Screening for Risk of Future Physical Injury in Reported Cases of Intimate Partner Violence in a Military Sample. Research Goal
|
|
- Cuthbert Jackson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Screening for Risk of Future Physical Injury in Reported Cases of Intimate Partner Violence in a Military Sample Intimate Partner Physical Injury (IPPI): Risk Assessment Tool (RAT) Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault Brown Bag Presentation March 20, 2015 Joel S. Milner, Matthew Fleming, and Julie L. Crouch Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault Northern Illinois University Sandi Stith Marriage and Family Therapy Program Kansas State University Renè J. Robichaux Behavioral Health Division United States Army Medical Command Presentation Overview 1. Project Goal 2. Project Background 3. Study Design 4. Study Results 5. Roll Out of Risk Assessment Tool 6. The Next Study Research Goal The goal was to predict the risk for future physical injury among all couples presenting to US military Family Advocacy Programs (FAP) with a reported incident of intimate partner maltreatment regardless of whether or not the case was reported for intimate partner physical injury and whether or not the case was judged to have met criteria. In our predictive validity study, the two study groups were: Group 1: reported cases in which future intimate partner physical injury was self-reported (whether or not they had met criteria for the reported incident). (Experimental Group) Group 2: reported cases that had not met criteria combined with all other types of reported intimate partner maltreatment that had met criteria. (Comparison Group)
2 Project Background In the Spring of 1999, a joint services (United States Air Force [USAF] and United States Army [USA]) FAP working group was convened to develop a risk assessment instrument (a list of putative risk factors) designed to assess the risk of future maltreatment among clients being assessed by USAF and USA FAP for IPV At the initial meeting, the working group discussed the criteria for a risk assessment tool. To the extent possible, the working group sought to develop a risk assessment tool that was: - State of the art - Valid and reliable - Clinically relevant - Informed practice - Feasible at all levels - User friendly - Legally defensible Project Background continued. The initial task was to develop a large group of risk items that was exhaustive with respect to theory, research, and practice wisdom. The working group wanted to include risk factors unique to the offender, the victim, and the relationship. The working group sought to develop a risk assessment tool that considered military-specific risk factors and, if possible, to develop a single tool that could be used with both male and female offenders. They also sought to develop one tool that could be used by all military services. Project Background continued. An initial list of IPV risk items was developed by starting with a review of the civilian literature for risk factors including risk factors for recidivism (which resulted in a published meta-analysis of risk factors). Following the literature review, putative military specific risk items were added by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), by FAP staff, and by FAP service providers. Results: A 76 item IPV risk survey. Project Background continued. The 76 IPV risk items were evaluated in a variety of ways. (Phase I) Evaluations included examination of the wording of the risk items, the definitions, and the base rates of occurrence. We also examined the use of the risk factors by clinicians when they were asked to evaluate videotapes of IPV cases (using actors) and then we examined the use of the survey items by clinicians when they were used with 350 reported IPV cases at different military instillations. Results: A 56 item IPV risk survey.
3 Project Background continued. Next, from august 2002 to July 2003, FAP staff completed the 56-item risk survey for 584 IPV cases at 12 installations across military services: USAF, N = 139 (Eglin, n = 42; Hurlburt, n = 28; Hickam, n = 11; Wright-Patterson, n = 50; Tinker, n = 6; unknown, n = 2). USA, N = 224 (Fort Campbell, n = 123; Fort Knox, n = 44; Fort Drum, n = 57). USMC SPAs, N = 131 (Camp Lejeune, n = 69; Camp Pendleton, n = 62). USN SPAs, N = 90 (Great Lakes, n = 68; Pearl Harbor, n = 22). Since the base rates for repeat incidences in the official registry was small, FAP staff were asked to complete a Repeat Incident Form, so that the predictive validity of the risk items could be determined. Project Background continued. Data obtained in the first two phases of the project were used to determine the appropriateness of developing a single instrument to be used in all four services (i.e., a Purple Risk Assessment Tool). Army/Air Force (Phase I) All Four Services (Phase II) 67% of offenders male 87% of offenders male Offender age = 27.4 years Victim age = 26.8 years Offender age = 26.8 years Victim age = 26.5 years Offender AD = 65.5% Offender AD 63.8% Project Background continued. In addition, with few exceptions cases, the risk factors were present at similar rates. Thus, although there had been concerns the tool might not be relevant for all services, Phase I and Phase II research indicated that, in general, the risk factors did not vary across military branches. However, in Phase II of the project, only a few (n = 17) Repeat Incident Forms were completed by the clinicians. Thus, data were not available to estimate the predictive validity of the SPA survey items. Project Background continued. When a decision was made to conduct a study of the predictive validity of the SPA items (Phase III), several additional changes were made in the SPA items by the working group. First, since the initial development of the SPA survey, the military environment had changed because of involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four items were added that were specific to combat experience: 1. Experienced a traumatic event during deployment. 2. Has a traumatic brain injury. 3. Exhibits symptoms of PTSD. 4. Significant deployment-related stress in relationship.
4 Project Background continued. Items also were combined to reduce the number of items in the SPA survey. The 56 item version included Victim has access to firearms and Offender has access to firearms. These items were merged to Presence of a firearm in the home. Two victim items, Doesn t have/won t use informal support system and Willing to use formal support system were merged to Dissatisfied with available social support. Results: The final version of the SPA survey included 58 risk items. In addition, a new Repeat Incident Form that used DOD IPV definitions and involved victim self-report (via a telephone interview) of maltreatment following an initial incident report was developed for use in the predictive validity study. Study Materials/Procedures Spouse Physical Abuse (SPA) Survey (includes 58 risk items [with definitions]) Repeat Incident Survey (RIS) Protocol (includes all DOD IPV Definitions for different types of IPV). Automated Telephonic Data Collection (ATDC) system (also called Interactive Voice Recognition [IVR] system) Using the ATDC system, all RIS items were provided by a pre-recorded voice that read the items. Except for the password item, the response format for the SPA survey items was yes (participants were asked to press the number 1 on their telephone dial for a yes response) or no (participants were asked to press the number 2 on their telephone dial for a no response). ATDC System (located at the Center for the Study of Family Violence). The ATDC system provides a number of advantages over other data collection methods. The system provides participants a higher level of privacy and convenience than other approaches, such as interviews, including participants being able to provide data from any telephone at a time and place of their choosing. Use of the participant call-in system prevents participants from being called at a bad time (e.g., when the caller s children or the alleged offender might be home). Participants enter their responses using the telephone keypad, so no verbalizations are required. The elimination of written forms helped insure information is seen by others. The system allowed questions to be presented in a standardized format that do not vary from participant to participant, thereby reducing one source of error common in structured interviews. Unlike paper and pencil questionnaires, participants responding to the ATDC system do not need to be literate to understand and respond to the questions. The ATDC system records data into a database, eliminating data entry labor and data entry errors. Rosenbaum, Rabenhorst, Reddy, Fleming and Howells (2006) found that rates of self-disclosed perpetration and receipt of IPV did not vary across three data collection procedures (ATDC, faceto-face interview, and written questionnaire) and the ATDC system generated higher participation rates compared to face-to-face interviews or written questionnaires. Table. Total RIS Call Frequencies, N = 199. Number Number of Percentage Cumulative/ of calls participants descending* percentages / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /0.5 *Percentage of calls at indicated call frequency (number of calls) or above. Notes. Total number of participant calls = 1,082. Mean number of participant calls = Median number of participant calls = Number of participant calls at the initial call date (7 days) = 183 or 92.0%.
