Blog

Welcome to the GVT Blog


... A place to foster discussions on how effective data management can help improve agency work flow, morale, funding, time management and outcomes for children, families and patients.

 

New Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire Released

Posted by: George Ritacco on 11/7/2011

 

As a supplemental tool to the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV), the Crimes against Children Research Center has released the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire-2nd Edition (JVQ-R2). The questionnaire, which is the core of NatSCEV, attempts to document the full range of victimization that youth experience, including conventional crime, maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual victimization, witnessing, and other exposure to violence. Moreover, it can help practitioners determine youth’s needs, assess whether victimization programs are effective, raise awareness on youth victimization, and improve victimization research.

The JVQ-R2 is free and available online.

Resources:

For more information about the JVQ-R2, go to www.unh.edu/ccrc/jvq/index_new.html.

To download the JVQ-R2, visit www.unh.edu/ccrc/jvq/available_versions.html.

To view and download publications from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence series, visit www.ojjdp.gov/publications/PubResults.asp?sei=94

Create a trackback from your own site.

1 Comment

    • Feb 08 2012, 5:41 PM Valentin
    • I found the smamury of the article was insufficient in that without reading the full article I have no way of judging the size of the relationship between the variables being studied. Assuming the results are significant and the design is sufficient for experimental analysis, readers of the study have to accept that these are all based on indirect measures using survey instruments and not direct observation of assertiveness skills nor self-blame. As was pointed out, even though there is a correlation with the variables studied, the measures of these variables and their reliability/validity may easily reduce the size and therefore significance of the results. Dr. Crowley alludes to this. Still, this is interesting research though not conclusive research about the rate or likelihood of sexual assault. This is a very small and with future replications maybe even a small important piece of knowlege. However, the discussion so far though appears to be based on language and the inability of researcher and practitioner to see the world in the same manner. I agree with Ms. Miller that the study as it is described does nothing to frame the purpose and results in a non victim blaming manner. It is easy for someone to draw the conclusion that rape is the result of a woman who self-blames and is unable to be assertive. So do researchers have a responsibility to simply report the research eschewing obfuscation including political/social concerns or do they need to place their research in the context of the field and it social/political perspectives? I think this is one of the great divides between practitioners and researchers. The researcher is supposed to present the facts and how they were obtained in a clean, precise and unbiased manner. The practitioner exists in a socio-political environment advocating for change and human rights. That practitioner view is often critical of the researcher’s work when it did not address the research in context. So, if I am a victim advocate working with sexual assault survivors is this research study of value? Of course it is. It tells me that self-blame and ultimately training in assertiveness in the presence of self-blame is perhaps an important piece of the helping response and certainly can fit well into a strength based approach. Could the researchers have presented the research with language that is more palatable to the field. Yes. Discussion sections and introductions are not result sections and bound by the same tradition of simply reporting the facts. Discussion and introduction sections of any article should place the research into the context of the field when that research has application to the field. Researchers also need to be more pragmatic about describing the limitations of their research even though that may not promote an editor or reviewer to think the article is the best thing since sliced bread. Too often in my opinion is a peer-review/publication perspective that they only consumers are other academic peer researchers.Perhaps more research would be read by practitioners if researchers were more knowledgeable of and sensitive to the consumers who stand the most to gain from the knowledged produced.
Leave A Comment



Please enter the CAPTCHA phrase above.