评估临床和司法中儿童对父母暴力案件的风险和保护因素

IF 7.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Ismael Loinaz, Ava Ma de Sousa
{"title":"评估临床和司法中儿童对父母暴力案件的风险和保护因素","authors":"Ismael Loinaz, Ava Ma de Sousa","doi":"10.5093/ejpalc2020a5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Child-to-parent violence takes different forms (physical, psychological or economic) and can be addressed in the judicial system or in clinical practice. The current paper compares 61 clinical and 30 judicialized cases that were evaluated using the Child-to-Parent Violence Risk assessment tool (CPVR). Results showed a higher prevalence of risk factors in the judicialsample. This group of aggressors had worse profiles of violence (bidirectionality of the parent/child violence, violenceother than CPV, and more CPV complaints), more psychological issues (low frustration tolerance, little anger management,narcissism, and violent attitudes) and, most notably, more dysfunctional families (violence between parents, cohabitationproblems, inversion of the hierarchy, non-violent conflicts, and even criminal history of the parents). Logistic regressionshowed that narcissism, attitudes justifying violence, violence between parents, and problems of parents themselves(such mental disorders or drug abuse) allowed for correct classification of 89.4% of cases. Total CPVR scores differedbetween groups (25.8 vs. 14.2), and classification was good for both type of group (AUC = .830) and injuries to mother (AUC= .764). A cut-off score between 22 and 23 showed the best results in prediction of group and injuries to mother. Utility ofthe CPVR, and next steps in its development are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Risk and Protective Factors in Clinical and Judicial Child-to-Parent Violence Cases\",\"authors\":\"Ismael Loinaz, Ava Ma de Sousa\",\"doi\":\"10.5093/ejpalc2020a5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Child-to-parent violence takes different forms (physical, psychological or economic) and can be addressed in the judicial system or in clinical practice. The current paper compares 61 clinical and 30 judicialized cases that were evaluated using the Child-to-Parent Violence Risk assessment tool (CPVR). Results showed a higher prevalence of risk factors in the judicialsample. This group of aggressors had worse profiles of violence (bidirectionality of the parent/child violence, violenceother than CPV, and more CPV complaints), more psychological issues (low frustration tolerance, little anger management,narcissism, and violent attitudes) and, most notably, more dysfunctional families (violence between parents, cohabitationproblems, inversion of the hierarchy, non-violent conflicts, and even criminal history of the parents). Logistic regressionshowed that narcissism, attitudes justifying violence, violence between parents, and problems of parents themselves(such mental disorders or drug abuse) allowed for correct classification of 89.4% of cases. Total CPVR scores differedbetween groups (25.8 vs. 14.2), and classification was good for both type of group (AUC = .830) and injuries to mother (AUC= .764). A cut-off score between 22 and 23 showed the best results in prediction of group and injuries to mother. Utility ofthe CPVR, and next steps in its development are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"38\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2020a5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2020a5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

摘要

儿童对父母的暴力有不同的形式(身体、心理或经济),可以在司法系统或临床实践中加以解决。本论文比较了61个临床案例和30个司法案例,这些案例使用儿童对父母暴力风险评估工具(CPVR)进行评估。结果显示,司法样本中危险因素的患病率较高。这组攻击者有更严重的暴力行为(父母/儿童暴力的双向性,CPV以外的暴力行为,以及更多的CPV投诉),更多的心理问题(低挫折容忍度,很少愤怒管理,自恋和暴力态度),最明显的是,更多的功能失调家庭(父母之间的暴力,同居问题,等级倒置,非暴力冲突,甚至父母的犯罪史)。逻辑回归显示,自恋、为暴力辩护的态度、父母之间的暴力以及父母自身的问题(如精神障碍或药物滥用)使89.4%的案例得以正确分类。总CPVR评分在两组之间存在差异(25.8比14.2),两组类型(AUC= .830)和母亲损伤(AUC= .764)的分类均良好。在22到23分之间的分值显示了对群体和母亲伤害的最佳预测结果。本文讨论了CPVR的应用及其下一步的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Risk and Protective Factors in Clinical and Judicial Child-to-Parent Violence Cases
Child-to-parent violence takes different forms (physical, psychological or economic) and can be addressed in the judicial system or in clinical practice. The current paper compares 61 clinical and 30 judicialized cases that were evaluated using the Child-to-Parent Violence Risk assessment tool (CPVR). Results showed a higher prevalence of risk factors in the judicialsample. This group of aggressors had worse profiles of violence (bidirectionality of the parent/child violence, violenceother than CPV, and more CPV complaints), more psychological issues (low frustration tolerance, little anger management,narcissism, and violent attitudes) and, most notably, more dysfunctional families (violence between parents, cohabitationproblems, inversion of the hierarchy, non-violent conflicts, and even criminal history of the parents). Logistic regressionshowed that narcissism, attitudes justifying violence, violence between parents, and problems of parents themselves(such mental disorders or drug abuse) allowed for correct classification of 89.4% of cases. Total CPVR scores differedbetween groups (25.8 vs. 14.2), and classification was good for both type of group (AUC = .830) and injuries to mother (AUC= .764). A cut-off score between 22 and 23 showed the best results in prediction of group and injuries to mother. Utility ofthe CPVR, and next steps in its development are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信