Abstract
Purpose
Identifying pertinent risk factors is an essential first step for early detection and upstream prevention of spousal violence. However, limited research has examined the risk factors of spousal violence in the Asian context. This study aimed to understand the spousal violence issue in Singapore by (1) identifying the pertinent risk factors that could predict the likelihood of applying for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) - an order restraining a respondent from committing family violence against a person, and (2) understanding the relationship between various risk factors and the likelihood of PPO application.
Method
Linked administrative data of ever-married Singapore residents born in 1980 and 1985 (N = 51,853) were analyzed, using machine learning and network approaches.
Results
Results indicated that the pertinent risk factors associated with PPO application included lower educational attainment, staying in a public rental flat, early marriage and parenthood, childhood maltreatment, prior history of being respondent to PPO, offending behaviors, and mental illness.
Conclusions
Findings could aid in identifying individuals and families at-risk and informing upstream efforts to combat spousal violence issues. First responders, such as police or social workers, could utilize the relevant risk factor as a guide in cases of suspected family violence to identify at-risk individuals and families in a timely manner and minimize adverse effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Domestic violence is a prevalent and costly societal issue. The lifetime prevalence of domestic violence for aged 15–49 was about 27% worldwide (World Health Organization, 2018). It accounts for 21% of all violent crime and can happen to any race, age, gender and affects people of different socioeconomic statuses and education levels (Office for National Statistics, 2018). Domestic violence could generate substantial costs, including lost productivity, medical costs from the health system, and costs of children witnessing and living with violence (World Health Organization, 2021). The total cost of domestic violence was estimated to be $5.8 billion in the United States of America (Max et al., 2004).
Identifying risk factors for domestic violence is an essential first step so to screen potential victims early for prevention to mitigate negative costs and consequences. Past research has identified risk factors associated with domestic violence (e.g., World Health Organization, 2010b), and using machine learning techniques to model and forecast domestic violence (Rodriguez-Rodriguez et al., 2020). Nonetheless, in practice, the difficulty of identifying victims was one of the barriers for health professionals to screen for domestic violence (Duchesne et al., 2021; Miller & Jaye, 2007).
To fill the gap, the present study aimed to identify pertinent risk factors that can predict domestic violence, particularly spousal violence victimization and understanding the complex association across various risk factors, using population-level administrative data and machine learning and network approaches. The study could contribute to the existing literature related to domestic violence issues. Additionally, it could also advance our understanding of opportunities and strategies for upstream intervention and inform the community and the professionals for more comprehensive screening and assessment for domestic violence.
Existing Literature on Risk Factors of Domestic Violence Victimization
The nature of domestic violence could be explained by the ecological framework (Heise, 1998), which suggested that violence could be a result of the complex interplay of multiple factors at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels. World Health Organization (2010b) applied the ecological framework and identified key risk factors for experiencing intimate partner and sexual violence by women, including young age, low education, and exposure to child maltreatment.
Individual Factors
Individual factors refer to biological factors and personal history that could be associated with an increased likelihood of being a victim of domestic violence. Younger age could be an individual risk factor, especially in females. Past research suggested that marriage at a young age could be linked with early childbearing and reduced opportunities for further education or employment for women, leading to power disparities in the families and subsequently increasing the risk of domestic violence victimization (Hong Le et al., 2014; Speizer & Pearson, 2011).
The association between education level and domestic violence has been well documented. Women with lower levels of education were about two to five times as likely to experience intimate partner violence as compared to women with higher education levels (Ackerson et al., 2008; Boy & Kulczycki, 2008; Martin et al., 2007). Lower educational attainment may reduce a person’s access to resources and increase the acceptance of violence (World Health Organization, 2010b).
A history of childhood maltreatment could also be an individual risk factor for domestic violence. As suggested by the social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977), parents are children’s role models in shaping their behaviors, and thus children’s exposure to abuse or parental violence might result in developing norms that it is appropriate to use violence under certain circumstances. Past studies using survey data have also provided empirical evidence to support the association between childhood maltreatment and domestic violence victimization in different countries and regions (Bensley et al., 2003; Heyman & Slep, 2002).
A history of being a perpetrator could also be a risk factor for domestic violence victimization. Existing literature revealed that domestic violence could be bi-directional (Kwong et al., 1999), as victims might view perpetrators experiencing positive consequences and subsequently adopt similar strategies in their relationship (Palmetto et al., 2013). It could also be attributed to the victim’s desire of seeking vengeance or retaliation (Walker, 2006). Such a cycle of violence indicated that perpetrators might become victims, put differently, prior history as perpetrators might be associated with subsequent victimization of domestic violence.
