The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: The National Survey of Teen Relationships and 

Intimate Violence (STRiV) 

Author(s): Bruce G. Taylor, Ph.D., Elizabeth A. Mumford, 

Ph.D., Weiwei Liu, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 250292 

Date Received: October 2016

Award Number: 2011-WG-BX-0020

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally 

funded grant report available electronically. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Final Summary Overview 

The National Survey of Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV)* 

August 20, 2016 

Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice 

Grant # 2011-WG-BX-0020 

Bruce G. Taylor, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago 

Elizabeth A. Mumford, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago 

Weiwei Liu, Ph.D., NORC at the University of Chicago 

Acknowledgements: Points of views in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or any other organization. This study was funded 

by the National Institute of Justice (Grant # 2011-WG-BX-0020) and we are grateful for this funding and how it 

allowed us to collect basic epidemiological data on adolescent relationship abuse (ARA). We thank our Project 

Officer Dr. Carrie Mulford and Senior Grants Management Specialist Laurie Bright for their encouragement and 

support. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the parents and youth who participated in this 

research for this would not have been possible without their help. Within NORC, we would like to thank our earlier 

Project Manager, Mehera Baugher and our Research Assistants, Anne Limowski and Lauren Bishop. Thanks also 

to GfK for being such strong research partners and providing us access to the probability-based KnowledgePanel. 

Within GfK, we thank Larry Osborn, Vice President, Consulting, GfK; Nicole Neuenschwander, Senior Research 

Manager, and Magda Lasota, Research Associate and the entire team at GfK for their tireless work managing 

data collection.

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this study to disclose.

* This study (official title: “A Probability-Based Household Survey on Teen Dating Violence: A Longitudinal MultiLevel Experiment”) was funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant # 2011-WG-BX-0020). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the official position of the National 

Institute of Justice or any other organization. 

** Address correspondence to: Bruce G. Taylor, Senior Fellow, NORC at the University of Chicago, 4350 East 

West Highway, Room 709, Bethesda, MD 20814, taylor-bruce@norc.org

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

The purpose of this project, the national Survey of Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV), was to 

build the field’s understanding of adolescent dating relationships, particularly those marked by adolescent 

relationship abuse (ARA). While definitions vary across the literature, for the purposes of this study we define ARA as 

physical, emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual abuse perpetrated by an adolescent against another adolescent 

with whom they are in a dating/romantic relationship 1. The situational venue may be in person or via electronic 

means, in both public and private spaces, between current or past dating partners.2 More specifically, this study was 

designed to produce nationally representative estimates of the prevalence of different forms of ARA among youth 

(ages 12-18), to document the characteristics of abusive relationships during adolescence, to assess ARA risk 

factors, and to situate these estimates within the environment of adolescents’ key social relationships and 

communications. Based on STRiV data (late 2013), we developed a national portrait of the prevalence of varying 

categories of ARA victimization and perpetration, including levels of physical and emotional injury, and assessed how 

exposure to these forms of ARA vary by gender, age and other key demographic characteristics. We also identified 

specific conditional attitudes and dating relationship characteristics associated with ARA risk, and determined 

whether these pathways were uniquely gendered. Overall, with additional data collection underway under a second 

NIJ grant (2014-VA-CX-0065 - Longitudinal Follow-up in the National Survey for Teen Relationships and Violence), 

we continue to work toward our project goal to provide the necessary data to help the field understand and prevent 

ARA, with ongoing analyses of the STRiV data regarding ARA risk factors that provide opportunities for ARA 

prevention efforts sensitive to gender, developmental, and other characteristics. In this summary, we present the 

results from five papers (three published papers and two more under review). 

PROJECT DESIGN AND METHODS 

We conducted two waves of data collection for this grant: Baseline surveys of youth ages 12-18 and one 

parent/caregiver, and a similar youth survey administered one year later. 

Data source 

Respondents to the STRiV study were recruited from the GfK/Knowledge Panel, a national household addressbased probability sample (50,000+ members ages 18 and older) of the U.S (a full description of the online panel is 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 

available at www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/docs/KnowledgePanel(R)-Design-Summary-Description.pdf). 

