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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk 

Factors and Consequences 

Author(s): Ross Macmillan, Catherine Kruttschnitt 

Document No.: 208346 

Date Received: January 2005 

Award Number: 2002-IJ-CX-0011 

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

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

 

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.
Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences 

National Institute of Justice Grant # 2002-IJ-CX-0011 

Final Report 

Ross Macmillan, 

Department of Sociology, 

University of Minnesota 

& 

Candace Kruttschnitt, 

Department of Sociology, 

University of Minnesota 

• Please direct all correspondences to Ross Macmillan or Candace Kruttschnitt, 

Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 909 Social Sciences, 267 

19th Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0412 

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

Author Information

Ross Macmillan, Ph.D., is an associate professor in Sociology and Director of Population 

Studies at the University of Minnesota. His recent research focuses on the patterning of 

violence against women, issues of selection bias in criminological research, and the 

general study of the life course. 

Candace Kruttschnitt, Ph.D., is a professor in Sociology at the University of Minnesota. 

Her recent research includes the on-going study of violence against women, and studies 

of women’s imprisonment. 

Contact Information

Ross Macmillan, 

Department of Sociology, 

University of Minnesota 

909 Social Sciences, 

267 19th Avenue S, 

Minneapolis, MN 

55455-0412 

612-624-6509 (o) 

612-624-7020 (f) 

macmilla@atlas.socsci.umn.edu 

Candace Kruttschnitt, 

Department of Sociology, 

University of Minnesota 

909 Social Sciences, 

267 19th Avenue S, 

Minneapolis, MN 

55455-0412 

612-624-1855 (o) 

612-624-7020 (f) 

kruttsch@atlas.socsci.umn.edu 

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

I. Introduction

 It is now well known that the most distinctive aspect of women’s victimization 

experiences is its relational nature. Females report that over three-quarters (78%) of 

those who violently victimize them are known to them but males report that they are 

almost as likely to be victimized by someone known to them (51%) as they are by a 

stranger (49%).1

 This relational feature of female victimization has contributed to a 

scholarly preoccupation with distinct forms of violence (partner abuse) or distinct violent 

incidents (sexual assault) and, as interesting and as important as this research has been, it 

has left us with relatively little understanding of the patterns of victimization experiences 

over time and across relationships. This was aptly noted almost a decade ago by the 

National Panel on Research on Violence Against Women when they concluded “there is 

little systematic information about the intersection of different forms of violence.”2 

 For example, some scholars have suggested that there is an association between 

violence in one’s family of origin and later spousal victimization, but comparatively little 

work has considered consequences beyond the family. Other research has shown the cooccurrence of different forms of violence (e.g., physical assault and sexual victimization) 

within particular intimate relationships, but it has not considered the extent to which such 

victimization experiences traverse relationships. While there is some speculation that 

dating violence is associated with marital violence, supporting evidence is largely 

anecdotal and does not address the potential links that may exist in victimization from 

partners and non-partners. Simply put, whether and how violent victimization is linked 

over time and across relationships has not been adequately explored. Identifying distinct 

typologies of violent victimization among women, as well as the risk factors for such 

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

victimization and its emotional and physical consequences, is critical both to the 

development of theories of victimization and to the criminal justice practitioners who 

design services to maximize women’s safety. 

 

II. Research Objectives 

 Our research has three objectives designed to address these omissions in the 

extant research. First, we examine patterns of physical and sexual victimization over the 

life span and across a range of victim-offender relationships. Particular types of 

relationships may be characterized by particular patterns of violent acts. Variation in 

patterns of violent acts reflect the types of interactions that generally characterize them, 

their location in time and space, and the psychological feelings that they embody. For 

example, the nature of intimate relationships may produce specific motivations for 

violence that reflect the cultural expectations of what males and females should do. At 

the same time, the nature of on-going interactions in such relationships may produce 

unique opportunities for multifaceted, repeat victimization that are simply not present in 

relationships with acquaintances or strangers. In this respect, the nature of the 

relationship may shape the nature of the violence. Still, little work has mapped out 

variation in the victimogenic character of different social relationships or to understand 

why such variation exists or to understand how it is distributed in the population. Our 

research explicitly examines this issue. 

 Our focus on the life span also includes a consideration of how violent 

victimization in childhood or adolescence is related to victimization experiences with 

partners in adulthood and, as well, how the nature of these experiences influence the 

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

nature of subsequent victimization experiences. The existence of such patterns can be 

explained in at least one of two ways. Some scholars have pointed to the possibility of 

stable characteristics that are set in childhood that increase the probability of repeat 

victimization over the life course. The most well-known example emerges from those 

who have studied the intergenerational transmission of violence. Family violence in 

childhood is thought to provide behavioral scripts that influence the decisions and choices 

individuals make when selecting partners and activities.3

 Persisting social characteristics 

can also be influenced by social settings, such as living in high risk neighborhoods, and 

routine activities that increase victimization risk over both time and personal encounters.4

 

Another explanation for why violent victimization experiences may be patterned over 

time and across relationships relates to how individuals change as a result of their 

victimization experiences. Support for this perspective comes from both studies that 

have shown that early abuse increases subsequent alcohol and substance abuse which in 

turn increase the risk of additional victimization5 and studies that have looked at 

childhood abuse as a precursor to both homelessness and subsequent victimization.6 

 While these two perspectives assume that victimization experiences will be 

patterned over the life course, others have argued that such experiences can be confined 

to particular relationships or particular life circumstances. Building upon the extensive 

body of work on criminal offending, risk of victimization is understood in terms of 

proximity and exposure to a particular offender or particular offenders. In general, such 

work suggests that victimization should appear as an isolated event rather than a series of 

events that cut across either relationships or different stages in the life cycle. We 

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

consider these perspectives in our examination of the scope of women’s victimization 

experiences across relationships and over time. 

 Second, we consider individual risk factors for the patterns of victimization we 

identified. While a substantial body of research has developed on the risk factors 

associated with different victimization experiences, virtually all of this research focuses 

on distinct types of violence. The risk factors for sexual assault are discussed in isolation 

from those for child abuse or intimate partner violence.7

 While this research provides an 

important starting point for our study, we re-examine these findings to determine if they 

can help us to explain more general patterns of violence that transcend a specific 

relationship or a specific time in the life course. 

 Third, we look at the consequences of particular patterns of victimization for both 

general well-being and post-victimization behavior. We extend a long tradition of 

inquiry of the effects of victimization on fear of crime by considering the consequences 

of violence for perceptions of safety.8

 Although there is a wealth of data on the 

consequences of victimization for mental health, this research also has tended to focus on 

discrete types of victimization. Because there is evidence that psychological well-being 

is more likely to be shaped by cumulative experience, rather than discrete experiences, 

we look at how patterns of victimization affect depression and substance abuse. Finally, 

we also extend prior research in this area by examining how broad patterns of 

victimization influence a range of help seeking behaviors: (1) medical care, (2) 

psychological counseling, (3) calling the police, and (4) talking about the victimization 

experiences with others. 

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

III. Data 

 The data to be used in this research are unique in their documentation of women’s 

experience with violence. The National Violence against Women Survey (NVAWS) was 

jointly sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC).9

 It is a national telephone survey conducted from 

November 1995 to May 1996. The national sample is representative of households with 

a telephone in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Overall, a total of 8,000 women 

and 8,005 men were interviewed using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing 

system. Our analyses focus on female respondents, although future research should 

examine similarities and differences in the patterns of victimization across genders. The 

participation rate for the survey was 72 percent, consistent with other high quality 

surveys of crime and violence.10 An important facet of the NVAWS data is the large 

sample size. As our research is based on a cross-classification of violent experiences that 

are somewhat rare, a large sample size is necessary to provide enough statistical power 

for our analyses. 

A second unique feature of the NVAWS data is the breadth of its measurement of 

violence experienced by women. A key criticism of prior research on violence against 

women, including the National Crime Victimization Survey, is that it typically did not 

effectively measure the various forms of violence experienced by women.11 This 

included sexual and physical victimization at the hands of family members, dates, 

spouses and other men know to the victim. An explicit objective of the NVAWS was to 

document the various types of violence that women experience while simultaneously 

identifying the wide range of social relationships. Our analyses will examine the 

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

multifaceted prevalence of violent victimization from parents, other relatives, partners, 

dates, acquaintances, and strangers. These are defined as the following: 

Parents: Parent, step-parent or guardian; 

Other relatives: father, step-father, brother, step-brother, brother-in-law, uncle, 

grandfather, step-grandfather, male cousin, son/step-son, son-in-law, 

nephew, nephew-in-law, mother, step-mother, grandmother, stepgrandmother, aunt, sister, step-sister, -sister-in-law, other male relative, 

other female relative; 

Partners: current husband, ex-husband, current male partner, current female 

partner; former male partner; former female partner; 

Dates: a boyfriend or date; 

Acquaintances: Boss, supervisor, co-worker, co-volunteer, employee, exemployee, client, customer, patient, student, doctor, nurse, other health 

professional, teacher, professor, instructor, coach, landlord, minister, 

priest, rabbi, clergy, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, roommate, service, 

hired hand, parent of friend, family friend; 

Stranger: male stranger, female stranger, both male and female stranger. 

The types of violence considered include sexual assault, stalking, and different types of 

physical violence. The latter includes being pushed, grabbed, or shoved, being slapped 

or hit, having hair pulled, being kicked or bitten, being choked or beaten up, having 

someone throw something at them or being hit with some object, or being threatened or 

attacked with a gun or some other form of weapon.

