Surviving and thriving: the development and validation of the Intimate Partner Violence Recovery Measure

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Joy Victoria Kelly, Visiting Assistant Professor (Creator)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site:
Christine Murray

Abstract: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define “intimate partner violence” or IPV as “a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans” (CDC, 2017). The term “intimate partner violence” is an umbrella term that describes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression as part of an ongoing pattern of power and control perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner – a multifaceted phenomenon that is prevalent among millions of people around the globe irrespective of age, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation (CDC, 2017; Murray & Graves, 2012). The negative, and oftentimes, long-term health consequences of IPV are well documented in the research literature, ranging from physical health consequences to long-term psychological impact (Bergman & Brismar, 1991; Campbell & Soeken, 1999; Coker et al., 2005, 2002, 2000; Lindhorst & Beadnell, 2011; Mertin & Mohr, 2001; Neustifter & Powell, 2015; Sutherland, Bybee, & Sullivan, 1998; Zlotnick et al., 2006). While the destructive ramifications of IPV represent a harsh reality for many survivors, many of these same survivors also endorse positive, growth-promoting experiences within the recovery process from past IPV. The Intimate Partner Violence Recovery Measure (IPVRM) was created to assess the unique recovery experiences of IPV survivors in the long-term. Data analysis results testing the psychometric soundness of the instrument yielded preliminary evidence for a valid, 15-item IPV recovery-specific instrument characterized by two primary subscale factors: Self-Love, Purpose and Transformation and Advocacy and Psychoeducation. Internal consistency of the IPVRM yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.851. The Self-Love, Purpose and Transformation yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.845 while the Advocacy and Psychoeducation subscale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.661. Convergent validity results computed between final IPVRM scores and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory produced a Pearson’s Product Moment correlation of 0.653, which was significant at the 0.01 level (r = 0.653, p = 0.000). Divergent validity results computed between the final IPVRM, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10; Kessler et al., 2002) and the PTSD-8 (Hansen et al., 2010) produced a Pearson’s r of -0.595 and -0.338, respectively, both of which were significant at the 0.01 level (r = -0.595, p = 0.000; r = -0.338, p = 0.000). From a research perspective, researchers now have an instrument to begin rigorous, quantitative investigations of the long-term IPV recovery process (e.g., cross-sectional designs, longitudinal studies). Future studies are needed to confirm the accuracy of initial findings and stability of the overall IPVRM model and identified subscales. Clinically, the IPVRM can be utilized to help inform treatment intervention strategies and outcome-based assessment in clinical settings from a strengths-perspective. Finally, training programs might consider purposeful integration of mandatory inclusion of trauma-informed care and/or specific, evidence-based trauma treatment modalities that have proven successful with IPV survivors. [This abstract has been edited to remove characters that will not display in this system. Please see the PDF for the full abstract.]

Additional Information

Language: English
Date: 2019
Domestic violence, Intimate partner violence, Long-term, Recovery, Recovery measure
Intimate partner violence
Psychic trauma $x Treatment

Email this document to