Meta-Analysis on Interventions for Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several reviews have been conducted on children’s outcomes following exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV), but there remain inconsistent findings. We conducted a meta-analysis on child emotional and behavioral outcomes of IPV exposure interventions, based on published reviews that included a child component. We also explored relative effect sizes by examining moderators of the effect sizes across studies. This meta-analysis included 21 evaluation studies across 12 published reviews, which were located using a multiple database systematic search of English publications between 2000 and 2019. Studies were required to evaluate IPV interventions that included children, to gather quantitative pre- and post-intervention data on child outcomes, to use standardized instruments, and to present data in a format that could be used in a meta-analysis. Results indicated an overall pre- to post-intervention medium effect size ( d = 0.49), with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on the specific outcome. Improvements at follow-up were maintained for internalizing behaviors but decreased for trauma-related symptoms and social, externalizing, and total behaviors. However, externalizing and total behavior outcomes still had significant effect sizes in the small-to-medium range ( d = 0.36 and 0.44). There were greater intervention effects when treatment was not exclusively trauma-specific. It appears that IPV exposure interventions are generally effective for improving children’s emotional and behavioral well-being, although interventions would benefit from greater tailoring to children’s specific needs. Interventions may also benefit from incorporating various content areas (both trauma-specific and non-trauma-specific) and from greater focus on ensuring the maintenance of treatment gains.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 it