Assessing the Impact of the IRC Program for Survivors of Gender Based 
Violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. 
Final Report. 
Conducted with support from VTF/USAID 
by 
International Rescue Committee 
Democratic Republic of Congo 
and 
The Applied Mental Health Research Group 
Johns Hopkins and Boston Universities 
Author
Paul Bolton 
Version: October, 2009 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 1 
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................3 
1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................3 
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................3 
2. Background................................................................................................................3 
2.1 IRC Gender-Based Violence Programming in DRC ...........................................3 
2.2 IRC’s Gender-Based Violence Program in eastern DRC: 2002-7.......................4 
3. Early Project Activities (Summary of Previous Reports)..........................................4 
3.1. Qualitative Study ................................................................................................4 
3.2. Program Design ..................................................................................................5 
3.3. Instrument Design...............................................................................................5 
3.4 Instrument Testing and Interviewer Training ......................................................6 
4. Later Project Activities (not previously reported) .....................................................7 
4.1 Implementation of Client Assessments at Baseline and Follow-Up....................7 
4.1.1 Baseline Assessments...................................................................................7 
4.1.2 Follow-Up Assessments ...............................................................................8 
5. Results........................................................................................................................8 
5.1 Baseline interview results....................................................................................8 
5.2. Results of Follow-Up Assessments ....................................................................9 
6. Limitations in this project and in interpreting the data ............................................10 
7. Conclusions Based on the Results Data...................................................................11 
8. Recommendations/Next Steps.................................................................................11 
Appendix A: Quantitative Instrument..........................................................................14 
Appendix B: Results Tables.........................................................................................24 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 2 
1. Introduction 
1.1 Overview
This is a final report of a multi-year collaboration between the International Rescue 
Committee (IRC) and the Applied Mental Health Research Group (AMHR) at Johns 
Hopkins University (JHU) and Boston University (BU). This collaborative project 
involved implementation of an integrated approach to program Design, 
Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) developed by JHU to serve 
program data needs and thereby inform program improvements. The DIME approach 
was applied to a pre-existing IRC program serving female survivors of gender-based 
violence (GBV) in South Kivu, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The 
project was supported by the Victims of Torture Fund (VTF) through a subcontract 
with Boston University. Project activities were conducted between November 2005 
and July 2009. 
This report refers to the entire project. However, early project activities which are 
described in more detail in previous reports (referenced in the text) are described only 
briefly. The main foci of this report are the activities not previously reported on: the 
pre and post intervention assessment of program participants. 
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this collaboration were developed during an initial site visit to DRC 
in December of 2005 between IRC, USAID and JHU/BU faculty. They are: 
1. Assist IRC and local partners in identifying the major psychosocial 
problems of populations in Eastern DRC, and in understanding local 
conceptions of normal functioning in order to inform IRC programs. 
 2. Assist IRC and local partners to use this information to design, monitor, 
and evaluate the impact of programs to address these issues. 
2. Background1
2.1 IRC Gender-Based Violence Programming in DRC
Women and girls have been adversely affected by the protracted conflict in eastern 
DRC from the mid-1990s to the present. Armed parties have targeted them for acts of 
sexual violence, the extent and brutality of which have gained the region a reputation 
as one of the cruelest conflict zones for women and girls in recent history. Even when 
the general political situation has shown signs of improvement in eastern DRC, 
women and girls have continued to be disproportionately exposed to, and affected by, 
conflict and violence. 
 
1
 Much of the information in this section is adapted from a previous report: ‘Field-Based Testing of 
Tools to Assess Function Impairment and Psychosocial Problems among GBV Survivors in South 
Kivu, Eastern DRC’ available at the USAID DEC website at http://dec.usaid.gov/). 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 3 
In addition to continuing attacks (including abduction and sexual slavery) other forms 
of violence against women and girls are becoming more common in eastern DRC, in 
both the public and private spheres. These include sexual violence within families and 
between community members (reportedly affecting younger and younger girls), 
domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and prostitution. 
2.2 IRC’s Gender-Based Violence Program in eastern DRC: 2002-7.
Since 2002, IRC has responded to the escalating problem of sexual violence in eastern 
DRC by building the capacity of, and providing essential resources to, existing non￾governmental organizations and community-based organizations at the grassroots 
level. The IRC works with these partner organizations to provide essential holistic 
services to survivors of sexual violence and other forms of gender-based violence 
(GBV) and to improve the general protection of women and girls.
In 2007, when IRC and JHU first began to conduct baseline assessments of IRC GBV 
program participants, that program consisted of: 
• Providing technical, material, and financial support to service providers who 
in turn provided specialized health, psychosocial, and legal services to 
survivors of sexual violence and torture; 
• Supporting grassroots women’s projects geared towards the psychosocial 
support, integration, and empowerment of survivors of sexual violence by 
increasing educational, socio-economic, and leadership opportunities for 
women and girls, and encouraging community mechanisms for psychosocial 
support; 
• Strengthening inter-agency mechanisms to develop more comprehensive and 
effective service delivery and referral systems that respond to the security and 
protection needs of women and girls; 
• Advocacy with Congolese ministries and institutions, United Nations (UN) 
agencies and international NGOs; internationally, through channels such as 
the IRC’s advocacy department in Washington, D.C.; the Women’s 
Commission for Refugee Women and Children; and contributions to 
international news media on the topic of violence against women and girls in 
the DRC. 
3. Early Project Activities (Summary of Previous Reports) 
3.1. Qualitative Study2
 
2
 ‘Qualitative Study to Identify Indicators of Psychosocial Problems and Functional Impairment among 
Residents of Sange District, South Kivu, Eastern DRC.’ Available at the USAID DEC website at 
http://dec.usaid.gov/. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 4 
Activities addressing the first objective (see Objectives) were the focus of a previous 
report which described a qualitative assessment by IRC and JHU/BU in Sange 
district, south Kivu, in February, 2006. This study explored local concepts of 
psychosocial problems related to GBV, and of functioning. The major mental health 
and psychosocial problems described dealt with ongoing fear, mood disorders and 
anxiety, stigma and rejection, However, the study was interrupted by a forced 
evacuation due to security problems, forcing the truncation of the data collection 
activities and their completion by IRC staff without supervision by the JHU faculty. 
Therefore, the data were more limited in scope and reliability than would normally be 
the case. 
3.2. Program Design
To realize the design element of objective 2, JHU/BU provided IRC and local partner 
staff with onsite training in an expanded version of the standard program logframe 
including how to use qualitative and other data to inform program design. IRC later 
used this approach to revise their GBV program design using the qualitative data, as 
well as laying out plans for program monitoring and evaluation. 