12,13 For the purposes of our research, 

we restrict our sample to those who reported at least one current or prior relationship (N = 

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

6,937) in order to incorporate partner victimization into our analyses. 

IV. Prevalence of Victimization 

Violent victimization is most likely from parents and partners, followed by dates 

and acquaintances, followed by relatives and strangers. Partner violence is also 

characterized by comparatively high rates of all forms of violence (i.e., stalking, sexual 

assault, and physical victimization).14

Likelihood of victimization broken down by type of victimization and victimoffender relationship is reported in Table 1. Although general risk of victimization is 

low, relationship type has a strong impact upon the type and extent of violence 

experienced. Risk of being stalked is highest among partner relations (3.8%), over 

double that found with acquaintances (1.5%) or strangers (1.7%). Risk is lowest among 

relatives (.2%) and dates (.8%). Sexual victimization is also high in partner relationships 

(2.8%), yet also among relatives (2.9%) and acquaintances (2.2%). Risk is somewhat 

lower among dates (1.5%) and strangers (1.4%). 

 Physical victimization shows a different pattern of risk. In general, risk is highest 

in child-parent relationships. One-third of women were slapped by a parent, while over 

15 percent had an object thrown at them, were hit with an object or were pushed, 

grabbed, or shoved. Risk of other forms of violence, ranging from having hair pulled to 

being threatened or attacked with a weapon, varies from 2 to 10 percent.15 Although 

there are differences, risk of physical violence is comparable within partner relationships. 

Here, over 15 percent of women reported being pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped and 

between 8 and 10 percent had their hair pulled, had something thrown at them or were hit 

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

with something, or were choked or beaten up. Approximately 5 percent of women were 

kicked or threatened or attacked with a weapon by a partner. Risk of physical violence of 

any sort is lower among dates, acquaintances, and strangers. In each case, the greatest 

likelihood of violence involves pushing, grabbing, shoving, and slapping and is typically 

around 2 percent. All other forms of violence have likelihoods of less than 1 percent. 

Overall, the lowest rates of physical violence occur among relatives. 

Table 1. Victimization Probabilities: Type of Victimization by Relationship, NVAWS 1995.

Parent Relative Partner Dates Acquaintance Stranger

Stalking N/A 0.002 0.038 0.008 0.015 0.017

Sexual Assault N/A 0.029 0.028 0.015 0.022 0.014

Choked or Beaten 0.051 0.006 0.101 0.009 0.007 0.007

Throw object or hit 0.177 0.006 0.086 0.008 0.009 0.006

Weapon, Threat or Use 0.017 0.002 0.051 0.005 0.006 0.013

Kicked 0.021 0.003 0.053 0.005 0.006 0.004

Pulled Hair 0.106 0.007 0.086 0.010 0.010 0.007

Slapped 0.334 0.012 0.151 0.019 0.015 0.011

Pushed 0.150 0.011 0.171 0.023 0.021 0.017

V. Violence within Relationships 

There are no distinct patterns of violence among relatives, acquaintances, dates, 

or strangers. In contrast, parent-child relationships involve three distinct patterns of

violence. These include no violence, parental aggression, and abuse. The latter is 

unique in that it involves multiple forms of violence and more serious, injurious 

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

violence. Similarly, partner relationships involve four distinct patterns of violence. 

From most to least prevalent, this include no violence, interpersonal conflict, physical 

abuse, and systematic abuse. The latter is unique in that it involves multifaceted 

violence including the more serious, injurious types of physical violence, sexual assault 

and stalking.

Latent class analysis (see description in Appendix A) provides a means of 

assessing whether particular relationships are characterized by distinct patterns of 

violence within them. It does so by cross classifying different types of violent acts and 

then examining the degree to which particularly classes or clusters of violent acts appear 

within a given relationship. For example, partner relationships may be characterized by 

several distinct classes of violence that reflect variation in the number and extent of 

violent acts,16 while stranger relationships may involve fewer types of violence, perhaps 

distinguishing sexual and physical.17 

 Goodness of fit statistics show that there is significant variation in the patterning 

of victimization across relationships (see Table 2). Importantly, a one-class model fits 

the data by conventional criteria in the cases of relatives, dates18, acquaintances, and 

strangers. This indicates that risk of any specific violent act is independent of the risk of 

experiencing other violent acts within these relationships. If one experiences some type 

of violence, they are not significantly more likely to experience another form of violence. 

Thus, there are no identifiable patterns of violence in each of these relationships.19 In 

contrast, both parent-child and partner relationships are characterized by more complex 

patterns of violence. In the former case, a three class model provides the best fit to the 

data20. This indicates that there are three distinct patterns of violence that occur in 

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

parent-child relationships. Similarly, a four class model of partner violence provides an 

adequate fit to the data along all three fit criteria. This indicates that there are four 

distinct patterns of violence that occur among partner relationships. 

Table 2. Goodness of Fit Statistics: Type of Violence by Relationship Type, NVAWS 1995.

Number of

Relationship Classes L2 df P-value ID BIC

Parent I 6623.68 120 0.000 0.32 5563.75

II 959.59 112 0.000 0.08 -29.78

III 172.16 104 0.000 0.02 -746.44

IV 124.59 97 0.031 0.01 -732.19

Relative I 153.15 502 1.000 0.01 -4268.35

II 183.44 493 1.000 0.01 -4158.79

III 119.34 485 1.000 0.01 -4152.43

IV 110.43 483 1.000 0.01 -4143.73

Partner I 6252.65 502 0.000 0.28 1831.15

II 1370.78 492 0.000 0.07 -2962.65

III 529.71 482 0.066 0.03 -3715.64

IV 393.33 473 0.997 0.03 -3772.75

Date I 548.62 502 0.074 0.03 -3872.81

II 264.79 492 1.000 0.01 -4068.55

III 185.79 482 1.000 0.01 -4068.29

IV 159.04 473 1.000 0.01 -4059.81

Acquaintance I 437.44 502 0.983 0.02 -3984.29

II 238.54 492 1.000 0.01 -4095.1

III 201.71 482 1.000 0.01 -4043.85

IV 167.57 479 1.000 0.01 -4051.56

Stranger I 117.68 502 1.000 0.01 -4303.98

II 195.84 493 1.000 0.01 -4146.54

III 137.04 485 1.000 0.01 -4134.88

IV 120.41 479 1.000 0.01 -4098.66

The nature and prevalence of these patterns of violence is seen by the expected 

probability of reporting a particular type of violence and the overall probability of the

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

class of violence in the sample (see Table 3). As discussed in Appendix A, the former 

indicates the expected likelihood or risk of experiencing each specific type of violence, 

while the latter indicates the proportion of the sample that is likely to experience each 

specific class of violence. 

 In terms of parent-child relationships (see left panel), a first class involves 

relatively low probability of experiencing any form of violence. All probabilities are less 

than .16 and all except one are below .05. In addition, there is virtually no likelihood of 

being threatened or attacked with a weapon, being beaten or choked, or being kicked 

(.002, .002, and .004, respectively). With a latent class probability of .754, this pattern of 

violence characterizes almost three-quarters of the sample. We define this pattern as 

essentially no violence. 

A second class involves a high likelihood of being slapped (.883), considerably 

higher likelihood of having something thrown at them or being hit with an object (.562) 

and being pushed, grabbed or shoved (.510), and moderate risk of having hair pulled 

(.298). Equally important, risk of the other more severe and more systematic is low. 

Following from Macmillan and Gartner (1999), we consider violence to be systematic if 

it requires some a sustained use of force (e.g., beating someone up, choking them) or 

requires some form of planning (e.g., getting a weapon). This pattern of violence 

characterizes almost twenty percent of the sample (.199). We consider this class to be 

characteristic of physical aggression. 

A final class involves multifaceted violence and substantial risk of the more 

severe and systematic types of violence. Risk of having something thrown or being hit 

with an object, being pushed, grabbed, or shoved, having hair pulled, and being slapped 

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

are very high, and being beaten up or choked (.817 to .984) and risk of being kicked or 

bitten (.482) and threatened or attacked with a weapon (.349) are also substantial. 

Importantly, the combined high probabilities for multiple types of violence indicate that 

this class is characterized by a combination of many different violent acts which makes it 

quite distinct from the previous class of violence. When combined with the increased 

prevalence of the more serious forms of violence, this suggests a pattern of violence that 

might be seen as abuse. It characterizes just under 5 percent of the sample. 

The distinctions that we draw provide a behavioral basis for current distinctions 

between and debates around punishment and abuse.21 While our work cannot speak to 

general philosophical issues of whether violence can ever be functional, it does suggest 

that violence experienced by children is not uniform. On a positive note, much of the 

violence, that is experienced by children is not multifaceted and is generally limited to 

less severe acts. On a more negative note, there is a subgroup that is not trivial in size 

and who experience a wide variety of violent acts, including those that are clearly 

injurious and potentially life threatening. Such violence clearly falls within both legal 

and colloquial definitions of abuse. These findings underscore the potential limits of 

treating children’s exposure to violence as uniform. Recognizing such distinctions may 

ultimately be important for understanding how experiences of violence in childhood may 

increase one’s risk of both offending and victimization in later life and their relationship 

to life chances in general. 

