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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: 

Author(s): 

Document No.: 

Date Received: 

Award Number: 

Documentation for Analysis of Violence Against 

American Indian and Alaska Native Women and 

Men: 2010 Findings from the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) by

the National Institute Of Justice

André B. Rosay, Ph.D. 

250087

July 2016

2012-PJ-BX-K001 

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

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally 

funded grant report available electronically. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE 

WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL 

INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

André B. Rosay, Ph.D.

Executive Visiting Research Fellow, National Institute of Justice

Director, University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center

3211 Providence Drive; Anchorage, AK 99508

(907) 786‐1821; abrosay@uaa.alaska.edu

November 2015

This project was supported by Award No. 2012‐PJ‐BX‐K001, awarded by the National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.    The opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

the Department of Justice.

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.
Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women And Men: 2010 Findings From the 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)

Crosswalk Document

To conform to ICPSR file naming conventions, data and documentation files have been assigned new file

names that differ from those assigned by the original data producer.  Throughout the documentation,

users may notice that the data files are referenced by their original names.  Please refer to the table

below to link the old and new file names.

File Description Technical Documentation name ICPSR file prefix

General Population Raw Data NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV 36140‐0001

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Oversample Raw Data NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV 36140‐0002

Respondent‐level Data FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV 36140‐0003

Perpetrator‐level Data FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV 36140‐0004

Weights File FINAL WEIGHTS.SAV 36140‐0005

There are several other data files listed in the Technical Report.  Users should consult the syntax files

(Appendix A) in order to understand the construction of these files.

For more detailed information about this data collection, please consult the Technical Report.

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) includes eight victimization sections

(psychological aggression [PA], coercive control and entrapment [CCE], physical violence [PV], elder

abuse – psychological aggression [EPA], elder abuse – coercive control and entrapment [ECCE], elder

abuse – physical violence [EPV], stalking [S], and sexual violence [SV]).  This document summarizes the

structure of the NISVS data and explains how analysis files were created from the original data files

provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  All of the NISVS analyses by the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) should be replicable with the following documentation.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of this technical report, and describes the sequence of tasks that NIJ

performed to create composites from the original data files.  A broad overview on the structure of the

NISVS data is then presented in Chapter 2 (additional information is available in CDC documents).  More

specifically, Chapter 2 provides a summary of (a) how CDC variable names were changed to a simpler

structure and (b) perpetrator identifiers can be tracked from question to question, and across sections.   

Chapter 3 provides an overview of how data were extracted, merged, checked, and cleaned in each

victimization section (PA to SV).  An overview on sampling and weighting is provided in Chapter 4

(additional information is available in RTI documents).

Specific details for each section of the NISVS survey are then provided in Chapters 5 through 12.  

Chapter 13 provides a detailed summary of data cleaning.  Respondent level files are created in Chapter

14 and perpetrator level files are created in Chapters 15 through 17.   

Chapter 18 provides an overview of the stalking follow‐up questions.  Victimization estimates are then

computed in Chapter 19.

An overview of the sexual violence follow‐up section is presented in Chapter 20.  Chapter 21 provides an

overview of the general follow‐up section, Chapter 22 provides an overview of the intimate partner

section, Chapter 23 provides an overview of the respondent characteristics section, and Chapter 24

provides an overview of the health section.

Final data files are then created and documented in Chapter 25.  Final codebooks are available

separately (see Appendix B and C).  Chapter 26 provides documentation for all tables and figures in the

full report of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and men.  All syntax files are

included in Appendix A.

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 – Overview of Technical Report 6

A. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey   6

B. Data Files and Documentation from CDC And RTI 7

C. Overview of NIJ Data Cleaning Process 8

D. Analysis Challenges   14

Chapter 2 – Structure of NISVS Data 17

A. New Variable Names 17

B. Structure of NISVS Data 23

Chapter 3 – Data Preparation Steps 27

A. Data Extraction 27

B. Data Merge and Data Checks for Core Victimization Sections 28

Chapter 4 – Sampling and Weighting 29

A. Sampling for the General Population Sample 29

B. Sample Weights in the General Population Sample 31

C. Sampling for American Indian and Alaska Native Oversample 32

D. Combined American Indian and Alaska Native Sample 34

E. Sample Weights for the Combined American Indian and Alaska Native Sample 35

Chapter 5 – Psychological Aggression 41

A. Data Merge 41

B. Data Checks 41

C. Data Problems 43

Chapter 6 – Coercive Control and Entrapment 45

A. Data Merge 45

B. Data Checks 46

C. Data Problems 48

Chapter 7 – Physical Violence 54

A. Data Merge 54

B. Data Checks 55

C. Data Problems 57

Chapter 8 – Elder Abuse: Psychological Aggression 61

A. Data Merge 61

B. Data Checks 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.
3

C. Data Problems 62

Chapter 9 – Elder Abuse: Coercive Control and Entrapment 64

A. Data Merge 64

B. Data Checks 65

C. Data Problems 66

Chapter 10 – Elder Abuse: Physical Violence 68

A. Data Merge 68

B. Data Checks 69

C. Data Problems 70

Chapter 11 – Stalking 71

A. Data Merge 72

B. Data Checks 72

C. Data Problems 74

Chapter 12 – Sexual Violence 82

A. Data Merge 85

B. Data Checks 86

C. Data Problems 89

Chapter 13 – Data Cleaning 96

A. More Initials than Expected 96

B. Fewer Initials than Expected 96

C. Duplicate Initials 98

D. Missing Data Recodes 100

E. Data Cleaning Summaries 101

F. Data Checks 159

G. Syntax and Data Files 159

Chapter 14 – Core Respondent‐Level File 163

A. Creation of Core Respondent‐Level File 163

B. Data Cleaning for PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections 163

C. Data Cleaning for EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections 165

D. Final Recodes and Value Labels 167

E. Analysis File: Recodes for Respondents with 15 or More Lifetime Perpetrators 167

Chapter 15 – Initial Perpetrator‐Level File 170

Chapter 16 – Relationships 172

A. Perpetrator‐Level File for Relationship Section 173

B. Data Checking and Cleaning 174

Chapter 17 – Final Perpetrator‐Level File 182

A. Creation of Final Perpetrator‐Level File 182

B. Data Cleaning by Gender of Perpetrator 182

C. Data Cleaning for PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections – First and Second Quarters 184

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

D. Data Cleaning for PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections – Third and Fourth Quarters 189

E. Data Cleaning for EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections 193

F. Limitations of Data Cleaning 194

Chapter 18 – Stalking Follow‐Up Section 197

A. Extracting the Stalking Follow‐Up Data 197

B. Data Cleaning 197

C. Full Perpetrator‐Level Stalking Data File 199

Chapter 19 – Core Measures of Victimization 202

A. Differences between CDC and NIJ Analysis Plans for Sexual Violence 203

B. Differences between CDC and NIJ Analysis Plans for Stalking 213

C. Differences between CDC and NIJ Analysis Plans for Intimate Partner Violence 215

D. Key Differences in Data Analysis 217

E. Completed Forced Penetration 219

F. Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration 222

G. Attempted Forced Penetration 225

H. Sexual Violence with Penetration 226

I. Sexual Coercion 227

J. Unwanted Sexual Contact 228

K. Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences 229

L. Other Sexual Violence 230

M. Sexual Violence 231

N. Stalking 232

O. Being Slapped, Pushed or Shoved by Intimate Partners 238

P. Severe Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 238

Q. Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 240

R. Expressive Aggression by Intimate Partners 241

S. Coercive Control by Intimate Partners 242

T. Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 244

U. Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health by Intimate Partners 245

Chapter 20 – Sexual Violence Follow‐Up Section 247

A. Data Extractions 247

B. Data Checks And Data Cleaning For Respondent‐Level Data 248

C. Data Checks And Data Cleaning For Perpetrator‐Level Data 250

Chapter 21 – General Follow‐Up Section 255

A. Data Structure 255

B. Data Extraction 264

C. Data Cleaning 267

D. Final Perpetrator‐Level File For General Follow‐Up Data 270

E. Final Respondent‐Level File For General Follow‐Up Data 271

Chapter 22 – Intimate Partner Section 274

A. Data Merge 274

B. Data Checking and Cleaning 275

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

Chapter 23 – Respondent Characteristics Section 277

A. Data Merge 278

B. Data Checking and Cleaning 278

Chapter 24 – Health Section 284

A. Data Merge 284

B. Data Checking and Cleaning 285

Chapter 25 – Final Data Files 286

A. Final Perpetrator‐Level Data 286

B. Final Respondent‐Level Data 295

Chapter 26 – Violence against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men 300

A. Samples 300

B. Sample Characteristics 304

C. Perpetrator Race and Ethnicity 308

D. Computing Core Measures of Victimization 309

E. Data Analysis 314

F. Important Limitations for all Estimates 315

G. Sexual Violence 316

H. Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 328

I. Stalking 335

J. Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 339

K. Violence 349

L. Impact of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners, Stalking, and Sexual Violence 353

M. Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios 357

N. Final Analysis Files 389

Appendices (included separately)

A. Syntax Files

B. Codebook for Final Perpetrator‐Level File (FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV)

C. Codebook for Final Respondent‐Level File (FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV)

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL REPORT  

This chapter provides a brief summary of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

(NISVS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and their contractor RTI

International.  It identifies the data files and documentation that were used by the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) and provides an overview of this technical report.  It summarizes NIJ’s data cleaning process

and identifies some of the common data problems that analysts should pay attention to.  Although this

is a lengthy report, analysts are cautioned to not use the final data files created in Chapter 25 without

first understanding the lengthy process that was used to create these final data files.

A. NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY

The following summary is provided by National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD, ICPSR 34305):

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally

representative survey that assessed experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner

violence among adult women and men in the United States and for each individual state. The

survey focused exclusively on violence and collected information about:

(1) Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to

penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contact

unwanted sexual experiences;  

(2) Stalking, including the use of newer technologies such as text messages, emails,

monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by

perpetrators known and unknown to the victim;  

(3) Physical violence by an intimate partner;

(4) Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive

forms of aggression and coercive control; and  

(5) Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner.  

In addition to collecting lifetime and 12 month prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and

intimate partner violence, the survey collects information on the age at the time of the first

victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, demographic characteristics of

perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and detailed information about the context in which these

types of violence occur.  The primary objectives of the survey are to describe the prevalence and

characteristics ofsexual violence,stalking, and intimate partner violence in the United States; who

is most likely to experience these forms of violence; the context in which sexual violence, stalking,

and intimate partner violence are experienced; and the consequences and impacts of these forms

of violence.  

The NISVS survey was launched in 2010 by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (US

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), with the support of the National Institute of Justice and the

Department of Defense.  In 2010, data were collected from three samples – a general population sample

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

of adult women and men, an oversample of American Indian and Alaska Native women and men, and a

sample of female active duty military and female spouses of active duty military.  This technical report

provides a detailed description of the NIJ data cleaning and analysis activities for the first two of these

samples – the general population sample (N = 18,957) and the American Indian and Alaska Native

oversample (N = 3,612).

The NISVS survey includes 15 sections.  These are:

Section RC Respondent Characteristics

Section H Health

Section PA Psychological Aggression

Section CCE Coercive Control and Entrapment

Section PV Physical Violence

Section EPA Elder Abuse: Psychological Aggression

Section ECCE Elder Abuse: Coercive Control and Entrapment

Section EPV Elder Abuse: Physical Violence

Section ST Stalking

Section STFU Stalking Follow‐Up

Section SV Sexual Violence

Section SVFU Sexual Violence Follow‐Up

Section R Relationships

Section GFU General Follow‐Up

Section IP Intimate Partners

Chapter 2 provides a detailed overview of the NISVS data structure.  Data are available at both the

respondent‐level and the perpetrator‐level.

For additional information about the NISVS survey and data, analysts should refer to the CDC website

(www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/index.html) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

(NACJD) website (www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/34305).   

B. DATA FILES AND DOCUMENTATION FROM CDC AND RTI

All NIJ analyses were based on three data files from CDC and RTI.  These included SAS data sets

containing the general population sample data (“nisvs_generalpop_2010” with 18,957 observations and

26,111 variables), the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample data (“nisvs2010aianfinal” with

3,612 observations and 22,934 variables), and the weights for the combined American Indian and Alaska

Native sample (“wtfinal2010_aian_with_genpop” with 3,978 observations and nine variables).  This

combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample is described in Chapter 4.

The NIJ analyses were informed by the following documentation:

(1) The NISVS 2010 Summary Report (“NISVS 2010 Summary Report”, 124 pages),

(2) An orientation to the analysis of the 2010 NISVS raw data produced by CDC/RTI (“Orientation to

Analysis of 2010 NISVS Gen Popn”, 12 pages),

(3) The survey instrument used during the first two quarters of 2010 (“2010_NISVS Q1 instrument”,

60 pages)

(4) The survey instrument used during the last two quarters of 2010 (“2010 NISVSS Q3 Q4 specs”,

54 pages)

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

(5) The codebook for the general population sample (“NISVSS_Final2010QuestionnaireCodebook_4‐

15‐11”, 1,262 pages),

(6) A methods report for the general population sample (“2010 Gen Pop Methodology

Report_final_v3_clean”, 142 pages),

(7) The codebook for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample

(“NISVSS_Final2010_AIAN_QuestionnaireCodebook_Delivered”, 1,261 pages),

(8) A methods report for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample (“AI AN Meth

Report_FINAL”, 82 pages), and  

(9) A summary of the weighting plan for the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample

described in Chapter 4 (“Weighting plan and implementation – combine AIAN with genpop

2012‐12‐05 Final”, 19 pages).

New documentation was subsequently created by CDC and revised by NACJD.  Analysts are encouraged

to retrieve and use the new documentation available at the NACJD (ICPSR 34305).  These include a new

codebook, new documentation, a new questionnaire, and a new user guide.

All original data files and documentation used by NIJ can be found in the “CDC” folder:

C. OVERVIEW OF NIJ DATA CLEANING PROCESS

This technical report begins with a broad overview on the structure of the NISVS data in Chapter 2.   

Chapter 3 provides an overview of how data were extracted, merged, checked, and cleaned in each core

victimization section (from the Psychological Aggression section to the Sexual Violence section).  The

“GET NISVS DATA” folder includes the “EXPORT DATA TO SPSS” SAS system program file to convert the

SAS data files for the general population sample and the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample

into SPSS data files (“NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” and “NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV”).  

Chapter 4 provides details on weighting and sampling.  The weights for the general population sample

are included in the “NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” data file.  Weights for the American Indian and Alaska

Native oversample are included in the “NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV” data file, but these are incorrect and

should not be used.  Instead, new weights were created for a sample that combined the respondents

from the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample with the respondents from the general

population sample who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.  This combined

sample is included in the “AIAN SAMPLE.SAV” data file.  The correct weights for the combined sample

are included in the “wtfinal2010_aian_with_genpop” data file and are saved, along with demographic

data, in the “FINAL WEIGHTS.SAV” data file.   

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

In Chapters 5 through 12, the data from the core victimization sections are merged and checked.  These

core victimization sections include:

Psychological Aggression (PA) Chapter 5

Coercive Control and Entrapment (CCE)    Chapter 6

Physical Violence (PV) Chapter 7

Elder Abuse: Psychological Aggression (EPA)    Chapter 8

Elder Abuse: Coercive Control and Entrapment (ECCE) Chapter 9

Elder Abuse: Physical Violence (EPV)    Chapter 10

Stalking (ST)   Chapter 11

Sexual Violence (SV) Chapter 12

In each of these chapters, there are three sections – (A) Data Merge, (B) Data Checks, and (C) Data

Problems.  Section (A) simply extracts the core victimization data from the general population sample

data (in “NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV”) and the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample data (in

“NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV”). Respondent identifiers (ZRID) are recoded to include a “1” at the end if

the respondent is from the general population sample or a “2” at the end if the respondent is from the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  All variables are renamed and relabeled (details are

provided in subsequent chapters).  In addition, all values are relabeled.  Each core victimization section

has its own folder (PA to SV).  Each PA to SV folder has a “MERGE xxxx DATA” folder (where “xxxx” is the

core victimization section identifier, from PA to SV).  Each “MERGE xxxx DATA” folder has a “CREATE

xxxx FILES.SPS” syntax file which creates a “FINAL xxxx .SAV” data file.   

In Section (B) of Chapters 5 through 12, extensive data checks are performed to identify problem cases.  

These data checks are included in the “xxxx DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax files (which are included in the

“xxxx DATA CHECK” folders). Data problems are then summarized in Section (C), but are not corrected

until Chapter 13.

To summarize the work in Chapters 3 and 5 through 12, the original data from the general population

sample are included in the “NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” data file and the original data from the American

Indian and Alaska Native oversample are included in the “NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV” data file.  A

combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample was created.  It includes all respondents from the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  It also includes the respondents in the general

population sample who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.  This sample is

included in the “AIAN SAMPLE.SAV” data file and the weights for this sample are included in the “FINAL

WEIGHTS.SAV” data file.  For each core victimization section (PA to SV), data are merged and checked.  

Table 1.1.  Data Merges for Core Victimization Sections

Section Chapter Folder Syntax File Data File

PA 5 PA\MERGE PA DATA CREATE PA FILES.SPS FINAL PA.SAV

CCE 6 CCE\MERGE CCE DATA CREATE CCE FILES.SPS FINAL CCE.SAV

PV 7 PV\MERGE PV DATA CREATE PV FILES.SPS FINAL PV.SAV

EPA 8 EPA\MERGE EPA DATA CREATE EPA FILES.SPS FINAL EPA.SAV

ECCE 9 ECCE\MERGE ECCE DATA CREATE ECCE FILES.SPS FINAL ECCE.SAV

EPV 10 EPV\MERGE EPV DATA CREATE EPV FILES.SPS FINAL EPV.SAV

ST 11 ST\MERGE ST DATA CREATE ST FILES.SPS FINAL ST.SAV

SV 12 SV\MERGE SV DATA CREATE SV FILES.SPS FINAL SV.SAV

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

Table 1.2.  Data Checks for Core Victimization Sections

Section Chapter Folder Syntax File

PA 5 PA\PA DATA CHECK PA DATA CHECKS.SPS

CCE 6 CCE\CCE DATA CHECK CCE DATA CHECKS.SPS

PV 7 PV\PV DATA CHECK PV DATA CHECKS.SPS

EPA 8 EPA\EPA DATA CHECK EPA DATA CHECKS.SPS

ECCE 9 ECCE\ECCE DATA CHECK ECCE DATA CHECKS.SPS

EPV 10 EPV\EPV DATA CHECK EPV DATA CHECKS.SPS

ST 11 ST\ST DATA CHECK ST DATA CHECKS.SPS

SV 12 SV\SV DATA CHECK SV DATA CHECKS.SPS

Data are then cleaned in Chapter 13, to address three types of problems found in Chapters 5 through

12. Some respondents provided more perpetrator initials than expected.  Some provided fewer

perpetrator initials than expected.  Finally, some provided duplicate perpetrator initials.  When

necessary, perpetrator initials were recoded to “REC## xxxx”, where “xxxx” are the first four characters

in the perpetrator’s original initials and “##” is the nth recode of those perpetrator initials.  Missing

perpetrator initials were recoded to “REC## MISSING”, where “##” is the nth recoded initial.  Some of the

missing data are also recoded in Chapter 13 (others are recoded in subsequent chapters).   Detailed data

cleaning summaries for each respondent are provided in Chapter 13.  All data cleaning is included in the

“NISVS RECODES.SPS” syntax file (in the “CLEAN NISVS” folder).  This syntax file creates eight clean data

files – “CLEAN PA.SAV”, “CLEAN CCE.SAV”, “CLEAN PV.SAV”, “CLEAN EPA.SAV”, “CLEAN ECCE.SAV”,

“CLEAN EPV.SAV”, “CLEAN ST.SAV”, and “CLEAN SV.SAV”.

These eight data files are added together in Chapter 14 to create the “NISVS CORE.SAV” data file.  All

missing data are recoded and a clean data file is saved as “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV”.  An analysis data file

is also created.  In this analysis data file, additional recodes are performed for respondents who were

victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators.  This analysis data file is saved as “CLEAN CORE

ANALYSIS.SAV”.

To summarize the work in Chapters 13 and 14, data cleaning is first achieved in Chapter 13.  Eight new

data files (one for each core victimization section) are created (“CLEAN PA.SAV”, “CLEAN CCE.SAV”,

“CLEAN PV.SAV”, “CLEAN EPA.SAV”, “CLEAN ECCE.SAV”, “CLEAN EPV.SAV”, “CLEAN ST.SAV”, and “CLEAN

SV.SAV”).  These eight data files are added to create the “NISVS CORE.SAV” data file.  Missing data are

recoded and the new data file is saved as “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV”.  An analysis file (“CLEAN CORE

ANALYSIS.SAV”) is also created.  It includes additional recodes for respondents who reported being

victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators.   

An initial perpetrator‐level file is then created in Chapter 15.  The “CREATE NISVS PERP.SPS” syntax file

uses the eight clean core victimization data files from Chapter 13 to create the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data

file.   

Perpetrator‐level data from the relationships section of the NISVS survey are extracted and cleaned in

Chapter 16.  The “CREATE R FILES.SPS” syntax file creates the “R PERP.SAV” data file.  Data are then

checked and recoded in the “R DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.  The cleaned data are then saved in the

“CLEAN R.SAV” data file.

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

In Chapter 17, a new perpetrator‐level file is created by the “CREATE FINAL NISVS PERP.SPS” syntax file.  

This syntax file simply adds the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data file from Chapter 15 to the “CLEAN R.SAV” data

file from Chapter 16.  These data are saved in the “FINAL NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.  These perpetrator‐

level data are then cleaned in two syntax files (“CLEAN NISVS PERP 1.SPS” and “CLEAN NISVS PERP

2.SPS”) and the final clean data are saved in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.

In Chapter 18, the data from the stalking follow‐up section of the NISVS survey are extracted (in the

“CREATE ST PERP.SPS” syntax file), checked (in the “ST PERP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file), and cleaned

(in the “ST PERP DATA CLEANING.SPS” syntax file).  The cleaned stalking follow‐up data are then saved in

the “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV” data file.  The “CREATE FULL ST PERP.SPS” syntax file then merges these data

with the clean perpetrator‐level data from Chapter 17 (in “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV”) to create the

“FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file.

To summarize the work in Chapters 15 through 18, an initial perpetrator‐level file is created in Chapter

15 (“NISVS PERP.SAV”).  Data from the relationships section of the NISVS survey are extracted, checked,

and cleaned in Chapter 16.  The clean relationship data are saved in the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file.  These

two data sets are then merged in Chapter 17.  After additional data cleaning, the new data are saved in

the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.  The stalking follow‐up data are extracted, checked, and

cleaned in Chapter 18.  The clean stalking follow‐up data are saved in the “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV” data file.  

In addition, a data file is created to combine these data with those in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS

PERP.SAV” data file.  Data are then saved in the “FULL ST PERP.SAV”.

Preliminary victimization estimates are computed in Chapter 19.  It is important to note that while these

estimates are correct, their standard errors are not (correct standard errors are not calculated until

Chapter 26).  The NIJ victimization measures are different than the CDC victimization measures.  For

estimates of sexual violence, the NIJ analyses use mutually exclusive categories of victimization and only

include measures of sexual violence (the CDC analyses do not).  For estimates of stalking, the NIJ

analyses require respondents to be afraid or to experience things that would cause a reasonable person

to be afraid (while the CDC analyses require respondents to feel very fearful or to believe that someone

close to them would be harmed or killed).  For estimates of intimate partner violence, the NIJ analyses

are restricted to victimizations by current or former intimate partners (the CDC analyses are not).  In

addition to these fundamental differences, all of the NIJ analyses are different because of differences in

data cleaning and data analysis.  In particular, missing data were recoded to zero in CDC’s analysis while

they are not in NIJ’s analysis.  As a result of these differences, the NIJ and CDC victimization measures

are difficult to compare.  When results are somewhat comparable, side‐by‐side comparisons of the NIJ

and CDC estimates are provided in Chapter 19.

The stalking composites are created in the “STALKING COMPOSITES.SPS” syntax file.  All other

composites are created in the “CORE COMPOSITES.SPS” syntax file.  The stalking data are saved in the

“STALKING CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file, while the other composites are saved in the “CORE

WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file.  SAS programs (“WEIGHTED MEANS.SAS” and “STALKING WEIGHTED

MEANS.SAS”) then compute the final point estimates.   

In Chapters 20 through 24, the data from the remaining sections of the NISVS survey are extracted,

checked, and cleaned.  These remaining sections include the sexual violence follow‐up section (Chapter

20), the general follow‐up section (Chapter 21), the intimate partner section (Chapter 22), the

respondent characteristics section (Chapter 23), and the health section (Chapter 24).

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

The sexual violence follow‐up data are available at both the respondent‐level and perpetrator‐level.  The

respondent‐level data are extracted in the “CREATE RESP SVFU.SPS” syntax file and are saved in the

“RESP SVFU.SAV” data file.  The perpetrator‐level data are extracted in the “CREATE PERP SVFU.SPS”

syntax file and are saved in the “PERP SVFU.SAV” data file.  The respondent‐level data are then checked

and cleaned in the “SVFU RESP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.  The cleaned respondent‐level data are

saved in the “CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV” data file.  The perpetrator‐level data are checked and cleaned in

the “SVFU PERP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file and the cleaned perpetrator‐level data are saved in the

“CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV” data file.

The general follow‐up data are extracted in the “CREATE GFU PERP FILE.SPS” syntax file and are saved in

the “FINAL GFU PERP.SAV” data file.  Data are cleaned in the “GFU DATA CLEANING.SPS” syntax file and

the cleaned data are saved in the “CLEAN GFU.SAV” data file.  A respondent‐level file (“CLEAN R

GFU.SAV”) is then created by the “CREATE CLEAN R GFU.SPS” syntax file and a perpetrator‐level file

(“CLEAN P GFU.SAV”) is created by the “CREATE CLEAN P GFU.SPS” syntax file.  It is important to note

that the majority of the skip patterns in the general follow‐up section appear to have been incorrectly

documented in the survey instruments.  Details are available in Chapter 21 (and in the “GFU PERP

SELECTION” folder).

Data from the intimate partner section of the NISVS survey are extracted and cleaned in Chapter 22.  

The “CREATE IP FILES.SPS” syntax file creates the “FINAL IP.SAV” data file.  Data are then checked and

cleaned in the “CLEAN IP FILES.SPS” syntax file, and are saved in the “CLEAN IP.SAV” data file.

Data from the respondent characteristics section of the NISVS survey are extracted and cleaned in

Chapter 23.  The “CREATE RC FILES.SPS” syntax file creates the “FINAL RC.SAV” data file.  Data are then

checked and cleaned in the “CLEAN RC FILE.SPS” syntax file, and are saved in the “CLEAN RC.SAV” data

file.

Finally, data from the health section of the NISVS survey are extracted and cleaned in Chapter 24.  Data

are extracted by the “CREATE H FILES.SPS” syntax file and are saved in the “FINAL H.SAV” data file.  Data

are then checked and cleaned in the “CLEAN H FILE.SPS” syntax file, and are saved in the “CLEAN H.SAV”

data file.

Final perpetrator‐level and respondent‐level data files are then created in Chapter 25.  In these final

data files, all missing data are carefully documented.  Different values and labels are used to

differentiate between data that are unknown and data that are not applicable.  When not applicable,

reasons are included in all value labels.  All new variables and composites are also carefully documented.  

Details are available in this technical report, in codebooks, and in syntax files.  

The “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SPS” syntax file combines all perpetrator‐level files (i.e., the “FINAL CLEAN

NISVS PERP.SAV” data file from Chapter 17, the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file from Chapter 18, the

“CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV” data file from Chapter 20, and the “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” data file from Chapter

21).  The final perpetrator‐level data file is the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file.  It includes 51,535

observations and 442 variables.  A detailed codebook is available in Appendix B.

The “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SPS” syntax file combines all respondent‐level data (i.e., from the “CLEAN

NISVS CORE.SAV” data file from Chapter 14, the “CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” and “STALKING CORE WITH

WEIGHTS.SAV” data files from Chapter 19, the “CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV” data file from Chapter 20, the

“CLEAN R GFU.SAV” data file from Chapter 21, the “CLEAN IP.SAV” data file from Chapter 22, the “CLEAN

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

RC.SAV” data file from Chapter 23, and the “CLEAN H.SAV” data file from Chapter 24).  The final

respondent‐level data file is the “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file.  It includes 21,378 observations and

493 variables.  A detailed codebook is available in Appendix C.

Chapter 26 provides all of the technical documentation for the analyses and results included in the final

report on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and men.  These analyses are

based on the final data files created in Chapter 25.

The summary above is not comprehensive.  Details on additional files are provided in subsequent

chapters.  The data cleaning process summarized in this technical report was performed over a three

year period.  The code was not written to be the most efficient possible.  In some cases, values were

recoded in one chapter only be recoded again in a subsequent chapter.  As stated above, it is important

for analysts to understand how the final data files were created before using these files for analysis.   

All NIJ data cleaning and transformations were performed in SPSS (Version 21).  All syntax files are

available in Appendix A.  At the beginning of each syntax file, comments are used to document all of the

data files that were used and produced.  There are several SPSS commands that will greatly facilitate

data cleaning.  Given the very large number of variables in the NISVS data sets, analysts will be far more

efficient if they are familiar with DO REPEAT commands and VECTOR data declarations.  The DO REPEAT

command will execute the same transformation on a set of variables.  The VECTOR command will create

a set of indexed variables.  For example, if an analyst wanted to create 22 new variables (X1 to X22) all

equal to 1, the analyst could compute each variable:  

COMPUTE X1 = 1.

COMPUTE X2 = 1.

...

COMPUTE X22 = 1.

Alternatively, the following VECTOR and DO REPEAT commands could be used:

VECTOR X(22).

DO REPEAT X = X1 TO X22.

COMPUTE X = 1.

END REPEAT.

Although these commands can only be used for data transformations, they are often helpful to compare

lifetime and past year values.  For example, DO REPEAT commands can be used to efficiently check that

the number of past year victimizations (PAST#) does not exceed the number of lifetime victimizations

(LIFE#).  An analyst could write the following code to verify that the lifetime number (LIFE1) is equal to

or greater than the past year number (PAST1):

COMPUTE ERROR = 0.

IF LIFE1 LT PAST1 ERROR = 1.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES = ERROR.  

If there are 22 victimization measures (as there are in the sexual violence section), this code would then

be repeated 22 times.  Alternatively, the following VECTOR and DO REPEAT commands could be used to

check all 22 measures at the same time:

VECTOR ERROR(22).

DO REPEAT X = LIFE1 TO LIFE22 /Y =PAST1 TO PAST22 /E = ERROR1 TO ERROR22.

IF X LT Y E = 1.

END REPEAT.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES ERROR1 TO ERROR22.

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

Because data transformations are often complex, it is also helpful to be familiar with the structure of DO

IF commands (i.e., DO IF, ELSE IF, and END IF) and LAG functions.  Finally, COUNT commands are helpful

to count values across variables.  To determine if any of the lifetime numbers (from LIFE1 to LIFE22) are

missing (‐9), an analyst could use the following COUNT command:

COUNT N_MISS = LIFE1 TO LIFE22 (‐9).

The new variable N_MISS would then include the number of ‐9 values in LIFE1 to LIFE22.  Additional

explanations are available in the SPSS Syntax Guide.  Other standard commands are also commonly used

(e.g., SORT CASES, AGGREGATE, VARSTOCASES, ADD FILES, MATCH FILES).

All estimates were calculated using survey analysis procedures available in SAS (Version 9.3).  These

include the SURVEYFREQ and SURVEYMEANS procedures.

D. ANALYSIS CHALLENGES

The analysis of the 2010 NISVS data is severely hindered by a lack of documentation for both the data

and CDC analysis.  In particular, there are often discrepancies between the original data, the original

surveys, and the original codebooks.

The original codebooks do not appear to be accurate.  For example, the original codebook for the

general population sample includes the following description for the PA2_PAi variables:

However, the data for the PA2_PAi variables do not include YES/NO values.  Instead, they include

perpetrator identifiers (this problem is described further in Chapter 2).

The original surveys also do not appear to be accurate.  For example, the original survey of the general

population sample includes the following instructions at the beginning of the stalking follow‐up section:

However, stalking follow‐up questions were asked for every perpetrator whose initials were collected in

the stalking section (note: this problem is also found on the questionnaire that CDC archived with

NACJD).  This problem is described further in Chapter 18.

Was it {fill: 1st set of initials}? 

1 YES {go to PA2_PAb} 

2 NO {if any other initials recorded, ask PA2_PAi for 2nd set of initials; 

3rd set of initials, etc. until all have been asked; if no other initials 

recorded, go to PA2_PAa} 

-1 (VOL) DK 

-2 (VOL) RF 

Variable Name: PA_I_2_PAi_1 

Variable Label: PA2 Ever: IP told you that you weren't good enough? Was it: Perp 1? 

(NOTE: one behavior, one time gets no follow‐up questions – for stalking either has to be

more than one behavior at least one time, or one behavior more than one time)

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

These are just two examples of the many problems in the original codebooks and surveys.  In all NIJ

analyses, we always assumed that the data were more accurate than the surveys and codebooks.  When

discrepancies between the data, surveys, and codebooks were found, we assumed that the data were

correct.  We then produced documentation for these data.

It is also important to note that the NIJ analyses never relied on variables that were created by CDC or

RTI without documentation.  This is an important difference between the data sets that were produced

by NIJ and the dataset that CDC archived with NACJD.  In all of NIJ’s analyses, we relied on the data

provided by the respondents.  We did not rely on data computed by CDC or RTI when those

computations were not documented.  This is particularly important for perpetrator‐level analyses that

rely on perpetrator initials.  The NIJ analyses relied on the perpetrator initials provided by the

respondents.  They did not rely on the lists of perpetrator initials that were created by CDC or RTI.  No

documentation was available to explain how these lists were created.  Additions, recodes and deletions

to these lists were not documented.

Analysts should be very careful when analyzing data with skip patterns.  Many of the skip patterns in the

survey appear to be inaccurate (or they were programmed differently).  In addition, some skip patterns

were changed at the end of the second quarter of 2010.  Some of these changes appear to be

inaccurate.  Some are not documented.  Others appear to be documented imprecisely.  To err on the

side of caution, analysts should assume that none of the skip patterns are correctly described.  This

assumption will be correct more often than not.  As a general rule, analysts should be very suspicious of

any variable when more than 10% of its data are missing.    

When skip patterns could not be reproduced, we attempted to find the processes that were used to

select respondents and perpetrators.  In some cases, the solutions are obvious and we are reasonably

certain that the correct skip patterns were uncovered.  Imprecisions are often due to how missing data

are handled by skip patterns and selection criteria.  A good example is provided by the RC7 questions on

income (see Chapter 23).  The skip patterns in the survey do not specify how missing data are handled

(note: the survey archived with NACJD does not either).  When respondents did not know the answer to

RC7b, RC7c, RC7d, or RC7h, they skipped to RC8.  However, when respondents did not know the answer

to RC7a, RC7e, RC7f, or RC7g, they did not skip to RC8 (additional details are provided in Chapter 23, see

Figure 23.1).   

A useful strategy to uncover the correct specification for a skip pattern is often to code the reverse of

the skip pattern shown on the survey.  For example, assume that a skip pattern is based on X and that X

has two valid values (1 and 2).  If the skip pattern on the survey indicates that a question should be

skipped if X = 1, analysts will often be successful if they try to model the skip pattern to indicate that this

question should be skipped if X ≠ 2.  Because of missing data, X = 1 is not equivalent to X ≠ 2.  Skipping if

X = 1 indicates that respondents with missing data in X would not skip this question.  Skipping if X ≠ 2

indicates that respondents with missing data in X would skip this question.   

In other cases (particularly in Chapter 21), the solutions are far from obvious.  This is likely to happen

when few details are available to examine how the computer assisted telephone interview was

programmed.  In these cases, it is likely that there are multiple selection criteria and skip patterns that

could be uncovered to reproduce how the data were actually collected.  Our solutions are therefore not

unique and may be incorrect.  Other solutions may exist.  Analysts will need to be very careful when

analyzing data with skip patterns and selection criteria.

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

Analysts should also be very careful with the missing data codes found in the original data.  It appears

that missing data codes were used inconsistently (and the missing data codes in the surveys do not

seem to match those in the codebooks).  Inconsistencies are found particularly with the use of the ‘‐3’

code (which is found in neither the surveys nor the codebooks).   

It is unclear how many validity checks were built into the computer assisted telephone interviewing

program.  A challenge with creating a perpetrator‐level file occurs when respondents provided initials

for a new perpetrator, but those initials were already provided by the respondent.  In those cases, it is

impossible to determine if the respondent was referring the same perpetrator or to a second

perpetrator with the same initials.  The data also include basic problems (e.g., respondents were

victimized in the past year more often than they were in the lifetime, they were victimized at an age that

exceeds their current age, a perpetrator with a penis was female).  It does not appear that the computer

assisted telephone interviewing program was designed to catch these simple problems or to prevent

respondents from providing incongruent answers.  Generally speaking, the NIJ data cleaning process did

not address these types of problems.  Instead, these problems are simply noted in this Technical Report.

These are just a few of the analysis challenges that are more completely described in the next 24

chapters.

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 2

STRUCTURE OF NISVS DATA

The purpose of this chapter is to (a) explain the new (and simpler) structure used to name variables in

the NISVS data and (b) explain how perpetrator initials should be tracked through the NISVS data.  

Additional information is provided in CDC’s “Orientation to the Analysis of 2010 NISVS Raw Data.”

A. NEW VARIABLE NAMES

To simplify the analysis of NISVS data, new variable names were created.  In addition, new variable

labels and value labels were created.   

Each variable name may have up to four components.  The first component indicates which survey

section the variable belongs to.  The second component indicates which behavior the variable measures.  

The third component indicates the question for that behavior.  The fourth component indicates the

perpetrator number (when applicable).

More specifically, the first component indicates the following survey sections:

PA This variable belongs in the Psychological Aggression section

CCE This variable belongs in the Coercive Control and Entrapment section

PV This variable belongs in the Physical Violence section

EPA This variable belongs in the Elder Abuse ‐ Psychological Aggression section

ECCE This variable belongs in the Elder Abuse ‐ Coercive Control and Entrapment section

EPV This variable belongs in the Elder Abuse – Physical Violence section

ST This variable belongs in the Stalking section

SV This variable belongs in the Sexual Violence section

The second component indicates the following behaviors.

The Psychological Aggression section has five behaviors:

PA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

PA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

PA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

PA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

PA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

The Coercive Control and Entrapment section has 14 behaviors:

CCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

CCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

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

CCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

CCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?

CCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

CCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

CCE7 Hurt someone you love?

CCE8 Threatened to take your children away from you?

CCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

CCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

CCE11 Destroyed something that was important to you?

CCE12 Said things like “If I can’t have you, then no one can”?

CCE13 Tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become pregnant or tried to stop you

from using birth control? / Tried to get pregnant when you did not want them to get

pregnant or tried to stop you from using birth control?

CCE14 Refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?

The Physical Violence section has 12 behaviors:

PV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

PV2 Slapped you?

PV3 Pushed or shoved you?

PV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

PV5 Kicked you?

PV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

PV7 Slammed you against something?

PV8 Forced you to engage in sexual activity?

PV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

PV10 Beaten you?

PV11 Burned you on purpose?

PV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

The Elder Abuse ‐ Psychological Aggression section has five behaviors:

EPA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

EPA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

EPA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

EPA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

EPA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

The Elder Abuse ‐ Coercive Control and Entrapment section has 11 behaviors:

ECCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

ECCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

ECCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

ECCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?

ECCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

ECCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

ECCE7 Hurt someone you love?

ECCE8 Threatened to keep you from seeing your children or grandchildren?

ECCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

ECCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

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

ECCE11 Destroyed something that belonged to you?

The Elder Abuse ‐ Physical Violence section has 12 behaviors:

EPV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

EPV2 Slapped you?

EPV3 Pushed or shoved you?

EPV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

EPV5 Kicked you?

EPV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

EPV7 Slammed you against something?

EPV8 Forced you to engage in sexual activity?

EPV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

EPV10 Beaten you?

EPV11 Burned you on purpose?

EPV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

The Stalking section has seven behaviors:

ST1 Made unwanted phone calls to you or left you messages?  

ST2 Sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like

MySpace or Facebook?

ST3 Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?

ST4 Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera,

or GPS?

ST5 Approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when

you didn’t want them to be there?

ST6 Left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?

ST7 Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had

been there?

Finally, the Sexual Violence section has 22 behaviors:

SV1 Exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

SV2 Made you show your sexual body parts to them?

SV3 Made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

SV4 Harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?

SV5 Kissed you in a sexual way?

SV6 Fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?

SV7 Had vaginal sex with you? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV8 Made you perform anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV9 Made you receive anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV10 Made you perform oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV11 Made you receive oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV12 Made you have vaginal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm)

SV13 Made you perform anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm)

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

SV14 Made you receive anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm)

SV15 Made you perform oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm)

SV16 Made you receive oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm)

SV17 Put their fingers or an object in your vagina or anus? (Using physical force or threats of

physical harm)

SV18 Tried to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen? (Using physical

force or threats of physical harm)

SV19 Tried to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?(Using physical

force or threats of physical harm)

SV20 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by doing things like telling you lies, making

promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship,

or threatening to spread rumors about you?

SV21 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by wearing you down by repeatedly asking

for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

SV22 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by using their influence or authority over

you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

Note that SV18a was renamed to SV18, SV18b was renamed to SV19, SV19 was renamed to SV20, SV20

was renamed to SV21, and SV21 was renamed to SV22.  Variable names which only include the survey

section identifier and the behavior identifier (with no question number or perpetrator number) are the

respondents’ answers to the lifetime victimization questions.  For example, SV5 includes the

respondents’ answers to “How many people have ever kissed you in a sexual way?”   

The third component in the new variable names is the question number.  For each behavior above (PA1

to SV22), there may be up to 12 different follow‐up questions.  These are identified by the letters I, A, L,

B, C, D, T, E, F, G, Y, and H.   

I Perpetrator identifier (a number) that specifies which of the previously identified

perpetrators victimized the respondent in the lifetime.

A Initials for any new perpetrators (not previously identified) who victimized the respondent

in the lifetime.

L Initials for the previously identified perpetrators (in I) and the new perpetrators (in A) who

victimized the respondent in the lifetime.

B The number of lifetime victimizations by each perpetrator in L.

C Whether any of the perpetrators in L victimized the respondent in the past three years.   

D Perpetrator identifier (a number) that specifies which of the perpetrators in L victimized

the respondent in the past three years.   

T Initials for the perpetrators identified in D.

E The number of past three year victimizations by each perpetrator in T.

F Whether any of the perpetrators in T (for respondents in first two quarters of 2010) or in L

(for respondents in the last two quarters of 2010) victimized the respondent in the past

year.

G Perpetrator identifier (a number) that specifies which of the perpetrators in T (for

respondents in the first two quarters of 2010) or in L (for respondents in the last two

quarters of 2010) victimized the respondent in the past year.

Y Initials for the perpetrators identified in G.

H The number of past year victimizations by each perpetrator in Y.

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

In the third and fourth quarter of 2010, data on past three year victimizations were not collected.  As a

result, no data are found in C, D, T, or E.  In addition, F indicates whether any of the perpetrators in L

(rather than in T) victimized the respondent in the past year.  As a result, G indicates which perpetrators

in L (rather than T) victimized the respondent in the past year.

The fourth component in the new variable names is the perpetrator number (* = 1 to 15, for perpetrator

1 through perpetrator 15).  Two of the questions (C and F) are at the respondent‐level and therefore do

not have a perpetrator number (i.e., the new variable names do not include a fourth component for

questions C or F).  The other 10 questions are at the perpetrator‐level and the new variable names

therefore include this fourth component (for perpetrators 1 to 15).

I* Lifetime perpetrator identifier.  The identifier (a number) is used to specify which of the

previously identified perpetrators victimized the respondent in the lifetime.  (Note: this

variable does not exist for PA1 or EPA1, as there are no previously identified

perpetrators).  For example, if PA4I1 = 5, the first PA4 perpetrator (PA4I1) identified by

the respondent in the lifetime is the 5th perpetrator that was previously identified.  If

PA4I2 = 4, the second PA4 perpetrator (PA4I2) identified by the respondent in the lifetime

is the 4th perpetrator that was previously identified.  (Additional details on tracking

perpetrators are provided in Section B of this Chapter).

A* New perpetrator initials.  The A* variables are used to record the initials of new

perpetrators (not previously identified) who victimized the respondent in the lifetime.  For

example, if PA4A1 = ”TF”, TF is the first new PA4 perpetrator (PA4A1) identified by the

respondent in the lifetime.  If PA4A2 = ”RS”, RS is the second new PA4 perpetrator

(PA4A2) identified by the respondent in the lifetime.

L* Lifetime perpetrator initials.  The L* variables include the initials from the perpetrators

identified in the I* variables, plus any new perpetrators identified in the A* variables.  

Following the examples above, PA4L1 would include the initials of the 5th previously

identified perpetrator, PA4L2 would include the initials of the 4th previously identified

perpetrator, PA4L3 would include the initials from the first new perpetrator (i.e., “TF”),

and PA4L4 would include the initials from the second new perpetrator (i.e., “RS”).

B* Number of lifetime victimizations by perpetrator L*.  For example, PA4B1 is the number of

lifetime PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4L1.  Similarly, PA4B2 is the number of

lifetime PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4L2.

C Past three year victimization.  This variable is at the respondent‐level, not the perpetrator‐

level.  It indicates whether any of the perpetrators in L* victimized the respondent in the

past three years.  (Note, this question was only asked in the first and second quarters of

2010; for respondents in the third and fourth quarters of 2010, there are no data in C, D*,

T*, or E*).

D* Past three year perpetrator identifier.  The identifier (a number) is used to specify which

lifetime perpetrator(s) in L* victimized the respondent in the past three years.  For

example, if PA4D1 = 3, the first PA4 perpetrator (PA4D1) identified by the respondent in

the past three years is the 3rd lifetime perpetrator.   

T* Past three year perpetrator initials.  The T* variables include the initials of the past three

year perpetrators identified in D*.  When D* = #, T* = L#.  For example, when PA4D1 = 3,

PA4T1 = PA4L3.  In this example, the first PA4 perpetrator identified by the respondent in

the past three years (PA4T1) is the 3rd lifetime perpetrator (PA4L3).

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

E* Number of past three year victimizations by perpetrator T*. For example, PA4E1 is the

number of past three year PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4T1.  Similarly, PA4E2 is

the number of past thee year PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4T2.

F Past year victimization.  This variable is at the respondent‐level, not the perpetrator level.  

For respondents interviewed in the first and second quarter of 2010, it indicates whether

any of the perpetrators in T* victimized the respondent in the past year.  For respondents

interviewed in the third or fourth quarter of 2010, it indicates whether any of the

perpetrators in L* victimized the respondent in the past year.   

G* Past year perpetrator identifier.  The identifier (a number) is used to specify which

perpetrator victimized the respondent in the past year.  For respondents that were

interviewed in the first or second quarter of 2010, the identifier is used to specify which

past three year perpetrator in T* victimized the respondent in the past year.  For

respondents that were interviewed in the third or fourth quarter of 2010, the identifier is

used to specify which lifetime perpetrator in L* victimized the respondent in the past

year.  For example, if PA4G1 = 3, the first PA4 perpetrator (PA4G1) identified by the

respondent in the past year is the 3rd lifetime perpetrator (PA4L3, if the respondent was

interviewed in the third or fourth quarter or 2010) or the 3rd past three year perpetrator

(PA4T3, if the respondent was interviewed in the first or second quarter of 2010).   

Y* Past year perpetrator initials.  The Y* variables include the initials of the past year

perpetrators identified in G*.  For respondents from the first or second quarter of 2010,

when G* = #, Y* = T#.  For example, when PA4G1 = 3, PA4Y1 = PA4T3.  In this example, the

first PA4 perpetrator identified by the respondent in the past year (PA4Y1) is the 3rd past

three year perpetrator (PA4T3).  For respondents from the third or fourth quarter of 2010,

when G* = #, Y* = L#.  For example, when PA4G1 = 3, PA4Y1 = PA4L3.  In this example, the

first PA4 perpetrator identified by the respondent in the past year (PA4Y1) is the 3rd

lifetime perpetrator (PA4L3).

H* Number of past year victimizations by perpetrator Y*. For example, PA4H1 is the number

of past year PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4Y1.  Similarly, PA4H2 is the number of

past year PA4 victimizations by perpetrator PA4Y2.

To summarize, each variable name may have up to four components.  The first indicates which survey

section the variable belongs to (PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, or SV).  The second component

indicates which behavior the variable measures (these relate directly to the survey questions).  The third

component indicates the question number (I, A, L, B, C, D, T, E, F, G, Y, or H).  The fourth component

indicates the perpetrator number (when applicable).  For example, PV5E14 is the number of times that

perpetrator PV5T14 kicked the respondent in the past three years.

For each behavior, there are three additional variables (N99, N36, and N12).  N99 is the number of

perpetrators in L*, N36 is the number of perpetrators in T*, and N12 is the number of perpetrators in

Y*.  As explained in subsequent chapters, N99 is not the total number of lifetime perpetrators

(respondents could only provide up to 15 initials).  N36 is not the total number of past three year

perpetrators. It is the number of lifetime perpetrators identified by the respondent (up to 15) who

victimized the respondent in the past three years.  Similarly, N12 is not the total number of past year

perpetrators.  Instead, N12 is the number of past three year perpetrators (for respondents in the first

and second quarters of 2010) or lifetime perpetrators (for respondents in the third and fourth quarters

of 2010) identified by the respondent who victimized the respondent in the past year.

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

Additional follow‐up questions are available in the Stalking and Sexual Violence sections.  These

additional questions are described further in the Stalking and Sexual Violence chapters.

B. STRUCTURE OF NISVS DATA

For PA1 (the first behavior measured in NSIVS), there are no previous perpetrators.  The variable PA1I*

therefore does not exist (all are new perpetrators, captured in PA1A*).  As a result, PA1L* = PA1A*.  

Recall that L* combines the perpetrators identified in I* with the new perpetrators in A* (but I* is

undefined for PA1).  The following diagram illustrates the PA1 structure for respondents in the first and

second quarters of 2010.  

Figure 2.1.  NISVS Data Structure for PA1 in First and Second Quarters of 2010

It is important to note that the perpetrator initials in PA1T* will all be included in PA1L*, but the order

may be different.  Therefore, even if all lifetime perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past three

years, perpetrator PA1L1 may not be perpetrator PA1T1.  The order of the perpetrators in PA1T* is

determined by the respondent’s answers in PA1D*.  Similarly, the order of the perpetrators in PA1Y* is

determined by the respondent’s answers in PA1G*.  The following example shows the progression of

perpetrator initials from PA1L* to PA1T* (through PA1D*) and from PA1T* to PA1Y* (through PA1G*).

In the example below, Joe victimized the respondent in the lifetime, in the past three years, and in the

past year.  Joe is the fourth perpetrator identified as a lifetime perpetrator (PA1L4).  The number of

times that Joe victimized the respondent in the lifetime would then be found in PA1B4.  Joe is the first

perpetrator identified as a past three year perpetrator (PA1T1).  The number of times that Joe

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

victimized the respondent in the past three years would then be found in PA1E1.  Finally, Joe is the third

perpetrator identified as a past year perpetrator (PA1Y3).  The number of times that Joe victimized the

respondent in the past year would then be found in PA1H3.

Figure 2.2.  Progression of Perpetrator Initials in First and Second Quarters of 2010

In the third and fourth quarter of 2010, respondents were not asked about victimization in the past

three years (PA1C, PA1D*, PA1T*, PA1E*; or any C, D, T, or E variables).  The following diagram

illustrates the PA1 structure for respondents in the third and fourth quarter of 2010.

Figure 2.3.  NISVS Data Structure for PA1 in Third and Fourth Quarters of 2010

For subsequent lifetime victimization questions (PA2 to PV12 and ST1 to SV22), if respondents indicated

being victimized in the lifetime (e.g., if PA2 > 0), respondents were first asked which of the previously

identified perpetrators victimized them in the lifetime.  This identifier is included in the I* variables.  The

respondents were then asked if there were any new perpetrators, previously not identified.  Their

initials are included in the A* variables.  Each I* variable is a perpetrator identifier from all previously

identified perpetrators and each A* variable includes a list new perpetrators that have not been

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

previously identified.  The L* variables then combine the previously identified perpetrators and the new

perpetrators.     

The following diagram illustrates the collection of perpetrator initials from PA1 to PA5 (this structure

applies to all respondents, regardless of which quarter they were interviewed in).  As shown, PA2L*

includes perpetrators from PA1L* identified in PA2I*, plus any new perpetrators from PA2A*.  Similarly,

PA3L* includes perpetrators from PA1L* and PA2A* identified in PA3I*, plus any new perpetrators from

PA3A*.  PA4L* includes perpetrators from PA1L*, PA2A*, and PA3A* identified in PA4I*, plus any new

perpetrators from PA4A*.  Finally, PA5L* includes perpetrators from PA1L*, PA2A*, PA3A*, and PA4A*

identified by PA5I*, plus any new perpetrators from PA5A*.

Figure 2.4.  Progression of Perpetrator Initials Across Questions

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

Continuing the logic above, CCE1L* includes perpetrators from PA1L*, PA2A*, PA3A*, PA4A*, and

PA5A* identified in CCE1I*, plus any new perpetrators from CCE1A*.  The CCE1 perpetrators may

include some that were previously identified (in PA1L*, PA2A*, PA3A*, PA4A*, and PA5A*) and some

new perpetrators in CCE1A*.  Similarly, the PV1 perpetrators may include some that were previously

identified (in PA1L*, PA2A*, PA3A*, PA4A*, PA5A*, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*,

CCE6A*, CCE7A*, CCE8A*, CCE9A*, CCE10A*, CCE11A*, CCE12A*, CCE13A*, and CCE14A*) and some

new perpetrators in PV1A*.

It is important to note that collecting perpetrator initials in this order may have created important

biases in the follow‐up questions because these follow‐up questions were more likely to be asked about

perpetrators that were previously identified by the respondent than about new perpetrators.  For

example, follow‐up questions in the sexual violence section were more likely to be asked about

perpetrators who were also psychologically aggressive than about perpetrators who were not.  It is also

clear that the perpetrator initials were not collected as indicated on the survey.  As shown both in the

data and in CDC’s “Orientation to the Analysis of 2010 NISVS Raw Data,” the order of perpetrators may

change across questions (e.g., from PV3 to PV4).  As a result, the data on perpetrator initials were not

collected as shown in the survey.  Instead, they were collected as shown in Figure 2.4.  When previously

identified perpetrators were selected in the I variables, they were not necessarily selected in the same

order as they were originally provided.  For example, when the first perpetrator identified by the

respondent is identified again in a subsequent question, that perpetrator is not necessarily identified

before all others.  For an example, see SV3 data for ZRID 103684761 (where the second perpetrator is

the sixth previously identified perpetrator [SV3I2 = 6] and the third perpetrator is the third previously

identified perpetrator [SV3I3 = 3]).  In this example, the respondent identified the sixth previously

identified perpetrator before identifying the third previously identified perpetrator.  According to the

survey instrument, that cannot happen.  According to the data, that can happen.  One possibility is that

the interviewers did not follow the interview script.   

The data structure for the elder abuse sections is different because (a) there are no lifetime or past

three year questions and (b) all questions in the elder abuse sections (EPA, ECCE, and EPV) ask about

violence by non‐intimate partners.  Since initials for non‐intimate partners were not collected in the

previous sections (PA, CCE, or PV), EPA1 is structured the same way as PA1.  In other words, there are no

EPA1I* variables (because again, there are no prior perpetrators).  In addition, respondents were only

asked about past year victimizations.  As a result, there are no L, B, C, D, T, E, F, or G questions (and no

N99 or N36 variables).  Instead, there are only I, A, Y, and H questions.  Initials for new non‐intimate

partners are first collected in  EPA1A*and are included in EPA1Y*.  EPA2Y* then includes perpetrators

from EPA1Y* identified in EPA2I*, plus any new perpetrators from EPA2A* (and so on).   

At the beginning of the stalking (ST) section, the initials from the first three sections (PA, CCE, and PV)

are added to the initials that were collected in the three elder abuse sections (EPA, ECCE, and EPV).  If

respondents provided initials in the elder abuse sections that had already been provided in the PA, CCE,

or PV sections, these duplicate initials were deleted (only the first were retained).  This new list of initials

is then used in ST1I*, to indicate which of the previously identified perpetrators made unwanted phone

calls to the respondents, or left them messages.

   

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 3

DATA PREPARATION STEPS

This chapter describes how the NISVS data (for both the general population sample and the American

Indian and Alaska Native oversample) were extracted.  It documents how the original SAS data from CDC

for the 2010 NISVS general population sample and for the 2010 American Indian and Alaska Native

(AIAN) oversample were converted to SPSS data files.

It also provides a brief overview of how data within each section of the NISVS survey were merged and

checked.  Data for each section from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  New variable names, variable labels, and value labels were created.  Cases

were selected only if the respondent had completed the psychological aggression section.  Data checks

were then performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity issues).

A. DATA EXTRACTION

The original SAS data from CDC for the 2010 NISVS general population sample and for the 2010

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) oversample were converted to SPSS data files.  The data for

the 2010 NISVS general population sample came from the original SAS data file received from CDC:

“NISVSSGENERALPOP2010.SAS7BDAT.”  It includes 18,957 observations and 26,111 variables.  The data

for the 2010 AIAN oversample came from the original SAS data file received from CDC:

“NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAS7BDAT.”  It includes 3,612 observations and 22,934 variables.

The file “EXPORT DATA TO SPSS.SAS” is SAS System Program file that simply converts these two SAS data

files to SPSS data files (.SAV files).  NISVSSGENERALPOP2010.SAS7BDAT is converted to

NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV.  This file still includes 18,957 observations and 26,111 variables.  

NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAS7BDAT is converted to NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV.  This file still includes 3,612

observations and 22,934 variables.

All data and syntax files are included in the “GET NISVS DATA” folder.  Copies of the all data files were

then copied to the “ORIGINAL DATA” folder (where the documentation from RTI and CDC can also be

found).

Data & Files in the “GET NISVS DATA” folder:

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

B. DATA MERGE AND DATA CHECKS FOR CORE VICTIMIZATION SECTIONS

For each section in the NISVS survey, data from the general population sample were combined with data

from the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  The respondent identification number (ZRID)

was changed to include either a “1” at the end (for respondents from the general population sample) or

a “2” at the end (for respondents from the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample).   

After combining the data files, data were only retained for respondents who completed the PA section.  

This reduces the sample size from 22,569 to 21,378 (i.e., 1,191 respondents in the combined data file

did not complete the PA section).   

Variables were renamed and relabeled.  All values were also relabeled.  Each core victimization section

of the NISVS survey has its own folder (PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV).  Within each of those

folders, is a folder where data are merged and a folder where data are checked.   