From an address-based sampling (ABS) frame covering approximately 97% of U.S. households, randomly sampled 

households are invited to join KnowledgePanel through postal invitations (English and Spanish) and by telephone 

follow-up. Using dual sample frames, panel members are further recruited via listed and unlisted telephone numbers, 

telephone and non-telephone households, and cell phone only households, as well as households with and without 

Internet access.3 When recruited, sampled households not connected to the Internet are provided a netbook 

computer and free Internet service. The GfK panel represented a unique opportunity to cost effectively survey a large 

nationally representative group of youth and their parent/caregiver. The within-survey response rate for 

KnowledgePanel is on average 70%, comparing favorably to non-probability online panels (typically 2-16%).3 

Methodological comparisons of the KnowledgePanel sample to random-digit-dialing (RDD) telephone samples 

highlight the strengths of KnowledgePanel’s representative design.4-6 Several KnowledgePanel studies have 

addressed sensitive topics with adult and adolescent panel members.7,8 KnowledgePanel maintains a bibliography 

of peer-review publications using KnowledgePanel data.3 

To assure national representativeness, we applied the KnowledgePanel statistical weights9; these weights are 

available in the archived dataset. The panel base weight takes into account a range of sampling and non-sampling 

error (e.g., non-response to panel recruitment and panel attrition). This panel base weight is then employed in a 

probability proportional to size (PPS) selection method for drawing sub-samples from KnowledgePanel. Using 

demographic and geographic distributions from the most recent monthly U.S. Census Current Population Survey as 

benchmarks, the GfK team conducted a sample-specific post-stratification process (applying an iterative raking 

procedure) to adjust for survey nonresponse and for any elements related to the study-specific sample design (such 

as subgroup oversamples of households with youth). The demographic variables used were gender, age, 

race/ethnicity, education, Census region, metropolitan area, and Internet access. Our weighting procedures resulted 

in a weighted sample distribution that approximates the 2010 U.S. Census estimates. 

Among other areas such as confidentiality and privacy pledges, our recruitment letter informed the adult parent 

or caregiver (PCG) and the study youth that they were randomly selected to participate in a study of parents and their 

children, and that the purpose of the study was to reduce violence among young people, particularly in dating 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 

relationships. Following standard survey and IRB protocols, recruited respondents were informed in advance and 

within the online survey that they could refuse to answer any questions or not participate at all. If the recipient PCG 

consented to participate, a web survey algorithm randomly chose an eligible child to participate in the study from the 

household (or if there was only one eligible child that child was selected). Next, the participating child and PCG 

received an invitation by e-mail to complete the surveys, which were presented sequentially with child assent 

required prior to child participation. Our team used an at-risk protocol to aid any respondents who requested a 

referral for help (toll-free telephone and online help was available). 

Baseline surveys and subjects 

The project started with the recruiting of a nationally representative sample of 5,105 households with at least one 

resident youth (age range 10 to 18) to complete a PCG baseline survey and a separate child (ages 10 to 18) survey 

online from October 2013 to January 2014. However, the 10 and 11 year-old youth were not asked certain ARA 

survey questions (e.g., items about sexual abuse in dating relationships) due to concerns raised by the legal 

counselors of the data collection agency (GfK) about asking potentially sensitive items of this age group. Therefore, 

the 10-11 year old youth are not reported on in this report, but this is a longitudinal study and they will become full 

members of the study when they become 12 years old. 

GfK initially recruited 5,105 households to the study. Screening of these recruited households indicated that in 

some cases, the expected youth age 10-18 did not reside in the home and thus the household was ineligible for the 

study (ineligible rate of about 7%). Parent/caregivers were surveyed first, resulting in a baseline PCG sample of n= 

2,645 (response rate 56%). At baseline, we collected the 2,354 completed youth surveys. Thus, the final dyadic 

sample (both PCG and youth responded to survey) response rate was 50%. The baseline 50% response rate is 

better than the typical industry response rates reported by Kohut and colleagues.10 Despite a steady decline in 

response rates over the last three decades11, particularly recently,12,13 several recent studies have shown no 

meaningful association between response rates and response bias.14-16 Also, our analyses revealed no apparent 

patterns to survey non-participation. Panel demographic post-stratification weights were applied to adjust both for 

non-coverage of the U.S. population as well as participant non-response and missing data. 