Another personal history factor associated with domestic violence victimization could be a history of mental health conditions. Individuals with severe mental health conditions are highly vulnerable and may have impaired functioning (Habtamu et al., 2018). These individuals may also face stigma, discrimination, and social exclusion which led to decreased self-confidence, and less hope for the future (World Health Organization, 2010a). Rossa-Roccor, Schmid, and Steinert (2020) have shown that among persons with severe mental illness conditions, psychotic disorder was associated with lifetime violent and non-violent victimization. Other studies have shown that depression and anxiety were associated with a higher risk of exposure to partner violence (Tolman & Rosen, 2016; Trevillion et al., 2012).
In addition, criminal history could also be associated with domestic violence victimization. Prior research has also shown that the risk of domestic violence victimization would be higher among incarcerated individuals than the general population (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). This could be explained by the assortative mating perspective and lifestyle role, that is, the criminogenic contexts and the relationships with criminally involved partners would lead to increased risks of being exposed to domestic violence (Carbone-Lopez & Kruttschnitt, 2010).
Relationship Factors
Relationship factors associated with domestic violence refer to factors related to an individual’s closest social circle, including peers, intimate partners, and family members. The number of children in the family could be viewed as a relationship factor for domestic violence. An increasing number of children might lead to economic burden and stress in the family, which could result in a higher likelihood of domestic violence (Gokler et al., 2014).
Divorce could be another relationship factor, though the research on the association between divorce and domestic violence has also yielded inconsistent findings (Brownridge et al., 2008; Vatnar & Bjørkly, 2011). The exposure reduction thesis suggested that removing a victim from an abusive marriage or violent relationship could reduce the physical contact between spouses and thus decrease the likelihood of domestic violence (Dugan et al., 2003). On the other hand, the retaliation thesis suggested that violence might continue between ex-spouses after a marriage is dissolved as men could be more violent after separation or divorce (Campbell, 1992).
Community Factors
Community factors refer to the community contexts where social relationships are embedded, including schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Poverty or low socioeconomic status could be viewed as a community factor, and its association with domestic violence victimization has been well documented in the existing literature (e.g., Reichel 2017; Semahegn & Mengistie, 2015). Based on a comprehensive review of domestic violence literature, Wilt and Olson (1996) suggested that domestic violence was more common among people with lower socioeconomic status, measured by income, occupation, etc.
Societal Factors
Societal factors refer to the macro-level factors that may influence the rates of domestic violence. Such factors may include cultural and social norms that support males’ superiority and dominance over females or the acceptance of the use of violence to resolve conflicts (World Health Organization, 2010b). Past studies have adopted the ecological framework and examined the role of societal factors in a specific country or region (e.g., Jewkes et al., 2002; Tekkas Kerman & Betrus, 2020). However, limited research has applied the ecological framework and examined the risk factors of domestic violence in the Asian context, where people may have different cultural and social norms (Ang & Stratton, 2018).
The Present Research
This paper aimed to examine risk factors associated with spousal violence victimization in Singapore, a multicultural city-state located in Southeast Asia. The prevalence of domestic violence in Singapore was 11% based on self-reported data, which was lower than the global prevalence rate (World Health Organization, 2018). However, there has been an increase in the number of inquiries and new cases handled by community centers in recent years. Therefore, a study of risk factors associated with spousal violence in Singapore is timely. Furthermore, Singapore reported a lower proportion of people disagreeing with traditional gender beliefs as compared to Western countries, but a higher proportion compared to many other Asian societies (Mathews et al., 2021). In this sense, Singapore would be an ideal test ground to complete our understanding about the societal factors (e.g., gender norms) associated with spousal violence.
As spousal violence usually occurs behind closed doors and detection could be challenging, this study used the administrative records of individuals’ contact with the Personal Protection Orders (PPO) system as a proxy. In Singapore, PPO is granted where the Court is satisfied that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed and that it is necessary for the protection of the family member (Family Justice Courts Singapore, 2021)Footnote 1. Although individuals who apply for PPO may not necessarily be spousal violence victims, this study aimed to identify upstream intervention opportunities, and thus it took a broader perspective to capture anyone who had applied for PPO.
Using administrative data covering various life domains, this study aimed to identify pertinent risk factors that can predict the likelihood of applying for PPO, and further explored the association of various risk factors with PPO application. Specifically, this paper aimed to address the following two research questions (RQ):
RQ1
What are the pertinent risk factors predicting the likelihood of applying for PPO?
RQ2
What are the interrelationships between the different life adversities and disadvantages that surround PPO application?
