Military/Civilian Risk Markers for Physical Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 787-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika N. Smith-Marek ◽  
Bryan Cafferky ◽  
María M. Dominguez ◽  
Chelsea Spencer ◽  
Kimberly Van ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Alcohol Problems ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Military Studies ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

This meta-analysis compared risk markers for perpetration of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) among military and civilian males. We also examined strength of risk markers among male and female service members. In total, 36 military studies and 334 civilian studies, which reported 883 effect sizes, were included in the analyses. Results revealed more similarities than differences in risk markers for IPV among military and civilian males and among military males and females. Of the risk markers examined, relationship satisfaction and alcohol problems were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV among civilian males compared to military males. Perpetrating emotional abuse was a significantly stronger risk marker for IPV perpetration among military females compared to military males. Recommendations for IPV prevention and intervention are discussed.

Risk Markers for Women’s Physical Intimate Partner Violence Victimization in Iran: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 107780122096574
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Nikparvar ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Sandra M. Stith
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Poor Mental Health ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Iranian Women

In this study, evidence from 14 studies examines 16 unique risk markers for intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization for Iranian women. Large-to-medium effect sizes were found for emotional abuse victimization, depression, poor mental health, poor physical health, partner’s drug use, living in a patriarchal household, and partner having experienced child abuse as risk markers. Higher levels of education and higher levels of household income were significant protective markers against IPV victimization for Iranian women. Partner’s education, partner’s employment, being employed, being pregnant, age, partner’s age, and length of the relationship were not significant risk markers for IPV victimization among Iranian women.

What Puts Individuals at Risk for Physical Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration? A Meta-Analysis Examining Risk Markers for Men and Women

2020 ◽  
pp. 152483802092577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Sandra M. Stith ◽  
Bryan Cafferky
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Potential Factors

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration is a serious public health concern around the world. This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize all available data examining risk markers for physical IPV perpetration among men and women between 1980 and 2018. Studies were included in the analysis if they examined physical IPV in adult opposite-sex relationships, included statistical information needed to calculate at least one bivariate effect size, and were written in English. A total of 503 studies, yielding 2,972 unique effect sizes, were included in the analysis. Data from these studies allowed for the examination of 63 unique risk markers related to physical IPV perpetration for both men and women, 60 unique risk markers for male perpetration, and 45 unique risk markers for female perpetration. Lastly, we were able to compare the strength of 44 risk markers for physical IPV perpetration between men and women. We found that the strongest risk markers were related to other acts of violence (both perpetration and victimization) as well as relationship dynamics. Results from this study highlight the potential factors that could be focused on in prevention programming and intervention work. Additionally, it was found that 9 out of 44 risk markers significantly differed in strength for men and women, allowing for additional specificity in intervention work for helping professionals working with either male or female perpetrators of physical IPV.

A Meta-Analysis of Risk Markers for Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 374-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan G. Kimmes ◽  
Allen B. Mallory ◽  
Chelsea Spencer ◽  
Austin R. Beck ◽  
Bryan Cafferky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Same Sex

Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry W. Bennett ◽  
Oliver J. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use coercive actions toward intimate or formerly intimate partners, including emotional abuse, stalking, threats, physical violence, or rape. The lifetime prevalence of IPV is 35% for women and 28% for men, with at an estimated economic cost of over ten billion dollars. IPV occurs in all demographic sectors of society, but higher frequencies of IPV perpetration are found among people who are younger and who have lower income and less education. Similar proportions of men and women use IPV, but when the effects of partner abuse are considered, women bear the greatest physical and behavioral health burden. Single-explanation causes for IPV such as substance abuse, patriarchy, and personality disorders are sometimes preferred by practitioners, advocates, and policymakers, but an understanding of IPV perpetration is enhanced when we look through the multiple lenses of culture and society, relationship, and psychological characteristics of the perpetrators.