3.3. Instrument Design
To realize the monitoring and evaluation element of objective 2, data from the 
qualitative study were used to draft an instrument to assess both function and 
psychosocial problems from the local viewpoint. The intent was to produce an 
instrument that is locally appropriate (reflects the priority problems of survivors using 
their own descriptive language) while also reflecting those issues that were already 
being addressed by the GBV program. Because there are many languages used in 
South Kivu, it was decided to produce the instrument in Swahili, which is a common 
second language in the area and therefore the most widely spoken. In collaboration 
with external IRC staff, JHU/BU faculty drafted the first version of the instrument. 
This was then reviewed by local IRC staff as well as GBV counselors and their 
supervisors from local partners who worked with GBV survivors. Based on this 
feedback, the instrument went through a series of modifications. These continued 
until local and external IRC GBV staff, the counselors and supervisors from the local 
partners, and the JHU/BU faculty agreed that the resulting draft instrument reflected 
important problems and areas of functioning that are consistent with both the 
qualitative data and the current (2007) GBV program objectives. 
The problems that met these criteria and were included in the instrument were: 
• Fear and anxiety 
• Feeling poorly treated by others 
• Feelings resulting from poor treatment – shame and stigma 
• Depression-like symptoms. 
Areas of functioning assessed by the instrument: 
• income generation 
• household tasks 
• child rearing 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 5 
• Socializing/working/interacting with others. 
• Learning new things 
• Thinking. 
3.4 Instrument Testing and Interviewer Training3
JHU/BU faculty then traveled to DRC to conduct pilot testing of the draft instrument. 
Normally validity and reliability testing would also have been done at this time, 
however there was concern by IRC that the situation in DRC with respect to logistics, 
security, travel, and the capacity of local partners was more difficult than in other sites 
and therefore that reliability and validity testing were not feasible at that time. 
As part of the pilot testing, JHU/BU faculty trained 10 staff of IRC local partner 
organizations in the instrument and how to conduct interviews. Training included the 
use of a nonverbal response card: a series of drawings that represent the response 
categories to the function section of the instrument. Its purpose is to assist 
interviewees (particularly illiterate respondents) to select a response category to each 
function question. Interviewers also reviewed the instrument to ensure the use of 
words and phrases that were most likely to be understandable to local women of 
limited education. 
The pilot study was conducted in Katana and Kabimba districts (1.5 hours travel north 
of Bukavu) among 60 GBV survivors who had already received services by one of 
IRC’s local partners. Most interviewees reported feeling positive about the interview 
process and none reported disliking it. Many interviewees reported being pleased at 
being asked questions which referred to issues important to them but which no-one 
(or few people) had asked them before. This included some of the function questions, 
such as pounding cassava, cultivation, and attending church. Others appreciated being 
asked about the psychosocial problems, including being rejected, badly treated, 
suicide, thinking about what happened to them in the past, and feeling shame. When 
asked which questions were difficult to answer, some respondents referred to the 
function questions asking about difficulty in raising animals, trade and caring for 
children. In each case, the problem was that these were not activities for which the 
respondent was responsible. Despite concerns prior to the study, only 2 respondents 
became temporarily upset during the interview as a result of the interview process. 
The main purpose of the pilot study analysis was to determine if the instrument was 
suitable for assessing problems affecting GBV survivors – both baseline assessments 
and change over time. For most questions in the pilot instrument, the mean severity 
scores were high enough to suggest that the issue being assessed (either symptoms or 
function) was a significant problem for the study sample. Since function questions 
refer to specific tasks there is an expectation that some respondents will not be able to 
answer some function questions if the question refers to activities that they do not do. 
However, for two function questions - trading/making money and raising animals – 
 
3 Field-Based Testing of Tools to Assess Function Impairment and Psychosocial Problems among 
GBV Survivors in South Kivu, Eastern DRC. Available at the USAID DEC website at 
http://dec.usaid.gov/. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 6 
the number unable to answer was large enough that these questions were considered 
not sufficiently relevant and were therefore removed from the instrument. 
The final versions of the instrument and the non-verbal response card are included in 
Appendix A. The instrument includes sundry demographic and personal information 
and two main sections assessing dysfunction and psychosocial problems. The section 
on dysfunction consists of a series of questions about level of difficulty in performing 
tasks important for women in eastern DRC, as reported by respondents in the 
qualitative study. These tasks refer to care of family and contributing to the 
community, and to mental and physical activities and relationships with others. The 
section on symptoms consists of questions about the severity of problems of mood, 
fear and anxiety, remembrance of violent experiences, stigma and rejection by others, 
social withdrawal, and thoughts of harming oneself. 
During and after the pilot study, JHU/BU faculty set up a database using the Centers 
for Disease Control’s Epi-Info software program for recording interview data. A local 
IRC staff was trained in its use, including data entry and cleaning and simple data 
analysis. 
4. Later Project Activities (not previously reported) 
4.1 Implementation of Client Assessments at Baseline and Follow-Up
4.1.1 Baseline Assessments 
After JHU/BU faculty completed the pilot study, including finalizing the instrument 
and interviewing materials and setting up the database, IRC staff began to implement 
the instrument as part of the recruitment process for women entering the GBV 
program. Those trained in the instrument during the pilot study continued to use it in 
their recruitments, while IRC staff using the JHU/BU training materials from that 
study to train new counselors among their local partner organizations. 
Between the pilot study in October 2007 and the project wrap up visit in April 2009, 
IRC staff conducted interviews of new GBV program clients at baseline, repeated 
these interviews weeks to months later, and again after completion of the program. 
Because of delays in training there was a wide variation in the timing of the second 
interview – anywhere from weeks to months. Because of access issues related to 
security and program dropouts only about two thirds of those interviewed at baseline 
were interviewed a second time and less than one third were interviewed a third time. 
As new interviewers were trained and the resulting data were entered into the 
database, it became clear that many interviewers were having difficulty in conducting 
the interviews and recording the data accurately. Data were often missing from the 
interview records, including demographic information. The dates attached to many 
interviews were clearly incorrect and some second interviews were dated prior to the 
third or even the first interview. There were also problems in having the interviewers 
generate unique codes for each interviewee, based on a standard system developed by 
the JHU/BU faculty. Some interviewers clearly did not understand the system while 
others continued to use pre-existing program coding systems for new clients, which 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 7 
resulted in confusion and some clients getting several codes or the same client getting 
a new code for each interview. Ongoing efforts to resolve these problems in the field 
came to a halt when the only IRC staff trained in the data management and primarily 
responsible for the interviews was tragically killed. It took some time to hire a 
suitable replacement who then had to function without direct training until the return 
of PB in April 2009. 