An extensive array of data checks were performed (thousands in each section).  Briefly, data checks

were conducted (for each behavior in each section) to ensure that:

(1) There are no duplicate initials in L* or A*

(2) L* includes the initials from the previous perpetrators identified in I*, plus the new

perpetrators in A* (except for PA1L* and EPA1L*, because PA1L* = PA1A* and EPA1L* =

EPA1A*)

(3) The counts of initials (N99, N36, N12) are accurate

(4) B* has a value for each initial in L* (and only when an initial is included in L*)

(5) C has a value when N99 > 0 (and only when N99 > 0)

(6) Values are included in D* when C = 1 (and only when C = 1)

(7) L* initials identified in D* are found in T*

(8) E* has a value for each initial in T* (and only when an initial is included in T*)

(9) F has a value when C = 1 (and only when C = 1) – in the first two quarters (Q1&Q2)

(10) F has a value when N99 > 0 (and only when N99 > 0) – in the third or fourth quarter (Q3&Q4)

(11) Values are included in G* when F = 1 (and only when F = 1)

(12) T* initials identified in G* are found in Y* – in the first two quarters (Q1&Q2)

(13) L* initials identified in G* are found in Y* – in the third or fourth quarter (Q3&Q4)

(14) H* has a value for each initial in Y* (and only when an initial is included in Y*)

(15) All data values are within the valid range of defined values

(16) When N99 is zero or missing, there are no data in A* to H*

(17) When C is zero or missing, there are no data in D* to H* (Q1&Q2)

(18) When F is zero or missing, there are no data in G* to H*

(19) C, D*, T*, and E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

Before discussing these data checks in greater detail, the following chapter provides a summary on

sampling and weighting.

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 4

SAMPLING AND WEIGHTING

This chapter summarizes the sampling plans for the general population sample and the American Indian

and Alaska Native oversample.  It describes how a dataset was created to combine the respondents in

the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample with the respondents in the general population

sample who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.  It also summarizes how sample

weights were created.   

The weights for the general population sample are included in the original SAS data file received from

CDC: “NISVSSGENERALPOP2010.SAS7BDAT” (with 18,957 observations and 26,111 variables).  

Documentation on sampling and sample weights for the general population sample is available in RTI’s

“National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): Final Methodology Report.”

Documentation on sampling for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample is available in RTI’s

“National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System (NISVSS): Final American Indian /

Alaska Native Study Methodology Report.”  Note that Section 4 on weighting is incorrect.  The weights

for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample that were included in the original SAS data file

received from CDC (“NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAS7BDAT”) are incorrect and should not be used for analysis

(they were poststratified to the wrong population totals).

Instead, new weights were created for the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample (the

“combined sample” includes the respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample with

the respondents in the general population sample who identified themselves as American Indian or

Alaska Native).  These are included in the “WTFINAL2010_AIAN_WITH_GENPOP.SAS7BDAT” data file

created by RTI on 11/7/2012.  This data file includes 3,978 observations and nine variables.  Additional

documentation on weighting is available in RTI’s “Weighting plan and implementation – combine AIAN

with genpop 2012‐12‐05 Final” document.   

A. SAMPLING FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION SAMPLE

Data for the general population sample were collected through a random digit dialing survey of the non‐

institutionalized adult U.S. population.  This survey used a dual frame design that included both landline

telephone numbers and cell phone numbers.  A list‐assisted design was used to create the sample of

landline telephone numbers.  Hundred‐banks of telephone numbers were selected if at least one

number belonging to that bank was a listed number (a hundred‐bank of telephone numbers includes all

possible telephone numbers generated by changing the last two digits in the phone number; e.g., 907‐

786‐1800 to 907‐786‐1899).  Banks of landline telephone numbers with no listed numbers were

excluded.  Known business numbers and known nonworking numbers were also removed.  A list‐

assisted design is not possible for cell phone numbers.  As a result, all cell phone numbers were

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    30

included, including business and nonworking numbers.  This dual frame design, and the size of each

frame, was optimized by considering the cost of securing an interview in each frame (i.e., the cost of

securing an interview from the landline sample versus the cost of securing an interview from the cell

phone sample), the number of adults with landline telephones only, the number of adults with cell

phones only, and the number of adults with both landline telephones and cell phones.

Because the purposes of the 2010 NISVS survey were to create both national and state‐level estimates, a

compromise had to be reached between proportionally allocating respondents across states (which

would be better for national estimates) and equally allocating respondents across states (which would

be better for state‐level estimates).  Under proportional allocation, states with small populations would

have too few interviews to create reliable state‐level estimates.  Under equal allocation, states with

small populations would have more interviews than necessary to create reliable national‐level

estimates.  The compromise was to select state‐level sample sizes that were 90% closer to equal

allocation than to proportional allocation.   

Estimates on the proportion of adults in cell phone‐only households by state were then used to

determine how to allocate the cell phone frame by state.  The remainder in each state (i.e., the number

in the state sample minus the number selected to be included in the cell phone frame) was then

allocated to the landline telephone frame.  Approximately 35% to 55% of the selected telephone

numbers in each state were allocated to cell phone numbers.

Sample allocations were updated quarterly to account for the progress that had been made in previous

quarters and to specify how annual goals would be reached.

Interviewers then called the selected phone numbers and asked to speak to an adult.  If no adult was

available, the interviewer terminated the call.  Once an adult was on the phone, their phone number

was verified (to make sure that it had not been misdialed).  If the adult answered the call on a cell

phone, the interviewer confirmed that the adult was not currently driving a vehicle.  If the adult was

driving at that time, the interviewer asked for a better time to call.  If the adult was not driving at that

time, the adult answering the phone was selected as the potential respondent.  Potential respondents

were then read a consent form.  If the potential respondents provided their consent, they then started

the survey.

If the adult answered the call on a landline telephone, the adult was then asked if this was a private

residence (adults whose landline was not for a private residence were not eligible to participate).  The

interviewer then informed the adult that someone (age 18 or older) in the household needed to be

randomly selected.  The interviewer asked: “including yourself, how many adults age 18 or older

currently live in your household?”  In households with only one adult, that adult was selected as the

potential respondent.  In households with two adults, one of them was randomly selected as the

potential respondent.  In households with more than two adults, the one with the most recent birthday

was selected as the potential participant.  Potential respondents were then read a consent form.  If the

potential respondents provided their consent, they then started the survey.

A second phase of data collection was used to reduce nonresponse.  Non‐respondents were randomly

selected to participate in this second (nonresponse) phase (40% to 45% of non‐respondents were

selected).  These non‐respondents were offered a higher incentive to complete the survey ($40 rather

than $10).  Approximately 6% of initial refusals were converted into completed interviews.

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

The overall weighted response rate was 25.8%.  This overall weighted response rate accounts for the

disproportional sampling across states, across frames, and across data collection phases.  The overall un‐

weighted response rate was 27.2%.  Response rates were computed as the American Association for

Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)’s Response Rate 4 (RR4).  This response rate examines the number of

adults who either completed or partially completed the interview out of the number of adults who were

eligible to start the interview.  Cases known to be ineligible are not included in the denominator.  Cases

with unknown eligibility are included in the denominator (at a fraction determined by the number of

eligible cases over the number of eligible cases and the number of cases known to be ineligible).

B. SAMPLE WEIGHTS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION SAMPLE

The sample weights for the general population sample include selection weights, nonresponse weights,

and poststratification weights.  Weights were computed for the sample of respondents who completed

the Psychological Aggression (PA) section and for the sample of respondents who completed the Sexual

Violence (SV) section.  This section briefly summarizes how the sample weights were constructed.  

Additional details are available in RTI’s “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):

Final Methodology Report.”  However, there is a significant dearth of details on the development of

sampling weights.  As a result, it is not possible to replicate RTI’s selection weights, nonresponse

weights, or poststratification weights.  This is a significant limitation with the 2010 NISVS data.

Selection Weights

Selection weights for the respondents in the general population sample included at least six

components.  The first component adjusted for the probability of the respondent’s telephone number

being selected from each sampling frame (landline and cell).  It is the total number of telephone

numbers in each sampling frame divided by the number included in each sample.  The second

component adjusted for the probability of the respondent being selected from each state (from either

the landline or cell sample).  It is the total number of adults in each state divided by the number

included in the landline or cell sample in each state.  The third component adjusted for ineligibility in

each sample.  Ineligible cases were assigned a weight of zero, while eligible cases were assigned a

weight of one.  Cases were ineligible if the phone number was not a residential phone number, if no

adults were available, or if the only available adult was a student under 23 years of age.  The fourth

component adjusted for the probability of the respondent being selected among the adults in each

household reached by landline.  It is the number of adults in each respondent’s household, for those

households reached by landline.  (This component is not included in the cell phone sample).  The fifth

component adjusted for the number of telephone lines.  For respondents in the landline sample, it is the

number of landlines that they have.  For respondents in the cell sample, it is the number of cell phones

that they have.  The sixth component adjusted for the probability of being selected for the nonresponse

follow‐up phase.  It is the total number of nonresponses divided by the number of nonresponses

selected for follow‐up (for respondents who completed the interview in the first phase, this weight was

set to one).  For respondents who reported having both landlines and cell phones, one additional

component was used to adjust for the probability that the respondents would have been selected in the

other sample (i.e., the probability that the landline respondents would have been selected in the cell

sample and the probability that the cell respondents would have been selected in the landline sample).  

This multiplicity weight is the product of the first five components described above, assuming that the

landline respondents had been reached by cell phone or that the cell phone respondents had been

reached by landline.

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

For respondents who reported having only landlines or only cell phones, the final selection weight is

calculated as the product of the first six components.  For respondents who reported having both

landlines and cell phones, the final selection weight is calculated as product of the first six components,

plus the multiplicity weight, minus the joint probability of a respondent being selected both by landline

and by cell phone.

Nonresponse Weight

Nonresponse weights were computed separately for the landline and cell phone samples.  In each

sample, logistic regression models were estimated to predict whether respondents completed the

interview.  Potential covariates included a variety of census variables (at the state level for the cell

phone sample and at the zip code level for the landline sample).  Very little documentation is available

on these census variables (and no information on data sources or operational definitions is available).  

Significant predictors of nonresponse in the landline sample included the total population, the

proportion in urban areas, the proportion White, the proportion between the ages of 10 to 17, the

proportion between the ages of 18 to 29, the proportion of English‐speaking households, the proportion

older than 25 with a higher education, and the median household income.  In the cell phone sample,

significant predictors of nonresponse included the proportion urban (for PA completers only), the

proportion male, the proportion between the ages of 18 to 29 (for the SV completers only), the

proportion older than 50 (for the SV completers only), the proportion older than 15 and never married,

the proportion older than 25 with a high school education, the proportion older than 25 with a higher

education, and the median household income.  Estimated response propensities were then grouped

using five groups or quintiles.  The response rate in each group was calculated (probably as the average

observed response rate in each group).  The final nonresponse weight is then the inverse of that

response rate.  It was then multiplied with the selection weight.  In some cases, weights were trimmed

(only 14 weights were trimmed in the sample of respondents who completed the Psychological

Aggression section and only 12 weights were trimmed in the sample of respondents who completed the

Sexual Violence section).  

Poststratification Weight

The weights were first poststratified to population totals by sex for the number of adults with landlines

only, the number of adults with cell phones only, and the number of adults with both landlines and cell

phones.   The weights were then poststratified to census population estimates by sex of the adult

population across racial groups, age groups, and states.  Again, few details are available on data sources

or operational definitions.  Some details are available in the final NISVS report (see Appendix B).  Based

on the sum of the weights, it appears that weights were poststratified using vintage 2009 population

estimates (see https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/).   

C. SAMPLING FOR AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE OVERSAMPLE

Data for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample were collected through a random digit

dialing survey of the non‐institutionalized adult U.S. population.  To increase the likelihood of reaching

American Indian and Alaska Native respondents, the sampling frame included landline telephone

exchanges where at least 50% of the population was estimated to be American Indian or Alaska Native.  

A telephone exchange includes the 1,000 possible telephone numbers associated with each area code

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

and prefix (e.g., (907) 786‐0000 to (907) 786‐9999).  It is much more difficult to link cell phone

exchanges to population estimates from small geographical units.  As a result, cell phones were not

included in the random digit dialing survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  The

data for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample were therefore collected through a random

digit dialing survey of the non‐institutionalized adult U.S. population with landline telephones whose

numbers were in telephone exchanges where at least 50% of the population was estimated to be

American Indian or Alaska Native.  It is important to emphasize that the sample does not include

American Indian and Alaska Native people throughout the US.  Instead, it includes American Indian and

Alaska native people who live in telephone exchanges where at least 50% of the population was

estimated to be American Indian or Alaska Native.  Some of these telephone exchanges are in

reservations, tribal lands, and Alaska Native villages.  Others are not.

The process for estimating the proportion of American Indian or Alaska Native people in each telephone

exchange remains unknown (it is our understanding that this task was completed by a sub‐contractor).  

It is also unclear what population data were used (e.g., American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in

combination).  A total of 234 telephone exchanges were found where at least 50% of the population was

American Indian or Alaska Native.  These 234 telephone exchanges were located in 16 states (i.e.,

Alaska, Arizona, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).  These states noticeably

exclude Oklahoma (where more than 400,000 American Indian or Alaska Native people [alone or in

combination] live; US 2010 Census Redistricting Data), Texas (where more than 300,000 live), New York

(where more than 200,000 live), and Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Michigan (where more than 100,000

live).  Together, these seven states include more than 1.5 million American Indians or Alaska Natives

(alone or in combination; or 29% of the total American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination

population).  These seven states were not included because none of them had telephone exchanges

where at least 50% of the population was American Indian or Alaska Native.  Although this impacts the

sampling frame, it does not necessarily impact the extent to which those included in the sample can

accurately represent those that were excluded from the sample.  The sample excluded American Indian

and Alaska Native people who did not have a landline telephone.  In addition, it excluded American

Indian and Alaska Native people whose landline telephone number was not in a telephone exchange

where at least 50% of the population was American Indian or Alaska Native.

The survey also used a list‐assisted design.  Each telephone exchange was split up into banks of 100

numbers (e.g., (907) 786‐1800 to (907) 786‐1899).  Banks were then selected only if they included at

least one listed telephone number (this excludes banks of telephone numbers that have no listed

numbers).  Known business numbers and known nonworking numbers were also removed.   

Interviewers then called the selected phone numbers and asked to speak to an adult.  If no adult was

available, the interviewer terminated the call.  Once an adult was on the phone, their phone number

was verified (to make sure that it had not been misdialed).  The interviewer also confirmed that the

phone number was for a landline (adults contacted on their cell phones were not eligible to participate).  

The adult was then asked if this was a private residence (adults who were not in a private residence

were not eligible to participate).  The interviewer then informed the adult that someone (age 18 or

older) in the household needed to be randomly selected.  The interviewer asked: “including yourself,

how many adults age 18 or older who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native currently

live in your household?”   

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

When the answers were zero, the adults were asked to verify that they had included themselves in their

answers.  If it was confirmed that no adults in the household identified themselves as American Indian

or Alaska Native, the calls were terminated.  Note that this necessarily assumes that the adults knew

whether others in their households would identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.

To summarize, once someone answered the phone, a potential respondent was selected only if:

(a) An adult answered the phone, or the phone call was transferred to an adult.

(b) The correct phone number was dialed.  

(c) The phone number belonged to a landline.  

(d) The adult lived in a private residence.

(e) At least one adult in the household would identify him or herself as American Indian or Alaska

Native.

If all of these conditions were met, a potential respondent was then selected.

In households with only one American Indian or Alaska Native adult, that adult was selected as the

potential respondent.  In households with two American Indian or Alaska Native adults of the same

gender, one of them was randomly selected as the potential respondent.  In households with two

American Indian or Alaska Native adults of different genders (i.e., one male and one female), one of

them was again randomly selected as the potential respondent, but females were selected at four times

the rate of males.  In households with more than two American Indian or Alaska Native adults, the one

with the most recent birthday was selected as the potential respondent.

Potential respondents were then read a consent form.  If the potential respondents provided their

consent, they then started the survey.

A second phase of data collection was used to reduce nonresponse.  Non‐respondents were randomly

selected to participate in this second (nonresponse) phase (35% to 40% of non‐respondents were

selected).  These non‐respondents were offered a higher incentive to complete the survey ($40 rather

than $10).  During portions of this second phase, respondents in households with only male adults were

selected to participate at a rate of 30% (rather than 100%).  Approximately 8% of initial refusals were

converted into completed interviews.

The overall response rate, as measured by AAPOR RR4 (described earlier), was 27.9%.

D. COMBINED AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE SAMPLE

The combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample includes (a) all respondents in the American

Indian and Alaska Native oversample and (b) 677 respondents in the general population sample who

identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.  By combining these samples, we add

diversity to the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample (and we increase sample size).  First, we

include some American Indian and Alaska Native respondents who were contacted by cell phone.  

Second, we include American Indian and Alaska Native respondents from states where no telephone

exchange has at least 50% of the population that is American Indian or Alaska Native.  As a result, the

geographic distribution of the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample provides a better

representation of the American Indian and Alaska Native population in the US.

Respondents in the 2010 NISVS general population sample were asked to identify their race (RC4).  

Categories included White (RC4 = 1), Black or African American (RC4 = 2), Asian (RC4 = 3), Native

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

Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (RC4 = 4), and American Indian or Alaska Native (RC4 = 5).  In addition,

respondents could specify another racial group (RC4 = 6).  Respondents were allowed to select multiple

categories (responses are included in RC4_1 to RC4_6).   

A total of 676 respondents reported being American Indian or Alaska Native (i.e., RC4_1 = 5 or RC4_2 = 5

or RC4_3 = 5 or RC4_4 = 5 or RC4_5 = 5 or RC4_6 = 5).   

A total of 41 respondents specified another racial group which was then recoded as American Indian or

Alaska Native (i.e., CATA = “AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE” or CATB = “AMERICAN INDIAN OR

ALASKA NATIVE” or CATC = “AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE”).  Thirty eight of these respondents

also reported being American Indian or Alaska Native (i.e., these 38 are already included in the 676

above).  Three did not report being American Indian or Alaska Native (ZRID = 10300750, 10371362, and

10330428).  Upon further review, it was decided that two of these three respondents should not have

been classified as American Indian or Alaska Native (ZRID = 10330428 and 10371362).

The final sample of American Indians or Alaska Natives from the 2010 NISVS general population sample

therefore includes 676 respondents who reported being American Indian or Alaska Native and one

respondent who reported being another racial group which was recoded as American Indian or Alaska

Native.  The final sample therefore includes 677 American Indians or Alaska natives (alone or in

combination).  Of these 677 American Indian and Alaska Native respondents, 649 (95.9%) completed the

psychological aggression section and 570 (84.2%) completed the sexual violence section.

To summarize, the American Indian or Alaska Native respondents in the general population sample can

be identified as those who reported that RC4_1 = 5, or RC4_2 = 5, or RC4_3 = 5, or RC4_4 = 5, or RC4_5 =

5, or RC4_6 = 5.  The American Indian or Alaska Native respondents in the general population sample

also include one additional respondent (ZRID = 10300750).

The “CREATE AIAN FILES.SPS” syntax file identifies the American Indian and Alaska Native respondents in

the general population sample, merges them with the American Indian and Alaska Native respondents in

the oversample, and saves the list of American Indian and Alaska Native respondents (along with their

year of birth, gender, and state) in a data file named “AIAN SAMPLE.SAV.”  This data file has 3,978

observations and five variables.

Data & Files in the “AIAN SAMPLE” folder:

E.   SAMPLE WEIGHTS FOR COMBINED AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE SAMPLE

The sample weights for the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample include selection

weights, nonresponse weights, and poststratification weights.  Weights were computed for the sample

of respondents who completed the Psychological Aggression section and for the sample of respondents

who completed the Sexual Violence section.  This section briefly summarizes how the sample weights

were constructed.  Additional details are available in RTI’s “2010 NISVS Weighting: Combine AIAN

Sample with General Population Sample.”  Again, there is a significant dearth of details on the

development of sampling weights.  As a result, it is not possible to replicate RTI’s selection weights,

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

nonresponse weights, or poststratification weights.  This is again a significant limitation with the 2010

NISVS data.

Selection Weights

Selection weights were computed for the general population sample and for the American Indian and

Alaska Native oversample.  These two selection weights were then merged, while accounting for the

probability of being included in both samples.   

Selection weights for the respondents in the general population sample included at least six

components.  The first component adjusted for the probability of the respondent’s telephone number

being selected from each sampling frame (landline and cell).  It is the total number of telephone

numbers in each sampling frame divided by the number included in each sample.  The second

component adjusted for the probability of the respondent being selected from each state (from either

the landline or cell sample).  It is the total number of adults in each state divided by the number

included in the landline or cell sample in each state.  The third component adjusted for ineligibility in

each sample.  Ineligible cases were assigned a weight of zero, while eligible cases were assigned a

weight of one.  Cases were ineligible if they were not American Indian or Alaska Native, if the phone

number was not a residential phone number, if no adults were available, or if the only available adult

was a student under 23 years of age.  The fourth component adjusted for the probability of the

respondent being selected among the adults in each household reached by landline.  It is the number of

adults in each respondent’s household, for those households reached by landline.  The fifth component

adjusted for the number of telephone lines.  For respondents in the landline sample, it is the number of

landlines that they have.  For respondents in the cell sample, it is the number of cell phones that they

have.  The sixth component adjusted for the probability of being selected for the nonresponse follow‐up

phase.  It is the total number of nonresponses divided by the number of nonresponses selected for

follow‐up (for respondents who completed the interview in the first phase, this weight was set to one).  

For respondents who reported having both landlines and cell phones, one additional component was

used to adjust for the probability that the respondents would have been selected in the other sample

(i.e., the probability that the landline respondents would have been selected in the cell sample and the

probability that the cell respondents would have been selected in the landline sample).  This multiplicity

weight is the product of the first five components described above, assuming that the landline

respondents had been reached by cell phone or vice versa.   

For respondents who reported having only landlines or only cell phones, the final selection weight is

calculated as the product of the first six components.  For respondents who reported having both

landlines and cell phones, the final selection weight is calculated as product of the first six components,

plus the multiplicity weight, minus the joint probability of a respondent being selected both by landline

and by cell phone.

Selection weights for the respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample included

five components.  The first component adjusted for the probability of the respondent’s telephone

number being selected from the sampling frame.  It is the total number of telephone numbers in the

sampling frame divided by the number included in the sample.  The second component adjusted for

ineligibility.  Ineligible cases were assigned a weight of zero, while eligible cases were assigned a weight

of one.  Cases were ineligible if the phone number was not a residential phone number, if no adults

were available, or if the only available adult was a student under 23 years of age.  (Although this was not

documented by RTI, we assume that cases were also ineligible if no household members were American

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

Indian or Alaska Native).  The third component adjusted for the probability of the respondent being

selected among the adults in each household.  For female respondents in households with no males, it is

the number of adults in her household.  For male respondents in households with no females, it is 30%

of the number of adults in his household (because only 30% were selected for the nonresponse phase).  

For respondents in households with both males and females, it is the number of adults in each

respondent’s household, adjusting for the oversampling of females.  More specifically, the number of

adults in each respondent’s household is adjusted by the inverse of the probability of selecting a male

(or a female) given that females were selected at four times the rate of males.  The fourth component

adjusted for the number of telephone lines.  It is the number of landlines that each respondent has.  The

fifth component adjusted for the probability of being selected for the nonresponse follow‐up phase.  It is

the total number of nonresponses divided by the number of nonresponses selected for follow‐up (for

respondents who completed the interview in the first phase, this weight was set to one).  The final

selection weight is calculated as the product of these five components.   

Adjustments to the final selection weights were performed for respondents in one sample who were

included in the sampling frame for the other (i.e., respondents in the general population sample who

were also included in the sampling frame for the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample and

respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample who were also included in the

sampling frame for the general population sample).

Nonresponse Weight

Nonresponse weights were computed separately for the landline and cell phone samples.  In each

sample, logistic regression models were estimated to predict whether respondents completed the

interview.  Potential covariates included a variety of census variables (at the state level for the cell

phone sample and at the zip code level for the landline sample).  Very little documentation is available

on these census variables (and no information on data sources or operational definitions is available).  

Significant predictors of nonresponse in the landline sample included the total population, the

proportion in urban areas, the proportion White, the proportion Hispanic, the proportion male, the

proportion in families, the proportion of households with children, the proportion older than 15 and

never married, the proportion of English‐speaking households, the proportion older than 25 with a

higher education, the median household income, and the proportion American Indian or Alaska Native.  

In the cell phone sample, significant predictors of nonresponse included the proportion in families (for

PA completers only), the proportion of households with children (for PA completers only), the median

household income, the average household size (for SV completers only), and the proportion American

Indian or Alaska Native.  Estimated response propensities were then grouped using five groups or

quintiles.  The response rate in each group was calculated (probably as the average observed response

rate in each group).  The final nonresponse weight is then the inverse of that response rate.  It was then

multiplied with the selection weight.  When desirable, these weights were trimmed (only 14 weights

were trimmed in the sample of respondents who completed the Psychological Aggression section and

only 12 weights were trimmed in the sample of respondents who completed the Sexual Violence

section).  

Poststratification Weight

The weights were first poststratified to population totals by sex for the number of adults with landlines

only, the number of adults with cell phones only, and the number of adults with both landlines and cell

phones.   The weights were then poststratified to census population estimates by sex, geography, 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.
    38

age for the adult population of American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination.  More

specifically, weights for males and females were poststratified by age (see Table 4.1), by geography (see

Table 4.2) and by age and geography (see Table 4.3) using population totals for the adult American

Indian or Alaska Native population (alone or in combination).

The final weights for the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample are included in the

“WTFINAL2010_AIAN_WITH_GENPOP.SAS7BDAT” data file created by RTI on 11/7/2012.  This data file

includes 3,978 observations and nine variables.  It is exported to an SPSS data file “WEIGHTS.SAV” by the

“EXPORT WEIGHTS TO SPSS.SAS” syntax file.  Data & Files in the “Final AIAN Weights” folder (within the

“Original Data” folder):

The “Telephone Exchanges.xlsx” file includes additional information on telephone exchanges in the US

and the estimated American Indian and Alaska Native population in each.   

The “Weight Components” folder includes additional weights (selection and non‐response weights).  

Additional details are available in the “Weight components description.txt” file.

A “FINAL WEIGHTS.SAV” data file is then created (by “WEIGHTS.SPS”) after recoding case numbers,

adding demographic data, computing new demographic variables, and adding variable and value labels.  

This file includes 3,978 observations and 12 variables.  This final data file is also saved as a portable file

(“FINALWEIGHTS.POR”) to use in SAS.  The “WEIGHTED FREQS.sas” program produces the weighted

frequencies for Tables 4.1 to 4.3 below.  This file produces the weighted point estimates shown below,

but variance estimates are incorrect and should not be used (these are not shown below).  Results are

saved in the “SAS Report – WEIGHTED FREQS.pdf” document and are summarized in the “FINAL

WEIGHTS TABLES.xlsx” excel file.  This is all included in the “Weights” folder:

Estimates for the total adult American Indian and Alaska Native population were extracted from the

2010 US Census (Summary File 2, Table QT‐P1).  The “CENSUS” folder includes the original excel files

downloaded from the US Census website, a syntax file (“GET CENSUS DATA.SPS”) to convert this file to

an SPSS data file (“SF2QTP1.SAV”).  Census estimates are then computed in the “CENSUS

ESTIMATES.SPS” syntax file and results are saved in the “CENSUS ESTIMATES.SAV” data file.  All Census

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

estimates are based on the adult population of American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in

combination.

This is all included in the “CENSUS” folder:

Table 4.1 shows the age distribution for American Indian and Alaska Native females and males in the

population, in the sample of respondents who completed the psychological aggression section (“PA

Sample”), and in the sample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section (“SV Sample”).  

In both the PA and SV samples, the unweighted and weighted percentages (% and Wt %) are provided.

Table 4.1.  Age Distribution by Gender

N % N % Wt % N % Wt %

18 to 24 298,351 16.2 282 11.4 16.2 254 11.9 16.2

25 to 29 192,393 10.5 203 8.2 10.5 180 8.4 10.5

30 to 44 517,831 28.2 633 25.6 28.2 562 26.2 28.2

45 to 64 615,343 33.5 996 40.3 33.5 843 39.4 33.5

65+ 213,253 11.6 359 14.5 11.6 302 14.1 11.6

1,837,171 2,473 2,141

18 to 24 306,899 17.7 161 10.7 17.7 142 10.7 17.7

25 to 29 189,471 10.9 134 8.9 10.9 119 9.0 10.9

30 to 44 501,611 29.0 422 28.0 29.0 376 28.5 29.0

45 to 64 567,887 32.8 595 39.5 32.8 529 40.0 32.8

65+ 166,316 9.6 193 12.8 9.6 155 11.7 9.6

Total 1,732,184 1,505 1,321

Population PA Sample SV Sample

Female

Total

Male

Table 4.2 shows the geographic distribution for American Indian and Alaska Native females and males in

the population, in the sample of respondents who completed the psychological aggression section (“PA

Sample”), and in the sample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section (“SV Sample”).  

In both the PA and SV samples, the unweighted and weighted percentages (% and Wt %) are provided.

Table 4.3 shows the age distribution for American Indian and Alaska Native females and males in Alaska

and in the rest of the US.  It also shows this distribution in the sample of respondents who completed

the psychological aggression section (“PA Sample”) and in the sample of respondents who completed

the sexual violence section (“SV Sample”).  In both the PA and SV samples, the unweighted and

weighted percentages (% and Wt %) are provided.

   

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

Table 4.2.  Geographic Distribution by Gender

N % N % Wt % N % Wt %

New England / Mid Atlantic 185,854 10.1 29 1.2 10.1 28 1.3 10.1

East North Central 166,086 9.0 46 1.9 9.0 44 2.1 9.0

West North Central 136,472 7.4 569 23.0 7.4 486 22.7 7.4

South Atlantic 237,494 12.9 399 16.1 12.9 355 16.6 12.9

East / West South Central 374,493 20.4 81 3.3 20.4 74 3.5 20.4

Mountain 314,770 17.1 911 36.8 17.1 794 37.1 17.1

Pacific 422,002 23.0 438 17.7 23.0 360 16.8 23.0

1,837,171 2,473 2,141

New England / Mid Atlantic 172,235 9.9 33 2.2 9.9 29 2.2 9.9

East North Central 155,220 9.0 36 2.4 9.0 29 2.2 9.0

West North Central 127,637 7.4 352 23.4 7.4 313 23.7 7.4

South Atlantic 222,358 12.8 215 14.3 12.8 193 14.6 12.8

East / West South Central 355,348 20.5 54 3.6 20.5 49 3.7 20.5

Mountain 295,881 17.1 497 33.0 17.1 433 32.8 17.1

Pacific 403,505 23.3 318 21.1 23.3 275 20.8 23.3

Total 1,732,184 1,505 1,321

Population PA Sample SV Sample

Female

Total

Male

Table 4.3.  Age Distribution by Geography and Gender

N % N % Wt % N % Wt %

18 to 29 13,807 31.1 69 20.9 31.1 55 20.4 31.1

30 to 44 11,751 26.4 104 31.5 26.4 90 33.5 26.4

45 to 64 14,270 32.1 129 39.1 32.1 103 38.3 32.1

65+ 4,624 10.4 28 8.5 10.4 21 7.8 10.4

44,452 330 269

Female in Rest of U.S.

18 to 29 476,937 26.6 416 19.4 26.6 379 20.2 26.6

30 to 44 506,080 28.2 529 24.7 28.2 472 25.2 28.2

45 to 64 601,073 33.5 867 40.5 33.5 740 39.5 33.5

65+ 208,629 11.6 331 15.4 11.6 281 15.0 11.6

1,792,719 2,143 1,872

18 to 29 14,298 32.6 44 19.2 32.6 40 20.3 32.6

30 to 44 11,900 27.1 79 34.5 27.1 69 35.0 27.1

45 to 64 13,810 31.5 85 37.1 31.5 70 35.5 31.5

65+ 3,893 8.9 21 9.2 8.9 18 9.1 8.9

43,901 229 197

Male in Rest of U.S.

18 to 29 482,072 28.6 251 19.7 28.6 221 19.7 28.6

30 to 44 489,711 29.0 343 26.9 29.0 307 27.3 29.0

45 to 64 554,077 32.8 510 40.0 32.8 459 40.8 32.8

65+ 162,423 9.6 172 13.5 9.6 137 12.2 9.6

1,688,283 1,276 1,124

Total

Total

Male in Alaska

Population PA Sample SV Sample

Female in Alaska

Total

Total

   

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 5

PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION

The psychological aggression (PA) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

(NISVS) includes five questions:

How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever...

PA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

PA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

PA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

PA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

PA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the psychological aggression sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the

2010 AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the

psychological aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE PA DATA” folder:

The “FINAL PA.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 769 variables.  It was then copied to the

“PA” folder.

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 5, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in PA#L1 to PA#L15 equals PA#N99

(2) The number of initials in PA#T1 to PA#T15 equals PA#N33

(3) The number of initials in PA#Y1 to PA#Y15 equals PA#N12

(4) Each initial in PA#L* has a value in PA#B*, and each value in PA#B* has an initial in PA#L*

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

(5) A value for PA#C always exists when PA# > 0, and exists only when PA# > 0 (for Q1&Q2)

(6) A value for PA#D1 always exists when PA#C = 1, and exists only when PA#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(7) Each value in PA#D* has a value in PA#E*, and each value in PA#E* has a value in PA#D* (for

Q1&Q2)

(8) A value for PA#F always exists when PA#C = 1, and exists only when PA#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(9) A value for PA#F always exists when PA# > 0, and exists only when PA# > 0 (for Q3&Q4)

(10) A value for PA#G1 always exists when PA#F = 1, and exists only when PA#F = 1

(11) Each value in PA#G* has a value in PA#H*, and each value in PA#H* has a value in PA#G*

(12) The number of perpetrators in PA# equals PA#N99

(13) PA#N36 is between 1 and 15 when C = 1, and only when C = 1

(14) PA#N12 is between 1 and 15 when F = 1, and only when F = 1

(15) There are no duplicate initials in PA#A*

(16) PA2L* includes the initials from PA1L* which are identified in PA2I*  

(17) PA3L* includes the initials from PA1L*/PA2A*, which are identified in PA3I*  

(18) PA4L* includes the initials from PA1L*/PA2A*/PA3A*, which are identified in PA4I*  

(19) PA5L* includes the initials from PA1L*/PA2A*/PA3A*/PA4A*, which are identified in PA5I*  

(20) The initials in PA1A* are the same as those in PA1L*

(21) PA2L* also includes the new initials from PA2A*, and no others

(22) PA3L* also includes the new initials from PA3A*, and no others

(23) PA4L* also includes the new initials from PA4A*, and no others

(24) PA5L* also includes the new initials from PA5A*, and no others

(25) The initials in PA1L* identified by PA1D* are found in PA1T* (Q1&Q2)

(26) The initials in PA2L* identified by PA2D* are found in PA2T* (Q1&Q2)

(27) The initials in PA3L* identified by PA3D* are found in PA3T* (Q1&Q2)

(28) The initials in PA4L* identified by PA4D* are found in PA4T* (Q1&Q2)

(29) The initials in PA5L* identified by PA5D* are found in PA5T* (Q1&Q2)

(30) The initials in PA1T* identified by PA1G* are found in PA1Y* (Q1&Q2)

(31) The initials in PA2T* identified by PA2G* are found in PA2Y* (Q1&Q2)

(32) The initials in PA3T* identified by PA3G* are found in PA3Y* (Q1&Q2)

(33) The initials in PA4T* identified by PA4G* are found in PA4Y* (Q1&Q2)

(34) The initials in PA5T* identified by PA5G* are found in PA5Y* (Q1&Q2)

(35) The initials in PA1L* identified by PA1G* are found in PA1Y* (Q3&Q4)

(36) The initials in PA2L* identified by PA2G* are found in PA2Y* (Q3&Q4)

(37) The initials in PA3L* identified by PA3G* are found in PA3Y* (Q3&Q4)

(38) The initials in PA4L* identified by PA4G* are found in PA4Y* (Q3&Q4)

(39) The initials in PA5L* identified by PA5G* are found in PA5Y* (Q3&Q4)

(40) Data values for PA# are in valid range (‐3 to 15) and are not missing

(41) Data values for PA#N99, PA#N36, and PA#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(42) Data values for PA#B*, PA#E*, and PA#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(43) Data values for PA#C and PA#F are in valid range (‐3 to 2)

(44) Data values for PA2I*, PA3I*, PA4I*, and PA5I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous

initials)

(45) Data values for PA#D* and PA#G* are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(46) When PA# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PA# variables

(47) When PA#C < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PA# variables (for Q1&Q2)

(48) When PA#F < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PA# variables

(49) PA#C, PA#D*, PA#T*, and PA#E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

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

Data & Files in the “PA DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Ten problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered three general

types of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the PA

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 103545682, 102405411, and 102453901.

(2) Some respondents provided more initials than expected based on their answers to the PA

questions. Problems were identified for respondents 101214811, 101360361, 101069621,

101029991, 101130321, and 101270691.

(3) The perpetrator identifier for one respondent is out of range.  Problems were identified for

respondent 101031801.

More specific details for each case are presented below.

(1) The following three respondents provided fewer perpetrator initials than expected.

103545682

The respondent reported PA2 victimizations by two perpetrators, but the respondent did not

provide initials in PA2A1 or PA2A2.  (There were no initials in PA1L* because PA1 = 0).  All PA#A* are

coded as ‐3.  There are no data in PA#L*.  The first perpetrator (PA2A1) also victimized the

respondent in PA3, PA4, and PA5.  No initials are found in PA2L1, PA3L1, PA4L1, or PA5L1 (because

none were provided in PA2A1).  Valid data are found in PA2B1, PA3B1, PA4B1, and PA5B1.  

Perpetrator PA2A1 did not victimize the respondent in the past year (for any PA#).  The second

perpetrator (PA2A2) also victimized the respondent in PA3 and PA4.  No initials are found in PA2L2,

PA3L2, or PA4L2 (because none were provided in PA2A2).  Valid data are found in PA2B2, PA3B2,

and PA4B2.  Perpetrator PA2A2 did not victimize the respondent in the past year (for any PA#).

102405411

The respondent reported PA3 victimizations in the past year, but did not specify who the

perpetrator was in PA3G1 (i.e., PA3G1 = ‐1).  PA3Y1 therefore does not include an initial for this

perpetrator and PA3N12 = 0.  No values are found in PA3H*.   

102453901

The respondent reported PA2 victimizations in the past year, but not but did not specify who the

perpetrator was in PA2G1 (i.e., PA2G1 = ‐2).  PA2Y1 therefore does not include an initial for this

perpetrator and PA2N12 = 0.  No value is found in PA2H1.  Similarly, the respondent indicated that

PA3F = 1, but did not specify who the perpetrator was in PA3G1 (i.e., PA3G1 = ‐1).  PA3Y1 therefore

does not include an initial for this perpetrator and PA3N12 = 0.  No value is found in PA3H1.   

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

(2) The following six respondents provided more perpetrator initials than expected.

101214811

The respondent reported PA3 victimizations by two perpetrators.  The first perpetrator initials were

collected in PA2A1.  The second perpetrator initials are collected in PA3A1.  A third set of

perpetrator initials is collected in PA3A2 (for a total of three perpetrator initials).  However, the

second perpetrator initials collected in PA3 (i.e., PA3A2) are the same as the first perpetrator initials

collected in PA2A1.  There are no subsequent data for a third perpetrator.

101360361

The respondent reported PA1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but provided three initials in

PA1A*.  The second (PA1A2) and third (PA1A3) are the same.  There are no subsequent data for the

third set of initials.

101069621

The respondent reported PA1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but provided three initials in

PA1A*.  There are no duplicates in these initials.  There are no subsequent data for the third set of

initials.

101029991

The respondent reported PA2 victimizations by one perpetrator, and identified the first perpetrator

from PA1.  However, the respondent also provided an additional set of initials in PA2A1.  There are

no subsequent data for this set of initials.

101130321

The respondent reported PA2 victimizations by six perpetrators.  The first three initials came from

PA1 (PA1L1, PA1L2, and PA1L3).  Three new initials were collected in PA2A1, PA2A2, and PA2A3.  A

fourth initial is included in PA2A4 (for a total of seven).  There are no subsequent data for these

seventh initials.

101270691

The respondent reported PA2  victimizations by two perpetrators.  Both initials came from PA1

(PA1L1 and PA1L2).  A new (third) initial was included in PA2A1.  There are no subsequent data for

this set of initials.

(3) The following respondent provided a perpetrator identifier that was out of range.

101031801

The respondent reported PA1 victimizations by 15 (or more) perpetrators.  Fifteen initials are

provided in PA1A*.  These are correctly reproduced in PA1L*.  Valid data are provided for all 15

perpetrators in PA1B*.  Two perpetrators (the 14th and 15th from PA1L*) also victimized the

respondent in the past three years.  Their initials are correctly found in PA1T1 and PA1T2.  Valid data

for these two perpetrators are found in PA1E1 and PA1E2.  One perpetrator also victimized the

respondent in the past year.  This is the 15th perpetrator from PA1T* (i.e., PA1G1 = 15).  There is no

15th perpetrator in PA1T* (i.e., PA1T15 does not exist).  As a result, there are no initials in PA1Y1.  A

valid answer is provided in PA1H1.

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

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 6

COERCIVE CONTROL AND ENTRAPMENT

The coercive control and entrapment (CCE) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence

Survey (NISVS) includes 14 questions:

How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever...

CCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

CCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

CCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

CCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with

you?

CCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

CCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

CCE7 Hurt someone you love?

CCE8 For respondents who ever had children under the age of 18 living with them:

Threatened to take your children away from you?

CCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

CCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

CCE11 Destroyed something that was important to you?

CCE12 Said things like “If I can’t have you, then no one can”?

CCE13 For female respondents: Tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become

pregnant or tried to stop you from using birth control?

For male respondents: Tried to get pregnant when you did not want them to get

pregnant or tried to stop you from using birth control?

CCE14 Refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the CCE sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the psychological

aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE CCE DATA” folder:

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

The “FINAL CCE.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 2,189 variables.  It was then copied to

the “CCE” folder.

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 14, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in CCE#L1 to CCE#L15 equals CCE#N99

(2) The number of initials in CCE#T1 to CCE#T15 equals CCE#N33

(3) The number of initials in CCE#Y1 to CCE#Y15 equals CCE#N12

(4) Each initial in CCE#L* has a value in CCE#B*, and each value in CCE#B* has an initial in CCE#L*

(5) A value for CCE#C always exists when CCE# > 0, and exists only when CCE# > 0 (for Q1&Q2)

(6) A value for CCE#D1 always exists when CCE#C = 1, and exists only when CCE#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(7) Each value in CCE#D* has a value in CCE#E*, and each value in CCE#E* has a value in CCE#D*

(for Q1&Q2)

(8) A value for CCE#F always exists when CCE#C = 1, and exists only when CCE#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(9) A value for CCE#F always exists when CCE# > 0, and exists only when CCE# > 0 (for Q3&Q4)

(10) A value for CCE#G1 always exists when CCE#F = 1, and exists only when CCE#F = 1

(11) Each value in CCE#G* has a value in CCE#H*, and each value in CCE#H* has a value in CCE#G*

(12) The number of perpetrators in CCE# equals CCE#N99

(13) CCE#N36 is between 1 and 15 when C = 1, and only when C = 1

(14) CCE#N12 is between 1 and 15 when F = 1, and only when F = 1

(15) There are no duplicate initials in CCE#A* and the initials in CCE#A*were not included in the PA

section

(16) CCE1L* includes the initials from PA which are identified in CCE1I*  

(17) CCE2L* includes the initials from PA and CCE1A* which are identified in CCE2I*  

(18) CCE3L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, and CCE2A* which are identified in CCE3I*  

(19) CCE4L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, and CCE3A* which are identified in

CCE4I*  

(20) CCE5L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, and CCE4A* which are identified

in CCE5I*  

(21) CCE6L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, and CCE5A* which are

identified in CCE6I*  

(22) CCE7L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, and CCE6A*

which are identified in CCE7I*  

(23) CCE8L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*, and

CCE7A* which are identified in CCE8I*  

(24) CCE9L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, and CCE8A* which are identified in CCE9I*  

(25) CCE10L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, CCE8A*, and CCE9A* which are identified in CCE10I*  

(26) CCE11L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, CCE8A*, CCE9A*, and CCE10A* which are identified in CCE11I*  

(27) CCE12L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, CCE8A*, CCE9A*, CCE10A*, and CCE11A* which are identified in CCE12I*  

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

(28) CCE13L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, CCE8A*, CCE9A*, CCE10A*, CCE11A*, and CCE12A* which are identified in CCE13I*  

(29) CCE14L* includes the initials from PA, CCE1A*, CCE2A*, CCE3A*, CCE4A*, CCE5A*, CCE6A*,

CCE7A*, CCE8A*, CCE9A*, CCE10A*, CCE11A*, CCE12A*, and CCE13A* which are identified in

CCE14I*  

(30) CCE1L* also includes the new initials from CCE1A*, and no others

(31) CCE2L* also includes the new initials from CCE2A*, and no others

(32) CCE3L* also includes the new initials from CCE3A*, and no others

(33) CCE4L* also includes the new initials from CCE4A*, and no others

(34) CCE5L* also includes the new initials from CCE5A*, and no others

(35) CCE6L* also includes the new initials from CCE6A*, and no others

(36) CCE7L* also includes the new initials from CCE7A*, and no others

(37) CCE8L* also includes the new initials from CCE8A*, and no others

(38) CCE9L* also includes the new initials from CCE9A*, and no others

(39) CCE10L* also includes the new initials from CCE10A*, and no others

(40) CCE11L* also includes the new initials from CCE11A*, and no others

(41) CCE12L* also includes the new initials from CCE12A*, and no others

(42) CCE13L* also includes the new initials from CCE13A*, and no others

(43) CCE14L* also includes the new initials from CCE14A*, and no others

(44) The initials in CCE1L* identified by CCE1D* are found in CCE1T* (Q1&Q2)

(45) The initials in CCE2L* identified by CCE2D* are found in CCE2T* (Q1&Q2)

(46) The initials in CCE3L* identified by CCE3D* are found in CCE3T* (Q1&Q2)

(47) The initials in CCE4L* identified by CCE4D* are found in CCE4T* (Q1&Q2)

(48) The initials in CCE5L* identified by CCE5D* are found in CCE5T* (Q1&Q2)

(49) The initials in CCE6L* identified by CCE6D* are found in CCE6T* (Q1&Q2)

(50) The initials in CCE7L* identified by CCE7D* are found in CCE7T* (Q1&Q2)

(51) The initials in CCE8L* identified by CCE8D* are found in CCE8T* (Q1&Q2)

(52) The initials in CCE9L* identified by CCE9D* are found in CCE9T* (Q1&Q2)

(53) The initials in CCE10L* identified by CCE10D* are found in CCE10T* (Q1&Q2)

(54) The initials in CCE11L* identified by CCE11D* are found in CCE11T* (Q1&Q2)

(55) The initials in CCE12L* identified by CCE12D* are found in CCE12T* (Q1&Q2)

(56) The initials in CCE13L* identified by CCE13D* are found in CCE13T* (Q1&Q2)

(57) The initials in CCE14L* identified by CCE14D* are found in CCE14T* (Q1&Q2)

(58) The initials in CCE1T* identified by CCE1G* are found in CCE1Y* (Q1&Q2)

(59) The initials in CCE2T* identified by CCE2G* are found in CCE2Y* (Q1&Q2)

(60) The initials in CCE3T* identified by CCE3G* are found in CCE3Y* (Q1&Q2)

(61) The initials in CCE4T* identified by CCE4G* are found in CCE4Y* (Q1&Q2)

(62) The initials in CCE5T* identified by CCE5G* are found in CCE5Y* (Q1&Q2)

(63) The initials in CCE6T* identified by CCE6G* are found in CCE6Y* (Q1&Q2)

(64) The initials in CCE7T* identified by CCE7G* are found in CCE7Y* (Q1&Q2)

(65) The initials in CCE8T* identified by CCE8G* are found in CCE8Y* (Q1&Q2)

(66) The initials in CCE9T* identified by CCE9G* are found in CCE9Y* (Q1&Q2)

(67) The initials in CCE10T* identified by CCE10G* are found in CCE10Y* (Q1&Q2)

(68) The initials in CCE11T* identified by CCE11G* are found in CCE11Y* (Q1&Q2)

(69) The initials in CCE12T* identified by CCE12G* are found in CCE12Y* (Q1&Q2)

(70) The initials in CCE13T* identified by CCE13G* are found in CCE13Y* (Q1&Q2)

(71) The initials in CCE14T* identified by CCE14G* are found in CCE14Y* (Q1&Q2)

(72) The initials in CCE1L* identified by CCE1G* are found in CCE1Y* (Q3&Q4)

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

(73) The initials in CCE2L* identified by CCE2G* are found in CCE2Y* (Q3&Q4)

(74) The initials in CCE3L* identified by CCE3G* are found in CCE3Y* (Q3&Q4)

(75) The initials in CCE4L* identified by CCE4G* are found in CCE4Y* (Q3&Q4)

(76) The initials in CCE5L* identified by CCE5G* are found in CCE5Y* (Q3&Q4)

(77) The initials in CCE6L* identified by CCE6G* are found in CCE6Y* (Q3&Q4)

(78) The initials in CCE7L* identified by CCE7G* are found in CCE7Y* (Q3&Q4)

(79) The initials in CCE8L* identified by CCE8G* are found in CCE8Y* (Q3&Q4)

(80) The initials in CCE9L* identified by CCE9G* are found in CCE9Y* (Q3&Q4)

(81) The initials in CCE10L* identified by CCE10G* are found in CCE10Y* (Q3&Q4)

(82) The initials in CCE11L* identified by CCE11G* are found in CCE11Y* (Q3&Q4)

(83) The initials in CCE12L* identified by CCE12G* are found in CCE12Y* (Q3&Q4)

(84) The initials in CCE13L* identified by CCE13G* are found in CCE13Y* (Q3&Q4)

(85) The initials in CCE14L* identified by CCE14G* are found in CCE14Y* (Q3&Q4)

(86) Data values for CCE# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(87) Data values for CCE# are not missing, except for CCE8

(88) CCE8 has a value when H10 = 1 and is missing otherwise

(89) Data values for CCE#N99, CCE#N36, and CCE#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(90) Data values for CCE#B*, CCE#E*, and CCE#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(91) Data values for CCE#C and CCE#F are in valid range (‐3 to 2)

(92) Data values for CCE#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

(93) Data values for CCE#D* and CCE#G* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(94) When CCE# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent CCE# variables

(95) When CCE#C < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent CCE# variables (for Q1&Q2)

(96) When CCE#F < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent CCE# variables

(97) CCE#C, CCE#D*, CCE#T*, and CCE#E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

Data & Files in the “CCE DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Forty five problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered four general

types of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the CCE

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 101362731, 103545682, 102642201,

103111512, 103734002, 102261601, 101037551, 103072341, 101100061, 101255041,

103084722, 103321401, 104745211, 102228871, 103705332, 103072532, 102371621,

103253481, 104050681, 104528421, 101141031, 102414201, 101047311, 101124771,

101179491, 101267691, 102152031, 102191791, 102474271, 102490151, 103401631,

103571881, 103639282, 103652462, 103684932, 103689592, 103725882, and 101151321.

(2) Some respondents provided more initials than expected based on their answers to the CCE

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 101136451 and 101120651.

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

(3) Some respondents provided duplicate initials.  Problems were identified for respondents

102652711 and 103709011.

(4) Some respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.  Problems were

identified for respondents 102374211, 102072471, and 103550352.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following 38 respondents provided fewer perpetrator initials than expected.

101362731

The respondent reported CCE11 victimizations in the lifetime and in the past three years by two

perpetrators.  The respondent also reported CCE11 victimizations in the past year (CCE11F = 1), but

no perpetrator information is available (CCE11G1 = ‐1, CCE11Y* is missing, CCE11N12 = 0, and

CCE11H* is missing).  

103545682

The respondent did not provide perpetrator initials in the PA section (PA1 = 0, PA2 = 2, PA3 = 2, PA4

= 2, and PA5 = 1).  The respondent reported CCE victimizations (CCE1 = 2, CCE3 = 2, CCE4 = 1, CCE5 =

1, CCE6 = 1, CCE7 = 2, CCE9 = 1, CCE10 = 1 CCE11 = 1 CCE12 = 2, and CCE13 = 1).  The CCE

perpetrators were those previously identified in the PA section, but there are no initials in the PA

section.   

102642201

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103111512

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103734002

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but only provided initials for one

perpetrator.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

102261601

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

101037551

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103072341

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

   

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

101100061

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101255041

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103084722

The respondent reported CCE8 victimizations by six perpetrators, but only provided initials for one

perpetrator.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

103321401

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104745211

The respondent reported CCE11 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

102228871

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by eight perpetrators, but only provided initials for

four perpetrators.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

103705332

The respondent reported CCE13 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

103072532

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by three perpetrators, but only provided initials for

one perpetrator.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

102371621

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103253481

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104050681

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104528421

The respondent reported CCE4 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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

101141031

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102414201

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101047311

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by two perpetrators, but only provided initials for one

perpetrator.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

101124771

The respondent reported CCE5 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101179491

The respondent reported CCE4 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101267691

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102152031

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102191791

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102474271

The respondent reported CCE3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102490151

The respondent reported CCE4 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103401631

The respondent reported CCE6 victimizations by two perpetrators, but only provided initials for one

perpetrator.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

103571881

The respondent reported CCE9 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    52

103639282

The respondent reported CCE11 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103652462

The respondent reported CCE11 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103684932

The respondent reported CCE11 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103689592

The respondent reported CCE12 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103725882

The respondent reported CCE12 victimizations by six perpetrators, but only provided initials for five

perpetrators.  The respondent then stopped the interview.

101151321

The respondent reported CCE4 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(2) The following two respondents provided more perpetrator initials than expected.

101136451

The respondent reported CCE6 victimizations by two people (CCE6 = 2, CCE6I1 = 1, and CCE6I2 = 2).  

A third perpetrator was identified in CCE6A1.  Only two perpetrators are included in CC6N99 and

only CCE6B1 and CCE6B2 have valid values.  

101120651

The respondent reported CCE14 victimizations by one person.  The respondent then provided four

sets of initials in CCE14A* (CCE14A1 to CCE14A4).  Only one set of initials is found in CCE14L*

(CCE14L1) and only one answer is provided in the CCE14B* questions.

(3) The following two respondents provided duplicate perpetrator initials.

102652711

The respondent provided a new initial in CCE3A3 which had already been provided in CCE3A1.

103709011

The respondent provided a new initial in CCE4A2 which had already been provided in PA1A1.

   

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.
    53

(4) The following three respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.

102374211

The respondent reported PA victimizations by one perpetrator, and their initials were collected.  The

respondent also reported CCE victimizations (CCE2 = 1, CCE7 = 1, CCE8 = 1, CCE9 = 1, CCE10 = 1,

CCE12 = 1, and CCE14 = 1).  CCE2, CCE10, CCE11, CCE12, and CCE14 victimizations were by the first

perpetrator.  CCE7, CCE8, and CCE9 were by the second perpetrator, but there is no second

perpetrator.   

102072471

The respondent reported CCE1 victimizations by five people.  Five initials were collected (there were

no PA victimizations reported).  The respondent then reported CCE3 and CCE7 victimizations by two

people (the third and the sixth previously identified perpetrators) – but there is no sixth previously

identified perpetrator.  The respondent also reported CCE7 victimizations by this sixth perpetrator in

the past three years and in the past year.   

103550352

The respondent reported CCE2 victimizations by one perpetrator – the third previously identified

perpetrator.  However, only two perpetrators were previously identified.   

   

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.
54

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 7

PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

The physical violence (PV) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)

includes 12 questions:

How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever...

PV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

PV2 Slapped you?

PV3 Pushed or shoved you?

PV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

PV5 Kicked you?

PV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

PV7 Slammed you against something?

PV8 Forced you to engage in sexual activity?

PV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

PV10 Beaten you?

PV11 Burned you on purpose?

PV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the physical violence sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010

AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the

psychological aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE PV DATA” folder:

The “FINAL PV.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 1,876 variables.  It was then copied to

the “PV” folder.

