Mothering, Guiding, and Responding to Children: A Comparison of Women Abused and Not Abused by Intimate Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has many negative outcomes for women, children, and families. However, researchers have opposing perspectives and findings with respect to the effects on mothering for abused women. The assumption by some service providers that abused mothers are compromised in their parenting generally ignores the larger issue of male violence and women's and children's safety. The question examined in this study was whether there were differences in reported positive parenting responses with children between women who have experienced IPV and those who have not experienced IPV. The sample consisted of 1,211 mothers and came from two studies: The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, and The Healing Journey: A Longitudinal Study of Mothers Affected by Intimate Partner Violence. The Positive Interaction and Rational Parenting scales, adapted from Strayhorn and Weidman's Parenting Practices Scale, were used to measure parenting interactions. Bivariate correlations between the outcome variables and maternal age, maternal education, child age, and child sex were calculated to determine whether any of these variables were significantly related to the Positive Interaction Scale or Rational Parenting Scale. This was followed by ANCOVA to determine whether mothers who had experienced IPV differed in their scores on the two parenting scales from mothers who had not experienced IPV. Findings did not support the notion that abused women are compromised in their parenting responses with their children in regard to positive interactions and behavior management. Recommendations include a greater focus on the prevention of IPV, addressing the source of violence and providing appropriate support for mothers who experience IPV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".