Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:48:13.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Adaptation of the Indicators of Abuse (IOA) Screen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2018

Carmen Touza ,
Rosario Martínez-Arias  and
Carmen Prado
Carmen Touza*
Affiliation:
Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain)
Rosario Martínez-Arias
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Carmen Prado
Affiliation:
Centro Universitario Cardenal Cisneros (Spain)
*
*Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed to Carmen Touza. Universitat de les Illes Balears. Departament de Pedagogia i Didàctiques Específiques. Cra. Valldemossa Km 7.5, Edificio Guillem Cifre de Colonya, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Illes Baleares (Spain). Telephone: +34–971172492. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to replicate the analyses conducted by the creators of the Indicators of Abuse (IOA) Screen with a Spanish sample group and compare the results, to present new validity evidences, to analyze which items were more relevant in the detection of situations of risk of abuse, and to establish a cut-off point to interpret the obtained scores. The IOA was used by 46 professionals from social services teams who assessed the situation of 231 elderly individuals and their main caregivers. The obtained results advocated towards unidimensionality of the scale. It showed a high level of internal consistency (α = .94). The Confidence Interval of 99% for the alpha coefficient was between .92 and .95. The ordinal alpha coefficient reached the value of .98. The total score of the scale showed adequate temporal stability (r = .91; p ≤ .001; N = 163). Statistically significant differences (t-test) in the mean scores of most of the items were found between cases of adequate treatment and cases of risk of abuse. The scale classified correctly 93% of all cases. The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found at the cut-off point given by score 16 (Sensitivity = 0.94, Specificity = 0.85). The results appear to confirm the validity evidence of the instrument when used with a Spanish population. However, it is necessary to conduct further research and confirm the results with wider, more representative sample groups.

Keywords

caregiverelder abusepsychometric propertiesscreening
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 21 , 2018 , E43
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In Joreskog, K. G. & Wold, H. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction. Part I (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., Halevi-Levin, S., Gagin, R., & Friedman, G. (2006). Development of a screening tool for identifying elderly people at risk of abuse by their caregivers. Journal of Aging and Health, 18, 660–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264306293257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLiema, M., Navarro, A., Enguidanos, S., & Wilber, K. (2015). Voices from the frontlines: Examining elder abuse from multiple professional perspectives. Health & Social Work, 40, e15–e24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlv012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, X. Q. (2015). Elder abuse: Systematic review and implications for practice. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63, 1214–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, C., Connolly, M., & McFeeley, P. (2003). The clinical and medical forensics of elder abuse and neglect. In National Research Council (Ed.), Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America (pp. 339–381). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
European Comission (2015). Demography Report. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2767/769227Google Scholar
Fulmer, T., Guadagno, L., & Dyer, C. B. (2004). Progress in elder abuse screening and assessment instruments. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52074.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3).Google Scholar
Gobierno, Vasco. Departamento de Empleo y Políticas Sociales (2015). Procedimiento de prevención y detección de malos tratos físicos y económicos a personas mayores en la CAPV [Procedure for the prevention and detection of physical and economic abuse to elderly people in the Basque Country]. Vitoria-Gasteiz, País Vasco: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco.Google Scholar
Lachs, M. S., & Pillemer, K. A. (2015). Elder abuse. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 1947–1956. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1404688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, C., & Browne, C. (2017). Emerging innovations, best practices, and evidence based practices in elder abuse and neglect: A review of recent developments in the field. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9812-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mysyuk, Y., Westendorp, R. G. J., & Lindenberg, J. (2013). Added value of elder abuse definitions: A review. Ageing Research Reviews, 12(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.04.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Center on Elder Abuse (2016). Frequently asked questions. Types of Abuse. Retrieved from National Center on Elder Abuse website https://ncea.acl.gov/faq/abusetypes.htmlGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (2003). Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Rojo, G., Nuevo, R., Sancho, M., & Penhale, B. (2015). Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of Caregiver Abuse Screen (CASE). Research on Aging, 37, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027514522275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillemer, K., Connolly, M.-T., Breckman, R., Spreng, N., & Lachs, M. S. (2015). Elder mistreatment: Priorities for consideration by the White House Conference on aging. The Gerontologist, 55, 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, M. (2000). The IOA Screen: An abuse-alert measure that dispels myths. Generations, 24(2), 13–16.Google Scholar
Reis, M., & Nahmiash, D. (1995). When seniors are abused: A guide to intervention. North York, Canada: Captus Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Reis, M., & Nahmiash, D. (1998). Validation of the Indicators of Abuse (IOA) Screen. The Gerontologist, 38, 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.4.471CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Touza, C., Prado, C., & Segura, M. P. (2011). Construcción y validación de las Escalas de Detección de Riesgo de Malos Tratos Domésticos y Comportamientos Autonegligentes (EDMA) [Construction and validation of the Detection Scales for the Risk of Domestic Abuse and Self-negligent Behavior (EDMA)], International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11, 91–106.Google Scholar
Touza, C., Prado, C., & Segura, M. P. (2012). Detection scales for the Risk of Domestic Abuse and Self-Negligent Behavior in elderly persons (EDMA). Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 24, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2012.661682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2002). The Toronto declaration on the global prevention of elder abuse. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2011). European report on preventing elder maltreatment. Rome, Italy: Author.Google Scholar