Findings
To see if the IPAS is a more accurate diagnostic tool for IPV than the commonly used CTS2, individuals over age 18 were given an anonymous survey in which they were randomly assigned to receive either the IPAS or the CTS2.
Since participants were randomly assigned to each condition, we can assume that any effects seen reflect differences in the measurement devices rather than differences in the samples.
Responses were compared across survey device conditions to determine if there were any significant differences.
There were several noteworthy findings:
The IPAS found a higher prevalence rate of psychological abuse than the CTS2.
This means that a larger proportion of subjects who took the IPAS were found to have experienced psychological abuse in their relationships than subjects who took the CTS2.
The IPAS, on average, found a higher frequency of abuse among subjects who experienced abuse than the CTS2.
This means that, of subjects who reported at least one instance of abuse in their relationship, subjects who took the IPAS were found to have experienced more frequent abuse than subjects who took the CTS2.
Subjects who took the IPAS had less missing data than subjects who took the CTS2.
This means that, overall, subjects who took the IPAS answered a higher proportion of questions than subjects who took the CTS2.
Within the IPAS, on average, subjects who had greater power imbalances in their relationships experienced more frequent abuse.
This means that subjects who reported more imbalanced power between them and their partner reported more frequent abuse in their relationship, through victimization and perpetration.
Now, we can interpret these findings to determine if the IPAS may be a better diagnostic tool for IPV than the CTS2.