Patterned violence is also characteristic of partner relationships with four distinct 

classes. This is shown in the right hand panel in Table 3. A first class involves very low, 

almost negligible risk of violence. All probabilities are below .01, indicating that less 

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

than one percent of the women in this class can be expected to experience any type of 

violence. This pattern can be seen to characterize over 80 percent of the sample (.813) 

and can be considered as essentially no violence. A second class involves generally high 

risk of being pushed, grabbed, or shoved (.715), moderate risk of being slapped (.494), 

and low but non-negligible risk of having something thrown or being hit with an object 

(.216). Risk of the other seven types of violence, including sexual assault and stalking, is 

generally low (< .14). The nature of these probabilities suggest that this pattern of 

violence is unlikely to be multifaceted, not likely to involve the more serious and 

injurious types of violence, and is not likely to involve sexual assault or stalking. This 

pattern characterizes just over 8 percent of the sample (.082). This pattern of violence 

might be regarded as interpersonal conflict violence. 

 A third class characterizes a similar proportion of the sample (.071). Yet, this 

pattern of violence is more multifaceted. It involves very high probabilities of being 

pushed, grabbed or shoved (.969), being slapped (.981), and being beaten up or choked 

(.792). Likewise, the risk of having hair pulled (.598), having something thrown or being 

hit with an object (.432), being kicked (.318), and being threatened or attacked with a 

weapon (.250) are substantial. Still, this pattern of violence is largely confined to 

physical assaults as the risk of being sexually assaulted (.126) and being stalked are 

comparatively low (.159). As the violence in this class is multifaceted but generally 

confined to physical violence, we define this pattern of violence as physical abuse. 

A final class of violence is also multifaceted, but involves comparatively greater 

risk of the more serious and injurious types of violence and comparatively high risk of 

both sexual assault and stalking. In general, this pattern of violence involves having 

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

something thrown or being hit with an object (1.000), being pushed, grabbed, or shoved 

(.993), having hair pulled (.975), being slapped (.992), being beaten up or choked (.951) 

and being kicked (.828). Likewise, risk of being threatened or attacked with a weapon is 

high (.642), as is risk of being stalked (.478). Combined with the comparatively high risk 

of sexual assault (.244), this pattern of violence involves physical violence combined 

with sexual violence and controlling behavior. Characterizing just over 3 percent of the 

sample (.033), this pattern typifies systematic abuse that has been the focus of 

considerable public policy and criminal justice attention. 

Table 3. Latent class and conditional probabilities: Parent and partner victimization, NVAWS, 1995.

Violence Type Parent Partner

I II III I II III IV

Throw/Hit 0.037 0.562 0.911 0.002 0.216 0.432 1.000

Push 0.012 0.510 0.984 0.009 0.715 0.969 0.993

Pull hair 0.016 0.298 0.892 0.007 0.101 0.598 0.975

Slapped 0.156 0.883 0.978 0.006 0.494 0.981 0.992

Kicked 0.004 0.026 0.482 0.001 0.016 0.318 0.828

Beaten/Choked 0.002 0.093 0.817 0.001 0.135 0.792 0.951

Weapon 0.002 0.034 0.349 0.001 0.115 0.250 0.642

Sexual Assault NA NA NA 0.006 0.056 0.126 0.244

Stalking NA NA NA 0.005 0.081 0.159 0.478

Latent Class Probability 0.754 0.199 0.047 0.813 0.082 0.071 0.033

The distinctions that we make both reflect and have implications for current 

discussions of the nature of spousal violence against women. In particular, they provide a 

behavioral basis for understanding qualitatively distinct types of violence offered in 

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

earlier work. The terminology that we use draws upon that offered in Macmillan and 

Gartner’s analysis of data from a national sample of Canadian women and is informed 

by Johnson’s distinction between “common couple violence” and “patriarchal terrorism.”

22 While we do not know the specific context of the violence (i.e., disagreement, 

argument, family conflict, personal stress, power/control), the behavioral distinctions that 

we observe are both consistent with and extend earlier work. For example, “interpersonal 

conflict violence,” the most commonly experienced form of violence, is by virtue of the 

low probabilities sporadic and isolated. There simply is not enough violence reported to 

suggest that violence is frequent or systematic. This is generally consistent with 

“common couple violence” described in Johnson’s earlier work. Common couple 

violence has a “dynamic...in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand,’ leading 

usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence...”23 At the same time, the pattern of “physical 

abuse” is not particularly consistent with Johnson’s concept of “patriarchal terrorism.” 

The latter is violence that is “a product of patriarchal traditions of men’s right to control 

‘their’ women.”24 This is most consistent with the pattern of “systematic abuse” that we 

observe. Importantly, systematic abuse is violence that extends well beyond traditional 

notions of physical abuse and includes comparatively high risk of both stalking and 

sexual victimization. In combination, stalking, physical and sexual victimization suggest 

a pattern of behavior that echoes efforts to control the social and sexual activities of 

female partners. In contrast, the pattern of “physical abuse” that we observe may simply 

reflect exposure to higher rate offenders who either possess norms and values that 

support the use of violence as a conflict tactic or lack personal and social controls.25 

Regardless, the recognition of such distinct forms of violence is a fundamental first step 

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.
17

in unraveling the etiology of spousal violence against women. It also provides a 

foundation for the identification of risk factors, and provides a basis for considering the 

variable consequences of spousal victimization for life chances in a wide variety of areas. 

Equally important, it provides a starting point for examination of broader patterns of 

victimization across relationships and across the life span. 

VI. Patterns of Violence across Relationships and the Life Course 

The NVAWS sample is characterized by three distinct patterns of violence 

across relationships and across the life course. A first involves some, but generally 

low, risk of victimization in all relationships. We characterize this pattern as isolated 

violence. A second involves generally greater risk, particularly from parents and 

partners, but little likelihood of abusive violence within these relationships. We 

characterize this pattern as parent-partner violence. A third involves even greater risk. 

This includes abusive violence from both parents and partners, coupled with violence 

in multiple social relationships. We characterize this pattern as multifacetedmultirelationship violence.

 To examine the issue of whether there are distinct patterns of victimization across 

relationship and across the life course, we cross classify victimization risk across the six 

relationships and then perform a second latent class analysis.26 Goodness of fit statistics 

are shown in Table 4. Importantly, a one class model provides a very poor fit to the data 

according to all criteria. This indicates that there are substantial patterns in violence 

across relationships. Moreover, a three class model provides a good fit to the data 

according to the likelihood ratio chi-square test (183.17, 162 df, p > .10) and the index of 

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.
18

dissimilarity (.02). While a two class model has the lowest BIC statistic (-1275.52 versus 

–1240.78), this model has a poor fit to the data based on the likelihood ratio test (p < 

.001). We opt for a three class model on the grounds that it provides a good fit based on 

all criteria.27 Substantively, this indicates that three distinct patterns of violence across 

relationships and the life course characterize the sample of American women. 

Table 4. Goodness of Fit Statistics: Sociometry of victimization, NVAWS 1995.

Number of

Classes L2 df P-value ID BIC

I 1211.65 182.00 0.000 0.14 -388.09

II 245.11 173.00 0.000 0.03 -1275.52

III 183.17 162.00 0.122 0.02 -1240.78

IV 153.53 154.00 0.496 0.02 -1200.10

IV-Fixed 182.71 161.00 0.116 0.03 -1232.44

Table 5 shows conditional and latent class probabilities for the three class model 

and reveals nature and extent of these specific patterns of risk. A first class involves 

generally low risk of violence in any relationship. There is a small likelihood of physical 

punishment violence in childhood (.066) but virtually no risk of abuse (.001). This is 

combined with very little risk of violence from relatives (.010), from dates (.029), from 

acquaintances (.028), or from strangers (.031). While comparatively low, this is 

combined with a small likelihood of experiencing interpersonal conflict violence (.064), 

but little likelihood of the more serious and multifaceted types of partner violence (.040 

and .013 for physical and systematic abuse, respectively). This pattern of violence 

characterizes the majority of the sample, almost three quarters (.746). We characterize 

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.
19

this pattern of violence as isolated violence. 

A second pattern of violence involves a high likelihood of physical aggression in 

childhood (.687), but again little likelihood of abuse (.052). This however is combined 

with considerably higher risk of violence from relatives (.101), dates (.093), 

acquaintances (.140), and strangers (.109). While these probabilities are still not 

objectively high, they do indicate increased exposure to violence. Importantly, elevated 

risk of violence in these relationships is combined with greater probabilities of partner 

violence. In particular, there is moderate risk of interpersonal conflict violence (.222) or 

physical abuse (.142). Still, risk of systematic abuse is low (.069). In general, this 

pattern of risk does not suggest multifaceted risk of victimization across relationships or 

the life span. While there is clearly patterned risk in this class, the generally low 

probabilities characterizing each given relationship indicate that women’s experiences of 

violence are largely confined to a given relationship. This pattern characterizes almost 20 

% of the sample (.193). We define this pattern of victimization as parent-partner 

violence. 

A third class or pattern characterizes 6 percent of the sample and involves 

multifaceted violence that stretches across relationships and across the life span. This 

pattern of violence involves high risk of violence in childhood, particularly abusive 

violence (.507). This is coupled with moderate risk from relatives (.292) and risk of 

violence from dates (.100), acquaintances (.196), and strangers (.145) that is as large and 

typically larger than that seen in the previous class. This pattern of violence also involves 

greater risk of more serious partner violence, particularly systematic abuse (.255). In 

general, this suggests a pattern of violence that involves elevated risk and is characterized 

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.
20

by violence in multiple relationships. We define this pattern of victimization as 

multifaceted-multirelationship violence. 

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.
21

Table 5. Latent class and conditional probabilities: Sociometric Analysis, NVAWS, 1995.

