"High sensitivity and specificity screening for clinically significant intimate partner violence": Correction.

Reports an error in "High sensitivity and specificity screening for clinically significant intimate partner violence" by Richard E. Heyman, Katherine J. W. Baucom, Shu Xu, Amy M. Smith Slep, Jeffery D. Snarr, Heather M. Foran, Michael F. Lorber, Alexandra K. Wojda and David J. Linkh (, 2021[Feb], Vol 35[1], 80-91). In the article, the affiliation of Heather M. Foran was incorrectly listed as "Family Translational Research Group, New York University." Her correct affiliation is "Institute for Psychology, University of Klagenfurt, and Institute for Psychology, University of Braunschweig." In addition, there were two errors in Table 3 whereby the last row of column 1 should have been labeled "Any of the two items" rather than "Both items," and the final subheading should have read "Female → Male psychological CS-IPV (Male report) rather than "Male → Female psychological CS-IPV (Male report)." Finally, in the Supplemental Material, the second item of the "Screener for Clinically Significant IPV-Psychological" questionnaire should have been deleted. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-51524-001). The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that clinicians screen patients for intimate partner violence (IPV). This article aims to develop and test the first screeners for clinically significant physical and psychological IPV (i.e., acts meeting criteria in the International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.; ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019) and the (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The goal was to derive screeners that (1) are maximally brief, while still achieving high sensitivity and specificity; (2) assess perpetration and victimization when either men or women are reporting; and (3) use ICD-11/ criteria as the reference standard. Random samples of active duty service members at 82 installations worldwide were obtained via e-mail invitation (2006: = 54,543; 2008: = 48,909); their response rates were excellent for long general population surveys with no payment (2006: 44.7%, 2008: 49.0%). The population of spouses at the participating installation was invited by mailed postcard (2006: = 19,722; 2008: = 12,127; response rates-2006: 12.3%, 2008: 10.8%). Clinically significant physical intimate partner violence can be effectively screened with as few as four items, with sensitivities > 90% and specificities > 95%; clinically significant psychological intimate partner violence can be screened with two items. Men and women can be screened with equivalent accuracy, as can those committing the violence and those victimized by it. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).