If the recipient parent or adult caregiver (PCG) consented to participate, a web survey algorithm randomly chose 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 

an eligible child in that household to participate in the study. Next, the participating child and PCG received an 

invitation by e-mail to complete the surveys, which were presented sequentially with child assent required prior to 

child participation. For the youth survey, the PCG consent rate (for self and child participation) was 82.6%, and the 

child assent rate was 98.3%. Communications with the PCG stressed the importance of allowing the selected child to 

complete the survey privately. While the 40-minute youth survey was available in English or Spanish, few youth 

respondents selected the Spanish option (n=128, 5%) compared to the PCG (9.2% of the PCG surveys were done in 

Spanish). Households were provided a small ($20) incentive for completing the baseline surveys through the GfK 

points system (redeemable for products or cash). 

As seen in Table 1 (Appendix at end of document), based on our Wave 1 (baseline) survey, we observed that 

most of our sample was White (56%) or Hispanic (24%). About 13% of our sample was 12 years old, 44% was 13 to 

15 years old, and 43% was 16 to 18 years old. About the half the sample was girls and the other half boys. Other 

background characteristics on the household for our sample are presented in Table 1 (Appendix). 

One year follow-up (Wave 2) survey 

An abbreviated PCG survey and a similar youth survey were administered about one year later (October 2014 to 

May 2015) and included 1,471 parent-child dyads completing the Wave 2 survey (62.5% of the 2,354 original parentchild dyads). Each participating household was provided an incentive worth $20 for completing the Wave 2 surveys. 

Measures

Both the baseline and follow-up surveys were completed using a high-security web-based survey. The use of an 

online format for the national STRiV survey was appropriate for the target age group, who were generally well versed 

in computer use. The sensitive nature of the ARA survey also requires the utmost privacy and confidentiality. The 

secure web-based survey—through which questions are asked on a screen (similar to the audio-computer-assisted 

self-interviews of other adolescent surveys) rather than by a person—maximizes privacy. An online format avoided 

the introduction of bias due to interviewer gender and maximized flexible scheduling for survey completion. 

Our key outcome measure was ARA which was asked (to increase recall) only for those who reported a current 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 

or recent dating relationships (“daters”, defined as having lasted for “at least a week”; inclusive of relationships 

defined by spending time together, seeing each other, or ‘going out’ together). Only youth in the subsample of daters 

were asked to report their ARA experiences for the specified relationship. We used a modified version of the Conflict 

in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) to capture the prevalence and type of ARA victimization and 

perpetration in the subpopulation of daters 17. Our main modification was the inclusion of instructions for respondents 

to report whether the violent behaviors occurred in one specific relationship (their current or most recent dating 

relationship). CADRI items were summed to form separate measures of “any ARA” and, as subsets of that measure, 

sexual abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse in the reported adolescent dating relationships. The 62-item 

self-report scale measures overt and covert forms of violence both as a victim and a perpetrator, intimidation, and 

positive communication both expressed and experienced in dating relationships 17. 

Our other key outcome measure in the study was sexual harassment (SH). SH perpetration and victimization 

were measured using the validated American Association of University Women (AAUW) measures of SH, 

distinguishing incidences that occurred in-person from those that occurred online.18 SH is defined as unwelcome 

conduct of a sexual nature in person or through electronic means, which can include unwelcome sexual advances, 

requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.18

As displayed in Figure 1 (Appendix), we had a core set of questions we included in the Wave 1 and Wave 2 

surveys (indicated by a ‘1’ or a ‘2’). The content of the PCG and youth surveys differed, except for an overlap on 

constructs measuring Youth’s Exposure to Violence, Parent-Youth Relationship, Youth’s Dating History and 

Disclosure; PCG and youth respondents answered different items measuring these constructs (highlighted as dual 

report constructs with green shading in Figure 1). The three published papers we have written asses various aspects 

of Figure 1 (Appendix), as do the other two papers we have under peer review. The full model in Figure 1 will not be 

assessed simultaneously until we complete waves 3 and 4 in our second NIJ grant, 2014-VA-CX-0065, supporting 

the STRiV cohort study. 

