Longitudinal indicators of adolescent dating violence in a rural community

International Society for Child Indicators2nd International Conference

4-5 November, 2009University of Western Sydney, Australia

Jim McDonell, D.S.W.Joyce Ott, Ph.D.Institute on Family and Neighbourhood Life, Clemson University, Clemson, SC USAMargaret MitchellChesterfield County Coordinating Council, Chesterfield, SC USA

This research was sponsored by grant SPO13611 from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Introduction

Adolescent dating violence is a significant public health concern with far-reaching consequences Posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety,(Shorey,

Cornelius, & Bell, 2008; Wolitzky-Taylor, et al., 2008); Physical health problems (Munõs-Rivas, Graña, O’leary, &

Gonzáez, 2007) Increased risk of HIV, STDs, and pregnancy (Silverman, Raj,

& Clements, 2009); Eating disorders (Acker, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2002); Substance use (Buzy, et al., 2004; Howard & Wang, 2003); Poor academic performance (Craigen, Sikes, Healey, & Hays,

2009);

Introduction

Estimates of prevalence vary but studies suggest as many as 1/3 of adolescents experience dating violence in their lifetimes Physical violence accounts for about 10% of incidents

Verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and control accounts for between 75% and 85% of incidents

Sexual violence has been found in about 3% to 14% of incidents

Introduction

Despite national concern and high prevalence rates, research remains relatively sparse and there are significant gaps in knowledge

Due in part to Vagaries in definitions used Differences in measures across studies Reliance on adult-normed measures in studies of

adolescents Tendency to investigate specific behaviors in

isolation, rather than viewing adolescent dating violence as reflecting a constellation of behaviors and outcomes

Introduction

Dating violence is particularly under-studied among rural adolescents

Spencer & Bryant (2000) found that rates among rural adolescents were twice as high as those among urban or suburban adolescents. Also found that rates were higher among men than women.

Silverman, Raj, & Clements (2004) found comparable rates among rural and urban adolescents with both groups having higher rates than suburban teens.

Introduction

Rates are also higher among adolescents in the southern U.S. than in other regions of the country

A national study (Marquart, et al., 2007) found rates in the South of 43.8%, followed by the West at 27.5%, the Midwest at 25.7%, and the East at 22.8%.

The authors concluded that this reflects the culture of violence that has long characterized the southern U.S. states.

Introduction

A review of the literature shows that the factors influencing dating violence fall into four categories Family factors include lack of closeness in parent/child

relationships; punitive parenting; and having witnessed family violence.

Individual factors include substance use, attitudes accepting of violence, knowing someone who has been victimized, being involved in a deviant peer network, and depression and other well-being indicators.

Community factors include level of community violence, reluctance of professionals to accept dating violence, and lack of attachment to school and other community institutions

Contextual factors include situation specific interpretation of violent behaviors, similarity between adolescents’ and parents’ conflict styles, and stability of aggression over time

Introduction

Given these considerations, the present study reports results of a multi-year study of adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration and correlates, including: attitudes towards violence,; knowledge of dating and family violence within peer

network; acceptability of violence-related behaviors in dating and

family relationships qualities of dating relationships; perceptions of extent of and community response to

violence; substance use, perceived risks of substance use, and

perceived parental attitudes towards substance use; and availability of adult support.

Methods

Beginning in 2003 and each year thereafter, data have been collected from a convenience sample of at least one class at each grade level at each middle and high school in Chesterfield County, SC.

The survey was administered in the classroom, with students not participating being given an alternative activity.

The sample sizes were:

2003-2004 – 273 2004-2005 – 1732005-2006 – 327 2006-2007 – 4982007-2008 – 428 2008-2009 – 351

Results: Characteristics of the students

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Average age in years

14.3 14.7 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.2

Gender Female 72.7% 61.9% 64.9% 65.3% 62.7% 65.2%

Male 27.3% 38.1% 35.1% 34.7% 37.3% 34.8%

Race/Ethnicity Black or African-American

35.3% 37.3% 34.0% 34.7% 36.2% 34.1%

Hispanic and other minorities

5.3% 9.6% 5.9% 7.4% 5.2% 8.0%

White 59.5% 53.0% 60.0% 57.9% 58.2% 57.9%

Grade level Middle school 45.0% 42.6% 29.8% 38.5% 50.4% 46.1%

High school 55.0% 57.4% 70.2% 61.5% 49.6% 53.9%

Dating violence victimization

In the first year of the survey, dating violence victimization was determined through a single item asking students if a dating partner had ever behaved towards them in a manner they would consider violent. In the second year, items were added to measure acts of physical and emotional/psychological violence, a more precise measure. The table shows the results via both methods.