4.1.2 Follow-Up Assessments 
Between the early baseline interviews conducted soon after the pilot study and the 
completion of this assessment in April 2009, the nature of the IRC GBV program 
underwent extensive changes. At the time of the pilot study the project had up to 12 
local partner organizations providing a variety of economic and/or psychosocial 
interventions according to the partner’s skills and resources. By the end of the 
program this had been reduced to 4 local partners who focused on psychosocial 
interventions and who had received training in a standard protocol by IRC. While the 
changes in the GBV program were well justified and appropriate, the result was also 
that the nature of the program being assessed was fundamentally changing during the 
assessment. The variety of interventions at the beginning of the assessment period, 
and the program changes during the assessment, make it difficult to determine what it 
was that the assessment was assessing. 
In addition, the lack of a control or comparison group prevent any firm conclusions 
about what, if any, changes in the program clients were due to the intervention. While 
controlled studies are difficult to conduct in insecure and unstable environments like 
eastern DRC, it is exactly in these types of environments that such studies are most 
needed. Changes in the environment affect symptoms and functioning and when such 
changes occur only the presence of a control group can allow determination of what 
differences in pre and post intervention interviews are due to the intervention and 
which are due to the environmental factors. 
5. Results 
Despite these problems, IRC staff and partners have conducted approximately 300 
first interviews. There is uncertainty about the exact number because some interviews 
that appear to be first interviews are marked as being second interviews. Because of 
this uncertainty clients with second interviews but no first interview and those with a 
third interview but no second interview have been removed from the database. This 
has left 240 useable baseline interviews available for analysis over the lifetime of the 
project, although many of these interviews continue to have missing data. Of these 
240 interviewees, 200 had a second interview and 66 had a third interview. The 
results reported throughout the remainder of this report refer to these 240 first 
interviews, 200 second interviews and 66 third interviews. 
Table 1 (Appendix B) shows the mean value of the responses to each task and 
symptom question at first, second and third interview.
5.1 Baseline interview results
Summary of the first (ie, baseline) interview results in Table 1: 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 8 
• The mean age of the interviewees at baseline (first interview) was 35 years 
and ranged from 11-70. 
• Function data show high levels of difficulty for most items. The mean values 
on most items are much higher than JHU/BU faculty have seen for similar 
items among other trauma-affected populations recruited into interventions, 
including others in sub-Saharan Africa. 
• There is no clear pattern regarding which types of tasks are most difficult, 
although the data does suggest a tendency to greater difficulty with the more 
physically demanding tasks including child care compared with mental and 
social functioning. 
• The data does not describe the causes of these difficulties. However, in a 
challenging environment like DRC dysfunction is likely to be due to a 
combination of factors including lack of resources, physical and mental 
problems, and community attitudes. The relative contribution of the effects of 
GBV is uncertain since we have no data for women who have not been 
subjected to GBV. While it is highly likely that these women have higher 
levels of dysfunction and symptom severity compared with other women in 
the same communities, we have no idea how much higher these levels are 
• Symptom severity also tends to be high for most symptoms. As with the 
function data, the mean scores on symptoms questions are substantially higher 
than among other populations we have previously assessed, including those 
affected by trauma and/or those elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Scores at 
baseline tend to be highest for symptoms related to anxiety and fear and 
lowest for symptoms referring to how the person is treated by others. 
• Overall the baseline interview data indicate a group of women struggling with 
high levels of dysfunction and troubling symptoms, particularly fear and 
anxiety. 
5.2. Results of Follow-Up Assessments
These are shown in Table 1 by comparing the mean scores for each question at first 
interview with the scores on the same question at second and third interview. To 
summarize the overall changes in function and symptoms, a total function score was 
calculated for each client by summing all their responses on the function items.4
Similarly, a total symptom score was also generated in the same way. Changes in 
these scores (including percentage changes) are included at the bottom of Table 1. 
Summary of the second and third interview results in Table 1: 
 
4
 Where clients did not respond to a function item the missing data was replaced with the 
mean of their responses on the other function items. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 9 
• Most clients show a reduction near one full point at second interview 
compared with first interview on most tasks or activities, and near half a point 
at third interview. Both represent substantial improvements. 
• Results for the summary scores of function and symptom severity also show 
large sustained improvements in both between first and second interviews and 
between second and third interviews. 
Table 2 in Appendix B shows the correlation between the number of days between 
interviews and the amount of change in overall function and symptom severity scores. 
A. There is a substantial and highly significant correlation between the number of 
days between first and second interview and the magnitude of improvement in 
both function and symptom severity. Since the second interview occurred 
while the clients were still receiving the intervention this means that duration 
of the intervention is associated with amount of change. There are three 
possible explanations for this association: 
o The change is due to the intervention. 
o The change is duration to the passage of time. 
o Some combination of the two. 
B. While there is a substantial change between second and third interviews on 
both function and symptom severity, there was no significant correlation 
between amount of change and the length of time between first and third and 
second and third interviews. Since the third interview took place at varying 
times after the intervention was completed, this suggests that change is related 
to the intervention and not to the passage of time. 
Without a comparison group it is not possible to say for certain what the role of 
the intervention is (if any) in causing the observed improvements. However, point 
B above is suggestive that the intervention plays a significant role. Therefore it 
seems likely that the GBV program activities between 2007-9 resulted in 
improvements in client symptoms and function. 
6. Limitations in this project and in interpreting the data 
1. Without a control group it is uncertain whether the substantial changes in 
symptoms and function were due to the program or to other factors. In an 
unstable and changing environment like DRC it is possible that other factors in 
the lives of these women changed during the study and that these changes may 
have affected their mental health. 
2. The accuracy of the study instrument was never established. Therefore, the 
extent to which the interviews provide a true measure of the level of 
symptomatology and dysfunction is unknown. 
3. The quality of the interviewer training and interviewing were not monitored. 
Subsequent misunderstandings and difficulties of some interviewers in 
assigning unique ID numbers, recording dates and the number of the interview 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 10 
(1st, 2nd, or 3rd) suggest that there are significant problems in the abilities of the 
interviewers. 
4. There may be a bias in that those who are likely to improve were also more 
likely to be available for re-interview. Those who did not improve are more 
likely to have dropped out of the program and/or be uninterested in having a 
repeat interview. 