To address the RQs, analyses were conducted based on population-level administrative data from two full birth cohorts in Singapore. Past research examining risk factors associated with domestic violence was based on self-reported survey data. Little research has utilized population-level data to predict the risk of domestic violence victimization or examine the complex relationships across various risk factors. The use of population-level data could minimize selection bias and include difficult-to-reach populations. Furthermore, the birth cohorts research design allows us to control for common macro life experiences, that is, individuals included in our study would have experienced similar social, political, and cultural developments. Taken together, this study could contribute to our understanding of spousal violence and facilitate early identification and upstream intervention relating to spousal violence.
Data and Method
Method
Data. This study is part of the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages (INTRACS) research program, which consisted of linked administrative data of multiple birth cohorts in Singapore (see Ting et al., 2022, for more information). The study sample comprised of 51,853 ever-married individuals from the 1980 and 1985 birth cohorts. Individuals with missing educational attainment data (n = 14) were removed from the analysis, which reduced the population size to 51,839. Administrative records of PPO were obtained to indicate whether individuals appeared in the system as applicants who filed a PPO by 30 June 2017, which indicated the allegation of victimization of spousal violence.
A total of 51,839 married individuals were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of these, 51.6% were female, and the majority had degree level and above educational attainment (41.9%). Among all ever-married individuals, 830 were PPO applicants (1.6%). The average age of PPO applicants was 28.4 years (SD = 4.4) when they had their first contact with the PPO system. Note that the age range was up to 37.2 years by the end of the study period. Regarding gender distribution, majority of the PPO applicants were females (n = 754, 90.8%).
When filing a PPO, the applicant would need to provide information about the latest and past incidents of family violence including time, place, details, type of violence, and injuries, and indicate the reasons for filing the PPO. Among the 830 PPO applications in our study, approximately 73.4% were due to placing or attempting to place one in fear of hurt, causing hurt, and wrongfully confining or restraining. The remaining 26.6% resulted from continual harassment.
Variables. Twenty variables were included in the analyses. The outcome variable was a binary variable indicating whether an individual was an application of a PPO (i.e., 1 = Yes, 0 = No). Information was collected from official records in the PPO filing system.
The independent variables of the study captured individual, relationship and community factors. Individual factors include gender, highest qualification attained, housing status, criminal history, and mental illness diagnosis. Relationship factors include age of first marriage, parenthood, history of divorce, number of children, and any prior history of family violence as a PPO applicant or PPO respondent. Finally, the community factor includes receiving social assistance from the government.
Some of the independent variables were static, whereas others measuring the occurrence of certain life events were dynamic in nature. For dynamic variables, given that the administrative data collected in this study captured the dates of the life events in these domains, this study could identify whether the life event happened before or after filing PPO for applicants. Given that this study aimed to identify pertinent factors predicting the likelihood of PPO application, life events after the PPO application would not be applicable. Therefore, for the dynamic variables examined in this study, different cut-off dates were applied to PPO applicants and non-applicants. For PPO applicants, these variables only captured the events happened before the first contact with the PPO system as applicant. For non-applicants, it captured all the events that happened as of the time of data collection.
In this study, the demographic variable controlled for was gender. Data were collected from official records and coded as a binary variable (i.e., 1 = Female, 0 = Male).
Highest qualification attained (i.e., HQA) was captured by this study to measure socioeconomic status. Data on HQA were obtained from the administrative records updated by Singapore residents at age 30 years old. The variable was coded as an ordinal variable with four levels, with “1” indicating primary level and below, “2” secondary level, “3” post-secondary or diploma level, and “4” degree level and above. Furthermore, information about housing status (i.e., whether an individual was staying in a public rental flat at birth and at age 30 years old was also obtained to measure socioeconomic status. Another variable relating to socioeconomic status was whether an individual received short-to-medium term assistance as of the cut-off date. These variables were coded as a binary variable (i.e., 1 = Yes, 0 = No).
For variables in the domain of marriage and parenthood, information of the age of first marriage, first parenthood was extracted from local administrative records and coded as binary variables to indicate whether an individual was married or had his or her first child before 21 years old, respectively. Similarly, data on divorce was collected from official marriage records to indicate whether the individual was divorced or separated as of the cut-off date. The number of children that individuals had as of the cut-off date was also collected and coded as a continuous variable.
Prior history of family violence included childhood maltreatment (i.e., whether a person had contact with the child protection and welfare system in Singapore) and prior history as PPO respondents as of the cut-off date. These variables were coded as binary variables based on administrative records (i.e., 1 = Yes, 0 = No).