5 Table. Clinician judgments about the likelihood of future spouse maltreatment. Table. After Entry into the Study, the Self-Reported Intimate Partner Maltreatment Percentages (RIS data) for Alleged Victims who had at Least One Contact with their Partner, N =183 Type of Maltreatment Percentage indicating Maltreatment Any Maltreatment (RIS items 8-15) 140/183 = 76.5% Any Maltreatment (RIS items 9-15) 134/183 = 73.2% Physical Injury (RIS item #14) 68/183 = 37.2% Physical Injury Req. Med. Care (RIS item #15) 32/182 = 17.5% SPA item Low Medium High 59. What is the likelihood of any spouse maltreatment? a. within the next 7 days? 80.6% 16.9% 2.5% b. within the next month? 72.3% 23.2% 2.5% c. within the next 6 months 63.8% 30.2% 6.0% 60. What is the likelihood of physical spouse maltreatment? a. within the next 7 days? 86.5% 11.8% 1.7% b. within the next month? 80.0% 18.2% 1.8% c. within the next 6 months? 70.4% 25.3% 4.3% 61. What is the likelihood of severe physical spouse maltreatment? a. within the next 7 days? 90.4% 8.1% 1.5% b. within the next month? 87.5% 11.0% 1.5% c. within the next 6 months? 83.4% 13.8% 2.8% Table. 15 -Item Intimate Partner Physical Injury (IPPI): Risk Assessment Tool (RAT) Offender items 01. Caused minor injury (not requiring medical care) in incident. 02. Denies incident occurred. 03. Blames others for incident. 04. Physically aggressive toward partner prior to incident. 05. Increased frequency or severity of violence toward partner. 06. Ever used or threatened to use weapons against partner. 07. Emotionally abusive towards partner. 08. Ever choked or strangled partner. 09. Feels desperate about relationship. 10. Attempts to control partner s access to friends/family/resources. 11. Holds unrealistic expectations of partner. 12. Expresses ideas or opinions that justify violence towards partner. Victim items 13. Fears for self or children or pets. 14. Attempting to leave relationship. 15. Dissatisfied with military lifestyle. Best 15 physical injury risk assessment items (includes both static and dynamic items). Scoring: Assign one point for each yes response and sum the points for a total score (max. 15 points). Table. Classification Rates for each of the Total Risk Scale Scores for the 15-item IPPI: RAT for the Physical Injury Group and the All Others Group (non-contact and risk scales with missing item data excluded), N =142. Physical injury group n = 54 All others n = 88 Overall Total Un- Risk Weighted Score Frequency True positives Frequency True negatives Means False negatives False positives % 0.0% % 85.2% 57.4% % 3.7% % 71.6% 62.4% 2 3(2) 90.7% 9.3% % 65.9% 62.4% 3 1(1) 88.9% 11.1% % 51.1% 68.9% % 16.7% % 39.8% 72.8% 5 2(2) 79.6% 20.4% % 26.1% 76.8% 6 6(4) 68.5% 31.5% % 22.7% 72.9% 7 10(4) 50.0% 50.0% % 19.3% 65.4% 9 6(4) 27.8% 72.2% % 5.7% 63.2% 10 4(2) 20.4% 79.6% % 3.4% 61.0% 11 4(2) 13.0% 87.0% % 2.3% 58.5% 12 5(1) 3.7% 96.3% % 1.1% 51.3% 13 2(1) 0.0% 100.0% % 0.0% 50.0% Risk Score M (SD) = 7.61 (3.10) Risk Score M (SD) = 4.06 (3.24) F = 41.58, df = 1, 140, p <.0001 d = 1.115, 95% CI [.7520, 1.477] r =.4756, 95% CI [.2674,.5202] The numbers in the curved brackets ( ) indicate the number of victims who reported future physical injury severe enough that they should have received medical attention; 80% of this group was above the cut score of 5.
6 Table. Classification Terms and Definitions. Actual Condition Definitions of Classification Terms Positive Negative Sensitivity: the probably that when a test score is above the cut score that an injury will be present (true positive rate). Test Score Positive True Positives False Positives (Type I error) Positive Predictive Value (PPV) Specificity: the probably that when a test score is below the cut score that an injury will not be present (true negative rate). Negative False Negatives (Type II error) True Negatives Negative Predictive Value (NPV) Positive Predictive Value (PPV): Positive predictive value: probability that the disease is present when the test is positive = a/(a+c) Sensitivity Specificity Negative Predictive Value (NPV): Negative predictive value: probability that the disease is not present when the test is negative = d/(b+d) Sensitivity = number of true positives/number of true positives + number of false negatives Specificity = number of true negatives/number of true negatives + number of false positives PPV = number of true positives/number of true positives + number of false positives NPV = number of true negatives/number of true negatives + number of false negatives Positive Likelihood Ratio: ratio between the probability of a positive test result given the presence of the disease and the probability of a positive test result given the absence of the disease. Negative Likelihood Ratio: ratio between the probability of a negative test result given the presence of the disease and the probability of a negative test result given the absence of the disease. Table. Classification Terms for the 15-item IPPI: RAT, N = 142. Test Injury present Injury absent Total Positive True Positives (a = 43) False Positives (c = 23) a + b = 66 Negative False Negatives (b = 11) True Negatives (d = 65) b + d = 76 Total a + b = 54 c + d = 88 Injury prevalence a + b/a + b + c + d = 38.03% Sensitivity (a/a+ b) = 79.63% CI = 66.47% to 89.35% Specificity (d/c + d) = 73.86% CI = 63.41% to 82.65% Positive Predictive Value (PPV) (a/[a + c]) = 65.15% CI = 52.42% to 76.47% Negative Predictive Value (NPV) (d/[b + d]) = 85.15% CI = 75.57% to 92.54% Positive Likelihood Ratio (Sensitivity/[100 Specificity]) = 3.05 CI = 2.09 to 4.44 Negative Likelihood Ratio (100 - Sensitivity/[Specificity]) = 0.28 CI = 0.16 to 0.47 Note. The Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated using a procedure developed by Wilson (1927) that contains a correction for continuity. Note. Internal consistency (Cronbach s Alpha) =.816, 95% CI [.769,.857] Table. Classification Rates for each of the Total Risk Scale Scores for the 15-item IPPI: RAT for the Physical Injury Group and the All Others Group (non-contact and risk scales with missing item data excluded), N =142. Physical injury group n = 54 All others n = 88 Overall Total Un- Risk Weighted Score Frequency True positives Frequency True negatives Means False negatives False positives % 0.0% % 85.2% 57.4% % 3.7% % 71.6% 62.4% 2 3(2) 90.7% 9.3% % 65.9% 62.4% 3 1(1) 88.9% 11.1% % 51.1% 68.9% % 16.7% % 39.8% 72.8% 5 2(2) 79.6% 20.4% % 26.1% 76.8% 6 6(4) 68.5% 31.5% % 22.7% 72.9% 7 10(4) 50.0% 50.0% % 19.3% 65.4% 9 6(4) 27.8% 72.2% % 5.7% 63.2% 10 4(2) 20.4% 79.6% % 3.4% 61.0% 11 4(2) 13.0% 87.0% % 2.3% 58.5% 12 5(1) 3.7% 96.3% % 1.1% 51.3% 13 2(1) 0.0% 100.0% % 0.0% 50.0% Risk Score M (SD) = 7.61 (3.10) Risk Score M (SD) = 4.06 (3.24) F = 41.58, df = 1, 140, p <.0001 d = 1.115, 95% CI [.7520, 1.477] r =.4756, 95% CI [.2674,.5202] The numbers in the curved brackets ( ) indicate the number of victims who reported future physical injury sever enough that they should have received medical attention; 80% of this group was above the cut score of 5.
