THERAPISTS' PROTOTYPICAL ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Apr 2007 by Blasko, Kelly A, Winek, Jon L, Bieschke, Kathleen J

Clinical judgments based on a distinction between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence may be related to issues of client safety (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Safety is an important clinical consideration in any domestic violence assessment (Bograd & Mederos, 1999). Erring on the side of safety would be the most conservative clinical stance for assessing domestic violence situations. If MFTs perceive that the man in a situation has more power than the woman, it is likely that assuming an intimate terrorism model is erring on the side of safety. This raises concerns, however, for same-sex couples in that their violence is not perceived as unsafe as the heterosexual violence. Ironically, erring on the side of safety may result in inappropriate assessment and lead not only to inappropriate treatment recommendations but also could result in dangerous situations for victims of domestic violence.

Deciding on the best intervention for the client or couple is typically the purpose of engaging in an assessment. The domestic violence service models available to practitioners tend to be divided into perpetrator or batterer programs and victim services like domestic violence shelters (Bograd & Mederos, 1999; Stith et al., 2003). If MFTs are viewing the scenario as an intimate terrorism situation, then the couple may be using this segregated service model to inform their assessment process. As formal services are not often available to same-sex couples experiencing domestic violence, the availability of treatment services may be less likely to influence assessment. Stith et al. (2003) suggest that couples therapy is an alternative intervention for domestic violence cases and it would be interesting to know if MFTs were considering this as a treatment option during their assessment.

There are two key limitations to this study. First, the victim and perpetrator identification variables accounted for some of the missing data. While the percentage is small, we believe it is worthy of further investigation. second, the HAS may have served as a detractor for participation and may have contributed to self-selection of respondents. Although every intention was made to minimize the priming effects of the measure, its inclusion may have led to hypothesis guessing for participants receiving the same-sex scenarios and confusion as to the intent of the study for participants receiving the heterosexual scenario. This limitation could be addressed in future studies by eliminating this measure altogether.

Future research focused on understanding more specifically how sexual orientation contributed to the differing assessments of the domestic violence scenario is necessary. Exploration of factors (e.g., physical size) other than sex differences need to be understood to better understand assessment biases in both heterosexual and same-sex domestic violence. The use of this short analog scenario represented a snapshot of an incident, and developing a more detailed scenario with more identifying information might create a more ecologically valid situation to assess. Accurately assessing situational couple violence is important as therapists are faced with making treatment decisions in ambiguous and potentially dangerous situations for clients. Investigating treatment decisions as they relate to the assessment process might be another avenue to explore. Finally, extending Inman and Baron's (1996) model of prototypical views of prejudice to cases of same-sex couples represents another path of investigation.