Relationship I II III

Parent I None 0.934 0.261 0.374

II Physical aggression 0.066 0.687 0.119

III Abuse 0.001 0.052 0.507

Relative I No 0.990 0.899 0.708

II Yes 0.010 0.101 0.292

Date I No 0.971 0.907 0.900

II Yes 0.029 0.093 0.100

Acquaintance I No 0.972 0.860 0.804

II Yes 0.028 0.140 0.196

Stranger I No 0.968 0.891 0.855

II Yes 0.031 0.109 0.145

Partner I None 0.883 0.567 0.426

II IPCV 0.064 0.222 0.140

III Physical Abuse 0.040 0.142 0.179

IV Systematic Abuse 0.013 0.069 0.255

Latent Class Probability 0.746 0.193 0.061

VII. Risk Factors 

Age, race, low socioeconomic status, including unemployment, low educational 

attainment, low personal and household income, and poverty, and marital disruption 

are all significantly associated with increased risk of violence. Multifaceted, 

multirelationship violence has a particularly strong association with low

socioeconomic status and marital disruption.

Previous research on specific types of violence (i.e., sexual assault) and violence 

within specific relationships (i.e., partner violence, child abuse) indicate a number of 

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.
22

important risk factors. Such research has not, however, examined such risk factors in the 

context of patterned violence across relationships and the life span. We do so in the 

following section with respect to age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, employment status, 

educational attainment, personal income, household income, poverty, marital status, and 

parenthood. A full description of these is provided in Appendix B. 

Our objective here is simply to document factors that are associated with different 

patterns of risk. We cannot definitively conclude that such factors are causes of violence 

as there are two complicating issues. First, our descriptions of victimization experiences 

span multiple years and some violent incidents may have occurred before, even long 

before, our risk factors are measured. Second, it is very likely that several of these 

factors may be influenced by victimization experiences. Victimization and its 

consequences is likely to have profound effects on attainments and social relationships 

over the life span28 and hence may actually shape the risk factors that we consider. 

Nonetheless, it is important to identify factors that are associated with the different types 

of risk we have identified. In all of the following analyses, we make comparisons against 

those in the sample that report no victimization experiences in any of the six 

relationships. Frequencies denoting different exposure to patterned violence and 

corresponding chi-square statistics are shown in Table 6.29

Beginning with age, there is significant variation across cohorts in terms of the 

patterns of violence they experience. 30 In general, younger cohorts have considerably 

greater risk of violence, particularly multifaceted, multirelationship violence across 

relationships. In terms of isolated violence, risk appears to increase from the youngest 

cohort (32 %) through the middle age cohorts (40-45 %) before declining sharply among 

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.
23

Table 6. Sociodemographic Correlates of Victimization: NVAWS, 1995.

None I II III X2 / F-value

Age 360.6***

18-20 56.9 32.3 3.1 7.7

21-25 51.2 41.6 1.9 5.2

26-35 48.7 44.8 3.0 3.5

36-45 51.7 41.7 3.2 3.4

46-55 55.4 40.3 2.2 2.2

56-65 65.9 30.0 1.9 2.3

Over 65 82.9 15.9 0.7 0.6

Race 57.5***

White 58.9 36.2 2.4 2.6

Black 56.6 40.8 0.6 2.0

Asian 64.1 28.3 4.4 3.3

American Indian 37.7 52.2 4.4 5.8

Mixed 52.2 36.9 3.5 7.4

Hispanic 10.6*

No 58.2 36.9 2.2 2.7

Yes 56.6 35.2 4.1 4.1

Emploment Status 301.2***

Full-Time 52.7 42.1 2.4 2.8

Part-Time 56.5 37.8 2.3 3.5

Military 50.0 45.0 5.0 0.0

Unemployed 44.2 45.2 3.7 6.9

Retired 78.4 19.3 1.2 1.1

Student 40.4 50.7 4.1 4.8

Homemaker 62.2 33.0 2.1 2.7

Other 42.6 46.7 6.7 4.1

Education 74.9***

None 57.6 37.4 1.5 3.6

< 8th Grade 59.0 37.2 1.2 2.6

Some Highschool 51.8 42.1 2.7 3.4

Highschool 60.9 34.2 2.6 2.3

Some college 60.0 33.1 3.8 3.0

College graduate 71.5 25.2 0.9 2.3

Postgraduate 77.8 22.2 0.0 0.0

Pattern of Victimization

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.
24

Table 6 (cont'd). Sociodemographic Correlates of Victimization: NVAWS, 1995.

None I II III X2 / F-value

Personal Income 180.3***

Less than $5000 54.7 38.3 2.4 4.6

$5000-15000 53.5 40.2 3.0 3.3

$15000-25000 53.3 40.7 2.6 3.4

$25000-35000 53.7 41.2 1.9 3.3

$35000-50000 52.6 42.0 2.5 3.0

$50000-80000 54.1 39.4 3.8 2.7

More than $80000 52.2 42.5 1.8 3.5

Missing 71.2 26.3 1.7 0.9

Household Income 166.7***

Less than $5000 58.4 33.1 4.2 4.2

$5000-15000 54.7 38.6 2.9 3.8

$15000-25000 52.3 40.6 3.0 4.1

$25000-35000 55.3 39.1 2.2 3.4

$35000-50000 53.2 41.3 2.7 2.8

$50000-80000 55.1 39.9 1.9 3.2

More than $80000 54.2 41.9 2.3 1.6

Missing 71.6 26.0 1.4 1.0

Phone Service 63.0***

No 38.1 47.3 6.0 8.7

Yes 58.8 36.4 2.2 2.6

Marital Status 443.8***

Married 61.8 33.8 2.1 2.4

Common-Law 34.4 56.3 3.1 6.3

Divorced 33.8 57.5 3.4 5.4

Separated 25.9 62.9 5.3 5.9

Widowed 78.2 19.3 1.9 0.6

Never married 39.8 51.3 4.0 4.9

Parent

No 57.4 38.4 1.3 2.9 7.4ns

Yes 58.1 36.5 2.6 2.8

Pattern of Victimization

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.
25

those over the age of 55 (30 % and 16 %, respectively). In contrast, risk of parent-partner 

violence is relatively steady through the middle aged cohorts (typically around 3%) 

before also declining among the oldest cohorts. Declining risk among older cohorts is 

even more significant with respect to multifaceted, multirelationship violence. While 7.7 

percent of the youngest cohort (ages 18-20) report the latter, only 3.4 percent of women 

36-45 and only 0.6 percent of women over the age of 65 have similar risk. 

There are also significant race differences in patterned victimization. Black and 

white women report similar patterns of victimization. In contrast, American Indian and 

those who self identify as “mixed” have significant higher rates of parent-partner (4.4% 

and 3.5%, respectively) and multifaceted-multirelationship (5.8% and 7.4%, respectively) 

violence. In general, Asian-American women report the lowest rates of violence. 

Hispanic women also have somewhat higher risk of violence, particularly parent-partner 

violence (4.1% versus 2.2%) and multifaceted-multirelationship violence (4.1% versus 

2.7%). 

There is also significant variation in risk based on employment status.31 First, risk 

is generally lowest among those who are retired (78 % report no violence) and those who 

are homemakers (62.2 % report no violence). Second, risk of isolated violence is 

generally similar across employment types (with the exception of those retired and 

homemakers). Third, risk of parent-partner violence is greatest among those who report 

“other” as their employment status.32 Fourth, risk of multifaceted-multirelationship 

violence is greatest among those who are unemployed (6.9 %) and generally low among 

those who are employed full-time (2.8 %) or in the military (0.0 %). Combined with the 

comparatively low percentage of unemployed women that report no violence (44.2 %), 

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.
26

this may reflect the effect of economic disadvantage on risk of violence.33

A link between low socioeconomic status and risk of violence is also seen with 

educational attainment. In general, college graduates have the lowest risk of 

victimization. Almost three-quarters (71.5 % and 77.8 %, for college graduates and 

postgraduates, respectively) report no victimization. Women with generally low 

educational attainment, specifically less than high school, have comparatively higher risk 

of both isolated and multifaceted-multirelationship violence. For example, 3.6 percent of 

women with no formal education and 3.4 percent of women with some high school 

experienced multifaceted-multirelationship violence, while only 2.3 percent and 0 percent 

of college graduates and those with postgraduate degrees experienced similar violence. 

Further evidence of the relationship of economic disadvantage to patterned 

violence is seen with personal and household income. In both cases, women who earn 

less than 5000 dollars or live in household with less than 5000 dollars total income are 

least likely to report not experiencing any violence (54.7 and 58.4 %, respectively) and 

most likely to experience multifaceted-multirelationship violence (4.6 and 4.2 %, 

respectively). Income differences in risk of isolated and parent-partner violence are less 

clear.34 As a final issue on the link between economic status and victimization risk, we 

examine whether being poor, defined by a proxy variable of whether the respondent was 

ever without phone service in the prior year, is associated with exposure to violence.35 

Such women were much less likely to not experience any violence (38.1 versus 58.8 

percent) and had significantly greater rates of all patterns of violence. They were almost 

10 percent more likely to experience isolated violence (47.3 versus 36.4 percent), two and 

a half times more likely to experience parent-partner violence (6.0 versus 2.2 percent), 

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.
27

and over three times as likely to experience multifaceted-multirelationship violence (8.7 

versus 2.6 percent). In sum, these findings indicate strong links between economic 

disadvantage and women’s risk of severe, multifaceted violence. 

A final issue we consider is the relationship between violence and family 

structure. Beginning with marital status, there is a very strong association. Specifically, 

currently married and widowed women are most likely experience no violence (61.8 and 

78.2 %, respectively). At the same time, women in common-law relationships or who are 

separated or divorced have comparatively higher risk of isolated and multifacetedmultirelationship violence. Women who are separated also have greatest risk of parentpartner violence (5.4 %). There are no significant associations between violence and the 

likelihood of having children. 