7 % Misclassifications Figure. Decision Plot for the 15-item IPPI: RAT, N = 142. Figure. ROC for the 15-item IPPI: RAT, N = 142, AUC =.783 (99%, LL =.707, UL =.860) Comparison Group Physical Injury Group Total Risk Score Table. Meta-Analysis of Area Under the Curve (AUC) Values for IPV Risk Assessment Tools IPV Assessment Tool k Total N Weighted Mean AUC Value 95% CI DA 6 3, DVSI 3 3, K-SID 2 1, ODARA 6 1, SARA 7 2, Victim Assessment 2 1, B-SAFER % CI IPPI-RAT Table. Score ranges for the 15-item IPPI:RAT, N =142. Score range Injury percentage in range Confidence Interval to 5 points 14.5% (11/76) 8.28%-24.08% 6+ points 65.2% (43/66) 53.11%-75.52% Mild Risk: 0-1 points 7.4% (2/27) 2.06%-23.37% Moderate Risk: 2-5 points 18.4% (9/49) 9.98%-31.36% High Risk: 6-10 points 61.5% (32/52) 47.96%-73.53% Very High Risk: 11 & above pts 78.6% (11/14) 52.41%-92.43% Note. DA = Danger Assessment; DVSI = Domestic Violence Screening Inventory; K-SID = Kingston Screening Instrument for Domestic Violence; ODARA = Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment SARA = Spousal Assault Risk Assessment; B-SAFER = Brief Spousal Form for the Evaluation of Risk; IPPI-RAT = Intimate Partner Physical Injury-Risk Assessment Tool.
8 Table. Score ranges for the 15-item IPPI: RAT, N =142. Score range Injury percentage in range Confidence Interval* Mild Risk: 0-1 points 7.4% (2/27) 2.06%-23.37% Moderate Risk: 2-5 points 18.4% (9/49) 9.98%-31.36% High Risk: 6-10 points 61.5% (32/52) 47.96%-73.53% Very High Risk: 11 & above pts 78.6% (11/14) 52.41%-92.43% Moderate Risk: 0-1 points 7.4% (2/27) 2.06%-23.37% High Risk: 2-7 points 35.2% (25/71) 25.12%-46.82% Very High Risk: 8 & above pts 61.4% (27/44) 46.62%-74.28% *The test for significant differences in the two risk score ranges and the three risk score ranges are provided in the following notes. Note 1. Test for difference between the two risk ranges (0-5 and 6 & above points) at the 95% level: Groups 1 and 2, 40.7% difference score, 95% CI [35.3%, 62.8%] Note 2. Test for difference between the two risk ranges (0-5 and 6 & above points) at the 99% level: Groups 1 and 2, 40.7% difference score, 99% CI [30.0%, 65.8%] Note 3. Tests for differences between the three risk ranges (0-1, 2-7, and 8 & above points) at the 95% level: Groups 1 and 2, 27.8% difference score, 95% CI [8.9%, 40.6%] Groups 1 and 3, 54.0% difference score, 95% CI [32.2%, 67.9%] Groups 2 and 3, 26.2% difference score, 95% CI [7.4%, 42.5%] Note 4. Tests for differences between the three risk ranges (0-1, 2-7, and 8 & above points) at the 99% level: Groups 1 and 2, 27.8% difference score, 99% CI [1.7%, 44.2%] Groups 1 and 3, 54.0% difference score, 99% CI [24.2%, 71.2%] Groups 2 and 3, 26.2% difference score, 99% CI [1.6%, 46.8%] *These confidence intervals (CIs) are the CIs for the injury percentages representing the range. They should not be used for a test of the significance of differences between ranges (see Cummings, 2005; Cumming & Finch, 1995; Newcombe & Altman, 2000). Table. Intimate Partner Physical Injury IPPI: RAT Offender items Alleged Offender Gender About 15% of the alleged offenders in the present study were females. For the alleged male offenders the overall correct classification rate was 76.2%. For the alleged female offenders the overall correct classification rate was 82.4%. Although the overall correct classification rate for alleged female offenders was higher than the overall correct classification rate for alleged male offenders, the difference between the gender classification rates was not significant (Fisher s Exact test p =.286). 01. Caused minor injury (not requiring medical care) in incident. 02. Denies incident occurred. 03. Blames others for incident. 04. Physically aggressive toward partner prior to incident. 05. Increased frequency or severity of violence toward partner. 06. Ever used or threatened to use weapons against partner. 07. Emotionally abusive towards partner. 08. Ever choked or strangled partner. 09. Feels desperate about relationship. 10. Attempts to control partner s access to friends/family/resources. 11. Holds unrealistic expectations of partner. 12. Expresses ideas or opinions that justify violence towards partner. Victim items 13. Fears for self or children or pets. 14. Attempting to leave relationship. 15. Dissatisfied with military lifestyle. Best 15 physical injury risk assessment items (includes both static and dynamic items). Scoring: Assign one point for each yes response and sum the points for a total score.