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.
    55

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 12, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in PV#L1 to PV#L15 equals PV#N99

(2) The number of initials in PV#1T1 to PV#T15 equals PV#N33

(3) The number of initials in PV#Y1 to PV#Y15 equals PV#N12

(4) Each initial in PV#L* has a value in PV#B*, and each value in PV#B* has an initial in PV#L*

(5) A value for PV#C always exists when PV# > 0, and exists only when PV# > 0 (for Q1&Q2)

(6) A value for PV#D1 always exists when PV#C = 1, and exists only when PV#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(7) Each value in PV#D* has a value in PV#E*, and each value in PV#E* has a value in PV#D* (for

Q1&Q2)

(8) A value for PV#F always exists when PV#C = 1, and exists only when PV#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(9) A value for PV#F always exists when PV# > 0, and exists only when PV# > 0 (for Q3&Q4)

(10) A value for PV#G1 always exists when PV#F = 1, and exists only when PV#F = 1

(11) Each value in PV#G* has a value in PV#H*, and each value in PV#H* has a value in PV#G*

(12) The number of perpetrators in PV# equals PV#N99

(13) PV#N36 is between 1 and 15 when C = 1, and only when C = 1

(14) PV#N12 is between 1 and 15 when F = 1, and only when F = 1

(15) There are no duplicate initials in PV#A* and the new initials in PV#A* were not included in the

PA or CCE sections

(16) PV1L* includes the initials from PA and CCE which are identified in PV1I*  

(17) PV2L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, and PV1A* which are identified in PV2I*  

(18) PV3L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, and PV2A* which are identified in PV3I*  

(19) PV4L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, and PV3A* which are identified in PV4I*  

(20) PV5L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, and PV4A* which are identified

in PV5I*  

(21) PV6L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, and PV5A* which are

identified in PV6I*  

(22) PV7L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, and PV6A*

which are identified in PV7I*  

(23) PV8L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, PV6A*, and

PV7A* which are identified in PV8I*  

(24) PV9L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, PV6A*, PV7A*,

and PV8A* which are identified in PV9I*  

(25) PV10L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, PV6A*, PV7A*,

PV8A*, and PV9A* which are identified in PV10I*  

(26) PV11L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, PV6A*, PV7A*,

PV8A*, PV9A*, and PV10A* which are identified in PV11I*  

(27) PV12L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV1A*, PV2A*, PV3A*, PV4A*, PV5A*, PV6A*, PV7A*,

PV8A*, PV9A*, PV10A*, and PV11A* which are identified in PV12I*  

(28) PV1L* also includes the new initials from PV1A*, and no others

(29) PV2L* also includes the new initials from PV2A*, and no others

(30) PV3L* also includes the new initials from PV3A*, and no others

(31) PV4L* also includes the new initials from PV4A*, and no others

(32) PV5L* also includes the new initials from PV5A*, and no others

(33) PV6L* also includes the new initials from PV6A*, and no 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.
    56

(34) PV7L* also includes the new initials from PV7A*, and no others

(35) PV8L* also includes the new initials from PV8A*, and no others

(36) PV9L* also includes the new initials from PV9A*, and no others

(37) PV10L* also includes the new initials from PV10A*, and no others

(38) PV11L* also includes the new initials from PV11A*, and no others

(39) PV12L* also includes the new initials from PV12A*, and no others

(40) The initials in PV1L* identified by PV1D* are found in PV1T* (Q1&Q2)

(41) The initials in PV2L* identified by PV2D* are found in PV2T* (Q1&Q2)

(42) The initials in PV3L* identified by PV3D* are found in PV3T* (Q1&Q2)

(43) The initials in PV4L* identified by PV4D* are found in PV4T* (Q1&Q2)

(44) The initials in PV5L* identified by PV5D* are found in PV5T* (Q1&Q2)

(45) The initials in PV6L* identified by PV6D* are found in PV6T* (Q1&Q2)

(46) The initials in PV7L* identified by PV7D* are found in PV7T* (Q1&Q2)

(47) The initials in PV8L* identified by PV8D* are found in PV8T* (Q1&Q2)

(48) The initials in PV9L* identified by PV9D* are found in PV9T* (Q1&Q2)

(49) The initials in PV10L* identified by PV10D* are found in PV10T* (Q1&Q2)

(50) The initials in PV11L* identified by PV11D* are found in PV11T* (Q1&Q2)

(51) The initials in PV12L* identified by PV12D* are found in PV12T* (Q1&Q2)

(52) The initials in PV1T* identified by PV1G* are found in PV1Y* (Q1&Q2)

(53) The initials in PV2T* identified by PV2G* are found in PV2Y* (Q1&Q2)

(54) The initials in PV3T* identified by PV3G* are found in PV3Y* (Q1&Q2)

(55) The initials in PV4T* identified by PV4G* are found in PV4Y* (Q1&Q2)

(56) The initials in PV5T* identified by PV5G* are found in PV5Y* (Q1&Q2)

(57) The initials in PV6T* identified by PV6G* are found in PV6Y* (Q1&Q2)

(58) The initials in PV7T* identified by PV7G* are found in PV7Y* (Q1&Q2)

(59) The initials in PV8T* identified by PV8G* are found in PV8Y* (Q1&Q2)

(60) The initials in PV9T* identified by PV9G* are found in PV9Y* (Q1&Q2)

(61) The initials in PV10T* identified by PV10G* are found in PV10Y* (Q1&Q2)

(62) The initials in PV11T* identified by PV11G* are found in PV11Y* (Q1&Q2)

(63) The initials in PV12T* identified by PV12G* are found in PV12Y* (Q1&Q2)

(64) The initials in PV1L* identified by PV1G* are found in PV1Y* (Q3&Q4)

(65) The initials in PV2L* identified by PV2G* are found in PV2Y* (Q3&Q4)

(66) The initials in PV3L* identified by PV3G* are found in PV3Y* (Q3&Q4)

(67) The initials in PV4L* identified by PV4G* are found in PV4Y* (Q3&Q4)

(68) The initials in PV5L* identified by PV5G* are found in PV5Y* (Q3&Q4)

(69) The initials in PV6L* identified by PV6G* are found in PV6Y* (Q3&Q4)

(70) The initials in PV7L* identified by PV7G* are found in PV7Y* (Q3&Q4)

(71) The initials in PV8L* identified by PV8G* are found in PV8Y* (Q3&Q4)

(72) The initials in PV9L* identified by PV9G* are found in PV9Y* (Q3&Q4)

(73) The initials in PV10L* identified by PV10G* are found in PV10Y* (Q3&Q4)

(74) The initials in PV11L* identified by PV11G* are found in PV11Y* (Q3&Q4)

(75) The initials in PV12L* identified by PV12G* are found in PV12Y* (Q3&Q4)

(76) Data values for PV# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(77) Data values for PV# are not missing

(78) Data values for PV#N99, PV#N36, and PV#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(79) Data values for PV#B*, PV#E*, and PV#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(80) Data values for PV#C and PV#F are in valid range (‐3 to 2)

(81) Data values for PV#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

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.
    57

(82) Data values for PV#D* and PV#G* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(83) When PV# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PV# variables

(84) When PV#C < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PV# variables (for Q1&Q2)

(85) When PV#F < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent PV# variables

(86) PV#C, PV#D*, PV#T*, and PV#E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

Data & Files in the “PV DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Twenty six problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered four

general types of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the PV

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 101295621, 102588941, 103506042,

103539131, 103466791, 103296621, 103531882, 103614031, 101007991, 101053081,

101156201, 102199331, 102405751, 104703641, 103406961, 104326571, 103660412,

103671122, 103094772, 103716702, and 103108112.

(2) Some respondents provided more initials than expected based on their answers to the PV

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 101161751 and 102501641.

(3) Some respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.  Problems were

identified for respondents 103518121 and 103545682.

(4) Perpetrator initials for one respondent appear to be incorrectly linked.  Problems were

identified for respondent 101130321.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following 21 respondents provided fewer initials than expected.

101295621

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by two perpetrators and provided initials for both

perpetrators.  The respondent reported PV2 victimizations in the past three years (PV2C = 1), but no

perpetrator identifiers are available (PV2D1 = ‐1, PV2D2 to PV2D15 are system missing).  Past three

year frequencies (PV3E*) are also system missing, and the number of past three year perpetrators is

zero (PV2N36 = 0).

102588941

The respondent reported PV1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

   

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.
    58

103506042

The respondent reported PV1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103539131

The respondent reported PV1 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided the first perpetrator’s

initials, but then stopped the interview before providing the second perpetrator’s initials.

103466791

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103296621

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, provided the first and second

perpetrators’ initials, but then stopped the interview before providing the other perpetrators’

initials.

103531882

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103614031

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101007991

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101053081

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101156201

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102199331

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102405751

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104703641

The respondent reported PV4 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    59

103406961

The respondent reported PV7 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104326571

The respondent reported PV8 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103660412

The respondent reported PV10 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103671122

The respondent reported PV10 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103094772

The respondent reported PV10 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103716702

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

103108112

The respondent reported PV4 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(2) The following two respondents provided more perpetrator initials than expected.

101161751

The respondent reported PV2 victimizations by one perpetrator.  Data are found in both PV2I1 and

PV2A1 (for one previously identified perpetrator and one new perpetrator).  As a result, the number

of initials (PV2I1 and PV2A1) exceeds the number of perpetrators (PV2 = 1).

102501641   

The respondent reported PV8 victimizations by two perpetrators.  Data are found in PV8I1, PV8A1,

and PV8A2 (for one previously identified perpetrator and two new perpetrators).  As a result, the

number of initials exceeds the number of perpetrators (PV8 = 2).

(3) The following two respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.

103518121

The respondent reported PV3 victimizations by two perpetrators (#10 and #11, PV3I1 = 10 and

PV3I2 = 11), but there is no 11th perpetrator.  Similarly, the respondent reported PV4 victimizations

by two perpetrators (#10 and #11, PV4I1 = 10 and PV4I2 = 11), but there is no 11th perpetrator.   

   

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.
    60

103545682

The respondent reported PV1 victimizations by two perpetrators (#1 and #2, PV1I1 = 1 and PV1I2 =

2), PV2 victimizations by two perpetrators (#1 and #2, PV2I1 = 1 and PV2I2 = 2), PV3 victimizations

by two perpetrators (#1 and #2, PV3I1 = 1 and PV3I2 = 2), PV4 victimizations by two perpetrators (#1

and #2, PV4I1 = 1 and PV4I2 = 2), PV5 victimizations by two perpetrators (#1 and #2, PV5I1 = 1 and

PV5I2 = 2), PV6 victimizations by one perpetrator (#1, PV6I1 = 1), PV7 victimizations by two

perpetrators (#1 and #2, PV7I1 = 1 and PV7I2 = 2), PV8 victimizations by one perpetrator (#1, PV8I1

= 1), PV9 victimizations by one perpetrator (#1, PV9I1 = 1), PV10 victimizations by two perpetrators

(#1 and #2, PV10I1 = 1 and PV10I2 = 2), and PV12 victimizations by two perpetrators (#1 and #2,

PV12I1 = 1 and PV12I2 = 2).  However, no initials were previously collected.   

(4) The perpetrator initials for the following respondent appear to be incorrectly linked.

101130321

The respondent reported PV1 victimizations by six perpetrators.  All six perpetrators were previously

identified (PV1I1 = 1, PV1I2 = 3, PV1I3 = 5, PV1I4 = 7, PV1I5 = 2, and PV1I6 = 4).  The perpetrator in

PV1L4 is the eighth previously identified perpetrator, not the seventh.   

   

   

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.
61

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 8

ELDER ABUSE: PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION

The elder abuse – psychological aggression (EPA) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual

Violence Survey (NISVS) includes 5 questions:

During the past 12 months, how many people have...

EPA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

EPA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

EPA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

EPA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

EPA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the elder abuse – psychological aggression sections from the 2010 NISVS general population

sample and the 2010 AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had

completed the psychological aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value

labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE EPA DATA” folder:

The “FINAL EPA.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 300 variables.  It was then copied to the

“EPA” folder.

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 5, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in EPA#Y1 to EPA#Y15 equals EPA#N12

(2) Each value in EPA#Y* has a value in EPA#H*, and each value in EPA#H* has a value in EPA#Y*

(3) The number of perpetrators in EPA# equals EPA#N12

(4) There are no duplicate initials in EPA#A*

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.
62

(5) Initials in EPA#A* were not included in the PA, CCE, or PV sections.

(6) EPA2Y* includes the initials from EPA1Y* which are identified in EPA2I*  

(7) EPA3Y* includes the initials from EPA1Y* and EPA2A*, which are identified in EPA3I*  

(8) EPA4Y* includes the initials from EPA1Y*, EPA2A*, and EPA3A*, which are identified in EPA4I*  

(9) EPA5Y* includes the initials from EPA1Y*, EPA2A*, EPA3A*, and EPA4A*, which are identified in

EPA5I*  

(10) The initials in EPA1A* are the same as those in EPA1Y*

(11) EPA2Y* also includes the new initials from EPA2A*, and no others

(12) EPA3Y* also includes the new initials from EPA3A*, and no others

(13) EPA4Y* also includes the new initials from EPA4A*, and no others

(14) EPA5Y* also includes the new initials from EPA5A*, and no others

(15) Data values for EPA# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(16) Data values for EPA#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(17) Data values for EPA#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(18) Data values for EPA2I*, EPA3I*, EPA4I*, and EPA5I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous

initials)

(19) When EPA# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent EPA# variables

(20) Data values for EPA# are missing when the respondent is less than 70 years old, and only when

the respondent is less than 70 years old

Data & Files in the “EPA DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Eleven problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered two general

types of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the EPA

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 103441871 and 103071322.

(2) Some respondents provided initials in the EPA section (for non‐intimate partners) that had

already been provided in the previous PA, CCE, and PV sections (for intimate partners).  

Problems were identified for respondents 101120071, 102262241, 102290271, 102591131,

103116612, 103335271, 103544801, 103689891, and 103726961.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following two respondents provided fewer initials than expected.

103441871

The respondent reported EPA1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing initials for these perpetrators.

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.
63

103071322

The respondent reported EPA1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing this perpetrator’s initials.

(2) The following nine respondents provided initials in the EPA section (for non‐intimate partners)

that had already been provided in the previous PA, CCE, and PV sections (for intimate partners).

101120071

The respondent identified two perpetrators for EPA2.  The second new perpetrator (in EPA2A2 and

EPA2Y2) was already identified in CCE3.

102262241

The respondent identified eight perpetrators for EPA1.  The second new perpetrator (in EPA1A2 and

EPA1Y2) and the eighth new perpetrator (in EPA1A8 and EPA1Y8) were already identified (in PA1

and PA2, respectively).

102290271

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for EPA1.  This perpetrator (in EPA1A1 and EPA1Y1

was already identified in PA2.

102591131

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for EPA2.  This perpetrator (in EPA2A1 and EPA2Y1)

was already identified in PA3.

103116612

The respondent identified six perpetrators for EPA3.  The first new perpetrator (in EPA3A1 and

EPA3Y2) was already identified in PA1.

103335271

The respondent identified two perpetrators for EPA1.  The first new perpetrator (in EPA1A1 and

EPA1Y1) was already identified in PA4.

103544801

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for EPA2.  This perpetrator (in EPA2A1 and EPA2Y1)

was already identified in PA2.

103689891

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for EPA1.  This perpetrator (in EPA1A1 and EPA1Y1)

was already identified in CCE1.

103726961

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for EPA2.  This perpetrator (in EPA2A1 and EPA2Y1)

was already identified in PA4.

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.
64

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 9

ELDER ABUSE: COERCIVE CONTROL AND ENTRAPMENT

The elder abuse – coercive control and entrapment (ECCE) section of the National Intimate Partner and

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) includes 11 questions:

During the past 12 months, how many people have...

ECCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

ECCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

ECCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

ECCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with

you?

ECCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

ECCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

ECCE7 Hurt someone you love?

ECCE8 Threatened to keep you from seeing your children or grandchildren?

ECCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

ECCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

ECCE11 Destroyed something that belonged to you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the elder abuse – coercive control and entrapment sections from the 2010 NISVS general

population sample and the 2010 AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the

respondent had completed the psychological aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New

variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE ECCE DATA” folder:

The “FINAL ECCE.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 687 variables.  It was then copied to

the “ECCE” folder.

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.
    65

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 11, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in ECCE#Y1 to ECCE#Y15 equals ECCE#N12

(2) Each value in ECCE#Y* has a value in ECCE#H*, and each value in ECCE#H* has a value in

ECCE#Y*

(3) The number of perpetrators in ECCE# equals ECCE#N12

(4) There are no duplicate initials in ECCE#A*, and ECCE#A* initials were not included in the EPA

section

(5) The new initials in ECCE#A*were not included in the PA, CCE, or PV sections

(6) ECCE1Y* includes the initials from EPA which are identified in ECCE1I*  

(7) ECCE2Y* includes the initials from EPA and ECCE1A* which are identified in ECCE2I*  

(8) ECCE3Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, and ECCE2A* which are identified in ECCE3I*  

(9) ECCE4Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, and ECCE3A* which are identified in

ECCE4I*  

(10) ECCE5Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, and ECCE4A* which are

identified in ECCE5I*  

(11) ECCE6Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, and ECCE5A*

which are identified in ECCE6I*  

(12) ECCE7Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, ECCE5A*, and

ECCE6A* which are identified in ECCE7I*  

(13) ECCE8Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, ECCE5A*,

ECCE6A*, and ECCE7A* which are identified in ECCE8I*  

(14) ECCE9Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, ECCE5A*,

ECCE6A*, ECCE7A*, and ECCE8A* which are identified in ECCE9I*  

(15) ECCE10Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, ECCE5A*,

ECCE6A*, ECCE7A*, ECCE8A*, and ECCE9A* which are identified in ECCE10I*  

(16) ECCE11Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE1A*, ECCE2A*, ECCE3A*, ECCE4A*, ECCE5A*,

ECCE6A*, ECCE7A*, ECCE8A*, ECCE9A*, and ECCE10A* which are identified in ECCE11I*  

(17) ECCE1Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE1A*, and no others

(18) ECCE2Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE2A*, and no others

(19) ECCE3Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE3A*, and no others

(20) ECCE4Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE4A*, and no others

(21) ECCE5Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE5A*, and no others

(22) ECCE6Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE6A*, and no others

(23) ECCE7Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE7A*, and no others

(24) ECCE8Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE8A*, and no others

(25) ECCE9Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE9A*, and no others

(26) ECCE10Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE10A*, and no others

(27) ECCE11Y* also includes the new initials from ECCE11A*, and no others

(28) Data values for ECCE# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(29) Data values for ECCE#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(30) Data values for ECCE#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(31) Data values for ECCE#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

(32) When ECCE# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent ECCE# variables

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.
66

(33) Data values for ECCE# are missing when the respondent is less than 70 years old, and only when

the respondent is less than 70 years old

Data & Files in the “ECCE DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Sixteen problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered two general

types of problems:

(A) One respondent provided fewer initials than expected based on the answers to the ECCE

questions.  Problems were identified for respondent 103681182.

(B) Fifteen respondents provided initials in the EPA section (for non‐intimate partners) that had

already been provided in the previous PA, CCE, and PV sections (for intimate partners).  Problems

were identified for respondents 101039381, 101266211, 101349571, 102081491, 102130291,

102524441, 102538861, 102592291, 102607391, 103027101, 103057641, 103369231, 103417781,

103731861, and 104156741.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following respondent provided fewer initials than expected.

103681182

The respondent reported ECCE3 victimizations by four perpetrators, but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

(2) The following 15 respondents provided initials in the ECCE section (for non‐intimate partners) that

had already been provided in the previous PA, CCE, and PV sections (for intimate partners).

101039381

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE1.  This perpetrator (in ECCE1A1 and

ECCE1Y1) was already identified in CCE1.

101266211

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE3.  This perpetrator (in ECCE3A1 and

ECCE3Y1) was already identified in CCE2.

101349571

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE3.  This perpetrator (in ECCE3A1 and

ECCE3Y1) was already identified in PV5.

102081491

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE1.  This perpetrator (in ECCE1A1 and

ECCE1Y1) was already identified in CCE1.

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.
    67

102130291

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE7.  This perpetrator (in ECCE7A1 and

ECCE7Y1) was already identified in PV2.

102524441

The respondent identified five perpetrators for ECCE3.  The first new perpetrator (in ECCE3A1 and

ECCE3Y3) was already identified in CCE10.

102538861

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE3.  This perpetrator (in ECCE3A1 and

ECCE3Y1) was already identified in CCE2.

102592291

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE3.  This perpetrator (in ECCE3A1 and

ECCE3Y1) was already identified in CCE3.

102607391

The respondent identified two perpetrators for ECCE6.  The first new perpetrator (in ECCE6A1 and

ECCE6Y2) was already identified in PA1.

103027101

The respondent identified three perpetrators for ECCE7.  The second new perpetrator (in ECCE7A2

and ECCE7Y2) was already identified in PA4.

103057641

The respondent identified three perpetrators for ECCE3.  The third new perpetrator (in ECCE3A3 and

ECCE3Y3) was already identified in CCE10.

103369231

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE7.  This new perpetrator (in ECCE7A1 and

ECCE7Y1) was already identified in PA1.

103417781

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE2.  This new perpetrator (in ECCE2A1 and

ECCE2Y1) was already identified in CCE2.

103731861

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE2.  This new perpetrator (in ECCE2A1 and

ECCE2Y1) was already identified in CCE2.

104156741

The respondent identified one new perpetrator for ECCE8.  This new perpetrator (in ECCE8A1 and

ECCE8Y1) was already identified in CCE2.

   

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.
68

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 10

ELDER ABUSE: PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

The elder abuse – physical violence (EPV) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence

Survey (NISVS) includes 12 questions:

During the past 12 months, how many people have...

EPV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

EPV2 Slapped you?

EPV3 Pushed or shoved you?

EPV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

EPV5 Kicked you?

EPV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

EPV7 Slammed you against something?

EPV8 Forced you to engage in sexual activity?

EPV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

EPV10 Beaten you?

EPV11 Burned you on purpose?

EPV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the elder abuse – physical violence sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample

and the 2010 AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed

the psychological aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were

created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE EPV DATA” folder:

The “FINAL EPV.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 749 variables.  It was then copied to the

“EPV” folder.

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.
    69

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 12, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in EPV#Y1 to EPV#Y15 equals EPV#N12

(2) Each value in EPV#Y* has a value in EPV#H*, and each value in EPV#H* has a value in EPV#Y*

(3) The number of perpetrators in EPV# equals EPV#N12

(4) There are no duplicate initials in EPV#A*, and the initials in EPV#A* were not included in the EPA

or ECCE sections

(5) The new initials in EPV#A*were not included in the PA, CCE, or PV sections

(6) EPV1Y* includes the initials from EPA and ECCE which are identified in EPV1I*  

(7) EPV2Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, and EPV1A* which are identified in EPV2I*  

(8) EPV3Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, and EPV2A* which are identified in EPV3I*  

(9) EPV4Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, and EPV3A* which are identified

in EPV4I*  

(10) EPV5Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, and EPV4A* which are

identified in EPV5I*  

(11) EPV6Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, and EPV5A*

which are identified in EPV6I*  

(12) EPV7Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*, and

EPV6A* which are identified in EPV7I*  

(13) EPV8Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*,

EPV6A*, and EPV7A* which are identified in EPV8I*  

(14) EPV9Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*,

EPV6A*, EPV7A*, and EPV8A* which are identified in EPV9I*  

(15) EPV10Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*,

EPV6A*, EPV7A*, EPV8A*, and EPV9A* which are identified in EPV10I*  

(16) EPV11Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*,

EPV6A*, EPV7A*, EPV8A*, EPV9A*, and EPV10A* which are identified in EPV11I*  

(17) EPV12Y* includes the initials from EPA, ECCE, EPV1A*, EPV2A*, EPV3A*, EPV4A*, EPV5A*,

EPV6A*, EPV7A*, EPV8A*, EPV9A*, EPV10A*, and EPV11A* which are identified in EPV12I*  

(18) EPV1Y* also includes the new initials from EPV1A*, and no others

(19) EPV2Y* also includes the new initials from EPV2A*, and no others

(20) EPV3Y* also includes the new initials from EPV3A*, and no others

(21) EPV4Y* also includes the new initials from EPV4A*, and no others

(22) EPV5Y* also includes the new initials from EPV5A*, and no others

(23) EPV6Y* also includes the new initials from EPV6A*, and no others

(24) EPV7Y* also includes the new initials from EPV7A*, and no others

(25) EPV8Y* also includes the new initials from EPV8A*, and no others

(26) EPV9Y* also includes the new initials from EPV9A*, and no others

(27) EPV10Y* also includes the new initials from EPV10A*, and no others

(28) EPV11Y* also includes the new initials from EPV11A*, and no others

(29) EPV12Y* also includes the new initials from EPV12A*, and no others

(30) Data values for EPV# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(31) Data values for EPV#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(32) Data values for EPV#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(33) Data values for EPV#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

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.
    70

(34) When EPV# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent EPV# variables

(35) Data values for EPV# are missing when the respondent is less than 70 years old, and only when

the respondent is less than 70 years old

Data & Files in the “EPV DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

No problems were identified in the previous data checks.   

   

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.
71

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 11

STALKING

The stalking (ST) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) includes

seven questions:

How many people have ever...

ST1 Made unwanted phone calls or left you messages?  This includes hang‐ups, text or voice

messages.

ST2 Sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like

MySpace or Facebook?

ST3 Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?

ST4 Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device,

camera, or GPS [Global Positioning System]?

ST5 Approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when

you didn’t want them to be there?

ST6 Left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?

ST7 Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had

been there?

The ST data also include nine follow‐up questions (at the perpetrator level).  Perpetrator initials (in

alphabetical order) are identified in STFU_# (where # = 1 to 94).  (Note, there are no respondents with

31 or more perpetrators, so STFU_# and all follow‐up questions are only defined for STFU_1 to

STFU_30).  The nine follow‐up questions are:

STFU1_# Age at first victimization by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU2_# Age at last victimization by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU3_# If same age at first and last victimization: Length of stalking (#) by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU4_# If same age at first and last victimization: Length of stalking (unit) by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU5_# Ever fearful because of perpetrator STFU_#

STFU6_# If ever fearful: Maximum amount of fear because of perpetrator STFU_#

STFU7_# Property damaged by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU8_# Threats of physical harm by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU9_# Believed serious harm or killing by perpetrator STFU_#

The NISVS surveys and codebooks from RTI and CDC state that:

“(NOTE: one behavior, one time gets no follow‐up questions – for stalking either has to

be more than one behavior at least one time, or one behavior more than one time).”

However, follow‐up questions were asked for every perpetrator initials collected in the stalking section.  

While these follow‐up questions are included in the data merge below, they are not included in the data

checks.  Checks for perpetrator‐level follow‐up data are performed in a subsequent chapter.   

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.
    72

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the stalking sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the psychological

aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE ST DATA” folder:

The “FINAL ST.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 2,036 variables.  It was then copied to the

“ST” folder.

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 7, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in ST#L1 to ST#L15 equals ST#N99

(2) The number of initials in ST#1T1 to ST#T15 equals ST#N33

(3) The number of initials in ST#Y1 to ST#Y15 equals ST#N12

(4) Each initial in ST#L* has a value in ST#B*, and each value in ST#B* has an initial in ST#L*

(5) A value for ST#C always exists when ST# > 0, and exists only when ST# > 0 (for Q1&Q2)

(6) A value for ST#D1 always exists when ST#C = 1, and exists only when ST#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(7) Each value in ST#D* has a value in ST#E*, and each value in ST#E* has a value in ST#D* (for

Q1&Q2)

(8) A value for ST#F always exists when ST#C = 1, and exists only when ST#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(9) A value for ST#F always exists when ST# > 0, and exists only when ST# > 0 (for Q3&Q4)

(10) A value for ST#G1 always exists when ST#F = 1, and exists only when ST#F = 1

(11) Each value in ST#G* has a value in ST#H*, and each value in ST#H* has a value in ST#G*

(12) The number of perpetrators in ST# equals ST#N99

(13) ST#N36 is between 1 and 15 when C = 1, and only when C = 1

(14) ST#N12 is between 1 and 15 when F = 1, and only when F = 1

(15) There are no duplicate initials in ST#A*, and the new initials in ST#A* were not included in the

PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, or EPV sections

(16) ST1L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, and EPV which are identified in ST1I*  

(17) ST2L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, and ST1A* which are identified in

ST2I*  

(18) ST3L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST1A*, and ST2A* which are

identified in ST3I*  

(19) ST4L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST1A*, ST2A*, and ST3A* which are

identified in ST4I*  

(20) ST5L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST1A*, ST2A*, ST3A*, and ST4A*

which are identified in ST5I*  

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.
    73

(21) ST6L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST1A*, ST2A*, ST3A*, ST4A*, and

ST5A* which are identified in ST6I*  

(22) ST7L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST1A*, ST2A*, ST3A*, ST4A*,

ST5A*, and ST6A* which are identified in ST7I*  

(23) ST1L* also includes the new initials from ST1A*, and no others

(24) ST2L* also includes the new initials from ST2A*, and no others

(25) ST3L* also includes the new initials from ST3A*, and no others

(26) ST4L* also includes the new initials from ST4A*, and no others

(27) ST5L* also includes the new initials from ST5A*, and no others

(28) ST6L* also includes the new initials from ST6A*, and no others

(29) ST7L* also includes the new initials from ST7A*, and no others

(30) The initials in ST1L* identified by ST1D* are found in ST1T* (Q1&Q2)

(31) The initials in ST2L* identified by ST2D* are found in ST2T* (Q1&Q2)

(32) The initials in ST3L* identified by ST3D* are found in ST3T* (Q1&Q2)

(33) The initials in ST4L* identified by ST4D* are found in ST4T* (Q1&Q2)

(34) The initials in ST5L* identified by ST5D* are found in ST5T* (Q1&Q2)

(35) The initials in ST6L* identified by ST6D* are found in ST6T* (Q1&Q2)

(36) The initials in ST7L* identified by ST7D* are found in ST7T* (Q1&Q2)

(37) The initials in ST1T* identified by ST1G* are found in ST1Y* (Q1&Q2)

(38) The initials in ST2T* identified by ST2G* are found in ST2Y* (Q1&Q2)

(39) The initials in ST3T* identified by ST3G* are found in ST3Y* (Q1&Q2)

(40) The initials in ST4T* identified by ST4G* are found in ST4Y* (Q1&Q2)

(41) The initials in ST5T* identified by ST5G* are found in ST5Y* (Q1&Q2)

(42) The initials in ST6T* identified by ST6G* are found in ST6Y* (Q1&Q2)

(43) The initials in ST7T* identified by ST7G* are found in ST7Y* (Q1&Q2)

(44) The initials in ST1L* identified by ST1G* are found in ST1Y* (Q3&Q4)

(45) The initials in ST2L* identified by ST2G* are found in ST2Y* (Q3&Q4)

(46) The initials in ST3L* identified by ST3G* are found in ST3Y* (Q3&Q4)

(47) The initials in ST4L* identified by ST4G* are found in ST4Y* (Q3&Q4)

(48) The initials in ST5L* identified by ST5G* are found in ST5Y* (Q3&Q4)

(49) The initials in ST6L* identified by ST6G* are found in ST6Y* (Q3&Q4)

(50) The initials in ST7L* identified by ST7G* are found in ST7Y* (Q3&Q4)

(51) Data values for ST# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(52) Data values for ST# are not missing

(53) Data values for ST#N99, ST#N36, and ST#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(54) Data values for ST#B*, ST#E*, and ST#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(55) Data values for ST#C and ST#F are in valid range (‐3 to 2)

(56) Data values for ST#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

(57) Data values for ST#D* and ST#G* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(58) When ST# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent ST# variables

(59) When ST#C < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent ST# variables (for Q1&Q2)

(60) When ST#F < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent ST# variables

(61) ST#C, ST#D*, ST#T*, and ST#E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

Data & Files in the “ST DATA CHECK” folder:

   

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.
    74

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Seventy one problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered four

general types of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the ST

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 104906501, 102487971, 103318901,

102298991, 101131891, 103101062, 103250301, 102533981, 102167821, 102260441,

103256401, 103340631, 101076781, 101198301, 102055231, 102430491, 103031372,

102357701, 102571781, 103071801, 103509832, 103783612, 103106671, 103372941,

103382581, 101255831, 102449171, 102595991, 103584411, 103716291, 104311701,

104895921, 102147291, 102126951, 101013561, 102365701, 102023851, 102269601,

103664952, 103361031, 103063931, 103476381, 103777602, 101154261, 103074401,

102459731, 103189241, 102025391, 101317941, 101032301, 101131131, 102647461,

104725741, 101067211, 102079471, 102400221, 102484851, 103001562, 104124171,

103591601, 103689891, and 104538661.

(2) Some respondents provided duplicate initials.  Problems were identified for respondents

103313711, 104669681, and 101120651.

(3) Some respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.  Problems were

identified for respondents 101137711, 101309321, 103020781, 103182991, and 103545682.

(4) Perpetrator initials for one respondent appear to be incorrectly linked.  Problems were

identified for respondent 101360361.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following 62 respondents provided fewer initials than expected.

104906501

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102487971

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST1I1 = 1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other 14 perpetrators.

103318901

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 12 perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST1A1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other 11

perpetrators.

102298991  

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    75

101131891  

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST1I1 = 1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other nine perpetrators.

103101062  

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST1A1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other nine

perpetrators.

103250301  

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, provided initials for three previously

identified perpetrators (ST1I1 = 1, ST1I2 = 2, and ST1I3 = 3), but stopped the interview before

providing the initials for the other seven perpetrators.

102533981

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, provided initials for nine new

perpetrators (in ST1A1 to ST1A9), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other six perpetrators.

102167821

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102260441

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103256401

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by six perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST1I1 = 5), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other five perpetrators.

103340631

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101076781

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101198301

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

   

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.
    76

102055231

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by four perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST1I1 = 1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other three perpetrators.

102430491

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103031372

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, provided initials for two previously

identified perpetrators (ST1I1 = 1 and ST1I2 = 3) and five new perpetrators (in ST1A1 to ST1A5), but

stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other three perpetrators.

102357701

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102571781

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by four perpetrators, provided initials for two previously

identified perpetrators (ST1I1 = 1 and ST1I2 = 2), but stopped the interview before providing the

initials for the other two perpetrators.

103071801

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103509832

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103783612

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST1A1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other two

perpetrators.

103106671

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103372941

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103382581

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    77

101255831

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for two new

perpetrators (in ST1A1 and ST1A2), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

third perpetrator.

102449171

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102595991

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103584411

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103716291

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST1A1), but stopped the interview before providing the second perpetrator’s initials.

104311701

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104895921

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102147291

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, provided initials for two previously

identified perpetrators (ST2I1 = 1 and ST2I2 = 5) and one new perpetrator (in ST2A1), but stopped

the interview before providing the initials for the other 12 perpetrators.

102126951

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by eight perpetrators, provided initials for two

previously identified perpetrators (ST2I1 = 1 and ST2I2 = 3), but stopped the interview before

providing the initials for the other six perpetrators.

101013561

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102365701

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

   

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.
    78

102023851

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by five perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST2I1 = 1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

other four perpetrators.

102269601

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103664952

The respondent reported ST3 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103361031

The respondent reported ST3 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103063931

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST5A1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other two

perpetrators.

103476381

The respondent reported ST3 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator (ST3I1 = 1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the

second perpetrator.

103777602

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101154261

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103074401

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102459731

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST5A1), but stopped the interview before providing the second perpetrator’s initials.

103189241

The respondent reported ST6 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator (in ST6A1), but stopped the interview before providing the initials for the other two

perpetrators.

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.
    79

102025391

The respondent reported ST6 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

101317941

The respondent reported ST7 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

101032301

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past three years (ST1C = 1), but stopped the

interview before providing perpetrator initials.

101131131

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1), but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

102647461

The respondent reported ST3 victimizations in the past three years (ST3C = 1), but stopped the

interview before providing perpetrator initials.

104725741

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1), but stopped the interview

before providing perpetrator initials.

101067211

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past three years (ST1C = 1) but did not provide

initials for the past three year perpetrators (ST1D1 = ‐1, all others are missing).     

102079471

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past three years (ST1C = 1) but did not provide

initials for the past three year perpetrators (ST1D1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

102400221

The respondent reported ST4 victimizations in the past three years (ST4C = 1) but did not provide

initials for the past three year perpetrators (ST4D1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

   

102484851

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past three years (ST1C = 1) but did not provide

initials for the past three year perpetrators (ST1D1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

103001562

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1) but did not provide initials for

the past year perpetrators (ST1G1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

   

104124171   

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1) but did not provide initials for

the past year perpetrators (ST1G1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

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.
    80

103591601

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1) but did not provide initials for

the past year perpetrators (ST1G1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

103689891   

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1) but did not provide initials for

the past year perpetrators (ST1G1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

104538661

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations in the past year (ST1F = 1) but did not provide initials for

the past year perpetrators (ST1G1 = ‐1, all others are missing).  

(2)  The following three respondents provided duplicate initials.

103313711

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by one new perpetrator (in ST2A1), but this perpetrator

was previously identified in PV8.

104669681

The respondent reported ST4 victimizations by five perpetrators.  The second new perpetrator (in

ST4A2) was previously identified in ST1.

101120651

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by three perpetrators.  The first new perpetrator (in

ST1A1) was previously identified in CCE14.

   

(3)  The following five respondents provided perpetrator identifiers that were out of range.

101137711

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this

perpetrator (ST1I1 = 2), but ST1I1 = 2 is not a perpetrator that was previously defined (i.e., there is

no second previously identified perpetrator).   

101309321

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by five perpetrators, provided initials for two previously

identified perpetrators (ST1I1 = 1 and ST1I2 = 3) and three new perpetrators (in ST1A1, ST1A2, and

ST1A3).  There is no third previously identified perpetrator (i.e., ST1I2 = 3 is not a perpetrator that

was previously defined).   

103020781   

The respondent reported ST2 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this

perpetrator (ST2I1 = 3), but ST2I1 = 3 is not a perpetrator that was previously identified (i.e., there is

no third previously identified perpetrator).  This perpetrator also victimized the respondent in the

past year (ST2G1 = 1), but again this perpetrator was not previously identified.  The respondent also

reported ST5 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this perpetrator (ST5I1 = 3),

but ST5I1 = 3 is not a perpetrator that was previously identified (i.e., there is no third previously

identified perpetrator).  This perpetrator also victimized the respondent in the past year (ST5G1 = 1),

but again this perpetrator was not previously identified.   

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.
    81

103182991   

The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this

perpetrator (ST5I1 = 3), but ST5I1 = 3 is not a perpetrator that was previously defined (i.e., there is

no third previously identified perpetrator).   

103545682   

The respondent reported ST1 victimizations by four perpetrators, and provided initials for two

previously identified perpetrators (ST1I1 = 1 and ST1I2 = 2) and two new perpetrators (in ST1A1 and

ST1A2).  However, there are no previously identified perpetrators.  The respondent reported ST3

victimizations by three perpetrators, and provided initials for two previously identified perpetrators

(ST3I1 = 1 and ST3I2 = 3).  Initials for the third perpetrator were not provided.  In addition, ST3I1 = 1

refers to a perpetrator that was not previously defined (instead of referring to the first new

perpetrator in ST1).  ST3I2 = 3 should not exist, but refers to the first new perpetrator in ST1.  The

respondent reported ST4 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this perpetrator

(ST4I1 = 1).  ST4I1 = 1 refers to a perpetrator that was not previously defined (instead of referring to

the first new perpetrator in ST1).  The respondent reported ST5 victimizations by two perpetrators

and provided initials for two previously identified perpetrators (ST5I1 = 1 and ST5I2 = 3). ST5I1 = 1

refers to a perpetrator that was not previously defined (instead of referring to the first new

perpetrator in ST1).  ST5I2 = 3 should not exist, but refers to the first new perpetrator in ST1.  The

respondent reported ST7 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this perpetrator

(ST7I1 = 1). ST7I1 = 1 refers to a perpetrator that was not previously defined (instead of referring to

the first new perpetrator in ST1).   

(4)  The perpetrator initials for the following respondent appear to be incorrectly linked.

101360361

The respondent reported ST3 victimizations by one perpetrator and provided initials for this

perpetrator (ST3I1 = 3), but the perpetrator in ST3L1 is the fourth (not the third) previously

identified perpetrator.  (Note: the respondent had provided duplicate initials in PA1).

   

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.
82

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 12

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The sexual violence (SV) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)

includes 22 questions:

How many people have ever done any of the following things when you didn’t want it to happen?  

How many people have ever...

SV1 Exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

SV2 Made you show your sexual body parts to them? Remember, we are only asking about

things that you didn’t want to happen.

SV3 Made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

SV4 Harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?

SV5 Kissed you in a sexual way?  Remember, we are only asking about things you didn’t want

to happen.

SV6 Fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have

ever...

SV7 For female respondents only:  Had vaginal sex with you?  By vaginal sex, we mean that a

man or boy put his penis in your vagina.   

For male respondents only:  Had vaginal sex with you?  By vaginal sex, we mean that a

woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina.

SV8 For male respondents only:  Made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you

put your penis into their anus?

SV9 Made you receive anal sex, meaning that they put their penis into your anus?

SV10 Made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made

you penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?  

SV11 For female respondents only:  Made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their

mouth on your vagina or anus?

For male respondents only:  Made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their

mouth on your penis or anus?

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you...

SV12 Have vaginal sex?

SV13 For male respondents only:  Made you perform anal sex?

SV14 Receive anal sex?  

SV15 Perform oral sex?  

SV16 Receive oral sex?  

SV17 For female respondents only:  Put their fingers or an object in your vagina or anus?  

For male respondents only:  Put their fingers or an object in your anus?  

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.
    83

How many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to...

SV18 For male respondents only:  Try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not

happen?

SV19 For female respondents only:  Try to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did

not happen?  

For male respondents only:  Try to have oral or anal sex with you, but sex did not

happen?

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by...

SV20 Doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were

untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about

you?

SV21 Wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

SV22 Using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

Note that SV18a was renamed to SV18, SV18b was renamed to SV19, SV19 was renamed to SV20, SV20

was renamed to SV21, and SV21 was renamed to SV22.  

The SV data also include follow‐up questions (at both the perpetrator and respondent levels).  These

follow‐up questions are included in the data merge below, but are not included in the data checks.  

Checks for these follow‐up questions are performed in a subsequent chapter.  For each question above

(# = 1 to 22), follow‐up questions about each lifetime perpetrator in SV#L* (* = 1 to 15) may include the

following:

SV#O* Was perpetrator SV#L* using alcohol, drugs or both the first time he/she victimized

you?

SV#P* For SV1 to SV6 and SV12 to SV22 only: Were you using alcohol, drugs, or both the first

time you were victimized by perpetrator SV#L*?

SV#Q* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L*victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, do you think you were given

alcohol without your knowledge?

SV#R* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L* victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, do you think you were given or may

have been given drugs without your knowledge?

SV#S* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L* victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, had you voluntarily used alcohol or

drugs?

If the respondents reported more than one perpetrator in SV7 to SV17, additional respondent‐level

follow‐up questions were asked:

SVFU_O Did any of these things involve more than one person having sex with you on the same

occasion?

SVFU_P If SVFU_O = Yes: How many times has more than one person had sex with you on the

same occasion?

SVFU_Q1 If SVFU_P = 1: How many people were involved?

If SVFU_P > 1: How many people were involved the first time this happened?

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.
    84

SVFU_Q2   If SVFU_P > 1: How many people were involved the second time this happened?

SVFU_Q3   If SVFU_P > 2: How many people were involved the third time this happened?

SVFU_Q4   If SVFU_P > 3: How many people were involved the fourth time this happened?

SVFU_Q5   If SVFU_P > 4: How many people were involved the fifth time this happened?

The SV data include seven follow‐up questions for all lifetime perpetrators identified in SV7 to SV17.  

Perpetrator initials (in alphabetical order) are included in SVFU_# (where # = 1 to 94).  The seven follow‐

up questions (# = 1 to 94, linked to SVFU_#) are:

SVFU1_# Where you ever physically injured when perpetrator SVFU_# did any of these things?

SVFU2_# Did you ever get an STD or other infection when perpetrator SVFU_# did any of these

things?

SVFU3_# For female respondents only: Did you ever get pregnant when perpetrator SVFU_# did

any of these things?

SVFU4_# How old were you the first time any of these things happened with perpetrator SVFU_#?

SVFU5_# How old was perpetrator SVFU_# the first time any of these things happened?

SVFU6_# For respondents that reported more than one incident in SV7 to SV17: How old were

you the last time any of these things happened with perpetrator SVFU_#?

SVFU7_# For American Indian or Alaska Native respondents only: Did any of these things with

perpetrator SVFU_# happen within reservation boundaries or within an Alaska Native

village?

Finally, when perpetrators in SV12 to SV17 were also included in SV7 to SV11, additional questions were

asked to determine if these incidents had happened on the same occasion.  More specifically, when a

respondent identified a perpetrator in SV12L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in SV7 to

SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0712_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0812_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0912_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1012_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1112_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV13L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0713_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0813_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0913_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1013_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1113_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV14L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0714_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0814_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0914_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

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.
    85

SVFU1014_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1114_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV15L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0715_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0815_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0915_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1015_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1115_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV16L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0716_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0816_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0916_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1016_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1116_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV17L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0717_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0817_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0917_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1017_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1117_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

Again, these follow‐up questions (from SV#O* to SVFU1117_*) are included in the data merge below,

but are not included in the data checks.  Checks for these follow‐up questions are performed in a

subsequent chapter.

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the sexual violence sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the psychological

aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “MERGE SV DATA” folder:

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.
    86

The “FINAL SV.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 6,296 variables.  It was then copied to

the “SV” folder.

B. DATA CHECKS

Data checks were performed to identify problem cases (cases with accuracy, consistency, or integrity

issues).  The following data checks were performed (# = 1 to 22, * = 1 to 15):

(1) The number of initials in SV#L1 to SV#L15 equals SV#N99

(2) The number of initials in SV#1T1 to SV#T15 equals SV#N33

(3) The number of initials in SV#Y1 to SV#Y15 equals SV#N12

(4) Each initial in SV#L* has a value in SV#B*, and each value in SV#B* has an initial in SV#L*

(5) A value for SV#C always exists when SV# > 0, and exists only when SV# > 0 (for Q1&Q2)

(6) A value for SV#D1 always exists when SV#C = 1, and exists only when SV#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(7) Each value in SV#D* has a value in SV#E*, and each value in SV#E* has a value in SV#D* (for

Q1&Q2)

(8) A value for SV#F always exists when SV#C = 1, and exists only when SV#C = 1 (for Q1&Q2)

(9) A value for SV#F always exists when SV# > 0, and exists only when SV# > 0 (for Q3&Q4)

(10) A value for SV#G1 always exists when SV#F = 1, and exists only when SV#F = 1

(11) Each value in SV#G* has a value in SV#H*, and each value in SV#H* has a value in SV#G*

(12) The number of perpetrators in SV# equals SV#N99

(13) SV#N36 is between 1 and 15 when C = 1, and only when C = 1

(14) SV#N12 is between 1 and 15 when F = 1, and only when F = 1

(15) There are no duplicate initials in SV#A* and the new initials in SV#A* were not included in the

PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, or ST sections

(16) SV1L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, and EPV which are identified in SV1I*  

(17) SV2L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV1A* which are identified

in SV2I*  

(18) SV3L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, and SV2A* which are

identified in SV3I*  

(19) SV4L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, and SV3A*

which are identified in SV4I*  

(20) SV5L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, and

SV4A* which are identified in SV5I*  

(21) SV6L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

and SV5A* which are identified in SV6I*  

(22) SV7L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, and SV6A* which are identified in SV7I*  

(23) SV8L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, and SV7A* which are identified in SV8I*  

(24) SV9L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, and SV8A* which are identified in SV9I*  

(25) SV10L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, and SV9A* which are identified in SV10I*  

(26) SV11L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, and SV10A* which are identified in SV11I*  

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.
    87

(27) SV12L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, and SV11A* which are identified in SV12I*  

(28) SV13L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, and SV12A* which are identified in

SV13I*  

(29) SV14L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, and SV13A* which are

identified in SV14I*  

(30) SV15L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, and SV14A* which are

identified in SV15I*  

(31) SV16L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, and SV15A*

which are identified in SV16I*  

(32) SV17L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*, and

SV16A* which are identified in SV17I*  

(33) SV18L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*,

SV16A*, and SV17A* which are identified in SV18I*  

(34) SV19L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*,

SV16A*, SV17A*, and SV18A* which are identified in SV19I*  

(35) SV20L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*,

SV16A*, SV17A*, SV18A*, and SV19A* which are identified in SV20I*  

(36) SV21L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*,

SV16A*, SV17A*, SV18A*, SV19A*, and SV20A* which are identified in SV21I*  

(37) SV22L* includes the initials from PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, SV1A*, SV2A*, SV3A*, SV4A*,

SV5A*, SV6A*, SV7A*, SV8A*, SV9A*, SV10A*, SV11A*, SV12A*, SV13A*, SV14A*, SV15A*,

SV16A*, SV17A*, SV18A*, SV19A*, SV20A*, and SV21A* which are identified in SV22I*  

(38) SV1L* also includes the new initials from SV1A*, and no others

(39) SV2L* also includes the new initials from SV2A*, and no others

(40) SV3L* also includes the new initials from SV3A*, and no others

(41) SV4L* also includes the new initials from SV4A*, and no others

(42) SV5L* also includes the new initials from SV5A*, and no others

(43) SV6L* also includes the new initials from SV6A*, and no others

(44) SV7L* also includes the new initials from SV7A*, and no others

(45) SV8L* also includes the new initials from SV8A*, and no others

(46) SV9L* also includes the new initials from SV9A*, and no others

(47) SV10L* also includes the new initials from SV10A*, and no others

(48) SV11L* also includes the new initials from SV11A*, and no others

(49) SV12L* also includes the new initials from SV12A*, and no others

(50) SV13L* also includes the new initials from SV13A*, and no others

(51) SV14L* also includes the new initials from SV14A*, and no others

(52) SV15L* also includes the new initials from SV15A*, and no others

(53) SV16L* also includes the new initials from SV16A*, and no 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.
    88

(54) SV17L* also includes the new initials from SV17A*, and no others

(55) SV18L* also includes the new initials from SV18A*, and no others

(56) SV19L* also includes the new initials from SV19A*, and no others

(57) SV20L* also includes the new initials from SV20A*, and no others

(58) SV21L* also includes the new initials from SV21A*, and no others

(59) SV22L* also includes the new initials from SV22A*, and no others

(60) The initials in SV1L* identified by SV1D* are found in SV1T* (Q1&Q2)

(61) The initials in SV2L* identified by SV2D* are found in SV2T* (Q1&Q2)

(62) The initials in SV3L* identified by SV3D* are found in SV3T* (Q1&Q2)

(63) The initials in SV4L* identified by SV4D* are found in SV4T* (Q1&Q2)

(64) The initials in SV5L* identified by SV5D* are found in SV5T* (Q1&Q2)

(65) The initials in SV6L* identified by SV6D* are found in SV6T* (Q1&Q2)

(66) The initials in SV7L* identified by SV7D* are found in SV7T* (Q1&Q2)

(67) The initials in SV8L* identified by SV8D* are found in SV8T* (Q1&Q2)

(68) The initials in SV9L* identified by SV9D* are found in SV9T* (Q1&Q2)

(69) The initials in SV10L* identified by SV10D* are found in SV10T* (Q1&Q2)

(70) The initials in SV11L* identified by SV11D* are found in SV11T* (Q1&Q2)

(71) The initials in SV12L* identified by SV12D* are found in SV12T* (Q1&Q2)

(72) The initials in SV13L* identified by SV13D* are found in SV13T* (Q1&Q2)

(73) The initials in SV14L* identified by SV14D* are found in SV14T* (Q1&Q2)

(74) The initials in SV15L* identified by SV15D* are found in SV15T* (Q1&Q2)

(75) The initials in SV16L* identified by SV16D* are found in SV16T* (Q1&Q2)

(76) The initials in SV17L* identified by SV17D* are found in SV17T* (Q1&Q2)

(77) The initials in SV18L* identified by SV18D* are found in SV18T* (Q1&Q2)

(78) The initials in SV19L* identified by SV19D* are found in SV19T* (Q1&Q2)

(79) The initials in SV20L* identified by SV20D* are found in SV20T* (Q1&Q2)

(80) The initials in SV21L* identified by SV21D* are found in SV21T* (Q1&Q2)

(81) The initials in SV22L* identified by SV22D* are found in SV22T* (Q1&Q2)

(82) The initials in SV1T* identified by SV1G* are found in SV1Y* (Q1&Q2)

(83) The initials in SV2T* identified by SV2G* are found in SV2Y* (Q1&Q2)

(84) The initials in SV3T* identified by SV3G* are found in SV3Y* (Q1&Q2)

(85) The initials in SV4T* identified by SV4G* are found in SV4Y* (Q1&Q2)

(86) The initials in SV5T* identified by SV5G* are found in SV5Y* (Q1&Q2)

(87) The initials in SV6T* identified by SV6G* are found in SV6Y* (Q1&Q2)

(88) The initials in SV7T* identified by SV7G* are found in SV7Y* (Q1&Q2)

(89) The initials in SV8T* identified by SV8G* are found in SV8Y* (Q1&Q2)

(90) The initials in SV9T* identified by SV9G* are found in SV9Y* (Q1&Q2)

(91) The initials in SV10T* identified by SV10G* are found in SV10Y* (Q1&Q2)

(92) The initials in SV11T* identified by SV11G* are found in SV11Y* (Q1&Q2)

(93) The initials in SV12T* identified by SV12G* are found in SV12Y* (Q1&Q2)

(94) The initials in SV13T* identified by SV13G* are found in SV13Y* (Q1&Q2)

(95) The initials in SV14T* identified by SV14G* are found in SV14Y* (Q1&Q2)

(96) The initials in SV15T* identified by SV15G* are found in SV15Y* (Q1&Q2)

(97) The initials in SV16T* identified by SV16G* are found in SV16Y* (Q1&Q2)

(98) The initials in SV17T* identified by SV17G* are found in SV17Y* (Q1&Q2)

(99) The initials in SV18T* identified by SV18G* are found in SV18Y* (Q1&Q2)

(100) The initials in SV19T* identified by SV19G* are found in SV19Y* (Q1&Q2)

(101) The initials in SV20T* identified by SV20G* are found in SV20Y* (Q1&Q2)

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.
    89

(102) The initials in SV21T* identified by SV21G* are found in SV21Y* (Q1&Q2)

(103) The initials in SV22T* identified by SV22G* are found in SV22Y* (Q1&Q2)

(104) The initials in SV1L* identified by SV1G* are found in SV1Y* (Q3&Q4)

(105) The initials in SV2L* identified by SV2G* are found in SV2Y* (Q3&Q4)

(106) The initials in SV3L* identified by SV3G* are found in SV3Y* (Q3&Q4)

(107) The initials in SV4L* identified by SV4G* are found in SV4Y* (Q3&Q4)

(108) The initials in SV5L* identified by SV5G* are found in SV5Y* (Q3&Q4)

(109) The initials in SV6L* identified by SV6G* are found in SV6Y* (Q3&Q4)

(110) The initials in SV7L* identified by SV7G* are found in SV7Y* (Q3&Q4)

(111) The initials in SV8L* identified by SV8G* are found in SV8Y* (Q3&Q4)

(112) The initials in SV9L* identified by SV9G* are found in SV9Y* (Q3&Q4)

(113) The initials in SV10L* identified by SV10G* are found in SV10Y* (Q3&Q4)

(114) The initials in SV11L* identified by SV11G* are found in SV11Y* (Q3&Q4)

(115) The initials in SV12L* identified by SV12G* are found in SV12Y* (Q3&Q4)

(116) The initials in SV13L* identified by SV13G* are found in SV13Y* (Q3&Q4)

(117) The initials in SV14L* identified by SV14G* are found in SV14Y* (Q3&Q4)

(118) The initials in SV15L* identified by SV15G* are found in SV15Y* (Q3&Q4)

(119) The initials in SV16L* identified by SV16G* are found in SV16Y* (Q3&Q4)

(120) The initials in SV17L* identified by SV17G* are found in SV17Y* (Q3&Q4)

(121) The initials in SV18L* identified by SV18G* are found in SV18Y* (Q3&Q4)

(122) The initials in SV19L* identified by SV19G* are found in SV19Y* (Q3&Q4)

(123) The initials in SV20L* identified by SV20G* are found in SV20Y* (Q3&Q4)

(124) The initials in SV21L* identified by SV21G* are found in SV21Y* (Q3&Q4)

(125) The initials in SV22L* identified by SV22G* are found in SV22Y* (Q3&Q4)

(126) Data values for SV# are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(127) Data values for SV# are not missing

(128) All data for SV8, SV13, and SV18 are missing when the respondent is female (RSEX = “2”)

(129) Data values for SV8, SV13, and SV18 are not missing when the respondent is male (RSEX = “1”)

(130) Data values for SV#N99, SV#N36, and SV#N12 are in valid range (‐3 to 15)

(131) Data values for SV#B*, SV#E*, and SV#H* are in valid range (‐3 to 4 for SV1 to SV6 and SV18 to

SV22; ‐3 to 100 for SV7 to SV17)

(132) Data values for SV#C and SV#F are in valid range (‐3 to 2)

(133) Data values for SV#I* are in valid range (‐3 to number of previous initials)

(134) Data values for SV#D* and SV#G* are in valid range (‐3 to 4)

(135) When SV# < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent SV# variables

(136) When SV#C < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent SV# variables (for Q1&Q2)

(137) When SV#F < 0 or missing, there are no data in the subsequent SV# variables

(138) SV#C, SV#D*, SV#T*, and SV#E* have no values in Q3 or Q4

Data & Files in the “SV DATA CHECK” folder:

C. DATA PROBLEMS

Fifty problems were identified in the previous data checks.  The data checks uncovered four general

types of problems:

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.
    90

(1) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the SV

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 101265371, 103040011, 101041851,

102365171, 101247571, 103102131, 101197391, 102036501, 103080641, 104505751,

104841901, 103242011, 101100161, 101347991, 102362891, 103153781, 103396561,

101123861, 101235501, 102098551, 103538502, 103593422, 103694561, 102102381,

103085632, 103237511, 103260241, 103098642, 104082011, 103715141, 102658311, and

101132761.

   

(2) Some respondents provided more initials than expected based on their answers to the SV

questions.  Problems were identified for respondents 103598822, 101289321, 101140701,

101110131, 101258231, 102139531, 101161671, 101090791, and 101218991.

(3) Some respondents provided duplicate initials.  Problems were identified for respondents

101033001, 101079711, and 101245601.

(4) Some respondents provided a perpetrator identifier that was out of range.  Problems were

identified for respondents 103545682, 101236111, 104341341, 104044731, 103689262, and

102028361.

More specific details on each problem case are provided below.

(1) The following 32 respondents provided fewer initials than expected.

101265371

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by 15 perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103040011  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by five perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101041851  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by six perpetrators, provided initials for two previously

identified perpetrators, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the remaining four

perpetrators.

102365171  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by five perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the remaining four perpetrators.

101247571  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview  

before providing perpetrator initials.

103102131  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    91

101197391  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

102036501  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103080641  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

104505751  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

104841901  

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103242011

The respondent reported SV2 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

101100161

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

101347991

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by five perpetrators, provided two new perpetrator

initials, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the remaining three perpetrators.

102362891

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by three perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103153781

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the second perpetrator.

103396561

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, provided initials for one new

perpetrator, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the remaining nine perpetrators.

101123861

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

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.
    92

101235501  

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102098551  

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103538502  

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103593422  

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by five perpetrators, provided initials for two new

perpetrators, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the remaining three

perpetrators.

103694561  

The respondent reported SV5 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

102102381  

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by four perpetrators but only provided initials for three

perpetrators (valid data are found for the fourth unidentified perpetrator).

103085632  

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for two new

perpetrators, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the third perpetrator.

103237511  

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

103260241  

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

103098642

The respondent reported SV7 victimizations by two perpetrators, provided initials for one previously

identified perpetrator, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the second

perpetrator.

104082011

The respondent reported SV7 victimizations by three perpetrators, provided initials for two new

perpetrators, but stopped the interview before providing initials for the third perpetrator.

   

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.
    93

103715141

The respondent reported SV10 victimizations by two perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

102658311

The respondent reported SV12 victimizations by one perpetrator, but stopped the interview before

providing that perpetrator’s initials.

101132761

The respondent reported SV21 victimizations by six perpetrators, but stopped the interview before

providing perpetrator initials.

(2)  The following nine respondents provided more initials than expected.

103598822

The respondent reported SV20 victimizations by 10 perpetrators, but provided 14 perpetrator

initials (in SV20I1 to SV20I14).

101218991

The respondent reported SV1 victimizations by two perpetrators.  Two new perpetrators are

identified in SV1A1 and SV1A2.  A third new perpetrator is identified in SV1A3.   

101090791

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for two new perpetrators (in SV4A1 and SV4A2).   

101161671

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by three perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for four new perpetrators (in SV4A1, SV4A2, SV4A3, and SV4A4).

102139531

The respondent reported SV4 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV4I1 = 1) and one new perpetrator (in SV4A1), for

a total of two perpetrators.   

101258231

The respondent reported SV20 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV20I1 = 1) and one new perpetrator (in SV20A1),

for a total of two perpetrators.   

101110131

The respondent reported SV21 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV21I1 = 5) and one new perpetrator (in SV21A1),

for a total of two perpetrators.