In the Appendix, reflecting the theoretical model of Bell and Naugle,19 we divide our presentation of the STRiV 

measures into proximal antecedents (mental health, delinquency, drug/alcohol use); distal antecedents (parental 

relationship quality, critical parenting, parental anger trait, parent’s report on the youth’s temperament, dating 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 

relationship quality for youth daters, peer network characteristics, adolescent financial literacy, youth’s exposure to 

violence, parent-youth relationship quality, and youth dating history); immediate context (items on alcohol/drug use at 

time of the incident and the events occurring prior to victimization incident such as hitting partner, yelling, etc.); verbal 

rules (parental attitudes about domestic violence, parent dating rules, youth conditional attitudes about violence, and 

youth’s gender stereotypes/ mistrust, and gender roles); ARA (CADRI) and sexual harassment (AAUW measure) 

experiences, consequences (relationship outcomes and disclosure); and sociodemographic characteristics. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

The STRiV data were cleaned and recoded using SPSS 23.0. The data underwent standard cleaning and we 

used SPSS to remove errors/inconsistencies in the data and verified that the data values were correct and 

conformed to a set of rules. Errors were detected by checking skip patterns, using scatterplots, and histograms. The 

statistical software packages used in our analyses (SPSS 23.0, Mplus 6.0, and Stata 14) allow for the use of 

sampling weights, adjust for complex sampling, and handle missing data. In addition, Mplus can also address highly 

imbalanced dichotomous outcomes (e.g., % of young adults reporting any ARA), as well as manifest indicators of 

varying levels of measurement (i.e., nominal to continuous data). 

Descriptive/exploratory analyses of survey data 

We examined the distribution of our data with and without our statistical weights and ran frequencies, measures 

of central tendency, and measures of dispersion with all the study variables. We used cross-tabulations, comparison 

of means, and correlations to begin our development of a national portrait of victims and perpetrators of ARA. We 

performed a variety of bivariate analyses on relevant background variables to determine whether there were 

statistically significant relationships between the principle antecedents of interest (conditional tolerance, relationship 

quality and peer characteristics) and the ARA outcome variables. We estimated correlation matrices to examine 

multi-collinearity between key covariates specified in our analytic models. Variables that were significant in our 

bivariate models were entered into later multivariate models. 

Multivariate models 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 

For some of the multivariate analyses, we used logistic regressions (both ‘zero-order’ and models controlling for 

a full complement of study covariates). We also empirically identified profiles of parent-child interactions using latent 

class analysis (LCA), an approach which divides the study population into a number of mutually exclusive and 

exhaustive subpopulations with similar response patterns.20,21 We examined results in terms of what particular 

parenting profiles look like, the prevalence of these profiles, and how the parents’ and youth’s characteristics were 

related to these profiles by regressing class membership on covariates via multinomial logistic regression.22 We also 

investigated the impact of class membership for four distal outcomes (conditional tolerance of violence against 

boyfriends and girlfriends, and victimization by and perpetration of adolescent relationship abuse) by modeling the 

distal outcomes as consequences of the latent class membership. 

We conducted similar LCA analyses to identify co-occurrence patterns of different types of ARA victimization and 

perpetration as well as sexual harassment (SH) victimization and perpetration. Our LCAs yielded information on the 

number of profiles of ARA victimization and perpetration as well as SH victimization and perpetration present in our 

sample. We also investigated the particular profiles of co-occurrence in terms of patterns and prevalence. We 

conducted separate LCAs for two age groups (ages 12-15 and ages 16-18). Within each age group, gender effects 

were examined by regressing class membership on gender via multinomial logistic regression.22 

FINDINGS 

The findings for this study are reported in three peer reviewed papers23-25 and two additional papers that are 

currently under peer review.26,27 Below we highlight the key findings from these papers and refer the reader to these 

original publications for more details. The first paper presents a national portrait of ARA.23 For 12-18 year old youth 

respondents (37% of the sample) reporting current- or past year dating, 69% reported lifetime ARA victimization 

(63% lifetime ARA perpetration).23 Although psychological abuse was most common for these youth (over 60%), we 

also had substantial rates of sexual abuse (18%) and physical abuse victimization (18%), as well as 12% reporting 

perpetrating physical abuse and/or sexual abuse (12%).23 Other than differences by age and gender, ARA rates were 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 

consistent by race/ethnicity, geographic region, urbanicity, and household characteristics,* highlighting the 

importance 

of universal prevention programs.23 Nevertheless, while the CADRI has been used and tested in many different 

populations,17 we are not aware of any specific methodology study undertaken with the CADRI that demonstrates 

that scales of the CADRI are invariant across various demographic subgroups, and we have to look at this finding of 

general invariance cautiously. 