9 % Misclasifications Table. Four Items from the 15-Item IPPI: RAT that Significantly and Uniquely Discriminated between Alleged Victims Who Self-reported Future Physical Injury and All Others in a Regression Analysis, N =166. O/01. Caused minor injury (not requiring medical care) in incident. O/03. Denies incident occurred. O/11. Ever choked or strangled partner. V/46. Fears for self or children or pets. Note. O = alleged offender; V = alleged victim. Table. Classification Rates for each of the Total Risk Scale Scores for the 4-item IPPI: RAT for the Physical Injury Group and the All Others Group (non-contact and risk scales with missing item data excluded), N = 166. Physical Injury Group n = 62(29) All Others n = 104 Overall Total Un-weighted Risk Means Score Frequency True Positives Frequency True Positives False Negatives False Negatives 0 4(1) 93.5% 6.5% % 27.9% 60.7% 1 12(6) 74.2% 25.8% % 30.8% 71.7% 2 20(9) 41.9% 58.1% % 8.7% 66.6% 3 19(11) 13.3% 88.7% % 1.9% 54.7% 4 7(2) 0.0% 100.0% % 0.0% 50.0% Risk Score M (SD) = 2.21 (1.09) Risk Score M (SD) = 1.13 (0.97) Note. The frequencies in the curved brackets ( ) indicate the number of alleged victims who reported future physical injury severe enough that they should have received medical attention (RIS survey item #15); 75.9% of this group was above the cut-off score of one. F = 43.72, df = 1, 164, p <.0001 d = 1.061, 95% CI [.726, 1.395] r =.4566, 95% CI [.3201,.5745] Table. Classification Terms for the 4-item IPPI: RAT, N = 166. Test Injury present Injury absent Total Positive True Positives (a = 46) False Positives (c = 32) a + c = 78 Negative False Negatives (b = 16) True Negatives (d = 72) b + d = 88 Total a + b = 62 c + d = 104 Injury prevalence (a + b/a + b + c + d) = 37.35% Sensitivity (a/a+ b) = 74.19%, 95% CI [61.26%, 84.10%] Specificity (d/c + d) = 69.23%, 95% CI [59.31%, 77.71%] Positive Predictive Value (PPV) (a/[a + c]) = 58.97%, 95% CI [47.25%, 69.80%] Negative Predictive Value (NPV) (d/[b + d]) = 81.82%, 95% CI [71.85%, 88,94%] Figure. Decision Plot for the 4-item IPPI: RAT, N Comparison Group Physical Injury Group Positive Likelihood Ratio (Sensitivity/[100 Specificity]) = 2.41, 95% CI [1.74, 3.33] Negative Likelihood Ratio (100 - Sensitivity/[Specificity]) = 0.37, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57] Note. The Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated using a procedure developed by Wilson (1927) that contains a correction for continuity. Note. Internal consistency (Cronbach s Alpha) =.430, 95% CI [.297,.547] Total Risk Score
10 Figure. ROC for the 4-item IPPI: RAT, N = 166, AUC =.764 (99%, LL =.688, UL =.840) Alleged Offender Gender Recall that almost 15% of the alleged offenders in the present study were females. For the alleged male offenders, the overall correct classification rate was 70.2%. For the alleged female offenders, the overall correct classification rate was 82.4%. Additional analysis revealed that the overall correct classification rate for the alleged female offenders was significantly higher than the overall correct classification rate for alleged male victims, Fisher s Exact test p =.041. Included in the User s manual World-Wide Roll Out Activities Two Technical Manuals Two Users Manuals (developed with multiple field tests) Training Videos (developed following multiple field tests) Discussion of risk assessment in the context of risk management. Issues related to using the IPPI-RAT Interviewing: alleged victim, alleged offender and others (command, hospital staff, police) Determining the presence/absence of the 15 IPPI-RAT risk factors, (includes discussion of fist factor definitions and how to ask risk factor related questions). Computing the total IPPI-RAT score Determining level of risk (including when to override) Strategies for managing risk Communicating findings to victim, alleged victim, commander, etc.
11 Discussion/Questions? Next Research Project Table. Intimate Partner Physical Injury IPPI: RAT Offender items 01. Caused minor injury (not requiring medical care) in incident. 02. Denies incident occurred. 03. Blames others for incident. 04. Physically aggressive toward partner prior to incident. 05. Increased frequency or severity of violence toward partner. 06. Ever used or threatened to use weapons against partner. 07. Emotionally abusive towards partner. 08. Ever choked or strangled partner. 09. Feels desperate about relationship. 10. Attempts to control partner s access to friends/family/resources. 11. Holds unrealistic expectations of partner. 12. Expresses ideas or opinions that justify violence towards partner. Victim items 13. Fears for self or children or pets. 14. Attempting to leave relationship. 15. Dissatisfied with military lifestyle. Best 15 physical injury risk assessment items (includes both static and dynamic items). Scoring: Assign one point for each yes response and sum the points for a total score. Table. Intimate Partner Physical Injury IPPI: RAT Offender items 01. Caused minor injury (not requiring medical care) in incident. 02. Denies incident occurred. 03. Blames others for incident. 04. Physically aggressive toward partner prior to incident. 05. Increased frequency or severity of violence toward partner. 06. Ever used or threatened to use weapons against partner. 07. Emotionally abusive towards partner. 08. Ever choked or strangled partner. 09. Feels desperate about relationship. 10. Attempts to control partner s access to friends/family/resources. 11. Holds unrealistic expectations of partner. 12. Expresses ideas or opinions that justify violence towards partner. Victim items 13. Fears for self or children or pets. 14. Attempting to leave relationship. 15. Dissatisfied with military lifestyle V/50. Dissatisfied with available social support. V/45. Has anger/hostility toward partner. V/42. Overlooks or easily forgives partner aggression. R/53. Ongoing pattern of marital discord. O/28. Has anger/hostility toward partner.
12 % Classifications Table. 15-Dynamic Items IPPI: RAT Offender items 1. Denies incident occurred. 2. Blames others for incident. 3. Emotionally abusive towards partner. 4. Feels desperate about relationship. 5. Has anger/hostility toward partner. 6. Attempts to control partner s access to friends/family/resources. 7. Holds unrealistic expectations of partner. 8. Expresses ideas or opinions that justify violence towards partner. Victim items 9. Fears for self or children or pets. 10. Attempting to leave relationship. 11. Dissatisfied with military lifestyle. 12. Overlooks or easily forgives partner aggression. 13. Has anger/hostility toward partner. 14. Dissatisfied with available social support. Relationship item 15. Ongoing pattern of marital discord. Table. Cut-off Score Classification Rates for each of the Total Risk Scale Scores for the Fifteen Dynamic Item Risk Scale for the Physical Injury Group and the All Others Group (non- contact and risk scales with missing item data excluded), N = 144. Physical Injury Group n = 55(26) All Others n = 89 Total Overall Risk Un- Score Frequency True Positives Frequency True Negatives Weighted False Negatives False Positives Means % 0.0% % 88.8% 55.6% % 0.0% % 80.9% 59.6% % 3.6% % 71.9% 62.2% % 10.9% % 65.2% 62.0% % 16.4% % 53.9% 64.8% % 20.0% % 41.6% 69.2% % 30.1% % 34.8% 67.6% % 45.5% % 25.8% 64.4% % 47.3% % 20.2% 66.2% % 70.1% % 16.9% 56.5% % 83.6% % 12.4% 52.0% % 92.7% % 5.6% 50.8% % 98.2% % 3.4% 49.2% % 98.2% % 1.1% 50.4% % 100.0% % 0.0% 50.0% Risk Score M (SD) = 7.82 (2.85) Risk Score M (SD) = 5.23 (3.72) F = 19.61, df = 1, 142, p <.0001 d = 0.760, 95% CI [.412, 1.107] r = 0.355, 95% CI [.190, 0.484] Table. Classification Terms for the 15Dynamic-Item IPPI: RAT, N = 144. Figure. Decision Plot for the 15-Dynamic item IPPI: RAT, N Test Injury present Injury absent Total Positive True Positives (a = 44) False Positives (c = 37) a + c = 81 Negative False Negatives (b = 11) True Negatives (d = 52) b + d = 63 Total a + b = 55 c + d = 89 Injury prevalence (a + b/a + b + c + d) = 38.19% Sensitivity (a/a+ b) = 80.00%, 95% CI [66.63%, 89.13%] Specificity (d/c + d) = 58.43%, 95% CI [47.49%, 68.63%] Positive Predictive Value (PPV) (a/[a + c]) = 56.25%, 95% CI [47.74%, 66.42%] Negative Predictive Value (NPV) (d/[b + d]) = 43.75%, 95% CI [35.59%, 52.26%] Positive Likelihood Ratio (Sensitivity/[100 Specificity]) = 1.92, 95% CI [1.45, 2.54] Negative Likelihood Ratio (100 - Sensitivity/[Specificity]) = 0.34, 95% CI [0.19, 0.59] Note. The Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated using a procedure developed by Wilson (1927) that contains a correction for continuity. Note. Internal consistency (Cronbach s Alpha) =.814, 95% CI [.766,.855] Total Risk Score Comparison Group Physical Injury Group
