Typologies of Intimate Partner Violence: Evaluation of a Screening Instrument for Differentiation

• NCJ Number: 237119
• Journal: Journal of Family Violence Volume: 26 Issue: 7 Dated: October 2011 Pages: 551-563
• Author(s): Daniel Joseph Friend; Renay P. Cleary Bradley; Rebecca Thatcher; John M. Gottman
• Date Published: October 2011
• Length: 13 pages
• Grant Number(s): 90OJ2022
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Health and Human Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of a screening instrument designed to differentiate between characterologically violent, situationally violent, and distressed non-violent couples; focus was placed on identifying situationally violent couples so that they could be invited to participate in a conjoint pyschoeducational workshop.

Abstract

Given the prevalence and impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) in both community and therapeutic settings, it is vital that the varying typologies of IPV be identified and treated accordingly. The present study sought to evaluate the efficacy of a screening instrument designed to differentiate between characterologically violent, situationally violent, and distressed non-violent couples; focus was placed on identifying situationally violent couples so that they could be invited to participate in a conjoint pyschoeducational workshop. Couples from two samples were assessed to achieve this goal. Situationally violent couples (N=115) from sample 1 were screened into the study via a phone interview and participated in an in-home assessment, which assessed self-reported relationship violence. These couples were compared to a previously collected sample (sample 2; Jacobsen et al. 1994) of characterologically violent, distressed nonviolent, and situationally violent couples. The main hypotheses stated that couples from sample 1 would report less severe relationship violence than characterologically violent couples from sample 2, and would report greater amounts of low-level violence than distressed non-violent couples from sample 2. Additionally, similar rates of both self-reported violence would be seen for situationally violent couples from samples 1 and 2. Multivariate analyses supported this with the exception that situationally violent couples from sample 1 did not differ significantly across all domains from distressed non-violent couples in sample 2. Implications for the screening instrument's utility in clinical and research settings are discussed. (Published Abstract)