Which statement about widely used IPV risk tools is true?

Which statement about widely used IPV risk tools is true?

• A. Danger Assessment (DA) assesses lethality risk.
• B. HITS is a brief screening tool.
• C. CTS2 assesses frequency and severity of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression.
• D. All three tools assess only financial abuse.

Answer: (C)

The statement about CTS2 is correct because this tool is built to measure how often different kinds of aggression occur and how severe they are across physical, sexual, and psychological domains. In practice, CTS2 goes beyond simply noting that abuse happened; it quantifies frequency and harm for each type, with subscales that capture the range of aggressive behaviors in a relationship. In contrast, the Danger Assessment focuses on lethality risk factors—those factors that might indicate a higher likelihood of deadly violence—so it isn’t about counting or comparing frequencies of ongoing aggression. HITS serves as a brief screening instrument to flag potential IPV in clinical settings, but it doesn’t provide the detailed frequency/severity profiling across multiple abuse categories that CTS2 offers. And the idea that all three tools assess only financial abuse is incorrect, since each tool targets different aspects of violence beyond finances. So, CTS2’s design to assess both frequency and severity of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression makes it the true statement here.

The statement about CTS2 is correct because this tool is built to measure how often different kinds of aggression occur and how severe they are across physical, sexual, and psychological domains. In practice, CTS2 goes beyond simply noting that abuse happened; it quantifies frequency and harm for each type, with subscales that capture the range of aggressive behaviors in a relationship.

In contrast, the Danger Assessment focuses on lethality risk factors—those factors that might indicate a higher likelihood of deadly violence—so it isn’t about counting or comparing frequencies of ongoing aggression. HITS serves as a brief screening instrument to flag potential IPV in clinical settings, but it doesn’t provide the detailed frequency/severity profiling across multiple abuse categories that CTS2 offers. And the idea that all three tools assess only financial abuse is incorrect, since each tool targets different aspects of violence beyond finances.

So, CTS2’s design to assess both frequency and severity of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression makes it the true statement here.