Compared with youth aged 15 to 18, those 12 to 14 years old reported lower rates of psychological and sexual 

ARA victimization23 and ARA perpetration rates.23 We found no gender differences for ARA victimization but found 

that girls perpetrated more physical ARA than boys.23 Girls aged 15 to 18 reported perpetrating moderate 

threats/physical violence at more than twice the rate of younger girls and 3 times the rate compared with boys aged 

15 to 18; girls aged 15 to 18 reported perpetrating more than 4 times the rate of serious psychological abuse than 

boys 15 to 18.23 Next, these data document the significant overlap and positive correlation between ARA victimization 

and perpetration.23 For example, 84% of any ARA victims also perpetrated ARA.23 We found that correlations 

between ARA victimization and perpetration ranged from .30 to .86, depending on which type of ARA (e.g., sexual 

ARA) was examined.23 

The STRiV estimates of ARA victimization exceed rates found in all the other national ARA victimization studies 

by a wide margin despite the fact that STRiV measures any ARA experience only within the current or recent 

relationship rather than a broader lifetime measure. The high school-based YRBS found a rate of 9.4% for physical 

ARA and 8% for forced sexual relations.28

 Methodological differences may partially account for differences in 

estimates. The YRBS, which does not survey youth who have dropped out of school, includes only two global items 

and does not measure psychological abuse. Similarly, much lower rates of ARA have been found in the NatSCEV, 

6% among youth ages 14-17 based on one item covering hitting/slapping;29 the National Survey of Adolescents, 2% 

among youth 12-17 covering serious and/or injurious assaults;30 NCVS, 9% among youth 12-16, with items framed in 

terms of criminal behavior;31 and Add Health, 32% for any psychological, physical and threats of physical ARA and 

 

* 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 

40% for forced sexual relations.32 However, the local and regional studies using more detailed measures have 

reported ARA rates closer to the STRiV estimates, with about 50-60% of teens reporting ARA victimization.31,33-36

For the second paper, LCAs were applied to investigate whether there were distinguishable parenting profiles 

based on six measures of parent-youth relationship and interactions, with youth’s attitudes about abusive dating 

behavior and both perpetration and victimization examined in a follow-up survey as distal outcomes (n=1,117 parentyouth dyads).24

 A three-class model — a “Positive Parenting” class, a “Strict/Harsh Parenting” class, and a 

“Disengaged/Harsh Parenting” class — was uncovered to best represent the data.24 The selected LCA model was 

conditioned on parents’ (anger trait, relationship quality, attitudes about domestic violence) and youth’s (prior 

victimization and perpetration) covariates, controlling for parent’s gender, ethnicity, income, marital status, and 

youth’s age and gender.

24

 Youth in the “Positive Parenting” class were significantly less likely one year later to be 

tolerant of violence against boyfriends as well as less likely to perpetrate ARA or to be a victim of ARA.24 

For the third paper, we examined whether financial behaviors impact the use of violence in adolescent dating 

relationships. More specifically, we examine associations between requests for money lending, economic 

control/influence, financial socialization and ARA among a large, diverse sample of male and female youth.25

Findings suggest that adolescent financial behaviors are associated with heightened risk of moderate and serious 

threats/physical violence perpetration and victimization, net of traditional predictors.25 Specifically, the respondent’s 

experiences of being asked to lend a partner or an ex-partner money were positively associated with adolescent 

relationship abuse, controlling for other factors.25 Furthermore, dynamics of economic control/influence were 

positively associated with adolescent relationship abuse at the bivariate level and appeared to form part of a more 

general pattern of controlling behaviors within adolescent dating relationships.25 Our recommendations are that 

financial socialization has the potential to help adolescents establish relationship boundaries and make healthy 

decisions with respect to lending money in the relationship context.25 Also, those operating ARA interventions should 

consider including modules on lending money to partners to address this risk factor for ARA.25

For the fourth paper (under peer review), we explored the effects of Wave 1 rates of youth tolerance for ARA and 

friendship group structural and behavioral factors on Wave 2 ARA perpetration. Conditional tolerance of hitting 

boyfriends was found to be positively related to ARA perpetration in the absence of friendship characteristics.26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

