Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Article

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in a Primary Care Setting: The Validity of “Feeling Safe at Home” and Prevalence Results

Robert L. Peralta and Michael F. Fleming
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice November 2003, 16 (6) 525-532; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.16.6.525
Robert L. Peralta
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael F. Fleming
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Survey Instrument

    Couples use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. The following things may happen to you during an argument with your boyfriend, husband, or partner. Please mark how many times in the last 3 months these things have happened to you.OnceTwice3–5 Times6–10 Times11–20 Times>20 TimesNA
    We discussed an issue calmly.
    My partner stomped out of the room or house or yard.
    My partner threatened me.
    My partner threatened to hit or throw something at me.
    My partner smashed or hit or kicked something.
    My partner pushed, grabbed, or shoved me.
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Sample Characteristics, Feeling Safe at Home by Self-Reported Experiences with Violence % (N = 399)

    DemographicsPositive Screens for Physical and/or Psychological Violence (N = 174)Negative Screens for Physical and/or Psychological Violence (N = 214)Total N*
    Race
     Black44.255.8104
     White43.956.1237
     Other45.254.831
    Education
     High school or less49.750.3161
     Some college46.853.2139
     College or more30.070.080
    Marriage
     Married41.558.5135
     Other46.753.3242
    Children at home
     Yes49.350.7229
     No36.963.1152
    Drinking episodes per week
     None42.857.2152
     1–345.954.1220
     4+43.756.316
    Average number of drinks per episode
     None42.257.6151
     1–345.954.1183
     4+47.252.853
    Did you feel safe at home?
     Yes43.256.8361
     No62.537.524
    CES-D
     Depression53.946.189
     No depression39.960.1291
    • * May not sum to 399 because of missing data.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Prevalence of Psychological and Physical Violence—Past 90 Days Based on 6 Questions from the CTS % (N = 399)

    AllWhiteBlackOther
    Any type of violence44.3 (n = 164)44.1 (n = 104)44.7 (n = 46)45.1 (n = 14)
    Psychological violence with or without physical violence43.5 (n = 162)43.5 (n = 103)43.3 (n = 45)45.2 (n = 14)
    Physical violence with or without psychological violence*10.3 (n = 38)6.8 (n = 16)19.6 (n = 20)6.5 (n = 2)
    Type of violence experienced
     No violence †55.9 (n = 208)56.1 (n = 133)55.7 (n = 58)54.8 (n = 17)
     Only psychological violence‡§34.1 (n = 126)37.1 (n = 88)25 (n = 26)38.7 (n = 12)
     Only physical violence‖0.5 (n = 2)0.42 (n = 1)0.96 (n = 1)0.0 (n = 0)
     Both psychological and physical violence ‡¶9.7 (n = 36)6.3 (n = 15)18.3 (n = 19)6.5 (n = 2)
    • * p < .01

    • † Women who report no psychological or physical violence.

    • ‡ p < .05;

    • § Women who report psychological violence in absence of physical violence.

    • ‖ Women who reported physical violence in the absence of psychological violence.

    • ¶ Women who reported both physical and psychological violence.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Sensitivity and Specificity Results for ‘Do You Feel Safe at Home?’ Compared with Results from the Modified CTS for Physical and or Psychological Violence (N = 399)*

    −CTS (N = 214)+CTS (N = 171)
    Feel Unsafe (N = 24)False Positive 4.2%True Positive 8.8%
    Feel Safe (N = 361)True Negative 95.8%False Negative 91.2%
    • * May not add to 399 because of missing data. Sensitivity, 8.8%; specificity, 95.8%; likelihood ratio, 3.4.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Sensitivity and Specificity Results for ‘Do You Feel Safe at Home?’ Compared with Results from the Modified CTS for Physical Violence with or without Psychological Violence (N = 399) *

    −CTS (N = 342)+CTS (N = 40)
    Feel Unsafe (N = 24)False Positive 5.3%True Positive 15%
    Feel Safe (N = 358)True Negative 94.7%False Negative 85%
    • * May not add to 399 due to missing data. Sensitivity, 15%; specificity, 94.7%; likelihood ratio, 4.4.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Sensitivity and Specificity Results for ‘Do You Feel Safe at Home?’ Compared with Results from the Modified CTS for Psychological Violence with or without Physical Violence (N = 399)*

    −CTS (N = 218)+CTS (N = 169)
    Feel Unsafe (N = 24)False Positive 4.1%True Positive 8.9%
    Feel Safe (N = 363)True Negative 95.9%False Negative 91.1%
    • * May not add to 399 due to missing data. Sensitivity, 8.9%; specificity, 95.9%; likelihood ratio, 3.7.

    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Logistic Model Predicting Physical Violence with or without Psychological Violence*

    BSEOdds95% CI
    Intercept†−1.800.58
    White§−1.260.460.280.12–0.69
    Other−1.390.840.250.05–1.30
    Some college0.010.421.010.44–2.32
    College or more−0.570.820.570.11–2.84
    Drink 1–3−0.460.440.630.27–1.48
    Drink ≥40.820.522.270.82–6.25
    Married†−1.140.530.320.11–0.91
    Children living at home0.530.471.710.68–4.30
    Depression†1.14.413.141.40–7.05
    • CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error

    • * L2 = 37.2; df = 8; p < .00.

    • § p < −.05.

    • † p < .00.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice: 16 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice
Vol. 16, Issue 6
1 Nov 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in a Primary Care Setting: The Validity of “Feeling Safe at Home” and Prevalence Results
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in a Primary Care Setting: The Validity of “Feeling Safe at Home” and Prevalence Results
Robert L. Peralta, Michael F. Fleming
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2003, 16 (6) 525-532; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.16.6.525

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in a Primary Care Setting: The Validity of “Feeling Safe at Home” and Prevalence Results
Robert L. Peralta, Michael F. Fleming
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2003, 16 (6) 525-532; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.16.6.525
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: Classification Variability Across Five Methods to Distinguish Johnsons Violent Relationship Types
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • How Much Time Do Patients with Diabetes Spend on Self-Care?
  • Screening for Bipolar Disorder in Patients Treated for Depression in a Family Medicine Clinic
  • Screening for Dementia: Family Caregiver Questionnaires Reliably Predict Dementia
Show more Original Articles

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire