Development of a Brief Screening Tool for Technology Facilitated Abuse for Use In Community-Based IPV Service Settings

Background and Purpose

Technology‑facilitated abuse (TFA) includes the use of digital technologies to monitor, harass, threaten, or coercively control, and has become a routine yet under-identified component of intimate partner violence (IPV). While research and advocacy have documented the commonality and harms of TFA, community‑based IPV service agencies lack brief, psychometrically and research informed screening tools that are feasible for universal use during intake and early assessment. Existing measures are often lengthy, technology‑specific, or embedded within broader IPV instruments, limiting their applicability in high‑volume, trauma‑informed service settings. The purpose of this project was to develop a concise screening tool which is usable in community based IPV services to identify TFA across diverse technologies and relationship contexts, with the longer‑term goal of supporting systematic assessment, safety planning, and future measurement validation.

Methods

This measurement development project was guided by principles of community‑based participatory research and conducted in partnership with a large, community‑based IPV agency serving over 1,000 survivors annually. Instrument development drew on multiple qualitative data sources collected over two years, including semi‑structured interviews with survivors and frontline staff (n = 24) and analytic memos derived from community‑engaged interactions with more than 100 additional survivors receiving services. Data were thematically analyzed to identify (a) common TFA tactics experienced by survivors, (b) language survivors used to describe harm and technology use, and (c) practice‑based constraints and priorities shaping intake and screening processes.

Results

Qualitative findings highlighted that survivors frequently experienced TFA as overlapping, evolving patterns of harm rather than discrete incidents, often extending abuse beyond physical proximity and traditional safety planning frameworks. Survivors and staff emphasized that subtle or normalized behaviors, such as monitoring framed as concern, were especially difficult to identify without direct, behaviorally specific questions. Findings informed item generation and refinement, with ongoing feedback from agency staff to ensure clarity and feasibility. The resulting tool is a brief, dichotomous (yes/no) screener designed for universal administration during intake. An example item includes: “Has the person who is harming you ever tracked your location through technology without your permission?” The screener is currently being piloted as part of routine intake at the partner agency. Items are broadly worded to capture core domains of TFA while remaining adaptable to rapidly changing technologies. Agency partners report that the brief format and non‑technical language support feasibility for universal screening and facilitates conversations about digital safety.

Conclusions and Implications

This project contributes a community‑engaged approach to early‑stage measurement development for TFA within IPV service settings. By centering survivor experiences and frontline practice realities, the resulting screener prioritizes content relevance, feasibility, and trauma‑informed use. Ongoing pilot implementation will inform subsequent steps in validation and refinement. Findings underscore the need for IPV‑specific measurement tools that explicitly address technology‑mediated harm and demonstrate how community‑academic partnerships can advance instrument development that is both methodologically grounded and directly usable in social work practice.