13 Figure. ROC for the 4-item IPPI: RAT, N = 166, AUC =.764 (99%, LL =.688, UL =.840) Table. Classification Rates for Different Score Ranges for the 15 Dynamic Item IPPI: RAT, N = 144. Total score range Injury percentage in range to 5 points 17.5% (11/63) 6 & above points 54.3% (44/81) Moderate Risk: 0-1 points 0.0% (0/17) High Risk: 2-7 points 33.8% (25/74) Very High Risk: 8 & above points 56.6% (30/53) The test for significant differences in the two risk score ranges and the three risk score ranges are provided in the following notes. Note 1. Test for difference between the two risk ranges (0-5 and 6 & above points) at the 95% level: Groups 1 and 2, 36.8% difference score 95% CI [.213,.496] Note 2. Test for difference between the two risk ranges (0-5 and 6 & above points) at the 99% level: Groups 1 and 2, 36.8% difference score 99% CI [.162,.530] Note 3. Tests for differences between the three risk ranges (0-1, 2-7, and 8 & above points) at the 95% level: Groups 1 and 2, 33.8% difference score 95% CI [.129,.451] Groups 1 and 3, 56.6% difference score 95% CI [.339,.690] Groups 2 and 3, 22.8% difference score 95% CI [.053,.386] Note 4. Tests for differences between the three risk ranges (0-1, 2-7, and 8 & above points) at the 99% level: Groups 1 and 2, 33.8% difference score 99% CI [.031,.488] Groups 1 and 3, 56.6% difference score 99% CI [.296,.724] Groups 2 and 3, 22.8% difference score 99% CI [.000,.429] Alleged Offender Gender Recall that almost 15% of the alleged offenders in the present study were females. In the presentation of the predictive validity data for the 15 dynamic item IPPI: RAT, no adjustments were made for gender of the alleged offender. To determine if gender of the alleged offender moderated the overall prediction rate of the 15 dynamic item IPPI: RAT, additional analyses were conducted. Using a cut-score of 5 (the best cut-score with respect to the overall correct classification rate for the total sample), the overall correct classification rates for the 15 dynamic item IPPI: RAT were determined for the alleged male offenders and for the alleged female offenders. For the alleged male offenders the overall correct classification rate was 69.8% (un-weighted mean; 67.2% weighted mean). For the alleged female offenders, the overall correct classification rate was 71.4% (un-weighted mean; 66.7% weighted mean). Follow-up analysis revealed that there was no significant gender difference in the overall correct classification rates, Fisher s Exact test p = Planned Research Primary study Goals: To determine if the 15-item dynamic IPPI-RAT shows changes in closed IPV cases where treatment is deemed successful. Compare clinicians risk assessments and dynamic IPPI-RAT scores and self-reported recidivism. Embedded study Goal: To replicate the initial predictive study.
14 Additional Discussion/Questions?
Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program Child Abuse/Neglect and Domestic Abuse Data Trends from FY01 to FY13
Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program Child Abuse/Neglect and Domestic Abuse Data Trends from FY01 to FY13 Spouse Abuse Reported to the Family Advocacy Program (FAP): Couples Total Met Criteria
More informationFamily Advocacy Program
Family Advocacy Program Family Advocacy Program Mission The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) is a multi-faceted, multidisciplinary program designed to address child abuse and domestic abuse within the Marine
More informationWhat works in policing domestic abuse?
What works in policing domestic abuse? October 14 th 2014 Levin Wheller and Andy Myhill Knowledge Research and Practice Unit Core College Mission Protect the public and support the fight against crime
More informationADVOCACY PROGRAM CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT (CAN) DATA FY11
Slide Title DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT (CAN) DATA FY11 Report 1 Year Reported CAN* Incidents FY01-11 Child Population Slide Title Total Reports** Rate/1000 Met Criteria
More informationCenter for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault Military-Related Publications (chronological order)
1 Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault Military-Related Publications (chronological order) Note. In addition to this list of publicly available publications, there are several research
More informationHospitalizations of females ages 13 and older due to assaultive injuries by spouse or partner
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TEMPLATES INDICATOR: DEFINITION: NUMERATOR: DENOMINATOR: Hospitalizations of females ages 13 and older due to assaultive injuries by spouse or partner The rate of hospitalizations
More informationTEST REVIEW: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment Thomas A. Wilson, M.A., LCPC. Private Practice, Boise, ID
I. General Information TEST REVIEW: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment Thomas A. Wilson, M.A., LCPC. Private Practice, Boise, ID A. Title: Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) B.
More informationThreat Assessment: Behavioral Indicators for Risk of Future Violence
Threat Assessment: Behavioral Indicators for Risk of Future Violence The Next Hour Threat Assessment and Behavioral Assessment- where do we employ Threat Assessment Behavior vs. Evidence Risk Assessment
More informationHospitalizations of females ages 13 and older due to assaultive injuries by spouse or partner
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TEMPLATES INDICATOR: DEFINITION: NUMERATOR: DENOMINATOR: HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010 OBJECTIVE: Hospitalizations of females ages 13 and older due to assaultive injuries by spouse
More informationJBLM SAPR & SHARP Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program (Air Force)
33 JBLM SAPR & SHARP Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program (Air Force) And Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Prevention (SHARP) Program (Army) 34 Introduction and Overview Objectives:
More informationAdult Perpetrators. Chapter 10
Adult Perpetrators Chapter 10 INTRODUCTION Since 1993, the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence has declined. Decline due to: Improved services for battered women Criminalization of intimate partner
More informationDepartment of Defense. Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2017
Department of Defense Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2017 April 2018 The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately
More informationTraumatic Events and Suicide Attempts
Traumatic Events and Suicide Attempts Findings from a large representative sample of Canadian military personnel Presenter: Shay-Lee Belik Co-Authors: Brian J Cox Gordon JG Asmundson Murray B Stein Jitender
More informationHospitalizations of females ages 18 and over due to violent injuries
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TEMPLATES DEFINITION: NUMERATOR: Hospitalizations of females ages 18 and over due to violent injuries The rate of hospitalizations due to assaultive injuries (E960.0-969.9) per 100,000
More informationAppendix G: Safe Helpline Data
Appendix G: Safe Helpline Data Appendix G: Safe Helpline Usage and User Satisfaction Data The Department of Defense (DoD) Safe Helpline supports the Department s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
More informationPathways to Crime. Female Offender Experiences of Victimization. JRSA/BJS National Conference, Portland Maine, 10/28/10
Pathways to Crime Female Offender Experiences of Victimization JRSA/BJS National Conference, Portland Maine, 10/28/10 Background The Idaho SAC has been helping the Idaho Department of Corrections in evaluation
More informationFamily Violence Risk Assessment. Review of International Research
Family Violence Risk Assessment Review of International Research Prepared by Melanie Brown Evaluation Services Organisational Assurance Group Police National Headquarters 2011 Published in August 2011
More informationTrauma Informed Care: The Do's and Don'ts of Serving Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
Trauma Informed Care: The Do's and Don'ts of Serving Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Presented by: Arielle Wiesenfeld & Kiley M. Rose New York Presbyterian Hospital DOVE Program Overview 1. 2. 3.