Daters who report a recent discussion of a problem with friends and girls who named all-girl friend network groups 

were more likely to report perpetrating ARA.26 

For the fifth paper (under peer review), we explored the relationship between SH and ARA. We identified cooccurrence patterns of different types of ARA victimization and perpetration as well as SH victimization and 

perpetration using latent class analysis.27 The sample, in two age groups, is limited to respondents in a current or 

past-year dating relationship (n=271 for ages 12-15 and n=396 for ages 16-18) and found that a three-class model 

best represented the overlap of SH and ARA data for both age groups (“Low Abuse,” “High Abuse,” and 

“Psychological Only”), with differences in class prevalence and class profiles between the two groups.27 Results also 

indicate that SH tends to co-occur particularly with psychological ARA victimization and perpetration, especially for 

younger youth (i.e., when SH is high we found psychological ARA victimization and perpetration to be high).27 

IMPLICATIONS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE IN THE U.S. 

STRiV has helped advance the field of ARA research by providing the first comprehensive national portrait 

dedicated specifically to ARA, using detailed measures of ARA and covering both perpetration and victimization. The 

STRiV national portrait of ARA can begin to help policymakers identify the resources needed to combat ARA and to 

whom to target those resources. STRiV has already helped document the ubiquity of the problem of ARA across a 

full range of demographic subgroups of youth in the US. Based on the STRiV national estimates and 2012 U.S. 

Census data, total ARA victimization rates equate to a conservative estimate that 25 million U.S. adolescents are 

ARA victims (23 million for ARA perpetration).23 With over two thirds (69%) of the youth respondents self-reporting 

ARA victimization (ARA perpetration 63%), the STRiV estimates exceed rates found in all the other national ARA 

victimization studies by a wide margin.*

 We further observed that 84% of the ARA victims also reported perpetrating 

ARA.23 The findings from this study suggest that when working with youth in prevention services, interventions 

 

* For example, the YRBS has rates of physical ARA of 9.4% and 8% for forced sexual relations (Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, 2012c), the NatSCEV has rates of 6% among youth aged 14 to 17 based on one item covering 

hitting/slapping (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009); the National Survey of Adolescents, 2% among youth 12 to 17 

covering serious and/or injurious assaults (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008); and Add Health, 32% for any psychological, physical, 

and threats of physical ARA and 40% for forced sexual relations (Halpern et al., 2009). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

should not be designed for monolithic groups of “pure” victims or perpetrators and take into account that some 

victims are also perpetrators and vice versa. Also, our finding that girls 15 to 18 years old reported some of the 

highest ARA perpetration rates suggest that the field’s prevention messaging might not be reaching this group and 

needs to be modified. More generally, we have shown that the STRiV platform can help improve the knowledge base 

for developing ARA interventions, which has generally been limited. 

STRiV results highlight the importance of parenting styles for youth’s tolerance of physical abuse of boyfriends 

and for the perpetration of ARA. Our results were consistent with a large body of research showing that parenting 

matters and in some ways may contribute to youth’s exposure to ARA.24 Our results underscore the ongoing 

important challenge of improving the quality of parent-child relationships to address ARA. Also, parents are advised 

to actively address the conflicts in their own intimate relationships as an example for their child and to seek resources 

that support their own mental health to support positive parenting skill development.24 

STRiV results suggest that ARA interventions also need to include attention to caring behaviors exhibited by 

youth such as the practice of lending money to a partner. Many of the evidence-based ARA interventions do not have 

modules or subtopics on the role of lending money to partners and interventions should start to consider at least 

integrating examples of problematic instrumental support into their activities.25 Finally, parents and other adults may 

play an important role in fostering teens’ healthy financial behaviors, with teens benefitting from specific 

communications on how to negotiate financial matters in their relationships and establish healthy boundaries.25 

STRiV results highlight the importance of addressing tolerance of ARA with prevention messaging that 

recognizes the justifications youth might use to rationalize violent behavior regardless of dating partner gender.26

 

ARA perpetration may fruitfully be reduced by targeting conditional tolerance for violence particularly against male 

partners within female friendships groups.26 Further, in addition to incorporating these findings into training initiatives 

for those who work with adolescents on potential warning signs of ARA involvement, further consideration of the 

potential for targeting ARA education within female friend groups is warranted.26 Specifically, it may be constructive 

to the close friends of dating adolescents to learn more about preventing ARA through bolstering their capacity to 

provide constructive peer support or mentoring and their confidence in the effectiveness of intervening themselves or 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

referring a friend to supportive adults.26 This paper also provide a foundation for a deeper study examining fully 

saturated egocentric networks and their role in affecting ARA rates. 

