Discussion

This study's findings suggest that the IPAS may be a more accurate, widely applicable diagnostic tool for IPV than the CTS2, especially for early abusive relationships. Click on the arrows below to learn more.



The findings support several promising implications:

The IPAS may be more sensitive to crucial symptoms of abuse than the CTS2

The fact that the IPAS found a higher prevalence of psychological abuse and a higher frequency of overall abuse than the CTS2 suggests that it may be more sensitive to vital symptoms of IPV, especially psychological abuse, making it easier to identify IPV.

Additionally, these symptoms may be present before and alongside acts of physical and sexual abuse, making it easier to identify abuse in early relationships.

The IPAS might make subjects more likely to respond than the CTS2

The fact that subjects who took the IPAS filled out a higher proportion of questions than subjects who took the CTS2 suggests that the IPAS may have qualities that make participants more likely to respond to it.

Particularly for sensitive topics such as IPV, having a diagnostic tool that participants are more likely to complete is invaluable.

Measuring power imbalances might make it easier to identify abuse

The fact that subjects with a greater power imbalance in their relationship reported more frequent abuse in their relationship suggests that accounting for power imbalance as an abusive trait may help to diagnose IPV without relying solely on individual acts of abuse.

This study shows that using the IPAS in place of the CTS2 may allow for easier identification of IPV, especially in early abusive relationships, and lead to more valid, generalizable findings across studies. 

This is essential for developing successful early intervention and prevention strategies for IPV.

While these results are preliminary, they showcase the potential of the IPAS. Furthermore, they showcase the flaws of the CTS2. 

The CTS2:

Together, this means that the CTS2 may fail to capture certain abusive relationships.

Our understanding of IPV cannot advance if we continue to rely on a device that is not sensitive to symptoms of IPV that are vital for the successful identification of abusive relationships.

Above all else, this research serves as a reminder of the importance of having valid measurement devices that are rooted in the present rather than tied to the past.

Click here for references.

This work was done as part of an undergraduate honors thesis in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. For the full thesis, please visit: https://ccjs.umd.edu/undergraduate/independent-research-archive-2024