More informationAchievement Awards. Virginia Association of Counties APPLICATION FORM
2015 Achievement Awards Virginia Association of Counties APPLICATION FORM All applications must include the following information. Separate applications must be submitted for each eligible program. Deadline:
More informationProblem gambling and family violence: findings from a population representative community study
Problem gambling and family violence: findings from a population representative community study Supervisor: A/Prof Nicki Dowling, Dr Aino Suomi Carrie Ewin Why does it matter? Problem gambling in one individual
More informationWho is with us today? Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board New Directions in Offender Treatment 2016
This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-TA-AX-K027 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in
More informationThe Australian Homicide Project:
The Australian Homicide Project: Key Findings on Intimate Partner Homicide Paul Mazerolle Griffith University Li Eriksson Griffith University Holly Johnson University of Ottawa Richard Wortley University
More informationSafety Plan Threat Assessment
Safety Plan Threat Assessment Victim/survivors need to consider more than just "yes or no" to the safety questions below. It is important for victim/survivors and advocates to work together to assess the
More informationAbstinence - The practice of refraining from the consumption or use of alcohol and other intoxicating substances.
Terms Abstinence - The practice of refraining from the consumption or use of alcohol and other intoxicating substances. Air Force Personnel - Active duty, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve personnel,
More informationWhat does research tell us about best practices in evaluating services provided for rape victims?
Best-practices in methods for evaluation of crisis and counseling services provided to rape victims By Kathleen Muldowney HDFS 872 December 17, 2009 What does research tell us about best practices in evaluating
More informationA Warriors Peril 8/14/2018
Developed by: Richard Ayala MSW, NCAC, CADC II, ACRPS, SAP. C.E.O./Founder Bound To Change Counseling & Consulting. Briefly Identify the progression and impacts of The Warrior Culture Briefly Identify
More informationAlcohol and Domestic Violence Don t Mix
Alcohol and Domestic Violence Don t Mix Turning Point Domestic Violence Services 24 hour crisis line: (800) 221-6311 Johnson Co. Office: (317) 736-8666 Presenter Stephanie Cunningham, MSW Johnson County
More informationConsequences of Childhood Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence among Pregnant Women
Consequences of Childhood Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence among Pregnant Women Alissa Huth-Bocks, Ph.D., Erin Gallagher, M.A., Kylene Krause, M.A., & Sarah Ahlfs-Dunn, B.S. Eastern Michigan University
More informationTitle IX and VAWA, what we need to know. Blanca Lupiani Interim Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost
Title IX and VAWA, what we need to know Blanca Lupiani Interim Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of
More informationTraining Time: 120 Minutes
Training Time: 120 Minutes 1 Ethical decision making is a skill to be acquired. This training will be a skill building training that will help you think through common ethical dilemmas. You will be encouraged
More informationDescription of intervention
Cognitive Trauma Therapy for Battered Women (CTT-BW) Kubany, E. S., Hill, E. E., & Owens, J. A. (2003) Kubany, E. S., Hill, E. E., Owens, J. A., Iannce-Spencer, C., McCaig, M. A., Tremayne, K. J., et al.
More informationSnapshot 2. Risk & protective factors & principles for prevention. Dr. Avni Amin WHO. Dept. of Reproductive Health and Research. Identify effective
Snapshot 2 Risk & protective factors & principles for prevention Dr. Avni Amin WHO. Dept. of Reproductive Health and Research Identify effective Overview Present research on risk and protective factors
More informationProfessor Stacey-Rae Simcox Stetson University College of Law Director, Veterans Advocacy Clinic
Professor Stacey-Rae Simcox Stetson University College of Law Director, Veterans Advocacy Clinic To assist veterans with filing claims for VA disability compensation/pension benefits Serve the veterans
More informationHomicide. Violence. Introduction. HP 2020 Objectives. Summary
V Violence Homicide Reduce homicides Summary HP 2020 Objectives Target: 5.5 homicide deaths per 100,000 population This section reviews homicide mortality data from the past decade. Time trends, demographic
More informationFOR: JONATHAN WOODSON, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH AFFAIRS)
DEFENSE HEALTH BOARD FIVE SKYLINE PLACE, SUITE 810 5111 LEESBURG PIKE FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041-3206 FOR: JONATHAN WOODSON, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH AFFAIRS) SUBJECT: Interim Report: Department
More informationCLINICAL VERSUS ACTUARIAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF OFFENDERS
CLINICAL VERSUS ACTUARIAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF OFFENDERS By: Gary Zajac, Ph.D. Managing Director, Justice Center for Research Senior Research Associate College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach
More informationApplying for a Discharge Upgrade When You Have a Mental Health Condition
Applying for a Discharge Upgrade When You Have a Mental Health Condition A Supplemental Guide to the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center s Veterans Discharge Upgrade Manual This guide provides a roadmap
More informationHOW TO DOCUMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
HOW TO DOCUMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS Washington Behavioral Healthcare Conference June 23, 2016 Alison Iser, MA Project Manager Domestic Violence & Mental Health Collaboration Project
More informationTitle registration for a review proposal: Deployment of military personnel to military missions
Title registration for a review proposal: Deployment of military personnel to military missions Joannes Jacobsen, Julie Heidemann, Krystyna Kowalski & Anne- Marie Klint Jørgensen Title registration approval
More information11/15/2011. Predictors of Sexual Victimization and Revictimization Among U.S. Navy Recruits: Comparison of Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Nonvictims
Predictors of Sexual Victimization and Revictimization Among U.S. Navy Recruits: Comparison of Child Sexual Victims and Nonvictims Mandy M. Rabenhorst, Ph.D. Center for the Study of Family Violence and
More informationACDI. An Inventory of Scientific Findings. (ACDI, ACDI-Corrections Version and ACDI-Corrections Version II) Provided by:
+ ACDI An Inventory of Scientific Findings (ACDI, ACDI-Corrections Version and ACDI-Corrections Version II) Provided by: Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. P.O. Box 44256 Phoenix, Arizona 85064-4256 Telephone:
More informationEvaluation of a Sexual Assault Education/Prevention Program for Female U.S. Navy Personnel
MILITARY MEDICINE, 176, 10:1178, 2011 Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Education/Prevention Program for Female U.S. Navy Personnel Terri J. Rau, PhD * ; Lex L. Merrill, PhD ; Stephanie K. McWhorter, MA ;
More informationEvidence-Based Treatments for PTSD: Cognitive Processing Therapy
Evidence-Based Treatments for PTSD: Cognitive Processing Therapy Brian L. Meyer, Ph.D. Interim Associate Chief Mental Health Clinical Services McGuire VA Medical Center Richmond, VA May 19, 2015 Disclaimer
More informationRecognising Dangerousness Thames Valley Partnership.
Recognising Dangerousness Thames Valley Partnership. Bisham Abbey. October 2007. Richard C Beckett. Consultant Clinical Forensic Psychologist. Oxford Forensic Mental Health Service and University of Birmingham.
