Latent class analysis of the heterogeneity of intimate partner violent men: Implications for research and practice.

Abstract

This study suggests that there are distinct subgroups of high-risk men who commit physical IPV and vary in underlying profile. Although preliminary, these results raise the possibility that consideration of profile in addition to overall risk score may yield more accurate estimates of the likelihood of recidivism and that intervention efforts may be enhanced through an understanding of which factors may be driving partner abuse for differing subgroups of men.

Coercive control in a national U.S. self-report survey: Prediction of repeated intimate partner violence.

“…These features, in turn, are characteristic of generally violent offenders-a subtype of those who perpetrate IPV who also engage in nonintimate violence or general criminal offending. This subtype was first identified by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) and consistently emerges in IPV typologies across varying methods and populations (e.g., Peters et al, 2023).…”

The Factor Structure of Intimate Partner Violence Risk

“…There is now substantial evidence that IPV perpetrators are a heterogenous group (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005;Dutton & Corvo, 2006;Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004). Several researchers have proposed and found distinct subtypes of IPV perpetrators who differed on general criminality, indicators of antisociality, severity of violence, traits of psychopathy, personality traits, weapon use, victim injury, whether they were violent inside or outside the home, and likelihood of recidivism (Dixon & Browne, 2003;Gondolf, 1988;Hamberger & Hastings, 1986;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994;Peters et al, 2021). As such, it is possible that some factors from the current study are only relevant for different perpetrator subtypes.…”

“…For the current sample, my colleagues and I conducted latent class analyses to examine whether perpetrator subtypes existed in our sample (Peters et al, 2021). Like…”

“…For example, Olver and Jung (2017) and and the fact that this sample consisted of mainly high-risk men (Hilton et al, 2021; also see Study 2 discussion). For example, given that the majority of the current sample consist of generally violent men (Peters et al, 2021) and are higher risk than the average sample (Hilton et al, 2021), risk factors that reflect the general criminality/antisocial patterns construct among these men would likely be related to, and predictive of, recidivism outcomes, particularly any violent recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2017).…”