   

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.
    94

101140701

The respondent reported SV21 victimizations by five perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV21I1 = 1) and five new perpetrators (in SV21A1

to SV21A5), for a total of six perpetrators.     

101289321

The respondent reported SV22 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV22I1 = 1) and three new perpetrators (in SV22A1

to SV22A3), for a total of four perpetrators.    

(3) The following three respondents provided duplicate initials.

101033001

The respondent reported SV19 victimizations by two perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV19I1 = 14) and two new perpetrators (in SV19A1

and SV19A2).  The second new perpetrator initials were already provided in SV5.  (Note, this

respondent also provided more initials than expected).

101079711

The respondent reported SV19 victimizations by two perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for two previously identified perpetrators (SV19I1 = 7 and SV19I2 = 1) and two new

perpetrators (in SV19A1 and SV19A2).  The first new initials were already provided in SV1 and the

second new initials were already provided in SV12.  (Note, this respondent also provided more

initials than expected).  

101245601

The respondent reported SV2 victimizations by six perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for six previously identified perpetrators (in SV2I1 to SV2I6).  The respondent also provided

initials for one new perpetrator (in SV2A1).  These initials were already provided in ST1.  (Note, this

respondent also provided more initials than expected).

(4) The following six respondents provided a perpetrator identifier that was out of range.

103545682

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by two perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for two previously identified perpetrators (SV6I1 = 5 and SV6I2 = 3), but there is no fifth

previously identified perpetrator.  SV6L1 includes the initials from the third previously identified

perpetrator (instead of the fifth) and SV6L2 includes the initials from the first previously identified

perpetrator (instead of the third).   

104341341

The respondent reported SV2 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV2I1 = 3), but there is no third previously

identified perpetrator.  The respondent also reported SV5 and SV6 victimizations by this third

previously identified perpetrator (SV5I1 = 3 and SV6I1 = 3), but there is no third previously identified

perpetrator.

   

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.
    95

101236111

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by 10 perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for seven previously identified perpetrators (SV6I1 = 1, SV6I2 = 2, SV6I3 = 3, SV6I4 = 7, SV6I5

= 8, SV6I6 = 9, and SV6I7 = 10) and three new perpetrators (in SV6A1, SV6A2, and SV6A3).  There are

no initials for SV6I7 = 10, because there is no 10th previously identified perpetrator.   

104044731  

The respondent reported SV6 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV6I1 = 11), but there is no 11th previously

identified perpetrator.

103689262

The respondent reported SV11 victimizations by three perpetrators.  The respondent then provided

initials for three previously identified perpetrators (SV11I1 = 6, SV11I2 = 5, and SV11I3 = 13), but

there is no 13th previously identified perpetrator.   

102028361

The respondent reported SV12 victimizations by one perpetrator.  The respondent then provided

initials for one previously identified perpetrator (SV12I1 = 2), but there is no second previously

identified perpetrator.  This perpetrator also victimized the respondent in the past three years (but

no initials are included in SV12T1) and in the past year (but no initials are included in SV12Y1).

   

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.
96

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 13

DATA CLEANING

This chapter summarizes how the core respondent‐level and perpetrator‐level data were cleaned.  

Specific details for each problem case are also provided.  The data checks summarized in the previous

chapters found three broad categories of problems:

(1) Some respondents provided more initials than expected.

(2) Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected.

(3) Some respondents provided duplicate initials.

A perpetrator‐level data set should not be constructed before these problems are addressed.  If these

problems are not addressed before constructing a perpetrator level data set, important information will

be lost.  This chapter begins with a summary on how each type of problem was addressed.  Specific

details for each problem case are then provided.   In addition, missing data are recoded (some data are

coded as “not administered” when they should be missing, and vice versa).  Additional details on missing

data recodes are provided in the next chapters.  All data checks were performed again to ensure that

data cleaning successfully addressed the problem cases that were previously identified.

A. MORE INITIALS THAN EXPECTED

Some respondents provided more initials than expected in I* and A*, based on their answers to the

number of lifetime perpetrators.  More specifically, there are initials in I* and A* that are not found in

L* (and the number of initials in L* matches the respondents’ answers to the number of lifetime

perpetrators).  In these cases, the additional perpetrators in I* and A* were deleted, so that (a) I* and

A* would accurately reproduce L* and (b) the number of perpetrator initials in I* and A* would equal

the number of lifetime perpetrators.  (Note: in none of these cases were valid data subsequently found

for these deleted perpetrators).  (For an example, see PA2 data for ZRID 1010299891).

In one case, I* and A* did accurately reproduce L*, and the number of perpetrator initials in I* and A*

equaled the number of perpetrator initials in L*.  However, the number of lifetime perpetrators

provided by the respondent was lower than the number of initials provided by the respondent.  In this

case, the respondent’s answer to the number of lifetime perpetrators was changed to match the

number of initials found in both L* and I*/A* (see SV20 data for ZRID 103598822).

B. FEWER INITIALS THAN EXPECTED

Some respondents indicated being victimized in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials and provided no perpetrator‐level data (for an example, see ST3 data for ZRID 102647461).  

When this occurred, N36 was recoded to ‐9.  If necessary, D* was also recoded to system missing.  

When these respondents did not answer F, F and N12 were also recoded to ‐9.  When respondents

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    97

indicated being victimized in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials (and provided no

perpetrator‐level data), N12 was recoded to ‐9.  If necessary, G* was also recoded to system missing.  

When creating a perpetrator‐level file, past three year data should then to be recoded to ‐9 when N36 =

‐9.  Similarly, past year data should be recoded to ‐9 when F = ‐9 or N12 = ‐9.  In some cases in the first

quarter of 2012, the past year perpetrators link to the lifetime perpetrators instead of linking to the past

three year perpetrators.  This was an error in the CATI system.  In these cases, perpetrator links between

the past year and the past three year perpetrators are reproduced.   

Some respondents provided fewer initials than expected in I* and A*, based on their answers to the

number of lifetime perpetrators (for an example, see ZRID 103545682).  When this occurred, each

missing perpetrator initials were recoded in both A* and L*, starting with “REC01 MISSING”.  In addition,

if the respondent referred to this perpetrator again (in subsequent I*), L* was recoded to maintain the

perpetrator links across questions.  Finally, perpetrator initials were also recoded in T* and Y* to

maintain the links across the lifetime, past three year, and past year questions.  More specifically, the

following data cleaning process was used:

(1) Each missing initial was recoded, starting with “REC01 MISSING” in both A* and L*.

a. If the respondent was victimized by this perpetrator with missing initials in the past

three years, the perpetrator initials in T* were recoded to maintain the perpetrator links

from the lifetime questions to the past three year questions.

b. If the respondent was victimized by the perpetrator with missing initials in the past year,

the perpetrator initials in Y* were recoded to maintain the perpetrator links from the

past three year questions to the past year questions (or, for respondents in the third

and fourth quarters of 2010, from the lifetime questions to the past year questions).

(2) If the respondent referred to these missing initials in subsequent I*, the perpetrator initials in L*

were recoded to maintain the perpetrator links across questions.

a. If the respondent was victimized by this perpetrator with missing initials in the past

three years, the perpetrator initials in T* were recoded to maintain the perpetrator links

from the lifetime questions to the past three year questions.

b. If the respondent was victimized by the perpetrator with missing initials in the past year,

the perpetrator initials in Y* were recoded to maintain the perpetrator links from the

past three year questions to the past year questions (or, for respondents in the third

and fourth quarters of 2010, from the lifetime questions to the past year questions).

For these respondents, adding perpetrator initials never impacted the ordering of the perpetrators

(most of these respondents terminated the interview).  As a result, no other changes in I* were

necessary.

Finally, in some cases respondents provided fewer initials than expected based on their answers to the

number of lifetime perpetrators because they referred to a previously identified perpetrator in I* that

did not exist (for an example, see ZRID 101236111).  The perpetrator identifier in I* was out of range,

meaning that its value exceeded the number of previously identified perpetrators.  Again, each missing

perpetrator initial was recoded, starting with “REC01 MISSING”.  To make this happen, the link to this

previous perpetrator in I* was deleted and the new initials were created in A*.  This potentially changes

the order of perpetrators in L* and all subsequent data in B*, D*, G*, O*, P*, Q*, R*, S*, and SV0712_*

to SVFU1117_*.  Contrary to the previous recodes, adding these perpetrator initials impacted the

subsequent links between perpetrator identifiers and perpetrator initials.   The addition of perpetrator

initials in A* and L* changes the master list of perpetrator initials (and therefore changes the links

between perpetrator identifiers in I* and perpetrator initials in L*).  As a result, a more complex

recoding process was used for each perpetrator with missing initials:

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.
    98

(1) The perpetrator identifier in I* was deleted.   

(2) If necessary, I* was changed to fill the gap left by the deletion in (a).

(3) A new perpetrator (starting with “REC01 MISSING”) was added to the new perpetrator initials in

A*.

(4) The list of lifetime perpetrator initials in L* was recoded to account for the changes in (1), (2),

and (3) above.

a. If necessary, the answers in B* were re‐ordered to account for the changes in L*.

b. If perpetrator “REC01 MISSING” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the

perpetrator initials in T* were recoded.  If necessary, the identifiers in D* were also

recoded.

c. If perpetrator “REC01 MISSING” victimized the respondent in the past year, the

perpetrator initials in Y* were recoded.  If necessary, the identifiers in G* were also

recoded.

d. If necessary, the answers to the follow‐up questions in section SV (questions O*, P*, Q*,

R*, and S*) were re‐ordered to account for the changes in L*.

e. If necessary, the answers to the follow‐up questions SV0712_* to SVFU1117_* were

recoded to account for the changes in L*.

(5) If necessary, all perpetrator identifiers for subsequent behaviors in I* were recoded to account

for the new perpetrator added to the master list of perpetrators in (3) above.

C. DUPLICATE INITIALS

Respondents provided duplicate initials when they identified a “new” perpetrator in A*, which had

already been identified (for an example, see ZRID 103709011).  In these cases, it is impossible to know if

the respondent was referring to the same perpetrator or to different perpetrators.  (The CATI system did

not prevent respondents from providing duplicate initials).  As a result, it is not possible to link

perpetrator characteristics to these perpetrator initials.  It is unclear which perpetrator initials the

perpetrator characteristics belong to, or whether they belong to both.  Because of these uncertainties,

perpetrator initials were recoded.  The first perpetrator initials were recoded to “REC01 xxxx”, where

“xxxx” ” are the first four characters in the perpetrator’s original initials (i.e., those provided by the

respondent).   The second perpetrator initials were recoded to “REC02 xxxx”, where “xxxx” are again the

first four characters in the perpetrator’s original initials.  References to perpetrator “xxxx” between

“REC01 xxxx” and “REC02 xxxx” were recoded to “REC01 xxxx”.  This maintains the perpetrator links

across questions up to the point where the respondent provides the duplicate initials.

More specifically, the first perpetrator initials in A* and L* were recoded to “REC01 xxxx”, where “xxxx”

are again the first four characters in the perpetrator’s original initials.  When the respondent then

referred to perpetrator “xxxx” in I* before providing the duplicate initials in A*, “xxxx” in L* was again

recoded to “REC01 xxxx”.  When the respondent provided the initials “xxxx” again in A*, the initials

“xxxx” in both A* and L* were recoded to “REC02 xxxx”.  When changes in L* were made, changes were

also made in T* and Y* if necessary.  Several steps were required to make these changes:

(1) The first perpetrator initials in A* and L* were recoded to “REC01 xxxx”, where “xxxx” are the

first four characters in the perpetrator’s original initials.

a. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the perpetrator

initials in T* were also changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

b. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past year, the perpetrator initials

in Y* were also changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

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.
    99

(2) If perpetrator “xxxx” was identified again in I* (but before the duplicate initials were provided in

A*), the “xxxx” initials in L* were recoded to “REC01 xxxx”.

a. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the perpetrator

initials in T* were changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

b. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past year, the perpetrator initials

in Y* were changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

(3) The duplicate perpetrator initials in A* and L* were recoded to “REC02 xxxx”, where again

“xxxx” are the first four characters in the perpetrator’s original initials.

a. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the perpetrator

initials in T* were also changed to “REC02 xxxx”.

b. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past year, the perpetrator initials

in Y* were also changed to “REC02 xxxx”.

When the respondent referred to perpetrator “xxxx” again in subsequent questions, it is impossible to

know if the respondent was referring to “REC01 xxxx” or to “REC02 xxxx”.  As a result, all “xxxx” initials

in subsequent lifetime questions were recoded (for an example, see ZRID 103313711).  Each additional

time that perpetrator “xxxx” was identified in subsequent lifetime questions, new perpetrator initials

were created starting with “REC03 xxxx”.  This changes the order of the perpetrators in L*.  By adding a

new perpetrator, this also changes the master list of perpetrators (and therefore changes the links

between perpetrator identifiers in I* and perpetrator initials in L*).  As a result, more extensive data

recodes are necessary.  More specifically, each time perpetrator “xxxx” was identified in subsequent

lifetime questions:

(1) The perpetrator identifier in I* was deleted.   

(2) If necessary, I* was changed to fill the gap left by the deletion in (a).

(3) A new perpetrator (starting with “REC03 xxxx”) was added to the new perpetrator initials in A*.

(4) The list of lifetime perpetrator initials in L* was recoded to account for the changes in (1), (2),

and (3) above.

a. If necessary, the answers in B* were re‐ordered to account for the changes in L*.

b. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the perpetrator

initials in T* were recoded.  If necessary, the identifiers in D* were also recoded.

c. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past year, the perpetrator initials

in Y* were recoded.  If necessary, the identifiers in G* were also recoded.

d. If necessary, the answers to the follow‐up questions in section SV (questions O*, P*, Q*,

R*, and S*) were re‐ordered to account for the changes in L*.

e. If necessary, the answers to the follow‐up questions SV0712_* to SVFU1117_* were

recoded to account for the changes in L*.

(5) If necessary, all perpetrator identifiers for subsequent behaviors in I* were recoded to account

for the new perpetrator added to the master list of perpetrators in (3) above.

   

When duplicate initials were provided first in the PA, CCE, or PV section and provided again in the elder

abuse section, a more complex data cleaning process was used.  In these cases, respondents provided

perpetrator initials in the elder abuse sections (for non‐intimate partners) that they had already

provided in the PA, CCE, or PV sections (for intimate partners; for an example, see ZRID 102538861).  

The first perpetrator initials (in the PA, CCE, and PV sections) were still recoded to “REC01 xxxx”.  

Perpetrator links across behaviors within the PA, CCE, and PV sections were still maintained.  This still

assumes that the respondents were referring to the same intimate partner throughout the PA, CCE, and

PV sections.  The second perpetrator initials (in the elder abuse sections) were still recoded to “REC02

xxxx”.  If perpetrator “xxxx” was identified again in the elder abuse section, that perpetrator was not

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.
    100

recoded to “REC03 xxxx” (as described above).  Instead, that perpetrator was recoded to “REC02 xxxx”,

to maintain the perpetrator links across behaviors within the elder abuse section.  This assumes that the

respondents were referring to the same non‐intimate partner throughout the elder abuse sections.  

Several steps were required to make these changes:

(1) The first perpetrator initials in PA#A*, PA#L*, CCE#A*, CCE#L*, PV#A*, and PV#L* were all

recoded to “REC01 xxxx”, where “xxxx” are the first four characters in the perpetrator’s original

initials.

a. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past three years, the perpetrator

initials in T* were also changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

b. If perpetrator “xxxx” victimized the respondent in the past year, the perpetrator initials

in Y* were also changed to “REC01 xxxx”.

(2) The duplicate perpetrator initials in EPA#A*, EPA#Y*, ECCE#A*, ECCE#Y*, EPV#A*, and EPV#Y*

were all recoded to “REC02 xxxx”, where “xxxx” are the first four characters in the perpetrator’s

original initials.  

In these cases, the CATI system deleted the duplicate initials at the end of the elder abuse section

(before going to the stalking section).  Re‐inserting these perpetrators in the master list of perpetrator

initials changes the master list of perpetrators (and therefore changes the links between perpetrator

identifiers in I* and perpetrator initials in L* used subsequently in the stalking and sexual violence

sections).  For an example, see ZRID 102524441.  As a result, all perpetrator identifiers for subsequent

behaviors in I* were checked and recoded when necessary to account for the new “REC02 xxxx”

perpetrator added to the master list of perpetrators.

In some cases, these duplicate perpetrator initials were provided again in the stalking and sexual

violence sections (for an example, see ZRID 102290271).  It is again impossible to determine if the

respondents were referring to the intimate partners in the PA, CCE, and PV sections or to the non‐

intimate partners in the elder abuse sections (or to both).  Because of these uncertainties, perpetrator

initials were again recoded.  Each additional time that perpetrator “xxxx” was identified in subsequent

lifetime questions within the stalking or sexual violence sections, new perpetrator initials were created

starting with “REC03 xxxx” (using the same process described above).   

D. MISSING DATA RECODES

Most missing data recodes are executed in the following chapter.  In this chapter, six problems are

addressed.  The first five problems occur when data values are coded as “not administered” when they

should have been coded as missing (the “not administered” code means that the question should have

been administered but wasn’t).  These include (1) respondents without children who have a ‐3 in CCE8

(n = 70), (2) respondents under 70 years of age who have a ‐3 in EPA1 to EPV12 (n = 450), (3) female

respondents who have a ‐3 in SV8 (n = 924), (4) female respondents who have a ‐3 in SV13 (n = 1,037),

and (5) female respondents who have a ‐3 in SV18 (n = 1,081).  For these respondents, the ‐3 value is

recoded to system missing (because these questions should not have been administered).  More

specifically, CCE8, CCE8I1 to CCE8H15, SV8, SV8I1 to SV8S15, SV13, SV13I1 to SV13S15, SV18, and

SV18I1 to SV18S15 are all recoded to system missing.  (Note: these are subsequently recoded to ‐99 in

the following chapter).

The fifth problem occurs when data values are coded as missing when they should have been coded as

“not administered.”  Among respondents who didn’t know or didn’t answer whether they had children,

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.
101

18 have a system missing value in CCE8 (when it should be ‐3).  For these respondents, CCE8 is recoded

to ‐3 and all other (CCE8I1 to CCE8H15) are recoded to system missing.  (Note: these are subsequently

recoded to ‐9 in the following chapter and to ‐99 in Chapter 25).

E. DATA CLEANING SUMMARIES

This section provides details on how data were cleaned for each problem case (the case numbers below

are in ascending order).  The missing data recodes are not documented below, but can be found at the

end of the “NISVS RECODES.SPS” syntax file.

101007991

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3I1 is recoded to system missing.  PV3A1 and

PV3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101013561

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A5 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  

101029991

The respondent provided too many initials in PA2.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA2A1 is recoded to system missing.

101031801

The perpetrator initials appear to be incorrectly linked for PA1.

(1) Links between past three year and past year perpetrators are recoded.  PA1G1 is recoded to 2

and PA1Y1 is recoded to “10103180[PERP 15-GPOP]”.  

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.
102

101032301

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) ST1D1 to ST1D15 are recoded to system missing and ST1N36 is recoded to ‐9.   

(2) ST1F is recoded to ‐9.

(3) ST1G1 to ST1G15 are recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to ‐9.

101033001

The respondent provided too many initials in SV19.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV19A2 is recoded to system missing.

101037551

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(6) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

101039381

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the CCE

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10103938[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.  This

remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent.   CCE1A1, CCE1L1, CCE1T1, and CCE1Y1

are recoded to “10103938[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10103938[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse 

section and becomes the second perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE1A1, ECCE1Y1, 

and ECCE11Y1 are recoded to “10103938[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

101041851

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L4 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A3 and SV1L5 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A4 and SV1L6 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

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.
    103

101047311

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

101053081

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3I1 is recoded to system missing.  PV3A1 and

PV3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3I2 is recoded to system missing.  PV3A2

and PV3L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  

101067211

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) ST1D1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N36 is recoded to ‐9.

(2) ST1F and ST1N12 are recoded to ‐9.

101069621

The respondent provided too many initials in PA1.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA1A3 is recoded to system missing.

101076781

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

101079711

The respondent provided too many initials in SV19.

(1) The additional initials are deleted.  SV19A1 and SV19A2 are recoded to system missing.

   

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.
    104

101090791

The respondent provided too many initials in SV4.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV4A2 is recoded to system missing.

101100061

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A1 and CCE2L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A2 and CCE2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A3 and CCE2L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A4 and CCE2L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A5 and CCE2L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A6 and CCE2L6 are recoded to “REC06

MISSING”.  

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A7 and CCE2L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.  

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A8 and CCE2L8 are recoded to “REC08

MISSING”.  

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A9 and CCE2L9 are recoded to “REC09

MISSING”.  

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A10 and CCE2L10 are recoded to “REC10

MISSING”.  

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A11 and CCE2L11 are recoded to “REC11

MISSING”.  

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A12 and CCE2L12 are recoded to “REC12

MISSING”.  

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A13 and CCE2L13 are recoded to “REC13

MISSING”.  

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.
105

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A14 and CCE2L14 are recoded to “REC14

MISSING”.  

(15)The 15th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A15 and CCE2L15 are recoded to “REC15

MISSING”.  

101100161

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV4.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A1 and SV4L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

sixth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A2 and SV4L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A3 and SV4L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

101110131

The respondent provided too many initials in SV21.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV21A1 is recoded to system missing.

101120071

The respondent provided initials in the EPA2 section which had already been provided in the CCE3

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections CCE and PV is recoded to “10112007[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE3A1, CCE3L1, 

CCE3T1, CCE3Y1, PV3L1, and PV3T1 are recoded to “10112007[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section EPA is recoded to “10112007[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

This remains the third perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the fourth perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA2A2 and EPA2Y2 are recoded to 

“10112007[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

101120651

The respondent experienced CCE14 victimizations by one perpetrator but provided initials for four

perpetrators.  One of these additional initials is again provided as a new initial in the ST1 section.

(3) The additional perpetrators in CCE14 are deleted.  CCE14A2 is recoded to system missing,

CCE14A3 is recoded to system missing, and CCE14A4 is recoded to system missing.   

101123861

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

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.
    106

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

sixth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A2 and SV5L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

101124771

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE5I1 is recoded to system missing.  CCE5A1 and

CCE5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101130321

The respondent provided too many initials in PA2.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA2A4 is recoded to system missing.

101131131

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST1G1 to ST1G15 are recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to ‐9.

101131891

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC06

MISSING”.  

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.  

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  

   

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.
    107

101132761

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV21.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 18th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A1 and SV21L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 19th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A2 and SV21L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 20th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A3 and SV21L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 21st

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A4 and SV21L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 22nd

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A5 and SV21L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 23rd

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV21A6 and SV21L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  

101137711

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in ST1 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1I1 is recoded to system missing, ST1A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and ST1L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101140701

The respondent provided too many initials in SV21.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV21A5 is recoded to system missing.

101141031

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE2.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2I1 is recoded to system missing.  CCE2A1 and

CCE2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101151321

The respondent experienced CCE4 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) CCE4D1 to CCE4D15 are recoded to system missing and CCE4N36 is recoded to ‐9.    

(2) CCE4F is recoded to ‐9.

(3) CCE4G1 to CCE4G15 are recoded to system missing and CCE4N12 is recoded to ‐9.

   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    108

101154261

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A1 and ST5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101156201

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3A1 and PV3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101161671

The respondent provided too many initials in SV4.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV4A4 is recoded to system missing.

101161751

The respondent provided too many initials in PV2.

(2) The additional initial is deleted.  PV2I1 is recoded to system missing.

101179491

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE4.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE4A1 and CCE4L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

101197391

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101198301

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

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.
109

101120651

The respondent provided too many initials in CCE14.

(1) The additional initials are deleted.  CCE14A2, CCE14A3, and CCE14A4 are recoded to system

missing.

101136451

The respondent provided too many initials in CCE6.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  CCE6A1 is recoded to system missing.

101214811

The respondent provided too many initials in PA3.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA3A2 is recoded to system missing.

101218991

The respondent provided too many initials in SV1.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV1A3 is recoded to system missing.

101235501

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 20th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 21st

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A2 and SV5L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  

101236111

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in SV6 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”. This becomes the 13th perpetrator 

identified by the respondent. SV6I7 is recoded to system missing, SV6A4 is 

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, SV6L7 is recoded to “10123611[PERP 10-

GPOP]]”, SV6L8 is recoded to “10123611[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV6L9 is recoded to “10123611[PERP 12-

GPOP]”, and SV6L10 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”. 

(2) SV6B7 is recoded to 1, SV6B8 is recoded to 1, SV6B9 is recoded to 1, SV6B10 is recoded to 1, SV6O7 is 

recoded to 4, SV6O8 is recoded to 4, SV6O9 is recoded to 4, SV6O10 is recoded to system missing, SV6P7 is 

recoded to 4, SV6P8 is recoded to 4, SV6P9 is recoded to 4, and SV6P10 is recoded to system missing. 

101245601

The respondent provided too many initials in SV2.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV2A1 is recoded to system missing.

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.
    110

101247571

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 16th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A3 and SV1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

101255041

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A1 and CCE2L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A2 and CCE2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A3 and CCE2L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A4 and CCE2L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A5 and CCE2L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A6 and CCE2L6 are recoded to “REC06

MISSING”.  

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A7 and CCE2L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.  

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A8 and CCE2L8 are recoded to “REC08

MISSING”.  

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A9 and CCE2L9 are recoded to “REC09

MISSING”.  

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A10 and CCE2L10 are recoded to “REC10

MISSING”.  

   

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.
    111

101255831

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101258231

The respondent provided too many initials in SV20.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV20A1 is recoded to system missing.

101265371

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

ninth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A3 and SV1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A4 and SV1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A5 and SV1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A6 and SV1L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

14th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A7 and SV1L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.  

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A8 and SV1L8 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 16th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A9 and SV1L9 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 17th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A10 and SV1L10 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 18th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A11 and SV1L11 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 19th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A12 and SV1L12 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 20th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A13 and SV1L13 are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 21st

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A14 and SV1L14 are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  

(15)The 15th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  This becomes the 22nd

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A15 and SV1L15 are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  

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.
112

101266211

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the CCE

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10126621[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE2A1, CCE2L1, and CCE3L1 are recoded to 

“10126621[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10126621[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third 

perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE3A1 and ECCE3Y1 are recoded to “10126621[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

101267691

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

101270691

The respondent provided too many initials in PA2.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA2A1 is recoded to system missing.

101289321

The respondent provided too many initials in SV22.

(1) The additional initials are deleted.  SV22A1, SV22A2, and SV22A3 are recoded to system missing.

101295621

The respondent experienced PV2 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) PV2D1 is recoded to system missing and PV2N36 is recoded to ‐9.

101309321

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in ST1 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”. This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST1I2 is recoded to system missing, ST1A4 is

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, ST1L2 is recoded to “10130932[PERP 03-GPOP]”, ST1L3 is recoded to 

“10130932[PERP 04-GPOP]”,

ST1L4 is recoded to “10130932[PERP 05-gpop]”, and ST1L5 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) ST1B1 is recoded to 3, ST1B2 is recoded to 3, ST1B3 is recoded to 2, ST1B4 is recoded to 3, and

ST1B5 is recoded to 3.

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.
113

101317941

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST7.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST7A1 and ST7L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

101347991

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV4.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A3 and SV4L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A4 and SV4L4 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A5 and SV4L5 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

101349571

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the PV section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section PV is recoded to “10134957[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV5A1, PV5L1, PV5T1, and PV5Y1 are 

recoded to “10134957[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10134957[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes 

the second perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE3A1 and ECCE3Y1 are recoded to “10134957[REC02-PERP 

01-GPOP]”. 

101360361

The respondent provided too many initials in PA1.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PA1A3 is recoded to system missing.

101362731

The respondent experienced CCE11 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) CCE11G1 is recoded to system missing and CCE11N12 is recoded to ‐9.

102023851

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

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.
114

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.   

102025391

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST6.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST6A1 and ST6L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

102028361

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in SV12 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV12I1 is recoded to system missing, SV12A1 is

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, and SV12L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) SV12T1 and SV12Y1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

102036501

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102055231

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

102072471

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in CCE3 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3I1 is recoded to 3, CCE3I2 is recoded to system

missing, CCE3A1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, CCE3L1 is recoded to “10207247[PERP 03-

GPOP]”, CCE3L2 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, CCE3B1 is recoded to 4, and CCE3B2 is

recoded to 4.

(2) CCE7L1, CCE7T1, and CCE7Y1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

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.
115

102079471

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(2) ST1D1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N36 is recoded to ‐9.

(3) ST1F and ST1N12 are recoded to ‐9.

102081491

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the CCE

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10208149[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to 

“10208149[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10208149[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes 

the second perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE1A1 and ECCE1Y1 are recoded to “10208149[REC02-PERP 

01-GPOP]”. 

102098551

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102102381

The respondent experienced SV6 victimizations by four perpetrators, but only provided initials for three

perpetrators.   

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6A1 and SV6L4 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) SV20L2 and SV21L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

102126951

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

sixth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

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.
116

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L6 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A5 and ST2L7 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A6 and ST2L8 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  

102130291

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the PV section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section PV is recoded to “10213029[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV2A1 and PV2L1 are recoded to 

“10213029[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10213029[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the second 

perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE7A1 and ECCE7Y1 are recoded to “10213029[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

102139531

The respondent provided too many initials in SV4.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  SV4A1 is recoded to system missing.

102147291

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L6 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A5 and ST2L7 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A6 and ST2L8 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A7 and ST2L9 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

13th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A8 and ST2L10 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.  

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A9 and ST2L11 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A10 and ST2L12 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  

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.
    117

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 16th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A11 and ST2L13 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 17th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A12 and ST2L14 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 18th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A13 and ST2L15 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  

102152031

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3I1 is recoded to system missing.  CCE3A1 and

CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102167821

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

102191791

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE12.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE12A1 and CCE12L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

102199331

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3A1 and PV3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

   

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.
    118

102228871

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L5 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A2 and CCE3L6 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A3 and CCE3L7 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A4 and CCE3L8 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

102260441

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

102261601

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A2 and CCE1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A3 and CCE1L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) CCE1I1, CCE1I2, and CCE1I3 are recoded to system missing.

   

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.
119

102262241

The respondent provided two initials in the EPA section which had already been provided in the PA

section.  One of these initials is provided again the in the ST section.  Both are provided again in the SV

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in the PA, CCE, and PV sections is recoded to “10226224[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA1A1, PA1L1, PA2L1, PA3L2, PA3T1, 

PA3Y1, CCE1L1, CCE1T1, CCE1Y1, CCE2L1, CCE2T1, CCE2Y1, CCE3L2, CCE3T2, CCE5L1, CCE5T1, CCE5Y1, CCE6L1, 

CCE8L1, CCE8T1, CCE8Y1, CCE9L1, CCE9T1, CCE9Y1, CCE10L2, CCE11L2, CCE11T2, CCE11Y2, CCE13L1, CCE13T1, 

CCE13Y2, CCE14L4, PV6L1, PV7L1, PV7T1, PV7Y1, and PV8L2 are all recoded to “10226224[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. 

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections is recoded to “10226224[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the 17th perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA1A2, EPA1Y2, EPA2Y1, EPA3Y1, EPA4Y7, ECCE1Y1, 

ECCE3Y1, ECCE8Y2, ECCE10Y3, ECCE11Y4, EPV1Y2, EPV3Y2, EPV5Y1, EPV7Y2, and EPV9Y1 are all recoded to 

“10226224[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(3) The “[PERP 06]” perpetrator in the PA, CCE, and PV sections is recoded to “10226224[REC01-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. This remains the sixth perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA2A4, PA2L6, PA4L1, PA4T1, 

CCE9L4, CCE9T2, CCE13L4, CCE14L7, PV1L2, and PV9L4 are all recoded to “10226224[REC01-PERP 06-GPOP]”.

(4) The “[PERP 06]” perpetrator in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections is recoded to “10226224[REC02-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. This remains the eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the 23rd perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA1A8, EPA1Y8, EPA3Y4, EPA4Y8, ECCE7Y1, ECCE8Y1, 

ECCE9Y4, ECCE11Y6, EPV7Y1, and EPV8Y3 are all recoded to “10226224[REC02-PERP 06-GPOP]”. 

(5) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ST1 is recoded to “10226224[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This becomes 

a new perpetrator identified in ST1 and the 39th perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST1I1 is recoded to 

24, ST1I2 is recoded to 33, ST1I3 is recoded to 32, ST1I4 is recoded to 14, ST1I5 is recoded to 37, ST1I6 is 

recoded to 18, ST1I7 is recoded to system missing, ST1A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

ST1L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, ST1L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 31-GPOP]”, ST1L3 is 

recoded to “10226224[PERP 30-GPOP]”, ST1L4 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 14-GPOP]”, ST1L5 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 35-GPOP]”, ST1L6 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 17-GPOP]”, ST1L7 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 36-GPOP]”, ST1L8 is recoded to “10226224[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST1B1 is recoded to 3, 

ST1B2 is recoded to 3, ST1B3 is recoded to 2, ST1B4 is recoded to 1, ST1B5 is recoded to 2, ST1B6 is recoded to 

3, ST1B7 is recoded to 2, ST1B8 is recoded to 3, ST1D1 is recoded to 8, ST1D2 is recoded to 1, ST1T1 is recoded 

to “10226224[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, and ST1Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(6) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ST2 is recoded to “10226224[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This becomes 

a new perpetrator identified in ST2 and the 40th perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST2I1 is recoded to 

34, ST2I2 is recoded to system missing, ST2A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST2L1 is 

recoded to “10226224[PERP 32-GPOP]”, ST2L2 is recoded to “10226224[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST2B1 is 

recoded to 4, ST2B2 is recoded to 4, and ST2D1 is recoded to 1. 

(7) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ST3 is recoded to “10226224[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This becomes 

a new perpetrator identified in ST3 and the 41st perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST3I1 is recoded to 

24, ST3I2 is recoded to 27, ST3I3 is recoded to system missing, ST3A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC05-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, ST3L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, ST3L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 25-GPOP]”, 

ST3L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST3B1 is recoded to 2, ST3B2 is recoded to 4, ST3B3 is 

recoded to 3, ST3D1 is recoded to 3, ST3D2 is recoded to 1, ST3D3 is recoded to 2, ST3T1 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, and ST3Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

(8) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ST6 is recoded to “10226224[REC06-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This becomes 

a new perpetrator identified in ST6 and the 42nd perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST6I1 is recoded to 

34,

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.
120

ST6I2 is recoded to 24, ST6I3 is recoded to system missing, ST6A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC06-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, ST6L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 32-GPOP]”, ST6L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, 

ST6L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC06-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST6B1 is recoded to 3, ST6B2 is recoded to 4, ST6B3 is 

recoded to 2, ST6D1 is recoded to 1, and ST6D2 is recoded to 2.

(9) ST7I1 is recoded to 34, ST7I2 is recoded to 24, and ST7I3 is recoded to 28.

(10) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV1 is recoded to “10226224[REC07-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV1 and the 43rd perpetrator identified by the respondent. SV1I1 is 

recoded to 2, SV1I2 is recoded to system missing, SV1A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC07-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV1L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-GPOP]”, SV1L2 is recoded to “10226224[REC07-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV1B1 is recoded to 2, SV1B2 is recoded to 2, SV1O1 is recoded to 3, SV1O2 is recoded to 3, SV1P1 is recoded 

to 4, and SV1P2 is recoded to 4.

(11) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV2 is recoded to “10226224[REC08-PERP 01-GPOP]” and the 

“10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV2 is recoded “10226224[REC03-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both 

perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV2. The perpetrator “10226224[REC08-PERP 01-GPOP]” 

becomes the 44th perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC03-PERP 06-

GPOP]” becomes the 45th. SV2I1 is recoded to 24, SV2I2 is recoded to system missing, SV2I3 is recoded to 

system missing, SV2A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC08-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV2A2 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC03-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV2L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, SV2L2 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC08-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV2L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC03-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV2B1 is recoded 

to 1, SV2B2 is recoded to 2, SV2B3 is recoded to 2, SV2O1 is recoded to 3, SV2O2 is recoded to 3, SV2O3 is 

recoded to 3, SV2P1 is recoded to 4, SV2P2 is recoded to 4, and SV2P3 is recoded to 4. 

(12) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV3 is recoded to “10226224[REC09-PERP 01-GPOP]” and the 

“[PERP 06]” perpetrator in section SV3 is recoded “10226224[REC04-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both perpetrators 

become new perpetrators identified in SV3. The perpetrator “10226224[REC09-PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 

46th perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC04-PERP 06-GPOP]” 

becomes the 47th. SV3I1 is recoded to 2, SV3I2 is recoded to 4, SV3I3 is recoded to 5, SV3I4 is recoded to 8, 

SV3I5 is recoded to 9, SV3I6 is recoded to 10, SV3I7 is recoded to 11, SV3I8 is recoded to 13, SV3I9 is recoded 

to 14, SV3I10 is recoded to 24, SV3I11 is recoded to 26, SV3I12 is recoded to 27, SV3I13 is recoded to 28, 

SV3I14 is recoded to system missing, SV3I15 is recoded to system missing, SV3A1 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC09-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV3A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC04-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV3L1 is recoded 

to “10226224[PERP 02-GPOP]”, SV3L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-GPOP]”, SV3L3 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 05-GPOP]”, SV3L4 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 08-GPOP]”, SV3L5 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 09-GPOP]”, SV3L6 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 10-GPOP]”, SV3L7 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV3L8 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 13-GPOP]”, SV3L9 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 14-GPOP]”, SV3L10 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, SV3L11 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 24-GPOP]”, SV3L12 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 25-GPOP]”, SV3L13 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 26-GPOP]”, SV3L14 is recoded to “10226224[REC09-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV3L15 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC04-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV3B1 is recoded to 2, SV3B2 is recoded to 2, SV3B3 is recoded to 1, 

SV3B4 is recoded to -1, SV3B5 is recoded to 3, SV3B6 is recoded to 2, SV3B7 is recoded to 3, SV3B8 is recoded 

to 4, SV3B9 is recoded to 3, SV3B10 is recoded to 3, SV3B11 is recoded to 3, SV3B12 is recoded to 1, SV3B13 is 

recoded to 4, SV3B14 is recoded to 1, SV3B15 is recoded to 2, SV3O1 is recoded to 3, SV3O2 is recoded to 3, 

SV3O3 is recoded to 1, SV3O4 is recoded to 3, SV3O5 is recoded to 3, SV3O6 is recoded to 3, SV3O7 is recoded 

to 3, SV3O8 is recoded to 4, SV3O9 is recoded to 4, SV3O10 is recoded to 3, SV3O11 is recoded to 1, SV3O12 is 

recoded to 4, SV3O13 is recoded to 3, SV3O14 is recoded to 2, SV3O15 is recoded to 3, SV3P1 is recoded to 1, 

SV3P2 is recoded to 3, SV3P3 is recoded to 1, SV3P4 is recoded to 1, SV3P5 is recoded to 3, SV3P6 is recoded to 

4, SV3P7 is recoded to 3, SV3P8 is recoded to 3, SV3P9 is recoded to 1, SV3P10 is recoded to 3, SV3P11 is 

recoded to 3, SV3P12 is recoded to 1, SV3P13 is recoded to 3, SV3P14 is recoded to 1, and SV3P15 is recoded 

to 3.

(13)The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV4 is recoded to “10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]” and the 

“[PERP 06]” perpetrator in section SV4 is recoded “10226224[REC05-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both perpetrators 

become new perpetrators identified in SV4. The perpetrator “10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 

48th perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC05-PERP 06-GPOP]” 

becomes the 49th. SV4I1 is recoded to 4, SV4I2 is recoded to 8, SV4I3 is recoded to 9, SV4I4 is recoded to 10, 

SV4I5 is recoded to 11, SV4I6 is recoded to 12, 

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.
121

SV4I7 is recoded to 14, SV4I8 is recoded to 15, SV4I9 is recoded to 16, SV4I10 is recoded to 18, SV4I11 is 

recoded to 19, SV4I12 is recoded to 20, SV4I13 is recoded to 21, SV4I14 is recoded to system missing, SV4I15 is 

recoded to system missing, SV4A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV4A2 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC05-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV4L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-GPOP]”, SV4L2 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 08-GPOP]”, SV4L3 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 09-GPOP]”, SV4L4 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 10-GPOP]”, SV4L5 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV4L6 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 12-GPOP] SV4L7 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 14-GPOP]”, SV4L8 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 15-GPOP]”, SV4L9 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 16-GPOP]”, SV4L10 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 17-GPOP]”, SV4L11 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 18-GPOP]”, SV4L12 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 19-GPOP]”, SV4L13 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 20-GPOP]”, SV4L14 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV4L15 is recoded to “10226224[REC05-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV4B1 is 

recoded to 2, SV4B2 is recoded to 3, SV4B3 is recoded to 4, SV4B4 is recoded to 3, SV4B5 is recoded to 3, 

SV4B6 is recoded to 4, SV4B7 is recoded to 2, SV4B8 is recoded to 3, SV4B9 is recoded to 4, SV4B10 is recoded 

to 3, SV4B11 is recoded to 2, SV4B12 is recoded to 3, SV4B13 is recoded to 3, SV4B14 is recoded to 3, SV4B15 is 

recoded to 2, SV4D1 is recoded to 14, SV4D2 is recoded to 15, SV4D3 is recoded to 2, SV4T1 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV4T2 is recoded to “10226224[REC05- PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV4Y1 is recoded 

to “10226224[REC10-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV4O1 is recoded to 3, SV4O2 is recoded to 3, SV4O3 is recoded to 3, 

SV4O4 is recoded to 3, SV4O5 is recoded to 3, SV4O6 is recoded to 3, SV4O7 is recoded to 3, SV4O8 is recoded 

to 2, SV4O9 is recoded to 3, SV4O10 is recoded to 3, SV4O11 is recoded to 3, SV4O12 is recoded to 3, SV4O13 

is recoded to 3, SV4O14 is recoded to 3, SV4O15 is recoded to 3, SV4P1 is recoded to 2, SV4P2 is recoded to 3, 

SV4P3 is recoded to 2, SV4P4 is recoded to 1, SV4P5 is recoded to 3, SV4P6 is recoded to 2, SV4P7 is recoded to 

3, SV4P8 is recoded to 1, SV4P9 is recoded to 1, SV4P10 is recoded to 1, SV4P11 is recoded to 1, SV4P12 is 

recoded to 3, SV4P13 is recoded to 3, SV4P14 is recoded to 1, and SV4P15 is recoded to 4.

(14) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV5 is recoded to “10226224[REC11-PERP 01-

GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV5 is recoded “10226224[REC06-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV5. The perpetrator “10226224[REC11-

PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 50th perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator 

“10226224[REC06-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 51st. SV5I1 is recoded to 9, SV5I2 is recoded to 10, SV5I3 is 

recoded to 11, SV5I4 is recoded to 12, SV5I5 is recoded to 13, SV5I6 is recoded to system missing, SV5I7 is 

recoded to system missing, SV5A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC11-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV5A2 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC06-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV5L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 09-GPOP]”, SV5L2 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 10-GPOP]”, SV5L3 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV5L4 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 12-GPOP]”, SV5L5 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 13-GPOP]”, SV5L6 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC11-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV5L7 is recoded to “10226224[REC06-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV5B1 is recoded 

to 2, SV5B2 is recoded to 3, SV5B3 is recoded to 2, SV5B4 is recoded to 3, SV5B5 is recoded to 2, SV5B6 is 

recoded to 2, SV5B7 is recoded to 2, SV5D1 is recoded to 6, SV5T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC11-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, SV5Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC11-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV5O1 is recoded to 3, SV5O2 is recoded to 3, 

SV5O3 is recoded to 3, SV5O4 is recoded to 3, SV5O5 is recoded to 3, SV5O6 is recoded to 3, SV5O7 is recoded 

to 3, SV5P1 is recoded to 3, SV5P2 is recoded to 3, SV5P3 is recoded to 1, SV5P4 is recoded to 3, SV5P5 is 

recoded to 4, SV5P6 is recoded to 3, and SV5P7 is recoded to 1.

(15) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV6 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 01-

GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV6 is recoded “10226224[REC07-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV6. The perpetrator “10226224[REC12-

PERP 01- GPOP]” becomes the 52nd perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator 

“10226224[REC07-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 53rd. SV6I1 is recoded to 2, SV6I2 is recoded to 8, SV6I3 is 

recoded to 9, SV6I4 is recoded to 11, SV6I5 is recoded to 13, SV6I6 is recoded to 14, SV6I7 is recoded to 15, 

SV6I8 is recoded to 16, SV6I9 is recoded to system missing, SV6I10 is recoded to system missing, SV6A1 is 

recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV6A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC07-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV6L1 

is recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-GPOP]”, SV6L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 08-GPOP]”, SV6L3 is recoded 

to “10226224[PERP 09-GPOP]”, SV6L4 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV6L5 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 13-GPOP]”, SV6L6 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 14-GPOP]”, SV6L7 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 15-GPOP]”, SV6L8 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 16-GPOP]”, SV6L9 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC12-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV6L10 is recoded to “10226224[REC07-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV6B1 is 

recoded to 2, SV6B2 is recoded to 2, SV6B3 is recoded to 4, SV6B4 is recoded to 3, SV6B5 is recoded to 3, 

SV6B6 is recoded to 3, SV6B7 is recoded to 2, SV6B8 is recoded to -1, SV6B9 is

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
122

recoded to 2, SV6B10 is recoded to 2, SV6D1 is recoded to 9, SV6T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 

01-GPOP]”, SV6Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV6O1 is recoded to 3, SV6O2 is 

recoded to 3, SV6O3 is recoded to 3, SV6O4 is recoded to 3, SV6O5 is recoded to 1, SV6O6 is recoded to 

3, SV6O7 is recoded to 3, SV6O8 is recoded to 3, SV6O9 is recoded to 3, SV6O10 is recoded to 3, SV6P1 is 

recoded to 4, SV6P2 is recoded to 4, SV6P3 is recoded to 3, SV6P4 is recoded to 1, SV6P5 is recoded to 3, 

SV6P6 is recoded to 1, SV6P7 is recoded to 3, SV6P8 is recoded to 3, SV6P9 is recoded to 3, and SV6P10 is 

recoded to 1.

(16) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV7 is recoded to “10226224[REC13-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV7 and the 54th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV7I1 is recoded to system missing, SV7A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC13-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV7L1 is recoded to “10226224[REC13-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV7T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC13-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, and SV7Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC13-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(17) SV9I1 is recoded to 24.

(18) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV11 is recoded to “10226224[REC14-PERP 

01-GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV7 and the 55th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV11I1 is recoded to system missing, SV11A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC14-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, and SV11L1 is recoded to “10226224[REC14-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(19) SV12I1 is recoded to 24.

(20) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV14 is recoded to “10226224[REC15-PERP 

01-GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV14 is recoded 

“10226224[REC08-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV14. The 

perpetrator “10226224[REC15-PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 56th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC08-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 57th. SV14I1 is recoded 

to 4, SV14I2 is recoded to 9, SV14I3 is recoded to 11, SV14I4 is recoded to system missing, SV14I5 is 

recoded to system missing, SV14A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC15-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV14A2 is recoded 

to “10226224[REC08-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV14L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-GPOP]”, SV14L2 is 

recoded to “10226224[PERP 09-GPOP]”, SV14L3 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 11-GPOP]”, SV14L4 is 

recoded to “10226224[REC15-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV14L5 is recoded to “10226224[REC08-PERP 06-GPOP]”, 

SV14B1 is recoded to 2, SV14B2 is recoded to 2,SV14B3 is recoded to 2,SV14B4 is recoded to 2,SV14B5 is 

recoded to 2, SV14D1 is recoded to 4, SV14D2 is recoded to 1, SV14D3 is recoded to 5, SV14T1 is recoded 

to “10226224[REC15-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV14T3 is recoded to “10226224[REC08-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV14Y1 

is recoded to “10226224[REC15-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV14Y3 is recoded to “10226224[REC08-PERP 06-

GPOP]”, SV14O1 is recoded to 3, SV14O2 is recoded to 3, SV14O3 is recoded to 3, SV14O4 is recoded to 

3,SV14O4 is recoded to 3, SV14P1 is recoded to 3, SV14P2 is recoded to 3,SV14P3 is recoded to 1,SV14P4 

is recoded to 3,and SV14P5 is recoded to 1.

(21) SV15I1 is recoded to 24.

(22) The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV16 is recoded to “10226224[REC16-PERP 

01-GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV16 is recoded 

“10226224[REC09-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV16. The 

perpetrator “10226224[REC16-PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 58th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC09-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 59th. SV16I1 is recoded 

to 2, SV16I2 is recoded to 5, SV16I3 is recoded to system missing, SV16I4 is recoded to system missing, 

SV16A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC16-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV16A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC09-PERP 

06-GPOP]”, SV16L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-GPOP]”, SV16L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 05-

GPOP]”, SV16L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC16-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV16L4 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC09-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV16B1 is recoded to 1, SV16B2 is recoded to 1, SV16B3 is recoded to 

5, SV16B4 is recoded to 2, SV16D1 is recoded to 3, SV16D2 is recoded to 1, SV16D3 is recoded to 4, 

SV16T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC16-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV16T3 is recoded to “10226224[REC09-PERP 

06-GPOP]”, SV16O1 is recoded to 3, SV16O2 is recoded to 3, SV16O3 is recoded to 3, SV16O4 is recoded 

to 3, SV16P1 is recoded to 1, SV16P2 is recoded to 1, SV16P3 is recoded to 3, and SV16P4 is recoded to 1. 

(23)The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV17 is recoded to “10226224[REC17-PERP 

01-GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV17 is recoded 

“10226224[REC10-PERP 06-GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV17. The 

perpetrator “10226224[REC17-PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 60th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent and the perpetrator “10226224[REC10-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 61st. SV17I1 is recoded 

to 3, SV17I2 is recoded to 4, SV17I3 is recoded to 7, SV17I4 is recoded to system missing, SV17I5 is 

recoded to 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.
123

missing, SV17A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC17-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV17A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC10-

PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV17L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 03-GPOP]”, SV17L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-

GPOP]”, SV17L3 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 07-GPOP]”, SV17L4 is recoded to “10226224[REC17-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, SV17L5 is recoded to “10226224[REC10-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV17B1 is recoded to 1, SV17B2 is recoded to 

1, SV17B3 is recoded to 1, SV17B4 is recoded to 5, SV17B5 is recoded to 1, SV17D1 is recoded to 4, SV17T1 is 

recoded to “10226224[REC17-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV17Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC17-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV17O1 is recoded to 3, SV17O2 is recoded to 3, SV17O3 is recoded to 3, SV17O4 is recoded to 3, SV17O5 is 

recoded to 3, SV17P1 is recoded to 1, SV17P2 is recoded to 3, SV17P3 is recoded to 1, SV17P4 is recoded to 3, 

and SV17P5 is recoded to 1.

(24)The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV19 is recoded to “10226224[REC18-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV19 and the 62nd perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV19I1 is recoded to 3, SV19I2 is recoded to 4, SV19I3 is recoded to system missing, SV19A1 is 

recoded to “10226224[REC18-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV19L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 03-GPOP]”, SV19L2 is 

recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-GPOP]”, SV19L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC18-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV19B1 is 

recoded to 1, SV19B2 is recoded to 1, SV19B3 is recoded to 3, SV19D1 is recoded to 3, SV19D2 is recoded to 1, 

SV19T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC18-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV19Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC18-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, SV19O1 is recoded to 3, SV19O2 is recoded to 3, SV19O3 is recoded to 3, SV19P1 is recoded to 3, 

SV19P2 is recoded to 1, and SV19P3 is recoded to 3.

(25)The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV20 is recoded to “10226224[REC19-PERP 01-

GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV20 is recoded “10226224[REC11-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV20. The perpetrator “10226224[REC19-

PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 63rd perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator 

“10226224[REC11-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 64th. SV20I1 is recoded to 2, SV20I2 is recoded to 24, SV20I3 is 

recoded to 5, SV20I4 is recoded to system missing, SV20I5 is recoded to system missing, SV20A1 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC19-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV20A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC11-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV20L1 is 

recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-GPOP]”, SV20L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 22-GPOP]”, SV20L3 is recoded to 

“10226224[PERP 05-GPOP]”, SV20L4 is recoded to “10226224[REC19-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV20L5 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC11-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV20B1 is recoded to 1, SV20B2 is recoded to 2, SV20B3 is recoded to 2, 

SV20B4 is recoded to 2, SV20B5 is recoded to 2, SV20D1 is recoded to 4, SV20D2 is recoded to 2, SV20T1 is 

recoded to “10226224[REC19-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV20Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC19-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV20O1 is recoded to 3, SV20O2 is recoded to 3, SV20O3 is recoded to 3, SV20O4 is recoded to 3, SV20O5 is 

recoded to 3,SV20P1 is recoded to 3, SV20P2 is recoded to 3, SV20P3 is recoded to 3, SV20P4 is recoded to 3, 

and SV20P5 is recoded to 1.

(26)The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV21 is recoded to “10226224[REC20-PERP 01-

GPOP]” and the “10226224[PERP 06-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV21 is recoded “10226224[REC12-PERP 06-

GPOP]”. Both perpetrators become new perpetrators identified in SV21. The perpetrator “10226224[REC20-

PERP 01-GPOP]” becomes the 65th perpetrator identified by the respondent and the perpetrator 

“10226224[REC12-PERP 06-GPOP]” becomes the 66th. SV21I1 is recoded to 2, SV21I2 is recoded to 3, SV21I3 is 

recoded to system missing, SV21I4 is recoded to system missing, SV21A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC20-PERP 

01-GPOP]”, SV21A2 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV21L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-

GPOP]”, SV21L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 03-GPOP]”, SV21L3 is recoded to “10226224[REC20-PERP 01-

GPOP]”, SV21L4 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV21B1 is recoded to 2, SV21B2 is recoded to 

3, SV21B3 is recoded to 3, SV21B4 is recoded to 3, SV21D1 is recoded to 3, SV21D2 is recoded to 2, SV21D3 is 

recoded to 4, SV21T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC20-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV21T3 is recoded to “10226224[REC12-

PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV21Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC20-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV21Y3 is recoded to 

“10226224[REC12-PERP 06-GPOP]”, SV21O1 is recoded to 3, SV21O2 is recoded to 3, SV21O3 is recoded to 3, 

SV21O4 is recoded to 3, SV21P1 is recoded to 3, SV21P2 is recoded to 3, SV21P3 is recoded to 3, and SV21P4 is 

recoded to 3.

(27)The “10226224[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV22 is recoded to “10226224[REC21-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV22 and the 67th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV22I1 is recoded to 2, SV22I2 is recoded to 3, SV22I3 is recoded to 4, SV22I4 is recoded to system 

missing, SV22A1 is recoded to “10226224[REC21-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV22L1 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 02-

GPOP]”, SV22L2 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 03-GPOP]”, SV22L3 is recoded to “10226224[PERP 04-GPOP]”, 

SV22L4 is recoded to “10226224[REC21-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV22B1 is recoded to 3, SV22B2 is recoded to 1, 

SV22B3 is recoded to 2, SV22B4 is recoded to 4, SV22D1 is recoded to 4, SV22D2 is recoded to

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.
124

1, SV22T1 is recoded to “10226224[REC21-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV22Y1 is recoded to “10226224[REC21-

PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV22O1 is recoded to 3, SV22O2 is recoded to 3, SV22O3 is recoded to 3, SV22O4 is 

recoded to 3, SV22P1 is recoded to 1, SV22P2 is recoded to 3, SV22P3 is recoded to 3, and SV22P4 is 

recoded to 1.

(28)Follow-up data in SVFU0714_1, SVFU1114_1, SVFU0716_1, SVFU1116_1, SVFU0717_1, and 

SVFU1117_1 are all recoded to system missing. (Note: if analysts wish to recode all perpetrator initials 

back to their original values, SVFU0714_1, SVFU1114_1, SVFU0716_1, SVFU1116_1, SVFU0717_1, and 

SVFU1117_1 should all be recoded back to their original values [all 1]).

102269601

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102290271

The respondent provided initials in the EPA section which had already been provided in the PA section.

(1) The “10229027[PERP 02-GPOP]” perpetrator in sections PA and CCE is recoded to “10229027[REC01-PERP 02-

GPOP]”. This remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA2A1, PA2L1, PA2T1, PA2Y1, PA4L2, 

PA4T1, PA4Y1, CCE1L2, CCE1T2, CCE1Y1, CCE2L2, CCE2T1, CCE2Y1, CCE3L2, CCE3T1, CCE3Y1, CCE7L2, CCE7T1, 

CCE7Y1, CCE10L2, CCE10T1, CCE10Y1, CCE11L2, CCE11T1, and CCE11Y1 are all recoded to “10229027[REC01-PERP 

02-GPOP]”.

(2) The “10229027[PERP 02-GPOP]” perpetrator in section EPA is recoded to “10229027[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the fourth 

perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA1A1 and EPA1Y1 are recoded to “10229027[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. 

(3) The “10229027[PERP 02-GPOP]” perpetrator in section ST4 is recoded to “10229027[REC03-PERP 02-GPOP]”. 

This becomes a new perpetrator identified in ST4 and the 10th perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST4I1 is 

recoded to 6, ST4I2 is recoded to system missing, ST4A3 is recoded to “10229027[REC03-PERP 02-GPOP]”, ST4L1 is 

recoded to “10229027[PERP 05-GPOP]”, ST4L2 is recoded to “10229027[PERP 07-GPOP]”, ST4L3 is recoded to 

“10229027[PERP 08-GPOP]”, ST4L4 is recoded to “10229027[REC03-PERP 02-GPOP]”, ST4B1 is recoded to 1, 

ST4B2 is recoded to 2, ST4B3 is recoded to 1, ST4B4 is recoded to 3, ST4D1 is recoded to 4, ST4T1 is recoded to 

“10229027[REC03-PERP 02-GPOP]”, and ST4Y1 is recoded to “10229027[REC03-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(4) ST5I1 is recoded to 7, SV2I1 is recoded to 8, and SV5I1 is recoded to 7.

102298991

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

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.
125

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

10th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

102357701

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

102362891

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV4.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A1 and SV4L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A2 and SV4L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A3 and SV4L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

102365171

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A3 and SV1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A4 and SV1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A5 and SV1L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

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.
    126

102365701

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST2.

(5) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(6) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(7) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(8) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(9) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A5 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

102371621

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3I1 is recoded to system missing.  CCE3A1 and

CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3I2 is recoded to system missing.  CCE3A2

and CCE3L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

102374211

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in CCE7 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE7I1 is recoded to system missing, CCE7A1 is

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, and CCE7L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) CCE8L1 and CCE9L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

102400221

The respondent experienced ST4 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) ST4D1 is recoded to system missing and ST4N36 is recoded to ‐9.

102405411

The respondent experienced PA3 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) PA3G1 is recoded to system missing and PA3N12 is recoded to ‐9.

   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    127

102405751

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3A1 and PV3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102414201

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE2.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A1 and CCE2L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

102430491

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

102449171

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102453901

The respondent experienced PA2 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.  

