Mary Oschwald

Interpersonal Violence and Women With Disabilities: Analysis of Safety Promoting Behaviors

Very little information exists related to the interpersonal violence safety promoting behaviors of women with disabilities. Information about women’s use of safety promoting behaviors was gathered from 305 disabled and deaf women who completed an anonymous Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview. Exploratory factor analyses revealed factors related to seeking abuse-related safety information, building abuse-related safety promoting skills, using relationship support, planning for emergencies, taking legal action, and managing safety in personal assistance relationships. Four of these factors demonstrated significant relationships to women’s experience of different forms of abuse and their perpetrator’s characteristics.

Development of an Accessible Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (A-CASI) to Screen for Abuse and Provide Safety Strategies for Women With Disabilities

To increase safety and minimize the risk of interpersonal violence, it is critical that women with disabilities and Deaf women have an opportunity to identify whether or not abuse is happening in their lives. Awareness and knowledge of what constitutes abusive behaviors is an essential first step in addressing interpersonal violence. This article includes a description of the development and evaluation of the Safer and Stronger Program (SSP), an audio computer-assisted self-interview program, which was created for women with disabilities and Deaf women for the purposes of increasing awareness of abuse, encouraging safety-planning behaviors, and providing information about community resources.

Development of Measures of Abuse Among Women With Disabilities and the Characteristics of Their Perpetrators

Three hundred and five women with diverse disabilities completed an anonymous audio computer—assisted self-interview designed to increase women’s awareness of abuse. Data were also collected regarding abuse experienced in the past year and the risk characteristics of their perpetrators. Overall, 68% reported some type of abuse. Preliminary evidence for the validity and reliability of questions to assess abuse and perpetrator risk characteristics was found. Latent class analysis revealed four distinct classes of abuse experiences: sexual abuse, physical abuse, multiple forms of abuse, and minimal abuse and three classes of perpetrator risk characteristics: controlling characteristics, noncontrolling characteristics, and minimal risk characteristics.

Efficacy of a Computerized Abuse and Safety Assessment Intervention for Women With Disabilities: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of a computerized disability-specific abuse assessment intervention on abuse awareness, safety self-efficacy, and safety promoting behaviors of women with diverse disabilities. RESEARCH DESIGN A randomized control group design was used, with the intervention group completing the assessment intervention both at Time 1 (T1) and 3 months later at Time 2 (T2) and control participants completing it for the first time at T2. Analyses compared intervention and control groups at T2 and evaluated change over time in intervention group participants. The relationship between outcome variables (abuse awareness, safety self-efficacy, safety behaviors) was also explored. RESULTS The intervention group had greater abuse awareness than the control group at T2, and abuse awareness increased from T1 to T2 among women in the intervention group, particularly among women who had experienced little or no abuse in the past year. Both abuse awareness and safety self-efficacy were significantly related to safety behaviors. CONCLUSIONS The computerized program offers promise as a nonthreatening method of conducting abuse assessments among women with disabilities while also serving as an intervention to enhance abuse awareness.

Facilitators and Barriers to Disclosing Abuse among Women with Disabilities

An anonymous audio computer-assisted self-interview (A-CASI) designed to increase awareness of abuse was completed by 305 women with diverse disabilities. Data were also collected about lifetime and past year abuse; perpetrator risk characteristics; facilitators and barriers to disclosing abuse; abuse disclosure to a health provider, case manager, or police officer; and whether a health provider had ever discussed abuse or personal safety. A total of 276 (90%) women reported abuse, 208 (68%) reported abuse within the past year. Women who reported the most abuse experiences in the past year and the most dangerous perpetrators endorsed fewer facilitators and more barriers, but were also more likely to have ever disclosed abuse. Only 15% reported that a health provider had ever discussed abuse and personal safety.

