Cargando…

Development of A Japanese Version of the Family Poly-Victimization Screen (FPS-J)

This study developed a Japanese version of the Family Poly-Victimization Screen (FPS-J) and assessed its validity. A cross-sectional study using self-report questionnaires was conducted with parents of children in Tokyo, Japan, from January to February 2022. To test the validity of the FPS-J, we use...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kita, Sachiko, Baba, Kaori, Iwasaki-Motegi, Riho, Kishi, Emiko, Kamibeppu, Kiyoko, Malmedal, Wenche Karin, Chan, Ko Ling
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9965200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36833835
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043142
Descripción
Sumario:This study developed a Japanese version of the Family Poly-Victimization Screen (FPS-J) and assessed its validity. A cross-sectional study using self-report questionnaires was conducted with parents of children in Tokyo, Japan, from January to February 2022. To test the validity of the FPS-J, we used the Japanese versions of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale Short Form (J-CTS2SF) as the gold standard for intimate partner violence (IPV), the Conflict Tactics Scale Parent-Child (J-CTS-PC) for child abuse (CAN), the Conflict Tactics Scale (J-MCTS) for elder abuse, the K6-J for depression and anxiety, the PCL5-J for post-traumatic stress disorder, and the J-KIDSCREEN for Health-related Quality of Life among children. Data from 483 participants (response rate: 22.6%) were used. The J-CTS2SF and J-CTS-PC scores were significantly higher among the IPV/CAN-victim groups than in the non-victimized groups classified by the FPS-J (p < 0.001). The JMCTS scores did not differ significantly between the victim and non-victim groups (p = 0.44), but the PCL5-J, K6-J, and J-KIDSCREEN-10 scores were either significantly higher or lower among victims of violence than among the non-victim groups (p < 0.05). This study suggests the validity of parts of the FPS-J, especially the IPV against respondents and CAN by respondents.