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6Single item measure 17.6% 15.1% 15.2% 14.7% 14.3% 16.1%Multiple item measure N/A 22.4% 31.2% 23.7% 23.7% 23.8%

Dating violence victimization by genderWhile having fluctuated across time, male victimization from the single item measure has fallen appreciably, although this is not a significant change. On the

multiple item measure, male victimization fell in 2008-2009 after several years of increase. The difference over time is not significant.

Victimization among females from the single item measure rose last year after several years of decline. The same pattern is evident on the multiple item measure as well. These differences over time were not significant

Measure Gender

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2005

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Single item measure

Male 7.4% 10.0%

6.6% 10.5%

7.4% 5.1%

Female

21.0%

19.1%

19.7%

17.6%

18.7%

22.1%

Multiple item measure

Male N/A 13.3%

27.1%

20.5%

21.7%

17.8%

Female

N/A 26.3%

33.0%

25.8%

24.5%

27.0%

Dating violence victimization by ageOlder students generally experience higher rates of dating violence than do younger students. Using the single item measure, dating violence has decreased across time for younger

students but has increased using the multiple item measure.

The same pattern is seen for students ages 15 and older

These differences across time are not significant.

Measure Age 2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2005

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009Single item measure

14 and under

12.1%

7.7% 10.3%

8.0% 7.5% 9.7%

15 and older

24.1%

21.3%

18.3%

20.7%

23.3%

22.8%

Multiple item measure

14 and under

N/A 15.5%

28.2%

17.2%

16.7%

18.9%

15 and older

N/A 26.1%

33.2%

30.0%

32.8%

29.4%

Dating violence perpetration

As the table shows, perpetration has decreased over time among all students, males and females, and students age 14 and younger and 15 and older.

None of the differences seen are significant.

Measure 2004-2005

2005-2005

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

All students 22.0% 19.1% 17.0% 16.0% 16.2%Male 15.3% 8.2% 6.9% 11.8% 8.4%Female 24.3% 24.5% 23.0% 18.2% 20.4%14 and younger

16.7% 13.3% 8.2% 7.7% 9.4%

15 and older 24.4% 22.8% 25.8% 27.0% 23.9%

Attitudes towards violenceAttitudes towards violence was measured through a 12-item scale with higher

scores indicating greater beliefs in the causes and justification for violence

The relationship betweenattitudes and victimization(r = .05, p > .05) and perpetration (r = .06, p > .05) were both trivial.

The differences acrosstime were not significantfor all students, by gender, or by age.

Know victim, perpetrator, or witness

Item 2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Know female victim 69.8%

64.3%

66.3%

63.7%

62.7%

61.2%

Know a male perpetrator

68.8%

66.0%

61.7%

56.1%

55.3%

56.4%

Know a witness 68.9%

70.4%

61.3%

58.6%

58.5%

54.4%

The decrease across time in knowing a male perpetrator was significant, X2(5) = 14.45, p < .01. The decrease across time in knowing a female who has witnessed violence was also significant, X2(5) = 14.45, p < .05

There were significant relationships between dating violence victimization and knowing a female victim of dating violence(r = .26, p < .01), knowing a male perpetrator(r = .24, p < .01, and knowing a female who has witnessed violence (r = .17, p < .05).

There were also significant relationships between dating violence perpetration and knowing a female victim of dating violence(r = .24, p < .01), knowing a male perpetrator(r = .24, p < .01, and knowing a female who has witnessed violence (r = .17, p < .05).

Know victim, perpetrator, or witnessThere was a significant decrease across time for males in knowing a

male perpetrator, X2(5) = 11.35, p < .05. There was also a decrease for females but the difference was not significant.

There were no gender differences for knowing a female victim or knowing a female who had witnessed violence

There was also a significant decrease for students age 14 and younger in knowing a male perpetrator, X2(5) = 12.32, p < .05. There was also a significant decrease across time for students age 15 and older, X2(5) = 11.68, p < .05.

There was a significant decrease for students age 15 and older in knowing a female who had witnessed violence, X2(5) = 12.32, p < .05. There was no significant difference for students age 15 and older.

There were no age differences for knowing a female victim.

Acceptability of dating behaviorsAcceptability of dating behaviors was a 13-item scale with higher scores indicating greater

acceptability (e.g., telling people what to do, slapping or hitting them). Generally, the means scores show that the behaviors in the scale are never or rarely okay.