The respondent also experienced PA3 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) PA2G1 is recoded to system missing and PA2N12 is recoded to ‐9.

(2) PA3G1 is recoded to system missing and PA3N12 is recoded to ‐9.

102459731

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A2 and ST5L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

   

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.
    128

102474271

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE11.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A1 and CCE11L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

102484851

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) ST1D1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N36 is recoded to ‐9.

102487971

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC06

MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L11 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A11 and ST1L12 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A12 and ST1L13 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A13 and ST1L14 are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A14 and ST1L15 are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  

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.
129

102490151

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE9.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE9A1 and CCE9L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

102501641

The respondent provided too many initials in PV8.

(1) The additional initial is deleted.  PV8I1 is recoded to system missing.

102524441

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE3 section which had already been provided in the CCE10

section.

(1) The “[PERP 03]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10252444[REC01-PERP 03-GPOP]”. This remains the third 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE10A1 and CCE10L2 are recoded to “10252444[REC01-PERP 03-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 03]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10252444[REC02-PERP 03-GPOP]”. This remains the third 

perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the sixth perpetrator identified in the 

survey. ECCE3A1 and ECCE3Y3 are recoded to “10252444[REC02-PERP 03-GPOP]”.

(3) ST1I2 is recoded to 8 and SV19I1 is recoded to 8.

102533981

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 17th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 18th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A11 and ST1L11 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 19th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A12 and ST1L12 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 20th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A13 and ST1L13 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 21st

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A14 and ST1L14 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 22nd

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A15 and ST1L15 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

102538861

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE3 section which had already been provided in the CCE2

section.

(1) The “[PERP 03]” perpetrator in sections CCE and PV is recoded to “10253886[REC01-PERP 03-GPOP]”. This 

remains the third perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE2A2, CCE2L3, CCE2T1, CCE3L3, CCE3T1, CCE3Y1, 

CCE14L3, CCE14T1, CCE14Y1, PV8L2, PV8T1, and PV8Y1 are recoded to “10253886[REC01-PERP 03-GPOP]”.

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.
130

(2) The “[PERP 03]” perpetrator in sections ECCE and EPV is recoded to “10253886[REC02-PERP 03-GPOP]”. This remains 

the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the fourth perpetrator identified 

in the survey. ECCE3A1, ECCE3Y1, and EPV8Y1 are recoded to “10253886[REC02-PERP 03-GPOP]”.

102571781

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

102588941

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1I1 is recoded to system missing.  PV1A1 and

PV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1I2 is recoded to system missing.  PV1A2

and PV1L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1I3 is recoded to system missing.  PV1A3 and

PV1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1I4 is recoded to system missing.  PV1A4 and

PV1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1I5 is recoded to system missing.  PV1A5 and

PV1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

102591131

The respondent provided initials in the EPA2 section which had already been provided in the PA3

section.

(1) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in sections PA and CCE is recoded to “10259113[REC01-PERP 02-

GPOP]”. This remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA3A1, PA3L2, CCE1L1, 

CCE2L1, and CCE3L1 are recoded to “10259113[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section EPA is recoded to “10259113[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This 

remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the 

fourth perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA2A1 and EPA2Y1 are recoded to “10259113[REC02-

PERP 02-GPOP]”.

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.
131

102592291

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE3 section which had already been provided in the CCE3

section.

(1) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in sections CCE and PV is recoded to “10259229[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This 

remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE3A1, CCE3L2, CCE3T1, CCE3Y1, CCE10L2, and 

PV3L2 are recoded to “10259229[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10259229[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This remains the 

first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third perpetrator 

identified in the survey. ECCE3A1 and ECCE3Y1 are recoded to “10259229[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

102595991

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

102607391

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE6 section which had already been provided in the PA1

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections PA, CCE, and PV is recoded to “10260739[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA1A1, PA1L1, PA1T1, PA1Y1, CCE2L1, CCE2T1, 

CCE3L1, CCE3T1, CCE12L1, CCE12T1, and PV1L1 are recoded to “10260739[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10260739[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains 

the 11th perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the 13th perpetrator 

identified in the survey. ECCE6A1 and ECCE6Y2 are recoded to “10260739[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

102642201

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A2 and CCE1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A3 and CCE1L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A4 and CCE1L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

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.
132

102647461

The respondent experienced ST3 victimizations in the past three years but did not provide perpetrator

initials.

(1) ST3D1 to ST3D15 are recoded to system missing and ST3N36 is recoded to ‐9.   

(2) ST3F is recoded to ‐9.

(3) ST3G1 to ST3G15 are recoded to system missing and ST3N12 is recoded to ‐9.

102652711

The respondent provided new initials in the CCE3 section which had already been provided in the same

section.

(1) The first “[PERP 04]” perpetrator is recoded to “10265271[REC01-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This remains the fourth 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “10265271[REC01-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(2) The second “[PERP 04]” perpetrator is recoded to “10265271[REC02-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This remains the sixth 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE3A3 and CCE3L3 are recoded to “10265271[REC02-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(3) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section CCE11 is recoded to “10265271[REC03-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE11I4 is recoded to system missing, CCE11A1 is recoded 

to “10265271[REC03-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and CCE11L4 is recoded to “10265271[REC03-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(4) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section PV3 is recoded to “10265271[REC04-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV3I3 is recoded to system missing, PV3A1 is recoded to 

“10265271[REC04-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and PV3L3 is recoded to “10265271[REC04-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(5) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section PV5 is recoded to “10265271[REC05-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the ninth perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV5I3 is recoded to system missing, PV5A1 is recoded to 

“10265271[REC05-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and PV5L3 is recoded to “10265271[REC05-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(6) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section PV7 is recoded to “10265271[REC06-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the 10th perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV7I1 is recoded to system missing, PV7A1 is recoded to 

“10265271[REC06-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and PV7L1 is recoded to “10265271[REC06-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(7) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section PV8 is recoded to “10265271[REC07-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the 11th perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV8I2 is recoded to system missing, PV8A1 is recoded to 

“10265271[REC07-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and PV8L2 is recoded to “10265271[REC07-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(8) The “[PERP 04]” perpetrator in section SV20 is recoded to “10265271[REC08-PERP 04-GPOP]”. This becomes 

the 13th perpetrator identified by the respondent. SV20I3 is recoded to system missing, SV20A1 is recoded to 

“10265271[REC08-PERP 04-GPOP]”, and SV20L3 is recoded to “10265271[REC08-PERP 04-GPOP]”.

(9) ST6I1 is recoded to 13.

102658311

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV12.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV12A1 and SV12L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103001562

The respondent experienced ST5 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST5G1 is recoded to system missing and ST5N12 is recoded to ‐9.

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
133

103020781

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in ST2 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2I1 is recoded to system missing, ST2A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and ST2L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) ST2Y1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(3) ST5L1 and ST5Y1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103027101

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE7 section which had already been provided in the PA4

section.

(1) The “10302710[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in sections PA, CCE, and PV is recoded to “10302710[REC01-

PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA4A1, PA4L1, CCE9L1, 

CCE10L1, PV1L1, PV2L1, PV3L1, and PV7L1 are recoded to “10302710[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “10302710[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10302710[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the eighth perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE7A2 and ECCE7Y2 are recoded to 

“10302710[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(3) The “10302710[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV1 is recoded to “10302710[REC03-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV1 and the 15th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV1I1 is recoded to system missing, SV1A1 is recoded to “10302710[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV1L1 

is recoded to “10302710[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, and SV1Y1 is recoded to “10302710[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(4) The “10302710[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV12 is recoded to “10302710[REC04-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV12 and the 18th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV12I1 is recoded to 17, SV12I2 is recoded to system missing, SV12A1 is recoded to 

“10302710[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV12L1 is recoded to “10302710[PERP 15-GPOP]”, SV12L2 is recoded to 

“10302710[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV12B1 is recoded to 1, SV12B2 is recoded to 8, SV12O1 is recoded to 4, 

SV12O2 is recoded to 1, SV12P1 is recoded to 1, and SV12P2 is recoded to 1.

(5) The “10302710[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV15 is recoded to “10302710[REC05-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV15 and the 19th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV15I1 is recoded to 3, SV15I2 is recoded to system missing, SV15A1 is recoded to 

“10302710[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV15L1 is recoded to “10302710[PERP 03-GPOP]”, SV15L2 is recoded to 

“10302710[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV15B1 is recoded to 2, SV15B2 is recoded to 5, SV15O1 is recoded to 1, 

SV15O2 is recoded to 3, SV15P1 is recoded to 1, and SV15P2 is recoded to 1.

(6) SV16I2 is recoded to 17.

(7) SVFU1012_2 is recoded to system missing and SVFU1012_1 is recoded to 2.

103031372

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

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.
134

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

103040011

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A3 and SV1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A4 and SV1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A5 and SV1L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

103057641

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE3 section which had already been provided in the CCE10

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections CCE and PV is recoded to “10305764[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE10A1, CCE10L1, PV2L1, PV3L1, and PV4L1 are all 

recoded to “10305764[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10305764[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains the 

first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the second perpetrator 

identified in the survey. ECCE3A3 and ECCE3Y3 are recoded to “10305764[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

103063931

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A2 and ST5L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

ninth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A3 and ST5L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103071322

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for EPA1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  EPA1A1 and EPA1Y1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

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.
    135

103071801

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103072341

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(2) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103072532

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A1 and CCE2L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2A2 and CCE2L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

103074401

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A1 and ST5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A2 and ST5L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103080641

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

   

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.
    136

103084722

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE8.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE8A2 and CCE8L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE8A3 and CCE8L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE8A4 and CCE8L4 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE8A5 and CCE8L5 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE8A6 and CCE8L6 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

103085632

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV6.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6A3 and SV6L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103094772

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for PV10.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV10A1 and PV10L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV10A2 and PV10L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103098642

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV7.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV7A1 and SV7L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103101062

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

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.
    137

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC06

MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

103102131

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A2 and SV1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

103106671

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103108112

The respondent experienced PV4 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) PV4G1 to PV4G15 are recoded to system missing and PV4N12 is recoded to ‐9.

   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
138

103111512

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(3) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A1 and CCE1L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(4) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A2 and CCE1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(5) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A3 and CCE1L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

(6) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A4 and CCE1L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

103116612

The respondent provided initials in the EPA3 section which had already been provided in the PA1

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections PA, CCE, and PV is recoded to “10311661[REC01-PERP 01-AIAN]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA1A1, PA1L1, PA1Y1, PA2L1, PA2Y1, PA3L1, 

PA3Y1, PA4L1, PA4Y1, PA5L1, PA5Y1, CCE13L1, CCE14L1, PV1L1, PV1Y1, PV3L1, PV3Y1, PV4L1, PV5L1, PV6L1, 

PV9L1, and PV10L1 are all recoded to “10311661[REC01-PERP 01-AIAN]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections EPA and EPV is recoded to “10311661[REC02-PERP 01-AIAN]”. This 

remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third 

perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA3A1, EPA3Y2, EPV1Y1, and EPV3Y1 are recoded to “10311661[REC02-

PERP 01-AIAN]”

103153781

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV4.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A2 and SV4L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103182991

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in ST5 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5I1 is recoded to system missing, ST5A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and ST5L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

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.
    139

103189241

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST6.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST6A2 and ST6L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST6A3 and ST6L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103237511

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV6.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6A1 and SV6L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6A2 and SV6L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103242011

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV2.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV2A1 and SV2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103250301

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

10th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

   

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.
    140

103253481

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A2 and CCE3L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

103256401

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

103260241

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV6.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6A1 and SV6L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103296621

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for PV2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A1 and PV2L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A2 and PV2L4 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A3 and PV2L5 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A4 and PV2L6 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A5 and PV2L7 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A6 and PV2L8 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

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.
141

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

ninth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A7 and PV2L9 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A8 and PV2L10 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A9 and PV2L11 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A10 and PV2L12 are recoded to “REC10

MISSING”.

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A11 and PV2L13 are recoded to “REC11

MISSING”.

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A12 and PV2L14 are recoded to “REC12

MISSING”.

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A13 and PV2L15 are recoded to “REC13

MISSING”.

103313711

The respondent provided initials in the ST2 section which had already been provided in the PV8 section.

(1) The “[PERP 05]” perpetrator in section PV is recoded to “10331371[REC01-PERP 05-GPOP]”. This remains the fifth 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. PV8A2 and PV8L2 are recoded to “10331371[REC01-PERP 05-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 05]” perpetrator in section ST2 is recoded to “10331371[REC02-PERP 05-GPOP]”. This remains the sixth 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST2A1, ST2L1, and ST2Y1 are recoded to “10331371[REC02-PERP 05-GPOP]”.

(3) The “[PERP 05]” perpetrator in section ST5 is recoded to “10331371[REC03-PERP 05-GPOP]”. This becomes the seventh 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST5I1 is recoded to system missing, ST5A1 is recoded to “10331371[REC03-PERP 

05-GPOP]”, and ST5L1 is recoded to “10331371[REC03-PERP 05-GPOP]”.

103318901

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

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.
142

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

10th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A11 and ST1L11 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A12 and ST1L12 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.

103321401

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A2 and CCE3L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A3 and CCE3L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A4 and CCE3L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A5 and CCE3L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

103335271

The respondent provided initials in the EPA1 section which had already been provided in the PA4

section.

(1) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in sections PA and CCE is recoded to “10333527[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”. 

This remains the second perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA4A2, PA4L2, CCE1L1, CCE2L1, 

CCE3L1, and CCE13L1 are all recoded to “10333527[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in sections EPA, ECCE, and EPV is recoded to “10333527[REC02-PERP 02-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the fourth perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA1A1, EPA1Y1, EPA2Y1, ECCE1Y1, ECCE6Y1, 

and EPV1Y1 are recoded to “10333527[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(3) SV19I1 is recoded to 7.

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.
143

103340631

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

103361031

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A1 and ST3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A2 and ST3L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A3 and ST3L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

103369231

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE7 section which had already been provided in the PA1

section.

(1) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section PA is recoded to “10336923[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This remains the second 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA1A2 and PA1L2 are recoded to “10336923[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10336923[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This remains the first 

perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third perpetrator identified in the 

survey. ECCE7A1 and ECCE7Y1 are recoded to “10336923[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

103372941

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

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.
    144

103382581

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103396561

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV4.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A2 and SV4L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A3 and SV4L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A4 and SV4L4 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A5 and SV4L5 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A6 and SV4L6 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A7 and SV4L7 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

12th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A8 and SV4L8 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A9 and SV4L9 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV4A10 and SV4L10 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

103401631

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE4.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE4A1 and CCE4L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103406961

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV7.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV7I1 is recoded to system missing.  PV7A1 and

PV7L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

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.
145

103417781

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE section which had already been provided in the CCE

section.

(1) The “10341778[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10341778[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE2A1, CCE2L1, CCE3L1, CCE3Y1, 

CCE12L1, and CCE12Y1 are all recoded to “10341778[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “10341778[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10341778[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the sixth perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the seventh perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE2A1, ECCE2Y1, and ECCE3Y1 are recoded to 

“10341778[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(3) The “10341778[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section ST3 is recoded to “10341778[REC03-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in ST3 and the 13th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. ST3I1 is recoded to 2, ST3I2 is recoded to 3, ST3I3 is recoded to 4, ST3I4 is recoded to 5, ST3I5 is 

recoded to 8, ST3I6 is recoded to 9, ST3I7 is recoded to 10, ST3I8 is recoded to system missing, ST3A1 is recoded 

to “10341778[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST3L1 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 02-GPOP]”, ST3L2 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 03-GPOP]”, ST3L3 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 04-GPOP]”, ST3L4 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 05-GPOP]”, ST3L5 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 07-GPOP]”, ST3L6 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 08-GPOP]”, ST3L7 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 09-GPOP]”, ST3L8 is recoded to 

“10341778[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST3B1 is recoded to 1, ST3B2 is recoded to 2, ST3B3 is recoded to 1, ST3B4 

is recoded to 2, ST3B5 is recoded to 1, ST3B6 is recoded to 2, ST3B7 is recoded to 1, ST3B8 is recoded to 2, 

ST3G1 is recoded to 8, ST3G2 is recoded to 1, ST3G3 is recoded to 2, ST3G4 is recoded to 3, ST3G5 is recoded to 

4, ST3G6 is recoded to 5, ST3G7 is recoded to 6, and ST3Y1 is recoded to “10341778[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(4) The “10341778[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section ST5 is recoded to “10341778[REC04-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in ST5 and the 14th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. ST5I1 is recoded to 2, ST5I2 is recoded to 3, ST5I3 is recoded to 4, ST5I4 is recoded to 5, ST5I5 is 

recoded to 6, ST5I6 is recoded to 8, ST5I7 is recoded to 9, ST5I8 is recoded to system missing, ST5A1 is recoded 

to “10341778[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST5L1 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 02-GPOP]”, ST5L2 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 03-GPOP]”, ST5L3 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 04-GPOP]”, ST5L4 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 05-GPOP]”, ST5L5 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 06-GPOP]”, ST5L6 is recoded to 

“10341778[PERP 07-GPOP]”, ST5L7 is recoded to “10341778[PERP 08-GPOP]”, ST5L8 is recoded to 

“10341778[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”, ST5B1 is recoded to 1, ST5B2 is recoded to 1, ST5B3 is recoded to 2, ST5B4 

is recoded to 1, ST5B5 is recoded to 1, ST5B6 is recoded to 1, ST5B7 is recoded to 1, and ST5B8 is recoded to 2.

(5) The “10341778[PERP 01-GPOP]” perpetrator in section SV5 is recoded to “10341778[REC05-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV5 and the 15th perpetrator identified by the 

respondent. SV5I1 is recoded to system missing and SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “10341778[REC05-PERP 

01-GPOP]”.

103441871

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for EPA1.

(4) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  EPA1A1 and EPA1Y1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(5) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  EPA1A2 and EPA1Y2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

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.
    146

103466791

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A1 and PV2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A2 and PV2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A3 and PV2L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A4 and PV2L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  

103476381

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A1 and ST3L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103506042

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1A1 and PV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103509832

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

103518121

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in PV3 that was not previously identified).

(3) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV3I2 is recoded to system missing, PV3A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and PV3L2 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(4) PV4L2 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

   

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.
147

103531882

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A1 and PV2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A2 and PV2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.  

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A3 and PV2L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A4 and PV2L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.  

103538502

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103539131

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for PV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV1A1 and PV1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103544801

The respondent provided initials in the EPA section which had already been provided in the PA section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections PA, CCE, and PV is recoded to “10354480[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA2A1, PA2L1, PA2Y1, PA4L1, PA4Y1, CCE2L1, 

CCE2Y1, CCE3L1, CCE3Y1, CCE4L1, PV3L1, and PV3Y1 are all recoded to “10354480[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections EPA, ECCE, and EPV is recoded to “10354480[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third 

perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA2A1, EPA2Y1, EPA3Y1, EPA4Y1, ECCE2Y1, and EPV3Y1 are all recoded to 

“10354480[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

103545682

The respondent experienced PA2 victimizations by two perpetrators but did not provide perpetrator

initials.   

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This remains the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PA2A1, PA2L1, PA3L1, PA4L1, PA5L1, CCE1L1, CCE3L1,

CCE5L1, CCE6L1, CCE7L1, CCE9L1, CCE10L1, CCE11L1, CCE12L1, CCE13L1, PV1L1, PV2L1, PV3L1,

PV4L1, PV5L1, PV6L1, PV7L1, PV8L1, PV9L1, PV10L1, PV12L1, ST1L1, ST3L1, ST4L1, ST5L1, and

ST7L1 are all recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

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.
    148

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This remains the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PA2A2, PA2L2, PA3L2, PA4L2, CCE1L2,

CCE3L2, CCE4L1, CCE7L2, CCE12L2, PV1L2, PV2L2, PV3L2, PV4L2, PV5L2, PV7L2, PV10L2, PV12L2,

and ST1L2 are all recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

103550352

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in CCE2 that was not previously identified).

(5) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE2I1 is recoded to system missing, CCE2A1 is

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, and CCE2L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103571881

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE6.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE6A1 and CCE6L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103584411

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103591601

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST1G1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to ‐9.

103593422

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A3 and SV5L3 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A4 and SV5L4 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A5 and SV5L5 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

   

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.
    149

103598822

The respondent provided too many initials in SV20.

(1) The number of lifetime perpetrators is changed.  SV20 and SV20N99 are recoded to 14.

103614031

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV2.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV2A1 and PV2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103639282

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE12.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE12A3 and CCE12L6 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103652462

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE11.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A1 and CCE11L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103660412

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV10.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV10I1 is recoded to system missing.  PV10A1 and

PV10L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103664952

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A1 and ST3L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A2 and ST3L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A3 and ST3L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A4 and ST3L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A5 and ST3L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

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.
    150

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A6 and ST3L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

10th perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A7 and ST3L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A8 and ST3L8 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A9 and ST3L9 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A10 and ST3L10 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A11 and ST3L11 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A12 and ST3L12 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 16th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A13 and ST3L13 are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 17th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A14 and ST3L14 are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.

(15)The 15th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  This becomes the 18th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST3A15 and ST3L15 are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.

103671122

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV10.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV10A1 and PV10L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103681182

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ECCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ECCE3A1 and ECCE3Y1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ECCE3A2 and ECCE3Y2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ECCE3A3 and ECCE3Y3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ECCE3A4 and ECCE3Y4 are recoded to

“REC04 MISSING”.

   

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.
151

103684932

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE11.

(5) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A1 and CCE11L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103689262

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in SV11 that was not previously identified).

(3) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV11I3 is recoded to system missing, SV11A1 is

recoded to “REC01 MISSING”, and SV11L3 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103689592

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103689891

The respondent provided initials in the EPA section which had already been provided in the CCE section.  

In addition, the respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past year but did not provide

perpetrator initials.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections CCE and PV is recoded to “10368989[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. 

This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE1A1, CCE1L1, CCE1Y1, CCE2L1, CCE2Y1, 

CCE3L1, CCE3Y1, CCE4L1, CCE4Y1, CCE9L1, PV1L1, PV1Y1, PV2L1, PV2Y1, PV3L1, PV3Y1, PV4L1, PV4Y1, 

PV5L1, PV5Y1, PV7L1, PV7Y1, PV8L1, PV8Y1, PV10L1, and PV10Y1 are all recoded to “10368989[REC01-PERP 

01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in sections EPA, ECCE, and EPV is recoded to “10368989[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”. This remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and 

becomes the third perpetrator identified in the survey. EPA1A1, EPA1Y1, ECCE2Y1, ECCE3Y1, ECCE7Y1, 

ECCE9Y1, ECCE11Y1, EPV1Y1, EPV2Y1, EPV3Y1, EPV4Y1, EPV7Y1, EPV8Y1, and EPV10Y1 are all recoded to 

“10368989[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(3) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ST5 is recoded to “10368989[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

becomes a new perpetrator identified in ST5 and the 25th perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST5I1 is 

recoded to system missing and ST5A1, ST5L1, and ST5Y1 are recoded to “10368989[REC03-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(4) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV4 is recoded to “10368989[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV4 and the 27th perpetrator identified by the respondent. SV4I1 is 

recoded to system missing and SV4A1, SV4L1, and SV4Y1 are recoded to “10368989[REC04-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(5) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section SV6 is recoded to “10368989[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

becomes a new perpetrator identified in SV6 and the 28th perpetrator identified by the respondent. SV6I1 is 

recoded to 26, SV6I2 is recoded to system missing, SV6A1 is recoded to “10368989[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV6L1 is recoded to “10368989[PERP 24-GPOP]”, SV6L2 is recoded to “10368989[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, 

SV6B1 is recoded to 1, SV6B2 is recoded

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.
152

to 1, SV6G1 is recoded to 2, SV6Y1 is recoded to “10368989[REC05-PERP 01-GPOP]”, SV6O1 is recoded to 4, 

SV6O2 is recoded to 1, SV6P1 is recoded to 4, and SV6P2 is recoded to 4.

(6) ST6I1 is recoded to 13 and ST7I1 is recoded to 14.

(7) ST1G1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to -9.

103694561

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV5.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 19th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV5A1 and SV5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

103705332

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE13.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE13A1 and CCE13L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE13A2 and CCE13L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE13A3 and CCE13L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE13A4 and CCE13L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

103709011

The respondent provided initials in the CCE4 section which had already been provided in the PA1

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section PA1 is recoded to “10370901[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains 

the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA1A1, PA1L1, PA1Y1, PA2L1, PA2Y1, CCE1L1, CCE1Y1, and 

CCE4L1 are recoded to “10370901[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE4 is recoded to “10370901[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains 

the fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE4A2 and CCE4L3 are recoded to “10370901[REC02-

PERP 01-GPOP]”.

103715141

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV10.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV10A1 and SV10L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV10A2 and SV10L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

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.
153

103716291

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

103716702

The respondent experienced PV2 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) PV2G1 to PV2G15 are recoded to system missing and PV2N12 is recoded to ‐9.

103725882

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

103726961

The respondent provided initials in the EPA2 section which had already been provided in the PA4

section.

(1) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section PA is recoded to “10372696[REC01-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This remains the second 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. PA4A2, PA4L2, and PA4Y1 are all recoded to “10372696[REC01-PERP 02-

GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 02]” perpetrator in section EPA is recoded to “10372696[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”. This remains the first 

perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the third perpetrator identified in the 

survey. EPA2A1 and EPA2Y1 are recoded to “10372696[REC02-PERP 02-GPOP]”.

103731861

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE2 section which had already been provided in the CCE2

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10373186[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains the first 

perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE2A1, CCE2L1, and CCE2Y1 are all recoded to “10373186[REC01-PERP 01-

GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section EPA is recoded to “10373186[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains the first 

perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the second perpetrator identified in the 

survey. ECCE2A1 and ECCE2Y1 are recoded to “10373186[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

103734002

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for CCE1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A2 and CCE1L2 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

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.
    154

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A3 and CCE1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A4 and CCE1L4 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE1A5 and CCE1L5 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

103777602

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST5.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A1 and ST5L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A2 and ST5L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A3 and ST5L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A4 and ST5L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST5A5 and ST5L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

103783612

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

104044731

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in SV6 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV6I1 is recoded to system missing, SV6A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and SV6L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

   

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.
155

104050681

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE3.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A1 and CCE3L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE3A2 and CCE3L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

104082011

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for SV7.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the 23rd

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV7A3 and SV7L3 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

104124171

The respondent experienced ST5 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST5G1 is recoded to system missing and ST5N12 is recoded to ‐9.

104156741

The respondent provided initials in the ECCE8 section which had already been provided in the CCE2

section.

(1) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section CCE is recoded to “10415674[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This remains 

the first perpetrator identified by the respondent. CCE2A1, CCE2L1, CCE3L1, CCE3Y1, and CCE8L1 are all 

recoded to “10415674[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 01]” perpetrator in section ECCE is recoded to “10415674[REC02-PERP 01-GPOP]”. This 

remains the first perpetrator identified by the respondent in the elder abuse section and becomes the ninth 

perpetrator identified in the survey. ECCE8A1 and ECCE8Y1 are recoded to “10415674[REC02-PERP 01-

GPOP]”.

104311701

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

104326571

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for PV8.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV8A1 and PV8L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV8A2 and PV8L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

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.
156

104341341

The respondent provided fewer initials than expected (by referring to a previously identified perpetrator

in SV2 that was not previously identified).

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV2I1 is recoded to system missing, SV2A1 is recoded

to “REC01 MISSING”, and SV2L1 is recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) SV5L1 and SV6L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

(3) SV17I1 and SV20I1 are recoded to 4.

104505751

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

104528421

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE4.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE4I1 is recoded to system missing.  CCE4A1 and

CCE4L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE4I2 is recoded to system missing.  CCE4A2 and

CCE4L2 are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.

104538661

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST1G1 is recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to ‐9.

104669681

The respondent provided initials in the ST4 section which had already been provided in the ST1 section.

(1) The “[PEPR 07]” perpetrator in section ST1 is recoded to “10466968[REC01-PERP 07-GPOP]”. This remains the 

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST1A1, ST1L1, and ST4L2 are recoded to “10466968[REC01-

PERP 07-GPOP]”.

(2) The “[PERP 07]” perpetrator in section ST4 is recoded to “10466968[REC02-PERP 07-GPOP]”. This remains the 

18th perpetrator identified by the respondent. ST4A2 and ST4L5 are recoded to “10466968[REC02-PERP 07-

GPOP]”.

104703641

The respondent stopped the interview before providing all perpetrator initials for PV4.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  PV4A1 and PV4L5 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

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.
    157

104725741

The respondent experienced ST1 victimizations in the past year but did not provide perpetrator initials.

(1) ST1G1 to ST1G15 are recoded to system missing and ST1N12 is recoded to ‐9.

104745211

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for CCE11.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the second

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A1 and CCE11L1 are recoded to “REC01

MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

third perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A2 and CCE11L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A3 and CCE11L3 are recoded to “REC03

MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A4 and CCE11L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  CCE11A5 and CCE11L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

104841901

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for SV1.

(1) The missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the fourth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  SV1A1 and SV1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.

104895921

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST2.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the first

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A1 and ST2L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

second perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A2 and ST2L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A3 and ST2L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A4 and ST2L4 are recoded to “REC04

MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A5 and ST2L5 are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A6 and ST2L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

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.
    158

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A7 and ST2L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the

eighth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A8 and ST2L8 are recoded to “REC08

MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the ninth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A9 and ST2L9 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A10 and ST2L10 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A11 and ST2L11 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A12 and ST2L12 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A13 and ST2L13 are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A14 and ST2L14 are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.

(15)The 15th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST2A15 and ST2L15 are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.

104906501

The respondent stopped the interview before providing perpetrator initials for ST1.

(1) The first missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  This becomes the third

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A1 and ST1L1 are recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  

(2) The second missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC02 MISSING”.  This becomes the

fourth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A2 and ST1L2 are recoded to “REC02

MISSING”.

(3) The third missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.  This becomes the fifth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A3 and ST1L3 are recoded to “REC03 MISSING”.

(4) The fourth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.  This becomes the sixth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A4 and ST1L4 are recoded to “REC04 MISSING”.

(5) The fifth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC05 MISSING”.  This becomes the

seventh perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A5 and ST1L5 are recoded to “REC05

MISSING”.

(6) The sixth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.  This becomes the eighth

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A6 and ST1L6 are recoded to “REC06 MISSING”.

(7) The seventh missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC07 MISSING”.  This becomes the

ninth perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A7 and ST1L7 are recoded to “REC07

MISSING”.

(8) The eighth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.  This becomes the 10th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A8 and ST1L8 are recoded to “REC08 MISSING”.

(9) The ninth missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.  This becomes the 11th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A9 and ST1L9 are recoded to “REC09 MISSING”.

(10)The 10th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.  This becomes the 12th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A10 and ST1L10 are recoded to “REC10 MISSING”.

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.
    159

(11)The 11th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.  This becomes the 13th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A11 and ST1L11 are recoded to “REC11 MISSING”.

(12)The 12th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.  This becomes the 14th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A12 and ST1L12 are recoded to “REC12 MISSING”.

(13)The 13th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.  This becomes the 15th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A13 and ST1L13 are recoded to “REC13 MISSING”.

(14)The 14th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.  This becomes the 16th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A14 and ST1L14 are recoded to “REC14 MISSING”.

(15)The 15th missing perpetrator initials are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.  This becomes the 17th

perpetrator identified by the respondent.  ST1A15 and ST1L15 are recoded to “REC15 MISSING”.

F. DATA CHECKS

To verify that the data recodes above had successfully addressed these problem cases, all data checks

were performed again.  These can be found in “PA DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, “CCE DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, “PV

DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, “EPA DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, “ECCE DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, “EPV DATA CHECKS

2.SPS”, “ST DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”, and “SV DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”.  These eight syntax files were also

combined into a single file (“ALL DATA CHECKS 2.SPS”).  Note that some of the data checks required new

code to account for the new values created in the data recodes.  The data checks revealed that all

problems were successfully addressed.

G. SYNTAX AND DATA FILES

The “CLEAN NISVS” folder includes the syntax file to perform all recodes described above (“NISVS

RECODES.SPS”) and the clean data files that it creates for the PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, SV, and ST

sections:

The “CLEAN PA.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 766 variables.  The “CLEAN CCE.SAV”

data file includes 21,378 observations and 2,186 variables.  The “CLEAN PV.SAV” data file includes

21,378 observations and 1,873 variables.  The “CLEAN EPA.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations

and 297 variables.  The “CLEAN ECCE.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 684 variables.  The

“CLEAN EPV.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 746 variables.  The “CLEAN ST.SAV” data

file includes 21,378 observations and 1,093 variables.  The “CLEAN SV.SAV” data file includes 21,378

observations and 5,534 variables.

   

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.
    160

The “CLEAN NISVS” folder also includes all syntax files for the new data checks:

Finally, it includes 60 files with clean perpetrator identifiers (“PA1 PERPS.SAV” to “PA1 TO SV22

PERPS.SAV”):

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.
    161

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.
    162

   

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.
163

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 14

CORE RESPONDENT‐LEVEL FILE

In this chapter, a core respondent level‐file is created to include all respondent‐level variables from the

NISVS victimization core (PA1 to SV22).  From the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections, this includes the

respondents’ answers to the number of lifetime perpetrators (in PA1 to CCE14, in ST1 to SV22, and in

the N99 variables), victimization in the past three years (in the C variables), the number of perpetrators

in the past three years (in the N36 variables), victimization in the past year (in the F variables), and the

number of perpetrators in the past year (in the N12 variables).  From the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections,

this includes the respondents’ answers to the number of past year perpetrators (in EPA1 to EPV12, and

in the N12 variables).  Details on the creation of the core respondent‐level file are included in Section A.

This chapter also provides a summary of the additional data cleaning that is necessary to recode missing

values.  This includes (a) cleaning the data in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections and (b) cleaning the

data in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections.  Each type of data cleaning is described below.  In addition,

some final recodes are performed and new value labels are created.

A. CREATION OF CORE RESPONDENT‐LEVEL FILE

The core respondent‐level files are built from the clean PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV data files

(these files were created by the “NISVS RECODES.SPS” syntax file).  These core respondent‐level files

include respondent‐level variables only (all perpetrator‐level variables are excluded).  More specifically,

the following nine respondent‐level files are created (the last one includes the first eight):

PA CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 31 variables)

CCE CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 86 variables)  

PV CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 73 variables)  

EPA CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 12 variables)  

ECCE CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 23 variables)  

EPV CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 25 variables)  

ST CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 43 variables)  

SV CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 134 variables)  

NISVS CORE.SAV (21,378 observations x 420 variables)

These files are created by the “CREATE NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.

B. DATA CLEANING FOR PA, CCE, PV, ST, AND SV SECTIONS

Data cleaning was performed by examining the response patterns for each question (PA1 to CCE14 and

ST1 to SV22).  Response patterns were built by examining the number of lifetime perpetrators (in PA1 to

CCE14, ST1 to SV22, and in N99), whether the respondent experienced victimizations in the past three

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.
    164

years (in C), the number of past three year perpetrators (in N36), whether the respondent experienced

victimizations in the past year (in F), and the number of past year perpetrators (in N12).   

There are 21,378 respondents and 60 questions, for a total of 1,282,680 response patterns.  Across

these 1,282,680 response patterns, we found 21 different (or unique) types of patterns.  

Table 14.1.  Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections

Pattern # Frequency PA1-SV22 N99 C N36 F N12

1 43,429 missing missing missing missing missing missing

2 8,842 -3, -2, -1 missing missing missing missing missing

3 30,191 -3, -2, -1 missing missing missing -3, -2, -1 missing

4 17,856 -3, -2, -1 missing -3, -2, -1 missing -3, -2, -1 missing

5 1,060,429 0 missing missing missing missing missing

6 19 0 missing missing missing -3, -2, -1 missing

7 11 0 missing -3, -2, -1 missing -3, -2, -1 missing

8 316 1 to 15 1 to 15 missing missing -3, -2, -1 missing

9 8 1 to 15 1 to 15 missing missing 1 -9

10 14,705 1 to 15 1 to 15 missing missing 1 1 to 15

11 60,304 1 to 15 1 to 15 missing missing 2 missing

12 60 1 to 15 1 to 15 -3, -2, -1 missing missing missing

13 116 1 to 15 1 to 15 -3, -2, -1 missing -3, -2, -1 missing

14 5 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 -9 -9 -9

15 3 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 -9 2 missing

16 49 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 -3, -2, -1 missing

17 5 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 1 -9

18 6,573 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 1 1 to 15

19 4,674 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 2 missing

20 35,082 1 to 15 1 to 15 2 missing missing missing

21 3 1 to 15 1 to 15 2 missing -3, -2, -1 missing

Total 1,282,680

Pattern #1 is established in the “NISVS RECODE.SPS” syntax file.  It includes the respondents who were

not asked CCE8 because they did not have children (n = 7,147), the respondents who were not asked

SV8 because they were female (n = 12,094), the respondents who were not asked SV13 because they

were female (n = 12,094), and the respondents who were not asked SV18 because they were female (n =

12,094).  (Note: 7,147 + 12,094 + 12,094 + 12,094 = 43,429).  For this response pattern, all data are

recoded to ‐99.

Patterns #2 through #4 include respondents who were not administered the question on the number of

lifetime perpetrators (PA1 to CCE14 and ST1 to SV22 questions), who refused to answer these questions,

or who did not know the answer to these questions.  As a result, the subsequent data (N99, C, N36, F,

and N12) were coded as not administered, unknown, or missing.  For these response patterns, all data

are recoded to ‐9. If respondents were interviewed in the third or fourth quarter of 2010, C and N36 are

subsequently recoded to ‐99 (see below).   

Patterns #5 through #7 include respondents who indicated that the number of lifetime perpetrators (in

the PA1 to CCE14 and ST1 to SV22 questions) was zero.  For this response pattern, N99, N36, and N12

are recoded to 0 while C and F are recoded to 2.  If respondents were interviewed in the third or fourth

quarter of 2010, C and N36 are subsequently recoded to ‐99 (see below).

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.
    165

Patterns #8 through #21 include respondents who indicated that there was at least one lifetime

perpetrator (in the PA1 to CCE14 and ST1 to SV22 questions).  For these response patterns, missing data

in C and N36 are recoded to ‐99 (these are respondents who were interviewed in the third or fourth

quarter of 2010; see response patterns #8 through #11).  If respondents indicated that they were not

victimized in the past three years (i.e., if C = 2), N36 is recoded to 0, F is recoded to 2, and N12 is

recoded to 0 (see response patterns #20 and #21).  If respondents refused to answer C or didn’t know

the answer to C, C and N36 are recoded to ‐9 (see response patterns #12 and #13).  If respondents

indicated that they were not victimized in the past year, N12 is recoded to 0 (see response patterns #11,

#15, and #19).  Finally, if respondents refused to answer F or didn’t know the answer to F (or F was

missing), F and N12 are recoded to ‐9 (see response patterns #8, #12, #13, and #16; note that response

pattern #21 is recoded above).  No recodes are performed on response patterns #14, #17, or #18.  If the

respondents were interviewed during the third and fourth quarter of 2010, all C and N36 variables are

recoded to ‐99.  The following table identifies the final (recoded) response patterns in the PA, CCE, PV,

ST, and SV sections.

Table 14.2.  Recoded Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections

Pattern # Frequency PA1-SV22 N99 C N36 F N12

1 43,429 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

2 35,359 -9 -9 -99 -99 -9 -9

3 21,530 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

4 617,064 0 0 -99 -99 2 0

5 443,3950 0 2 0 2 0

6 316 1 to 15 1 to 15 -99 -99 -9 -9

7 8 1 to 15 1 to 15 -99 -99 1 -9

8 14,705 1 to 15 1 to 15 -99 -99 1 1 to 15

9 60,304 1 to 15 1 to 15 -99 -99 2 0

10 176 1 1 -9 -9 -9 -9

11 5 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 -9 -9 -9

12 3 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 -9 2 0

13 49 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 -9 -9

14 5 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 1 -9

15 6,573 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 1 1 to 15

16 4,674 1 to 15 1 to 15 1 1 to 15 2 0

17 35,085 1 to 15 1 to 15 2 0 2 0

Total 1,282,680

The syntax to identify the different response patterns can be found in the syntax file “CORE

PATTERNS.SPS.”  All data recodes are included in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.   

C. DATA CLEANING FOR EPA, ECCE, AND EPV SECTIONS

Data cleaning was again performed by examining the response patterns for each question (EPA1 to

EPV12).  Response patterns were built by examining the number of past year perpetrators (in EPA1 to

EPV12 and in N12).  There are 21,378 respondents and 28 questions, for a total of 598,584 response

patterns.  Across these 598,584 response patterns, we found four different (or unique) types of

patterns.  

   

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.
    166

Table 14.3.  Response Patterns in EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections

Pattern # Frequency EPA1-EPV12 N12

1 527,520 missing missing

2 3,581 -3, -2, -1 missing

3 66,942 0 missing

4 541 1 1

Total 598,584

Pattern #1 is established in the “NISVS RECODE.SPS” syntax file.  It includes the respondents who were

not asked any of the EPA1 to EPV12 questions because they were under 70 years of age (18,840

respondents * 28 questions = 527,520 response patterns).  For this response pattern, all data are

recoded to ‐99.  Pattern #2 includes respondents who were not administered the question on the

number of past year perpetrators (EPA1 to EPV12 questions), who refused to answer these questions, or

who did not know the answer to these questions.  As a result, the subsequent data in N12 are missing.  

For this response pattern, all data are recoded to ‐9.  Pattern #3 includes respondents who indicated

that the number of past year perpetrators was zero.  For this response pattern, the subsequent data in

N12 are recoded to 0.  Finally, pattern #4 includes respondents who indicated being victimized in the

past year.  For this response pattern, no data recodes are necessary.  The following table identifies the

final (recoded) response patterns in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections.

Table 14.4.  Recoded Response Patterns in EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections

Pattern # Frequency EPA1-EPV12 N12

1 527,520 -99 -99

2 3,581 -9 -9

3 66,942 0 0

4 541 1 1

Total 598,584

The syntax to identify these different response patterns can be found in the syntax file “ELDER

PATTERNS.SPS.”  All data recodes are included in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.

The data checks in the previous chapters had established that the elder abuse section was only

completed by respondents who were 70 years of age or older.  However, there are 66 respondents with

an unknown year of birth (i.e., RC1 = ‐9).  Out of these 66 respondents, 60 completed at least a portion

of the elder abuse sections and six did not (of those six, three had stopped the interview before the

elder abuse section and one subsequently continued to the stalking section).  In all of these cases,

missing data are recoded to ‐9.  It is very likely that some of these missing data should have been

recoded to ‐99 (when respondents were less than 70 years of age).  Even though 60 of these

respondents did complete at least a portion of the elder abuse section, it is likely that they should not

have done so.  There was an error in the CATI system “that had allowed the questions to be

administered to some respondents who did not meet the age requirements” (email from Mikel Walters,

3/6/2013).  Analyses of the elder abuse data should consider the data problems that exist for these 66

respondents.  The best strategy may be to delete these 66 cases.  If any of these 66 respondents were

actually less than 70 years of age, their data should have been recoded to ‐99, instead of ‐9.  For these

66 respondents, a code of ‐9 actually means “‐9 or ‐99.”

   

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.
    167

D. FINAL RECODES AND VALUE LABELS

To be consistent with other missing data codes, ‐1’s and ‐2’s in RC1 (respondent’s year of birth) and H10

(whether the respondent has children) are recoded to ‐9.

All C and F variables are recoded so that YES responses are coded as 1 and NO responses are coded as 0.  

H10 is also recoded so that YES responses are coded as 1 and NO responses are coded as 0.

New value labels are created for the lifetime questions (‐99 = Not Administered; ‐9 = Unknown; 15 = 15

or more).  The ‐99 code is used to indicate instances where the question was not asked to respondents

because it was inapplicable (e.g., female respondents were not asked if they were made to perform anal

sex) or because it didn’t exist (e.g., past three year questions in the third and fourth quarters of 2010).  

The ‐9 code is used to indicate instances where the respondent didn’t know the answer to the question,

didn’t want to answer that question, skipped the question, or terminated the interview before that

question.   

New value labels are created for H10 (‐9 = Unknown; 0 = No; 1 = Yes) and RC1 (‐9 = Unknown).  New

value labels are also created for the C and F variables (‐99 = Not Administered; ‐9 = Unknown; 0 = No; 1

= Yes).  Finally, new value labels are created for the N36 and N12 variables (‐99 = Not Administered; ‐9 =

Unknown).

All data recodes are performed in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.  The final data file is saved as

“CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV”.  It includes 21,378 observations and 420 variables.

E. ANALYSIS FILE: RECODES FOR RESPONDENTS WITH 15 OR MORE LIFETIME PERPETRATORS

To develop an analysis file, additional recodes were necessary to address cases when a respondent was

victimized in the lifetime by more than 15 perpetrators.  In these cases, only 15 perpetrator initials were

collected.  These additional recodes are also performed in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.  The

“analysis file” is then saved as “CLEAN CORE ANALYSIS.SAV”.  It also includes 21,378 observations and

420 variables.

First and Second Quarter Recodes

Respondents in the first and second quarter of 2010 who indicated being victimized by 15 (or more)

perpetrators in the lifetime were then asked question C:

{Fill: Has this person /Did any of these people} {fill: behavior} in the past three years, that is

since {fill: date, 3 years ago}?  

Among respondents who were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators, 29 reported not

being victimized in the past three years (in which case C = 0, N36 = 0, F = 0, and N12 = 0).  There were 38

instances where N99 = 15 and C = 0 (for some of the 29 respondents, this occurred more than once).  

While we know that these respondents were not victimized in the past three years by any of the 15

perpetrators that were identified in the lifetime question, we do not know if (a) there were additional

lifetime perpetrators and (b) any of these additional perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past

three years or the past year.  As a result, C, N36, F, and N12 are all recoded to ‐9.   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    168

Among respondents who were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators, 23 respondents

reported being victimized in the past three years.  There were 26 instances where N99 = 15 and C = 1

(for some of the 23 respondents, this occurred more than once).  While we know that these

respondents were victimized in the past three years by at least one of the 15 perpetrators identified in

the lifetime question, we again do not know if (a) there were additional perpetrators and (b) any of

these additional perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past three years or the past year.  As a

result, N36 is recoded to ‐9.  If the respondent reported being victimized in the past year, N12 is recoded

to ‐9.  If the respondent reported not being victimized in the past year, both F and N12 are recoded to ‐

9.

These recodes change the meaning of the C, N36, F, and N12 variables.  While the C variables used to

indicate if any of the identified lifetime perpetrators victimized the respondents in the past three years,

the new C variables indicate if the respondents were victimized in the past three years (by either

identified or unidentified perpetrators).  While the N36 variables used to indicate how many of the

identified lifetime perpetrators victimized the respondents in the past three years, the new N36

variables indicate the number of past three year perpetrators (both identified and unidentified).  

Similarly, while the F variables used to indicate if any of the identified past three year perpetrators

victimized the respondents in the past year, the new F variables indicate if the respondents were

victimized in the past year (by either identified or unidentified perpetrators).  Finally, while the N12

variables used to indicate how many of the identified past three year perpetrators victimized the

respondent in the past year, the new N12 variables indicate the number of past year perpetrators (both

identified and unidentified).  The original variables can be created again by aggregating the perpetrator‐

level file (and counting the number of aggregated records).  This could be useful, for example, if

interested in counting the number of respondents who were victimized by two or more perpetrators in

the past year.

Third and Fourth Quarter Recodes

In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, respondents were asked question F (instead of question C):

{Fill: Has this person /Did any of these people} {fill: behavior} in the past 12 months, that is

since {fill: date, 12 months ago}?  

Among respondents in the third or fourth quarter of 2010 who were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or

more perpetrators, 55 reported not being victimized in the past year (in which case F = 0 and N12 = 0).  

There were 68 instances in the third and fourth quarter of 2010 where N99 = 15 and F = 0 (for some of

the 55 respondents, this occurred more than once).  While we know that these respondents were not

victimized in the past year by any of the 15 perpetrators that were identified in the lifetime question, we

do not know if (a) there were additional lifetime perpetrators and (b) any of these additional

perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past year.  As a result, F and N12 are recoded to ‐9.

Among respondents in the third or fourth quarter of 2010 who were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or

more perpetrators, 53 reported being victimized in the past year. There were 59 instances where N99 =

15 and F = 1 (for some of the 53 respondents, this occurred more than once).  While we know that these

respondents were victimized in the past year by at least one of the 15 perpetrators identified in the

lifetime question, we again do not know if (a) there were additional perpetrators and (b) any of these

additional perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past year.  As a result, N12 is recoded to ‐9.   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    169

This again changes the meaning of the F and N12 variables.  For the respondents in the third or fourth

quarter of 2010, the F variables used to indicate if any of the identified lifetime perpetrators victimized

the respondents in the past year.  The new F variables indicate if the respondents were victimized in the

past year (by either identified or unidentified perpetrators).  While the N12 variables used to indicate

how many of the identified lifetime perpetrators victimized the respondent in the past year, the new

N12 variables indicate the number of past year perpetrators (both identified and unidentified).  Again,

the original variables can be reproduced by aggregating the perpetrator‐level file (and counting the

number of aggregated records).   

To summarize, the following recodes were performed:

(1) When N99 = 15 and C = 0:  C, N36, F, and N12 are all recoded to ‐9.

(2) When N99 = 15, C = 1, and F = 0:  N36, F, and N12 are recoded to ‐9.

(3) When N99 = 15, C = 1, and F = 1:  N36 and N12 are recoded to ‐9.

For respondents in the third and fourth quarter of 2010, the following recodes were also performed:

(1) When N99 = 15 and F = 0:  F and N12 are recoded to ‐9.

(2) When N99 = 15 and F = 1:  N12 is recoded to ‐9.

All data recodes are performed in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file.  The final data file is saved as

“CLEAN CORE ANALYSIS.SAV”.  It includes 21,378 observations and 420 variables.

Data & Files in the “NISVS CORE” folder:

   

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.
170

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 15

INITIAL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL FILE

In this chapter, a perpetrator level‐file is created to include all perpetrator‐level variables from the

NISVS victimization core (PA1 to SV22).  From the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections, this includes the

number of victimizations by each perpetrator over the lifetime (in the B variables), over the past three

years (in the E variables), and over the past year (in the H variables). From the EPA, ECCE, and EPV

sections, this includes the number of victimizations by each perpetrator over the past year (in the H

variables).  

The perpetrator‐level files are built from the clean PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV data files

(these files were created by the “NISVS RECODES.SPS” syntax file).  More specifically, the following nine

perpetrator‐level files are created (the last one includes the first eight and includes respondent‐level

variables):

PA PERP.SAV (14,949 observations x 17 variables)

CCE PERP.SAV (16,409 observations x 44 variables)  

PV PERP.SAV (11,730 observations x 38 variables)  

EPA PERP.SAV (188 observations x 7 variables)  

ECCE PERP.SAV (321 observations x 13 variables)  

EPV PERP.SAV (62 observations x 14 variables)  

ST PERP.SAV (18,953 observations x 23 variables)  

SV PERP.SAV (18,415 observations x 68 variables)  

NISVS PERP.SAV (51,450 observations x 541 variables)

These files are created by the “CREATE NISVS PERP.SPS” syntax file.  Each file contains the B, E, and H

variables for each question (PA1 to SV22), for all identified perpetrators.  In addition, the respondent‐

level variables (N99, C, N36, F, and N12) are merged from the clean respondent‐level file “CLEAN NISVS

CORE.SAV” and are included in the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data file (these are necessary for subsequent data

cleaning).  For similar reasons, the perpetrator‐level file also includes the respondent’s gender, year of

birth, and whether the respondent ever had any children under the age of 18 living with them (i.e.,

RSEX, RC1, and H10).  This will become important, for example, to examine whether it is possible that a

perpetrator made the respondent perform anal sex (in the NISVS survey, only male respondents can be

made to perform anal sex).

A master list of NISVS perpetrators is saved in “NISVS PERP MASTER LIST.SAV.”  This file includes 51,450

perpetrators and 3 variables (ZRID, the respondent’s gender, and the perpetrator’s initials).

No data cleaning is performed in this chapter.  Before data cleaning can occur, information from the

relationship section of the survey needs to be merged to this initial perpetrator‐level file.  In particular,

data cleaning requires information about the gender of the perpetrator (from the R section).  In 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.
    171

NISVS survey, female perpetrators cannot penetrate someone else (e.g., in the NISVS survey, a female

perpetrator cannot make a respondent receive anal sex).

Data & Files in the “NISVS PERP” folder:

   

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.
172

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 16

RELATIONSHIPS

Perpetrator‐level information (e.g., gender and race) and information about the relationships between

the respondents and the perpetrators are included in Section R (Relationships).  This section includes the

following questions, for all perpetrators (up to 94, in alphabetical order):

R1   Type of relationship at first victimization

R1A   Gender of perpetrator

R1_1   Type of intimate partner at first victimization

R1_2   Type of family member at first victimization

R1_3   Type of acquaintance at first victimization

R2   Type of relationship at last victimization

R2_1   Type of intimate partner at last victimization

R2_2   Type of family member at last victimization

R2_3   Type of acquaintance at last victimization

R2A   Severity of violence before, during, after relationship ending

R3   Current relationship

R3A   Type of current relationship

R3A_2   Type of family member for current relationship

R3A_3   Type of acquaintance for current relationship

R4   Respondent age at time of first victimization

R5   Perpetrator age at time of first victimization

R6   Respondent age at time of last victimization

R7   Perpetrator is Hispanic

R7A   Perpetrator Hispanic group

R8_1   Perpetrator race: First answer

R8_2   Perpetrator race: Second answer

R8_3   Perpetrator race: Third answer

R8_4   Perpetrator race: Fourth answer

R8_5   Perpetrator race: Fifth answer

R8_6 Perpetrator race: Sixth answer

Data from additional follow‐up questions asking respondents to specify another answer are available for

R1, R1_2, R1_3 R2, R2_2, R2_3, R3A, R3A_2, R3A_3, R7A, and R8.  These can be identified by the suffix

“SP”.  The original data are at the respondent‐level.  For each respondent, Section R may have been

completed for up to 94 perpetrators.  Each variable name above is preceded by “R_I_#_”, where # is the

perpetrator number.  That perpetrator number should be linked to “arAllInitials_#”.

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.
    173

This chapter explains how a perpetrator‐level relationship file was created and how data were checked

and cleaned.  The final product is a clean perpetrator‐level relationship file with new variables, variable

names, and value labels.

It appears that the selection criteria and skip patterns included in the survey are often documented

incorrectly (or are not documented at all).  In addition, some selection criteria and skip patterns changed

during data collection, but these changes appear to be documented incorrectly (or not documented at

all).  As in other sections, it appears that missing data codes were inconsistently used.  Section A

(Perpetrator‐Level File for Relationship Section) describes how the relationship data were extracted to

create the “R PERP.SAV” data file.  Section B (Data Checking and Data Cleaning) then explains all

selection criteria and skip patterns.  The selection criteria and skip patterns detailed Section B can be

used to reproduce how the data were collected.  However, there are likely to be multiple ways to

reproduce how the data were collected.  In other words, the criteria and patterns described in Section B

may not be unique.  Other solutions may exist.  Finally, missing data are recoded.

   

A. PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL FILE FOR RELATIONSHIP SECTION

Data for the relationship sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the psychological

aggression section.  Variables were renamed.  New variable and value labels were created.  Files were

saved at both the respondent‐level and the perpetrator‐level.  Perpetrator‐level data from the NISVS

core (i.e., from “NISVS PERP.SAV”) were merged.  The final data file is saved as “R PERP.SAV”.  It includes

51,482 observations and 48 variables.

Data & Files in the “MERGE R DATA” folder:

The “R RESP GENPOP.SAV” data file (with 18,957 observations and 3,768 variables) and the “R RESP

AIAN.SAV” data file (with 3,612 observations and 3,768 variables) are the respondent‐level data files

from the general population sample and the AIAN oversample.  The “R PERP GENPOP.SAV” data file

(with 44,008 observations and 41 variables) and the “R PERP AIAN.SAV” data file (with 7,285

observations and 41 variables) are the perpetrator‐level data files.     

Data from the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data file are used to create nine new variables (these become

important in the next section to examine selection criteria and skip patterns).  These variables include

NUMVIC (whether perpetrators committed at least two different behaviors or the same behavior two or

more times), INPA (whether perpetrators committed any of the PA behaviors), INCCE (whether

perpetrators committed any of the CCE behaviors), INPV (whether perpetrators committed any of the

PV behaviors, INELDER (whether perpetrators committed any of the EPA, ECCE, or EPV behaviors), INST

(whether perpetrators committed any of the ST behaviors, INSV1TO6 (whether perpetrators committed

any of the SV1 to SV6 behaviors, SV7TO17 (whether perpetrators committed any of the SV7 to SV17

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.
    174

behaviors), and SV18TO22 (whether perpetrators committed any of the SV18 to SV22 behaviors.  The

syntax to create these new variables is included in the “CREATE R FILES.SPS” syntax file.

When these data are matched to the data from the relationship section, there are 597 cases that do not

match.  There are 565 perpetrator initials that were previously recoded in the data cleaning chapter.  

These 565 perpetrator initials have some perpetration data, but no relationship data.  There are also 32

perpetrator initials in the R data file that are not found in the master list of perpetrator initials.  These 32

perpetrator initials have relationship data, but no perpetration data.  They have no perpetration data

because their initials were previously recoded in the data cleaning chapter.  These respondents had

provided duplicate initials in the PA to SV sections.  For these 32 cases, it is not possible to determine

which perpetrator the information belongs to.  For example, respondent 103313711 identified two

perpetrators with the same initials (these initials were recoded in the data cleaning chapter).  One of the

perpetrators was a former intimate partner the first time he victimized the respondent, while the other

was a current intimate partner.  In such cases, it is impossible to determine which relationship

information belongs to which perpetrator (and we cannot link this relationship information to specific

behaviors).   

Following the same logic used in the data cleaning chapter, the initials for these 32 perpetrators (with

relationship data but no perpetration data) are recoded as “REC## xxxx”, where “xxxx” are the first four

characters in the perpetrator’s original initials and “##” is the ##th recode of these “xxxx” initials.  It is

important to note that these ‘new’ perpetrators will not be found in the NISVS perpetrator master file.  

Depending on the purpose of one’s analysis, one may want to delete these 32 records or may want to

aggregate them to the respondent level to obtain some information (e.g., were any of the perpetrators

male?).  Perpetration data for these 32 cases (i.e., NUMVIC, INPA, INCCE, INPV, INELDER, INST,

INSV1TO6, INSV7TO17, and INSV18TO22) were recoded to ‐9.

All data merges and recodes are included in the “CREATE R FILES.SPS” syntax file.  The final data file is

saved as “R PERP.SAV”.  It includes 51,482 observations and 48 variables.

B. DATA CHECKING AND CLEANING

As mentioned above, the majority of the selection criteria and skip patterns included in the survey

appear to have been programmed or documented incorrectly.  In addition, some of the mid‐year

changes do not appear to have been documented.  Finally, it appears that missing data codes were

inconsistently used.

