Vasiliauskaitė, Zuzana

Many researchers are still relying on older and more rigid instruments focusing mostly on the physical aspect of intimate partner violence (IPV). This way multidimensionality of IPV and complex experiences of IPV survivors’ are overlooked by many researchers, practitioners and decision-makers. Therefore, our study aimed to adopt to Lithuanian two multidimensional scales: the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) and the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA). As well as confirm its validity and reliability for the use for determining the experiences of Lithuanian women in intimate partner relationships. Through various channels 311 women, survivors of IPV were recruited. The structure of both measurements was validated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and internal consistency using McDonald’s omega coefficient. Relying on the newest research we confirmed a five-factor structure for the CAS with the five factors being: Severe Combined Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment. We also confirmed the three-factor structure for the SEA, resulting in Economic Control, Economic Exploitation, and Employment Sabotage. The instruments demonstrated high internal consistency. The validated instruments that measure multidimensionality of IPV will allow a more comprehensive data and knowledge collection of women’s experiences in abusive relationships.

Up to 75 % of women globally at some point in their lives have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005). However, 60 % of the survivors suffer in silence (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014), therefore they cannot obtain help and protection. Therefore, we conducted the study with the aim to understand what keeps the women from help-seeking. In order to understand what keeps the women from disclosing IPV, we conducted the study and analysed IPV survivors’ non-disclosure reasons and their association with different forms of IPV. Through social media, 127 women survivors of IPV were recruited. The Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) and the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA) were used together with the list of 12 possible reasons of non-disclosure. We found that the women reported the main reasons they did not disclose or seek help were shame (59.1 %) and wished to keep it in secret (40.9 %). Moreover, several binary logistic regression models revealed that non-disclosure reasons could be predicted by the severity and frequency of different forms of IPV. For example, the results indicated that the women who experience physical abuse were kept from disclosing it due to fear of abuser’s retaliation. It is possible that better protection of IPV survivors and efforts to reduce impunity substantially could result in increased helpseeking by IPV survivors. However, analysis suggests that one type of solution is not going to make a needed change. In order to increase help-seeking behaviour, a systemic approach is needed addressing policy, funding and resources available to help and protection providers. The findings can serve as guidelines for policies directed towards speedy and increased help-seeking from various professionals, institutions and organisations.