5. Since the interviews were done by the same persons who provided the 
intervention, there may have been a desire on the part of the clients to report 
improvements in order to please the counselor. 
6. The nature of the intervention varied according to the perceived needs of the 
client, and include a variety of activities such as counseling and medical 
referrals. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which parts of the program 
were responsible for the changes. 
7. Conclusions Based on the Results Data 
Despite the above limitations, the following conclusions can be made: 
1. Those women who were recruited into the program reported high levels of 
symptomatology and dysfunction prior to receiving the interventions. These 
levels are higher than those for other trauma-affected populations we have 
assessed in other low resource environments. 
2. As a group those women who underwent the IRC program and were 
reinterviewed reported large improvements in most symptoms and tasks, and 
in overall symptomatology and function. 
3. These improvements are likely due in part to a combination of factors such as 
the passage of time, other changes in the environment during the study that 
might affect mental health, bias in terms of who was re-interviewed, and a 
desire to please the interviewer. However, magnitude of the changes, and the 
lack of association with time between interviews two and three, suggest that 
the program itself had a significant impact. 
4. Therefore, while the IRC program was diverse in terms of its elements and 
who received them, the evidence from this study suggests that a service 
program can improve the mental health and functioning of women affected by 
GBV. 
8. Recommendations/Next Steps 
1.IRC and local partners should continue to use the instrument in their assessments of 
GBV program clients. 
Currently the instrument is administered at baseline, during the intervention, and after 
discharge. In order to better assess the ongoing impact of the program this should be 
changed to assessment at baseline, upon discharge, and at least 6 month after 
discharge. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 11 
While continuing to use the current instrument, IRC and partners should also improve 
upon the current version in the following ways: 
2. Expand on the original qualitative study done by IRC and JHU in eastern DRC. 
IRC and local partners should repeat the initial qualitative study in multiple sites. 
These sites should be chosen to represent the variation in culture and circumstances 
throughout the area of operations of the GBV program. The initial study was 
conducted in one site only and was curtailed due to a security-related evacuation that 
occurred during the data collection. Repetition of the study at other sites will 
determine the robustness of the initial findings as well as informing how 
generalizeable the findings are to other GBV affected populations in eastern DRC. 
3. Revise and test the assessment instrument. 
The content of the current assessment instrument should be reviewed, based on a re￾examination of the original qualitative study findings and the additional qualitative 
studies suggested above. The current version of the instrument was deliberately made 
brief due to concerns about the time it would take to conduct the interviews and 
therefore the burden on GBV survivors and interviewers. However, brevity was 
achieved by excluding some significant psychosocial problems from the original 
instrument. Meanwhile, counselors who conduct the interventions have expressed 
interest in expanding the range of issues assessed by the instrument. 
The revised instrument should undergo reliability and validity testing. These were not 
done with the original instrument, due to IRC concerns regarding the resources this 
would require. Without such testing the accuracy of the instrument remains unknown. 
While this is common for instruments used in low resource environments, IRC and 
partners should not accept this state of affairs but instead should take the initiative to 
improve program monitoring and evaluation. 
4.Repeat and Expand Training on Instrument Use. 
Training on the correct use of the instrument has clearly been inadequate, based on 
the many problems with the completed instruments. Basic skills, such as generation of 
unique ID numbers, recording of dates, recording of the number of the interview (1st
, 
2nd, or 3rd) are lacking and there is clearly misunderstanding of other issues such as 
when the interviews should be done. Most likely the problems are not associated with 
the original didactic instruction provided by IRC but with a failure to follow up this 
training with supervision including practice, review, and constant monitoring and 
feedback to the interviewers. Therefore, training of all persons currently using the 
instrument should be repeated, with a focus on the problems that have become 
evident, and this should be combined with supervised practice followed by ongoing 
field based supervision and the counselors use the instrument. 
Currently counselors receive little supervision with respect to their interviewing. One 
member of the IRC staff is responsible for the training, supervision and data recording 
and analysis. But this staff has little time and opportunity to meet with the 
interviewers regularly. Also, this staff does not have the training to effectively 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 12 
anticipate, recognize and deal with the issues that the interviewers are facing or are 
likely to face. 
5.Expand training of IRC supervision/data staff. 
IRC staff responsible for supervision of interviewers and data management should 
receive further training in both activities. This should include further direct training as 
well as ongoing distance supervision by JHU faculty or other persons experienced in 
these activities. 
6.Standardize mental health treatment around proven intervention for the major 
problems affecting the women. 
Counselors currently working with GBV survivors have expressed the desire for 
further training to deal with specific mental health and psychosocial problems. This is 
consistent with the literature and experience in other populations which suggest that 
specific mental health interventions are usually required to produce long term 
reduction in symptoms and improvement in function. In discussions over the last year 
IRC and JHU has discussed possible specific interventions to address the major 
problems identified in the qualitative study and by the counselors. Counselors should 
receive training and supervision in whichever intervention(s) are considered most 
likely to be feasible and effective in eastern DRC, followed by implementation of this 
intervention(s) under supervision. 
7.Conduct a controlled trial of this intervention. 
Implementation of the specific intervention in #6 (above) and of the overall GBV 
program should be done in the form of a controlled trial to determine the true impact 
of the program and its activities. This is the only way to make progress in developing 
programs that are feasible and effective for GBV, both in eastern DRC and elsewhere. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 13 
Appendix A: Quantitative Instrument 
Draft ya Kiswahili kuhusu alama za kisaikolojia kwa muradi GBV wa IRC katika 
jamuhuri ya Kidemokrasiya ya Congo (Imetokana na Utafiti uliyo fanyika na 
BU/IRC) 
Draft de la Version Française des Indicateurs Psychosociaux pour le Programme GBV de l’IRC en 
RDC (Produit de l’enquête qualitative BU/IRC) 
Draft English Version of Psychosocial Indicators for IRC DRC GBV Program (Generated from the 
BU/IRC qualitative survey) 
Kipindi A-Kutambuwa alama kamili za kufanya kazi
Section A-Evaluation de la Fonctionnalité
Section A-Assessment of Function
Nitasoma mapashwa mbalimbali na kazi za wanawake ambazo wengine wanawake 
walituambia ni za lazima kwao na wanazoweya kuzifanya. 
Nita kuuliza shida ao magumu gani unapata kwa kila mapashwa ao kazi. 