STRiV findings suggest that ARA prevention efforts should include activities to address SH.27 Also, SH 

prevention programs, as well as youth who are dating (especially younger teens), should recognize that SH may cooccur with dating behavior.27 Universal prevention programs should address the overlap of SH and ARA victimization 

and perpetration in young relationships, with selective and indicated efforts to target specific groups.27 

Overall, we have learned much from the STRiV program of research related to the extensive prevalence of ARA 

and we have learned of new risk factors for ARA (e.g., financial literacy). Nevertheless, our study findings need to be 

considered within context of our recognized study limitations.23 First, the STRiV data are subject to the usual 

limitations of self-report surveys (e.g., telescoping of problems into the study timeframe). Next, our measurement of 

sexual abuse was limited to four CADRI items due to our wide age range and more than four items in this area might 

have been viewed as inappropriate by the parents of our youth respondents.23 Also, like others researchers in this 

area, we measured ARA by asking about specific acts, but did not capture intensity of or motivations for specific 

incidents.23 We also did not make a distinction between ARA acts of offense or defense. Although there have been 

calls for more ARA contextual research, in a short national survey it is not feasible to gather such detailed data.23

However, we used standard instrumentation to generate this national estimate and limited measurement to incidents 

that occurred within a current- or past-year dating relationship.23 Thus, STRiV estimates are more conservative than 

other full lifetime measures of ARA based on the CADRI.23 The STRiV program is ongoing through a second grant 

from NIJ (2014-VA-CX-0065 - Longitudinal Follow-up in the National Survey for Teen Relationships and Violence) 

and we will continue to update our national prevalence estimates, identify evolving risk factors for ARA and be able to 

examine the natural trajectories of ARA as our sample ages into young adulthood. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

 

Appendix 

Table 1: 

Description of the sample (n=1,804 youth). 

Ethnicity of parents

Age, gender, and dating status of youth

(mean=15.02 and median= 15) 

White-Non-Hispanic 56.1% 12 12.6%

Black-Non-Hispanic 12.2% 13 15.9%

Hispanic 24.3% 14 12.5%

Other, Non-Hispanic 3.4% 15 15.6%

2+ Races, Non-Hispanic 4.0% 16 14.6%

17 17.0%

Parent’s education 18 11.8%

Never graduated high 

School 13.6%

High School 27.0% Girls 49.9%

 Some college 29.9% Boys 50.1%

 4-year college degree or > 29.5%

 Current or past year dating 37.0%

Location of residence

South 36.2% Household characteristics

West 25.2% Median household income $67,500 

Midwest 22.6% Household size (mean & median) 4.14 & 4

Northeast 16.1% Below poverty rate 15.85%

Above $100,000 household 

income 25.6%

Urban 86.3%

Non-urban 13.7% Household residence

Owned residence 69.9%

Access to the Internet 79.7% Renting 28.6%

No payment 1.5%

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

Figure 1: Study Measures for Wave 1 and 2 for Parent and Youth Respondents 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15

REFERENCES 

1. Offenhauer P, Buchalter A. Teen Dating Violence: A Literature Review and Annotated 

Bibliography. Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an 

Interagency Agreement with the Violence and Victimization Research Division, National Institute 

of Justice;2011. 

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Injury Prevention & Control, Violence Prevention: 

Teen Dating Violence. 

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html;

2012.

3. Knowledge Networks. GfK bibliography: Articles and presentations based on GfK’s collected 

panel data, analysis, or methodology. 2012. 

4. Doty MM, Peugh J, Shand-Lubbers J. Exploring Health-Related Experiences and Access to Care: 

Differences between Online and Telephone Survey Administration. American Association for 

Public Opinion Research; 2011; Phoenix, Arizona. 

5. Yeager DS, Krosnick JA, Chang L, et al. Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and 

Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples. Public Opin. Q. 

2011;75(4):709-747.

6. Knowledge Networks. Methodological papers, presentations, and articles on KnowledgePanel. 

2013.