More informationViolence against Women and Mental Health in Timor-Leste: Findings from the Nabilan Baseline Study
Violence against Women and Mental Health in Timor-Leste: Findings from the Nabilan Baseline Study Secundino Rangel and Xian Warner The Asia Foundation Timor-Leste Where? Nationally-representative female
More informationPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the military and veterans
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the military and veterans When people think of mental illness in the military it is unsurprising that many of them think of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
More informationHome Sleep Test (HST) Instructions
Home Sleep Test (HST) Instructions 1. Your physician has ordered an unattended home sleep test (HST) to diagnose or rule out sleep apnea. This test cannot diagnose any other sleep disorders. 2. This device
More informationDVI Pre-Post: Standardization Study
DVI Pre-Post: Standardization Study Donald D Davignon, Ph.D. Abstract The validity of the DVI Pre-Post (DVI-PP) was investigated in a sample of 3,250 participants. There were 344 participants who completed
More informationService-related Co-occurring Conditions and Intimate Partner Violence BATTERED WOMEN S JUSTICE PROJECT
Service-related Co-occurring Conditions and Intimate Partner Violence BRIAN CLUBB MILITARY & VETERANS ADVOCACY PROGRAM BATTERED WOMEN S JUSTICE PROJECT Agenda Common Combat Stress Reactions Substance Abuse
More informationHOW IS PACE TO BE USED
Introduction and overview of the pace monitor what is THE PACE MONITOR The PACE Monitor is a comprehensive program for the screening, in-depth assessment and the evaluation of the progress and change of
More informationCHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This study is a secondary data analysis of the 1998 South African Demographic and Health Survey (SADHS) data set of women and households. According to the SADHS
More informationIMPROVING RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES IN ILLINOIS
IMPROVING RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES IN ILLINOIS Sexual Assault Incident Procedure Act FAIR USE DISCLAIMER FAIR USE NOTICE: This presentation contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
More informationIntersections of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault ext ext. 17
Intersections of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Rose Luna, Deputy Director, TAASA Brad Teaff, Training Specialist rluna@taasa.org bteaff@taasa.org 512-474-7190 ext. 13 512-474-7190 ext. 17 Underlying
More informationMyths of Sexual and Dating Violence
Myths of Sexual and Dating Violence Myth: Most sexual assaults are committed by strangers. Fact: 60% 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows (i.e. a relative, friend, neighbor,
More informationTRAUMA INFORMED CARE: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORKING ALLIANCE
TRAUMA INFORMED CARE: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORKING ALLIANCE Justin Watts PhD. NCC, CRC Assistant Professor, Rehabilitation Health Services The University of North Texas Objectives Upon completion of this
More informationDomestic Violence: The Fundamentals of Dynamics, Investigation, Prosecution, and Sentencing {
Domestic Violence: The Fundamentals of Dynamics, Investigation, Prosecution, and Sentencing { Dana Nelson Staff Attorney, AVOICE Program Texas Legal Services Center In 2011 920 Females In 2005 1,181 Females
More informationEarly identification of domestic violence high risk victims and preventing repeat victimisation. Donna Covey CBE
Early identification of domestic violence high risk victims and preventing repeat victimisation Donna Covey CBE Overview Risk factors Role of health and social care Effective training and education Other
More informationSAMHSA/CMHS Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery Priority to Veterans
SAMHSA/CMHS Jail Diversion and Trauma Recovery Priority to Veterans David Morrissette, Ph.D. LCSW SAMHSA 240-276-1912 david.morrissette@samhsa.hhs.gov Opportunities for breaking the cycle: Sequential Intercept
More informationInnovative Research Approaches in Elder Abuse: Evaluation. Carrie Mulford, Ph.D. USC Tamkin Symposium Presentation September 16, 2016
Innovative Research Approaches in Elder Abuse: Evaluation Carrie Mulford, Ph.D. USC Tamkin Symposium Presentation September 16, 2016 1 Overview Background Review of Prevention and Intervention Research
More informationService Areas: Domestic Violence (Intimate Partner Violence) Sexual Assault/Rape Sex Trafficking
Service Areas: Domestic Violence (Intimate Partner Violence) Sexual Assault/Rape Sex Trafficking Domestic Violence Intimate Partner Violence A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used
More informationRecognizing the Signs and Defining Best Practice for Patient Care
TRAUMA-INFORMED CARE Recognizing the Signs and Defining Best Practice for Patient Care A nonprofit independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association TRAUMA-INFORMED CARE Learning Objectives:
More informationResearch Funded by NIJ #2008-WG-BX-0002
Sexual Abuse and Forced Sex Among a Sample of Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: Identifying the Need for Sexual Health Interventions and Sexual Safety Planning Jill Theresa Messing, MSW, PhD
More informationResearch with the SAPROF
SAPROF 2nd Edition manual updated Research chapter May 2012 M. de Vries Robbé & V. de Vogel Research with the SAPROF Retrospective file studies Research with the SAPROF is being conducted in various settings
More informationPlease read and consider the following information carefully before submitting your application.
Please read and consider the following information carefully before submitting your application. This application is designed to aid you and the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center, SAVA, in determining
More information2015 Behavioral Health Risk Assessment Data Report (BH-RADR)
Public Health Report 2015 Behavioral Health Risk Assessment Data Report (BH-RADR) PHR No. S.0008056-15 Approved for public release, distribution unlimited General Medical: 500A September 2017 Clinical
More informationAssessing Treatability in Abusive Men. Overview. Treatability. Lisa Buys, Ph.D., R.Psych Kierla Ireland, Industrial Intern
Assessing Treatability in Abusive Men Lisa Buys, Ph.D., R.Psych Kierla Ireland, Industrial Intern 1 Overview Defining Treatability Review of treatment/treatment effectiveness Variables affecting Treatability:
More informationb. Potentially harmful alcohol misuse remains a common behavioural problem, but has declined steadily from 16% in 2004/6 to 10% in 2014/16.
THE MENTAL HEALTH OF THE UK ARMED FORCES (September 2018 version) This briefing note provides an outline of the current evidence on UK military mental health, including prevalence rates of mental health
More informationVictim Support and Title IX Investigations
Victim Support and Title IX Investigations Director, Office of Victim Assistance at the University of Colorado-Boulder Licensed Professional Counselor Former police advocate and case manager at local rape
More informationGender Responsive Substance Use Treatment for Women. Christine Ullstrup, LCSW, CSAC, ICS VP Clinical Services Meta House, Milwaukee WI
Gender Responsive Substance Use Treatment for Women Christine Ullstrup, LCSW, CSAC, ICS VP Clinical Services Meta House, Milwaukee WI Overview Relational-Cultural Model The Substance Use Experience The
More informationPreventing Family Violence: What Should Ohio Do?
Preventing Family Violence: What Should Ohio Do? Family Violence Violence (either actual or threatened) including physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, financial or social abuse which occurs
More informationCLAIMANT S FACTS ABOUT TRAUMATIC INCIDENT CAUSING PTSD These facts should be written in a narrative statement giving details about the following:
CLAIMANT S FACTS ABOUT TRAUMATIC INCIDENT CAUSING PTSD These facts should be written in a narrative statement giving details about the following: 1. The nature of the trauma such as military combat, sexual
More informationZena Dadouch. Department of Psychology Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL
Zena Dadouch Department of Psychology zdadouch@gmail.com EDUCATION M.A. (In progress) B.A. (2015), DeKalb, Illinois Program: Clinical Psychology GPA: 3.80 Thesis: Adult Syrian Refugees Resettled in the
More informationPost Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (PTSD)
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (PTSD) Reference: http://www.psychiatry.org/military Prevalence of PTSD One in five veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is diagnosed with PTSD. (http://www.psychiatry.org/military
More informationAn Indepth Actuarial Assessment for Wife Assault Recidivism: The Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide
Law Hum Behav (2008) 32:150 163 DOI 10.1007/s10979-007-9088-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE An Indepth Actuarial Assessment for Wife Assault Recidivism: The Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide N. Zoe Hilton Æ Grant
More informationSBIRT IOWA. Iowa Army National Guard THE IOWA CONSORTIUM FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION. Iowa Army National Guard
SBIRT IOWA Iowa Army National Guard THE IOWA CONSORTIUM FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Iowa Army National Guard Biannual Report April 2017 With Funds Provided By: Iowa Department of Public
More informationPredictors of PTSD in Primary Care
Predictors of PTSD in Primary Care Jane Liebschutz, MD MPH Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health Boston Medical Center Supported by: RWJF Generalist Faculty Scholarship NIDA K23 Award
More informationPress Briefing - New Interim Guidance Question 21 on the Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions
PRESS BRIEFING New Interim Guidance Question 21 on the Standard The Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper issued Friday, April 5 new guidance to support victims of sexual assault who hold
More informationVeterans. been at war one or both. number of. tours, and. traumatic. justice system. returning. especially. also startle. He/she may.