To measure criminal history, official information of criminal offenses in Singapore were used to indicate whether an individual had any contact with the criminal justice system by the cut-off date. Particularly, offenses were categorized into four types in this study—violent offense, drug offense, sexual offense, and other types of offense. Correspondingly, four binary variables were generated.
Whether an individual had been diagnosed with any mental illness based on administrative health records before the cut-off date was also captured. Four binary variables were generated to capture four types of mental illness— mood disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and other mental health conditions.
Plan of Analysis
Machine learning approach. First, the machine learning (ML) approach was adopted to address RQ1, that is, to identify the pertinent predictors and develop algorithms that could accurately predict PPO application. ML is a subfield of artificial intelligence (AI) that involves training a computer software or model to recognize patterns and relationships in data and using it to predict or make judgments based on new data (Nichols et al., 2019; Sarker, 2021). Analyses were performed using Python (version 3.6.5), Python package numpy 1.16.5, pandas 0.25.1, scikit-learn 0.21.3, and xgboost 0.90. The dataset was split into a training set which was comprised of 70% of the overall population (n = 36,287) and a testing set which was comprised of 30% of the population (n = 15,552). The training data were used to develop the models to predict PPO application, using four ML algorithms: logistic regression (LR), classification and regression trees (CART), random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). LR is a machine learning technique that uses one or more independent variables to predict the likelihood of a binary (‘yes’ or ‘no’) or categorical result. In a clinical setting, for example, it can be used to predict clinical outcomes in terms of mortality. A CART algorithm is a top-down flowchart-like structure that splits data recursively into smaller groupings based on predictor variable values. After the outcomes have been trained into a decision tree, new data and information may be loaded into the tree, and the node decisions can be followed to forecast the likely clinical outcome. RF is an ensemble method for constructing several decision trees from distinct subsets of training data. Following training, all trees in the forest are run in parallel on new data entries, and the model’s final forecast is determined by the forest’s majority prediction opinion. XGB is a boosting ensemble method that constructs several models (i.e., decision trees), and each model learns from prior models by correcting prediction mistakes (see Pettit et al., 2021, and James et al., 2013 for more information about the different algorithms).
When developing the models, cost-sensitive learning (BrownLee, 2020; He & Ma, 2013) was adopted given that the dataset was highly imbalanced, that is, the prevalence of PPO applicants in the two birth cohorts was approximately 1.6%. The cost-sensitive learning algorithm could introduce different misclassification costs into the learning process. Given that spousal violence could have serious negative consequences, missing an actual PPO applicant would be more problematic as compared to categorizing a non-applicant as applicant and following up with more detailed assessment. Therefore, higher cost was assigned for the misclassification of PPO applicants when developing the ML models using the training data.
The models were then applied to the testing dataset to evaluate the performance of the selected model on unseen data. To evaluate model performance, overall accuracy, recall, precision, specificity and F2 scoreFootnote 2 were reported. The model with the best performance was selected and five-folded cross-validated grid search was carried out to further determine the optimal values of hyper-parameters and meanwhile reduce overfitting. The estimated coefficients of the final model were used to identify pertinent risk factors which could predict the likelihood of applying for PPO.
Network approach. Next, network approach (NA) was adopted to examine the inter-relationship across all the risk factors (Borsboom & Cramer, 2013) and answer RQ2. Each variable was represented as ‘node’(circles) and the statistical association between two variables, after controlling for other nodes in the network, was represented as an ‘edge’ (lines). All network construction, visualization, and analyses were performed using R statistical software (version 3.6.3), RStudio (version 1.3.1056) (RStudio Team, 2018), R package qgraph 1.6.9, and mgm 1.2–12 (Epskamp et al., 2012; Haslbeck & Waldorp, 2020). In this analysis, we estimated a pairwise mixed graphical model (MGM), which allowed estimation of undirected edges for both continuous and binary variables. To control spurious connections among the variables, we employed the “least absolute shrinkage and selection operator” (LASSO) to correct for false positive by reducing the overall strength of parameter estimates, retaining more solid edges, and shrinking small values edges to zero. For this purpose, we relied on the LASSO regularization with the Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC) and selected using a high EBIC of 0.5 as recommended by Epskamp, Borsboom, and Fried (2018) to yield adequate network structures. Each edge was estimated twice (once for each node an edge is connected to). We adopted the AND-rule, indicating that an edge was included in our network if it was included in both performed regression models (refer to Haslbeck & Waldorp 2020, p. 8–10 on estimating mixed graphical models).