Utaniambiya kama hauna shida ao magumu, una shida ao magumu kidogo sana, 
una shida ao magumu kwa kadiri, una shida ao magumu zaidi wala una shida ao 
magumu sana ao hauwezi hata fanya hiyo kazi. 
Je vais vous lire une liste de tâches et activités. Ce sont des tâches et activités que les autres femmes 
dans ce milieu nous ont dit sont importantes à savoir faire pour les femmes. Pour chacune des tâches 
ou activités, je vais vous demander le niveau de difficulté que vous rencontrez. Vous me direz si vous 
n’avez aucune difficulté, un peu de difficulté, un niveau moyen de difficulté, beaucoup de difficulté ou 
si souvent vous ne pouvez pas faire cette tâche. 
I am going to read a list of tasks and activities. These are tasks and activities that other women around 
here told us were important for women to be able to do. For each task or activity, I am going to ask 
you how much more difficulty you are having. You should tell me whether you are having no difficulty, 
a little difficulty, a moderate amount of difficulty, a lot of difficulty, or you often cannot do that task. 
Kusudi ya kuelewa mbio, nina picha mbalimbali zinaonyesha shida ao magumu 
tafauti. Onyesha mtu anaye jibu picha inayo tambulisha ngazi za shida. Chota kila 
picha kidole wakati unapoyifasiriya. 
Comme aide mémoire, j’ai ici avec moi une carte contenant des images. Chaque image représente un 
différent niveau de difficulté. Montrez à la personne qui répond la carte qui représente les niveaux de 
difficulté. Indiquer du doigt chaque image au fur et à mesure que vous la décrivez. 
To make it easier to understand, I have a card here with pictures. Each picture represents a different 
amount of difficulty. Show the respondent the card illustrating levels of difficulty. Point to each picture 
as you describe it. 
Picha ya kwanza inaonyesha mtu ambaye hana shida ao magumu. Picha ya pili 
inaonyesha mtu ambaye ana shida ao magumu kidogo sana. Picha ya tatu 
inaonyesha mtu ambaye ana shida ao magumu kwa kadiri. Picha ya ine 
inaonyesha mtu ambaye ana shida ao magumu zaidi, na picha ya mwisho 
inaonyesha mtu ambaye ana shida ao magumu zaidi hata anashindwa kufanya 
ile kazi. Kwa kila kazi ao mapashwa, nitakuomba ushote kidole picha ambayo 
inaonyesha shida ao magumu unayo kwa kufanya mapashwa ao kazi hiyo. 
La première image montre quelqu’un qui n’a aucune difficulté. La deuxième montre quelqu’un avec 
très peu de difficulté. La troisième montre quelqu’un qui a un niveau moyen de difficulté. La quatrième 
montre quelqu’un qui a beaucoup de difficulté et la dernière montre quelqu’un qui a tellement de 
difficulté qu’elle ne peut pas du tout exécuter la tâche. Pour chaque tâche ou activité, je vais vous 
demander de me montrer du doigt l’image qui correspond au niveau de difficulté que vous rencontrez 
lorsque vous exécutez la tâche ou activité. 
The first picture shows someone who has no difficulty. The second picture shows someone who has 
very little difficulty. The third picture shows someone who is having a moderate amount of difficulty. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 14 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment. Final Report. Page 15 
The fourth picture shows someone who is having a lot of difficulty and the last shows someone who is 
having so much difficulty they often cannot do the task. For each task or duty, I will ask you to point to 
the picture which shows how much difficulty you are having in doing that task or activity. 
Taja sasa kila kazi, na nyuma ya kila moja useme kama: Katika juma (posho) mbili 
zilizo pita haukupata shida ao magumu, ulipata shida ao magumu kidogo sana, 
ulipata shida ao magumu kwa kadiri, ulipata shida ao magumu sana wala 
ulipata shida ao magumu zaidi hata haukuweza kufanya mapashwa ao kazi 
hiyo? Ukishota kila picha kidole ukiwa unafasiriya. Weka jibu ukizunguusha 
kiviringo namba inayo ambatana mapashwa ao kazi katika kibao kifwatacho. 
Lisez maintenant chaque tâche, et après chacune, posez la question : au cours des deux semaines 
passées, avez-vous eu aucune difficulté, un peu de difficulté, un niveau moyen de difficulté, 
beaucoup de difficulté, ou tellement de difficulté que vous ne pouviez souvent pas faire la tâche?, 
tout en montrant du doigt les images au fur et à mesure. Notez la réponse en encerclant le nombre dans 
la case appropriée qui est à coté de l’activité ou de la tâche dans le tableau ci-dessous. 
Now say each task, and after each one say: In the past two weeks are you having no difficulty, a 
little difficulty, a moderate amount of difficulty, a lot of difficulty, or are having so much 
difficulty that you often cannot do the task?, pointing to each picture as you say it. Record the 
response by circling the number in the appropriate box next to the activity or task in the table below. 
Kipindi B: Draft ya Chombo cha kutambulisha alama fulani fulani 
Section B: Draft de l’outil d’évaluation des symptômes
Section B: Draft Symptom Assessment Instrument
Nitakusomea shida ao magumu fulani fulani. Kwa kila moja, nitakuuliza ni kwa 
kiasi gani ilikuuzi KATIKA JUMA(POSHO) MBILI ZILIZO PITA, ukitiya na 
leo. Nina taka kujuwa kama shida ile haiku kuzuru hata kidogo, ilikuzuru 
kidogo, ilikuzuru kwa kiasi cha kadiri ao ilikuzuru sana.( Tungeweza uliza tena ‘‘ 
ni kwa kiasi gani mambo yafuatayo yalikuwa shida kwako katika juma mbili zilizo 
pita’’): 
Je vais vous lire une liste de problèmes. Pour chacun d’eux, je vais vous demander combien ce 
problème vous a ennuyée AU COURS DES DEUX SEMAINES PASSEES, y compris aujourd’hui. Je 
voudrais savoir si le problème ne vous a pas du tout, un peu, à un niveau moyen, ou beaucoup ennuyé. 
(Autrement, nous pouvons demander: « à quel niveau chacun des points suivants vous a posée un 
problème au cours des deux semaines passées? »). 
I am going to read you a list of problems. For each one I am going to ask you how much that problem 
has bothered you IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, including today. I want to know whether the problem 
has bothered you not at all, a little, a moderate amount, or a lot. (Alternatively, we could ask: ‘How 
much has each of the following been a problem for you in the last 2 weeks). 