VIII. Consequences of Victimization 

Victimization also has significant associations with a wide range of things that are 

often regarded as consequences of victimization – e.g., perceptions of safety and 

psychological distress. While again we cannot definitively assess causal order, there is a 

large research literature that links each of these factors with violent victimization and 

exposure to violence more generally.36 Full descriptions of each individual item 

considered are also found in Appendix B. For the purposes of clarity, we divide our 

assessment into four groups: perceptions of safety, psychological and physical health, 

substance use, and post-victimization behavior. We consider each of these in turn.37

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.
28

A. Perceptions of Safety 

Violent victimization is associated with substantially lower perceived safety. 

Victimization is associated with views that sexual assault and harassment have become 

worse problems in recent years, greater concern about personal safety, greater concern 

about stalking, and a greater likelihood of carry a weapon or other protective item. 

This is particularly the case for multifaceted-multirelationship violence. 

Table 7 shows frequency distributions of various measures of perceptions of 

safety and patterns of victimization and their corresponding chi-square measure of 

association. Beginning with general perceptions of crime trends, there is no significant 

association. Victims of violence are no more likely to feel that crime has gotten worse in 

recent years. There is also no association with respect to perceptions of violent crime. 

There are however significant associations with five other perception of safety 

measures. First, victimization of any type increases the likelihood of perceiving sexual 

harassment as a worsening problem. Second, multifaceted-multirelationship violence is 

associated with perceiving sexual assault as a worsening problem. Those experiencing 

other patterns of victimization are not substantively different from those experiencing no 

violence. Third, each pattern of violence is associated with greater concern about 

personal safety. With respect to general safety, while 26.9 percent of non-victims feel 

very concerned about their safety, 30.3 percent of victims of isolated violence, 34.6 

percent of victims of parent-partner violence, and 41.5 percent of victims of multifacetedmultirelationship violence feel very concerned. With respect to concern over stalking, 

12.7 percent of non-victims report feeling very concerned, while 15.6 percent, 26.0 

percent, and 23.5 percent of isolated, parent-partner, and multifaceted-multirelationship 

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.
29

violence feel very concerned. Finally, victims of violence, particularly victims of 

multifaceted, patterned violence, are more likely to carry a weapon or some other 

protective device. While just over a quarter (26.5%) of non-victims carry a weapon, 

almost 40 percent of those experiencing isolated and parent-partner violence (37.1 and 

38.7, respectively), and almost half (47%) of women experiencing multifacetedmultirelationship violence carry a weapon. 

Table 7. Victimization and Perceptions of Violence and Safety, NVAWS 1995.

Pattern of Victimization

None I II III X2

Trends in crime 12.2ns

Improved 23.6 21.2 29.0 19.6

Same 17.5 18.8 11.8 19.0

Worse 58.9 60.1 59.2 61.5

Problem: Violent Crime

Less 0.9 0.8 2.6 0.6 8.4ns

Same 9.2 9.2 7.1 12.1

Worse 89.9 90.0 90.3 87.4

Problem: Sexual Harassment 50.9***

Less 54.1 48.6 49.3 47.8

Same 35.5 35.1 32.9 36.8

Worse 10.4 16.2 17.8 15.4

Problem: Sexual Assault 18.3***

Less 80.8 77.6 80.5 72.0

Same 17.9 20.9 18.8 24.7

Worse 1.3 1.5 0.7 3.3

Personal Safety 59.6***

Not concerned 22.3 16.9 14.4 14.8

A little concerned 20.3 18.0 19.6 14.2

Somewhat concerned 30.6 34.7 31.4 29.5

Very concerned 26.9 30.3 34.6 41.5

Concern/Stalking 101.8***

Not concerned 54.2 46.6 37.0 32.2

A little concerned 19.3 19.7 18.2 18.0

Somewhat concerned 13.7 18.1 18.8 26.2

Very concerned 12.7 15.6 26.0 23.5

Carry Weapon 102.4***

No 73.5 62.9 61.3 53.0

Yes 26.5 37.1 38.7 47.0

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.
30

B. Psychological and Physical Health 

Victimization has broad ranging effects on psychological and physical health. 

It is associated with higher rates of depression, greater risk of post-victimization PTSD, 

greater psychological disability, lower self-perceived health, greater physical disability, 

and greater likelihood of having experienced a miscarriage. Multifacetedmultirelationship violence appears particularly detrimental for depression, having a 

mental health disability, self-perceived health, and risk of miscarriage. 

Table 8 shows means and frequencies, as well as corresponding F-values and chisquare measures of association, for several measures of psychological and physical 

health. First, rates of depression are higher among victims of violence. While nonvictims have average scores of 15.0 on the depression index, women experiencing 

isolated violence have scores of 16.2 and those experiencing parent-partner and 

multifaceted-multirelationship violence have scores of 18.1 and 18.3, respectively. 

Consistent with this, parent-partner and multifaceted-multirelationship victimization is 

associated with higher rates of post-victimization PTSD. That this effect is significant 

attests to the magnitude of the effect as this sample is restricted to a small number of 

women, those who reported a violent incident with their current partner. We consider 

also psychological distress of a more extreme form by examining variation in the 

likelihood of suffering from a mental health disability. Here, the victimization effects are 

profound. Less than one percent of non-victims have their daily activities limited by 

mental health problems. Three times as many victims of isolated violence, almost eight 

times as many victims of parent-partner violence, and over thirteen times as many victims 

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.
31

of multifaceted-multirelationship violence have a similar disability. 

There are equally pronounced effects on physical health. First, victims of 

violence in general have significantly lower general perceptions of health. While less 

than three percent of non-victims feel that their health is poor, this rises to 3.5 percent for 

isolated violence, 5.2 percent for parent-partner violence, and 6.0 percent among women 

experiencing multifaceted-multirelationship violence. This latter pattern of violence 

doubles the likelihood of perceiving health to be poor when compared with those 

experiencing no violence. Consistent with this, victims of violence are much more likely 

to report that their activities are limited by a physical disability. When compared to those 

that experience no violence, isolated violence doubles the likelihood and both parentpartner and multifaceted-multirelationship violence more than triple the likelihood of 

having a physical disability. Also consistent, victims of violence are more likely to report 

having a miscarriage. In comparison to non-victims (22.9 %), over a quarter of those 

experiencing isolated violence (28.9 %) and over a third of those experiencing parentpartner violence (38.3 %) report having a miscarriage. This effect is even more 

pronounced among those experiencing multifaceted-multirelationship violence. Here, 

almost half of women (45.9 %) are likely to have had a miscarriage. Equally important, 

victimization has no significant association with the likelihood of having a disability due 

to chronic illness. This reduces the possibility that the associations we observe reflect 

increased vulnerability to violence due to poor health or general disability. Instead, 

violence, particularly multifaceted-multirelationship violence, would appear to have 

broad ranging negative effects on psychological and physical well-being. 

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.
32

Table 8. Victimization and Psychological and Physical Health, NVAWS, 1995.

None I II III X2 / F-value

Mean Depression 15.0 16.2 18.1 18.3 87.6***

Mean PTSD 2.5 3.1 4.9 3.9 9.9***

Disability: Mental health 134.4***

No 99.1 97.3 92.3 88.5

Yes 0.9 2.7 7.7 11.5

Self-Perceived Health 43.4***

Poor 2.9 3.5 5.2 6.0

Fair 9.6 10.6 16.8 15.3

Good 26.5 25.9 31.6 33.8

Very good 31.4 32.7 25.8 25.7

Excellent 29.7 27.3 20.7 19.1

Disability: Physical 95.8***

No 95.1 89.8 83.8 84.7

Yes 4.9 10.2 16.2 15.3

Disability: Illness 3.23ns

No 84.7 86.1 84.5 82.5

Yes 15.3 13.9 15.5 17.5

Misscarriage 77.9***

No 77.1 71.1 61.7 54.1

Yes 22.9 28.9 38.3 45.9

Pattern of Victimization

C. Alcohol and Drug Use 

Violent victimization is associated with heightened alcohol consumption and 

several forms of drug use. The latter include tranquilizers, amphetamines, antidepressants, painkillers, marijuana, hard drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin), as well as 

polydrug use. Multifaceted-multirelationship violence does not appear to have 

uniquely detrimental consequences, except in the case of amphetamine and marijuana 

use. Instead, both parent-partner and multifaceted-multirelationship violence both 

show significantly higher substance use.

Table 9 shows the relationship between several types of substance use 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.
33

patterns of victimization. Victimization in general increases rates of alcohol consumption 

with very little difference across victimization types. In contrast, drug use shows a more 

varied pattern with variation across both drug type and victimization type. For example, 

the use of tranquilizers is higher among all three victimization groups in comparison to 

the non-victim group, and it is much higher, but substantively similar, among victims of 

parent-partner and victims of multifaceted-multirelationship violence. A similar pattern 

is observed with respect to the use of antidepressants, painkillers, hard drugs, and 

polydrug use. In contrast, amphetamine use is generally similar among non-victims and 

victims of both isolated violence and parent-partner violence, but is between 5 and 10 

times greater among women experiencing multifaceted-multirelationship violence. 

