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

<div><p>Background</p><p>About 50% of patients in substance abuse treatment with a partner perpetrated and/or experienced intimate partner violence in the past year. To date, there are no screeners to identify both perpetrators and victims of partner intimate violence in a substance abusing population. We developed a 4 item screening instrument for this purpose, the Jellinek Inventory for assessing Partner Violence (J-IPV). Important strengths of the J-IPV are that it takes only 2 minutes to administer and is easy to use and to score.</p><p>Methods</p><p>To investigate the validity of the J-IPV, two independent studies were conducted including 98 and 99 participants, respectively. Aim of the second study was to cross-validate findings from the first study. Psychometric properties of the J-IPV were determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio’s by comparing J-IPV outcomes to outcomes on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (‘gold standard’). Also, receiver operator characteristics (ROC)-curves were determined to weight sensitivity and specificity as a result of different J-IPV cutoffs, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.</p><p>Results</p><p>Results of the first study demonstrated that the J-IPV possesses good psychometric properties to detect perpetrators and victims of <i>any</i> as well as <i>severe</i> intimate partner violence. Results from the second study replicated findings from the first study.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>We recommend administering the J-IPV to patients entering substance abuse treatment. If perpetrators and victims of partner violence are identified, action can be taken to stop IPV perpetration and arrange help for victims, for example by offering perpetrators treatment or by providing safety planning or advocacy interventions to victims.</p></div

Distribution of participants who perpetrated IPV, experienced IPV victimization, who were both perpetrator and victim of IPV and who were nor perpetrator, nor victim in the past year of study 1 and study 2.

<p>IPV = intimate partner violence; CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactics Scales.</p

Demographic variables and prevalence of IPV as determined with the CTS2 of participants in study 1 and study 2.

<p>CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactics Scales; SUD = substance use disorder;</p>1<p>Positive screener: one or more items of the J-IPV answered with ‘yes’;</p>2<p>Negative screener: none of the J-IPV items answered with ‘yes’;</p>3<p>after the intake, patients were assigned to either inpatient or outpatient treatment;</p>*<p> = p<.05.</p

Formulas used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, and LR−.

<p>IPV = intimate partner violence; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio.</p

Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR−, and AUC of the J-IPV as screener for IPV victimization as compared with the CTS2 of study 1 and study 2.

<p>IPV = intimate partner violence; J-IPV = Jellinek Inventory for assessing Partner Violence; sens. = sensitivity; spec. = specificity; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio; AUC = area under the curve; ROC = receiver operator characteristics; CI = confidence interval.</p

Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR−, and AUC of the J-IPV as screener for IPV perpetration as compared with the CTS2 of study 1 and study 2.

<p>IPV = intimate partner violence; J-IPV = Jellinek Inventory for assessing Partner Violence; sens. = sensitivity; spec. = specificity; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio; AUC = area under the curve; ROC = receiver operator characteristics; CI = confidence interval.</p

Overview of participants and drop-outs of study 2.

<p>Overview of participants and drop-outs of study 2.</p

Substance misuse and substance use disorders in sex offenders: a review

AbstractSubstance abuse has often been associated with committing sex offenses. In this article, the following will be reviewed: 1) studies that assessed substance abuse in sex offenders; 2) differences in substance abuse among different types of sex offenders; 3) differences in substance abuse between sex offenders and nonsexual offenders and substance abuse in the normal population; 4) sex offenders’ intoxication at the time of the offense; and 5) differences in intoxication at the time of the offense among different types of sex offenders. Studies will be discussed according to the method they used to assess substance abuse, i.e., file research, screening instruments or semi-structured interviews. This review shows that about half of the sex offenders has a history of substance abuse, a quarter to half of the sex offenders has a history of alcohol misuse and that about one fifth to a quarter of the sex offenders has a history of drug misuse. Furthermore, about a quarter to half of the sex offenders appeared to be intoxicated at the time of the offense. The review results in recommendations for future research. Because of the high prevalence of substance abuse in sex offenders it is advisable to routinely screen for substance abuse and, if necessary, to treat substance abuse