The Child-to-Parent Violence Functions Scale (CPV-F): Development and Validation

Harries, Travis; Curtis, Ashlee; Skvarc, David; Walker, Arlene; Mayshak, Richelle

doi:10.1007/s10896-022-00425-2

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 92 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The functions of aggression are highly interrelated (Harries et al, 2023) and seem to co‐occur within individuals (e.g., Brugman et al, 2017; Euler et al, 2017), as well as within interactions (Dodge, 1991; Walters, 2005). This overlap makes it statistically difficult to model the unique correlates for each function of CPV (Pang et al, 2013).…”

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this study is important and useful, the function of aggression was not the pivot point of profiling and was only demonstrated to correlate with generalist aggression. Indeed, to date, no typology or classification systems have centered on the function of CPV because few appropriate measures have existed until recently (Harries et al, 2023).…”

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we hypothesized that a low‐proactive type of dyad would correlate with greater caregiver control and involvement and lower domineering traits in the young person than the high‐proactive type of dyad and the control group. An additional aim of the study was to confirm the factor structure of the Child‐to‐Parent Violence Functions Scale (CPV‐F; as per Harries et al, 2023).…”

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…adolescent family violence, aggression, child-to-parent violence, construct validation, proactive aggression, reactive aggression Child-to-parent violence (CPV) is a form of family violence directed toward a caregiver by a young person under their care that can occur for a variety of reasons or motivations related to three functions: proactive, reactive, and affective CPV (Harries et al, 2023). Proactive CPV is domineering, planned, and instrumental; reactive CPV is retaliatory against perceived or actual intrusions from the parent; and affective CPV is a behavioral response displaced from internal fear or frustration (also referred to as reactive aggression from internal frustration in general aggression literature ;Blair, 2013;Smeets et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of proactive CPV may be the most prognostically useful indicator of these functions. Proactive CPV is associated with high callous–unemotional traits (Harries et al, 2023), which are a specifier for treatment resistance (Hawes et al, 2014; Kimonis et al, 2019), as well as a greater severity of abusive CPV (Harries et al, 2023). Thus, knowledge surrounding the function of aggression has significant clinical utility for case conceptualization and intervention delivery (Cano‐Lozano et al, 2021a; Curtis et al, 2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Not all child‐to‐parent violence is the same: A person‐based analysis using the function of aggression

Harries,

Curtis,

Skvarc

et al. 2024

Family Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo explore a typology of dyads experiencing child‐to‐parent violence (CPV) using the function of CPV (i.e., its motivation).BackgroundCPV may be motivated by reactive (i.e., retaliatory), proactive (i.e., instrumental), or affective (i.e., primarily emotional) functions, which may co‐occur intraindividually; however, their co‐occurrence pattern is not fully understood.MethodThis study included 252 participants aged 27 to 78 years (M = 45.92, SD = 8.33; 96% female) who were caregivers of a young person aged 5 to 24 years (M = 13.18, SD = 4.86) and completed an online survey measuring the form and function of CPV and a range of child, parent, and dyadic factors. The majority of dyads were mother–child.ResultsLatent profile analysis revealed two distinct types of dyads: High‐proactive dyads reported severe, highly reactive and proactive CPV compared with low‐proactive dyads in which proactive CPV was rare and reactive CPV was uncommon. Rates of affective CPV were similar across types. Analysis of variance demonstrated that high‐ and low‐proactive dyads significantly differed across intervention‐relevant parent, child, and dyadic factors.ConclusionHigh‐proactive dyads exhibited role reversal and spousification (i.e., parental conflict spill‐over) in which caregivers were helpless, frightened, and frightening, and the young person possessed domineering traits. Low‐proactive dyads were characterized by a comparatively in‐control caregiver who exhibited intrusiveness and higher supervision and a young person who was comparatively less domineering.ImplicationsDifferent types of dyads experiencing CPV may have unique intervention needs.

show abstract

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Need For Person‐centred Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Not all child‐to‐parent violence is the same: A person‐based analysis using the function of aggression

Harries,

Curtis,

Skvarc

et al. 2024

Family Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Child-to-Parent Violence: Examining Cumulative Associations with Corporal Punishment and Physical Abuse

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Corporal punishment (CP) and physical abuse (PA) in childhood are associated with increased risk of child-to-parent violence (CPV). Without context of discipline (i.e., the intention of behavior change, and use of reasonable force), both CP and PA represent the use of physical force against a child. It is still unclear if their associations with CPV are similar when they co-occur, or when they occur in isolation. The current study examined the differential and cumulative association of different types of physical force in childhood with rates of CPV. Method The sample consisted of 1,132 participants, between 18 to 87-years-old (M = 50.95, SD = 14.24) and included 59.5% female and 39.2% male participants who completed an online survey measuring CP, PA and CPV. Participants formed three groups: low CP or PA (group low), high CP only (group HCP), or high PA and CP (group PA + CP). Results Two one-way ANOVAs with planned contrasts were conducted separately for CPV against mothers and fathers. The group HCP reported significantly higher CPV against both the mother and the father than group low and there was no significant difference between group HCP and group PA + CP. Conclusions Higher rates of CP are associated with higher rates of CPV; however, this rate does not increase further when there is concurrent PA. This suggests that there may be a low sensitivity for retaliation from a young person, or coercive training (through high parent–child conflict), in environments where there is physical force from a parent.

show abstract

Child-to-Parent Violence Specialist and Generalist Perpetrators: Risk Profile and Gender Differences

Loinaz,

Irureta,

San Juan

2023

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like other forms of domestic violence, child-to-parent violence (CPV) is a social and health-related problem. The identification of risk factors has preventive and therapeutic implications. This paper analyzes the risk profiles and gender differences of 206 CPV cases between 12 and 28 years of age (58% males) from clinical and judicial contexts in Spain, assessed using the Child to Parent Violence Risk (CPVR) Assessment tool. Two profiles were compared according to the extent of their violence: those using only CPV (specialist, 64.1%) and those also using other types of violence (generalist, 35.9%), as coded by professionals working with the cases. Generalist perpetrators had a significantly higher prevalence in terms of the bidirectionality of the violence (being victims at home), bullying victimization, empathy problems, anger management issues, attitudes justifying violence, antisocial behavior, failure of previous interventions, violence between parents, cohabitation problems other than CPV, problematic education style, and inversion of the hierarchy. Females were less likely to be generalists, and, in the case of female specialists, violence from parents and issues in the family context may have been among the main explanations for their violence. The results suggest differences between groups, which is consistent with previous research, but also the need for more accurate typological classification methods.

show abstract

The Child-to-Parent Violence Functions Scale (CPV-F): Development and Validation

Cited by 5 publications

References 92 publications

Not all child‐to‐parent violence is the same: A person‐based analysis using the function of aggression

Not all child‐to‐parent violence is the same: A person‐based analysis using the function of aggression

Child-to-Parent Violence: Examining Cumulative Associations with Corporal Punishment and Physical Abuse

Child-to-Parent Violence Specialist and Generalist Perpetrators: Risk Profile and Gender Differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About