Sema kila shida na kisha kila moja, uulize ni mara ngapi ule mtu ali sikiya vile mu 
juma 2 zilizo pita. Rudiliya aina zinazofwatana na kila msemwa; halafu acha mtu 
anayejibu acaguwe moja. Andika jibu kwa kuzunguusha kiviringo kwa namba inayo 
amabatana na iyo alama. 
Lisez chaque point, et après chacun, demandez à la personne qui répond combien de fois elle a 
ressenti ce sentiment au cours des 2 semaines passées. Répétez les catégories après chaque point et 
laissez la personne choisir sa réponse. Notez la réponse en encerclant le chiffre dans la case 
appropriée/correspondante qui suit le symptôme. 
Say each statement, and after each one ask how often the respondent has felt like that in the last 2 
weeks. Repeat the categories after each statement and let the respondent choose one. Record the 
response by circling the number in the appropriate box next to the symptom. 
Draft ya Kutambuwa alama kamili za kufanya kazi 
Draft de l’outil d’évaluation de fonctionnalité 
Draft Functionality Assessment Instrument 
Kiasi ya shida ao magumu kwa kufanya jukumu/kazi, Niveau de difficulté 
pour exécuter la tâche/activité, amount of difficulty doing the task/activity 
Kazi/Shuruli, tâches/activités, 
tasks/activities
Hakuna,
aucune, 
none
Kidogo 
sana, 
Très peu, 
Very little
Kiasi ya 
kadiri, un 
niveau moyen, a 
moderate 
amount
Mingi, 
beaucoup, 
a lot
Hawezi 
kuifanya, 
ne peut pas le faire, 
often cannot do
Haitumiwi, 
non applicable, 
not applicable
A01 Kulima, cultiver/exploiter le champs, 
cultivating/farming 
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A02 Ucuruzi ao njia zingine za 
kuleta pesa, faire du commerce ou autres 
activités pour gagner de l ’argent, trading or 
other ways of making money
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A03 Kupiga cakula, faire la cuisine, 
cooking 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A04 Kucunga watoto, prendre soins des 
enfants, looking after children 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A05 kupana shauri kwa 
wanamemba wa jamaa kwa kuishi 
katika amani, donner des conseils aux 
membres de la famille pour vivre paisiblement 
ensemble, giving advice to family members for 
living peacefully
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A06 Kupana shauri kwa wengine 
watu wa mgini kwa kuishi na amani, 
donner des conseils aux autres membres de la 
communauté pour vivre paisiblement ensemble, 
giving advice to other community members for 
living peacefully
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A07 Kubadilisha mawazo na 
wengine, échanger des idées avec les autres , 
exchanging ideas with others 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A08 Kutwanga mihogo, piller le manioc, 
pounding cassava 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A09 kufuga wanyama, élever les 
animaux, raising animals 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A10 Kazi zingine za mikono, n’importe 
quels autres types de travail manuel, any other 
types of manual labor 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A11. Kujiunga na wengine watu wa 
mgini kufanya kazi za mgini, se réunir 
avec d’autres membres de la communauté en 
vue d’exécuter des tâches pour la communauté, 
uniting with other community members to do 
tasks for the community
0 1 2 3 4 9 
Kazi/Shuruli, tâches/activités, 
tasks/activities
Hakuna,
aucune, 
none
Kidogo 
sana, 
Très peu, 
Very little
Kiasi ya 
kadiri, un 
niveau moyen, a 
moderate 
amount
Mingi, 
beaucoup, 
a lot
Hawezi 
kuifanya, 
ne peut pas le faire, 
often cannot do
Haitumiwi, 
non applicable, 
not applicable
A12. Kujiunga na wengine 
wanamemba wa jamaa kwa kufanya 
kazi ya jamaa, se réunir avec d’autres 
membres de la famille en vue de compléter des 
tâches pour la famille, uniting with other family 
members to do tasks for the family
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A13 Kushirikiana na wengine ndani 
ya mgini, fréquenter les autres dans la 
communauté, socializing with others in the 
community.
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A14 Kuomba /kupata msaada 
kutoka watu ao shirika wakati una 
uhitaji, demander/recevoir de l’aide d’autres 
personnes ou organisations quand vous en avez 
besoin, asking/getting help from people or 
organizations when you need it
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A15 Kukamata mpango/msimamo, prendre des décisions, taking decisions 0 1 2 3 4 9 
A16 Kushiriki katika kazi ao 
mambo mengine ya jamaa, prendre part 
aux activités ou évènements de famille, taking 
part in family activities or events 
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A17 kushiriki kazi ao mambo 
mengine ya mgini, prendre part aux 
activités ou évènements communautaires, taking 
part in community activities or events
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A18. Kujifunza kazi ao mambo 
mapya, apprendre de nouvelles notions ou 
techniques, learning new skills or knowledge 
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A19. Kujikaza na kujitoa kwa kazi 
/mapashwa yako, vous concentrer sur vos 
tâches/ responsabilités, concentrating on your 
tasks/responsibilities
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A20. kushirikiana na watu wenye 
usiwowajuwa, communiquer ou faire 
connaissance avec des gens que vous ne 
connaissez pas, interacting or dealing with 
people you do not know 
0 1 2 3 4 9 
A21. kwenda kanisani ao kwenye 
muskiti sawa kawaida, aller à l’église ou 
à la mosquée comme d’habitude, attending 
church or mosque as usual
0 1 2 3 4 9 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
17
Kipindi B: Draft ya Chombo cha kutambulisha alama fulani fulani 
Section B: Draft de l’outil d’évaluation des symptômes
Section B: Draft Symptom Assessment Instrument
Shida, problèmes, problems Hata kamwe, 
pas du tout, 