Marijuana use is also highest among this group of victims (5.5 %), a rate of use that is 

almost 14 times greater than that of non-victims (0.4 %). Marijuana use is also higher 

among the other victimization classes. Compared to non-victims, victims of isolated 

violence are almost 4 times more likely to use marijuana (1.5 %), while victims of parentpartner violence are eight times more likely to use marijuana (3.2 %). Thus, 

victimization, in general, is associated with greater alcohol and drug use. 

D. Post-victimization Behavior 

In the case of physical assault, patterned victimization is associated with a 

greater likelihood of having sought medical or psychological care, having someone 

contact the police, feeling dissatisfied with the police response. In the case of sexual 

assault, patterned violence increases the likelihood of seeking psychological care, 

feeling dissatisfied with the police response, and decreases the likelihood of speaking 

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.
34

about the incident to someone.

Table 9. Victimization and Substance Use, NVAWS, 1995.

None I II III X2 / F-value

Average Alcohol Consumption 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.8 33.1***

Drug Use: Tranquilizers 169.4***

No 95.4 92.8 82.5 82.5

Yes 4.6 7.2 17.5 17.5

Drug Use: Amphetamines 23.5***

No 99.8 99.6 100.0 97.8

Yes 0.2 0.4 0.0 2.2

Drug Use: Anti-depressants 127.0***

No 96.8 93.6 83.2 84.0

Yes 3.2 6.4 16.8 16.0

Drug Use: Painkillers 81.4***

No 90.5 86.5 74.2 76.0

Yes 9.5 13.5 25.8 24.0

Drug Use: Marijuana

No 99.6 98.5 96.8 94.5 66.5***

Yes 0.4 1.5 3.2 5.5

Drug Use: Hard Drugs

No 100.0 99.9 99.4 99.5 24.0***

Yes 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.5

Poly Drug Use 115.7***

None 95.4 92.8 82.5 82.0

1 to 2 4.6 7.2 16.9 18.0

3 or more 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0

Pattern of Victimization

Table 10 shows the associations between patterns of victimization and various 

forms of post-victimization behavior. Specifically, we examine whether broader patterns 

of victimization that span both relationships and time are associated with different actions 

that followed from the respondent’s most recent physical and sexual assault. We focus 

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.
35

on four issues: seeking care, taking time off work, police contact and satisfaction, and 

whether the victim spoke of the incident to others. As these analyses require a physical 

or sexual assault, the sample is restricted to those who reported some victimization in 

adulthood and comparisons are made across victimization classes. 

Beginning with seeking care, there are significant differences across victimization 

groups with respect to physical assault. Specifically, victims of parent-partner violence 

are twice as likely to seek medical care as victims of isolated violence (19.6 % versus 9.8 

%). At the same, victims of multifaceted-multirelationship violence are not more likely

to have sought medical care than victims of isolated violence. Associations for sexual 

assault are not statistically significant, although the overall pattern is similar to that of 

physical assault. When focusing on psychological care, victims of both parent-partner 

and multifaceted-multirelationship violence are more likely to seek care after a physical 

assault (33.3 and 31.2 versus 20.7), although the differences between them are negligible. 

In the case of sexual assault, victims of multifaceted-multirelationship violence are 

considerably more likely to seek psychological care (48.2 versus 34.0 and 26.8). 

Multifaceted-multirelationship violence is also associated with significantly less 

likelihood of having physical assaults reported to the police (15.7 % versus 33.3 and 28.2 

%). For sexual assault, effects are not statistically significant. Findings for personally 

reporting either type of incident are also not significant. For those incidents that were 

reported to the police, patterned victimization is associated with significantly lower

police satisfaction. For physical assaults, only 1 in 5 victims of isolated violence were 

very dissatisfied with the police respondent, while almost half (47.1 %) of victims of 

multifaceted-multirelationship violence reported similar dissatisfaction. For sexual 

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.
36

assaults, just over one-quarter of victims of isolated violence (26.5 %) were very 

dissatisfied, while almost 40 percent of victims of multifaceted-multipartner violence felt 

similarly. 

For physical assault, there are no significant differences with respect to taking 

time off work or telling others about the incident. Approximately 20 percent of victims 

report taking time off work, while 60 % reported speaking to others about the incident. 

For sexual assault, there were also no significant differences with respect to taking time 

off work. There were, however, differences with respect to telling others. In this case, 

victims of both parent-partner and multifaceted-multirelationship violence were more 

likely to report telling others about the incident (75.7 and 75.0 versus 64.2 %). In 

general, post-victimization behavior shows less association with the broader patterns of 

violence across relationships and the life span. Still, there are significant and consistent 

results, notably seeking psychological help and police satisfaction, which may have 

important long-term consequences. 

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.
37

Table 10. Victimization and Post-Violence Behavior, NVAWS, 1995.

I II III X2

Sexual Assault

Sought Medical Care 2.60ns

No 92.6 86.8 93.6

Yes 7.4 13.2 6.3

Sought Psychological Care 20.5***

No 73.2 66.0 51.8

Yes 26.8 34.0 48.2

Took time off work 1.6ns

No 88.9 84.9 85.5

Yes 11.1 15.1 14.6

Police Contacted / Any 3.5ns

No 85.4 84.9 78.3

Yes 14.6 15.1 21.7

Police Contacted / Victim 0.7ns

No 91.5 90.6 89.2

Yes 8.5 9.4 10.8

Police Satisfaction

Very dissatisfied 26.5 12.5 39.1 11.7*

Dissatisfied 10.8 12.5 30.4

Satisfied 34.9 25.0 13.0

Very satisfied 27.7 50.0 17.4

Told others

No 35.8 25.0 24.3 7.34**

Yes 64.2 75.0 75.7

Pattern of Victimization

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.
38

Table 10 (cont'd). Victimization and Post-Violence Behavior, NVAWS, 1995.

I II III X2

Physical Assault

Sought Medical Care 5.8**

No 90.2 80.4 87.3

Yes 9.8 19.6 12.7

Sought Psychological Care 10.5***

No 79.3 66.7 68.8

Yes 20.7 33.3 31.2

Took time off work 3.5ns

No 86.7 80.4 81.7

Yes 13.3 19.6 18.4

Police Contacted / Any 8.7**

No 71.8 66.7 84.3

Yes 28.2 33.3 15.7

Police Contacted / Victim 2.6ns

No 79.9 82.4 86.1

Yes 20.1 17.7 13.9

Police Satisfaction

Very dissatisfied 18.4 29.4 47.1 13.9**

Dissatisfied 15.5 29.4 11.8

Satisfied 39.0 23.5 35.3

Very satisfied 27.1 17.7 5.9

Told others

No 40.6 39.2 40.4 .04ns

Yes 59.4 60.8 59.6

Pattern of Victimization

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.
39

IX. General Implications 

 There are three general implications of our findings. First, they highlight the 

diversity of violence against women. While the majority of women are not victimized, 

those that are have very different experiences. For some, violence is somewhat discrete 

and isolated. For others, violence tends to be multifaceted, but largely confined to family 

relationships. For still others, violence is multifaceted and occurs in a variety of 

relationships, both within and beyond the family. This diversity points to the necessity of 

expanding our conceptualization of women’s experiences with violence away from 

discrete forms of violence or violence in discrete relationships. 

 Second, our findings highlight the need to know more about the factors that 

produce variation in the types of victimization that women experience across the life 

span. While our work highlights the importance of early victimization in creating 

cumulative patterns of victimization through later life, they do not explain how early 

victimization produces patterned victimization over the life span. At the same time, we 

highlight the importance of socioeconomic deprivation as a major risk factor but do not 

know why it is important. It may be that poverty and low incomes embed individuals in 

neighborhood and network contexts that are characterized by greater violence. It may 

also be that low economic resources prevent women from leaving abusive relationships 

or limit the choice set in selecting new partners. It may also be that low income coupled 

with fragile interpersonal relationships may create economic imperatives that embed 

women in crime and deviance, thus increasing their risk of victimization in multiple 

contexts. While our analysis of risk factors informs our understanding of risk for 

violence across relationships and the life course, a next stage of research would move 

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.
40

beyond our largely descriptive analyses to start to identify the mechanisms that produce 

patterned victimization over the life span. 

 Related, the NVAWS data, with all its advantages, does not contain a rich set of 

measures that would allow one to examine such issues in detail. As a result, our work 

highlights the need for further data collection that would allow us to understand personal, 

social, and ecological factors that both produce and inhibit the different patterns of 

violence that we identify. Such data should also focus on factors in later life that may 

produce “turning points” in a violent life course, either increasing risk of violence or 

shielding women from the violence they have previously experienced. 

 Finally, our research highlights the myriad costs of violence across a wide number 

of domains. Yet, it does so while also highlighting variation in consequences that 

accompany variation in experiences. While victims of violence suffer in numerous ways, 

including perceived safety, health, and substance use, their experiences are not uniform. 

In particular, multifaceted-multirelationship violence appears to be most detrimental to 

quality of life. Recognizing such variation is important for both developing a better 

understanding of the costs of criminal violence and developing effective responses. 

X. Policy Implications 

 Our findings have implications for public policies in a number of ways. Most 

generally, the variation in victimization experiences that we identify suggests the need to 

tailor interventions so that they can be more readily implemented in the context of ongoing relationships. This would ultimately involve victim services being less uniform 

and more adaptable to patterned victimization. For example, the criminal justice system 

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.
41

may be uniquely beneficial in dealing with isolated violence. In this case, criminal 

justice sanctions can target a specific offender or offenders. In other cases, notably 

parent-partner violence, providing assistance, particularly through financial help, may 

greatly improve women’s ability to leave abusive situations. At the same time, women 

who experience multifaceted-multirelationship violence may benefit more from 

counseling and general relocation assistance. Consideration of effective response begins 

with the recognition of variation in victimization type. 

