in the home. The research also found that there are gaps in information about the reasons that triggered the aggressions. It is therefore necessary to investigate this subject further and carry out new studies that seek to identify these factors.