Across all years, there weresmall but significant relationshipswith victimization (r = .08, p < .05 and with perpetration(r = .16, p < .01), indicating that students who are more acceptingof violence-related behaviors in a dating relationship are more likely to be victims or perpetratorsof dating violence

Differences in scores across timewere not significant. There wereno differences by gender or age.

Acceptability of family behaviorThe acceptability of family behavior repeated the items from the acceptability of

dating behavior scale and simply applied them to families

Across all years, there weresmall but significant relationshipswith victimization (r = .11, p < .05 and with perpetration(r = .17, p < .01), indicating that students who are more acceptingof violence-related family behaviors were more likely to be victims or perpetratorsof dating violence

Differences in scores across timefor all students were not significant.

Acceptability of family behaviorThere was a significant decrease across time in the

acceptability of family behavior for students age 14 and younger, F(5/1022) = 3.39, p < .01, but not for students age 15 and older.

There were no gender differences.

Qualities of dating relationshipsQualities of dating relationships was a 7-item scale with higher scores indicating greater importance

on the qualities shown (e.g., listening to one another, being honest with one another). Overall, students felt that positive qualities of dating relationships were somewhat to very important.

There were small but significantrelationships with victimization(r = -.09, p < .01) andperpetration (r = .18, p < .01), indicating that students whoplaced a lower value on thequalities of dating relationshipswere more likely to perpetratedating violence.

The differences across timewere significant for all students, F(5/2044) = 4.03, p < .01

Qualities of dating relationshipsThere was an increase in the importance placed on

the qualities of dating relationships for males and the difference was significant, F(5/713) = 2.65, p < .05. There was no significant difference for females.

There was a significant increase in the importance placed on the qualities of dating relationships for students age 15 and older, F(5/984) = 5.73, p < .001. There was no significant difference for students age 14 and younger.

Feeling of safetyThis was a single item asking students to indicate their level of agreement with a

statement regarding safety at home and at school. In each year, more than 90% of students reported feeling safe.

The item was not significantlycorrelated with either datingviolence victimization or perpetration.

There were no significantdifferences across time for all students or by gender or age.

Perceptions of community response to violenceThis was a single item asking students whether or not they believe their community is doing a

good job in responding to violence, without differentiating the form of violence. In each year, more than half of students believe that the community is doing a good job.

There were small but significantcorrelations with victimization(r = -.11, p < .01) and withperpetration (r = -.14, p < .01), indicating that students whobelieve the community is notdoing a good job are more likely tobe victimized or to perpetrate dating violence.

Changes across time werenot significant for all students or by gender or age

Substance UseThese were single items measuring past 6 month tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use.

Alcohol use has increased considerably across time, although not significantly. Tobacco use has declined over time and the difference is significant, X2(5) = 14.1, p < .05. The use of illicit drugs has also declined over time, but not to a significant extent.

Substance use

There were significant correlations between tobacco use and dating violence victimization (r = .22, p < .001) and perpetration (4 = .21, p < .001), indicating that students who use more tobacco (cigarettes and smokeless) are more likely to be victims of or to perpetrate dating violence.

There were also significant correlations between alcohol use and dating violence victimization (r = .23, p < .001) and perpetration (r = 25, p < .001), indicating that students who drink more alcohol are more likely to be victims of or to perpetrate dating violence.

Finally, there were significant correlations between illicit drug use and dating violence victimization (r = .21, p < .001) and perpetration (r = .25, p < .001), indicating that students who use more illicit drugs are more likely to be victims of or to perpetrate dating violence.

Substance use

There was a significant decrease across time in male tobacco use, X2(5) = 11.30, p < .01 but no significant difference for alcohol or illicit drug use.

There were no significant differences across time in substance use for females.

There was a significant decrease in tobacco use across time for students age 14 and younger, X2(5) = 11.82, p < .05 and a significant increase in alcohol use, X2(5) = 15.33, p < .01. There was no significant difference for illicit drug use.

There were no significant difference in substance use for students age 15 and older.

Perceived risks of substance usePerceived risks consisted of 5 items asking students the level of risk they believe is

associated with tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use. Higher scores indicate greater perceived risk. These data have only been collected since 2006.

While there has been a declinein perceived risks over time, the differences are not significant for all students or by gender or age.

There were small but significantcorrelations with victimization(r = -.08, p < .01) and perpetration (r = -.07, p < .01), indicating that students whobelieve substance use is less harmful are more likely to bevictims or perpetrators of datingviolence.

Parental attitudes towards substance useThis consists of three items asking students the extent to which they believe their parents are

accepting of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use. Higher scores indicate greater beliefs that parents not accepting of substance use.