The Cycle of Violence Revisited: Distinguishing Intimate Partner Violence Offenders Only, Victims Only, and Victim-Offenders

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara N. Richards ◽  
Elizabeth Tomsich ◽  
Angela R. Gover ◽  
Wesley G. Jennings
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Dating Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Cycle Of Violence ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Witnessing Violence ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The U.S

Using a cycle of violence framework, we investigated experiences with physical intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, perpetration, and both IPV victimization and perpetration (IPV overlap). Data included the U.S. subsample of college students in the International Dating Violence Study (n = 4,162). Findings indicated that 40% of participants reported lifetime IPV, with 28% reporting membership in the overlap group. Cycle of violence variables including child sexual abuse, witnessing violence inside the home during childhood, and witnessing violence outside the home during childhood were uniquely related to membership in the overlap group. No relationship between cycle of violence variables and IPV victimization only or IPV perpetration only was identified. Results suggested the cycle of violence might predominantly operate among individuals who are both IPV victims and offenders, rather than among individuals experiencing IPV victimization or perpetrate IPV exclusively.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of cross cultural risk markers for intimate partner violence

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 116-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen B. Mallory ◽  
Prerana Dharnidharka ◽  
Sharon L. Deitz ◽  
Patricia Barros-Gomes ◽  
Bryan Cafferky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Risk Markers

scholarly journals Interventions to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Men Who Use Substances: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy

2019 ◽  
pp. 152483801988235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Stephens-Lewis ◽  
Amy Johnson ◽  
Alyson Huntley ◽  
Elizabeth Gilchrist ◽  
Mary McMurran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Relationship

Introduction: Despite the high prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration by men who use substances, limited evidence exists about how best to reduce IPV among this group. Method: A systematic narrative review with meta-analysis determined the effectiveness of interventions to reduce IPV by men who use substances. Inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials; adult heterosexual male IPV perpetrators where at least 60% of participants were alcohol and/or drug users; the intervention targeted IPV with or without targeting substance use (SU); outcomes included perpetrator and/or victim reports of IPV, SU, or both. Methodological quality was assessed. Results: Nine trials ( n = 1,014 men) were identified. Interventions were grouped into (1) integrated IPV and SU interventions ( n = 5), (2) IPV interventions with adjunct SU interventions ( n = 2), and (3) stand-alone IPV interventions ( n = 2). Cognitive behavioral and motivational interviewing therapies were the most common approaches. Data from individual trials showed a reduction in SU outcomes in the short term (≤3months; n = 2 trials) and IPV perpetration at different time points ( n = 3 trials) for interventions compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Meta-analysis with integrated IPV and SU interventions showed no difference in SU ( n = 3 trials) or IPV outcomes ( n = 4 trials) versus SU TAU. Conclusions: Little evidence exists for effective interventions for male IPV perpetrators who use substances. Outcomes in integrated interventions were not superior to TAU in meta-analysis. Future trials should consider the nature of the relationship between IPV and SU in intervention design, duration of intervention, and type and timing of outcome measures. 

Individual and Interpersonal Risk Factors for Physical Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Biological Sex and Ethnicity

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynette M. Renner ◽  
Stephen D. Whitney ◽  
Matthew Vasquez
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Romantic Relationship ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Biological Sex ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem that reaches across age, sex, and ethnicity. In this study, we examined risk factors for physical IPV perpetration among young adult males and females from four ethnic groups. Data were taken from Waves 1–3 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The sample included 10,141 Wave 3 respondents (ages ranged from 18–27 years old) who reported being in a current romantic relationship. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by 14.10% of White, 23.28% of Black, 18.82% of Latino, and 18.02% of Asian males. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by 19.01% of White, 24.80% of Black, 25.97% of Latina, and 19.21% of Asian females. Following an ecological framework, proximal risk factors at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels were included in the analyses. Despite finding fairly consistent percentage of physical IPV perpetration across sample groups, the risk factors for physical IPV perpetration were rather uncommon across sex and ethnicity. Only 1 factor—psychological IPV perpetration toward a romantic partner—was consistently associated with physical IPV perpetration across all groups. Our findings have implications for tailoring prevention and intervention efforts toward risk factors of physical IPV perpetration that are uniquely associated with biological sex and ethnicity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document