All data checks and recodes are included in the “R DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.  Data are first checked

to make sure that all values are within defined ranges.  No problems were found.  Missing relationship

data for the 565 perpetrators with perpetration data but no relationship data are first recoded to ‐99.  In

the remainder of this section, each variable is checked to determine if selection criteria and skip

patterns are correct (if applicable).  In addition, all missing data are recoded.   

A new variable “INR” was created to indicate whether perpetrators were included in the relationship

section (recall that 565 were not, see section A).  No problems were found with R1.  Missing data in R1

are then recoded to ‐98 if R1 = ‐99 and to ‐9 if R1 = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1.  The following diagram shows how

missing data in R1_1, R1_2, and R1_3 are then recoded based on the values in R1.  In the original data,

values of ‐3 are included in R1_1, R1_2, and R1_3 both when these follow‐up variables are applicable

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.
    175

and when they are not.  When R1_1, R1_2, and R1_3 are not applicable (e.g., when the perpetrator was

a stranger), all missing data (including ‐3) are recoded to ‐98.  When R1_1, R1_2, and R1_3 are

applicable, all missing data are recoded to ‐9.  The important point here is that some ‐3 values are

recoded to ‐98 (when the variable is not applicable) while others are recoded to ‐9 (when the variable is

applicable).  All missing data values (i.e., system missing, ‐99, ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) for R1_1, R1_2, and R1_3 are

recoded.  They are recoded to either ‐9 or ‐98.  The ‐98 code is used to indicate questions that are not

applicable (because they are part of a skip pattern).  The ‐9 code is used to indicate questions that are

applicable (but were not answered).  Details are shown in Figure 16.1.

Figure 16.1.  Relationship When First Victimized (R1)

Missing data in R1_1 are recoded to ‐9 when R1 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 (note, a new variable [IP1] is

created and coded to 1 when R1 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7; and to 0 otherwise).  All other missing data in

R1_1 are recoded to ‐98 (i.e., when IP1 = 0).  Missing data in R1_2 are recoded to ‐9 when R1 = 8.  All

other missing data in R1_2 are recoded to ‐98.  Missing data in R1_3 are recoded to ‐9 when R1 = 9.  All

other missing data in R1_3 are recoded to ‐98.  Finally, ‐3’s that were included in R1SP are deleted when

R1 ≠ 11, ‐3’s that were included in R1_2SP are deleted when R1_2 ≠ 14 and R1_2 ≠ 15, and ‐3’s that

were included in R1_3SP are deleted when R1_3 ≠ 12.

After these questions, respondents were asked R1A (gender of perpetrator).  Among the perpetrators

included in the relationship section, 438 have no data in R1A.  There is no explanation for these system

missing data.  Missing data in R1A are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.  

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.
    176

Additional problems were noted with R1A.  There are four perpetrators that were identified as being

both female (R1A = 2) and another male relative (R1_2 = 14).  There are three perpetrators that were

identified as being both female (R1A = 2) and a son or step‐son (R1_2 = 10).  There are nine perpetrators

that were identified as being both male (R1A = 1) and a sister or step‐sister (R1_2 = 5).  There are 28

perpetrators that were identified as being both male (R1A = 1) and a daughter or step‐daughter (R1_2 =

11).  There are 12 perpetrators that were identified as being both male (R1A = 1) and a granddaughter

or step‐granddaughter (R1_2 = 13).  Finally, there are 22 perpetrators that were identified as being both

male (R1A = 1) and another female relative (R1_2 = 15).  These are important problems because they

will impact the CDC estimates of sexual violence.  In addition, 16% of perpetrators have an unknown

gender (this too will impact the CDC estimates of sexual violence).  It is likely that perpetrator gender

can be determined by examining other variables such as R1_2, R2_2, and R3A_2.  These problems are

not addressed in this chapter.  In addition, while some data checks were performed to examine the

consistency of the information on perpetrator gender within this section, additional data checks should

be performed.  In particular, the perpetrators for SV7 and SV12 could only be male if the respondent

was female and could only be female if the respondent was male.  The perpetrators for SV9 and SV14

could only be male.  The perpetrators for SV18 could only be female.  Again, these data checks are not

performed in this chapter.  Anyone interested in using R1A will need to check and clean these data

further.  

Information about the relationship at the time of the last victimization (R2) should not have been

collected if the respondent and the perpetrator were family members at the time of the first

victimization (i.e., when R1 = 8).  However, this selection criterion appears to be incorrect.  Instead, it

appears that R2 was asked only if R1 ≠ ‐98, R1 ≠ ‐9, R1 ≠ 8, and NUMVIC ≠ 1.  Stated differently, R2 was

only asked if the perpetrator was known to not be a family member and was known to have committed

at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at least twice.  Among perpetrators that satisfy

this selection criterion, there are 1,178 with no data in R2.  There is no explanation for these system

missing data, but it should be noted that these system missing data only occur in the first and second

quarters of 2010 (indicating that perhaps the selection criteria changed at the beginning of the third

quarter).   

A new variable “INR2” is created and is set to 0 when R1 = ‐98 or R1 = ‐9 or R1 = 8 or NUMVIC = 1 and to

1 when R1 ≠ ‐98 and R1 ≠ ‐9 and R1 ≠ 8 and NUMVIC ≠ 1.  All missing data in R2 (i.e., system missing, ‐99,

‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are then recoded to ‐98 when INR2 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR2 = 1.  Following the same logic

as that used for R1 (and as shown in Figure 16.2), missing data in R2_1, R2_2, and R2_3 are recoded to

either ‐98 (when not applicable) or to ‐9 (when applicable).  More specifically, missing data in R2_1 are

recoded to ‐9 when R2 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 (note, a new variable [IP2] is created and coded to 1 when

R2 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7; and to 0 otherwise).  All other missing data in R2_1 are recoded to ‐98 (i.e.,

when IP2 = 0).  Missing data in R2_2 are recoded to ‐9 when R2 = 8.  All other missing data in R2_2 are

recoded to ‐98.  Missing data in R2_3 are recoded to ‐9 when R2 = 9.  All other missing data in R2_3 are

recoded to ‐98.  Finally, ‐3’s that were included in R2SP are deleted when R2 ≠ 11, ‐3’s that were

included in R2_2SP are deleted when R2_2 ≠ 14 and R2_2 ≠ 15, and ‐3’s that were included in R2_3SP

are deleted when R1_3 ≠ 12.

If respondents indicated having a current intimate partner relationship at the time of the first

victimization (i.e., R1_1 = 1) and a former intimate partner relationship at the time of the last

victimization (i.e., R2_1 = 2), they were asked R2A (severity of violence before, during, after relationship

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.
    177

ending).  A new variable “INR2A” is created and is set to 1 when R1_1 = 1 and R2_1 = 2, and to 0  

otherwise.  Missing data in R2A are then recoded to ‐9 when INR2A = 1 and to ‐98 when INR2A = 0.

Figure 16.2.  Relationship When Last Victimized (R2)

If R2 = 1‐7

If R2 = 8

If R2 = 9

If R2 = 11

R2_1 = ‐9, 1, 2

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐98

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐9, 1 to 15

R2_3 = ‐98

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐9, 1 to 12

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐98

If R2 = ‐9

If R2_2 = 14

or 15

If R2_3 = 12

If R2 = 10

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐98

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐98

R2

R2_2SP

R2_3SP

R2SP

R2_1 = ‐98

R2_2 = ‐98

R2_3 = ‐98

R1 = ‐98, or R1 = ‐9, or R1 = 8, or NUMVIC = 1

INR2 = 1 INR2 = 0

NO YES

Respondents were then asked about the status of their current relationship (R3).  According to the

survey, this question was asked when the perpetrator was not a family member at the time of the first

victimization (i.e., R1 ≠ 8)  and the perpetrator was not a stranger at the Ɵme of the last vicƟmizaƟon

(i.e., R2 ≠ 10).  However, it appears that this selection criterion was either programmed incorrectly or

documented incorrectly.  In addition, the selection criterion changed at the beginning of the third

quarter of 2010.  A new variable “INR3” is created to determine if perpetrators were included in R3.  For

the first and second quarters of 2010, INR3 is coded to 1 when R1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 11}.  

Perpetrators in the first two quarters of 2010 were selected for R3 if they were a husband/wife, live‐in

partner, fiancé, boy/girlfriend, dating partner, someone the respondent was seeing, someone the

respondent was having sex with, an acquaintance, or a stranger at the time of the first victimization.  For

the third and fourth quarters of 2010, INR3 is coded to 1 when R1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 11} and R2 ≠ 

10.  Note that perpetrators with missing information on R1 are excluded from R3 but perpetrators with

missing information on R2 are not necessarily excluded from R3.  Perpetrators in the last two quarters 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.
    178

2010 were selected for R3 if they were (a) a husband/wife, live‐in partner, fiancé, boy/girlfriend, dating

partner, someone the respondent was seeing, someone the respondent was having sex with, an

acquaintance, or a stranger at the time of the first victimization and (b) anything but a stranger at the

time of the last victimization (anything, including unknown relationships).  Missing data in R3 are then

recoded to ‐9 when INR3 = 1 and to ‐98 when INR3 = 0.

Figure 16.3.  Current Relationship (R3)

Recodes for R3A, R3ASP, R3A_2, R3A_2SP, R3A_3, and R3A_3SP are shown in Figure 16.3.  Missing data

in R3A are recoded to ‐9 when R3 = 1 and to ‐98 when INR3 = 0, R3 = 2, or R3 = ‐9.  Missing data 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.
179

R3A_2 are recoded to ‐9 when R3A = 8 and to ‐98 when INR3 = 0, R3 = 2, R3 = ‐9, or R3A = {‐9, 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 9, 10, or 11}.  Missing data in R3A_3 are recoded to ‐9 when R3A = 9 and to ‐98 when INR3 = 0,

R3 = 2, R3 = ‐9, or R3A = {‐9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, or 11}.  Finally, ‐3’s that were included in R3SP are

deleted when R3 ≠ 11, ‐3’s that were included in R3_2SP are deleted when R3_2 ≠ 14 and R3_2 ≠ 15, and

‐3’s that were included in R3_3SP are deleted when R3_3 ≠ 12.

Respondents were then asked how old they were the first time any of these things happened with each 

perpetrator (R4). The selection criterion for this question appears to have been incorrectly programmed 

or incorrectly documented. Perpetrators were not included in R4 if they only committed behaviors in the 

EPA, ECCE, or EPV sections. In addition, they were not included in R4 if they only committed behaviors in 

the ST section and/or the SV7 to SV17 section. A new variable (INR4) is created to indicate whether 

perpetrators were selected for R4. More specifically, perpetrators were excluded from R4 (INR4 = 0) 

when (a) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 1, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, and 

INSV18TO22 = 0, (b) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, 

and INSV18TO22 = 0, (c) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 

= 1, and INSV18TO22 = 0, or (d) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, 

INSV7TO17 = 1, and INSV18TO22 = 0. All other perpetrators were included in R4 (INR4 = 1). Among the 

32 perpetrators with R information but no perpetration data, two (“10466968[REC03-PERP 07-GPOP]” 

and “10466968[REC04-PERP 07-GPOP]”) could not have been selected for R4 (all “[PERP 07]” 

perpetrators for this respondent only committed ST behaviors). As a result, for these two perpetrators, 

INR4 is set to 0. Missing data in R4 are then recoded to -9 when INR4 = 1 and to -98 when INR4 = 0.

R5 was then asked to determine how old the perpetrators were the first time they victimized the 

respondents. Again, the selection criterion for this question appears to have been incorrectly 

programmed or incorrectly documented. Perpetrators were not included in R5 if they only committed 

behaviors in the ST and/or the SV7 to SV17 section. A new variable (INR5) is created to indicate whether 

perpetrators were selected for R5. More specifically, perpetrators were excluded from R5 (INR5 = 0) 

when (a) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, and 

INSV18TO22 = 0, (b) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 1, 

and INSV18TO22 = 0, or (c) INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, 

INSV7TO17 = 1, and INSV18TO22 = 0. All other perpetrators were included in R5 (INR5 = 5). As with R4, 

the “10466968[REC03-PERP 07-GPOP]” and “10466968[REC04-PERP 07-GPOP]” perpetrators could not 

have been selected for R5 (all “[PERP 07]” perpetrators for this respondent only committed ST 

behaviors). As a result, for these two perpetrators, INR5 is set to 0. Missing data in R5 are then recoded 

to -9 when INR5 = 1 and to -98 when INR5 = 0. Note, there are 4,709 perpetrators with INR5 = 1 but no 

data in R5. There is no explanation for these system missing data. A disproportionate number of these 

perpetrators committed SV1 to SV6 behaviors, but the relevance of this finding remains unknown.

0.

The selection criterion for R6 also appears to be incorrect.  A new variable (INR6) is created to indicate

whether perpetrators were included in R6 (age of respondent at perpetrator’s last victimization).  

Perpetrators were included in R6 if INR5 = 1 and NUMVIC ≠ 1.  In these cases, INR6 = 1.  In all others,

INR6 = 0.  Missing data in R6 are then recoded to ‐9 when INR6 = 1 and to ‐98 when INR6 = 0.  Note,

there are 2,388 perpetrators in INR6 = 1 but no data in R6.  There is again no explanation for these

system missing data.  They are recoded to ‐9, but analysts should re‐examine these selection criteria and

skip patterns carefully before using these data.  Furthermore, there are data inconsistencies that are not

addressed in this chapter.  For example, R6 should never be less than R4 (but it sometimes is, probably

because of data entry errors).  Furthermore, there are also cases where the respondent’s age at 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.
180

time of the last victimization exceeds the respondent’s age at the time of the survey (based on their year

of birth, as reported in RC1).  These problems are neither checked nor addressed in this chapter.  

No problems were found with the R7 variables (other than the apparent inconsistent use of missing data

codes).  All missing data in R7 are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.  Missing data in

R7A are recoded to ‐98 when R7 ≠ 1 and to ‐9 when R7 = 1.  Values of ‐3 that were included in R7ASP are

deleted when R7A ≠ 7.

No problems were found with the R8 variables either (other than again the apparent inconsistent use of

missing data codes).  All missing data in R8_1 are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.  

Missing data in R8_2 are then recoded to ‐98 when R8_1 = ‐98 and R8_2 = ‐99 (i.e., when INR = 0), to ‐9

when R8_1 = ‐9, to ‐8 when R8_1 ≠ ‐9 and R8_2 is system missing, and to ‐9 when R8_1 ≠ ‐9 and R8_2 = ‐

3, ‐2, or ‐1.  When a valid answer was found in R8_1 (i.e., when R8_1 ≠ ‐9), system missing data in R8_2

were interpreted to mean that the respondent did not have a second answer.  Other missing data (i.e., ‐

3, ‐2, and ‐1) were interpreted to mean that it is unknown if the respondent had a second answer.  This

occurred when the question was not asked, the respondent refused to provide a second answer, or the

respondent did not know the second answer.  A similar process was used to recode missing data in

R8_3, R8_4, R8_5, and R8_6.  For all, missing data are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0, to ‐9 when the

previous variable is ‐9, and to ‐8 when the previous variable is ‐8.  When the previous variable includes a

valid (non‐missing) value, system missing data are recoded to ‐8 and all other missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2,

and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.  Finally, “‐3” values in R8SP are deleted when none of the R8 variables

equaled 6 (i.e., when R8_1 ≠ 6, R8_2 ≠ 6, R8_3 ≠ 6, R8_4 ≠ 6, R8_5 ≠ 6, and R8_6 ≠ 6).

To summarize, the following recodes are performed:

(1) Missing data in R1 are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.

(2) Missing data in R1SP are recoded to system missing when R1 ≠ 11.

(3) Missing data in R1_1 are recoded to ‐98 when IP1 = 0 and to ‐9 when IP1 = 1 (IP1 = 1 when R1

= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7; and = 0 otherwise).

(4) Missing data in R1_2 are recoded to ‐98 when R1 ≠ 8 and to ‐9 when R1 = 8.

(5) Missing data in R1_2SP are recoded to system missing when R1_2 ≠ 14 and R1_2 ≠ 15.

(6) Missing data in R1_3 are recoded to ‐98 when R1 ≠ 9 and to ‐9 when R1 = 9.

(7) Missing data in R1_3SP are recoded to system missing when R1_3 ≠ 12.

(8) Missing data in R2 are recoded to ‐98 when INR2 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR2 = 1.

(9) Missing data in R2SP are recoded to system missing when R2 ≠ 11.

(10) Missing data in R2_1 are recoded to ‐98 when IP2 = 0 and to ‐9 when IP2 = 1 (IP2 = 1 when R2

= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7; and = 0 otherwise).

(11) Missing data in R2_2 are recoded to ‐98 when R2 ≠ 8 and to ‐9 when R2 = 8.

(12) Missing data in R2_2SP are recoded to system missing when R2_2 ≠ 14 and R2_2 ≠ 15.

(13) Missing data in R2_3 are recoded to ‐98 when R2 ≠ 9 and to ‐9 when R2 = 9.

(14) Missing data in R2_3SP are recoded to system missing when R2_3 ≠ 12.

(15) Missing data in R2A are recoded to ‐98 when INR2A = 0 and to ‐9 when INR2A = 1.

(16) Missing data in R3 are recoded to ‐98 when INR3 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR3 = 1.

(17) Missing data in R3A are recoded to ‐98 when R3 ≠ 1 and to ‐9 when R3 = 1.

(18) Missing data in R3ASP are recoded to system missing when R3A ≠ 11.

(19) Missing data in R3A_2 are recoded to ‐98 when R3A ≠ 8 and to ‐9 when R3A = 8.

(20) Missing data in R3A_2SP are recoded to system missing when R3A_2 ≠ 14 and R3A_2 ≠ 15.

(21) Missing data in R3A_3 are recoded to ‐98 when R3A ≠ 9 and to ‐9 when R3A = 9.

(22) Missing data in R3A_3SP are recoded to system missing when R3A_3 ≠ 12.

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.
181

(23) Missing data in R4 are recoded to ‐98 when INR4 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR4 = 1.  

(24) Missing data in R5 are recoded to ‐98 when INR5 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR5 = 1.  

(25) Missing data in R6 are recoded to ‐98 when INR6 = 0 and to ‐9 when INR6 = 1.

(26) Missing data in R7 are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.

(27) Missing data in R7A are recoded to ‐98 when R7 ≠ 1 and to ‐9 when R7 = 1.

(28) Missing data in R7ASP are recoded to system missing when R7A ≠ 7.

(29) Missing data in R8_1 are recoded to ‐98 when INR = 0 and to ‐9 when INR = 1.

(30) Missing data in R8_2 are recoded to ‐98 when R8_1 = ‐98 and R8_2 = ‐99, and to ‐9 when R8_1

= ‐9.  When R8_1 ≠ ‐9, system missing data in R8_2 are recoded to ‐8 and other missing data

(i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.  

(31) Missing data in R8_3 are recoded to ‐98 when R8_2 = ‐98 and R8_3 = ‐99, to ‐9 when R8_2 = ‐

9, and to ‐8 when R8_2 = ‐8.  When R8_2 ≠ ‐9 and R8_2 ≠ ‐8, system missing data in R8_3 are

recoded to ‐8 and other missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.  

(32) Missing data in R8_4 are recoded to ‐98 when R8_3 = ‐98 and R8_4 = ‐99, to ‐9 when R8_3 = ‐

9, and to ‐8 when R8_3 = ‐8.  When R8_3 ≠ ‐9 and R8_3 ≠ ‐8, system missing data in R8_4 are

recoded to ‐8 and other missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.

(33) Missing data in R8_5 are recoded to ‐98 when R8_4 = ‐98 and R8_5 = ‐99, to ‐9 when R8_4 = ‐

9, and to ‐8 when R8_4 = ‐8.  When R8_4 ≠ ‐9 and R8_4 ≠ ‐8, system missing data in R8_5 are

recoded to ‐8 and other missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.

(34) Missing data in R8_6 are recoded to ‐98 when R8_5 = ‐98 and R8_6 = ‐99, to ‐9 when R8_5 = ‐

9, and to ‐8 when R8_5 = ‐8.  When R8_5 ≠ ‐9 and R8_5 ≠ ‐8, system missing data in R8_6 are

recoded to ‐8 and other missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.

(35) Missing data in R8SP are recoded to system missing when R8_1 ≠ 6, R8_2 ≠ 6, R8_3 ≠ 6, R8_4 ≠ 

6, R8_5 ≠ 6, and R8_1 ≠ 6.

All data recodes are included in the “R DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.

The final data are saved in “CLEAN R.SAV”.  This file includes 51,482 perpetrators and 56 variables.  

Out of these 51,482 perpetrators:

(1) 50,885 are found in both the R section and the NISVS perpetrator master file.

(2) 565 are not found in the R section (these 565 were created in the data cleaning chapter and

were merged into the “FINAL R.SAV” data file).  All missing R data for these 565 perpetrators

were initially recoded to ‐99 (in “CREATE R FILES.SPS”) but were subsequently recoded to ‐98 (in

“R DATA CHECKS.SPS”).

(3) 32 are not found in the NISVS perpetrator master file (the data for these 32 additional 

perpetrators include perpetrator level information provided by the respondents, but this information 

cannot be linked to previously identified perpetrators or their behaviors). For these 32 cases, INR was 

set to 1 and missing data were recoded as described above except for respondent 104669681 (PERP 

= “10466968[REC03-PERP 07-GPOP]” and “10466968[REC04-PERP 07-GPOP]”). The “[PERP 07]” 

perpetrators for that respondent only committed ST behaviors. As a result, INR4 and INR5 were set to 

0 (and, as a consequence, R6 was also set to 0).

Data & Files in the “R DATA CHECKS” folder:

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.
182

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 17

FINAL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL FILE

Details on the creation of the initial perpetrator‐level file were included in a previous chapter.  In this

chapter, information about relationships (from the R section) is merged to the initial perpetrator‐level

file.  Additional data cleaning is then performed to recode missing values.  This includes (1) cleaning the

data in the SV section by perpetrator gender (certain behaviors are not applicable for both male and

female perpetrators), (2) cleaning the first and second quarter data in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV

sections, (3) cleaning the third and fourth quarter data in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections, and (4)

cleaning the data in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections.  Each type of data cleaning is described below.  It is

important to note that many of the recodes in this chapter are changed in Chapter 25 (this is particularly

true for cleaning the data in the SV section by perpetrator gender in Section B below).

A. CREATION OF FINAL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL FILE

The “CREATE FINAL NISVS PERP.SPS” syntax file simply merges the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data file (created

by “CREATE NISVS PERP.SPS”) and the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file (created by “R DATA CHECKS.SPS”) to

create a final perpetrator‐level file that includes perpetrator‐level (and some respondent‐level)

information from the victimization core and information from the relationship section.  (Note, it does

not include perpetrator‐level data from the stalking or sexual violence follow‐up sections).   

All 51,450 perpetrators in the “NISVS PERP.SAV” data file are found in the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file.  

However, there are 32 perpetrators in the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file which are not found in the “NISVS

PERP.SAV” data file.  These perpetrators have relationship information, but no information from the

victimization core.  These 32 perpetrators were created in the “CREATE R FILES.SPS” syntax file (the data

for these 32 additional perpetrators include perpetrator level information provided by the respondents,

but this information cannot be linked to previously identified perpetrators or their behaviors).  For these

32 perpetrators, all missing respondent‐level data (i.e., RSEX, RC1, H10, and all N99, N36, C, N12, and F

variables) are recoded to the original respondent‐level values (e.g., if the respondent is female, the

missing value in RSEX was recoded to “2”).   

The “FINAL NISVS PERP.SAV” data file includes 51,482 observations and 595 variables.

B. DATA CLEANING BY GENDER OF PERPETRATOR

In some situations, there are questions in the sexual violence section that are only applicable for male

perpetrators or for female perpetrators.  These questions are SV7, SV9, SV12, SV14, and SV18.

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.
    183

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have

ever...

SV7 For female respondents only:  Had vaginal sex with you?  By vaginal sex, we mean

that a man or boy put his penis in your vagina.   

For male respondents only:  Had vaginal sex with you?  By vaginal sex, we mean that

a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina.

SV9 Made you receive anal sex, meaning that they put their penis into your anus?

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you...

SV12 Have vaginal sex?

SV14 Receive anal sex?  

How many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to...

SV18 For male respondents only:  Try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did

not happen?

In the NISVS survey, vaginal sex is between a man and a woman (“a man or boy put his penis in your

vagina” or “a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina”).  When the respondents are female,

the perpetrators for SV7 and SV12 can only be male.  In addition, when the respondents are male, the

perpetrators for SV7 and SV12 can only be female.  In other words, female respondents cannot be

victimized by female perpetrators and male respondents cannot be victimized by male perpetrators.  In

addition, only male perpetrators can make a respondent receive anal sex (“they put their penis into your

anus”).  As a result, for SV9 and SV14, the perpetrators can only be male.  Because SV18 is for male

respondents only, the perpetrators can only be female.

There are 12 cases where SV7 occurs between respondents and perpetrators of the same gender.  There

are five cases where the SV9 perpetrator is female.  There are 25 cases where SV12 occurs between

respondents and perpetrators of the same gender.  There are six cases where the SV14 perpetrator is

female.  There are 11 cases where the SV18 perpetrator is male.  There are also perpetrators whose

gender is unknown (R1A = ‐9) but whose gender could be determined based on the answers provided in

SV7, SV9, SV12, SV14, and SV18.  The syntax to find these problems is included in the “SV PERP

PATTERNS.SPS” file.  These problems are not addressed in this chapter.  To successfully address these

problems, analysts may want to examine additional variables (such as the relationship between

perpetrators and respondents).

In this chapter, only missing data are recoded (but again, these recodes are changed in Chapter 25).  

More specifically, the following recodes were performed:  

(1) When the respondent and the perpetrator are both female, missing data in SV7B, SV7E, SV7H,

SV12B, SV12E, and SV12H are recoded to ‐99.

(2) When the respondent and the perpetrator are both male, missing data in SV7B, SV7E, SV7H,

SV12B, SV12E, and SV12H are recoded to ‐99.

(3) When the perpetrator is female, missing data in SV9B, SV9E, SV9H, SV14B, SV14E, and SV14H

are recoded to ‐99.

(4) When the perpetrator is male, missing data in SV18B, SV18E, and SV18H are recoded to ‐99.  

These missing data recodes are accomplished in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 1.SPS” syntax file located in the

“FINAL NISVS PERP” folder.  Recoded data are saved in the “HALF CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.  It

includes 51,482 observations and 595 variables.

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.
    184

C. DATA CLEANING FOR PA, CCE, PV, ST, AND SV SECTIONS – FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS

Response patterns (across all 60 questions in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections) were built by

examining the number of lifetime perpetrators (N99), the number of lifetime victimizations by each

perpetrator (in B), whether the respondent was victimized in the past three years (C), the number of

past three year perpetrators (N36), the number of past three year victimizations by each perpetrator (in

E), whether the respondent was victimized in the past year (F), the number of past year perpetrators

(N12), and the number of past year victimizations by each perpetrator (in H).  There are 20,779

perpetrators in the first and second quarters and 60 questions in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections,

for a total of 1,246,740 response patterns.  Across these 1,246,740 response patterns, we found 79

different (or unique) types of patterns (see Table 17.1).

Table 17.1.  Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections (1st and 2nd Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

1 34,744 -99 missing -99 -99 missing -99 -99 missing

2 54,742 -9 missing -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

3 892,872 0 missing 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

4 489 1 to 14 missing -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

5 128,566 1 to 14 missing 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

6 4 1 to 14 missing 1 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

7 15 1 to 14 missing 1 -9 missing 0 0 missing

8 215 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing -9 -9 missing

9 16,251 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing 0 0 missing

10 27 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing 1 -9 missing

11 24,064 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

12 243 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

13 433 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

14 2 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

15 5 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 missing 0 0 missing

16 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 missing -9 -9 missing

17 23 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 missing 0 0 missing

18 22 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

19 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 missing

20 7 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 missing

21 4 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 missing

22 12 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

23 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

24 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 missing

25 8 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 missing

26 2 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

27 6 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

28 126 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

29 45,761 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

30 9 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

31 8 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 missing 0 0 missing

32 24 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing -9 -9 missing

33 1,690 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing 0 0 missing

34 14 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing 1 -9 missing

Note: Table continued on next page.

   

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.
    185

Table 17.1 Continued.  Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections (1st and 2nd Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

35 3,107 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

36 22 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 missing

37 22 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 missing

38 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 missing

39 8 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

40 5 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

41 49 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 missing

42 5,121 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 missing

43 16 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 missing

44 670 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing

45 29 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

46 7,056 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

47 33 15 missing -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

48 261 15 missing 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

49 158 15 missing 1 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

50 28 15 missing 1 15 missing 0 0 missing

51 5 15 missing 1 15 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

52 5 15 missing 1 15 missing 1 15 missing

53 123 15 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

54 42 15 -3, -2, -1 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

55 13 15 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

56 42 15 1 to 100 -9 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

57 528 15 1 to 100 0 0 missing 0 0 missing

58 2 15 1 to 100 1 -9 missing -9 -9 missing

59 23 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing 0 0 missing

60 160 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

61 7 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 missing

62 48 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing

63 2 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

64 45 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

65 30 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 0 0 missing

66 7 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 missing

67 8 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

68 15 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 15 -3, -2, -1

69 30 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100

70 10,084 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

71 64 -9 -99 -9 -9 -99 -9 -9 -99

72 17,883 0 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

73 473 1 to 14 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

74 40 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99 0 0 -99

75 45 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

76 26 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

77 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

78 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 -99

79 4 15 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

Total 1,246,740

The first three patterns are created in “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS,” where missing data in N99 are recoded

to ‐99 (when not applicable), ‐9 (when unknown), or 0 (when not victimized).  Pattern #1 includes the

perpetrators of respondents without children and the perpetrators of female respondents (respondents

without children were not asked CCE8 and female respondents were not asked SV8, SV13, or SV18).  For

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.
    186

pattern #1, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐99.  Pattern #2 includes perpetrators of

respondents who stopped the interview or skipped questions.  For these perpetrators, missing data in B,

E, and H are recoded to ‐9.  Pattern #3 includes perpetrators of respondents that reported not

experiencing a particular type of victimization.  For these perpetrators, missing data in B, E, and H are

recoded to 0.

In patterns #4 through #11, respondents were victimized in the lifetime, but they were not victimized by

the perpetrators included in these response patterns (they were victimized by other perpetrators).  For

the perpetrators in these response patterns, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0.

Patterns #12 through #46 include perpetrators who victimized the respondents in the lifetime (when the

total number of perpetrators was less than 15).  Patterns #12 and #28 include perpetrators who

victimized respondents in the lifetime, but it is unknown if they victimized the respondent in the past

three years (C = ‐9) or the past year (F = ‐9).  For these perpetrators, missing data in E and H are recoded

to ‐9.  Patterns #13 and #29 include perpetrators who victimized respondents in the lifetime, but the

respondents were not victimized in the past three years (C = 0) or the past year (F = 0). For these

perpetrators, missing data in E and H are recoded to 0.  In patterns #14, #15, #30, and #31, respondents

were victimized in the past three years (C = 1), but they did not provide perpetrator initials.  As a result,

missing data in E are recoded to ‐9.  When these respondents did not answer whether they were

victimized in the past year (F = ‐9), missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (see patterns #14 and #30).  

When these respondents reported no past year victimizations (F = 0), missing data in H are recoded to 0

(see patterns #15 and #31).  Patterns #16 through #18 and patterns #32 through #35 include

perpetrators who victimized the respondent in the lifetime, but not in the past three years (the

respondents were victimized in the past three years by other perpetrators).  For these perpetrators,

missing data in E and H are recoded to 0.  Patterns #19, #24, #36, and #41 are for perpetrators who

victimized the respondents in the past three years, but it is unknown if they victimized the respondents

in the past year (F = ‐9).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9.  Patterns #20, #25,

#37, and #42 are for perpetrators who victimized the respondents in the past three years but not in the

past year (F = 0).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to 0.  In patterns #21, #38 and

#44, respondents were victimized in the past year, but not by the perpetrators in these response

patterns (the respondents were victimized by other perpetrators).  As a result, missing data in H are

recoded to 0.  In pattern #43, respondents were victimized in the past year (F = 1), but they did not

provide perpetrator initials (N12 = ‐9).  As a result, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9.

In patterns #47 through #69, respondents were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators.  

Patterns #47 through #52 include perpetrators that were not included in the list of 15 lifetime

perpetrators.  In these cases, it is impossible to know if these perpetrators victimized the respondent

(only 15 perpetrator initials were collected).  As a result, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9.  

Patterns #53 through #69 include perpetrators that were included in the list of 15 lifetime perpetrators.  

Patterns #53 and #56 include perpetrators who victimized respondents in the lifetime, but it is unknown

if they victimized the respondent in the past three years (C = ‐9) or the past year (F = ‐9).  For these

perpetrators, missing data in E and H are recoded to ‐9.  Patterns #54 and #57 include perpetrators who

victimized respondents in the lifetime, but the respondents were not victimized by these perpetrators in

the past three years (C = 0) or the past year (F = 0).  For these perpetrators, missing data in E and H are

recoded to 0.  In patterns #55 and #58, the respondents were victimized in the past three years (C = 1),

but they did not provide perpetrator initials (N36 = ‐9).  In addition, the respondents did not indicate

whether they were victimized in the past year (F = ‐9).  As a result, missing data in E and H are recoded

to ‐9.  In pattern #56, the respondents did not indicate whether they were victimized in the past three

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.
    187

years (C = ‐9) or the past year (F = ‐9).  For this response pattern, missing data in E and H are recoded to

‐9.  Patterns #59 and #60 include perpetrators who victimized the respondent in the lifetime, but not in

the past three years (these respondents were victimized in the past three years by other perpetrators).  

For these perpetrators, missing data in E and H are recoded to 0.  Patterns #61 and #65 include

perpetrators who victimized the respondent in the past three years, but the respondent was not

victimized by these perpetrators in the past year (F = 0).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are

recoded to 0.  Patterns #62 and #66 include perpetrators who victimized respondents in the past three

years, but not in the past year (these respondents were victimized in the past year by other

perpetrators).  For this response pattern, missing data in H are again recoded to 0.

The last 10 patterns (#70 to #79) were created in Section B above (in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 1.SPS”

syntax file).  Missing data in these patterns were already recoded.  (Again, these recodes are changed in

Chapter 25).  Recoded response patterns are shown in the following table.

Table 17.2.  Recoded Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections (1st and 2nd Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

1 34,744 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

2 54,742 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

3 892,872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 489 1 to 14 0 -9 -9 0 -9 -9 0

5 128,566 1 to 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 4 1 to 14 0 1 -9 0 -9 -9 0

7 15 1 to 14 0 1 -9 0 0 0 0

8 215 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0 -9 -9 0

9 16,251 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0 0 0 0

10 27 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0 1 -9 0

11 24,064 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0

12 243 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

13 433 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 2 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

15 5 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 -9 0 0 0

16 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 0 -9 -9 0

17 23 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 0 0 0 0

18 22 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0

19 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 -9

20 7 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 0

21 4 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 0

22 12 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

23 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

24 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 -9

25 8 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 0

26 2 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

27 6 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

28 126 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

29 45,761 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 9 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

31 8 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 -9 0 0 0

32 24 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 -9 -9 0

33 1,690 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 0 0 0

Note: Table continued on next page.

   

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.
    188

Table 17.2 Continued.  Recoded Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections

(1st and 2nd Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

34 14 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 1 -9 0

35 3,107 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0

36 22 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 -9

37 22 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 0 0 0

38 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 0

39 8 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

40 5 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

41 49 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 -9 -9 -9

42 5,121 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 0

43 16 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 -9 -9

44 670 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0

45 29 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

46 7,056 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

47 33 15 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

48 261 15 -9 0 0 -9 0 0 -9

49 158 15 -9 1 1 to 14 -9 1 1 to 14 -9

50 28 15 -9 1 15 -9 0 0 -9

51 5 15 -9 1 15 -9 1 1 to 14 -9

52 5 15 -9 1 15 -9 1 15 -9

53 123 15 -3, -2, -1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

54 42 15 -3, -2, -1 0 0 0 0 0 0

55 13 15 -3, -2, -1 1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

56 42 15 1 to 100 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

57 528 15 1 to 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

58 2 15 1 to 100 1 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9

59 23 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 0 0 0

60 160 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0 1 1 to 14 0

61 7 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 0

62 48 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0

63 2 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

64 45 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

65 30 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 0 0 0

66 7 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 0

67 8 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

68 15 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 15 -3, -2, -1

69 30 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100 1 15 1 to 100

70 10,084 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

71 64 -9 -99 -9 -9 -99 -9 -9 -99

72 17,883 0 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

73 473 1 to 14 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

74 40 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99 0 0 -99

75 45 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

76 26 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

77 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

78 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 1 1 to 14 1 to 100 0 0 -99

79 4 15 -99 0 0 -99 0 0 -99

Total 1,245,009

   

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.
    189

To summarize, the following recodes are performed for respondents in the first and second quarters:

(1) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not

applicable).

(2) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not

answered).

(3) If N99 = 0, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(4) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because

respondent was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other

perpetrators).

(5) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent

was victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(6) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and E is missing:

a. If N36 = ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past

three year initials).

b. If N36 ≠ ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in

the past three years or was victimized by other perpetrators).

c. If E is recoded to 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

d. If E is recoded to ‐9:

i. If F = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not

answer past year questions).

ii. If F = 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, E ≠ 0, E ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, H is recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, H is recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in the past year or

was victimized by other perpetrators).

The syntax to identify the different response patterns can be found in the syntax file “Q1&2 PERP

PATTERNS.SPS.”  All data recodes are included in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 2.SPS” syntax file.

D. DATA CLEANING FOR PA, CCE, PV, ST, AND SV SECTIONS – THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS

A similar strategy was used to clean the data from the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections from the third

and fourth quarters of 2010.    Response patterns (across all 60 questions in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV

sections) were built by examining the number of lifetime perpetrators (N99), the number of lifetime

victimizations by each perpetrator (in B), whether the respondent was victimized in the past three years

(C), the number of past three year perpetrators (N36), the number of past three year victimizations by

each perpetrator (in E), whether the respondent was victimized in the past year (F), the number of past

year perpetrators (N12), and the number of past year victimizations by each perpetrator (in H).

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.
    190

There are 30,703 perpetrators in the third and fourth quarters and 60 questions in the PA, CCE, PV, ST,

and SV sections, for a total of 1,842,180 response patterns.  Across these 1,842,180 response patterns,

we found 43 different (or unique) types of patterns.  

Table 17.3.  Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections (3rd and 4th Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

1 51,579 -99 missing -99 -99 missing -99 -99 missing

2 84,417 -9 missing -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

3 1,289,899 0 missing -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

4 770 1 to 14 missing -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

5 214,532 1 to 14 missing -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

6 16 1 to 14 missing -99 -99 missing 1 -9 missing

7 51,226 1 to 14 missing -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

8 402 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

9 668 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

10 46 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

11 29 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

12 34 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

13 253 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

14 79,811 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

15 21 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 -9 missing

16 6,995 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

17 60 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

18 16,518 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

19 35 15 missing -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

20 363 15 missing -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

21 16 15 missing -99 -99 missing 1 -9 missing

22 143 15 missing -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

23 37 15 missing -99 -99 missing 1 15 missing

24 113 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

25 41 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

26 1 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

27 1 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

28 22 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing -9 -9 missing

29 979 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 0 0 missing

30 30 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 -9 missing

31 525 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 missing

32 10 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

33 138 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

34 11 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 15 -3, -2, -1

35 169 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 missing 1 15 1 to 100

36 14,293 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

37 182 -9 -99 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -99

38 26,801 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

39 882 1 to 14 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

40 81 1 to 14 -99 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

41 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

42 26 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

43 2 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

Total 1,842,180

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.
    191

As expected, all C and N36 values equal ‐99 (there are no measures of victimization in the past three

years for respondents interviewed in the third and fourth quarters of 2010).  All E variables are recoded

to ‐99.

The first three patterns are created in “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS,” where missing data in N99 are recoded

to ‐99 (when not applicable), ‐9 (when unknown), or 0 (when not victimized).  Pattern #1 includes the

perpetrators of respondents without children and the perpetrators of female respondents (respondents

without children were not asked CCE8 and female respondents were not asked SV8, SV13, or SV18).  For

pattern #1, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐99.  Pattern #2 includes perpetrators of respondents

who stopped the interview or skipped questions.  For these perpetrators, missing data in B and H are

recoded to ‐9.  Pattern #3 includes perpetrators of respondents that reported not experiencing a

particular type of victimization.  For these perpetrators, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0.

In patterns #4 through #7, respondents were victimized in the lifetime, but they were not victimized by

the perpetrators included in these response patterns (they were victimized by other perpetrators). For

the perpetrators in these response patterns, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0.

Patterns #8 through #18 include perpetrators who victimized the respondents in the lifetime (when the

total number of perpetrators was less than 15).  Patterns #8 and #13 include perpetrators who

victimized respondents in the lifetime, but it is unknown if they victimized the respondent in the past

year (F = ‐9).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9.  Patterns #9 and #14 include

perpetrators who victimized respondents in the lifetime, but the respondents were not victimized in the

past year (F = 0). For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to 0.  In pattern #15, respondents

were victimized in the past year (F = 1), but they did not provide perpetrator initials.  As a result, missing

data in H are recoded to ‐9.  Patterns #10 and #16 include perpetrators who victimized the respondent

in the lifetime, but not in the past year (the respondents were victimized in the past year by other

perpetrators).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to 0.   

In patterns #19 through #35, respondents were victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators.  

Patterns #19 through #23 include perpetrators that were not included in the list of 15 lifetime

perpetrators.  In these cases, it is impossible to know if these perpetrators victimized the respondent

(only 15 perpetrator initials were collected).  As a result, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9.

Patterns #24 through #35 include perpetrators that were included in the list of 15 lifetime perpetrators.  

Patterns #24 and #28 include perpetrators who victimized respondents in the lifetime, but it is unknown

if they victimized the respondent in the past year (F = ‐9).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are

recoded to ‐9.  Patterns #25 and #29 include perpetrators who victimized respondents in the lifetime,

but the respondents were not victimized by these perpetrators in the past year (F = 0).  For these

perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to 0.  Patterns #26 and #31 include perpetrators who

victimized the respondent in the lifetime, but not in the past year (these respondents were victimized in

the past year by other perpetrators).  For these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to 0.  In

pattern #30, the respondents were victimized in the past year (F = 1), but they did not provide

perpetrator initials (N12 = ‐9).  As a result, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9.   

The last eight patterns (#36 to #43) were created in Section B above (in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 1.SPS”

syntax file).  Missing data in these patterns were already recoded.  (Again, these recodes are changed in

Chapter 25).  Recoded response patterns are shown in the following table.

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.
    192

Table 17.4.  Recoded Response Patterns in PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV Sections (3rd and 4th Quarters)

Pattern Freq. N99 B C N36 E F N12 H

1 51,579 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

2 84,417 -9 -9 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

3 1,289,899 0 0 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

4 770 1 to 14 0 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 0

5 214,532 1 to 14 0 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

6 16 1 to 14 0 -99 -99 -99 1 -9 0

7 51,226 1 to 14 0 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 0

8 402 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

9 668 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

10 46 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 0

11 29 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

12 34 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

13 253 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

14 79,811 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

15 21 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 -9 -9

16 6,995 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 0

17 60 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

18 16,518 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

19 35 15 -9 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

20 363 15 -9 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -9

21 16 15 -9 -99 -99 -99 1 -9 -9

22 143 15 -9 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -9

23 37 15 -9 -99 -99 -99 1 15 -9

24 113 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

25 41 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

26 1 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 0

27 1 15 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

28 22 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -9

29 979 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0

30 30 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 -9 -9

31 525 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 0

32 10 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

33 138 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

34 11 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 15 -3, -2, -1

35 169 15 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 15 1 to 100

36 14,293 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99

37 182 -9 -99 -99 -99 -99 -9 -9 -99

38 26,801 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

39 882 1 to 14 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

40 81 1 to 14 -99 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 -99

41 3 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

42 26 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 0 0 -99

43 2 1 to 14 1 to 100 -99 -99 -99 1 1 to 14 1 to 100

Total 1,842,180

To summarize, the following recodes are performed for respondents in the third and fourth quarters:

(1) All missing data in E are recoded to ‐99 (because past three year questions were not asked in

third and fourth quarter of 2010).

(2) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not applicable).

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.
    193

(3) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not answered).

(4) If N99 = 0, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(5) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent

was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other perpetrators).

(6) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent was

victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide

past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized

in the past year or was victimized by other perpetrators).

The syntax to identify the different response patterns can be found in the syntax file “Q3&4 PERP

PATTERNS.SPS.”  All data recodes are included in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 2.SPS” syntax file.

E. DATA CLEANING FOR EPA, ECCE, AND EPV SECTIONS

Data cleaning was performed by examining the response pattern for each perpetrator‐level variables (H)

across all questions (EPA1 to EPV12).   

Response patterns were built by examining the number of past year perpetrators (in N12) and the

number of past year victimizations by each perpetrator (in H).  The syntax to produce these response

patterns is included in the “PERP ELDER PATTERNS.SPS” file.  There are 28 questions in the EPA, ECCE,

and EPV sections and a total of 51,482 perpetrators in the NISVS data, for a total of 1,441,496 response

patterns (i.e., 28 x 51,482).  Across these 1,441,496 response patterns, we found six different (or unique)

types of patterns.  

Table 17.5.  Response Patterns in EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections

Pattern # Frequency N12 H

1 1,348,144 -99 missing

2 2,941 -9 missing

3 85,614 0 missing

4 3,991 1 to 14 missing

5 19 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

6 787 1 to 14 1 to 4

Total 1,441,496

Pattern #1 is established in the “NISVS RECODE.SPS” syntax file.  It includes the perpetrators of the

respondents who were not asked any of the EPA1 to EPV12 questions (because the respondents were

under than 70 years of age).  There are 18,840 respondents who were under 70 years of age.  Together,

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.
    194

they reported information on 48,148 perpetrators (48,148 perpetrators * 28 questions = 1,348,144

response patterns).  For this response pattern, H is recoded to ‐99.   

Pattern #2 includes perpetrators of respondents who stopped the interview or skipped questions.  For

these perpetrators, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9.  Pattern #3 includes perpetrators of

respondents that reported not experiencing a particular type of victimization.  For these perpetrators,

missing data in H are recoded to 0.  In pattern #4, respondents were victimized in the past year, but they

were not victimized by the perpetrators included in these response patterns (they were victimized by

perpetrators in response patterns #5 and #6). For the perpetrators in these response patterns, missing

data in H are recoded to 0.  Recoded response patterns are shown in the following table.

Table 17.6.  Recoded Response Patterns in EPA, ECCE, and EPV Sections

Pattern # Frequency N12 H

1 1,348,144 -99 -99

2 2,941 -9 -9

3 85,614 0 0

4 3,991 1 to 14 0

5 19 1 to 14 -3, -2, -1

6 787 1 to 14 1 to 4

Total 1,441,496

All data recodes (from Sections C, D, and E) are included in the “CLEAN NISVS PERP 2.SPS” syntax file.  

This syntax file then produces the final perpetrator level data file “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV”.  It

includes 51,482 observations and 596 variables.

Data & Files in the “FINAL NISVS PERP” folder:

F. LIMITATIONS OF DATA CLEANING

There are four types of data problems that are not addressed in this chapter.  The first, with perpetrator

gender, is described in the previous section.  There are male perpetrators that victimized the

respondents in ways that are not possible (e.g., male perpetrators do not have a vagina).  There are

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.
    195

female perpetrators that victimized the respondents in ways that are not possible (e.g., female

perpetrators do not have a penis).  There are perpetrators whose gender is unknown, but could be

determined based on how they victimized the respondents.  These data problems are not addressed in

this chapter.

Second, when the number of lifetime perpetrators is 15, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9

(see patterns #47 through #52 in tables 17.1 and 17.2 and patterns #19 through #24 in tables 17.3 and

17.4).  The CATI system only collected 15 perpetrator initials for each lifetime question.  Data were then

collected for these 15 perpetrators.  We argued and assumed that it was impossible to know if the other

perpetrators did or did not victimize the respondents.  As a result, data for these other perpetrators

(i.e., the ones not included in the list of 15) are recoded to ‐9.  According to the survey instrument,

respondents provided initials for previously identified perpetrators before providing initials for new

perpetrators (i.e., respondents were asked the I* questions before the A* questions).  The A* questions

would only be asked if fewer than 15 initials were provided in I*.  If that were true, one could then

assume that if new perpetrators are identified in A*, missing data for previously identified perpetrators

not included in I* could then be recoded to 0 instead of ‐9.  In these cases, we would know that these

perpetrators did not victimize the respondent because the respondent identified new perpetrators

(which implies that data from all previously identified perpetrators were collected).  However, it is clear

that interviewers did not always follow the script provided in the survey to collect perpetrator initials

(this explains, for example, why the order of the perpetrators in L*, T*, and Y* changes).  If all

interviewers had followed the script provided in the survey, the order of the perpetrators (within

behaviors and across behaviors) would never change.  If “X” was the first perpetrator identified by the

respondent, anytime “X” was a perpetrator, s/he would be the first in the list of perpetrators.  However,

the data are structured differently (see Chapter 2, Section B; see also CDC’s “Orientation to the Analysis

of 2010 NISVS Raw Data”).  As a result, it raises questions about how perpetrator initials were really

collected.  Given these uncertainties, when the number of lifetime perpetrators was 15, missing data in

B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9.

Third, new perpetrators were created in Chapters 13 and 16.  In this chapter, missing data for these new

perpetrators are recoded the same way that missing data for other perpetrators are recoded.  More

specifically, no attempt was made to determine if missing data recodes should be different for these

new perpetrators than for other perpetrators.  Depending on the scope of one’s analysis, one may need

a more refined plan to recode missing data.  For example, when a new perpetrator is created in the R

section, there are no data in the victimization sections for that perpetrator.  When the respondent

reported no lifetime victimizations for a particular behavior (e.g., PV1N99 = 0), analysts could recode the

victimization data for the new perpetrator to 0.  When the respondent did report lifetime victimizations

for a particular behavior (e.g., PV2N99 > 0), analysts could potentially recode the victimization data for

the new perpetrator to ‐9.  These types of recodes are not necessary for the scope of NIJ’s analysis and

are therefore not included in this chapter.

Fourth, there are incongruences in the answers provided by respondents in the B*, E*, and H*

questions.  By definition, the number of past year victimizations should be less than or equal to the

number of victimizations in the past three years.  Similarly, the number of past three year victimizations

should be less than or equal to the number of lifetime victimizations.  The CATI system was not

programmed to prevent respondents from providing incongruent answers.  There are perpetrators in

the first and second quarters for whom H* > E* or E* > B*.  There are also perpetrators in the third and

fourth quarters for whom H* > B*.  In addition, there are missing data in B*, E*, and H* that could be

recoded by examining response patterns.  For example, if a perpetrator victimized a respondent more

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.
    196

than 50 times in the past year (e.g., PA1H* = 4), then any missing data in B* could be recoded to 4 (i.e.,

“more than 50 times”).  These data problems are not addressed in this chapter.

Fifth, data from the stalking and sexual violence follow‐up sections are not examined or cleaned in this

chapter.  The perpetrator‐level stalking follow‐up data is cleaned in Chapter 18 and the perpetrator‐level

sexual violence follow‐up data is cleaned in Chapter 20.   

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.
197

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 18

STALKING FOLLOW‐UP SECTION

The stalking data include nine follow‐up questions (at the perpetrator level).  Perpetrator initials (in

alphabetical order) are identified in STFU_# (where # = 1 to 94).  (Note, there are no respondents with

31 or more perpetrators, so STFU_# and all follow‐up questions are only defined for STFU_1 to

STFU_30).  The nine follow‐up questions are:

STFU1_# Age at first victimization by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU2_# Age at last victimization by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU3_# If STFU1_# = STFU2_#: Length of stalking (#) by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU4_# If STFU1_# = STFU2_#: Length of stalking (unit) by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU5_# Ever fearful because of perpetrator STFU_#

STFU6_# If STFU5_# = 1: Maximum amount of fear because of perpetrator STFU_#

STFU7_# Property damaged by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU8_# Threats of physical harm by perpetrator STFU_#

STFU9_# Believed serious harm or killing by perpetrator STFU_#

The NISVS surveys and codebooks from RTI and CDC state that:

“(NOTE: one behavior, one time gets no follow‐up questions – for stalking either has to

be more than one behavior at least one time, or one behavior more than one time).”

This appears to be incorrect because follow‐up questions were asked for every perpetrator initials

collected in the stalking section.   

This chapter extracts the stalking follow‐up data, cleans the stalking follow‐up data, and merges the

stalking follow‐up data to the perpetrator‐level file created in the previous chapter.   

A. EXTRACTING THE STALKING FOLLOW‐UP DATA

The stalking follow‐up data are included in the “FINAL ST.SAV” data file (see Chapter 11).  The data

(STFU_# to STFU9_#) were restructured so that each perpetrator (STFU_#) would have his/her own case

(with STFU1 to STFU9 as variables).  The restructured data file is created by the “CREATE ST PERP.SPS”

syntax file.  The restructured data file is saved as “ST PERP.SAV”.  It includes 18,723 observations

(perpetrators) and 11 variables.

B. DATA CLEANING

Data checks were performed to ensure that all values were within valid ranges.  In addition, data checks

were performed to check the logical consistency of the data (e.g., skip patterns).  More specifically, the

following data checks were performed:

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.
198

(1) There are no duplicate initials in STFU

(2) Data values for STFU1 and STFU2 are in valid range (‐3 to 100)

(3) STFU2 is greater than or equal to STFU1

(4) STFU1 and STFU2 are both less than or equal to the respondent’s age

(5) Data values for STFU3 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1 to 365)

(6) STFU3 has a value when STFU1 = STFU2, and only when STFU1 = STFU2

(7) Data values for STFU4 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1 to 4)

(8) STFU4 has a value when STFU3 has a value, and only when STFU3 has a value

(9) Data values for STFU5 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1, 2)

(10) Data values for STFU6 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1 to 3)

(11) STFU6 has a value when STFU5 = 1, and only when STFU5 = 1

(12) Data values for STFU7 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1, 2)

(13) Data values for STFU8 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1, 2)

(14) Data values for STFU9 are in valid range (‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1, 2)

All data checks are included in the “ST PERP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.

Two respondents have duplicate perpetrator initials in the stalking follow-up data. Respondent 103313711 

identified two perpetrators with the initials “[PERP 05]” (one for ST2 and one for ST5). In Chapter 13, the “[PERP 

05]” perpetrator in section ST2 was recoded to “10331371[REC02-PERP 05-GPOP]” and the “[PERP 05]” 

perpetrator in section ST5 was recoded to “10331371[REC03-PERP 05-GPOP]”. Similar recodes are executed in this 

chapter. The first perpetrator initials are recoded to “10331371[REC02-PERP 05-GPOP]” and the second 

perpetrator initials are recoded to “10331371[REC03-PERP 05-GPOP]”. The links to the previous stalking data were 

maintained because the stalking follow-up data are the same for both perpetrators. Respondent 104669681 

identified two perpetrators with the initials “[PERP 07]” (one for ST1 and one for ST4). In Chapter 13, the “[PERP 

07]” perpetrator in ST1 was recoded to “10466968[REC01-PERP 07-GPOP]” and the “[PERP 07]” perpetrator in 

section ST4 was recoded to “10466968[REC02-PERP 07-GPOP]”. Similar recodes are executed in this chapter 

(again, the links to the previous stalking data were maintained because the stalking follow-up data are the same 

for both perpetrators). The first perpetrator initials are recoded to “10466968[REC01-PERP 07-GPOP]” and the 

second perpetrator initials are recoded to “10466968[REC02-PERP 07-GPOP]”.

There are 12 respondents who were older at the time of the first victimization than they were at the

time of the last victimization (i.e., STFU2 > STFU1).   There are also 86 instances where the respondent

was younger at time of the survey than they were when first or last victimized.  These problems are not

addressed in this chapter (or anywhere else).  Analysts who wish to use STFU1 or STFU2 will likely need

to perform more comprehensive data checks before implementing a solution.

As in previous data files, it appears that missing data codes are inconsistently used.  There are 566

instances where STFU3 is coded as ‐3 (when STFU1 and STFU2 are also coded as ‐3).  There are also 576

instances where a value for STFU6 is defined when STFU5 is not equal to 1 (when STFU5 and STFU6 are

both coded as ‐3).   

For STFU1, STFU2, STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9, all system missing values and all values for missing

data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1) are recoded to ‐9.  For STFU3, STFU4, and STFU6, all system missing values and

all values for missing data (i.e., ‐3, ‐2, ‐1) are initially recoded to ‐99.  Missing data (‐99’s) in STFU3 and

STFU4 are then recoded to ‐9 when STFU1 = STFU2 (and STFU1 ≠ ‐9).  Missing data (‐99s) in STFU6 are

then recoded to ‐9 when STFU5 = 1.  For these variables (STFU3, STFU4, and STFU6), the ‐99 code

indicates that this question was not applicable while the ‐9 code indicates that the question was

applicable but there is no answer.

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.
199

All recodes are included in the “ST PERP DATA CLEANING.SPS” syntax file.  New variable and value labels

are created.  The cleaned data file is then saved as “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV”.  It includes 18,723

observations (perpetrators) and 11 variables.  Data checks were performed again to make sure that all

data recodes were executed successfully (these data checks are included in the “ST PERP DATA CHECKS

2.SPS” syntax file).  Again, problems with incongruent answers for STFU1 and STFU2 (age at first and last

victimizations) were not addressed in this chapter.

C. FULL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL STALKING DATA FILE

One additional data file is created to combine the clean perpetrator-level stalking data (in “FINAL CLEAN 

NISVS PERP.SAV”) with the clean perpetrator-level stalking follow-up data (in “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV”). 

There are four perpetrators included in the “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV” data file that are not included in the 

“FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file. The initials for these four perpetrators (for respondents 

102262241, 102290271, 103417781, and 103689891) were recoded in chapter 13 because the 

respondents had provided duplicate initials. In two of these cases (for ZRID 102290271 and 103689891), 

the respondent experienced stalking behaviors by only one recoded perpetrator. In these cases, the 

stalking follow-up data are linked to that perpetrator. More specifically, the stalking followup data for 

perpetrator “[PERP 02]” (ZRID = 102290271) are linked to the stalking data for “10229027[REC03-PERP 02-

GPOP]” and the stalking follow-up data for perpetrator “[PERP 01]” (ZRID = 103689891) are linked to the 

stalking data for “10368989[REC01-PERP 01-GPOP].” In the other two cases (for ZRID 102262241 and 

103417781), the respondent experienced stalking behaviors by more than one recoded perpetrator. In 

these cases, it is impossible to know with certainty which perpetrator(s) the respondents were referring 

to. As a result, it is not possible to link the follow-up data for these two perpetrators to the other stalking 

data. As a result, perpetrator initials are recoded. More specifically, perpetrator “[PERP 01]” is recoded to 

“10226224[REC23-PERP 01-GPOP]” (ZRID = 102262241) and perpetrator “[PERP 01]” is recoded to 

“10341778[REC07-PERP 01-GPOP]” (ZRID = 103417781).