7. McCready B, Reece M, Herbenick D, Li R. Conducting Surveys on Sensitive Topics - Sexual 

Behavior and Condom Use: Results from a New Nationally Representative Study of Adolescents 

and Adults in the U.S. American Asssociatin of Public Opinion Research; 2011; Phoenix, Arizona. 

8. Taylor BG, Mumford EA. The national survey on teen relationships and intimate violence: 

Preliminary 2013 findings. HHS Webinar on Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month2014.

9. DiSogra C. Overview of KnowledgePanel® Statistical Weighting Protocol. 2009; 

http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KN-Weighting-Synopsis.pdf. 

10. Kohut A, Keeter S, Doherty C, Dimock M, Christian L. Assessing the representativeness of public 

opinion surveys. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. 2012.

11. Merkle D, Edelman M. Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. In: Groves R, 

Dillman D, Eltinge J, Little R, eds. Survey nonresponse. New York: Wiley; 2002:343-358.

12. Atrostic BK, Bates N, Burt G, Silberstein A. Nonresponse in US government household surveys: 

consistent measures, recent trends, and new insights. Journal of Official Statistics. 

2001;17(2):209-226.

13. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse 

on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 2006;70(5):759-779.

14. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a 

national telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 2000;64(2):125-148.

15. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer 

sentiment. Public Opin. Q. 2000;64(4):413-428.

16. Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin. Q. 

2006;70(5):646-675.

17. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, Wekerle C, Grasley C, Straatman AL. Development and 

validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychol. Assess. 

2001;13(2):277-293.

18. Hill C, Kearl H. Crossing the line: sexual harassment in schools. Washington, DC: AAUW;2011. 

ISBN: 978-1-879922-41-9.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

19. Bell KM, Naugle AE. Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a 

contextual framework. Clinical psychology review. 2008;28(7):1096-1107.

20. Muthen B, Muthen LK. Integrating person‐centered and variable‐centered analyses: Growth 

mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 

2000;24(6):882-891.

21. Muthén BO, Curran PJ. General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in experimental 

designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological Methods. 

1997;2(4):371-402.

22. Long JS. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Vol 7: Sage; 1997. 

23. Taylor BG, Mumford EA. A National Descriptive Portrait of Adolescent Relationship Abuse: 

Results From the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence. Journal of 

interpersonal violence. 2016;31(6):963-988. 

24. Mumford EA, Liu W, Taylor BG. Parenting Profiles and Adolescent Dating Relationship Abuse: 

Attitudes and Experiences. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2016:1-14.

25. Copp JE, Mumford EA, Taylor BG. Money Lending Practices and Adolescent Dating Relationship 

Abuse: Results from a National Sample. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2016:1-15.

26. Mumford EA, Taylor BG, Giordano PC. Adolescent Dating Relationship Abuse: The Role of 

Conditional Tolerance for Violence and Friendship Factors. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. 

manuscript under preparation January 2016. 

27. Liu W, Taylor BG, Mumford EA. Profiles of Adolescent Relationship Abuse and Sexual 

Harassment by age: A latent class analysis. manuscript under preparation January 2016. 

28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 

2011. MMWR. Vol 61: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6104.pdf; 2012.

29. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby SL. Violence, Abuse, and Crime Exposure in a National 

Sample of Children and Youth. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1411-1423.

30. Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Ruggiero KJ, Danielson CK, et al. Prevalence and correlates of dating violence 

in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry. 2008;47(7):755-762.

31. Hickman LJ, Jaycox LH, Aranoff J. Dating Violence Among Adolescents: Prevalence, Gender 

Distribution, and Prevention Program Effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. 2004;5:123-

142.

32. Halpern CT, Spriggs AL, Martin SL, Kupper LL. Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization 

from Adolescence to Young Adulthood in a Nationally Representative Sample. The Journal of 

adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2009;45(5):508-

516.

33. Foshee VA. Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health 

Education Research. 1996;11(3):275-286. 

34. Jouriles EN, Platt C, McDonald R. Violence in Adolescent Dating Relationships. The Prevention 

Researcher. 2009;16:3-7.

35. Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS. Community and dating violence among adolescents: 

Perpetration and victimization. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the 

Society for Adolescent Medicine. 1997;21(5):291-302.

36. O'Keefe M. Predictors of Dating Violence Among High School Students. Journal of interpersonal 

violence. 1997;12:546-568. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.