 Also related, the extensive comorbidity of violence, fear, psychological distress, 

health problems, and substance use may suggest the need for more coordinated services. 

In this respect, there may be substantial benefits from combining victim services with 

medical assistance, counseling, and substance abuse assistance to more effectively deal 

with the myriad consequences of criminal violence. 

 Following from this, diversity in women’s experiences with violence have 

important resource implications. In general, such diversity suggests the importance of 

broad based funding of victim-services beyond those situated within the criminal justice 

system. While criminal justice-based advocates and victim-witness liaisons will continue 

to be important, other services that provide education, job training, jobs, childcare, 

affordable housing, affordable health care, and relocation support may be uniquely 

beneficial in assisting women in escaping violent relationships and violent circumstances. 

In the end, greater inter-agency cooperation that links criminal justice, social service, and 

health service organizations may be key to providing greater options that can be tailored 

to specific patterns of risk across relationships and the life span. 

 Related, those who deal with victims of violence most immediately might 

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.
42

consider the use of diagnostic instruments, similar to those used in medical screening, to 

identify the broader pattern of violence that may not be conveyed through current 

practices. This would facilitate the collection of information that would allow law 

enforcement and practitioners to understand both the broader biography of violence and 

the likely variation in consequences that we have simultaneously identified. The benefit 

of such practices is the ability to more deeply understand the types of risk that individual 

victims encounter and to anticipate the types of collateral problems, social and health 

related, that would warrant intervention. Again, this would provide a foundation for 

tailoring victimization services to individual victims. Against such benefits are potential 

problems of confidentiality and safety. In legal arenas, information gathered by law 

enforcement is typically available to defense attorneys. This creates the possibility that 

such information could be used against a victim in both criminal and civil (e.g., child 

custody) matters. Still, our earlier discussion emphasized the importance of victimsupport outside the criminal justice system. Consistent with this, diagnostic screening 

could take place outside of the evidentiary inquiry that is associated with any typical case 

and be used more in the coordination of services. 

 Finally, the significance of abuse in family of origin in the general patterning of 

multifaceted-multirelationship violence suggests the importance of early intervention. In 

some cases, removing abused children from dangerous situations, increasing public 

awareness of the long-term consequences of such abuse, and providing extensive victim 

services to abused children may go along way towards limiting subsequent victimization 

in later life. Equally important is the necessity of identifying the co-occurrence of partner 

violence and child abuse in order to address both issues simultaneously. Ultimately, this 

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.
43

may be pivotal in preventing the re-victimization of women and children and in 

identifying a key moment in the life span that may set the stage for repeat victimization 

that extends deep into the life course. That multifaceted violence of any sort is generally 

characterized by increased risk of violence from both parents and partners suggests the 

importance of targeted interventions in the family as a means of adequately responding to 

violence against women. 

Appendix A. Analytic Technique

Our examination of patterns of victimization over time and across relationships 

uses latent class analysis. Latent class analysis attempts to account for the association 

between a set of manifest variables by specifying a latent construct that accounts for their 

association.38 However, latent class analysis is distinct from the more traditional latent

variable approaches, notably covariance structure or “LISREL” models, in that it makes 

possible the characterization of a multidimensional discrete latent variable from a crossclassification of two or more observed discrete variables. Most generally, this can be 

expressed as: 

 X

t

EX

mt

BX

jt

AX

it

AB EX π ij mt = π ×π ×...×π ×π ...

... , 

where is the probability that a randomly selected case will be located in the i, j, m, 

t cell, 

AB EX

ij mt

... π ..

AX π it is the conditional probability that a case in class t of the latent variable X will 

be located at level i of variable A, BX π jt is the conditional probability of being at level j of 

variable B, EX π mt is the conditional probability of being at level m of variable E, and is 

the probability of a randomly selected case being at level t of the latent variable X. 

X π t

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.
44

 Importantly, these models are extremely flexible and can address various 

conceptualizations of the relationship between the manifest indicators, including 

associations in which elements are parts of a common system or complex, are 

functionally interdependent, or are effects of a common cause. A latent class approach 

produces a latent variable that defines the relevant classes of violence and the types of 

violence that characterize them. In practical terms, this allows us to assess and identify 

an empirical typology of violence that is characterized by the pattern of violent 

victimization that an individual respondent experiences. Furthermore, this approach 

allows assessment of the “scalability” of items and this permits examination of whether 

all forms of violence cohere in distinct patterns or whether distinct patterns exist for 

specific types of violence. This provides a lens for assessing the utility of prior practices 

of examining the causes and consequences of distinct types of female victimization. 

Three sets of statistics guide our analyses. First, goodness of fit statistics indicate 

a) if a set of variables has any significant association; and b) the number of classes that 

are necessary to adequately represent the data. Our analyses include the likelihood ratio 

chi-square statistic (L2) and its corresponding degrees of freedom and p-value, the index 

of dissimilarity (ID), and the BIC statistic. A non-significant likelihood ratio chi-square 

statistic, an index of dissimilarity less than .05, and a large negative BIC statistic indicate 

a good fit to the data. In general, we look for consistency in fit across indictors. Second, 

conditional probabilities of experiencing specific types of violence indicate the general 

risk associated with particular classes. Such probabilities range from 0 to 1 with higher 

values indicating increased risk. Importantly, conditional probabilities apply to each type 

of violence examined and indicate cumulative risk. In other words, a particular class that 

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.
45

has high probabilities on more than one type of violence indicate multifaceted risk. 

Finally, latent class probabilities associated with particular classes indicate the expected 

probability of the class in the sampled population. As such, they identify the expected 

frequency of a particular class of violence and identify the size of the population that 

could be expected to experience it. This indicated more or less common patterns of 

violence. 

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.
46

Appendix B. Descriptions and Univariate Statistics.

Variable Description Mean SD

Sociodemographics

Respondent's Age Age in years 46.29 15.47

Race Respondents self-reported race

White (1=White; 0=other) 0.75

Black (1 = Black; 0 = other) 0.08

Asian (1 = Asian; 0 = other) 0.01

American Indian (1 = American Indian; 0 = other) 0.01

Mixed (1 = Mixed; 0 = other) 0.05

Ethnicity

Hispanic Respondent's self-reported ethnicity 0.07

(1 = Hispanic; 0 = other)

Employment

Full-time Employed full-time 0.46

Part-time Employed part-time 0.13

Unemployed Unemployed and looking for work 0.03

Student In school 0.02

Other Other 0.36

(1 = Category; 0 = other)

Education Total Educational Attainment 4.72 1.18

(From 1 = no schooling to 7 = postgraduate)

Personal income Total personal income 4.27 2.33

(From 1 = Less than $5000 to 10 = More than $100000)

Household income Total household income 5.78 2.44

(From 1 = Less than $5000 to 10 = More than $100000)

Poverty proxy Lost telephone service in last 12 months 0.03

(1=Yes; 0=No)

Marital status Respondent's marital status

Never Married (1=Never Married; 0 = other) 0.14

Married (1=Married; 0=other) 0.71

Separated (1=Separated; 0=other) 0.03

Divorced (1=Divorced; 0=other) 0.12

Number of marriages Total number of marriages 0.48 0.83

(From 1 to 21)

Parent Respondent has children 0.83

(1=Yes; 0=No)

Number of children Respondent's number of children 2.13 1.61

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.
47

Appendix B (cont'd). Descriptions and Univariate Statistics (cont'd).

Variable Description Mean SD

Perceptions of Saftey

General trends "Would you say that personal safety for women in this country 2.37 0.83

has improved..., gotten worse..., or stayed about the same?"

(From 1 = improved to 3 = gotten worse)

Violent crime "Do you think violent crime is less of a problem, about the same 1.10 0.34

more of a problem?"

(From 1 = less of a problem to 3 = more of a problem)

Sexual harassment "Do you think sexual harassment is less of a problem, about the sam 1.61 0.70

more of a problem?"

(From 1 = less of a problem to 3 = more of a problem)

Sexual assault "Do you think sexual assault is less of a problem, about the same 1.22 0.45

more of a problem?"

(From 1 = less of a problem to 3 = more of a problem)

Personal safety "How concerned are you about your personal safety?" 2.70 1.09

(From 1 = not really concerned to 4 = very concerned)

Stalking safety "How concerned are you personally about being stalked?" 1.95 1.11

(From 1 = not really concerned to 4 = very concerned)

Defense "Do you ever carry something with you to defend yourself 0.31

or to alert other people?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Health and Well-being

Self-perceived health "In general, would you say your health is...? 2.30 1.09

(From 1 = excellent to 5 = poor)

Disability: Physical "Have you ever sustained a serious injury...that is 0.08

disabling or interferes with your normal activities?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Disability: Illness "Do you have a chronic disease or health condition that is 0.15

disabling or interferes with your normal activities?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Disability: Psychological "Do you have a chronic mental health disease or condition... 0.02

disabling or interferes with your normal activities?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Miscarriage "Have you ever had a miscarriage or stillbirth?" 0.26 0.44

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Total Depression Depression inventory based on the SF-36 Health Survey 15.67 4.29

PTSD Post-traumatic stress disorder associated with recent 3.32 1.79

occurrence of spousal violence

Substance use

Alcohol consumption "How many drinks did you average on the days you 0.64 1.25

drank alcohol?"

