Richards Tara N, Gover Angela R, Branscum Caralin, Nystrom Alyssa, Claxton Taylor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
J Interpers Violence. 2022 Nov;37(21-22):NP20288-NP20310. doi: 10.1177/08862605211050091. Epub 2021 Oct 14.
Court-ordered treatment programs are a widely used response to intimate partner violence (IPV) and many states have developed standards to guide programs. The current study provides an update to Maiuro and Eberle's. (2008) review of states' standards and extends the literature by using the (PEIs; i.e., , and ) as an organizational framework to examine standards. Findings showed that 84% of states had standards in 2020, compared to 88% in 2007, and extensive changes both within and across states' standards had occurred. Regarding the PEIs, in line with the risk principle most states mandated the use of risk assessments; inconsistent with the needs principle, few states used these assessments to classify clients into risk levels or inform individualized treatment. The majority of standards addressed the treatment principle by outlining a required structure and duration, but few attended to responsivity factors (e.g., identifying treatment modalities, attending to specific client factors). Regarding the fidelity principle, most standards outlined education or training requirements for staff and required periodic program reviews or audits, but few standards were evidenced-based and only about half required that programs collect data to measure effectiveness. Taken together, findings suggest that standards have continued to evolve and that the integration of PEIs into IPV treatment is only just beginning. Standards provide a rich opportunity for future researcher-practitioner partnerships in the field of IPV intervention.
法院强制要求的治疗项目是应对亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）的一种广泛使用的措施，许多州已经制定了指导项目的标准。当前的研究对迈乌罗和埃伯勒（2008年）对各州标准的综述进行了更新，并通过使用（PEIs；即，和）作为组织框架来审查标准，扩展了相关文献。研究结果表明，2020年84%的州有相关标准，而2007年这一比例为88%，并且各州内部和各州之间的标准都发生了广泛变化。关于PEIs，与风险原则一致，大多数州强制要求使用风险评估；但与需求原则不一致的是，很少有州使用这些评估将客户分类到风险级别或为个性化治疗提供依据。大多数标准通过概述所需的结构和时长来解决治疗原则问题，但很少关注反应性因素（例如，确定治疗方式，关注特定客户因素）。关于保真度原则，大多数标准概述了工作人员的教育或培训要求，并要求定期进行项目审查或审计，但很少有标准是以证据为基础的，只有大约一半的标准要求项目收集数据以衡量效果。综上所述，研究结果表明标准在持续演变，并且将PEIs整合到IPV治疗中才刚刚开始。标准为IPV干预领域未来的研究者 - 从业者合作提供了丰富的机会。