not at all
Kidogo, un peu, 
a little bit
kiasi ya kadiri, 
un niveau moyen, a 
moderate amount 
Mingi, beaucoup, a lot
B01.Kupoteza hamu ya kula, 
perte d’appétit, loss of appetite 
0 1 2 3 
B02. Kukosa usingisi, insomnie, 
insomnia 
0 1 2 3 
B03. Mwenye kusikiya woga, 
avoir peur, being afraid 0 1 2 3 
B04. Kuwa na woga wa kupatwa 
na magonjwa, avoir peur de tomber 
malade, being afraid to be infected by 
diseases
0 1 2 3 
B05. Kukumbuka yenye 
ilikufikiyaka ao yenye ulionaka 
hata bila kupenda, vous rappeler de 
ce qui vous est arrivé ou vue même quand 
vous ne le voulez pas, remembering what 
happened to you or what you saw, even 
when you don’t want to 
0 1 2 3 
B06. Kusikiya sawa unateswa na 
mume, vous sentir maltraitée par le mari,
feeling badly treated by husband 
0 1 2 3 
B07.Kusikiya kuteswa na 
wengine watu wa jamaa, vous 
sentir maltraitée par les autres membres de 
la famille, feeling badly treated by other 
family members 
0 1 2 3 
B08. Kusikiya kuteswa na watu 
wa mgini, vous sentir maltraitée par les 
membres de la communauté, feeling badly 
treated by community members
0 1 2 3 
B09. Kusikiya haya, avoir honte, 
feeling shame 
0 1 2 3 
B10. Kusikiya ume tupiliwa na 
kuachiliwa na mume ao 
mchumba, vous sentir rejetée et 
delaissée par le mari ou le fiancé, feeling 
rejected by husband or fiancée 
0 1 2 3 
B11. Kusikiya kutupiliwa na 
kuachiliwa na watu wote, vous 
sentir rejetée et delaissée par tout le monde, 
feeling rejected by everybody
0 1 2 3 
B12.Kusikiya kama umeaciliwa 
na kusipoitikwa ressentir la 
stigmatisation, feeling stigma
0 1 2 3 
B13. Kuwaza sana juu ya 
mambo yaliyo kufikiya, penser trop 
à ce qui vous est arrive, thinking too much 
about what happened to you 
0 1 2 3 
B14. Kuwaza sana juu ya 
mengine mambo yenye kukuuzi, 
penser trop aux autres choses qui vous 
tourmentent, thinking too much about other 
things that upset you
0 1 2 3 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
18
Shida, problèmes, problems Hata kamwe, 
pas du tout, 
not at all
Kidogo, un peu, 
a little bit
kiasi ya kadiri, 
un niveau moyen, a 
moderate amount 
Mingi, beaucoup, a lot
B15.Kujikunja ku wepeke ao 
kukataa kushiriki na wengine,
vous replier sur vous-même ou vouloir 
vous soustraire, “withdrawing into 
yourself” (“going inside of yourself”)
0 1 2 3 
B16. Kukosa matumaini, vous 
sentir désespérée, feeling hopeless 0 1 2 3 
B17. Kuwaza juu ya kujiuwa, 
penser à vous suicider, thinking about 
killing yourself 0 1 2 3 
B18. Kujisikiya mwenye 
makosa, vous sentir coupable, feeling 
guilty 
0 1 2 3 
B19. Kuwaza juu ya kujifanyia 
vibaya, penser à vous faire du mal, thinking about hurting yourself 
0 1 2 3 
B20.Kutafuta kukimbiya watu 
wengine ao kujificha, vouloir éviter 
d’autres personnes ou se cacher, wanting to 
avoid other people or hide
0 1 2 3 
B21. Kukosa hamu ya kufanya 
kazi ao mambo yenye yalikuwa 
yakikufurahisha hapo mbele,
perte d’intérêt dans les activités ou les 
choses qui vous intéressaient autrefois, loss 
of interest in activities and things that used 
to interest you.
0 1 2 3 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
19
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
20
IRC DRC GBV Assessment Instrument: 
Nonverbal Response Card for Function*
Shida ao magumu 
Zaidi. 
Beaucoup de difficulté 
A lot of difficulty 
Shida ao magumu sana 
hata hawezi kuifanya. 
Tellement de difficulté qu’
ne peut pas le faire. 
So much, cannot do it. 
Shida ao 
magumu kwa 
kadiri 
Un niveau moyen 
de difficulté. 
A moderate 
Shida ao magumu 
kidogo sana. 
Un peu de difficulté 
Very little difficulty 
Hakuna shida ao 
magumu 
Aucune difficulté 
No difficulty 
*Adapted by IRC/Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Cong
IRC DRC GBV Assessment Instrument : 
Nonverbal Response Card (symptoms)* 
Mingi, 
beaucoup,
a lot
kiasi ya kadiri,
un niveau moyen, 
a moderate 
amount of 
difficulty. 
Kidogo, 
un peu, 
a little bit
Hata kamwe, 
pas du tout, 
not at all
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
22 *Adapted by IRC/Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
23
Appendix B: Results Tables 
Table 1: Mean Values for each variable at First, Second and Third Interview1
Task or Symptom2
Number of 
interviewees with 
valid response 
Number of 
interviewees with 
response missing 
Mean of Valid Responses 
(%change5
) 
TASK3
Cultivating.1 240 0 2.8829200 
Cultivating.2 201 39 1.9738455 
Cultivating.3 68 172 1.6176471 
Making money.1 240 0 2.9247693 
Making money.2 201 39 1.9793044 
Making money.3 68 172 1.5545151 
Cooking.1 240 0 2.2763910 
Cooking.2 201 39 1.6094527 
Cooking.3 68 172 1.2350000 
Caring for children.1 240 0 2.6390833 
Caring for children.2 201 39 1.8582090 
Caring for children.3 68 172 1.6316176 
Advising family members.1 240 0 2.3115417 
Advising family members.2 201 39 1.4539801 
Advising family members.3 68 172 .8848529 
Advising others in community.1 240 0 2.2791250 
Advising others in community.2 201 39 1.4396020 
Advising others in community.3 68 172 1.1017647 
Exchanging ideas with others.1 240 0 2.1190711 
Exchanging ideas with others.2 201 39 1.2134328 
Exchanging ideas with others.3 68 172 .7041176 
Pounding casava.1 240 0 2.4906667 
Pounding casava.2 201 39 1.6670647 
Pounding casava.3 68 172 1.7966176 
Raising animals.1 240 0 2.7200824 
Raising animals.2 201 39 1.9598678 
Raising animals.3 68 172 1.2405935 
Other physical labor.1 240 0 2.6712037 
Other physical labor.2 201 39 1.6191542 
Other physical labor.3 68 172 1.1845588 
Working with others community tasks.1 240 0 2.2353657 
Working with others on community 
tasks.2 201 39 1.3503980 
Working with others on community 
tasks.3 68 172 .9066176 
Working with family on family tasks.1 240 0 2.2418165 
Working with family on family tasks.2 201 39 1.2608458 
Working with family on family tasks.3 68 172 .8367647 
