Doctoral Theses and Dissertations

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10294/2900

Browse

Browsing Doctoral Theses and Dissertations by Author "Bruer, Kaila"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Classifying men who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A 50-year systematic review and a new typology applicable to case management
    (Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina, 2024-11) Giesbrecht, Crystal Joy; Bruer, Kaila; Keown, Leslie Anne; Jones, Nick; Vaughan, Adam; Hilton, Zoe; Scott, Katreena
    This dissertation includes two studies: a systematic review of typologies of perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) and a new typology of men who perpetrated IPV created using assessment data collected with the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn™). The systematic review included 177 typologies contained in 201 articles published between 1974 and 2024. Typologies in the review comprised: 1) family-only and generally violent; 2) family-only, generally violent, and borderline/dysphoric; 3) family-only, generally violent, low-level antisocial, and borderline/dysphoric; 4) severity and frequency of violence; 5) reactive and instrumental, 6) situational couple violence and coercive control; 7) personality types; 8) other typologies (e.g., treatment responsivity, physiological reactivity); and 9) perpetrators of intimate partner femicide. These typologies are summarized and compared, and findings from studies that examined recidivism and treatment outcomes by typology are reported. The new typology was created using data from 7,781 men in Alberta, Canada, who had been identified as having perpetrated IPV using the SPIn. Men in the sample were classified using seven indicator variables linked to general and IPV recidivism in empirical research and available in the SPIn: criminal history, failure while on conditions, violations of protection or no-contact orders, procriminal attitudes, antisocial peers, social/cognitive skills, and aggression/violence. The resulting typology included three classes: High Criminal History—High Antisocial Attitudes (18.5%; n = 1,439), High Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes (51.6%; n = 4,015), and Low Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes (29.9%; n = 2,327). Both classes with high criminal history report a greater prevalence of static variables relating to criminal history; the most notable difference between these two types is that the High Criminal History—High Antisocial Attitudes class scores high on variables relating to antisocial attitudes, whereas the High Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class does not. Individuals in the Low Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class have a low probability of all seven indicator variables. The three classes were compared on external variables linked to general and IPV recidivism (including history of violence, substance misuse, childhood trauma, mental health conditions, homicidal ideation, and employment problems). The High Criminal History—High Antisocial Attitudes class displayed the highest prevalence of all external variables (i.e., additional risk factors), the Low Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class had the lowest rates, and the High Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class scored intermediate to the other two classes. The three classes were also compared on four dichotomous measures of reoffending (any recidivism, technical violations, new non-violent offence, and new violent offence) at both one and three years. The High Criminal History—High Antisocial Attitudes class displayed the highest rate of recidivism on all four measures. The High Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class had a slightly lower prevalence than the High Criminal History—High Antisocial Attitudes class on all recidivism measures. The Low Criminal History—Low Antisocial Attitudes class had low rates of all forms of recidivism. Given the distinct differences between the three classes in terms of static and dynamic risk factors (i.e., criminogenic needs) and risk for reoffending, this typology is expected to have clinical utility for case management with men who have perpetrated IPV. Recommendations for risk management (e.g., supervision) and risk reduction (e.g., treatment/intervention programs) are discussed. Keywords: intimate partner violence, domestic violence, typology, perpetrators, systematic review, latent class analysis