Surviving and thriving: the development and validation of the Intimate Partner Violence Recovery Measure

Abstract

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define “intimate partner violence” or IPV as “a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans” (CDC, 2017). The term “intimate partner violence” is an umbrella term that describes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression as part of an ongoing pattern of power and control perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner – a multifaceted phenomenon that is prevalent among millions of people around the globe irrespective of age, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation (CDC, 2017; Murray &amp; Graves, 2012). The negative, and oftentimes, long-term health consequences of IPV are well documented in the research literature, ranging from physical health consequences to long-term psychological impact (Bergman &amp; Brismar, 1991; Campbell &amp; Soeken, 1999; Coker et al., 2005, 2002, 2000; Lindhorst &amp; Beadnell, 2011; Mertin &amp; Mohr, 2001; Neustifter &amp; Powell, 2015; Sutherland, Bybee, &amp; Sullivan, 1998; Zlotnick et al., 2006). While the destructive ramifications of IPV represent a harsh reality for many survivors, many of these same survivors also endorse positive, growth-promoting experiences within the recovery process from past IPV. The Intimate Partner Violence Recovery Measure (IPVRM) was created to assess the unique recovery experiences of IPV survivors in the long-term. Data analysis results testing the psychometric soundness of the instrument yielded preliminary evidence for a valid, 15-item IPV recovery-specific instrument characterized by two primary subscale factors: Self-Love, Purpose and Transformation and Advocacy and Psychoeducation. Internal consistency of the IPVRM yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.851. The Self-Love, Purpose and Transformation yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.845 while the Advocacy and Psychoeducation subscale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.661. Convergent validity results computed between final IPVRM scores and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory produced a Pearson’s Product Moment correlation of 0.653, which was significant at the 0.01 level (r = 0.653, p = 0.000). Divergent validity results computed between the final IPVRM, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10; Kessler et al., 2002) and the PTSD-8 (Hansen et al., 2010) produced a Pearson’s r of -0.595 and -0.338, respectively, both of which were significant at the 0.01 level (r = -0.595, p = 0.000; r = -0.338, p = 0.000). From a research perspective, researchers now have an instrument to begin rigorous, quantitative investigations of the long-term IPV recovery process (e.g., cross-sectional designs, longitudinal studies). Future studies are needed to confirm the accuracy of initial findings and stability of the overall IPVRM model and identified subscales. Clinically, the IPVRM can be utilized to help inform treatment intervention strategies and outcome-based assessment in clinical settings from a strengths-perspective. Finally, training programs might consider purposeful integration of mandatory inclusion of trauma-informed care and/or specific, evidence-based trauma treatment modalities that have proven successful with IPV survivors. [This abstract has been edited to remove characters that will not display in this system. Please see the PDF for the full abstract.]]]> 2019 Intimate partner violence Psychic trauma $x Treatment English http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/Kelly_uncg_0154D_12690.pdf oai:libres.uncg.edu/26538 2019-07-12T16:11:32Z UNCG Debating school choice in North Carolina: the rise of private school vouchers Kennedy, Robert NC DOCKS at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro <![CDATA[Private school voucher programs are part of what proponents call the “school choice” movement, which aims to increase educational opportunities for students. The concept of school choice is not without controversy, especially with regards to private school vouchers. While voucher programs have existed in the United States since the 1700s, they did not come into prominence until the passage of the Milwaukee Parent Choice Program in 1990. North Carolina passed two voucher laws in 2013 and numerous states across the country now have some type of voucher program embedded without their public education system. The goal of this dissertation was to study the historical development and contemporary status of the voucher trend while also closely examining North Carolina’s voucher law and analyzing the factors that led to its passage in 2013. This study provides a historical overview of vouchers in the United States, as well as a detailed review of the literature surrounding private school vouchers. The history of vouchers in the United States can largely be divided into three time frames: the earliest voucher programs from 1776 to 1925, the passage of voucher laws aimed at evading desegregation mandates from 1950 to 1989, and the rise of modern voucher programs from 1990 to present day. My review of the literature revealed eight overarching voucher concepts. These eight themes include (a) academic achievement, (b) free-market competition, (c) individual parental school choice, (d) racial segregation, (e) funding and state budget issues, (f) targeting at-risk and disadvantaged student populations, (g) oversight and accountability, and (h) church-state separation and other legal concerns. I applied these concepts to the information I gathered while examining over 130 documents published by two of North Carolina’s most significant think-tanks, NC Policy Watch (NCPW) and the John Locke Foundation (JLF). I utilized specific coding techniques to identify the major themes found within these documents, which allowed me to analyze more closely how North Carolina’s voucher law came into existence. I concluded my dissertation by assessing the impact of vouchers more broadly and offering specific recommendations for policymakers regarding some of the political and social issues that need further consideration