親密關係暴力被害人危險判斷之初探

親密關係暴力被害人危險判斷為危險評估的來源之一，包括概念發展與測量，然而台灣至今仍未有研究針對此概念進行深入的探討。本研究的目的即（一）了解不同危險因子於被害人危險自評之預測效果。（二）探討被害人危險自評與TIPVDA評估結果之相關性及影響因素。（三）了解被害人危險判斷的評估內涵、脈絡及意義。研究方法採用「量化次級資料分析法」與「質化深入訪談法」兩種途徑進行。其中量化次級資料來源為2010年由王珮玲之「建構臺灣婚姻暴力致命危險指標及評估工具計畫」研究案部分資料，以基隆市與桃園縣二個縣市試辦原始資料進行次級資料分析，共計573位研究樣本。而深入訪談則是以立意抽樣方式，選取親密關係暴力女性被害人作為訪談對象，實際完訪樣本共13位。量化研究結果顯示（一）TIPVDA之15項危險因子與被害人危險自評具相關性及預測效果。（二）不同致命危險情形、危險程度與被害人危險自評具相關性。（三）不同危險因子對於TIPVDA與被害人危險自評一致/不一致具預測效果。其中對子女施暴、威脅同歸於盡及被害人相信會被殺害，為造成TIPVDA與自評分類不一致之主因。質化研究結果顯示（一）被害人對危險具主觀認定，非以人身安全為唯一考量。（二）被害人危險判斷內涵共分為六大類，包含人口特徵、加害人之人格特性、親密關係暴力史、情境因素及被害人狀況。最後針對被害人危險判斷於實務之應用，本研究亦提出建議。

關鍵字

親密關係暴力；危險評估；被害人危險自評； TIPVDA

並列摘要

Danger assessment from intimate partner violence victims is one of the sources of risk assessment, including the concept development and measurement. But study on the concept still lacks of in-depth discussion in Taiwan. The purpose of this study is (a) Understand how the prediction of different risk factors work on victim's assessment. (b) Investigate the correlation between victim's assessment and TIPVDA evaluation result and influencing factors thereof. (c) Understand the assessment connotation, context and significance of the victim's danger judgment. Two kinds of research methods are adopted i.e. "Quantitative secondary data analysis" and "Qualitative in-depth interview”. Wherein the quantitative secondary data is part of the case study "Plan of construction of lethal indicators and assessment tools for Taiwan marital violence" by Pei-ling Wang in 2010. The secondary data analysis is based on the original data from Keelung City and Taoyuan City, accounting for 573 research samples in total. The method of in-depth interview is based on purposive sampling, which selects the women victims of intimate partner violence as interviewees, of which 13 persons complete the interview. Quantitative Study results show that (a) There exists correlation between 15 risk factors of TIPVDA and the victim's assessment, as well as prediction effect. (b) Different deadly dangerous situations and danger levels are correlated to the victim's assessments. (c) Different risk factors could predict the consistence or inconsistence of TIPVDA and victim's assessment. The factors, including "violence inflicted on children", "threats to perish together" and "victim’s belief to be killed", are primary causes of inconsistence on classification of TIPVDA and victim's assessment. Qualitative research shows that (a) Victim has subjective judgment on danger and the physical safety is not the unique one to be considered. (b) The connotation of victim's danger judgment has six categories, including demographic characteristics, personality characteristics of the offender, the history of intimate partner violence, situational factors and victim's status. Finally, we also make suggestions for the practical application of victim's danger assessment.