Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a serious problem throughout the world. Research has identified the continued need to examine risk factors for IPH to identify individuals who may be at a greater risk of IPH perpetration or victimization. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis on risk factors for male IPH perpetration and female IPH victimization. This meta-analysis examined results from 17 studies, which included 148 effect sizes used in the analysis. Primary findings from this research suggest the strongest risk factors for IPH were the perpetrator having direct access to a gun, perpetrator's previous nonfatal strangulation, perpetrator's previous rape of the victim, perpetrator's previous threat with a weapon, the perpetrator's demonstration of controlling behaviors, and the perpetrator's previous threats to harm the victim. Implications for law enforcement personnel, medical professionals, victim advocates, mental health professionals, and other professionals who may be in contact with potential IPH perpetrators and victims are discussed.

Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to explore the relationship between mental health disorders and symptoms of mental health disorders (depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], antisocial personality disorder [PD], and borderline PD) and physical intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization for males and females. Method: Data from 207 studies, yielding 511 effect sizes, were analyzed. The overall strength of each correlate for IPV perpetration and victimization was examined. Moderator analyses were used to compare the strength of correlates for IPV victimization versus perpetration, as well as for males versus females. Results: Depression, anxiety, PTSD, antisocial PD, and borderline PD were all significant correlates for both IPV victimization and perpetration. Anxiety and PTSD were significantly stronger correlates for victimization than for perpetration, and borderline PD and antisocial PD were significantly stronger correlates for perpetration than for victimization. For women, borderline PD was a significantly stronger correlate for IPV perpetration than for victimization, and PTSD was a significantly stronger correlate for IPV victimization than perpetration. Depression was a significantly stronger correlate for IPV victimization for women than for men. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive examination of mental health disorders and their link to IPV perpetration and victimization. The results suggest that clinicians working with individuals or couples in the context of IPV should assess for and treat mental health problems.

No abstract

With online education and programs becoming increasingly common, it is necessary to examine their effectiveness. In this study, we conduct a meta-analysis of online parenting programs. In this meta-analysis, we included 28 studies yielding 127 effect sizes examining 15 outcome variables. We found that online parenting programs had the strongest effects on increasing positive parenting and parents' encouragement. We also found significant effects of reducing negative parent-child interactions, child problem behaviors, negative discipline strategies, parenting conflicts, parent stress, child anxiety, parent anger, and parent depression. Results also revealed programs' significant effects on increasing parent confidence, positive child behavior and parenting satisfaction. Comparisons of programs that included clinical support (meaning programs through which participants had access to content experts, therapists, or content specialists in conjunction with the online program) versus programs that only contained online components, revealed no significant differences in 6 program outcomes between programs with and without clinical support. Comparisons of programs provided to targeted populations versus general populations revealed no significant differences in four program outcomes between populations. Results suggest that online parenting programs can provide benefits for parents who may not be able to access in-person resources.

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a common problem among adolescents and has been linked to various negative outcomes. This study used Dutton’s nested ecological theory to examine risk markers for physical TDV perpetration and examine whether there are significant differences in the strength of risk markers between male and female adolescents. This meta-analysis included 37 studies yielding 126 unique effect sizes for risk markers for physical TDV perpetration in samples from the United States. In the microsystem level, a total of 14 risk markers were examined and in the ontogenetic level, 12 risk markers were examined. Our results revealed that, in the microsystem, physical TDV victimization was the strongest risk marker for physical TDV perpetration. On the ontogenetic level, externalizing behaviors, approval of violence, risky sexual behaviors, alcohol use, depression, and delinquency were the strongest risk markers for TDV perpetration. Conflict resolution skills and responsibility were protective markers against TDV perpetration. When comparing the strength of risk markers between males and females, we found that undifferentiated TDV perpetration and depression were significantly stronger risk markers for female perpetration than male perpetration. We also found that exhibiting controlling behaviors was a significantly stronger risk marker for male TDV perpetration than female TDV perpetration. These findings highlight the importance of the microsystem, specifically the dating relationship itself, when identifying adolescents at risk for TDV perpetration.

The present study analyzed responses from 220 female survivors of sexual assault at a U.S. college campus. Guided by feminist thought, we used thematic analysis to analyze survivors' reasons for not reporting their sexual assault to university officials. Drawing on participants' own words, the most common reasons for not reporting included “It was not a big enough deal,” “I didn't know who to report to or that I could report,” “It wasn't related to the university,” “I was afraid,” “Because I was drunk,” “Too ashamed to report,” “I didn't want to get him in trouble,” and “Felt as if I would be blamed for putting myself in the situation.” We conducted a series of binary logistic regressions to determine which demographic and experiential variables were associated with the thematic reason(s) for not reporting. In the spirit of feminist praxis, we offer implications for universities to remove barriers for reporting sexual violence.

No abstract

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has largely focused on heterosexual relationships, but, in recent years, researchers have expanded their focus to include same-sex relationships. Using meta-analytic techniques, this study was conducted to examine the relative strength of various risk markers for men and women being perpetrators and victims of physical IPV in same-sex relationships. Articles were identified through research search engines and screened to identify articles fitting the inclusion criteria, a process that resulted in 24 studies and 114 effect sizes for the meta-analysis. The strongest risk marker among those with at least two effect sizes for both male and female perpetration was psychological abuse perpetration. The strongest risk marker among those with at least two effect sizes for IPV victimization was also perpetration of psychological abuse for males and psychological abuse victimization for females. Among same-sex-specific risk markers, internalized homophobia and fusion were the strongest predictors for being perpetrators of IPV for men and women, respectively. HIV status and internalized homophobia were the strongest risk markers for IPV victimization for men and women, respectively. Of 10 comparisons between men and women in risk markers for IPV perpetration and victimization, only 1 significant difference was found. The results suggest that although same-sex and heterosexual relationships may share a number of risk markers for IPV, there are risk markers for physical IPV unique to same-sex relationships. Further research and increased specificity in measurement are needed to better study and understand the influence of same-sex-specific risk markers for IPV.