亲密伴侣施暴者认知功能的元分析

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09628-w
Ángel Romero-Martínez, Carolina Sarrate-Costa, Luis Moya-Albiol
{"title":"亲密伴侣施暴者认知功能的元分析","authors":"Ángel Romero-Martínez, Carolina Sarrate-Costa, Luis Moya-Albiol","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09628-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Numerous psychologists have shown interest in applying neuropsychological tests to study intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators and gain a further understanding of the underlying nature of this type of violence. However, up until now, no meta-analysis has drawn on all the available scientific literature to calculate whether consistent differences exist between the neuropsychological performance of IPV perpetrators and other samples of men (non-violent men, IPV perpetrators with drug misuse, and other men with criminal history). The aim of this study was to carry out this calculation and also measure whether neuropsychological performance explained IPV perpetration. We conducted a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. After initially identifying 7243 sources, we eventually included a total of 25 publications. The number of studies included for effect size calculation in each cognitive domain ranged from two to nine. Taking solely into account studies comparing IPV perpetrators with non-violent men, our findings indicate that both IPV perpetrators who misuse drugs and those who do not exhibit worse neuropsychological functioning compared to non-violent men. These differences range from moderate to large for working memory, switching attention, cognitive flexibility, planning abilities, and phonemic fluency. However, while low functioning in response IQ was only observed in IPV perpetrators without drug misuse, continuous attention performance only differed in IPV perpetrators with drug misuse. It should be noted that most conclusions were consistent. In addition, the comparison between IPV perpetrator subsamples and other types of criminal convictions only revealed differences in switching attention, with IPV perpetrators presenting worse abilities than the rest of the subsamples. Finally, we also found some support for significant associations between neuropsychological performance and both physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This meta-analysis is a significant contribution that will help inform future clinical strategies for the early detection of cognitive needs. It will also guide the implementation of new or complementary intervention programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Meta-analysis of Cognitive Functioning in Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators\",\"authors\":\"Ángel Romero-Martínez, Carolina Sarrate-Costa, Luis Moya-Albiol\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-023-09628-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Numerous psychologists have shown interest in applying neuropsychological tests to study intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators and gain a further understanding of the underlying nature of this type of violence. However, up until now, no meta-analysis has drawn on all the available scientific literature to calculate whether consistent differences exist between the neuropsychological performance of IPV perpetrators and other samples of men (non-violent men, IPV perpetrators with drug misuse, and other men with criminal history). The aim of this study was to carry out this calculation and also measure whether neuropsychological performance explained IPV perpetration. We conducted a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. After initially identifying 7243 sources, we eventually included a total of 25 publications. The number of studies included for effect size calculation in each cognitive domain ranged from two to nine. Taking solely into account studies comparing IPV perpetrators with non-violent men, our findings indicate that both IPV perpetrators who misuse drugs and those who do not exhibit worse neuropsychological functioning compared to non-violent men. These differences range from moderate to large for working memory, switching attention, cognitive flexibility, planning abilities, and phonemic fluency. However, while low functioning in response IQ was only observed in IPV perpetrators without drug misuse, continuous attention performance only differed in IPV perpetrators with drug misuse. It should be noted that most conclusions were consistent. In addition, the comparison between IPV perpetrator subsamples and other types of criminal convictions only revealed differences in switching attention, with IPV perpetrators presenting worse abilities than the rest of the subsamples. Finally, we also found some support for significant associations between neuropsychological performance and both physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This meta-analysis is a significant contribution that will help inform future clinical strategies for the early detection of cognitive needs. It will also guide the implementation of new or complementary intervention programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09628-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09628-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多心理学家都对应用神经心理学测试来研究亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)施暴者并进一步了解这类暴力的基本性质表现出了浓厚的兴趣。然而,到目前为止,还没有任何一项荟萃分析能够利用所有可用的科学文献来计算出 IPV 施暴者与其他男性样本(非暴力男性、滥用药物的 IPV 施暴者和其他有犯罪史的男性)之间的神经心理学表现是否存在一致的差异。本研究的目的就是进行这一计算,并测量神经心理学表现是否能解释 IPV 施暴行为。我们按照系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)标准进行了荟萃分析。在初步确定了 7243 个资料来源后,我们最终共纳入了 25 篇出版物。每个认知领域中用于计算效应大小的研究数量从 2 到 9 项不等。仅考虑到将 IPV 施暴者与非暴力男性进行比较的研究,我们的研究结果表明,与非暴力男性相比,滥用药物和不滥用药物的 IPV 施暴者都表现出更差的神经心理功能。在工作记忆、注意力转换、认知灵活性、计划能力和语音流畅性方面,这些差异从中等到较大不等。然而,只有在未滥用药物的 IPV 施暴者中才观察到反应智商功能低下的现象,而只有在滥用药物的 IPV 施暴者中才观察到持续注意力表现的差异。值得注意的是,大多数结论是一致的。此外,IPV 施暴者子样本与其他类型的刑事定罪子样本之间的比较只显示了注意力转换方面的差异,IPV 施暴者的能力比其他子样本更差。最后,我们还发现神经心理学表现与身体和心理方面的 IPV 犯罪之间存在显著关联。这项荟萃分析是一项重大贡献,有助于为未来早期检测认知需求的临床策略提供依据。它还将指导新的或补充性干预计划的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
A Meta-analysis of Cognitive Functioning in Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators

Numerous psychologists have shown interest in applying neuropsychological tests to study intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators and gain a further understanding of the underlying nature of this type of violence. However, up until now, no meta-analysis has drawn on all the available scientific literature to calculate whether consistent differences exist between the neuropsychological performance of IPV perpetrators and other samples of men (non-violent men, IPV perpetrators with drug misuse, and other men with criminal history). The aim of this study was to carry out this calculation and also measure whether neuropsychological performance explained IPV perpetration. We conducted a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. After initially identifying 7243 sources, we eventually included a total of 25 publications. The number of studies included for effect size calculation in each cognitive domain ranged from two to nine. Taking solely into account studies comparing IPV perpetrators with non-violent men, our findings indicate that both IPV perpetrators who misuse drugs and those who do not exhibit worse neuropsychological functioning compared to non-violent men. These differences range from moderate to large for working memory, switching attention, cognitive flexibility, planning abilities, and phonemic fluency. However, while low functioning in response IQ was only observed in IPV perpetrators without drug misuse, continuous attention performance only differed in IPV perpetrators with drug misuse. It should be noted that most conclusions were consistent. In addition, the comparison between IPV perpetrator subsamples and other types of criminal convictions only revealed differences in switching attention, with IPV perpetrators presenting worse abilities than the rest of the subsamples. Finally, we also found some support for significant associations between neuropsychological performance and both physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This meta-analysis is a significant contribution that will help inform future clinical strategies for the early detection of cognitive needs. It will also guide the implementation of new or complementary intervention programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis. Not All Stroop-Type Tasks Are Alike: Assessing the Impact of Stimulus Material, Task Design, and Cognitive Demand via Meta-analyses Across Neuroimaging Studies Cognitive Training During Midlife: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gradient Organization of Space, Time, and Numbers in the Brain: A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies.
×
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