We assessed the importance of each factor that surrounded PPO application by computing the centrality indices of the overall network structure and assessed the robustness of the network (Epskamp et al., 2018). Node strength provides information on the importance of a node based on the number of connections it has with another node in the network structure. Closeness examines how close a node by considering the indirect connections from that node to all other nodes in the network. Betweenness indicates how important a node is in the average pathway between other pairs of nodes. Robustness analysis was conducted using R package bootnet 1.4.3 to ensure the stability and accuracy of the results (Epskamp et al., 2018) (see Appendix A. Accuracy and stability checks).
Results
Pertinent Risk Factors Predicting the Likelihood of Applying for PPO
The performance of the four models using LR, CART, RF and XGB was reported in Table 2. In general, the LR and XGB models had superior performance in recall and F2 score whereas the CART and RF models had higher specificity and overall accuracy. The precision rates were generally low across the four models. However, given that PPO applicants were rare in the population (i.e., 1.6%), the model performance was acceptable (Berk et al., 2016). As the objective of the study was to identify the true PPO applicants in the population, recall was prioritized, and thus we favored LR and XGB models over the other two models. Furthermore, to build an interpretable model and uncover the direction of the relationships between the likelihood of applying for PPO and other variables, we selected the LR model.
Subsequently, cross-validated grid search was executed on the LR model. The recall of the final model was 83.1%, that is, out of the 249 actual PPO applicants in the testing dataset, 207 were correctly identified. On the other hand, out of the 3,869 cases categorized as PPO applicants by our model, 207 were actual PPO applicants (i.e., precision was 5.4%). The F2 score was 21.3%. The confusion matrix based on the final model was reported in Table 3.
The estimated coefficients of the final model were reported in Fig. 1. First, there was a significant gender difference in the likelihood of applying for PPO. Females were more likely to apply for a PPO as compared to males. With gender accounted for, the most pertinent risk factor predicting the likelihood of being PPO applicant was prior history as PPO respondent, based on the magnitude of estimated coefficients in the final model. Other pertinent risk factors were marriage before 21 years, staying in a public rental flat at 30 years, parenthood before 21 years, childhood maltreatment, anxiety disorders, other mental disorders, drug offenses and other offenses. In addition, the results showed that HQA had a negative coefficient, meaning that higher education level was associated with reduced likelihood of being PPO applicant on average. Put differently, lower educational attainment was found to be a risk factor associated with higher likelihood of being PPO applicants. Note that in the final model, Divorce was negatively associated with the likelihood of being PPO applicant. One plausible reason could be the PPO was only applicable to married people during the study period.
Interrelationships Between Different Risk Factors Surrounding PPO Application
Figure 2 presents the undirected network depicting the interrelationship of the factors associated with the likelihood of applying for PPO. Results showed similar findings to the LR model. We identified a positive relationship between PPO applicants and lower HQAFootnote 3 after controlling for all other variables in the network, indicating that individuals with low educational attainment had a higher likelihood of applying for PPO. The network also depicted additional findings: females, those who had PPO made against them previously, marriage before age 21 years, staying in public rental flat at age 30 years, parenthood before age 21 years, and childhood maltreatment had direct association with PPO application, whereas criminal history and mental illness diagnosis were linked to PPO application through the above-mentioned factors (i.e., indirect association).
Figure 3 illustrates the magnitude of the node strength, closeness, betweenness for each risk factor. HQA was the one of the most central nodes (other than Gender – a covariate) across all centrality indices in the entire network, with a relatively high node strength and closeness, highlighting the importance of education level in influencing other risk factors (i.e., life adversities and disadvantages) in the network.
Discussion
In summary, this study used population-level administrative data to examine the pertinent risk factors which could predict the likelihood of being PPO applicant in Singapore and further explored the associations of different risk factors. The pertinent risk factors identified included covered critical life events in various domains, including educational attainment, staying in a public rental flat, early marriage and parenthood, experience of childhood maltreatment, prior history of being respondent to PPO, criminal history, and mental health concerns. Findings were mostly consistent with international literature related to domestic violence victimization (Bensley et al., 2003; Carbone-Lopez & Kruttschnitt, 2010; Flury et al., 2010; Speizer & Pearson, 2011).
The study further revealed a direct relationship between specific risk factors with PPO application, such as those from low socioeconomic status, had early marriage and parenthood, history of being a PPO respondent, and childhood maltreatment. In contrast, criminal history and mental illness diagnosis were linked indirectly to PPO application through the abovementioned factors. This indicated that criminal history and mental illness diagnosis may not directly lead to a higher risk of experiencing spousal violence, but they can be associated with poorer socioeconomic status background or other adverse events, which in turn leads to spousal violence victimization.
