Evaluating Measures of Intimate Partner Violence Using Consensus-Based Standards of Validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110134
Author(s):  
Erin F. Alexander ◽  
Bethany L. Backes ◽  
Matthew D. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
Psychometric Evidence

The assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) by mental health, medical, and criminal justice practitioners occurs routinely. The validity of the assessment instrument they use impacts practitioners’ ability to judge ongoing risk, establish the type of IPV occurring, protect potential victims, and intervene effectively. Yet, there is no known compendium of existing assessment measures. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to present a systematic review of measures used to identify or predict IPV, (2) to determine which of these measures have psychometric evidence to support their use, and (3) to determine whether any existing measure is capable of differentiating between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. A systematic search was conducted using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies on the reliability or validity of specific measures of IPV were included, regardless of format, length, discipline, or type of IPV assessed. A total of 222 studies, on the psychometric properties of 87 unique measures, met our a priori criteria and were included in the review. We described the reliability and validity of the 87 measures. We rated the measures based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments–revised criteria and other established validity criteria, which allowed us to generate a list of recommended measures. We also discussed measures designed to differentiate IPV types. We conclude by describing the strengths and weaknesses of existing measures and by suggesting new avenues for researchers to enhance the assessment of IPV.

scholarly journals Screening for Partner Violence Among Family Mediation Clients: Differentiating Types of Abuse

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1118-1146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Cleak ◽  
Margot J. Schofield ◽  
Lauren Axelsen ◽  
Andrew Bickerdike
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Psychological Aggression ◽  
Financial Control ◽  
Screening Instruments ◽  
Family Mediation ◽  
Parenting Alliance ◽  
History Of

Family mediation is mandated in Australia for couples in dispute over separation and parenting as a first step in dispute resolution, except where there is a history of intimate partner violence. However, validation of effective well-differentiated partner violence screening instruments suitable for mediation settings is at an early phase of development. This study contributes to calls for better violence screening instruments in the mediation context to detect a differentiated range of abusive behaviors by examining the reliability and validity of both established scales, and newly developed scales that measured intimate partner violence by partner and by self. The study also aimed to examine relationships between types of abuse, and between gender and types of abuse. A third aim was to examine associations between types of abuse and other relationship indicators such as acrimony and parenting alliance. The data reported here are part of a larger mixed method, naturalistic longitudinal study of clients attending nine family mediation centers in Victoria, Australia. The current analyses on baseline cross-sectional screening data confirmed the reliability of three subscales of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), and the reliability and validity of three new scales measuring intimidation, controlling and jealous behavior, and financial control. Most clients disclosed a history of at least one type of violence by partner: 95% reported psychological aggression, 72% controlling and jealous behavior, 50% financial control, and 35% physical assault. Higher rates of abuse perpetration were reported by partner versus by self, and gender differences were identified. There were strong associations between certain patterns of psychologically abusive behavior and both acrimony and parenting alliance. The implications for family mediation services and future research are discussed.

Intimate Partner Violence: Gendered Discourses Within a Human Context

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-169
Author(s):  
Sarah Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Cultural Discourses ◽  
Couple Violence ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Femininity And Masculinity ◽  
The Media ◽  
Situational Couple Violence ◽  
Male Perpetration

Dominant cultural discourses of femininity and masculinity may intersect to perpetuate the high incidence of intimate partner violence, thereby framing the phenomena as a human issue. Our understanding of female and male perpetration of violence is thwarted by several complications, thereby convoluting understandings of bi-directional violence perpetration. Situational couple violence also provides evidence that IPV is a shared human issue. Dominant cultural discourses related to masculinity and femininity uncovered through the media, the justice system, and types of service provision show intersections that perpetuate IPV experiences. Recommendations to better support both offenders and victims drawn from the examination of discourses are suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document