Article critique intimate spouse abuse

Clinicians who handle these patients are supposed to dig deeper into the issue of intimate spouse abuse before making decisions that hurt the victims even more. Despite this, there have been many cases where the victims of intimate spouse abuse complain that therapy offered by clinicians are usually prejudiced and ineffective. This paper evaluates research on ineffective and effective interventions when counseling an intimate partner and what needs to be done to achieve an effective intervention. Keywords: intervention, abuse, spouse. Intimate Spouse Abuse Persons that tolerate intimate spouse abuse regularly pursue therapy to escape abuse, lessen their sorrow, and recover their lives. It was discovered that most clinicians proposed that these victims were codependent or chose to be ill-treated. Another prose argued that clinicians might blame victims due to two errors of attribution which are the hypothesis of the just world and the central error of attribution.

This kind of error minimizes empathy for the victims that are abused. Quantitative approach selection is justified through the explanations of the clinicians' declarations regarding perpetrator blame and victim, and the blame’s effect on the victim in an abusive relationship as well as the feedback provided by the victims in the analysis. The independent variable in the research is counseling while the dependent variable is the ineffectiveness or effectiveness of the intervention (Leedom, Andersen, Glynn, & Barone, 2019). The study makes use of a qualitative research design. “Qualitative research design” is meant for accomplishing any qualitative research to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular issue, meaning, or topic based on experience that is first hand (Kennedy-Clark, 2013). It is focused on establishing answers to the issue in question.

It is demarcated as being particular and the findings are met in written format. There are threats of external or internal validity. Moreover, the participants' selection was through choice, that is, people that took part in this survey chose to do it on their own and not selected by the researchers. The technique of sampling used in the research was a “non-probability sampling method, voluntary sample,” which is made up of individuals who self-selected themselves into the survey (Mellor, 2018). The participants were just invited into the survey and those that felt like they were interested in the topic participated in the survey. People in this type of sampling technique usually have a strong need to take part in the topic. The implication of this sampling technique to the findings is that there lacks evidence that the illustration is representative of the larger population that the authors or the researchers would like generalize about.

The researchers found that clinicians who were well-informed about the abuse experience and the partner individualities delivered information and excellently aided participants in navigating their hard choices (Leedom, Andersen, Glynn, & Barone, 2019). Even though the victims were usually in psychological, financial, and at times physical threats if they stayed in the relationship, the choice to leave might carry severe consequences. The physical threat might have increased succeeding parting, and abusive spouses might be spiteful in other ways. Severe consequences and threats with leaving make parting from an abusive association tough. Clinicians who accused clients of their spouse’s choice and accredited difficulty with parting to survivor individuality traits or codependency isolated clients, like clinicians who indirectly or directly stated that victims chose their abusive spouse or chose to be ill-treated.

When victims present for a cure, they are worthy of clinicians who are well informed about the abuse experience and the typical individualistic characteristics, and who are validating and indulgent. Regrettably, some victims are more traumatized by clinicians who have gender beliefs that are old-fashioned concerning the experience of victimization. There lacks evidence that concepts of codependency, self-defeating individuality disorder or the recurrence compulsion have any utility or validity for those working with victims of intimate spouse abuse (Leedom, Andersen, Glynn, & Barone, 2019). Instead, there is sufficient indication that these might be harmful. I think that the authors’ conclusions are appropriate. Therefore I would search for more websites and invite people for the survey to get wider coverage and a wider perspective of people from all parts of the world.