PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Person-centered approaches, such as latent class analysis (LCA) and latent profile analysis (LPA), aid the identification of subgroups within sample populations. These methods can identify the patterns of co-occurrence between different forms of intimate partner violence (IPV), providing valuable information for prevention and intervention efforts. The aim of this systematic review was to yield a summary and conduct a critical evaluation of the current research that utilizes LCA/LPA to investigate IPV victimization profiles. We provide an outline of 14 relevant studies, retrieved from searches conducted on PsycInfo, Scopus, and Eric databases. There was a large amount of variability in relation to the forms of IPV assessed, measures utilized, number of classes identified, and the sample populations recruited. However, broad similarities were revealed as there were some commonly identified classes, including the no/low violence class, the physical and psychological victimization class, and the multiple victimization class, yet the labels assigned to those classes differed across studies. A range of external criteria (risk factors and consequences) were also identified as being associated with class membership. We highlight the methodological features which may have impacted data collection and class enumeration, including the differences in sample population, the range of IPV indicators assessed, the time period from which IPV data were recorded, and whether data were collected regarding participants\' current or previous relationships. Marginalized populations were underrepresented, and psychological abuse was most inconsistently operationalized. Recommendations for future research are provided, including recommendations with regard to labeling the classes for greater consistency across studies.
摘要：
以人为本的方法，如潜在类别分析(LCA)和潜在轮廓分析(LPA)，帮助识别样本群体中的亚组。这些方法可以识别不同形式的亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）之间的共同发生模式，为预防和干预工作提供有价值的信息。本系统评价的目的是对利用LCA/LPA调查IPV受害情况的当前研究进行总结和批判性评估。我们提供了14项相关研究的概要，从PsycInfo上进行的搜索中检索到，Scopus,Eric数据库与评估的IPV形式有关的差异很大，利用的措施，确定的类的数量，和招募的样本人群。然而,发现了广泛的相似性，因为有一些常见的类，包括无/低暴力阶级，身体和心理受害班，和多重受害类，然而，分配给这些类的标签在不同的研究中有所不同。还确定了一系列外部标准（风险因素和后果）与班级成员资格有关。我们强调了可能影响数据收集和类枚举的方法特征，包括样本群体的差异，评估的IPV指标范围，记录IPV数据的时间段，以及是否收集了有关参与者当前或以前关系的数据。边缘化人口代表性不足，和心理虐待是最不一致的操作。提供了对未来研究的建议，包括关于标记课程的建议，以提高研究之间的一致性。