There has been a slight increasein the extent to which students saytheir parents think substance use is wrong but this difference was not significant for all students or by gender or age.

There were significantcorrelations with victimization(r = -.16, p < .001) and perpetration (r = -.19, p < .001), showing that students who believe their parents are less condemning of substance use are more likely to be victims or perpetrators of datingviolence.

Perceived availability of adult supportThe availability of adult support has been measured by a single item asking students

whether or not there was an adult they could talk to about dating violence. Following an increase over several years, there has been a steady decline in the perceived availability of adult support. This difference is not significant.

There was a significant decreaseacross time for males, X2(5) = 11.40, p < .05. However, therewas no significant change forfemales or by age.

Logistic regression model predicting dating violence victimization

Predictor SE Wald’s X2

df p Exp

Know female victimized by a male

2.31 .65 12.75 1 .000 .10

Alcohol use in past 6 months

.80 .40 3.93 1 .047 2.22

Illicit drug use past 6 months

1.14 .50 5.14 1 .023 3.14

Gender 1.84 .66 7.85 1 .005 6.32Grade level in school .27 .12 5.27 1 .022 1.04Constant -3.79 1.58 5.76 1 .016 Test X2 df pModel X2 64.74 5 .000Goodness-of-fit 6.23 8 .622

The model is significant and a good fit, correctly classifying 84.5% of cases. The odds ratio of 2.63 indicates that the chances of being victimized is more than 2 ½ times thatof not being victimized, given the predictors in the model.

Logistic regression model predicting dating violence perpetration

Predictor SE Wald’s X2

df p Exp

Know female victimized by a male

1.82 .53 12.05 1 .001

.16

Alcohol use past 6 months .82 .38 4.49 1 .034

2.26

Grade level in school .39 .12 11.20 1 .001

1.47

Out-of-school suspensions 1.17 .55 4.60 1 .032

.31

Qualities of dating relationship

-1.64 .80 4.23 1 .040

.20

Constant 5.09 2.11 5.84 1 .016

Test X2 df pModel X2 53.32 5 .00

0Goodness-of-fit 5.83 8 .66

7

The model is significant and a good fit, correctly classifying 85.5% of cases. The odds ratio of 2.74 indicates that the chances of perpetrating dating violence is about 2 ¾ times greater than not perpetrating, given the predictors in the model.

Conclusions

Consistent with other studies, we found that having witnessed violence and knowing someone who has been victimized were associated with the experience of dating violence. Knowing a victim significantly predicted dating violence victimization and perpetration.

As has been found in other studies, substance use was associated with dating violence victimization and both alcohol use and illicit drug use were significant predictors of both victimization and perpetration.

Unlike other studies, attitudes toward violence were not significantly related to dating violence victimization. However, we did find that the acceptability of violence-related behaviors in the family was associated with but did not predict victimization.

Conclusions

It is interesting that there have been decreases in rates of knowing someone who has been a victim or perpetrator while rates of dating violence remain relatively unchanged. This raises the possibility that dating violence is being hidden or is becoming so commonplace that it does not stand out against the backdrop of everyday life

At the same time, students seem to have an understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable in dating relationships, suggesting a widening gap between what young people desire and the reality of their relationships

Despite six years of data, we are only marginally closer to understanding the phenomenon in a rural setting. There is a need for more robust studies.

Conclusions

While rates of dating violence are unacceptably high, they do not appear any higher than rates reported elsewhere, suggesting that rates of dating violence in the Southern US and in a rural setting may not be greater than elsewhere.

However, the absence of comparison samples makes an absolute determination impossible.

The high rates of dating violence victimization and perpetration and their persistence across time make it imperative that extensive prevention efforts get underway.

Yet, these findings have been presented to local and state policy makers over several years and no action has been taken. This raises questions as to whether the political will to act exists.

Challenges to collecting data across timeThere are several challenges to collecting data from repeated

samples across time. Among these are:

Timing data collection - Ideally, data should be collected at or near the same time each year. Natural vagaries, however, may through the schedule off raising potential confounding effects.

Study fatigue – It is challenging to maintain the investment of those assisting in the study (e.g., school personnel). The use of teacher incentives is important.

On the flip side, however, the study may begin to be seen as a normative part of the setting. Institutionalization is important.

Challenges to collecting data across time

Testing effects – the use of the same or similar measures across time may sensitize the population to the issues under consideration.

Instrumentation effects – changes may be needed in instruments to fix errors or to keep pace with changes in the population being studied. These changes need to be kept to a minimum and their potentially confounding effects need to be considered.