For these two new perpetrators (“10226224[REC23-PERP 01-GPOP]” and “10341778[REC07-PERP 01-

GPOP]”), all missing respondent-level data (i.e., RSEX, RC1, H10, and all N99, N36, and N12 variables) are 

recoded to the original respondent-level values (e.g., if the respondent is female, the missing value in RSEX 

was recoded to “2”). The perpetrator-level stalking data (ST1N99 to ST7H) are recoded using the logic in 

the previous chapter. For respondent 102262241 (who was interviewed in the second quarter of 2010):

(1) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not

applicable).

(2) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not

answered).

(3) If N99 = 0, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(4) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because

respondent was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other

perpetrators).

(5) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent

was victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(6) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and E is missing:

a. If N36 = ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past

three year initials).

b. If N36 ≠ ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in

the past three years or was victimized by other perpetrators).

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.
    200

c. If E is recoded to 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

d. If E is recoded to ‐9:

i. If F = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not

answer past year questions).

ii. If F = 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, E ≠ 0, E ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, H is recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, H is recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in the past year or

was victimized by other perpetrators).

For respondent 103417781 (who was interviewed in the third quarter of 2010):

(1) All missing data in E are recoded to ‐99 (because past three year questions were not asked in

third and fourth quarter of 2010).

(2) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not applicable).

(3) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not answered).

(4) If N99 = 0, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(5) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent

was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other perpetrators).

(6) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent was

victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide

past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized

in the past year or was victimized by other perpetrators).

Note that not all of these recodes apply (e.g., ‐99 is not a valid value for ST#N99).  There are different

ways to recode the perpetrator‐level data.  These different ways will have no impact on stalking

estimates (all four of these respondents were stalked by other perpetrators).

Data files are merged in the “CREATE FULL ST PERP.SPS” syntax file.  Of the 51,482 perpetrators in the

“FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file, 32,761 have no stalking follow‐up data.  Of the 32,761 that

have no stalking data, 232 should have stalking data but their initials were previously recoded.  The

other 32,529 perpetrators did not meet the selection criterion for the STFU section.  Because the

selection criterion appears to be incorrectly described in the surveys, a new variable (INSTFU) was

created to indicate if the perpetrator should be included in the STFU section.  INSTFU was coded as 1

(for “yes”) when at least one of the lifetime stalking behaviors (i.e., ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B,

or ST7B) equaled ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, 1, 2, 3, or 4.  More specifically, INSTFU was coded as 1 when any of the

following conditions were met:  ST1B > 0, ST2B > 0, ST3B > 0, ST4B > 0, ST5B > 0, ST6B > 0, ST7B > 0,

ST1B = ‐3, ST1B = ‐2, ST1B = ‐1, ST2B = ‐3, ST2B = ‐2, ST2B = ‐1, ST3B = ‐3, ST3B = ‐2, ST3B = ‐1, ST4B = ‐3,

ST4B = ‐2, ST4B = ‐1, ST5B = ‐3, ST5B = ‐2, ST5B = ‐1, ST6B = ‐3, ST6B = ‐2, ST6B = ‐1, ST7B = ‐3, ST7B = ‐2,

or ST7B = ‐1.  For the 32,529 perpetrators that did not meet the selection criterion for the STFU section,

system missing data in STFU1 to STFU9 are recoded to ‐98.  For the 232 perpetrators that should have

been included but weren’t because their initials had been recoded, system missing data in STFU1,

STFU2, STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 are recoded to ‐9 while system missing data in STFU3, STFU4,

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.
    201

and STFU6 are recoded to ‐99 (following the logic in the previous section).  (Note, these recodes are

changed in Chapter 25).

The resulting data file (“FULL ST PERP.SAV”) includes 51,484 observations and 71 variables.   

Data & Files in “ST PERP” folder:

   

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.
202

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 19

CORE MEASURES OF VICTIMIZATION

The core measures of victimization analyzed by CDC include measures of sexual violence, stalking, and

violence by intimate partners.  Measures of sexual violence include both rape and other sexual violence.  

The measure of rape includes measures of completed forced penetration, attempted forced

penetration, and completed alcohol / drug facilitated penetration.  The measure of other sexual violence

includes being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contact

unwanted sexual experiences.  The measure of violence by intimate partners includes psychological

aggression (which includes expressive aggression and coercive control), control of reproductive or sexual

health, physical violence (which includes being slapped, pushed or shoved and severe physical violence),

stalking, and sexual violence (which again includes both rape and other sexual violence).   

The core measures of victimization analyzed by CDC are described further in Sections A, B, and C of this

chapter.  Additional details are available in CDC’s “Orientation to the Analysis of 2010 NISVS Raw Data”

and in the 2010 Summary Report.  Sections A, B, and C also provide details on the NIJ analysis plan and

explain the differences between the NIJ and CDC analysis plans.  Key differences in data analysis are

summarized in Section D.  Details on the NIJ analysis plan for each composite are then provided in

sections E through U:

E. Completed Forced Penetration

F. Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

G. Attempted Forced Penetration  

H. Sexual Violence with Penetration

I. Sexual Coercion

J. Unwanted Sexual Contact

K. Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

L. Other Sexual Violence

M. Sexual Violence

N. Stalking

O. Being Slapped, Pushed or Shoved by Intimate Partners

P. Severe Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Q. Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

R. Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners  

S. Coercive Control by Intimate Partners

T. Expressive Aggression by Intimate Partners

U. Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health by Intimate Partners

When results are somewhat comparable, side‐by‐side comparisons of the NIJ and CDC estimates are

provided.  The NIJ estimates are different than the CDC estimates because of differences in data

cleaning (documented in previous chapters) and data analysis (documented in this chapter).   

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.
    203

A. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CDC AND NIJ ANALYSIS PLANS FOR SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The NIJ analysis plan for sexual violence is drastically different than CDC’s (additional details are

included in Sections E through M).  The CDC sexual violence measures include three measures of rape

(completed forced penetration, completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration, and attempted forced

penetration) and four measures of other sexual violence (being made to penetrate someone else, sexual

coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences).   

   

Figure 19.1.  Sexual Violence Composites in CDC Analysis Plan

More specifically, the CDC analysis plan for sexual violence victimization includes seven first‐order

composites created from the variables in the sexual violence (SV) section (see Figure 19.1).  These

include completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, completed alcohol/drug

facilitated penetration, being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non‐

contact unwanted sexual experiences.   The first three composites (completed forced penetration,

attempted forced penetration, completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration) are combined to create

a second‐order composite for rape.  The last four composites (being made to penetrate, sexual coercion,

unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences) are combined to create a

second‐order composite for other sexual violence.  Finally, rape and other sexual violence are combined

to create a third‐order composite for sexual violence.

There are two important differences between the CDC and the NIJ analysis plans.  First, the NIJ analysis

plan for sexual violence was developed to create mutually exclusive composites (i.e., composites that

did not include variables that belong to other composites).  This difference impacts CDC’s measures of

completed forced penetration, completed alcohol or drug involved penetration, attempted forced

penetration, and being made to penetrate someone else.   

Under the CDC analysis plan:

(1) When the perpetrator was male, “being made to perform oral sex” was classified as a measure

of rape, when in fact it could measure both rape (when they put their penis in your mouth) and

being made to penetrate someone else (when they made you penetrate their vagina or anus).  

(2) When the respondent was male, “being made to receive oral sex” was classified as a measure of

being made to penetrate someone else, when in fact it could measure both being made to

Sexual

Violence

Rape

Completed Forced Penetration

Attempted Forced Penetration

Completed Alcohol/Drug Facilitated Penetration

Other Sexual

Violence

Being Made to Penetrate

Sexual Coercion

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

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.
    204

penetrate someone else (when they put their mouth on your penis) and rape (when they put

their mouth on your anus).

(3) When the perpetrator and respondent were both female or both male, “someone trying to have

vaginal, oral, or anal sex” was classified as a measure of rape, when in fact it could measure both

rape and being made to penetrate someone else (having oral sex includes both being made to

perform oral sex and being made to receive oral sex, and having anal sex includes both being

made to perform anal sex and being made to receive anal sex).

The CDC composites are not mutually exclusive because the composites for completed forced

penetration, completed alcohol or drug involved penetration, and attempted forced penetration include

elements of being made to penetrate someone else.  Similarly, the composite for being made to

penetrate someone else includes elements of completed forced penetration, completed alcohol or drug

involved penetration, and attempted forced penetration.  Additional details are shown in Table 19.1.

Table 19.1.  Sexual Violence Questions and Composites in the CDC Analysis Plan

Questions

Female Respondents Male Respondents

Male

Perpetrators

Female

Perpetrators

Male

Perpetrators

Female

Perpetrators

“Perform oral sex” (SV10 & SV15)       

• Someone put their penis in your

mouth Rape N/A Rape N/A

• Someone made you penetrate

their vagina with your mouth N/A Being madeto penetrate N/A Being madeto penetrate

• Someone made you penetrate

their anus with your mouth Rape1 Being made

to penetrate Rape1 Being madeto penetrate

“Receive oral sex” (SV11 & SV16)      

• Someone put their mouth on your

penis N/A N/A Being madeto penetrate

Being made

to penetrate

• Someone put their mouth on your

vagina Rape Rape N/A N/A

• Someone put their mouth on your

anus Rape Rape Being madeto penetrate2

Being made

to penetrate2

“Try to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex” (SV19)

• Someone tried to have vaginal sex

with you Rape N/A N/A N/A

• Someone tried to have oral sex

with you   Rape Rape3 Rape3 Being made

to penetrate

• Someone tried to have anal sex

with you Rape N/A Rape4 Being made

to penetrate

Notes: 1 – Incorrectly classified as rape; should be classified as being made to penetrate.

2 –   Incorrectly classified as being made to penetrate; should be classified as rape.

3 – Classification is unclear; may include someone making the respondent perform oral sex (being made

to penetrate) and someone making the respondent receive oral sex (rape).

4 –   Classification is unclear; may include someone making the respondent perform anal sex (being made

to penetrate) and someone making the respondent receive anal sex (rape).

N/A –  Not asked or deemed not applicable and not included in any definition.

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.
    205

Under the CDC analysis plan, there are five questions that could be included in multiple measures of

sexual violence (SV10, SV11, SV15, SV16, and SV19).  These five questions are about being made to

perform oral sex by force or threats of physical harm; being made to receive oral sex by force or threats

of physical harm; being made to perform oral sex when alcohol or drug intoxicated and unable to

consent; being made to receive oral sex when alcohol or drug intoxicated and unable to consent; and

someone trying to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you.  These five questions could measure both

rape (completed force penetration, completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration, or attempted

forced penetration) and other sexual violence (being made to penetrate someone else).  The NIJ analysis

plan was developed to avoid these misclassifications.

The NIJ analysis plan also excluded variables that were not related to sexual violence.  The CDC analysis

plan includes one variable (SV4, “being harassed in a public place in a way that makes you feel unsafe”)

as a measure of non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.  However, this question is about general

harassment (not unwanted sexual experiences).  It is therefore excluded from the NIJ analysis plan.   

To summarize, the CDC analysis plan for sexual violence includes the following problems:

(1) The measure for non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences includes SV4 (“How many people

have ever verbally harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel

unsafe?”), but this question is not about unwanted sexual experiences.

(2) The measure for rape includes SV10 and SV15 (performing oral sex).  Performing oral sex

includes someone making you penetrate their anus with your mouth (see note #1 in Figure

19.1).  This should not be included in the measure of rape.  Instead, it should be included in the

measure of being made to penetrate someone else.

(3) The measure for being made to penetrate someone else includes SV11 and SV16 (receiving oral

sex).  Receiving oral sex includes someone putting their mouth on your anus (see note #2 in

Figure 19.1).  This should not be included in the measure of being made to penetrate someone

else.  Instead, it should be included in the measure of rape.

(4) The measure for rape includes SV19 (trying to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex).  In some cases,

trying to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex could include either rape or being made to penetrate

someone else (see notes #3 and #4 in Figure 19.1).  In these cases, SV19 was arbitrarily included

in the measure of rape (but it measures both rape and being made to penetrate someone else).

These differences are important because they bias the estimates of sexual violence.  Estimates of non‐

contract unwanted sexual experiences are biased because they include SV4, but this question is not

about sexual violence.  Estimates of rape are biased because they include SV10, SV15, and SV19 when

these questions sometimes measure being made to penetrate someone else.  They are also biased

because they exclude SV11 and SV16 when these questions sometimes measure rape.  Estimates of

being made to penetrate someone else are biased because they include SV11 and SV16 when these

questions sometimes measure rape.  They are also biased because they exclude SV10, SV15, and SV19

when these questions sometimes measure being made to penetrate someone else.

Regardless of the magnitude of the bias in these estimates, the NIJ plan was developed to avoid these

problems.  As a result, a different categorization was used, as shown in Figure 19.2.  Contrary to the CDC

plan, “being made to penetrate” is not included in other sexual violence.  Under the NIJ analysis plan,

“being made to penetrate” is always included in sexual violence with penetration (because being made

to penetrate includes penetration, and because it is impossible to separate “being made to penetrate”

from the other questions on penetration).  SV15 and SV16 are included in completed forced

penetration, SV19 is included in attempted forced penetration, and SV10 and SV11 are included 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.
    206

completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.  While it would be advantageous to keep “being

made to penetrate” as a separate composite, it is not possible to do so.  Some questions include both

“being made to penetrate” and being penetrated (see Table 19.1).   

Figure 19.2.  Composites for Sexual Violence in NIJ Analysis Plan

Table 19.2.  Behaviors Included in NIJ’s Measure of Completed Forced Penetration

Question / Behavior Female Respondents Male Respondents

SV12 A man or boy put his penis in

your vagina Made to receive vaginal sex (Not included)

A woman or girl made you put

your penis in her vagina (Not included) Made to perform vaginal sex

SV13 Someone made you put your

penis into their anus   (Not included) Made to perform anal sex

SV14 A man or boy put his penis into

your anus   Made to receive anal sex Made to receive anal sex

SV15 A man or boy put his penis in

your mouth   Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone made you penetrate

their vagina with your mouth Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone made you penetrate

their anus with your mouth   Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

SV16 Someone put their mouth on

your penis   (Not included) Made to receive oral sex

Someone put their mouth on

your vagina   Made to receive oral sex (Not included)

Someone put their mouth on

your anus   Made to receive oral sex Made to receive oral sex

SV17 Someone put their fingers or

an object in your vagina   Made to receive vaginal sex (Not included)

Someone put their fingers or

an object in your anus   Made to receive anal sex Made to receive anal sex

The NIJ analysis plan for sexual violence includes sexual violence with penetration and other sexual

violence.  Sexual violence with penetration includes completed forced penetration, completed alcohol

Sexual

Violence

Sexual Violence

with

Penetration

Completed Forced Penetration

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Attempted Forced Penetration

Other Sexual

Violence

Sexual Coercion

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

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.
    207

or drug facilitated penetration, and attempted forced penetration.  Other sexual violence includes

sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contract unwanted sexual experiences.  Details on

the NIJ measure of completed forced penetration are shown in Table 19.2.

Completed forced penetration includes all questions that measure being made to receive or perform

vaginal sex, anal sex, and oral sex. The NIJ plan maintains the behaviorally‐specific nature of the

questions.  It does not try to differentiate between being penetrated and being made to penetrate

(because it is not possible to accurately do so).  Being made to receive vaginal sex is defined for female

respondents only.  It includes instances when a man or a boy put his penis in the respondent’s vagina

(SV12) and instances when someone else (either male or female) to put their fingers or an object in the

respondent’s vagina (SV17).  Being made to receive anal sex includes instances when a man or a boy put

his penis in the respondent’s anus (SV14) and instances when someone else (either male or female) put

their fingers or an object in the respondent’s anus (SV17).  For female respondents, being made to

receive oral sex includes instances when someone else put his or her mouth on the respondent’s vagina

or anus (SV16).  For male respondents, being made to receive oral sex includes instances when someone

else put his or her mouth on the respondent’s penis or anus (SV16).  Being made to perform vaginal sex

and being made to perform anal sex are defined for male respondents only.  Being made to perform

vaginal sex includes instances when the respondent was made to put his penis into someone else’s

vagina (SV12).  Being made perform anal sex includes instances when the respondent was made to put

his penis into someone else’s anus (SV13).  Being made to perform oral sex includes instances when a

man or a boy put his penis in the respondent’s mouth and instances when the respondents were made

to put their mouth on someone else’s vagina or anus (SV15).   

In the NIJ plan, SV15 measures being made to perform oral sex and SV16 measures being made to

receive oral sex (and both are included in the measure of completed forced penetration).  This is

consistent with the behaviorally‐specific survey questions.  The CDC analysis plan excluded SV15 when

the perpetrator was female (because these were considered to be forms of being made to penetrate),

but did not exclude SV15 when the perpetrator was male (because these were considered to be forms

of completed forced penetration).  This is incorrect, because SV15 includes instances when respondents

were made to put their mouth on a male perpetrator’s anus.  These instances should not have been

included in CDC’s measure of completed forced penetration.  The CDC analysis plan excluded SV16 when

the respondent was male (again because these were considered to be forms of being made to

penetrate).  This is also incorrect, because it includes instances when a perpetrator put his or her mouth

on a male respondent’s anus.   These instances should have been included in CDC’s measure of

completed forced penetration, but they were not.  It is not possible to split SV15 or SV16 to differentiate

between being penetrated and being made to penetrate (even when considering different combinations

of respondents and perpetrators by gender).  As a result, the NIJ analysis plan keeps all behaviors within

SV15 together as a measure of being made to perform oral sex and all behaviors within SV16 together as

a measure of being made to receive oral sex.

The NIJ structure for completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration is very similar to the NIJ structure

for completed forced penetration.  A summary of all behaviors and questions included in NIJ’s measure

of completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration is included in Table 19.3.  Completed alcohol or

drug facilitated penetration includes being made to receive vaginal sex, being made to receive anal sex,

being made to receive oral sex, being made to perform vaginal sex, being made to perform anal sex, and

being made to perform oral sex.  Being made to receive vaginal sex is defined for female respondents

only.  It includes instances when a man or a boy put his penis in the respondent’s vagina (SV7).  Being

made to receive anal sex includes instances when a man or a boy put his penis in the respondent’s anus

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.
    208

(SV9).  For female respondents, being made to receive oral sex includes instances when someone else

put his or her mouth on the respondent’s vagina or anus (SV11).  For male respondents, being made to

receive oral sex includes instances when someone else put his or her mouth on the respondent’s penis

or anus (SV11).  Being made to perform vaginal sex and being made to perform anal sex are defined for

male respondents only.  Being made to perform vaginal sex includes instances when the respondent was

made to put his penis into someone else’s vagina (SV7).  Being made perform anal sex includes instances

when the respondent was made to put his penis into someone else’s anus (SV8).  Being made to

perform oral sex includes instances when a man or a boy put his penis in the respondent’s mouth and

instances when the respondents were made to put their mouth on someone else’s vagina or anus

(SV10).  

Table 19.3.  Behaviors Included in NIJ’s Measure of Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

   

Question / Behavior Female Respondents Male Respondents

SV7 A man or boy put his penis

your vagina Made to receive vaginal sex (Not included)

A woman or girl made you put

your penis in her vagina (Not included) Made to perform vaginal sex

SV8 Someone made you put your

penis into their anus   (Not included) Made to perform anal sex

SV9 A man or boy put his penis into

your anus   Made to receive anal sex Made to receive anal sex

SV10 A man or boy put his penis in

your mouth   Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone made you penetrate

their vagina with your mouth Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone made you penetrate

their anus with your mouth   Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

SV11 Someone put their mouth on

your penis   (Not included) Made to receive oral sex

Someone put their mouth on

your vagina   Made to receive oral sex (Not included)

Someone put their mouth on

your anus   Made to receive oral sex Made to receive oral sex

The CDC analysis plan excluded SV10 when the perpetrator was female (because these were considered

to be forms of being made to penetrate), but did not exclude SV10 when the perpetrator was male

(because these were considered to be forms of completed forced penetration).  This is incorrect (as it

was for SV15), because it includes instances when respondents were made to put their mouth on a male

perpetrator’s anus.  These instances should not have been included in CDC’s measure of completed

alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.  The CDC analysis plan excluded SV11 when the respondent was

male (again because these were considered to be forms of being made to penetrate).  This is also

incorrect (as it was for SV16), because it includes instances when a perpetrator put his or her mouth on

a male respondent’s anus.   These instances should have been included in CDC’s measure of completed

alcohol or drug facilitated penetration, but they were not.  It is not possible to split SV10 or SV11 to

differentiate between being penetrated and being made to penetrate (even when considering different

combinations of respondents and perpetrators by gender).  As a result, the NIJ analysis plan keeps all

behaviors within SV10 together as a measure of being made to perform oral sex and all behaviors within

SV11 together as a measure of being made to receive oral sex.  

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.
    209

Finally, the NIJ measure of attempted forced penetration includes the behaviorally‐specific measures of

attempts to make the respondent receive vaginal, anal, and oral sex, as well as the behaviorally‐specific

measures of attempts to make the respondent perform vaginal, anal, and oral sex.  Details are shown in

Table 19.4.  Being made to perform vaginal sex is defined for male respondents only.  It includes

instances when attempts were made to make the respondent put his penis into someone else’s vagina

(SV18).  SV19 includes all other behaviors (within a single question).  For female respondents, SV19

includes being made to receive vaginal sex (when a man or boy tried to put his penis in the respondent’s

vagina), being made to receive anal sex (when a man or a boy tried to put his penis in the respondent’s

anus), being made to receive oral sex (when someone tried to put their mouth on the respondent’s

vagina or anus), and being made to perform oral sex (when a man or a boy tried to put his penis in the

respondent’s mouth, and when someone tried to make the respondent put her mouth on their vagina or

anus).  For male respondents, SV19 includes being made to receive anal sex (when a man or boy tried to

put his penis in the respondent’s anus), being made to receive oral sex (when someone tried to put their

mouth on the respondent’s penis or anus), being made to perform anal sex (when someone tried to

make the respondent put his penis into their anus), and being made to perform oral sex (when a man or

a boy tried to put his penis in the respondent’s mouth, and when someone tried to make the

respondent put his mouth on their vagina or anus).

Table 19.4.  Behaviors Included in NIJ’s Measure of Attempted Forced Penetration

Question / Behavior Female Respondents Male Respondents

SV18 A woman or girl tried to make

you put your penis in her vagina

(Not included) Made to perform vaginal sex

SV19 A man or boy tried to put his

penis in your vagina

Made to receive vaginal sex (Not included)

A man or boy tried to put his

penis in your mouth  

Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone tried to make you

penetrate their vagina with

your mouth

Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone tried to make you

penetrate their anus with your

mouth  

Made to perform oral sex Made to perform oral sex

Someone tried to put their

mouth on your penis  

(Not included) Made to receive oral sex

Someone tried put their mouth

on your vagina  

Made to receive oral sex (Not included)

Someone tried put their mouth

on your anus  

Made to receive oral sex Made to receive oral sex

A man or boy tried to put his

penis into your anus

Made to receive anal sex Made to receive anal sex

Someone tried to make you put

your penis into their anus

(Not included) Made to perform anal sex

The CDC analysis plan excluded SV19 when the respondent was male and the perpetrator was female

(because these were considered to be forms of being made to penetrate).  The CDC plan did not exclude

SV19 when the respondent was female or when the respondent and the perpetrator were both male

(because these were considered to be forms of completed forced penetration).  This is incorrect,

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.
    210

because it includes instances when respondents (both male and female) were made to put their mouth

on a male perpetrator’s anus and instances when a male respondent was made to put his penis into a

male perpetrator’s anus.  These instances should not have been included in CDC’s measure of

completed forced penetration.  It is not possible to split SV19 to differentiate between being penetrated

and being made to penetrate (even when considering different combinations of respondents and

perpetrators by gender).  As a result, the NIJ analysis plan keeps all behaviors within SV19 together.  In

addition, note that the 2010 NISVS survey did not include questions about attempted penetration with

fingers or objects.

To summarize, the NIJ measure of sexual violence with penetration includes completed forced

penetration, completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration, and attempted forced penetration.  

These composites were developed to be mutually exclusive, so that no composite includes elements

that should have been included in another composite.  To achieve this, the NIJ plan focuses on the

behaviorally‐specific nature of the survey questions.  It does not focus on the distinction between being

made to penetrate and being penetrated.  There may be valid concerns about ignoring this important

distinction.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to accurately make this distinction using the 2010 NISVS

data (and the CDC analysis plan was not able to accomplish this either).  It is important to emphasize

that the CDC measures of rape do include some forms of being made to penetrate someone else (and

the CDC measures of being made to penetrate someone else do include some forms of rape).  A

significant limitation with the 2010 NISVS survey is that some questions measure both penetration and

being made to penetrate.  The key difference between the CDC and NIJ plans is that the CDC plan

excludes some (but not all) forms of being made to penetrate from the CDC measure of rape, while the

NIJ plan does not.  The NIJ plan includes all forms of being made to penetrate under sexual violence with

penetration.  It also uses the behaviorally specific questions in NISVS to develop behaviorally specific

composites (this should reduce the misinterpretation of the composites, just as it reduces the

respondents’ misinterpretation of the questions).  For example, rather than using the term “being made

to penetrate,” the NIJ plan specifically identifies what was penetrated.  (Note, however, that it does not

specifically identify what it was penetrated by; i.e., a penis, fingers, or an object).  

There are some additional limitations that are important to emphasize.  For obvious reasons, the NISVS

survey did not ask male respondents if they had been vaginally penetrated.  As a result, it is important to

emphasize that the measures of penetration include different questions for males and females (based

on how respondents identified themselves).  For respondents who identified themselves as being

female, penetration (both by force and by alcohol or drug facilitation) includes penetration of their

vagina or anus.  For respondents who identified themselves as being male, penetration (both by force

and by alcohol or drug facilitation) is limited to penetration of their anus.  In addition, the NISVS survey

did not ask female respondents if they had been made to penetrate someone else.  All questions on

being made to penetrate someone else are about instances when the respondent was made to

penetrate another with his penis (there are no questions about being made to penetrate with fingers or

an object).  Penetration by fingers or an object is only included in the measure of completed forced

penetration.  The NISVS survey did not ask respondents if they had been vaginally or anally penetrated

by fingers or an object when they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.  The

NISVS survey also did not ask how many people had use force or threats of physical harm to try to put

fingers or objects in the respondent’s vagina or anus.  These limitations apply to both the CDC and NIJ

analysis plans.  These are particularly important to consider when comparing results between males and

females or between different types of penetration (because the measures for females and males are

different, as are the measures for completed forced penetration and alcohol or drug facilitated

penetration).

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.
    211

Other sexual violence in the NIJ analysis plan includes sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and

non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences (see Table 19.5).  It does not include being made to

penetrate.  In addition, it does not include SV4 (being harassed in a public place in a way that made the

respondent feel unsafe).  With the exceptions just noted, the other sexual violence measures are

identical to the measures developed by CDC.  (Recall that SV19 was renamed to SV20, SV20 was

renamed to SV21, and SV21 was renamed to SV22; see Chapter 2).

Table 19.5.  Behaviors Included in NIJ’s Measure of Other Sexual Violence

Question / Behavior Composite

SV1 Exposed sexual body parts, flashed

you, or masturbated in front of you?

Non‐contact unwanted

sexual experiences

SV2 Made you show your sexual body parts

to them?

Non‐contact unwanted

sexual experiences

SV3 Made you look at or participate in

sexual photos or movies?

Non‐contact unwanted

sexual experiences

SV5 Kissed you in a sexual way? Unwanted sexual contact

SV6 Fondled or grabbed your sexual body

parts?

Unwanted sexual contact

SV20 Pressured to have sex after being told

lies, false promises, etc.?

Sexual coercion

SV21 Pressured to have sex after being worn

down or showing unhappiness?

Sexual coercion

SV22 Pressured to have sex after using their

influence or authority over you?

Sexual Coercion

The remainder of this section provides additional details on each composite within the NIJ sexual

violence analysis plan.

For females, completed forced penetration is a composite that combines SV12, SV14, SV15, SV16, and

SV17.  For males, completed forced penetration also includes SV13.  Additional details are provided in

Section E.

SV12 Made you have vaginal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV13 Made you perform anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV14 Made you receive anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV15 Made you perform oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV16 Made you receive oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV17 Put their fingers or an object in your vagina or anus? (Using physical force or threats of

physical harm).

For females, additional estimates are provided for being made to receive vaginal or anal sex (SV12,

SV14, and SV17), being made to receive oral sex (SV16), and being made to perform oral sex (SV15).  For

males, additional estimates are provided for being made to receive anal sex (SV14 and SV17), being

made to receive oral sex (SV16), being made to perform vaginal or anal sex (SV12 and SV13), and being

made to perform oral sex (SV15).  Additional details are included in Section E.

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.
    212

For females, completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration is a composite that combines SV7, SV9,

SV10, and SV11.  For males, completed forced penetration also includes SV8.  Additional details are

provided in Section F.

SV7 Had vaginal sex with you? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV8 Made you perform anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV9 Made you receive anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV10 Made you perform oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV11 Made you receive oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

For females, additional estimates are provided for being made to receive vaginal or anal sex (SV7 and

SV9), being made to receive oral sex (SV11), and being made to perform oral sex (SV10).  For males,

additional estimates are provided for being made to receive anal sex (SV9), being made to receive oral

sex (SV11), being made to perform vaginal or anal sex (SV7 and SV8), and being made to perform oral

sex (SV10).  Additional details are included in Section F.

For females, attempted forced penetration includes SV19.  For males, attempted forced penetration

includes both SV18 and SV19.  Additional details are provided in Section G.

SV18 Tried to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen? (Using physical

force or threats of physical harm).

SV19 Tried to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen? (Using physical

force or threats of physical harm).

Sexual violence with penetration is then a second‐order composite that combines completed forced

penetration, completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration, and attempted forced penetration.  

Additional details are included in Section H.

For both males and females, sexual coercion is a composite that combines SV20, SV21, and SV22.  

Additional details are shown in Section I.  (Recall that SV19 was renamed to SV20, SV20 was renamed to

SV21, and SV21 was renamed to SV22; see Chapter 2).

SV20 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by doing things like telling you lies, making

promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship,

or threatening to spread rumors about you?

SV21 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by wearing you down by repeatedly asking

for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

SV22 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by using their influence or authority over

you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

Unwanted sexual contact is a composite that combines SV5 and SV6.  Additional details are shown in

Section J.

SV5 Kissed you in a sexual way?

SV6 Fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?

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.
    213

Non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences is a composite that combines SV1, SV2, and SV3.  Additional

details are shown in Section K.

SV1 Exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

SV2 Made you show your sexual body parts to them?

SV3 Made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

Other sexual violence is then a second‐order composite that combines sexual coercion, unwanted sexual

contact, and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.  Additional details are shown in Section L.

Finally, sexual violence is a composite that combines sexual violence with penetration and other sexual

violence.  Additional details are shown in Section M.

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CDC AND NIJ ANALYSIS PLANS FOR STALKING

The CDC analysis plan for stalking victimization included one first‐order composite (stalking).  It was

created from the variables in the stalking (ST) section (ST1 through ST7):

ST1 Made unwanted phone calls to you or left you messages?  

ST2 Sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like

MySpace or Facebook?

ST3 Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?

ST4 Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera,

or GPS?

ST5 Approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when

you didn’t want them to be there?

ST6 Left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?

ST7 Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had

been there?

The NIJ analysis plan uses the same seven stalking behaviors (ST1 to ST7).  Both the NIJ and CDC analysis

plans requires that respondents experience (a) two different types of stalking behaviors by the same

perpetrator or (b) the same stalking behavior by the same perpetrator multiple times.   

Contrary to the CDC analysis plan, the NIJ stalking measure does not require respondents to feel very

fearful or to believe that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.   Instead, the NIJ

stalking measure requires respondents to report that (a) they felt fear (any level of fear, from a little

fearful to very fearful), (b) the perpetrator damaged their personal property or belongings, such as in

their home or car, (c) the perpetrator made threats to physically harm them, or (d) they believed that

they or someone close to them would be seriously harmed or killed.  More specifically, fear is measured

by four follow‐up variables:

STFU5 Were you ever fearful?

STFU7 Ever had damage to your personal property or belongings, such as in your home or car?

STFU8 Ever had threats of physical harm?

STFU9 Ever believed you or someone close to you would be seriously harmed or killed?

Under any of these conditions, a reasonable person would be afraid and the perpetrator’s course of

conduct would meet the definition of stalking.  Because stalking is measured at the perpetrator‐level,

the measure of stalking is developed from the perpetrator‐level data set (“FULL ST PERP.SAV”).  

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.
    214

Additional details are provided in Section N.  The following diagram illustrates the NIJ coding plan for

lifetime and past year stalking (and how it accounts for missing data, see additional details in Section D

below).   

Figure 19.3.  NIJ Analysis Plan for Stalking

   

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.
    215

C. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CDC AND NIJ ANALYSIS PLANS FOR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

The CDC analysis plan for violence by an intimate partner includes six first‐order composites (being

slapped, pushed, or shoved; severe physical violence; expressive aggression; coercive control; stalking;

and control of reproductive or sexual health), four second‐order composites (rape, other sexual

violence, physical violence, and psychological aggression), one third‐order composite (sexual violence),

and one fourth‐order composite (violence by an intimate partner; see Figure 19.3).   

Figure 19.4.  Intimate Partner Violence Composites in CDC Analysis Plan

Note: the composites for rape and other sexual violence are described further in Figure 19.1.

Sexual violence includes rape and other sexual violence (as defined in Figure 19.1); physical violence

includes being slapped, pushed, or shoved and severe physical violence; and psychological aggression

includes expressive aggression and coercive control.  Measures of physical violence (slapped, pushed or

shoved and severe physical violence), control of reproductive or sexual health, and psychological

aggression (expressive aggression and coercive control) are limited to intimate partners (current or

former romantic or sexual partners).  For these measures, respondents were asked about the behaviors

that they experienced from romantic or sexual partners.  Measures of sexual violence and stalking are

not limited to intimate partners.  In these sections, respondents were asked about the behaviors that

they experienced from anyone.  To measure whether sexual violence and stalking were committed by

intimate partners, respondents were asked about their relationship to the perpetrator the first time

s/he committed any of the behaviors in the psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment,

physical violence, stalking, or sexual violence sections.  If perpetrators were not intimate partners the

first time they did any of these behaviors, they are not counted as intimate partners (even if they

subsequently became intimate partners prior to sexually assaulting or stalking the respondent).  

Because it is impossible to determine with certainty whether stalking and sexual violence were

committed by current or former intimate partners, these measures are not included in the NIJ measure

of intimate partner violence.   

Instead, the NIJ measure of intimate partner violence focuses on physical violence.  Physical violence

includes being slapped, pushed or shoved and severe physical violence.  Aside from differences in data

cleaning and analysis, these composites are the same in the NIJ analysis plan as they are in the CDC

Violence by an

Intimate

Partner

Physical

Violence

Slapped, Pushed

or Shoved

Severe Physical

Violence

Stalking Sexual Violence

Rape Other Sexual

Violence

Control of

Reproductive /

Sexual Health

Psychological

Aggression

Expressive

Aggression Coercive Control

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.
    216

analysis plan.  More specifically, being slapped, pushed or shoved is a composite that combines PV2 and

PV3 (additional details are shown in Section O):

PV2 Slapped you?

PV3 Pushed or shoved you?

Severe physical violence is a composite that combines PV4, PV5, PV6, PV7, PV9, PV10, PV11, and PV12

(additional details are available in Section P):

PV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

PV5 Kicked you?

PV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

PV7 Slammed you against something?

PV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

PV10 Beaten you?

PV11 Burned you on purpose?

PV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

Physical violence is a second‐order composite that combines being slapped, pushed or shoved and

severe physical violence.  Additional details are shown in Section Q.

The remaining measures that are included in the CDC measure of intimate partner violence are not

included in the NIJ measure of intimate partner violence.  Instead, these are included as separate

measures.  Aside from differences in data cleaning and analysis, these composites are the same in the

NIJ analysis plan as they are in the CDC analysis plan.   

Expressive aggression is a composite that combines PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4, and PA5 (additional details are

available in Section R):

PA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

PA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

PA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

PA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

PA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

Coercive control is a composite that combines CCE1, CCE2, CCE3, CCE4, CCE5, CCE6, CCE7, CCE8, CCE9,

CCE10, CCE11, CCE12, and PV1 (additional details are available in Section S):

CCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

CCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

CCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

CCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?

CCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

CCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

CCE7 Hurt someone you love?

CCE8 Threatened to take your children away from you?

CCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

CCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

CCE11 Destroyed something that was important to you?

CCE12 Said things like “If I can’t have you, then no one can”?

PV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

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.
    217

Psychological aggression is then a composite that combines expressive aggression and coercive control.  

Additional details are available in Section T.  (Note: in Chapter 26, the control of reproductive or sexual

health is added as a third component of psychological aggression).

Control of reproductive or sexual health is a composite that combines CCE13 and CCE14 (additional

details are available in Section U:

CCE13 Tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become pregnant or tried to stop you

from using birth control? / Tried to get pregnant when you did not want them to get

pregnant or tried to stop you from using birth control?

CCE14 Refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?

D. KEY DIFFERENCE IN DATA ANALYSIS

All of the NIJ analyses are different because of differences in data cleaning and data analysis.  NIJ’s data

cleaning is thoroughly documented in previous chapters.  Data analysis is documented in this chapter.  

The primary difference in data analysis is that CDC’s analysis recoded all missing data in the lifetime and

past year variables to zero.  As a result, the CDC estimates can be interpreted as the proportion of

respondents who disclosed being victimized, versus (1) disclosing not being victimized or (2) disclosing

nothing (e.g., refusing to answer the question or not knowing the answer to the question).  This

interpretation is not consistent with how survey estimates are generally or commonly interpreted.  (It

also appears to be inconsistent with the interpretations found in the 2010 Summary Report).  Instead,

the estimates will generally be (and have been) interpreted as the proportion of respondents disclosing

being victimized versus disclosing not being victimized.  This interpretation requires an analysis plan that

does not recode missing data to zero.  When the interpretation is about the proportion of respondents

disclosing being victimized versus disclosing not being victimized, recoding missing data to zero

produces bias because this strategy assumes that respondents disclosing nothing would have all

disclosed not being victimized.   

This distinction becomes particularly salient when interpreting the estimated number of victims.  For

example, estimates from the 2010 general population sample show that “1.3 million women were raped

during the year preceding the survey” (CDC Fact Sheet).  A better interpretation is that if all women in

the United States had been surveyed, 1.3 million would have disclosed at least one rape in the past year

and the remainder would have either disclosed not being raped in the past year or would have disclosed

nothing (either because they were not asked this question, did not know the answer to this question, or

refused to answer this question).   

Although the SV weights provide some control for unit nonresponse, they do not control for item

nonresponse.  The amount of bias that occurs from item nonresponse is a function of the item

nonresponse rate and the difference in means between respondents and non‐respondents.  The amount

of bias will also be impacted by the weight of the observations with item nonresponse (this bias can be

substantial given the distribution of weights in the NISVS data).  Ideally, NIJ would have controlled for

item nonresponse by re‐weighting the data, to account for both unit and item nonresponse.  

Unfortunately, too little documentation was provided (particularly on the details of the sampling

frames) to compute new sampling weights.  As explained in the sampling and weighting chapter, there is

insufficient documentation to verify (or adjust) the weights.

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.
    218

The general procedure used by NIJ was to code a composite as zero when all of its indicators were zero,

as one when at least one of its indicators was more than zero (regardless of missing data), and as

missing when at least one of its indicators was missing and none were greater than zero.  The example

in Table 19.6 describes this process for the composite of lifetime non‐contact unwanted sexual

experiences.

Table 19.6.  Differences in Coding Plans

SV1 SV2 SV3 CDC Composite NIJ Composite

0 0 0 No No

0 Missing 0 No Missing

0 0 Missing No Missing

0 Missing Missing No Missing

0 1 to 15 0 Yes Yes

0 0 1 to 15 Yes Yes

0 1 to 15 1 to 15 Yes Yes

0 Missing 1 to 15 Yes Yes

0 1 to 15 Missing Yes Yes

1 to 15 0 0 Yes Yes

1 to 15 Missing 0 Yes Yes

1 to 15 0 Missing Yes Yes

1 to 15 Missing Missing Yes Yes

1 to 15 1 to 15 0 Yes Yes

1 to 15 0 1 to 15 Yes Yes

1 to 15 1 to 15 1 to 15 Yes Yes

1 to 15 Missing 1 to 15 Yes Yes

1 to 15 1 to 15 Missing Yes Yes

Missing 0 0 No Missing

Missing Missing 0 No Missing

Missing 0 Missing No Missing

Missing Missing Missing No Missing

Missing 1 to 15 0 Yes Yes

Missing 0 1 to 15 Yes Yes

Missing 1 to 15 1 to 15 Yes Yes

Missing Missing 1 to 15 Yes Yes

Missing 1 to 15 Missing Yes Yes

Rather than assuming that non‐respondents were not victimized, the NIJ plan assumes that the non‐

respondents were victimized at the same (weighted) rate as the respondents.  In other words, rather

than assuming that non‐respondents were non‐victims, we assumed that non‐respondents represented

the average (weighted) respondent.  It is important to note that this is an untested assumption (but it is

better than making the untested assumption that non‐respondents were not victimized).   

All NIJ estimates in this chapter were produced in SAS 9.3 (SAS/STAT 12.1), using the SURVEYMEANS

procedure, with the following specifications:

PROCSURVEYMEANS DATA=***; DOMAIN ***; VAR ***; WEIGHT ***; RUN;

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.
    219

Estimates were calculated on the sample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.  

The WTGENSV weights were therefore used to produce weighted estimates.

It is important to note that while these commands produce the weighted estimates included in this

chapter, variance estimates are incorrect and are not included in this chapter.  (Correct variance

estimates are not calculated until Chapter 26).   

All data files and syntax files to create and analyze the NIJ core measures of victimization are in the

“CORE ANALYSIS” folder:

“CORE COMPOSITES.SPS” is a syntax file that creates each composite.  Results are saved in “CORE WITH

COMPOSITES.SAV”.  The “CORE COMPOSITES.SPS” syntax file also adds the sampling weights for the

general population sample and the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample.  Results are

saved in “CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” (21,378 observations and 473 variables) and in

“COREWITHWEIGHTS.POR” (21,378 observations and 160 variables).  The “WEIGHTED MEANS” syntax

file produces all statistics for Tables 19.7 to 19.28 in this Chapter (results are saved in “CORE

ESTIMATES.pdf”).  The stalking composites are created and analyzed separately.  The stalking

composites are created in the “STALKING COMPOSITES.SPS” syntax file.  Results are saved in “STALKING

CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” (21,378 observations and 58 variables) and in “STALKINGCORE.POR” (21,378

observations and 15 variables).  The “STALKING WEIGHTED MEANS” syntax file produces all statistics for

the stalking estimates (Tables 19.18 and 19.19).  Results are saved in “STALKING ESTIMATES.pdf”.

E. COMPLETED FORCED PENETRATION

The composite for completed forced penetration includes both lifetime (CFP_99) and past year (CFP_12)

measures.  The composite is based on five SV variables for females (SV12, SV14, SV15, SV16, and SV17)

and six SV variables for males (SV12, SV13, SV14, SV15, SV16, and SV17).   

SV12 Made you have vaginal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV13 Made you perform anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV14 Made you receive anal sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV15 Made you perform oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

SV16 Made you receive oral sex? (Using physical force or threats of physical harm).

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.
    220

SV17 Put their fingers or an object in your vagina or anus? (Using physical force or threats of

physical harm).

CFP_99 LIFETIME COMPLETED FORCED PENETRATION  

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV12=0 and SV13=0 and SV14=0 and SV15=0 and

SV16=0 and SV17=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12=0 and SV14=0 and

SV15=0 and SV16=0 and SV17=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV12>0 or SV13>0 or SV14>0 or SV15>0 or SV16>0

or SV17>0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12>0 or SV14>0 or SV15>0 or

SV16>0 or SV17>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV12=‐9 or SV13=‐9 or SV14=‐9 or SV15=‐9 or

SV16=‐9 or SV17=‐9) and not (SV12>0 or SV13>0 or SV14>0 or

SV15>0 or SV16>0 or SV17>0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12=‐9 or SV14=‐9

or SV15=‐9 or SV16=‐9 or SV17=‐9) and not (SV12>0 or SV14>0 or

SV15>0 or SV16>0 or SV17>0))

CFP_12 PAST YEAR COMPLETED FORCED PENETRATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=0 and SV13F=0 and SV14F=0 and SV15F=0

and SV16F=0 and SV17F=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=0 and SV14F=0

and SV15F=0 and SV16F=0 and SV17F=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=1 or SV13F=1 or SV14F=1 or SV15F=1 or

SV16F=1 or SV17F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=1 or SV14F=1 or

SV15F=1 or SV16F=1 or SV17F=1))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=‐9 or SV13F=‐9 or SV14F=‐9 or SV15F=‐9 or

SV16F=‐9 or SV17F=‐9) and not (SV12F=1 or SV13F=1 or SV14F=1 or

SV15F=1 or SV16F=1 or SV17F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=‐9 or

SV14F=‐9 or SV15F=‐9 or SV16F=‐9 or SV17F=‐9) and not (SV12F=1

or SV14F=1 or SV15F=1 or SV16F=1 or SV17F=1))

Table 19.7.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Completed Forced Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 12.3% 12.7% 0.9% 1.9%

Past Year Estimate 0.5% 0.5% NR 0.2%

Completed Forced Women Men

Penetration

Note: NR, not reported (relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20).

The previous table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the completed forced penetration composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and

women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample

of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.  There are differences between the NIJ

estimates and the CDC estimates.  As previously explained, the NIJ estimates include SV15 and SV16.  

The CDC estimates include SV15 when the perpetrator is male, but exclude SV15 when the perpetrator

is female (this impacts the estimates for both men and women).  The CDC estimates include SV16 when

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.
    221

the respondent is female, but exclude SV16 when the respondent is male (this impacts the estimates for

men).  In addition, there are differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

The NIJ analyses provide additional details on completed forced penetration by examining four

additional (sub)composites – being made to receive vaginal or anal sex, being made to receive oral sex,

being made to perform vaginal or anal sex (for males only), and being made to perform oral sex.  For

females, being made to receive vaginal or anal sex is measured by SV12, SV14, and SV17.  For males, it is

measured by SV14 and SV17.  For both males and females, being made to receive oral sex is measured

by SV16 and being made to perform oral sex is measured by SV15.  For males, being made to perform

vaginal or anal sex is measured by SV12 and SV13.

RVAF_99 LIFETIME MADE TO RECEIVE VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV14=0 and SV17=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12=0 and

SV14=0 and SV17=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV14>0 or SV17>0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12>0 or

SV14>0 or SV17>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV14=‐9 or SV17=‐9) and not (SV14>0 or SV17>0)) or

(RSEX=2 and (SV12=‐9 or SV14=‐9 or SV17=‐9) and not (SV12>0 or

SV14>0 or SV17>0))

RVAF_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO RECEIVE VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV14F=0 and SV17F=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=0

and SV14F=0 and SV17F=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV14F=1 or SV17F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=1 or

SV14F=1 or SV17F=1))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV14F=‐9 or SV17F=‐9) and not (SV14F=1 or

SV17F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV12F=‐9 or SV14F=‐9 or SV17F=‐9) and

not (SV12F=1 or SV14F=1 or SV17F=1))

ROF_99 LIFETIME MADE TO RECEIVE ORAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If SV16=0

1 Yes If SV16>0

‐9   Unknown If SV16=‐9

ROF_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO RECEIVE ORAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If SV16F=0

1 Yes If SV16F=1

‐9   Unknown If SV16F=‐9

PVAF_99 LIFETIME MADE TO PERFORM VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV12=0 and SV13=0))  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV12>0 or SV13>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV12=‐9 or SV13=‐9) and not (SV12>0 or SV13>0))

‐99 N/A If RSEX=2

PVAF_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO PERFORM VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=0 and SV13F=0))  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=1 or SV13F=1))

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.
    222

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV12F=‐9 or SV13F=‐9) and not (SV12F=1 or

SV13F=1))

‐99 N/A If RSEX=2

POF_99 LIFETIME MADE TO PERFORM ORAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If SV15=0

1 Yes If SV15>0

‐9   Unknown If SV15=‐9

POF_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO PERFORM ORAL SEX BY FORCE

0 No If SV15F=0

1 Yes If SV15F=1

‐9   Unknown If SV15F=‐9

Table 19.8.  NIJ Weighted Estimates of Completed Forced Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

Women Men

Lifetime Estimate 12.7% 1.9%

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 12.1% 0.7%

Made to receive oral sex 2.4% 0.5%

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex N/A 1.1%

Made to perform oral sex 3.4% 0.6%

Past Year Estimate 0.5% 0.2%

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 0.5% 0.0%

Made to receive oral sex 0.1% 0.1%

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex N/A 0.1%

Made to perform oral sex 0.0% 0.0%

Completed Forced Penetration

Note: N/A, not applicable.

F. COMPLETED ALCOHOL OR DRUG FACILITATED PENETRATION

The composite for completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration includes both lifetime (CADFP_99)

and past year (CADFP_12) measures.  The composite is based on four SV variables for females (SV7, SV9,

SV10, and SV11) and five SV variables for males (SV7, SV8, SV9, SV10, and SV11).   

SV7 Had vaginal sex with you? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV8 Made you perform anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV9 Made you receive anal sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

SV10 Made you perform oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

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.
    223

SV11 Made you receive oral sex? (When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and

unable to consent)

CADFP_99 LIFETIME COMPLETED ALCOHOL OR DRUG FACILITATED PENETRATION  

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV7=0 and SV8=0 and SV9=0 and SV10=0 and

SV11=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7=0 and SV9=0 and SV10=0 and

SV11=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV7>0 or SV8>0 or SV9>0 or SV10>0 or SV11>0)) or

(RSEX=2 and (SV7>0 or SV9>0 or SV10>0 or SV11>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV7=‐9 or SV8=‐9 or SV9=‐9 or SV10=‐9 or SV11=‐9)

and not (SV7>0 or SV8>0 or SV9>0 or SV10>0 or SV11>0)) or

(RSEX=2 and (SV7=‐9 or SV9=‐9 or SV10=‐9 or SV11=‐9) and not

(SV7>0 or SV9>0 or SV10>0 or SV11>0))

CADFP_12 PAST YEAR COMPLETED ALCOHOL OR DRUG FACILITATED PENETRATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=0 and SV8F=0 and SV9F=0 and SV10F=0 and

SV11F=0)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=0 and SV9F=0 and SV10F=0 and

SV11F=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=1 or SV8F=1 or SV9F=1 or SV10F=1 or

SV11F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=1 or SV9F=1 or SV10F=1 or

SV11F=1))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=‐9 or SV8F=‐9 or SV9F=‐9 or SV10F=‐9 or

SV11F=‐9) and not (SV7F=1 or SV8F=1 or SV9F=1 or SV10F=1 or

SV11F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=‐9 or SV9F=‐9 or SV10F=‐9 or

SV11F=‐9) and not (SV7F=1 or SV9F=1 or SV10F=1 or SV11F=1))

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration composite.  Estimates are provided for

both men and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from

the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.9.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 8.0% 8.2% 0.6% 4.3%

Past Year Estimate 0.7% 0.7% NR 1.0%

Completed Alcohol/Drug Women Men

Facilitated Penetration

Note: NR, not reported (relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20).

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates.  As previously explained, the

NIJ estimates include SV10 and SV11.  The CDC estimates include SV10 when the perpetrator is male,

but exclude SV10 when the perpetrator is female (this impacts the estimates for both men and women).  

The CDC estimates include SV11 when the respondent is female, but exclude SV11 when the respondent

is male (this impacts the estimates for men).  In addition, there are differences in both data cleaning and

analysis.   

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.
    224

The NIJ analyses provide additional details on completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration by

examining four additional (sub)composites – being made to receive vaginal or anal sex, being made to

receive oral sex, being made to perform vaginal or anal sex (for males only), and being made to perform

oral sex.  For females, being made to receive vaginal or anal sex is measured by SV7 and SV9.  For males,

it is measured by SV9 only.  For both males and females, being made to receive oral sex is measured by

SV11 and being made to perform oral sex is measured by SV10.  For males, being made to perform

vaginal or anal sex is measured by SV7 and SV8.

RVAI_99 LIFETIME MADE TO RECEIVE VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and SV9=0) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7=0 and SV9=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and SV9>0) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7>0 or SV9>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and SV9=‐9) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7=‐9 or SV9=‐9) and not

(SV7>0 or SV9>0))

RVAI_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO RECEIVE VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and SV9F=0) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=0 and SV9F=0))

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and SV9F=1) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=1 or SV9F=1))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and SV9F=‐9) or (RSEX=2 and (SV7F=‐9 or SV9F=‐9) and

not (SV7F=1 or SV9F=1))

ROI_99 LIFETIME MADE TO RECEIVE ORAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If SV11=0

1 Yes If SV11>0

‐9   Unknown If SV11=‐9

ROI_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO RECEIVE ORAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If SV11F=0

1 Yes If SV11F=1

‐9   Unknown If SV11F=‐9

POI_99 LIFETIME MADE TO PERFORM ORAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If SV10=0

1 Yes If SV10>0

‐9   Unknown If SV10=‐9

POI_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO PERFORM ORAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If SV10F=0

1 Yes If SV10F=1

‐9   Unknown If SV10F=‐9

PVAI_99 LIFETIME MADE TO PERFORM VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV7=0 and SV8=0))  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV7>0 or SV8>0))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV7=‐9 or SV8=‐9) and not (SV7>0 or SV8>0))

‐99 N/A If RSEX=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.
    225

PVAI_12 PAST YEAR MADE TO PERFORM VAGINAL OR ANAL SEX BY INTOXICATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=0 and SV8F=0))  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=1 or SV8F=1))

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV7F=‐9 or SV8F=‐9) and not (SV7F=1 or SV8F=1))

‐99 N/A If RSEX=2

Table 19.10.  NIJ Weighted Estimates of Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

Women Men

Lifetime Estimate 8.2% 4.3%

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 7.4% 0.6%

Made to receive oral sex 1.9% 2.0%

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex N/A 2.3%

Made to perform oral sex 1.8% 0.8%

Past Year Estimate 0.7% 1.0%

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 0.5% 0.0%

Made to receive oral sex 0.2% 0.7%

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex N/A 0.4%

Made to perform oral sex 0.1% 0.1%

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Note: N/A, not applicable.

G. ATTEMPTED FORCED PENETRATION

The composite for attempted forced penetration includes both lifetime (AFP_99) and past year (AFP_12)

measures.  The composite is based on one SV variable for females (SV19) and two SV variables for males

(S18 and SV19).   

SV18 Tried to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen? (Using physical

force or threats of physical harm).

SV19 Tried to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen? (Using physical

force or threats of physical harm).

AFP_99 LIFETIME ATTEMPTED FORCED PENETRATION  

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV18=0 and SV19=0)) or (RSEX=2 and SV19=0)  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV18>0 or SV19>0)) or (RSEX=2 and SV19>0)  

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV18=‐9 or SV19=‐9) and not (SV18>0 or SV19>0)) or

if (RSEX=2 and SV19=‐9)

AFP_12 PAST YEAR ATTEMPTED FORCED PENETRATION

0 No If (RSEX=1 and (SV18F=0 and SV19F=0)) or (RSEX=2 and SV19F=0)  

1 Yes If (RSEX=1 and (SV18F=1 or SV19F=1)) or (RSEX=2 and SV19F=1)  

‐9   Unknown If (RSEX=1 and (SV18F=‐9 or SV19F=‐9) and not (SV18F=1 or

SV19F=1)) or if (RSEX=2 and SV19F=‐9)

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    226

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the attempted forced penetration composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and

women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample

of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.11.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Attempted Forced Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 5.2% 5.4% 0.4% 1.6%

Past Year Estimate 0.4% 0.4% NR 0.2%

Attempted Forced Women Men

Penetration

Note: NR, not reported (relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20).

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates.  As previously explained, the

NIJ estimates include SV19.  The CDC estimates include SV19 when the respondent is female.  They also

include SV19 when the respondent and the perpetrator are both male, but exclude SV19 when the

respondent is male and the perpetrator is female.  This impacts the estimates for men.  In addition,

there are differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

H. SEXUAL VIOLENCE WITH PENETRATION

The composite for sexual violence with penetration includes both lifetime (SVP_99) and past year

(SVP_12) measures.  The lifetime composite combines the lifetime composites on completed forced

penetration (CFP_99), attempted forced penetration (AFP_99), and completed alcohol or drug facilitated

penetration (CADFP_99).  Similarly, the past year composite combines the past year composites on

completed forced penetration (CFP_12), attempted forced penetration (AFP_12), and completed alcohol

or drug facilitated penetration (CADFP_12).   

SVP_99 LIFETIME SEXUAL VIOLENCE WITH PENETRATION  

0 No If CFP_99=0 and AFP_99=0 and CADFP_99=0

1 Yes If CFP_99=1 or AFP_99=1 or CADFP_99=1

‐9   Unknown If (CFP_99=‐9 or AFP_99=‐9 or CADFP_99=‐9) and not (CFP_99=1 or

AFP_99=1 or CADFP_99=1)

SVP_12 PAST YEAR SEXUAL VIOLENCE WITH PENETRATION  

0 No If CFP_12=0 and AFP_12=0 and CADFP_12=0

1 Yes If CFP_12=1 or AFP_12=1 or CADFP_12=1

‐9   Unknown If (CFP_12=‐9 or AFP_12=‐9 or CADFP_12=‐9) and not (CFP_12=1 or

AFP_12=1 or CADFP_12=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the sexual violence with penetration composite (and the composites for completed forced

penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration

previously reported in the tables above).  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include

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.
    227

both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who

completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.12.  Weighted Estimates of CDC’s Rape and NIJ’s Sexual Violence with Penetration:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 18.3% 19.0% 1.4% 6.1%

Completed forced penetration 12.3% 12.7% 0.9% 1.9%

Attempted forced penetration 5.2% 5.4% 0.4% 1.6%

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration 8.0% 8.2% 0.6% 4.3%

Past Year Estimate 1.1% 1.1% NR 1.2%

Completed forced penetration 0.5% 0.5% NR 0.2%

Attempted forced penetration 0.4% 0.4% NR 0.2%

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration 0.7% 0.7% NR 1.0%

Women Men

Rape / Sexual Violence with Penetration

Note: NR, not reported (relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20).