Moreover, lower educational attainment was identified as one of the risk factors with the highest centrality that was linked to many other life adversities and disadvantages such as criminal offenses, marriage before 21 years old, receiving social assistance and staying in a public rental flat at age 30 years old. This finding aligned with the past literature where individuals with higher educational attainment were associated with better well-being (Tran et al., 2021) and life events (Halim et al., 2018).
Implications
The findings of this study could contribute to existing literature related to spousal violence and help policymakers to identify opportunities and strategies for upstream intervention. The pertinent risk factors identified in the study could provide useful information for more targeted community outreach to tackle the domestic violence issue.
For instance, the top-line findings of the study were used to inform the development of the recommendations by Singapore’s multi-stakeholder Taskforce on Family Violence (FVTF)Footnote 4. Specifically, early marriage and young parenthood were found to be pertinent risk factors for filing a PPO, which indicated that providing additional support and proactive outreach to this group would be beneficial. This finding informed the FVTF’s recommendation to encourage young couples to attend marriage preparation programs. Additionally, our findings suggested that staying in a public rental flat could be linked with increased likelihood of being PPO applicants. This informed the FVTF’s recommendation to tap on potential touchpoints such as the Community Link programme (for families with children that are living in public rental flats) for upstream preventive efforts, such as regular engagement and check-ins with families that may have elevated risk of family violence. All the recommendations from the FVTF were accepted in principle by the Government, which has started implementation efforts.
Furthermore, the pertinent risk factor identified in this study could be used as a checklist for first responders (e.g., police or social workers) in suspected family violence incidents to identify at-risk individuals and families. Given that most factors included in the checklist were coded as binary variables to indicate the presence of various life experiences, it would be relatively straightforward for social workers to obtain the necessary information from the individuals involved. In this sense, the checklist could assist with front-line triaging and augment professional judgement when tackling spousal violence issues. Additionally, as risk factors for spousal violence may co-occur and cumulate, the factors identified in the study could be used to form a cumulative risk score to identify the turning point where the risk of domestic violence victimization increases. This could further facilitate the early identification of people and families at higher risk of experiencing spousal violence in the community.
From an operational perspective, there are several numbers of ethical concerns that must be considered in spousal violence intervention which includes: confidentiality of victims be maintained, autonomy where victims of the violence having the right to make their own decisions about their safety and well-being, and non-judgmental approach. It is crucial to note that the objective of the checklist or a screener was not to determine whether an individual was a victim of spousal violence, but to be used as a preliminary screener in the community. However, such information should be further supplemented by dynamic risk and protective factors that could be assessed by the attending professional. At-risk individuals flagged by the checklist could be followed up with additional home visits and attention to further understand the family circumstances and assessed by more comprehensive and structured risk assessment measures. Nonetheless, this approach is not meant to stigmatize family or individual of certain characteristics but to take steps to minimize the risk of harm to all parties involved (including other family members such as children).
Limitations and Future Research
There were several limitations in study. First, by the end of the study period, individuals in the 1980 and 1985 birth cohorts were at age 37 or 32 years respectively. In this sense, the findings of this paper might not be generalizable to victims who experienced spousal violence in their later life stage. It would be rewarding for future research to track spousal violence as well as other life events across lifetime to examine if the risk factors associated with spousal violence would be different across life stages.
Second, this research used official records of life events to capture risk factors of spousal violence. However, there could be other personal or relational factors linked to spousal violence that were not captured by the current administrative data. Additionally, the use of administrative data allowed us to capture spousal violence cases among married people, but not other types of domestic violence. Future research could collect more data, such as attitudes towards male privilege, family functioning and dating violence, through qualitative studies as well as questionnaire surveys, to draw a more complete picture of risk factors leading to domestic violence. Future research could also investigate risk factors for diverse types of spousal violence, such as sexual abuse and emotional abuse.
Third, this research identified risk factors associated with spousal violence victimization, instead of establishing a causal relationship. Further efforts on understanding how and why the pertinent risk factors lead to domestic violence would be crucial.
Fourth, the follow-up period used to examine the dynamic variables in this study differed between individuals who applied for PPO and those who did not. This resulted in a longer tracking duration for individuals who did not apply for PPO. As a result, the presence of dynamic risk factors in PPO applicants could be under-reported.
Last, this study examined the pertinent risk factors associated with spousal violence victimization in the Singaporean context. Interpretation should be made with caution when generalizing the findings to other countries or regions. Future research could apply the model in the current study to samples with different cultural backgrounds or social norms to further understand the risk factors of spousal violence around the globe.
Conclusion
As a concluding remark, this paper identified risk factors associated with the likelihood of being PPO applicants, using population-level administrative records in Singapore. Findings could contribute to existing literature related to spousal violence and help policymakers to identify opportunities and strategies for upstream intervention.
