Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Representing 15% of all Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) related arrests in the Unites States (Rennison, 2002) women IPV arrestees present unique challenges to professionals working in the domestic violence treatment arena. Indeed, the idea of women being IPV offenders is controversial. Of particular relevance to the proposed presentation is the use assessment instruments designed for men IPV offenders with women IPV arrestees. Many believe that most of the women arrested for IPV are victims of abuse who were acting in self-defense thus arresting them serves only to put them in greater jeopardy for potential harm by deterring them from seeking police assistance during future assaults (DeLeon-Granados, Wells & Binsbacher, 2006). If this is the case than using IPV assessment instruments designed for men offenders is theoretically invalid. However, others suggest that women are as capable and as willing to use relationship violence as men thus arresting these women is often justified (McNeely, Cook, & Torres, 2001). If this is the case than using IPV offender assessment instruments designed for men is appropriate and these instruments need only be assessed for reliability and validity to be used with this population. The current study explores this topic in relation 4 assessment instruments commonly used with the male IPV offender population: (1) the Propensity to Abuse Scale (Dutton, 1995), (2) Abusive Attitudes Toward Marriage (Margolin & Foo, 1992), (3) Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (Kropp, & Hart, 2000), and (4) University of Rode Island Change Assessment Domestic Violence (Levesque, Gelles, & Velicer, 2000). The first stage of this presentation addresses reliability and validity assessment of these instruments using data collected from 113 women enrolled in a north Texas metropolitan domestic violence diversion program. Reliability and validity methods of each instrument were replicated with data collected from the women participants and compared to (a) the findings presented by the authors of the instruments and (b) a matched sample of 113 male IPV offenders. Findings indicate similar factor structures and response patterns between women participants and (a) the men comparison group and (b) the original data presented by the instrument's authors. Findings related to predicative validity generally showed similarities between the groups but a few differences were noted. In the second stage of this presentation, theoretical validity of using these instruments with women arrested for IPV is discussed. Controversial issues related to (a) the use of offender assessment instruments with female IPV arrestees, (b) the use of victim assessment with female IPV arrestees, and (c) a combination of the two approaches is discussed in relation to the study's findings.