The percentage of intimate partner violence victims and perpetrators in substance abuse treatment is estimated at about 50%. This alarmingly high rate has prompted the inclusion of partner violence screening at patient intake. Currently, the most commonly used assessment tools for partner violence in substance use treatment facilities are the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2).
Although these two measures have proven to highly effective at identifying victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence, they are perceived as cumbersome and challenging by some mental health staff members for a variety of reasons. First, although they are supposed to be brief, they take nearly 10 minutes to administer, which is a significant amount of time considering total intake lasts only about 45 minutes. Second, many staff members are uncomfortable addressing partner violence with clients and may avoid use of such intimate questions, putting victims at further risk, and raising the likelihood of future perpetration to go unreported.
The consequences of intimate partner violence are many for the victim, including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and substance misuse. For the perpetrator, future violence, aggression, externalizing, and substance use are also risk factors associated with intimate partner violence. These negative outcomes underscore the importance of a brief yet effective partner violence assessment tool. To achieve this, Fleur L. Kraanen of the Department of Clinical Psychology at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and her colleagues developed a short screening tool called the Jellinek Inventory for assessing Partner Violence (J-IPV). The tool has two questions regarding victimization, followed by two questions addressing perpetration. It takes two minutes to complete.
Using a sample of approximately 100 adults receiving treatment for substance abuse, Kraanen and her team compared results of the J-IPV to those of the CTS2 and found a high reliability rate. The J-IPV was easy to administer and because the first two questions addressed victimization, was a more comfortable approach for staff members. Further, the J-IPV took very little time and did identify those at risk for perpetration and victimization.
Some facilities do not offer adequate services for perpetrators, and thus may see the current testing strategies as unnecessary. But Kraanen said, “On the contrary, since it is known that IPV is prevalent in patients in substance abuse treatment, we consider it unethical not to screen for IPV in substance abuse treatment facilities.” She hopes that implementation of the J-IPV will allow for more routine and consistent testing among all clients receiving treatment for substance issues.
Kraanen, F.L., Vedel, E., Scholing, A., Emmelkamp, P.M.G. (2013). Screening on Perpetration and Victimization of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Two Studies on the Validity of an IPV Screening Instrument in Patients in Substance Abuse Treatment. PLoS ONE 8(5): e63681. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063681
© Copyright 2013 GoodTherapy.org. All rights reserved.
The preceding article was solely written by the author named above. Any views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org. Questions or concerns about the preceding article can be directed to the author or posted as a comment below.