Prevalences of intimate partner violence in a representative U.S. Air Force sample.

Heather M. Foran · Amy M. Smith Slep · Richard E. Heyman

50 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Intimate Partner and Family Violence Child Abuse and Trauma Elder Abuse and Neglect

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious health concern, but little is known about prevalence of IPV in the armed forces, as military members cope with the pressures of long-standing operations. Furthermore, previous prevalence studies have been plagued by definitional issues; most studies have focused on acts of aggression without consideration of impact (clinically significant [CS] IPV). This is the first large-scale study to examine prevalences of IPV, CS-IPV, and clinically significant emotional abuse (CS-EA) for men and women. METHOD: A United States Air Force-wide anonymous survey was administered across 82 bases in 2006 (N = 42,744) to assess IPV, CS-IPV, and CS-EA. RESULTS: The adjusted prevalence of CS-IPV perpetration was 4.66% for men and 3.54% for women. Prevalences of IPV perpetration were 12.90% for men and 15.14% for women. CS-EA victimization was 6.00% for men and 8.50% for women. Sociodemographic differences in risk for violence were found for gender, race/ethnicity, pay grade, religious faith, marital status, and career type even after controlling for other demographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Partner maltreatment is widespread in military (and civilian) samples. Men were more likely to perpetrate CS-IPV, whereas women were more likely to perpetrate IPV. Specific demographic risk factors were identified for different types of partner maltreatment (e.g., lower rank predicted higher risk for both perpetration and victimization across men and women). Other sociodemographic differences varied across severity (IPV vs. CS-IPV) and across gender.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

1996The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)2000Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.2008Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery 1990Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families.2003Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review 1987VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS 1992Marital aggression. Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives 1994Predicting mild and severe husband-to-wife physical aggression.

Cited by

2014An ecological model of intimate partner violence perpetration at different levels of severity.2013“Strength at Home” Group Intervention for Military Populations Engaging in Intimate Partner Violence: Pilot Findings 2015Enhanced Definitions of Intimate Partner Violence for DSM ‐5 and ICD ‐11 May Promote Improved Screening and Treatment 2022Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Military and Veteran Populations: A Systematic Review of Population-Based Surveys and Population Screening Studies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.