Application of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to Evaluate Bias Related to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) within Child Welfare

Michelle Sereno
{"title":"Application of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to Evaluate Bias Related to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) within Child Welfare","authors":"Michelle Sereno","doi":"10.6000/1929-4409.2024.13.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problematic bias evidenced by child welfare professionals in relation to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization can negatively impact outcomes for children and families in the foster care system. The literature supports malleability of IPV-related bias in response to training interventions. These studies rely heavily on self-report measures. Self-report tools capture extended responses (explicit bias). These measures are less likely to reflect immediate responses (implicit bias). Combining explicit and implicit measures may inform a more comprehensive understanding. \nPurpose of Study: We employed a multi-method protocol to measure bias evidenced by dependency professionals in relation to IPV victimization. Method: Participants completed the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure - Intimate Partner Violence (IRAP-IPV), an explicit analog of the IRAP-IV, and a gender-neutral version of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (GN-DVMAS). \nPrinciple Results: Results show expected divergence between explicit and implicit measures, with stronger positive valuation reflected on the explicit tools. We compared IRAP-IPV scores across in person and virtual groups. While statistical analyses indicate no significant between-group differences, divergence is evident upon visual inspection. \nConclusion: This study supports the importance of multi-method measurement when evaluating IPV-related bias. We discuss results in terms of social and contextual factors within child welfare that may influence how dependency professionals respond to IPV. We offer recommendations for promoting a more equitable child welfare experience for victim-survivors, their families, and the professionals who serve them.","PeriodicalId":37236,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Criminology and Sociology","volume":"4 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Criminology and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2024.13.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problematic bias evidenced by child welfare professionals in relation to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization can negatively impact outcomes for children and families in the foster care system. The literature supports malleability of IPV-related bias in response to training interventions. These studies rely heavily on self-report measures. Self-report tools capture extended responses (explicit bias). These measures are less likely to reflect immediate responses (implicit bias). Combining explicit and implicit measures may inform a more comprehensive understanding. Purpose of Study: We employed a multi-method protocol to measure bias evidenced by dependency professionals in relation to IPV victimization. Method: Participants completed the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure - Intimate Partner Violence (IRAP-IPV), an explicit analog of the IRAP-IV, and a gender-neutral version of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (GN-DVMAS). Principle Results: Results show expected divergence between explicit and implicit measures, with stronger positive valuation reflected on the explicit tools. We compared IRAP-IPV scores across in person and virtual groups. While statistical analyses indicate no significant between-group differences, divergence is evident upon visual inspection. Conclusion: This study supports the importance of multi-method measurement when evaluating IPV-related bias. We discuss results in terms of social and contextual factors within child welfare that may influence how dependency professionals respond to IPV. We offer recommendations for promoting a more equitable child welfare experience for victim-survivors, their families, and the professionals who serve them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用内隐关系评估程序(IRAP)评估儿童福利中与亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)相关的偏见
儿童福利专业人员在亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)受害方面表现出的问题偏见会对寄养系统中儿童和家庭的结果产生负面影响。文献支持 IPV 相关偏见在培训干预中的可塑性。这些研究在很大程度上依赖于自我报告措施。自我报告工具捕捉的是扩展的反应(显性偏差)。这些测量方法不太可能反映即时反应(内隐偏差)。将显性和隐性测量结合起来,可能会获得更全面的认识。研究目的:我们采用多种方法来测量依赖性专业人员在 IPV 受害方面表现出的偏见。研究方法:参与者完成 "隐性关系评估程序-亲密伴侣暴力(IRAP-IPV)"、IRAP-IV 的显性类似物以及 "家庭暴力神话接受量表(GN-DVMAS)"的性别中性版本。主要结果:结果显示,显性测量和隐性测量之间存在预期的差异,显性工具反映出更强的正面评价。我们比较了个人组和虚拟组的 IRAP-IPV 分数。虽然统计分析显示组间差异不明显,但目测差异明显。结论本研究证明了在评估 IPV 相关偏差时采用多种方法测量的重要性。我们从儿童福利中可能影响抚养专业人员如何应对 IPV 的社会和环境因素的角度讨论了研究结果。我们为促进受害者-幸存者、其家人以及为他们提供服务的专业人员获得更公平的儿童福利体验提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Attitudes on Policy and Punishment: Opposition to Inequality-Based Government Aid Predicts Support for Capital Punishment Truth about Rape Myths: Understanding the Effects of Sexual Violence and Date Rape Attitudes on Rape Myths Acceptance in Ghana Application of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to Evaluate Bias Related to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) within Child Welfare Evaluating the Impact of Collaborative Art, Therapy and Training on Police Legitimacy: The Perceptions Held by Individuals with Substance Abuse Disorder and Police Officers Modernization Theory Revised: Testing the Relationship between Inward Foreign Direct Investment and Homicide
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1