This opening chapter explicates the broad context of psychotherapy integration and sets the stage for the subsequent chapters in the volume. As the chapter title indicates, the authors offer a primer on integration in the dual sense of a primer (soft i) as a small introduction to the subject and of a primer (hard i) as a basecoat or undercoat for the following applications. The authors describe the converging reasons for the growth of psychotherapy integration and then the four primary routes to integration. This segues into the varieties of integration, which includes summaries of recent studies on the prevalence, subtypes, and practices of integrative therapists. The chapter concludes with a discussion of recurrent obstacles to psychotherapy integration.

The assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) by mental health, medical, and criminal justice practitioners occurs routinely. The validity of the assessment instrument they use impacts practitioners’ ability to judge ongoing risk, establish the type of IPV occurring, protect potential victims, and intervene effectively. Yet, there is no known compendium of existing assessment measures. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to present a systematic review of measures used to identify or predict IPV, (2) to determine which of these measures have psychometric evidence to support their use, and (3) to determine whether any existing measure is capable of differentiating between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. A systematic search was conducted using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies on the reliability or validity of specific measures of IPV were included, regardless of format, length, discipline, or type of IPV assessed. A total of 222 studies, on the psychometric properties of 87 unique measures, met our a priori criteria and were included in the review. We described the reliability and validity of the 87 measures. We rated the measures based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments–revised criteria and other established validity criteria, which allowed us to generate a list of recommended measures. We also discussed measures designed to differentiate IPV types. We conclude by describing the strengths and weaknesses of existing measures and by suggesting new avenues for researchers to enhance the assessment of IPV.

No abstract

Many theorists have proposed that intimate partner violence (IPV) is not one homogeneous phenomenon but instead has several distinct types. For example, Johnson (1995) typology described some perpetrators’ violence as stemming from a desire to control and others’ violence stemming from emotional dysregulation, whereas Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) typology classified perpetrators by severity of violence, whether violence was specific to intimate partners and perpetrators’ psychopathological profiles. Other typologies are based on personality profiles, severity levels, and variety of violent acts. We conducted a systematic review of studies that tested these hypothesized IPV typologies, using exploratory clustering and classification methods to identify underlying groups. We used the databases such as PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Social Sciences Full Text (H. W. Wilson), and Social Work Abstracts. We located 80 such studies that empirically tested IPV typologies. After reviewing the 34 studies that met our a priori inclusion criteria, we found the following: (a) the modal number of types identified was three, but there was substantial variance across studies and (b) although Holtzworth-Munroe and Johnson’s models had mixed support, the inconsistency across studies calls into question the validity of existing typologies and the certainty with which typologies are described by researchers and practitioners. Therefore, we recommend caution in using a categorical approach to IPV.

No abstract