Notes
In the period of this research, family violence was defined as acts of harm against a family member with respect to a perpetrator, which included spouse but excluded live-in partners or intimate partners in the Singapore context. In this sense, our paper focused on spousal violence cases.
F-beta score combines the precision rate and the recall rate of a classification model into a single metric. In this study, recall was prioritized in accordance with the objective of identifying the PPO applicants in the population. Therefore, F2 score, where recall was weighted twice as precision, was reported (Powers, 2011).
For ease of interpretation and simplicity, HQA was coded as a binary variable in network approach. As the mean age of schooling in Singapore for those aged 25 years and above was about 10.9 years in 2017, the binary variable was coded with “1” indicating secondary level and below and “0” otherwise (i.e., post-secondary or diploma level and above).
The FVTF was a national taskforce, comprising of political office holders, public servants, social service practitioners, advocates, and subject matter experts, that was set up in 2020 to advance the understanding about the family violence landscape, identify areas for improvement, and co-create recommendations to tackle the family violence issue in Singapore.
References
Ackerson, L. K., Kawachi, I., Barbeau, E. M., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: A population-based study of women in India. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738.
Ang, I., & Stratton, J. (2018). The Singapore Way of Multiculturalism: Western Concepts/Asian cultures. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 33(S), S61–S86. https://doi.org/10.1355/sj33-Sd.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (1 vol.). Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bensley, L., Van Eenwyk, J., & Wynkoop Simmons, K. (2003). Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00094-1.
Berk, R. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Barnes, G. (2016). Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(1), 94–115.
Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608.
Boy, A., & Kulczycki, A. (2008). What we know about intimate partner violence in the Middle East and North Africa. Violence Against Women, 14(1), 53–70.
BrownLee, J. (2020). Imbalanced classification with Python: Choose better metrics, balance skewed classes, and apply cost-sensitive learning. Retrieved from https://machinelearningmastery.com/imbalanced-classification-with-python/
Brownridge, D. A., Chan, K. L., Hiebert-Murphy, D., Ristock, J., Tiwari, A., Leung, W. C., & Santos, S. C. (2008). The elevated risk for non-lethal post-separation violence in Canada: A comparison of separated, divorced, and married women. Journal of interpersonal violence, 23(1), 117–135.
Campbell, J. C. (1992). If I can’t have you, no one can”: Power and control in homicide of female partners.Femicide: The politics of woman killing,99–113.
Carbone-Lopez, K., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2010). Risky relationships? Assortative mating and women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 358–384.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2013). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. John Wiley & Sons.
Duchesne, S., Donnadieu, A. C., Chariot, P., & Louis-Sylvestre, C. (2021). Screening for domestic violence during pregnancy follow-up: Evaluation of an intervention in an antenatal service. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 24(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-020-01058-4.
Dugan, L., Rosenfeld, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law and Society Review, 37, 169–198.
Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(4), 1–18.
Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1.
Flury, M., Nyberg, E., & Riecher-Rossler, A. (2010). Domestic violence against women: Definitions, epidemiology, risk factors and consequences. Swiss Medical Weekly, 140(3536), w13099. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2010.13099.
Gokler, M. E., Arslantas, D., & Unsal, A. (2014). Prevalence of domestic violence and associated factors among married women in a semi-rural area of western Turkey. Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 30(5), 1088–1093.
Habtamu, K., Alem, A., Medhin, G., Fekadu, A., & Hanlon, C. (2018). Functional impairment among people with severe and enduring mental disorder in rural Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53(8), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1546-6.
Halim, D., Kleemans, M., & Akresh, R. (2018). Long-term and Intergenerational Effects of Education: Evidence from School Construction in Indonesia. Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: https://doi.org/10.3386/w25265
Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Waldorp, L. J. (2020). Mgm: Estimating time-varying mixed graphical models in high-dimensional data. Journal of Statistical Software, 93(8), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v093.i08.
He, H., & Ma, Y. E. (2013). Imbalanced Learning: Foundations, algorithms, and applications. New York, NY: Wiley-IEEE Press.
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002.
Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 864–870.
Hong Le, M. T., Tran, T. D., Nguyen, H. T., & Fisher, J. (2014). Early marriage and intimate partner violence among adolescents and young adults in Viet Nam. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(5), 889–910.
James, Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R (1st ed. 2013.). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7.
Jewkes, R., Levin, J., & Penn-Kekana, L. (2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a south african cross-sectional study. Social science & medicine, 55(9), 1603–1617.
Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31(3).
Martin, E. K., Taft, C. T., & Resick, P. A. (2007). A review of marital rape. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 329–347.