(From 0 to 20 or more)

Drug use: Tranquilizers "In the past month, have you used tranquilizers, 0.07

sleeping pills, or sedatives?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Drug use: Uppers "In the past month, have you used uppers, 0.00

speed, or amphetamines?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Drug use: Anti-depressants "In the past month, have you used anti-depressants?" 0.05

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Drug use: Pain killers "In the past month, have you used prescription 0.12

pain killers?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Drug use: Marijuana "In the past month, have you used marijuana?" 0.01

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Drug use: Hard drugs "In the past month, have you used any other 0.00

recreational drugs, such as crack, heroin, or angel dust?"

(0 = No; 1 = Yes)

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.
48

Endnotes

 

1

 Kruttschnitt, Candace, with Gartner, Rosemary, and Ferraro, Kathleen, “Women’s involvement in serious 

interpersonal violence,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002): 529-565. 

2

 Crowell, Nancy, and Burgess, Ann, Understanding Violence against Women. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1996: 43. 

3

 Malinowsky-Rummel, R. and Hansen, D, “Long-term consequences of child physical abuse." 

Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993): 68-79. 

4

 Lauritsen, Janet, Laub, John, and Sampson, Robert, “The link between offending and victimization among 

adolescents,” Criminology 29 (1991): 265-291. 

5

 Kruttschnitt, Candace, with Gartner, Rosemary, and Ferraro, Kathleen, “Women’s involvement in serious 

interpersonal violence,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002): 529-565; Malinowsky-Rummel, R. and 

Hansen, D, “Long-term consequences of child physical abuse." Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993): 68-79. 

6

 Hagan, John and McCarthy, Bill. Mean Streets. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 

7

 Follingstad, D., Bradley, R., Laughlin, J., and Burke, L., "Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: 

The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample." Violence and Victims 14 

(1999): 365-80; Kruttschnitt, Candace, with Gartner, Rosemary, and Ferraro, Kathleen, “Women’s 

involvement in serious interpersonal violence,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 7 (2002): 529-565; Testa, 

M. and Dermen, K., The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape." Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 14 (1999): 548-61. 

8

 Skogan, Wesley, “The polls -- a review: The national crime survey redesign,” Public Opinion Quarterly

54 (1990): 256-72. Sacco, Vincent, and Macmillan, Ross, "Victimization and fear of crime: 

Reconceiving a classic issue through a criminal events perspective," In Leslie Kennedy, Robert Meier and 

Vincent Sacco (eds) The Process and Structure of Crime: Criminal Events and Crime Analysis. Advances 

in Criminological Thought vol. 9, New Brunswick: Transaction, 2001: 213-47. 

9

 General discussions and main findings for the NVAWS data are found in Tjaden, Patricia, and 

Thonennes, Nancy, Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from 

the National Violence against Women Survey, Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, NCJ 172837; Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thonennes, 

Tjaden, P. and N. Thoennes. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence 

against Women, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, November 2000, NCJ 183781. 

10 Johnson, Holly, Dangerous Domains. Toronto, CA: Nelson Canada, 1996. 

11 Crowell, Nancy, and Burgess, Ann, Understanding Violence against Women, Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1996. Koss, Mary, “The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence 

incidence estimates,” The Journal of Social Issues, 48(1992): 61-75; Skogan, W. “The polls -- a review: 

The national crime survey redesign,” Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (1990): 256-72. 

12 Sexual assault is generally measured by the item “Has a man or boy ever made or tried to make you have 

sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you?” Variants in the survey included 

specific cues about vaginal sex, oral sex, and anal sex. 

13 Stalking victimization was measured with respect to being “followed or spied” on, being “sent 

unsolicited letters or written correspondences,” receiving “unsolicited calls,” having someone “stand 

outside your home or place of work or recreation,” having someone “show up at places you were even 

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.
49

 

though he or she had no business being there,” leaving “unwanted items for you to find,” trying “to 

communicate with you against your will,” or a variety of volunteered behaviors (e.g., vandalized property). 

Following prior work, we only included acts in which the respondent felt that they “or someone close to 

them would be seriously harmed or killed when [perpetrator] was following or harassing” them or when the 

respondent felt “somewhat frightened” or “very frightened.” 

14 The one exception to this is that sexual assault involving relatives is comparatively greater than physical 

violence from relatives and sexual violence in other relationships. 

15 Respondents were not asked to report either stalking incidents or incidents of sexual assault in childhood 

that involved parents or guardians. 

16 Johnson, Michael, “Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against 

women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(1995): 283-94; Macmillan, Ross, and Gartner, Rosemary, 

“When she brings home the bacon: Labor force participation and risk of spousal violence against women,” 

Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 947-958. 

17 We assess the patterning of violence within relationships by examining goodness of fit statistics for 

models that predict one (functional independence between the different types of violence and no 

patterning), two, three, and four classes of violence. Models that provide a good fit to the data (discussed 

in Appendix A) suggest the optimal number of classes or patterns of violence.

18 Dating violence is a borderline case. It provides a good fit to the data using a .01 and .05 criterion, but 

has BIC statistics that support a more complex model. We assess the nature of the more complex models 

and conducted robustness assessments (see note 4) and concluded that the one-class model was indeed the 

optimal model. 

19 In some cases, the BIC statistic suggested support for a more complex model. In each of these cases, 

we investigated the latent class and conditional probabilities associated with each class. Consistent with 

the problem of “over-fitting,” each of the cases had latent class probabilities that were too small for 

reasonable estimation (less than .01) and had showed considerable distortion from the observed data. We 

further assessed whether a correction for empty cells, specifically the addition of small constants to all cells 

(i.e., 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75) changed the results. It did not. 

20 In this case, a four class model provides a slightly better fit by two of the three criteria and a poorer fit 

by the third. We selected the three class model on the grounds that the additional class was not clearly 

distinguishable from the third class and that its latent class probability was too small for adequate 

estimation (< 0.01). 

21 See discussions in Straus, Murray, “Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and 

violence and other crime in adulthood,” Social Problems 38(1991): 133-54; Kurz, Demi, “Corporal 

punishment and adult use of violence: A critique of ‘Discipline and Deviance,’” Social Problems 38(1991): 

155-**; McCord, Joan, “Questioning the value of punishment,” Social Problems 38(1991): ***-79; Straus, 

Murray, “New theory and old canards about family violence research,” Social Problems, 38(1991): 180-97. 

22 Macmillan, Ross, and Gartner, Rosemary, “When she brings home the bacon: Labor force participation 

and risk of spousal violence against women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 947-958. 

23 Johnson, Michael, “Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against 

women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(1995): 285. 

24 Johnson, Michael, “Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against 

women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(1995): 284. 

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.
50

 

25 Heimer, Karen, “Socioeconomic status, subcultural definitions, and violent delinquency, Social Forces

75(1997): 799-833; Sampson, Robert and John Laub, Crime in the Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 1993; Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, 

CA: Stanford University Press, 1990; Hirschi, Travis, Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press, 1969. 

26 Specifically, we cross classify the three patterns of child victimization with the four patterns of partner 

victimization, and the two categories of relative, date, acquaintance, and stranger victimization. For the 

latter relationships, we simply differentiate between victims and non-victims. This procedure yields a 

general victimization matrix composed of 192 cells. 

27 Like the earlier analyses, we assessed robustness by adding small constants to each cell in order to assess 

the degree to which model selection was being influenced by zero cells. These models confirmed our 

choice of selecting the three class model. 

28 Macmillan, Ross, “Violence and the life course,” Annual Review of Sociology 27(2001): 1-22. 

29 Chi-square statistics provide a general measure of the association between two variables based on the 

degree to which the cell frequencies deviate from those that would be expected by chance alone (see 

discussion in Knoke, David, Bohrnstedt, George, and Mee, Alisa, Statistics for Social Data Analysis, 

Fourth Edition, Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 2002. 

30 We interpret age variation in terms of cohorts on the grounds that our measures of victimization are 

based on lifetime prevalence. 

31 We assessed the robustness of all the following associations in multivariate models that controlled for 

age, age-squared, and race. In all cases, the pattern and statistical significance of results is similar to the 

bivariate associations presented in the text and tables. 

32 As there is not much information provided as to what “other” refers to, it is difficult to interpret the 

meaning of this association. 

33 Sampson, Robert, and Lauritsen, Janet, “Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, 

and community-level risk factors,” In Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 3, Social 

Influences, eds. Albert Reiss and Jeffrey Roth, Washington, DC: National Research Council: 1-114. 

34 It is worth noting that respondents who did not report their personal or household income report the 

lowest exposure to violence. This is consistent the idea that those who fail to report income have higher 

incomes. Analysis of the relationship between employment, race, and educational attainment in the 

NVAWS data support this interpretation. 

35 We examined the degree to which race, employment, educational attainment, and income were 

associated with not having a telephone. In all cases, the associations were strong and in the expected 

direction (e.g., unemployed women were much more likely to report not having phone service in the prior 

year). This supports our contention that not having a telephone serves as a reasonable proxy for more 

extreme economic deprivation. 

36 See for example, Reiss, Albert and Roth, Jeffrey, Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 4, 

Consequences and Control, Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1993. 

37 While we report the bivariate associations in the tables and text, we assessed all effects in a multivariate 

model that controlled for age, race, employment status, education, being poor, marital status, and 

parenthood. With few exceptions, the results are similar to those discussed in the text. In the few cases 

where differences did appear, this appeared to reflect changes in statistical power rather than substantive 

change. 

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.
51

 

38 See discussions in Clogg, Clifford, “Latent Class Analysis.” In Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the 

Social and Behavioral sciences, eds. Gerhart Arminger, Clifford Clogg and Michael Sobel, New York: 

Plenum Press, 1995 and McCutcheon, Allan, Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage, 1987. 

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.