In Search of Teen Dating Violence Typologies

• Published in: Journal of adolescent health Vol. 58; no. 2; pp. 202 - 207
• Main Authors: Reidy, Dennis E., Ph.D, Ball, Barbara, Ph.D, Houry, Debra, M.D, Holland, Kristin M., Ph.D, Valle, Linda A., Ph.D, Kearns, Megan C., Ph.D, Marshall, Khiya J., Ph.D, Rosenbluth, Barri, L.C.S.W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2016
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior - psychology; Aggression; Child; Female; Humans; Intimate partner violence; Intimate Partner Violence - classification; Intimate Partner Violence - ethnology; Latent class analysis; Male; Pediatrics; Sex Offenses - classification; Surveys and Questionnaires; Teen dating violence; Typology; Teen dating violence; Typology; Latent class analysis; Intimate partner violence
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.028
• ISSN: 1054-139X

Abstract Purpose The goal of the present research was to identify distinct latent classes of adolescents that commit teen dating violence (TDV) and assess differences on demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal correlates. Methods Boys and girls (N = 1,149; Mage  = 14.3; Grades 6–12) with a history of violence exposure completed surveys assessing six indices of TDV in the preceding 3 months. Indices of TDV included controlling behaviors, psychological TDV, physical TDV, sexual TDV, fear/intimidation, and injury. In addition, adolescents provided demographic and dating history information and completed surveys assessing attitudes condoning violence, relationship skills and knowledge, and reactive/proactive aggression. Results Latent class analysis indicated a three-class solution wherein the largest class of students was nonviolent on all indices (“nonaggressors”) and the smallest class of students demonstrated high probability of nearly all indices of TDV (“multiform aggressors”). In addition, a third class of “emotional aggressors” existed for which there was a high probability of controlling and psychological TDV but low likelihood of any other form of TDV. Multiform aggressors were differentiated from emotional and nonaggressors on the use of self-defense in dating relationships, attitudes condoning violence, and proactive aggression. Emotional aggressors were distinguished from nonaggressors on nearly all measured covariates. Conclusions Evidence indicates that different subgroups of adolescents engaging in TDV exist. In particular, a small group of youth engaging in multiple forms of TDV can be distinguished from a larger group of youth that commit acts of TDV restricted to emotional aggression (i.e., controlling and psychological) and most youth that do not engage in TDV.