**6. Conclusions**

Each of the theoretical frameworks discussed above provides insights for IPV practice, research, and policy. Practitioners must continue to mold IPV programming across the lifespan that acknowledges and responds to human diversity and di fferences. Explicitly, students in clinical training require content in how to consume empirical literature systematically and to critically analyze that traumatic event "X" does not always produce a generalizable outcome "Y" among their client base (Addy et al. 2015). Nothing is a more dangerous misuse of practice privilege, than to engage with IPV survivors based on assumptions. The limitations of theory must be omnipresent in training not to provide a false sense of assuredness, particularly for those new to clinical training.

Professional practice relies on theoretical frameworks to inform our understandings of human behavior as well as research-grounded programs and evidence-based interventions. It is imperative, to better serve these populations throughout the lifespan and across multiple intersecting systems of oppression, that practitioners recognize their own personal and professional bias as well as those of theories (Dixon and Graham-Kevan 2011; McMahon and Armstrong 2012). The theoretical perspectives through which we frame the world and the lived experiences of clients served has a direct connection to hope in the lives of the most vulnerable (Lockhart and Danis 2010). As practice advances, practitioners must continue to spend adequate time assessing for the mediators of adversity, the impact of social stratification, and reframing to evaluate experiences of trauma at their intersection with resiliency to maximize theoretical utility. Failure to do so will leave the practitioner with a static view of IPV, rather than a progressive lens that is sensitive to time, culture, and context.

Additionally, those involved in IPV research and practice must continue to develop more nuanced and improved ways to assess for the experiences and effects of IPV in ways both critical and inclusive (Lockhart and Danis 2010). To improve IPV service delivery, a focus on not only client readiness but how violence, oppression, and marginalization exacerbate experiences is needed. Further, the person-inenvironment model must be inclusive of the community level and time, as revealed by the historical trauma lens. Table 2 displays summaries of the implications in this area for practice, policy, and research.


**Table 2.** Practice, Policy and Research Implications.

In conclusion, IPV remains a considerable societal ill and a formidable challenge to professionals, educators, and researchers; this overview of theoretical frames can improve service delivery and inform new and expanded avenues for research.

**Author Contributions:** Writing—original draft, D.A.M., K.H., A.N., A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** Publication assistance provided by The University of Oklahoma O ffice of the Vice President for Research, OU Libraries, and OU Knee Center for Strong Families.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