Development of an audio-computer assisted self-interview to investigate violence and health in the lives of adults with developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND Audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASIs) have safely and effectively obtained sensitive research data from the general public and have been recommended for use with people with disabilities. However, few studies have used ACASIs with people with disabilities and ACASIs have not been used to investigate the relationship between disability, interpersonal violence (IPV), and physical and psychological health among people with developmental disabilities (PWDD). OBJECTIVE We developed an accessible ACASI specifically designed to allow PWDD to answer questions independently, while privately and securely collecting anonymous data related to their disability, IPV experiences, and physical and psychological health. METHODS We used a safety protocol to apply community based participatory research (CBPR) principles and an iterative process to create, test, and administer a cross-sectional ACASI survey to 350 adults with developmental disabilities in urban and rural locales. RESULTS Most participants completed the ACASI independently and reported that its accessibility features allowed them to do so. Most also agreed that the ACASI was easy to use, its questions were easy to understand, and that they would prefer using an ACASI to answer IPV and health-related questions rather than in a face-to-face interview. The majority agreed that health and safety were critical issues to address. CONCLUSIONS ACASI technology has the potential to maximize the independent and private participation of PWDD in research on sensitive topics. We recommend further exploration into accessibility options for ACASI technology, including hardware and Internet applications.

Community-Based Participatory Research to Adapt Health Measures for Use by People With Developmental Disabilities.

Background: People with developmental disabilities (DD) are often not included as participants in research owing to a variety of ethical and practical challenges. One major challenge is that traditional measurement instruments may not be accessible to people with DD. Participatory research approaches promise to increase the participation of marginalized communities in research, but few partnerships have successfully used such approaches to conduct quantitative studies people with DD.Objective: To use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to create an accessible, computer-assisted survey about violence and health in people with DD, and to psychometrically test adapted health instruments.Methods: Our academic–community partnership, composed of academic researchers, people with DD, and supporters, collaboratively selected and modified data collection instruments, conducted cognitive interviews and pilot tests, and then administered the full survey to 350 people with DD.Results: Although team members sometimes had opposing accommodation needs and adaptation recommendations, academic and community partners were able to work together successfully to adapt instruments to be accessible to participants with a wide range of DD. Results suggest the adapted health instruments had strong content validity and all but one had good to excellent internal consistency reliability (alpha, 0.81–0.94). The majority of participants (75%) responded that all or most of the questions were easy to understand.Conclusions: Researchers should consider using participatory approaches to adapting instruments so people with DD can be validly included in research.

Responding to Crime Victims with Disabilities: The Perspective of Law Enforcement

This focus group study identified methods and techniques to improve the criminal justice systems response to crime victims with disabilities. Twenty-five city and county law enforcement officers from two northwestern settings participated in focus groups. A police officer co-facilitated the groups. Results indicate increased vulnerability of people with disabilities and explain barriers law enforcement faces in its service to crime victims with disabilities. Researchers, the disability community, and law enforcement need to work together to develop and implement efficient, effective, and realistic methods to improve the response of the criminal justice system to the victimization of people with disabilities.

Law enforcement’s response to crime reporting by people with disabilities

One hundred and thirty three US law enforcement departments completed a survey about protocols used to serve crime victims with disabilities, such as asking about and providing accommodations and recording disability and accommodation information. Most departments did not have these protocols and service and community based barriers were indicated. Cross-training and co-advocacy between law enforcement and disability agencies were supported. Two recommendations are offered: provide disability awareness training to law enforcement and ask all victims if they need accommodation and supports. Finally, systematic use of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability is also recommended.

Understanding the Experience of Crime Victims with Disabilities and Deaf Victims

Interpersonal violence is a serious problem for adults with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to understand experiences of crime victims with disabilities and barriers they faced when reporting crime. Fifty-two adults with disabilities whose interpersonal violence was reported to law enforcement participated in focus groups investigating their experiences and recommendations. Participants identified barriers and improvement strategies related to disability identification and disclosure, victim involvement and blaming, credibility and misunderstandings, communication challenges, and accommodations. Barriers exist for people with disabilities navigating the criminal justice system. A need for improved understanding between the disability community and law enforcement was noted.