Socializing.1 240 0 1.9948194 
Socializing.2 201 39 1.1822388 
Socializing.3 68 172 .7352941 
Getting help from others.1 240 0 2.6885149 
Getting help from others.2 201 39 1.8454811 
Getting help from others.3 68 172 1.1585376 
Making decisions.1 240 0 2.3819583 
Making decisions.2 201 39 1.5119403 
Making decisions.3 68 172 1.1791176 
Taking part in family activities.1 240 0 2.2608194 
Taking part in family activities.2 201 39 1.3790050 
Taking part in family activities.3 68 172 .8183824 
Taking part in community activities.1 240 0 2.2231111 
Taking part in community activities.2 201 39 1.3023881 
Taking part in community activities.3 68 172 1.0919118 
Learning new things.1 239 1 2.4121309 
Learning new things.2 201 39 1.4781966 
Learning new things.3 67 173 1.0801493 
Concentrating on tasks.1 240 0 2.2650755 
Concentrating on tasks.2 201 39 1.3843284 
Concentrating on tasks.3 68 172 1.2352941 
Dealing with strangers.1 240 0 2.0036250 
Dealing with strangers.2 201 39 1.2628588 
Dealing with strangers.3 68 172 .8195588 
Attending church/mosque.1 240 0 1.8096915 
Attending church/mosque.2 201 39 1.0049981 
Attending church/mosque.3 68 172 .7485294 
Symptom4 
Loss of appetite.1 240 0 2.0416667 
Loss of appetite.2 200 40 1.0850000 
Loss of appetite.3 66 174 .5757576 
Insomnia.1 238 2 2.2394958 
Insomnia.2 199 41 1.1859296 
Insomnia.3 66 174 .6212121 
Fearful.1 240 0 2.3125000 
Fearful.2 197 43 1.2131980 
Fearful.3 66 174 .6969697 
Afraid of being infected.1 238 2 2.4159664 
Afraid of being infected.2 199 41 1.1155779 
Afraid of being infected.3 66 174 .6060606 
Intrusive memories of bad events.1 240 0 2.5583333 
Intrusive memories of bad events.2 199 41 1.4874372 
Intrusive memories of bad events.3 66 174 .9393939 
Badly treated by husband.1 237 3 1.6708861 
Badly treated by husband.2 199 41 1.0050251 
Badly treated by husband.3 65 175 .5230769 
Badly treated by others in family.1 240 0 1.6916667 
Badly treated by others in family.2 198 42 1.0555556 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
25
Badly treated by others in family.3 66 174 .5757576 
Badly treated by others in community.1 240 0 1.5666667 
Badly treated by others in community.2 195 45 1.0000000 
Badly treated by others in community.3 66 174 .6666667 
Feeling shame.1 237 3 2.1097046 
Feeling shame.2 201 39 1.0298507 
Feeling shame.3 67 173 .5373134 
Feeling rejected by partner.1 239 1 1.7071130 
Feeling rejected by partner.2 201 39 .9800995 
Feeling rejected by partner.3 67 173 .5074627 
Feeling rejected by everyone.1 240 0 1.6625000 
Feeling rejected by everyone.2 201 39 1.0049751 
Feeling rejected by everyone.3 67 173 .5522388 
Feeling stigma.1 239 1 1.7489540 
Feeling stigma.2 200 40 1.0600000 
Feeling stigma.3 67 173 .5373134 
Thinking too much about traumatic 
events.1 240 0 2.4916667 
Thinking too much about traumatic 
events.2 199 41 1.4070352 
Thinking too much about traumatic 
events.3 67 173 .9253731 
Thinking too much about other things.1 240 0 2.2333333 
Thinking too much about other things.2 199 41 1.4070352 
Thinking too much about other things.3 67 173 1.2089552 
Withdrawal.1 240 0 1.7375000 
Withdrawal.2 201 39 .9900498 
Withdrawal.3 67 173 .6119403 
Feeling hopeless.1 238 2 1.9033613 
Feeling hopeless.2 201 39 1.0597015 
Feeling hopeless.3 67 173 .6716418 
Feeling suicidal.1 235 5 1.1744681 
Feeling suicidal.2 200 40 .6500000 
Feeling suicidal.3 67 173 .3731343 
Feeling guilty.1 237 3 1.3417722 
Feeling guilty.2 200 40 .8500000 
Feeling guilty.3 67 173 .5522388 
Thinking of hurting self.1 237 3 1.2194093 
Thinking of hurting self.2 200 40 .7100000 
Thinking of hurting self.3 67 173 .4029851 
Wanting to avoid others.1 237 3 1.7130802 
Wanting to avoid others.2 201 39 .9751244 
Wanting to avoid others.3 67 173 .3432836 
Lost interest in things.1 240 0 2.1791667 
Lost interest in things.2 201 39 1.1293532 
Lost interest in things.3 67 173 .6865672 
Total function.1 240 0 49.8217 
Total function.2 201 39 31.7366 (36.3%) 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
26
Total function.3 68 172 23.5456 (25.9%) 
Total symptoms.1 240 0 39.5250 
Total symptoms.2 201 39 22.2338 (43.8%) 
Total symptoms.3 67 173 13.0299 (41.4%) 
1. 240 respondents had a first interview, of which 200 had a second interview and 66 had a third interview. 
2. 1, .2, and .3 refers to responses at first, second and third interview respectively. 
3. The response categories for questions on tasks are: 
0=no difficulty with that task. 
1=a little difficulty 
2=a moderate amount of difficulty 
3=a lot of difficulty 
4=often cannot do the task 
Therefore, a mean score on a task near 2 (for example) indicates that on average respondents felt they were 
having a moderate level of difficulty with that task. 
4. For symptom questions, the response categories are: 
0=not at all bothered by this symptom 
1=bothered a little bit 
2=bothered a moderate amount 
3=bothered a lot 
Therefore, a mean score on a symptom near 1 (for example) indicates that on average respondents felt they 
were bothered a little bit by that symptom. 
5. Compared with previous interview. 
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
27
IRC GBV Impact Assessment Report 
October, 2009. 
28
Table 2: Pearson Correlation Between Duration of Intervention and Amount of Change in 
Function and Symptom Severity* 
Number of days 
between 
interviews 1 and 2 
Number of days 
Between 
interviews 2 and 3 
Number of days 
between 
interviews 1 and 3 
Change in total 
Function score 
197 
.319 (.000) 
68 
.097 (.433) 
66 
-.119 (.343) 
Change in total 
Symptom score 
197 
.305 (.000) 
67 
-.032 (.80) 
65 
-.113 (.372) 
* The top number in each cell represents the number of interviewees with valid data. The first figure 
below is the Pearson correlation between days and change in score. The figure in brackets 
is the statistical significance of the results.