Appendix 1F Training Memo Justice Involved Military Personnel and Veterans Written by Glenna Tinney, Battered Women s Justicee Project, and Russ Strand, Chief, U.S. Army Military Police School The United
More informationViolence Against Women Statistics: Latest Guidelines and Data
Violence Against Women Statistics: Latest Guidelines and Data 5 th Global Forum on Gender Statistics, 3-5 November 2014, Aguascalientes, Mexico Overview of Presentation Overview of Guidelines on producing
More informationTrauma Informed Sexual Assault Investigation: Interviewing
Trauma Informed Sexual Assault Investigation: Interviewing How Victim Trauma Impacts Investigations Victims may experience certain responses during and after the assault: Traumatic memory is fragmented,
More informationStatistics Report ce Working to End Domestic Violence Working to End Domestic Violence Working to End Domestic V
1800 341 900 1800 341 900 1800 341 900 1800 341 900 1800 341 900 1800 341 90 National Freephone Helpline and Support Services 1800 341 900 Statistics Report 2006 ce Working to End Domestic Violence Working
More informationREVISIONS TO CHICAGO-KENT CODE OF CONDUCT APPROVED BY THE FACULTY ON MAY 12, 2015
REVISIONS TO CHICAGO-KENT CODE OF CONDUCT APPROVED BY THE FACULTY ON MAY 12, 2015 DEFINITIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT The language below reflects the new definitions approved by the faculty at the May 12,
More informationDiagnosis of PTSD by Army Behavioral Health Clinicians: Are Diagnoses Recorded in Electronic Health Records?
ARTICLES Diagnosis of PTSD by Army Behavioral Health Clinicians: Are Diagnoses Recorded in Electronic Health Records? Joshua E. Wilk, Ph.D., Richard K. Herrell, Ph.D., Abby L. Carr, Joyce C. West, Ph.D.,
More informationResilience and Victims of Violence
Resilience and Victims of Violence Dr. Benjamin Roebuck Professor of Victimology & Public Safety WSV Symposium, Hong Kong 2018 Partnerships Who supported the research process? 2 Concepts How do we understand
More informationAlcohol Insight 117. Roles of Alcohol in Intimate Partner Abuse. Key findings. Research team. Background. November 2014
Roles of Alcohol in Intimate Partner Abuse November 2014 Key findings Two-thirds of domestic incidents known to the police were found to involve at least one of the couple concerned being under the influence
More informationThe Investigative Process. Detective Commander Daniel J. Buenz
The Investigative Process Detective Commander Daniel J. Buenz Elmhurst police department detective division 6 general assignment Detectives. 3 School Resource Officers. 1 Detective assigned to DuPage Metropolitan
More informationViolence against Women Surveys Practice, Implementation and Decision-Making
Violence against Women Surveys Practice, Implementation and Decision-Making Sabine Ravestijn Urban safety expert, Safer Cities Project: Port Moresby (UN-HABITAT) Port Moresby, Papua, New Guinea Summary
More informationEXPLORING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND SUBSTANCE USE/ABUSE. Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence
EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND SUBSTANCE USE/ABUSE Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Learning Objectives Participants will explore the intersection of intimate
More informationHumiliation, Manipulation, and Control: Evidence of Centrality in Domestic Violence Against an Adult Partner
Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 19,. 6, December 2004 ( C 2004) DOI: 10.1007/s10896-004-0679-4 Humiliation, Manipulation, and Control: Evidence of Centrality in Domestic Violence Against an Adult Partner
More informationMale Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial Findings Into Context
AMY HOLTZWORTH-MUNROE Indiana University Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial Findings Into Context The article Partner Violence and Mental Health Outcomes in a New Zealand
More informationgender and violence 2 The incidence of violence varies dramatically by place and over time.
gender and violence Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person (Article 3, UDHR, 1948; Articles 6.1 and 9.1, ICCPR, 1966). No one shall be subjected to... cruel, inhuman or degrading
More informationRisk Assessment. Person Demographic Information. Record the date of admission.
Risk Assessment The following assessment tool is to be used if the person served has made contact with a behavioral health professional and is willing to work with us, to some degree to assess risk. If
More informationSociology 4 Winter PART ONE -- Based on Baker, Doing Social Research, pp and lecture. Circle the one best answer for each.
Sociology 4 Winter 2006 Assignment #1 NAME Discussion Section Time PART ONE -- Based on Baker, Doing Social Research, pp. 3-43 and lecture. Circle the one best answer for each. 1. In The Sociological Imagination,
More informationGoals and Objectives
Goals and Objectives 2015-2017 Submitted By Thomas C. Hall, Ph.D. Chair: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/ Substance Abuse Committee Vietnam Veterans of America To Officers and Board of Directors Vietnam
More informationSCREENING FOR IPV BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS: FVPSA RESPONSE
SCREENING FOR IPV BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS: FVPSA RESPONSE July 24, 2012 Marylouise Kelley, Director Division of Family Violence Prevention and Services KEY FINDINGS FROM THE IOM DV screening could help
More informationIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) Domestic Violence 101. Zara Espinoza, MSW
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Domestic Violence 101 Zara Espinoza, MSW Learning Objectives Enhance understanding of the dynamics surrounding IPV/Domestic Violence Explore effects, risk factors and cultural
More informationCOMMUNITY. Stigma and Discrimination Experienced by Sex Workers Living with HIV
COMMUNITY Stigma and Discrimination Experienced by Sex Workers Living with HIV Introduction Globally, sex workers and people living with HIV experience severe stigma and discrimination, such as: Violations
More informationAddressing Mental Health in HIV Prevention and Treatment Research Kathleen J. Sikkema, Ph.D.
Addressing Mental Health in HIV Prevention and Treatment Research Kathleen J. Sikkema, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Global Health, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Director, Social
More informationEstablishing a Best-in-Class Workplace Violence Prevention Program. Matthew Doherty, Senior Vice President, Hillard Heintze
Establishing a Best-in-Class Matthew Doherty, Senior Vice President, Hillard Heintze Agenda Employee Safety Is a Top Priority Protecting the Workplace What We Learned about Attackers Behavioral Threat
More informationprobation, number of parole revocations, DVI Alcohol Scale scores, DVI Control Scale scores, and DVI Stress Coping Abilities Scale scores.
Accurate selection of probationers for intensive supervision probation (ISP) is important for efficient management of departmental resources, while providing needed services and concurrently avoiding the
More information