Overview of Meta-Analytic Review of Risk Markers for IPV

Stith, Sandra M.; Cafferky, Bryan; Bird, Nicole; Lawson, Nicole; Smith, Erika E.; Luu, Sharon M.; Mallory, Allen B.; Lechtenberg, Marcie M.; Gomez, Patricia Barros

doi:10.1037/e529382014-246

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Findings from this study seem to parallel findings in our ongoing meta-analysis of risk markers for IPV in heterosexual relationships (Stith et al, 2014, 2016). That is, relationship factors, including IPV victimization, seem to be the strongest risk markers for IPV perpetration.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…It is important to note that there was not statistical evidence that the strength of the risk markers differed between those who perpetrated IPV and those who were victims of IPV. The finding that psychological abuse was a strong risk marker for IPV perpetration and victimization was similar to findings in general meta-analyses (Stith et al, 2004, 2014). When comparing risk markers for IPV between men and women, we found that alcohol abuse was a significantly stronger risk marker for male IPV victimization than for female IPV victimization.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…This high rate of bidirectional violence is likely to apply to individuals in same-sex relationships also. Similarly, the lack of differences in the prediction of IPV risk factors for men versus women in same-sex relationships is also supported by the research in heterosexual relationships (Stith et al, 2004, 2014, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The strongest effect sizes were found between perpetration and the following five risk markers: psychological abuse, forced sex, illicit drug use, attitudes condoning marital violence, and marital satisfaction. More recently, Stith et al (2014) were able to identify 80 risk markers for IPV in the general population. The strongest risk markers for perpetration were prior victimization, stalking, prior psychological abuse, prior perpetration, borderline personality disorder, anger, and approval of violence.…”

Section: Existing Meta-analytic Research On Risk Markers For Ipvmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Kimmes

Mallory

Spencer

et al. 2017

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Existing Meta-analytic Research On Risk Markers For Ipvmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Kimmes

Mallory

Spencer

et al. 2017

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the current tool was designed to include offender, victim, and relationship items, and to assess the likelihood of subsequent physical injury perpetrated by either male or female offenders. Although we expected the risk factors for IPV perpetration to be similar for males and females (Hamel, 2005; Stith et al, 2014), we planned to study the predictive ability of the tool with men and women. This is the first tool that attempted to assess the risk for physical injury in a subsequent IPV incident in groups where the comparison group includes individuals where other maltreatment had occurred.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate partner physical injury risk assessment in a military sample.

Stith¹,

Milner²,

Fleming³

et al. 2016

Psychology of Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This paper describes the development of an actuarial risk assessment instrument (the Intimate Partner Physical Injury-Risk Assessment Tool; IPPI-RAT) designed to be used by military providers to assess the likelihood that an individual who has had an alleged incident of intimate partner violence (IPV) will have a subsequent incident resulting in a physical injury to the victim. Method: Providers used a 58-item structured risk assessment tool to assess individuals with alleged IPV incidents (N ϭ 199). Across a 6-month period, alleged victims were asked to call an automated telephone system to report subsequent incidents of IPV and physical injury (N ϭ 1,082 calls). An item analysis was used to select the items that significantly differentiated the "physical injury" group from the "other" group (i.e., comparison group). Results: Fifteen items from the 58-item tool significantly predicted future physical injury and were used to create a 15-item IPPI-RAT scale. The area under the curve (Area Under the Receiver Operator Curve, AUC) value for the tool was .78, 95% CI [.71, .86]. This AUC value indicates there is a 78% chance that a randomly selected member of the physical injury group would have a higher risk score than a randomly selected member of the "other" (i.e., comparison) group. Conclusions: Findings support the tool's utility for assessing risk for future physical injury as part of a comprehensive IPV risk assessment in reported IPV incidents in the military.

show abstract