Mathews, M., Key, T. K., Tay, M., & Wang, A. (2021). Our Singaporean Values: Key Findings from the World Values Survey Retrieved from https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/details/our-singaporean-values-key-findings-from-the-world-values-survey
Miller, D., & Jaye, C. (2007). GPs’ perception of their role in the identification and management of family violence. Family Practice, 24(2), 95–101. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmm001
Max, Rice, D. P., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R. A., & Leadbetter, S. (2004). The Economic Toll of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.3.259.65767.
Nichols, J. A., Chan, H., H. W., & Baker, M. A. B. (2019). Machine learning: Applications of artificial intelligence to imaging and diagnosis. Biophysical reviews, 11(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-018-0449-9.
Palmetto, N., Davidson, L. L., Breitbart, V., & Rickert, V. I. (2013). Predictors of physical intimate partner violence in the lives of young women: Victimization, perpetration, and bidirectional violence. Violence and Victims, 28(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.28.1.103.
Pettit, Fullem, R., Cheng, C., & Amos, C. I. (2021). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning for clinical outcome prediction. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences, 5(6), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20210246.
Powers, D. M. (2011). Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. Journal of Machine Learning Technologies, 2(1), 37–63.
Reichel, D. (2017). Determinants of intimate Partner violence in Europe: The role of Socioeconomic Status, Inequality, and Partner Behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(12), 1853–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698951.
Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Rodriguez, J. V., Pardo-Quiles, D. J., Heras-Gonzalez, P., & Chatzigiannakis, I. (2020). Modeling and forecasting gender-based violence through machine learning techniques. Applied Sciences, 10(22), 8244. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228244.
Rossa-Roccor, V., Schmid, P., & Steinert, T. (2020). Victimization of people with severe Mental illness outside and within the Mental Health Care System: Results on prevalence and risk factors from a Multicenter Study. Frontiers In Psychiatry, 11, 563860. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.563860.
Sarker. (2021). Machine learning: Algorithms, real-world applications and research directions. SN Computer Science, 2(3), 160–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00592-x.
Semahegn, A., & Mengistie, B. (2015). Domestic violence against women and associated factors in Ethiopia; systematic review. Reproductive Health, 12(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0072-1.
Speizer, I. S., & Pearson, E. (2011). Association between early marriage and intimate partner violence in India: A focus on youth from Bihar and Rajasthan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(10), 1963–1981.
Tekkas Kerman, K., & Betrus, P. (2020). Violence against women in Turkey: A social ecological framework of determinants and prevention strategies. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 21(3), 510–526.
Ting, Xu, X., Chu, C. M., Lai, P., & Li, D. (2022). Understanding the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminal Justice Involvement: a Multi-birth-Cohort Study in Singapore. Asian Journal of Criminology, 17(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-022-09371-w.
Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2016). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving Welfare. Violence Against Women, 7(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801201007002003.
Tran, D. B., Pham, T. D. N., & Nguyen, T. T. (2021). The influence of education on women’s well-being: Evidence from Australia. PloS One, 16(3), e0247765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247765.
Trevillion, K., Oram, S., Feder, G., & Howard, L. M. (2012). Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 7(12), e51740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051740.
Vatnar, S. K. B., & Bjørkly, S. (2011). Does separation or divorce make any difference? An interactional perspective on intimate Partner Violence with Focus on Marital Status. Journal of Family Violence, 27(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9400-6.
Walker, M. U. (2006). The cycle of violence.Journal of Human Rights, 5(1).
Wilt, S., & Olson, S. (1996). Prevalence of domestic violence in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association (1972), 51(3), 77–82. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8683026
World Health Organization (2010a). Mental Health and Development: targeting people with mental health conditions as a vulnerable group. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563949
Family Justice Courts Singapore (2021). Family Protection. Retrieved from https://www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg/what-we-do/family-courts/family-protection
Office for National Statistics (2018). Domestic abuse: findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales: year ending March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusefindingsfromthecrimesurveyforenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018
World Health Organization (2018). Global Database on the Prevalence of Violence Against Women: National estimates 2000–2018. Retrieved from https://srhr.org/vaw-data/data
R Studio Team (2018). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/
World Health Organization (2010b). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/9789241564007_eng.pdf
World Health Organization (2021). Devastatingly pervasive: 1 in 3 women globally experience violence. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news/item/09-03-2021-devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the staff of Ministry of Social and Family Development and Family Justice Courts for their support of this study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the National Council of Social Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, X., Ong, H.L., Lai, P. et al. Understanding the Risk Factors of Spousal Violence Victimization Using Machine Learning and Network Approaches. J Fam Viol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00573-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00573-z