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates because the NIJ estimates

always include SV10, SV11, SV15, SV16, and SV19 (whereas the CDC estimates exclude SV10 and SV15

when the perpetrator is female, exclude SV11 and SV16 when the respondent is male, and exclude SV19

when the respondent is male and the perpetrator is female).  In addition, there are differences in both

data cleaning and analysis.   

I. SEXUAL COERCION

The composite for sexual coercion includes both lifetime (SC_99) and past year (SC_12) measures.  The

composite is based on three SV variables (SV20, SV21, and SV22):

SV20 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by doing things like telling you lies, making

promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship,

or threatening to spread rumors about you?

SV21 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by wearing you down by repeatedly asking

for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

SV22 Pressured you to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex by using their influence or authority over

you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

Recall that SV19 was renamed to SV20, SV20 was renamed to SV21, and SV21 was renamed to SV22 (see

Chapter 2).

SC_99 LIFETIME SEXUAL COERCION  

0 No If SV20=0 and SV21=0 and SV22=0  

1 Yes If SV20>0 or SV21>0 or SV22>0

‐9   Unknown If (SV20=‐9 or SV21=‐9 or SV22=‐9) and not (SV20>0 or SV21>0 or

SV22>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.
    228

SC_12 PAST YEAR SEXUAL COERCION

0 No If SV20F=0 and SV21F=0 and SV22F=0

1 Yes If SV20F=1 or SV21F=1 or SV22F=1

‐9   Unknown If (SV20F=‐9 or SV21F=‐9 or SV22F=‐9) and not (SV20F=1 or SV21F=1

or SV22F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of sexual coercion.  Estimates are provided for both men and

women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample

of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.13.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Sexual Coercion:

2010 General Population Sample   

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

13.0% 13.1% 6.0% 6.1%

2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5%

Men

Past Year Estimate

Women

Lifetime Estimate

Sexual Coercion

There are some very minor differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are

likely due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

J. UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT

The composite for unwanted sexual contact includes both lifetime (USC_99) and past year (USC_12)

measures.  The composite is based on two SV variables (SV5 and SV6):

SV5 Kissed you in a sexual way?

SV6 Fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?

USC_99 LIFETIME UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT  

0 No If SV5=0 and SV6=0  

1 Yes If SV5>0 or SV6>0

‐9   Unknown If (SV5=‐9 or SV6=‐9) and not (SV5>0 or SV6>0)

USC_12 PAST YEAR UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT

0 No If SV5F=0 and SV6F=0

1 Yes If SV5F=1 or SV6F=1

‐9   Unknown If (SV5F=‐9 or SV6F=‐9) and not (SV5F=1 or SV6F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of unwanted sexual contact.  Estimates are provided for both men

and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the

subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.     

   

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.
    229

Table 19.14.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Unwanted Sexual Contact:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

27.2% 27.6% 11.7% 11.8%

2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%

Men

Past Year Estimate

Women

Lifetime Estimate

Unwanted Sexual Contact

There are again some very minor differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and

these are likely due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.

K. NON‐CONTACT UNWANTED SEXUAL EXPERIENCES

The composite for non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences includes both lifetime (NCUSE_99) and

past year (NCUSE_12) measures.  The composite is based on three SV variables (SV1, SV2, and SV3):

SV1 Exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

SV2 Made you show your sexual body parts to them?

SV3 Made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

Contrary to the CDC analyses, the NIJ analyses did not include SV4 (i.e., harassed you while you were in a

public place in a way that made you feel unsafe).  This question is about general harassment (not

unwanted sexual experiences).  It was therefore excluded from the NIJ analyses.   

NCUSE_99 LIFETIME NON‐CONTACT UNWANTED SEXUAL EXPERIENCES  

0 No If SV1=0 and SV2=0 and SV3=0  

1 Yes If SV1>0 or SV2>0 or SV3>0

‐9   Unknown If (SV1=‐9 or SV2=‐9 or SV3=‐9) and not (SV1>0 or SV2>0 or SV3>0)

NCUSE_12 PAST YEAR NON‐CONTACT UNWANTED SEXUAL EXPERIENCES

0 No If SV1F=0 and SV2F=0 and SV3F=0

1 Yes If SV1F=1 or SV2F=1 or SV3F=1

‐9   Unknown If (SV1F=‐9 or SV2F=‐9 or SV3F=‐9) and not (SV1F=1 or SV2F=1 or

SV3F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.  Estimates are

provided for both men and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were

produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

   

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.
    230

Table 19.15.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

33.7% 28.6% 12.8% 9.8%

3.0% 1.6% 2.7% 1.9%

Men

Past Year Estimate

Women

Lifetime Estimate

Non‐Contact Unwanted

Sexual Experiences

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates because the NIJ estimates

exclude SV4.  In addition, there are differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

L. OTHER SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The composite for other sexual violence includes both lifetime (OSV_99) and past year (OSV_12)

measures.  The lifetime composite combines the lifetime composites on sexual coercion (SC_99),

unwanted sexual contact (USC_99), and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences (NCUSE_99).  

Similarly, the past year composite combines the past year composites on sexual coercion (SC_12),

unwanted sexual contact (USC_12), and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences (NCUSE_12).

OSV_99 LIFETIME OTHER SEXUAL VIOLENCE  

0 No If SC_99=0 and USC_99=0 and NCUSE_99=0

1 Yes If SC_99=1 or USC_99=1 or NCUSE_99=1

‐9   Unknown If (SC_99=‐9 or USC_99=‐9 or NCUSE_99=‐9) and not (SC_99=1 or

USC_99=1 or NCUSE_99=1)

OSV_12 PAST YEAR OTHER SEXUAL VIOLENCE  

0 No If SC_12=0 and USC_12=0 and NCUSE_12=0

1 Yes If SC_12=1 or USC_12=1 or NCUSE_12=1

‐9   Unknown If (SC_12=‐9 or USC_12=‐9 or NCUSE_12=‐9) and not (SC_12=1 or

USC_12=1 or NCUSE_12=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the other sexual violence composite (and the composites for sexual coercion, unwanted

sexual contact, and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences previously reported in the tables above).  

Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All

estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence

section.

   

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.
    231

Table 19.16.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Other Sexual Violence:  

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 44.6% 42.5% 22.2% 19.5%

Sexual coercion 13.0% 13.1% 6.0% 6.1%

Unwanted sexual contact 27.2% 27.6% 11.7% 11.8%

Non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences 33.7% 28.6% 12.8% 9.8%

Past Year Estimate 5.6% 4.8% 5.3% 4.4%

Sexual coercion 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5%

Unwanted sexual contact 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%

Non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences 3.0% 1.6% 2.7% 1.9%

Women Men

Other Sexual Violence

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates.  The NIJ estimates for other

sexual violence do not include estimates for “being made to penetrate” (see details in previous

sections).  More specifically, SV10, SV11, SV15, SV16, and SV19 are never included in the measures of

other sexual violence.  In addition, SV4 is not included in the measure of non‐contact unwanted sexual

experiences.  Finally, there are differences in both data cleaning and analysis.

M. SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The composite for sexual violence includes both lifetime (SV_99) and past year (SV_12) measures.  The

lifetime composite combines the lifetime composites on sexual violence with penetration (SVP_99) and

other sexual violence (OSV_99).  Similarly, the past year composite combines the past year composites

on sexual violence with penetration (SVP_12) and other sexual violence (OSV_12).

SV_99 LIFETIME SEXUAL VIOLENCE  

0 No If SVP_99=0 and OSV_99=0  

1 Yes If SVP_99=1 or OSV_99=1  

‐9   Unknown If (SVP_99=‐9 or OSV_99=‐9) and not (SVP_99=1 or OSV_99=1)

SV_12 PAST YEAR SEXUAL VIOLENCE  

0 No If SVP_12=0 and OSV_12=0  

1 Yes If SVP_12=1 or OSV_12=1  

‐9   Unknown If (SVP_12=‐9 or OSV_12=‐9) and not (SVP_12=1 or OSV_12=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the sexual violence composite (and the composites for rape and other sexual violence

previously reported in the tables above).  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include

both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who

completed the sexual violence section.

   

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.
    232

Table 19.17.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Sexual Violence: 2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate ‐‐ 45.6% ‐‐ 21.1%

Sexual violence with penetration 18.3% 19.0% 1.4% 6.1%

Other sexual violence 44.6% 42.5% 22.2% 19.5%

Past Year Estimate ‐‐ 5.2% ‐‐ 4.9%

Sexual violence with penetration 1.1% 1.1% NR 1.2%

Other sexual violence 5.6% 4.8% 5.3% 4.4%

Women Men

Sexual Violence

Notes: ‐‐, not included in 2010 Summary Report.

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates (see details in previous

sections).  In addition, there are differences in both data cleaning and analysis.

N. STALKING

The composite for stalking includes both lifetime (STALK_99) and past year (STALK_12) measures.  The

composite is first computed at the perpetrator level.  It is based on seven stalking behaviors (ST1 to

ST7):

ST1 Made unwanted phone calls or left you messages?  This includes hang‐ups, text or voice

messages.

ST2 Sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like

MySpace or Facebook?

ST3 Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?

ST4 Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device,

camera, or GPS [Global Positioning System]?

ST5 Approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when

you didn’t want them to be there?

ST6 Left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?

ST7 Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had

been there?

Perpetrators committed stalking if (a) they committed the same stalking behavior two or more times or

committed two or more different stalking behaviors and (b) their behaviors would cause a reasonable

person to be afraid.  Fear is measured through four stalking follow‐up questions:

STFU5 Were you ever fearful?

STFU7 Ever had damage to your personal property or belongings, such as in your home or car?

STFU8 Ever had threats of physical harm?

STFU9 Ever believed you or someone close to you would be seriously harmed or killed?

Lifetime and past year stalking composites were calculated by first determining if each perpetrator

committed stalking behaviors that established a course of conduct in the respondent’s lifetime

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.
    233

(P_MULT99).  A course of conduct was established if the perpetrator committed at least two different

stalking behaviors in the lifetime, or the same stalking behavior at least twice in the lifetime.  Then, a

variable was created to determine if each perpetrator committed any stalking behaviors in the past year

(P_PASTYR).  A third variable was created (P_MULT12), by combining P_MULT99 and P_PASTYR, to

determine if the perpetrator’s lifetime course of conduct extended in to the past year (i.e., to determine

if at least one of the behaviors in the course of conduct occurred in the past year).  A fourth variable was

created to determine if each perpetrator caused the respondent to experience fear in the lifetime

(P_FEAR).  Perpetrator‐level stalking composites were then created.  The lifetime perpetrator‐level

stalking composite combined P_MULT99 and P_FEAR to determine if the perpetrator’s lifetime course of

conduct caused the respondent to experience fear.  Finally, the past year perpetrator‐level stalking

composite combined P_MULT12 and P_FEAR to determine if the perpetrator’s course of conduct (which

extended into the past year) caused the respondent to experience fear.   

P_MULT99 PERPETRATOR STALKING COURSE OF CONDUCT IN THE LIFETIME

0 No If NUM0=7 or (NUM0=6 and NUM1=1)

1 Yes If NUM2≥1 or NUM1≥2 or NUMLT0≥2 or (NUM1=1 and NUMLT0=1)

‐9   Unknown If (NUMM>0 or NUMLT0>0) and not (NUM2≥1 or NUM1≥2 or

NUMLT0≥2 or (NUM1=1 and NUMLT0=1))

NUM0 is the number of ST1B to ST7B values at zero; NUM1 is the number of ST1B to ST7B values at 1;

NUM2 is the number of ST1B to ST7B values at 2, 3, or 4; NUMLT0 is the number of ST1B to ST7B values

at ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1; and NUMM is the number of ST1B to ST7B values at ‐9.  A course of conduct was

established if (a) the perpetrator committed any of the ST1 to ST7 behaviors two or more times (i.e., if

NUM2 ≥ 1) or (b) the perpetrator committed two or more of the ST1 to ST7 behaviors (i.e., if NUM1 = 2,

or NUMLT0 = 2, or NUM1 = 1 and NUMLT0 = 1).  With this coding scheme, perpetrators committed a

course of conduct when they committed two or more different stalking behaviors, even if the number of

times they committed each behavior is unknown.   

P_PASTYR PERPETRATOR STALKING BEHAVIOR IN THE PAST YEAR

0 No If ST1H=0 and ST2H=0 and ST3H=0 and ST4H=0 and ST5H=0 and

ST6H=0 and ST7H=0

1 Yes If ST1H=‐3 or ST1H=‐2 or ST1H=‐1 or ST1H>0 or ST2H=‐3 or ST2H=‐2

or ST2H=‐1 or ST2H>0 or ST3H=‐3 or ST3H=‐2 or ST3H=‐1 or ST3H>0

or ST4H=‐3 or ST4H=‐2 or ST4H=‐1 or ST4H>0 or ST5H=‐3 or ST5H=‐2

or ST5H=‐1 or ST5H>0 or ST6H=‐3 or ST6H=‐2 or ST6H=‐1 or ST6H>0

or ST7H=‐3 or ST7H=‐2 or ST7H=‐1 or ST7H>0

‐9   Unknown If (ST1H=‐9 or ST2H=‐9 or ST3H=‐9 or ST4H=‐9 or ST5H=‐9 or ST6H=‐

9 or ST7H=‐9) and not (ST1H=‐3 or ST1H=‐2 or ST1H=‐1 or ST1H>0 or

ST2H=‐3 or ST2H=‐2 or ST2H=‐1 or ST2H>0 or ST3H=‐3 or ST3H=‐2 or

ST3H=‐1 or ST3H>0 or ST4H=‐3 or ST4H=‐2 or ST4H=‐1 or ST4H>0 or

ST5H=‐3 or ST5H=‐2 or ST5H=‐1 or ST5H>0 or ST6H=‐3 or ST6H=‐2 or

ST6H=‐1 or ST6H>0 or ST7H=‐3 or ST7H=‐2 or ST7H=‐1 or ST7H>0)

P_MULT12 PERPETRATOR STALKING COURSE OF CONDUCT IN PAST YEAR

0 No If P_MULT99=0 or (P_MULT99=1 and P_PASTYR=0) or (P_MULT99=‐

9 and P_PASTYR=0)

1 Yes If P_MULT99=1 and P_PASTYR=1

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.
    234

‐9   Unknown If (P_MULT99=1 and P_PASTYR=‐9) or (P_MULT99=‐9 and

(P_PASTYR=‐9 or P_PASTYR=1))

P_FEAR PERPETRATOR CAUSED RESPONDENT TO FEEL FEARFUL

0 No If STFU5=2 and STFU7=2 and STFU8=2 and STFU9=2

1 Yes If STFU5=1 or STFU7=1 or STFU8=1 or STFU9=1

‐9   Unknown If (STFU5=‐9 or STFU7=‐9 or STFU8=‐9 or STFU9=‐9) and not

(STFU5=1 or STFU7=1 or STFU8=1 or STFU9=1)

‐99 N/A If STFU5=‐98 and STFU7=‐98 and STFU8=‐98 and STFU9=‐98

P_STALK99 PERPETRATOR STALKED RESPONDENT IN LIFETIME   

0 No If P_MULT99=0 or (P_MULT99=‐9 and P_FEAR=0) or (P_MULT99=1

and P_FEAR=0)

1 Yes If P_MULT99=1 and P_FEAR=1

‐9   Unknown If (P_MULT99=1 and P_FEAR=‐9) or (P_MULT99=‐9 and P_FEAR≠0)

P_STALK12 PERPETRATOR STALKED RESPONDENT IN PAST YEAR   

0 No If P_MULT12=0 or (P_MULT12=‐9 and P_FEAR=0) or (P_MULT12=1

and P_FEAR=0)

1 Yes If P_MULT12=1 and P_FEAR=1

‐9   Unknown If (P_MULT12=1 and P_FEAR=‐9) or (P_MULT12=‐9 and P_FEAR≠0)

Seven additional variables are created to keep track of which behaviors were committed by the stalking

perpetrators (note: these variables are only defined for stalking perpetrators).  If a perpetrator was

identified as a lifetime stalking perpetrator (i.e., if P_STALK99 = 1), seven new variables were created to

keep track of whether that perpetrator committed ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6, and ST7.

P_ST1 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST1

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST1B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST1B=‐3 or ST1B=‐2 or ST1B=‐1 or ST1B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST1B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST2 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST2

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST2B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST2B=‐3 or ST2B=‐2 or ST2B=‐1 or ST2B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST2B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST3 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST3

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST3B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST3B=‐3 or ST3B=‐2 or ST3B=‐1 or ST3B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST3B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST4 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST4

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST4B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST4B=‐3 or ST4B=‐2 or ST4B=‐1 or ST4B>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.
    235

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST4B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST5 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST5

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST5B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST5B=‐3 or ST5B=‐2 or ST5B=‐1 or ST5B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST5B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST6 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST6

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST6B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST6B=‐3 or ST6B=‐2 or ST6B=‐1 or ST6B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST6B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

P_ST7 STALKING PERPETRATOR COMMITTED ST7

0 No If P_STALK99=1 and ST7B=0

1 Yes If P_STALK99=1 and (ST7B=‐3 or ST7B=‐2 or ST7B=‐1 or ST7B>0)

‐9   Unknown If P_STALK99=1 and ST7B=‐9

‐99 N/A If P_STALK99=0 or P_STALK99=‐9

These perpetrator‐level variables are then aggregated at the respondent‐level, while counting the

number of 0’s, 1’s, and ‐9’s in P_STALK99 (in STALK99_0, STALK99_1, and STALK99_M, respectively), in

P_STALK12 (STALK12_0, STALK12_1, and STALK12_M), in P_ST1 (ST1_0, ST1_1, and ST1_M), in P_ST2

(ST2_0, ST2_1, and ST2_M), in P_ST3 (ST3_0, ST3_1, and ST3_M), in P_ST4 (ST4_0, ST4_1, and ST4_M),

in P_ST5 (ST5_0, ST5_1, and ST5_M), in P_ST6 (ST6_0, ST6_1, and ST6_M), and in P_ST7 (ST7_0, ST7_1,

and ST7_M).  Respondent‐level measures of lifetime and past year stalking were then computed.  

Respondent‐level measures of stalking behaviors experienced by stalking perpetrators were also

computed (again, these are only defined for stalking victims).

STALK_99 LIFETIME STALKING   

0 No If STALK99_0>0 and not (STALK99_1>0 or STALK99_M>0)

1 Yes If STALK99_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK99_M>0 and not (STALK99_1>0)

STALK_12 PAST YEAR STALKING   

0 No If STALK12_0>0 and not (STALK12_1>0 or STALK12_M>0)

1 Yes If STALK12_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK12_M>0 and not (STALK12_1>0)

ST1_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST1 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST1_0>0 and ST1_1=0 and ST1_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST1_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST1_M>0 and not (ST1_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

ST2_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST2 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST2_0>0 and ST2_1=0 and ST2_M=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.
    236

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST2_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST2_M>0 and not (ST2_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

ST3_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST3 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST3_0>0 and ST3_1=0 and ST3_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST3_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST3_M>0 and not (ST3_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

ST4_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST4 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST4_0>0 and ST4_1=0 and ST4_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST4_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST4_M>0 and not (ST4_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

ST5_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST5 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST5_0>0 and ST5_1=0 and ST5_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST5_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST5_M>0 and not (ST5_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

ST6_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST6 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST6_0>0 and ST6_1=0 and ST6_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST6_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST6_M>0 and not (ST6_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

   

ST7_99 STALKING VICTIM EXPERIENCED ST7 BY STALKING PERPETRATOR   

0 No If STALK_99=1 and ST7_0>0 and ST7_1=0 and ST7_M=0

1 Yes If STALK_99=1 and ST7_1>0

‐9   Unknown If STALK_99=1 and ST7_M>0 and not (ST7_1>0)

‐99 N/A If STALK_99=0 or STALK_99=‐9

   

Data were then merged with the final “CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file.  Additional recodes were

necessary to handle system missing data in STALK_99, STALK_12, and ST1_99 to ST7_99 (for

respondents with no perpetrator‐level data in the stalking section).  System missing data in STALK_99

are recoded to 0 when ST1 = 0 and ST2 = 0 and ST3 = 0 and ST4 = 0 and ST5 = 0 and ST6 = 0 and ST7 = 0,

and are recoded to ‐9 when ST1 = ‐9 or ST2 = ‐9 or ST3 = ‐9 or ST4 = ‐9 or ST5 = ‐9 or ST6 = ‐9 or ST7 = ‐9.  

System missing data in STALK_12 are recoded to 0 when ST1F = 0 and ST2F = 0 and ST3F = 0 and ST4F = 0

and ST5F = 0 and ST6F = 0 and ST7F = 0, and are recoded to ‐9 when ST1F = ‐9 or ST2F = ‐9 or ST3F = ‐9

or ST4F = ‐9 or ST5F = ‐9 or ST6F = ‐9 or ST7F = ‐9.  All system missing data in ST1_99 to ST7_99 are

recoded to ‐99.  Recodes were also necessary for respondents with 15 or more lifetime perpetrators.  

When these respondents reported not being stalked (i.e., when STALK_99 = 0 or STALK_12 = 0), data are

recoded to ‐9 (because these respondents may have been stalked by other perpetrators whose initials

were not collected).  Finally, recodes were necessary for respondents with missing data in ST1, ST2, ST3,

ST4, ST5, ST6, or ST7.  For these respondents, there are no perpetrator‐level data.  As a result, STALK_99

= 0 and STALK_12 = 0.  STALK_99 and STALK_12 were recoded from 0 to ‐9 when ST1 = ‐9 or ST2 = ‐9 or

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    237

ST3 = ‐9 or ST4 = ‐9 or ST5 = ‐9 or ST6 = ‐9 or ST7 = ‐9.  Final results were saved in the “STALKING CORE

WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file and were exported in the “STALKINGCORE.POR” data file.

Additional checks were performed to make sure that respondents were not classified as non‐victims

because of how perpetrator initials were recoded in Chapter 13.  There were two respondents with

duplicate initials in the stalking section (103313711 and 104669681).  The first reported ST2 and ST5

victimizations by different perpetrators with the same initials.  This respondent was not a lifetime victim

or a past year victim.  In the follow‐up data, neither of these perpetrators caused the respondent to

experience fear.  As a result, no recodes were necessary.  The second reported ST1 and ST4

victimizations by different perpetrators with the same initials.  This respondent was a lifetime victim, but

not a past year victim.  This respondent did not experience stalking behaviors in the past year.  As a

result, no recodes were necessary.  In Chapter 18, two perpetrator initials were recoded.  Again, these

did not impact stalking estimates and no additional recodes were necessary.

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of stalking.  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and

include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  Table 19.19 provides the lifetime estimates of each behavior

among female victims and male victims (and again includes both the CDC and NIJ estimates). All

estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence

section.

Table 19.18.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Stalking: 2010 General Population Sample

Stalking CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 16.2% 27.2% 5.2% 13.4%

Past Year Estimate 4.3% 7.8% 1.3% 4.0%

Women Men

Table 19.19.  Lifetime Reports of Stalking Among Victims:

CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates from the 2010 General Population Sample

Stalking Among Victims CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Unwanted phone calls 78.8% 82.1% 75.9% 81.4%

Unwanted emails or messages 12.9% 13.9% 12.3% 18.5%

Unwanted gifts 26.4% 25.4% 11.6% 13.9%

Watched or followed 38.6% 33.8% 31.0% 25.9%

Approached or showed up 57.6% 52.5% 43.5% 43.0%

Left strange items 12.2% 9.1% 9.0% 5.9%

Snuck into home or car 22.9% 18.1% 16.6% 13.3%

Women Men

There are again some differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely

due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

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.
    238

O. BEING SLAPPED, PUSHED OR SHOVED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for being slapped, pushed, or shoved includes both lifetime (PV_99) and past year

(PV_12) measures.  The composite is based on two PV variables (PV2 and PV3):

PV2 Slapped you?

PV3 Pushed or shoved you?

SPS_99 LIFETIME SLAPPED PUSHED SHOVED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PV2=0 and PV3=0  

1 Yes If PV2>0 or PV3>0

‐9   Unknown If (PV2=‐9 or PV3=‐9) and not (PV2>0 or PV3>0)

SPS_12 PAST YEAR SLAPPED PUSHED SHOVED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PV2F=0 and PV3F=0  

1 Yes If PV2F=1 or PV3F=1

‐9   Unknown If (PV2F=‐9 or PV3F=‐9) and not (PV2F=1 or PV3F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of being slapped, pushed, or shoved and the two PV variables

included in this composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include both the CDC

and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the

sexual violence section.

Table 19.20.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Being Slapped, Pushed or Shoved:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

30.3% 32.0% 25.7% 27.8%

Slapped 20.4% 21.3% 18.3% 19.8%

Pushed or Shoved 27.5% 29.0% 19.4% 20.9%

3.6% 3.9% 4.5% 5.2%

Slapped 1.6% 1.6% 2.7% 3.2%

Pushed or Shoved 3.4% 3.6% 3.8% 4.2%

Men

Past Year Estimate

Women

Lifetime Estimate

Being Slapped, Pushed or Shoved

There are again some differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely

due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

P. SEVERE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for severe physical violence includes both lifetime (SPV_99) and past year (SPV_12)

measures.  The composite is based on eight PV variables (PV4 to PV7 and PV9 to PV12):

PV4 Hit you with a fist or something hard?

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.
    239

PV5 Kicked you?

PV6 Hurt you by pulling your hair?

PV7 Slammed you against something?

PV9 Tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

PV10 Beaten you?

PV11 Burned you on purpose?

PV12 Used a knife or gun on you?

SPV_99 LIFETIME SEVERE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PV4=0 and PV5=0 and PV6=0 and PV7=0 and PV9=0 and PV10=0

and PV11=0 and PV12=0

1 Yes If PV4>0 or PV5>0 or PV6>0 or PV7>0 or PV9>0 or PV10>0 or

PV11>0 or PV12>0

‐9   Unknown If (PV4=‐9 or PV5=‐9 or PV6=‐9 or PV7=‐9 or PV9=‐9 or PV10=‐9 or

PV11=‐9 or PV12=‐9) and not (PV4>0 or PV5>0 or PV6>0 or PV7>0 or

PV9>0 or PV10>0 or PV11>0 or PV12>0)

SPV_12 PAST YEAR SEVERE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PV4F=0 and PV5F=0 and PV6F=0 and PV7F=0 and PV9F=0 and

PV10F=0 and PV11F=0 and PV12F=0

1 Yes If PV4F=1 or PV5F=1 or PV6F=1 or PV7F=1 or PV9F=1 or PV10F=1 or

PV11F=1 or PV12F=1

‐9   Unknown If (PV4F=‐9 or PV5F=‐9 or PV6F=‐9 or PV7F=‐9 or PV9F=‐9 or

PV10F=‐9 or PV11F=‐9 or PV12F=‐9) and not (PV4F=1 or PV5F=1 or

PV6F=1 or PV7F=1 or PV9F=1 or PV10F=1 or PV11F=1 or PV12F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the composite measure of severe physical violence and the eight PV variables that are

included in this composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include both the CDC

and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the

sexual violence section.

There are again some differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely

due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

   

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.
    240

Table 19.21.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Severe Physical Violence:  

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

24.3% 25.6% 13.8% 14.9%

Hurt by having hair pulled 10.4% 11.2% 2.9% 3.2%

Hit with a fist or something hard 14.2% 15.1% 9.4% 10.2%

Kicked 7.1% 7.7% 4.3% 4.7%

Slammed against something 17.2% 18.2% 2.7% 3.0%

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 9.7% 10.3% 1.1% 1.2%

Beaten 11.2% 11.9% 2.6% 2.9%

Burned on purpose 1.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.7%

Had a knife or gun used on them 4.6% 5.2% 2.8% 3.0%

2.7% 2.9% 2.0% 2.4%

Hurt by having hair pulled 0.8% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4%

Hit with a fist or something hard 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.7%

Kicked 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8%

Slammed against something 1.5% 1.8% 0.4% 0.4%

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 0.9% 1.0% NR 0.1%

Beaten 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.4%

Burned on purpose NR 0.0% NR 0.0%

Had a knife or gun used on them NR 0.3% NR 0.1%

Women Men

Lifetime Estimate

Past Year Estimate

Severe Physical Violence

Note: NR, not reported (relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20).

Q. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for physical violence includes both lifetime (PV_99) and past year (PV_12) measures.  The

lifetime composite combines the lifetime composite for being slapped, pushed, or shoved (SPS_99) and

the lifetime composite for severe physical violence (SPV_99).  Similarly, the past year composite

combines the past year composite for being slapped, pushed, or shoved (SPS_12) and the past year

composite for severe physical violence (SPV_12).   

PV_99 LIFETIME PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If SPS_99=0 and SPV_99=0

1 Yes If SPS_99=1 or SPV_99=1

‐9   Unknown If (SPS_99=‐9 or SPV_99=‐9) and not (SPS_99=1 or SPV_99=1)

PV_12 PAST YEAR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If SPS_12=0 and SPV_12=0

1 Yes If SPS_12=1 or SPV_12=1

‐9   Unknown If (SPS_12=‐9 or SPV_12=‐9) and not (SPS_12=1 or SPV_12=1)

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.
    241

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the physical violence composite (and the composite for being slapped, pushed or shoved and

the composite for severe physical violence that were previously reported in the tables above).  

Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All

estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence

section.

Table 19.22.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

32.9% 34.7% 28.2% 30.6%

Being slapped, pushed or shoved 30.3% 32.0% 25.7% 27.8%

Severe physical violence 24.3% 25.6% 13.8% 14.9%

4.0% 4.3% 4.7% 5.6%

Being slapped, pushed or shoved 3.6% 3.9% 4.5% 5.2%

Severe physical violence 2.7% 2.9% 2.0% 2.4%

Men

Past Year Estimate

Women

Lifetime Estimate

Physical Violence

There are again some differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely

due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

R. EXPRESSIVE AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for expressive aggression includes both lifetime (EA_99) and past year (EA_12) measures.  

The composite is based on five PA variables (PA1 to PA5):

PA1 Acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

PA2 Told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

PA3 Called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

PA4 Insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

PA5 Told you that no one else would want you?

EA_99 LIFETIME EXPRESSIVE AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PA1=0 and PA2=0 and PA3=0 and PA4=0 and PA5=0

1 Yes If PA1>0 or PA2>0 or PA3>0 or PA4>0 or PA5>0

‐9   Unknown If (PA1=‐9 or PA2=‐9 or PA3=‐9 or PA4=‐9 or PA5=‐9) and not (PA1>0

or PA2>0 or PA3>0 or PA4>0 or PA5>0)

EA_12 PAST YEAR EXPRESSIVE AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If PA1F=0 and PA2F=0 and PA3F=0 and PA4F=0 and PA5F=0

1 Yes If PA1F=1 or PA2F=1 or PA3F=1 or PA4F=1 or PA5F=1

‐9   Unknown If (PA1F=‐9 or PA2F=‐9 or PA3F=‐9 or PA4F=‐9 or PA5F=‐9) and not

(PA1F=1 or PA2F=1 or PA3F=1 or PA4F=1 or PA5F=1)

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.
    242

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the expressive aggression composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and

include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  Table 19.24 provides the lifetime estimates of each behavior

among female victims and male victims (and again includes both the CDC and NIJ estimates).  All

estimates were produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence

section.

Table 19.23.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Expressive Aggression:

2010 General Population Sample

Expressive Aggression CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 40.3% 42.8% 31.9% 35.4%

Past Year Estimate 10.4% 11.5% 9.3% 11.1%

Women Men

Table 19.24.  Lifetime Reports of Expressive Aggression Among Victims:

CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates from the 2010 General Population Sample

Expressive Aggression Among Victims CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous 57.9% 60.3% 40.4% 41.3%

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough 48.9% 49.6% 42.4% 42.6%

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 64.3% 64.5% 51.6% 52.1%

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 58.0% 59.1% 39.4% 40.7%

Told no one else would want them 39.1% 38.9% 23.0% 23.2%

Women Men

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely due to

differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

S. COERCIVE CONTROL BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for coercive control includes both lifetime (CC_99) and past year (CC_12) measures.  The

composite is based on 12 CCE variables (CCE1 to CCE12) and one PV variable (PV1):   

CCE1 Tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

CCE2 Made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you

wear, things you eat, or the friends you have?

CCE3 Kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

CCE4 Threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?

CCE5 Threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

CCE6 Threatened to hurt someone you love?

CCE7 Hurt someone you love?

CCE8 Threatened to take your children away from you?

CCE9 Kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

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.
    243

CCE10 Kept you from having money for your own use?

CCE11 Destroyed something that was important to you?

CCE12 Said things like “If I can’t have you, then no one can”?

PV1 Made threats to physically harm you?

CC_99 LIFETIME COERCIVE CONTROL BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If CCE1=0 and CCE2=0 and CCE3=0 and CCE4=0 and CCE5=0 and

CCE6=0 and CCE7=0 and (CCE8=0 or CCE8=‐99) and CCE9=0 and

CCE10=0 and CCE11=0 and CCE12=0 and PV1=0

1 Yes If CCE1>0 or CCE2>0 or CCE3>0 or CCE4>0 or CCE5>0 or CCE6>0 or

CCE7>0 or CCE8>0 or CCE9>0 or CCE10>0 or CCE11>0 or CCE12>0 or

PV1>0

‐9   Unknown If (CCE1=‐9 or CCE2=‐9 or CCE3=‐9 or CCE4=‐9 or CCE5=‐9 or CCE6=‐

9 or CCE7=‐9 or CCE8=‐9 or CCE9=‐9 or CCE10=‐9 or CCE11=‐9 or

CCE12=‐9 or PV1=‐9) and not (CCE1>0 or CCE2>0 or CCE3>0 or

CCE4>0 or CCE5>0 or CCE6>0 or CCE7>0 or CCE8>0 or CCE9>0 or

CCE10>0 or CCE11>0 or CCE12>0 or PV1>0)

CC_12 PAST YEAR COERCIVE CONTROL BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If CCE1F=0 and CCE2F=0 and CCE3F=0 and CCE4F=0 and CCE5F=0

and CCE6F=0 and CCE7F=0 and (CCE8F=0 or CCE8F=‐99) and

CCE9F=0 and CCE10F=0 and CCE11F=0 and CCE12F=0 and PV1F=0

1 Yes If CCE1F=1 or CCE2F=1 or CCE3F=1 or CCE4F=1 or CCE5F=1 or

CCE6F=1 or CCE7F=1 or CCE8F=1 or CCE9F=1 or CCE10F=1 or

CCE11F=1 or CCE12F=1 or PV1F=1

‐9   Unknown If (CCE1F=‐9 or CCE2F=‐9 or CCE3F=‐9 or CCE4F=‐9 or CCE5F=‐9 or

CCE6F=‐9 or CCE7F=‐9 or CCE8F=‐9 or CCE9F=‐9 or CCE10F=‐9 or

CCE11F=‐9 or CCE12F=‐9 or PV1F=‐9) and not (CCE1F=1 or CCE2F=1

or CCE3F=1 or CCE4F=1 or CCE5F=1 or CCE6F=1 or CCE7F=1 or

CCE8F=1 or CCE9F=1 or CCE10F=1 or CCE11F=1 or CCE12F=1 or

PV1F=1)

Table 19.25 provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population sample for

the coercive control composite.  Estimates are provided for both men and women, and include both the

CDC and NIJ estimates.  Table 19.26 provides the lifetime estimates of each behavior among female

victims and male victims (and again includes both the CDC and NIJ estimates).  All estimates were

produced from the subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.25.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Coercive Control: 2010 General Population Sample

Coercive Control CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 41.1% 43.2% 42.5% 45.6%

Past Year Estimate 10.7% 11.7% 15.2% 17.1%

Women Men

   

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.
    244

Table 19.26.  Lifetime Reports of Coercive Control Among Victims:

CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates from the 2010 General Population Sample

Coercive Control Among Victims CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends 43.7% 44.5% 28.3% 29.0%

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make 41.2% 41.4% 35.5% 36.3%

Were tracked by being asked about locations and actions 61.7% 62.7% 63.1% 64.2%

Threatened with being physically harmed 45.5% 45.5% 20.1% 20.8%

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset 37.1% 37.3% 24.8% 25.7%

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away 11.4% 11.9% 4.2% 4.2%

Threatened with having loved ones hurt 14.5% 14.9% 4.0% 4.3%

Had loved ones who were hurt 13.4% 13.9% 5.3% 5.7%

Threatened with having children taken away 21.5% 21.5% 13.0% 13.1%

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go 36.0% 35.9% 19.4% 19.9%

Kept from having their own money to use 22.2% 22.5% 12.9% 12.9%

Had something that was important to them destroyed 39.7% 40.1% 28.8% 30.2%

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can" 27.4% 28.1% 15.4% 15.6%

Women Men

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely due to

differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

T. PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for psychological aggression includes both lifetime (PA_99) and past year (PA_12)

measures.  The lifetime composite combines the lifetime composite on expressive aggression (EA_99)

and the lifetime composite on coercive control (CC_99).  Similarly, the past year composite combines

the past year composite on expressive aggression (EA_12) and the past year composite on coercive

control (CC_12).  (Note: in Chapter 26, the control of reproductive or sexual health is added as a third

component of psychological aggression).

PA_99 LIFETIME PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If EA_99=0 and CC_99=0

1 Yes If EA_99=1 or CC_99=1

‐9   Unknown If (EA_99=‐9 or CC_99=‐9) and not (EA_99=1 or CC_99=1)

PA_12 PAST YEAR PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If EA_12=0 and CC_12=0

1 Yes If EA_12=1 or CC_12=1

‐9   Unknown If (EA_12=‐9 or CC_12=‐9) and not (EA_12=1 or CC_12=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the psychological aggression composite (and the expressive aggression and coercive control

composites previously reported in the tables above).  Estimates are provided for both men and women,

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.
    245

and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the subsample of

respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

Table 19.27.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Psychological Aggression:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 48.4% 51.4% 48.8% 53.0%

Expressive aggression 40.3% 42.8% 31.9% 35.4%

Coercive control 41.1% 43.2% 42.5% 45.6%

Past Year Estimate 13.9% 15.6% 18.1% 20.8%

Expressive aggression 10.4% 11.5% 9.3% 11.1%

Coercive control 10.7% 11.7% 15.2% 17.1%

Women Men

Psychological Aggression

There are differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely due to

differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

U. CONTROL OF REPRODUCTIVE OR SEXUAL HEALTH BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

The composite for control of reproductive or sexual health by intimate partners includes both lifetime

(CRSH_99) and past year (CRSH_12) measures.  The composite is based on two CCE variables (CCE13 and

CCE14):

CCE13 Tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become pregnant or tried to stop you

from using birth control? / Tried to get pregnant when you did not want them to get

pregnant or tried to stop you from using birth control?

CCE14 Refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?

CRSH_99 LIFETIME CONTROL OF REPRODUCTIVE OR SEXUAL HEALTH BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If CCE13=0 and CCE14=0

1 Yes If CCE13>0 or CCE14>0

‐9   Unknown If (CCE13=‐9 or CCE14=‐9) and not (CCE13=1 or CCE14=1)

CRSH_12 PAST YEAR CONTROL OF REPRODUCTIVE OR SEXUAL HEALTH BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

0 No If CCE13F=0 and CCE14F=0

1 Yes If CCE13F=1 or CCE14F=1

‐9   Unknown If (CCE13F=‐9 or CCE14F=‐9) and not (CCE13F=1 or CCE14F=1)

The following table provides the lifetime and past year estimates from the 2010 general population

sample for the control of reproductive or sexual health composite.  Estimates are provided for both men

and women, and include both the CDC and NIJ estimates.  All estimates were produced from the

subsample of respondents who completed the sexual violence section.

   

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.
    246

Table 19.28.  CDC and NIJ Weighted Estimates of Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health:

2010 General Population Sample

CDC NIJ CDC NIJ

Lifetime Estimate 8.6% 9.9% 10.4% 11.7%

Tried to start unwanted pregnancy 4.8% 5.2% 8.7% 9.7%

Refused to wear condom 6.7% 7.8% 3.8% 4.5%

Past Year Estimate ‐‐ 2.0% ‐‐ 2.0%

Tried to start unwanted pregnancy ‐‐ 0.9% ‐‐ 1.4%

Refused to wear condom ‐‐ 1.6% ‐‐ 1.3%

Women Men

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

Note: ‐‐, not included in 2010 Summary Report.

There are again some differences between the NIJ estimates and the CDC estimates, and these are likely

due to differences in both data cleaning and analysis.   

   

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.
247

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 20

SEXUAL VIOLENCE FOLLOW‐UP SECTION

The sexual violence follow‐up section includes a variety of questions, at both the respondent‐ and

perpetrator‐levels.  These follow‐up questions were included in “FINAL SV.SAV” data file, but were not

included in any of the data checks.  In this chapter, the sexual violence follow‐up data are extracted,

checked, and cleaned.   

A. DATA EXTRACTIONS

The “CREATE RESP SVFU.SPS” syntax file merges the respondent‐level sexual violence follow‐up data

from the “FINAL SV.SAV” data file (created in Chapter 12) and the clean sexual violence data from the

“CLEAN SV.SAV” data file (created in Chapter 13).  A new variable (NUMP) is created to identify the

respondents with multiple perpetrators in SV7 to SV17.  Results are saved in the “RESP SVFU.SAV” data

file.  This data file has 21,378 observations and 5,542 variables.

The “CREATE PERP SVFU.SPS” syntax file first verifies that SV#P* is not defined for SV7 to SV11 (# = 7 to

11, * = 1 to 15) and that SV#Q*, SV#R*, and SV#S* are not defined for SV1 to SV6 or for SV12 to SV22 (#

= 1 to 6 and 12 to 22, * = 1 to 15).  No problems were found.  It then creates a perpetrator‐level data set

by merging the clean perpetrator‐level sexual violence follow‐up data from the “CLEAN SV.SAV” data file

(created in Chapter 13) and the final clean perpetrator‐level file “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” (created

in Chapter 17).  There are three perpetrators in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file that are not

included in the “CLEAN SV.SAV” data file (their initials were recoded in Chapter 13).  It is not possible to

link the sexual violence follow‐up data to these recoded initials.  For these cases, perpetrator initials

were recoded (see details in the “CREATE PERP SVFU.SPS” syntax file) and all core data were recoded

using the logic from Chapter 17 (note: the same logic was also used to recode the core stalking data in

Chapter 18).    More specifically, missing data in the B variables were recoded to ‐99 when N = ‐99

(because questions are not applicable), to ‐9 when N99 = ‐9 (because questions were not answered), to

0 when N99 = 0 (because the respondent was not victimized), to 0 when 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 (because the

respondent was not victimized by these perpetrators; the respondent was victimized by other

perpetrators), and to ‐9 when N99 = 15 (because the respondent was victimized, but the perpetrator

was not included in the list of 15).   

The “CREATE PERP SVFU.SPS” syntax file also adds all B variables (SV1B to SV22B), the respondent’s

gender, and a variable to indicate whether the respondent was American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN).  

Finally, new variables are created to indicate whether the perpetrator committed at least one SV7 to

SV17 behavior (SV7TO17) and whether the perpetrator committed at least two SV7 to SV17 behaviors

(i.e., at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at least twice; MULT7TO17).    New variable

and value labels are created, and results are saved in the “PERP SVFU.SAV” data file which has 51,485

observations and 119 variables.

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.
    248

Data & Files in the “GET SVFU DATA” folder:

B. DATA CHECKS AND DATA CLEANING FOR RESPONDENT‐LEVEL DATA

The respondent‐level sexual violence follow‐up data include seven questions about the number of

perpetrators for the incidents where the respondent experienced SV7 to SV17 victimizations.  If the

respondents reported more than one perpetrator in SV7 to SV17, respondents were asked:

SVFU_O Did any of these things involve more than one person having sex with you on the same

occasion?

SVFU_P How many times has more than one person had sex with you on the same occasion?

SVFU_Q1 How many people were involved the first time this happened?

SVFU_Q2   How many people were involved the second time this happened?

SVFU_Q3   How many people were involved the third time this happened?

SVFU_Q4   How many people were involved the fourth time this happened?

SVFU_Q5   How many people were involved the fifth time this happened?

Data recodes for these seven follow‐up variables are limited to recoding missing data.  Analysts who

wish to use these seven variables will need to perform additional data checks and recodes.  For example,

there are three respondents who indicated that only one perpetrator was involved the first time

multiple people had sex with them on the same occasion.  These data are incongruent (‘one’ is not a

valid answer for SVFU_Q1).  These types of problems were neither checked nor corrected.  Instead, data

cleaning was limited to recoding all missing data values.   

Data checks were performed to make sure that SVFU_O had a value when the respondent identified two

or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17 (and did not have a value when the respondent didn’t).  

There are 1,918 cases where SVFU_O is coded as not administered (i.e., SVFU_O = ‐3) when the

respondent did not identify two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17.  There are 30 cases

where SVFU_O is missing, but the respondent did identify two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to

SV17.  All missing data and values for SVFU_O are recoded.  When the respondent identified two or

more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17, all missing data are recoded to ‐9 (i.e., unknown).  When the

respondent did not identify two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17, all missing data are

recoded to ‐99 (i.e., not applicable).  No additional data cleaning was performed.  In some cases, when

there are missing data in SV7 to SV17, SVFU_O could be recoded to ‐9 instead of ‐99.  Analysts who wish

to examine these data further should perform additional data checks.  For now, SVFU_O was recoded

based on whether the respondents identified two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17.  

Respondents who did not identify two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17 either had fewer

than two different perpetrators or had two or more perpetrators but did not identify them.   

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.
    249

Data checks were then performed to make sure that SVFU_P had a value when SVFU_O = 1, and only

when SVFU_O = 1.  There are 1,970 cases where SVFU_P is coded as not administered (i.e., SVFU_P = ‐3)

when SVFU_O = ‐9 or SVFU_O = ‐99.  Missing data in SVFU_P are recoded to ‐9 (unknown) when SVFU_O

= 1, and are recoded to ‐99 (not applicable) when SVFU_O = ‐99, SVFU_O = ‐9, or SVFU_O = 2. Again,

analysts who wish to examine these data further should perform additional data checks.   

Finally, data checks were performed to make sure that SVFU_Q1 had a value when SVFU_P > 0 (and only

when SVFU_P > 0), that SVFU_Q2 had a value when SVFU_P > 1 (and only when SVFU_P > 1), that

SVFU_Q3 had a value when SVFU_P > 2 (and only when SVFU_P > 2), that SVFU_Q4 had a value when

SVFU_P > 3 (and only when SVFU_P > 3), and that SVFU_Q5 had a value when SVFU_P > 4 (and only

when SVFU_P > 4).  There are again 1,970 cases where SVFU_Q1, SVFU_Q2, SVFU_Q3, SVFU_Q4, and

SVFU_Q5 were coded as not administered (‐3) when SVFU_P = ‐9 or SVFU_P = ‐99.  Missing data in

SVFU_Q1 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9, and are recoded to ‐9 otherwise.  

Missing data in SVFU_Q2 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99, SVFU_P = ‐9, or SVFU_P = 1; and are

recoded to ‐9 otherwise.  Missing data in SVFU_Q3 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99, SVFU_P = ‐9,

SVFU_P = 1, or SVFU_P = 2; and are recoded to ‐9 otherwise.  Missing data in SVFU_Q4 are recoded to ‐

99 when SVFU_P = ‐99, SVFU_P = ‐9, SVFU_P = 1, SVFU_P = 2, or SVFU_P = 3; and are recoded to ‐9

otherwise.  Finally, missing data in SVFU_Q5 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99, SVFU_P = ‐9,

SVFU_P = 1, SVFU_P = 2, SVFU_P = 3, or SVFU_P = 4; and are recoded to ‐9 otherwise.

The following summarizes how missing data in SVFU_O, SVFU_P, and SVFU_Q1 to SVFU_Q5 are recoded:

(1) When the respondent identified two or more different perpetrators in SV7 to SV17, missing data

in SVFU_O are recoded to ‐9.  In all other cases, missing data in SVFU_O are recoded to ‐99.

(2) Missing data in SVFU_P are recoded to ‐9 when SVFU_O = 1 and are recoded to ‐99 when

SVFU_O ≠ 1.  

(3) Missing data in SVFU_Q1  are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9.  In all other

cases, missing data in SVFU_Q1 are recoded to ‐9.

(4) Missing data in SVFU_Q2 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9 or SVFU_P = 1.  

In all other cases, missing data in SVFU_Q2 are recoded to ‐9.

(5) Missing data in SVFU_Q3 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9 or SVFU_P = 1

or SVFU_P = 2.  In all other cases, missing data in SVFU_Q3 are recoded to ‐9.

(6) Missing data in SVFU_Q4 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9 or SVFU_P = 1

or SVFU_P = 2 or SVFU_P = 3.  In all other cases, missing data in SVFU_Q4 are recoded to ‐9.

(7) Missing data in SVFU_Q5 are recoded to ‐99 when SVFU_P = ‐99 or SVFU_P = ‐9 or SVFU_P = 1

or SVFU_P = 2 or SVFU_P = 3 or SVFU_P = 4.  In all other cases, missing data in SVFU_Q5 are

recoded to ‐9.

Again, only missing data are recoded.  Analysts who wish to use these variables will need to perform

additional data checks and recodes.  All checks and recodes for these respondent‐level sexual violence

follow‐up data are included in the “SVFU RESP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.  The recoded variables

(along with all previous SV data) are saved in new data file (“CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV”).  It includes 21,378

observations and 5,542 variables.

   

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.
    250

C. DATA CHECKS AND DATA CLEANING FOR PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL DATA

The perpetrator‐level sexual violence follow‐up data include a variety of questions about the context

and impact of sexual violence.  For each sexual violence question (SV1 to SV22), follow‐up questions

about each lifetime perpetrator may include the following (# = 1 to 22, * = 1 to 15 [linked to SV#L*]):

SV#O* Was perpetrator SV#L* using alcohol, drugs or both the first time he/she victimized

you?

SV#P* For SV1 to SV6 and SV12 to SV22 only: Were you using alcohol, drugs, or both the first

time you were victimized by perpetrator SV#L*?

SV#Q* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L* victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, do you think you were given

alcohol without your knowledge?

SV#R* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L* victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, do you think you were given or may

have been given drugs without your knowledge?

SV#S* For SV7 to SV11 only: Before perpetrator SV#L* victimized you when you were drunk,

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, had you voluntarily used alcohol or

drugs?

In the perpetrator‐level dataset, these variables are SV#O (# = 1 to 22), SV#P (# = 1 to 6 and 12 to 22),

SV#Q (# = 7 to 11), SV#R (# = 7 to 11), and SV#S (# = 7 to 11).

In addition, there are seven follow‐up questions for all lifetime perpetrators identified in SV7 to SV17.  

Perpetrator initials (in alphabetical order) are included in SVFU_# (where # = 1 to 94).  The seven follow‐

up questions (# = 1 to 94, linked to SVFU_#) are:

SVFU1_# Where you ever physically injured when perpetrator SVFU_# did any of these things?

SVFU2_# Did you ever get an STD or other infection when perpetrator SVFU_# did any of these

things?

SVFU3_# For female respondents only: Did you ever get pregnant when perpetrator SVFU_# did

any of these things?

SVFU4_# How old were you the first time any of these things happened with perpetrator SVFU_#?

SVFU5_# How old was perpetrator SVFU_# the first time any of these things happened?

SVFU6_# How old were you the last time any of these things happened with perpetrator SVFU_#?

SVFU7_# For American Indian or Alaska Native respondents only: Did any of these things with

perpetrator SVFU_# happen within reservation boundaries or within an Alaska Native

village?

In the perpetrator‐level dataset, these variables are SVFU1 to SVFU7.

Finally, when perpetrators in SV12 to SV17 were also included in SV7 to SV11, additional questions were

asked to determine if these incidents had happened on the same occasion.  More specifically, when a

respondent identified a perpetrator in SV12L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in SV7 to

SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0712_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0812_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

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.
    251

SVFU0912_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1012_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1112_* If SV12L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV13L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0713_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0813_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0913_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1013_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1113_* If SV13L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV14L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0714_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0814_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0914_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1014_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1114_* If SV14L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV15L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0715_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0815_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0915_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1015_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1115_* If SV15L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV16L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0716_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0816_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0916_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1016_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1116_* If SV16L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

When a respondent identified a perpetrator in SV17L* (* = 1 to 15) that had already been identified in

SV7 to SV11, the following questions were asked:

SVFU0717_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV7: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0817_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV8: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU0917_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV9: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1017_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV10: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

SVFU1117_* If SV17L* was also identified in SV11: Did these things happen on the same occasion?

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.
    252

In the perpetrator‐level data set, responses to these questions (SVFU0712_* to SVFU1117_*) are

included in the SVFU0712 to SVFU1117.  Although the survey indicates that these variables were then

used to create skip patterns through the sexual violence follow‐up questions, no skips were found in the

data.

A variety of data checks were performed.  These included the following:

(1) SV#O was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in SV# (# = 1 to 22)

(2) SV#P was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in SV# (# = 1 to 6 and

12 to 22)

(3) SV#Q was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in SV# (# = 7 to 11)  

(4) SV#R was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in SV# (# = 7 to 11)

(5) SV#S was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in SV# (# = 7 to 11)

(6) SV#* was defined when (and only when) the perpetrator was identified in both SV# and SV* (#

= 7 to 11 and * =  12 to 17)

(7) SVFU1 to SVFU7 were not defined when the perpetrator had not been identified in SV7 to

SV17

(8) SVFU3 was not defined when the perpetrator was male

(9) SVFU6 was not defined when the perpetrator had not been identified multiple times in SV7 to

SV17

(10) SVFU4 ≤ SVFU6 (i.e., age at first victimization ≤ age at last victimization)

(11) SVFU7 was defined when (and only when) the respondent was American Indian or Alaska

Native (i.e., when AIAN = 1)

These data checks uncovered several problems.  It appears that missing data codes were again used

inconsistently.  These problems were all rectified in the data recodes detailed below.  The most

important problem with the sexual violence follow‐up section is that the selection criterion for SVFU7_#

appears to have been incorrectly programmed.  SVFU7 (Did any of these things happen within

reservation boundaries or within an Alaska Native village?) was only asked for respondents in the

general population sample.  None of the respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native

oversample were asked this question.  The selection criteria was based on RC4, but RC4 was not asked in

the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  As a result, none of the respondents in the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample met the inclusion criterion for SVFU7.

As with the respondent‐level data, data cleaning in this section is limited to recoding missing data

values.  Analysts who wish to use these data will need to do additional data cleaning.   

Missing values in SV#O (# = 1 to 22) are recoded based on the values in SV#B (# = 1 to 22).  More

precisely, missing values in SV#O are recoded to ‐99 when SV#B = ‐99, to ‐98 when SV#B = ‐9 or SV#B =

0, and to ‐9 when SV#B > 0 or SV#B = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1.  In these last cases (when SV#B > 0 or SV#B = ‐3, ‐2, or

‐1), the  perpetrator did commit the SV#B behavior, even though we may not know how many times

that behavior was committed.  The same logic was used to recode the missing values in SV#P, SV#Q,

SV#R, and SV#S.  When SV#B = ‐99, missing values in SV#P, SV#Q, SV#R, and SV#S are recoded to ‐99.  

When SV#B = ‐9 or SV#B = 0, missing values in SV#P, SV#Q, SV#R, and SV#S are recoded to ‐98.  When

SV#B > 0 or when SV#B = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1, missing values in SV#P, SV#Q, SV#R, and SV#S are recoded to ‐9.  

Data were rechecked (see (1) through (5) above) and no problems were found.

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.
    253

Missing values in SV#* (# = 7 to 11 and * =  12 to 17) are recoded based on whether perpetrators were

identified in SV# and SV*.  When perpetrators were not identified in both SV# and SV* (i.e., when SV# =

‐99, ‐9, or 0; or SV* = ‐99, ‐9, or 0), missing values in SV#* are recoded to ‐99.  When perpetrators were

identified in both SV# (i.e., when SV# > 0 or SV# = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1) and SV* (i.e., when SV* > 0 or SV* = ‐3, ‐2,

or ‐1), missing values in SV#* are recoded to ‐9.  Data were rechecked (see (6) above) and no problems

were found.

Missing values in SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4, and SVFU5 are recoded based on whether perpetrators were

identified in SV7 to SV17 (i.e., SV7TO17 = 1; when the “B” variables [e.g., SV7B] > 0 or = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1; see

details in the “CREATE PERP SVFU.SPS” syntax file).  There are three perpetrators whose initials were

recoded during data extraction for whom SV7TO17 = 0 but valid data are found in SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4,

and SVFU5.  A new variable was created (INSVFU) to indicate if perpetrators were included in SVFU1,

SVFU2, SVFU4, and SVFU5.  INSVFU was set to 1 when SV7TO17 = 1 and for the three perpetrators

whose initials were recoded during data extraction (details are available in the “SVFU PERP DATA

CHECKS.SPS” syntax file).  When perpetrators were included in SV7 to SV17 (i.e., when INSVFU = 1),

missing data in SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4, and SVFU5 are recoded ‐9.  When perpetrators were not included

in SV7 to SV17 (i.e., when INSVFU = 0), missing data in SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4, and SVFU5 are recoded to

‐99.  SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4, and SVFU5 were rechecked.  No problems were found.  Analysts should

carefully consider whether to condition their analyses on INSVFU or on SV7TO17.   

Missing values in SVFU3 are recoded based on (a) whether perpetrators were identified in SV7 to SV17

and (b) the respondent’s gender (in RSEX).  Again, there are three perpetrators (all female) whose

initials were recoded during data extraction for whom SV7TO17 = 0 but valid data are found in SVFU3.  A

new variable was created (INSVFU3) to indicate if perpetrators were included in SVFU3.  INSVFU3 was

set to 1 when SV7TO17 = 1 and RSEX = “2”.  In addition, INSVFU3 was set to 1 for the three perpetrators

whose initials were recoded during data extraction (details are available in the “SVFU PERP DATA

CHECKS.SPS” syntax file).  When perpetrators were not included in SVFU3 (i.e., when SVFU3 = 0), missing

data in SVFU3 are recoded to ‐99.  When perpetrators were included in SVFU3 (i.e., when SVFU3 = 1),

missing data in SVFU3 are recoded to ‐9.  SVFU3 was rechecked and no problems were found.  Again,

analysts should carefully consider which sample to select before conducting analyses with SVFU3.

Missing values in SVFU6 are recoded based on whether perpetrators had committed multiple behaviors

or the same behavior multiple times in SV7 to SV17 (in MULT7TO17; see details in the “CREATE PERP

SVFU.SPS” syntax file).  Problems were again found for the three perpetrators whose initials were

recoded during data extraction (MULT7TO17 = 0 but valid data are found in SVFU6).  A new variable

(INSVFU6) was created to indicate if perpetrators were included in SVFU6.  INSVFU6 was set to 1 when

MULT7TO17 = 1 and for the three perpetrators whose initials were recoded during data extraction

(details are available in the “SVFU PERP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file).  When perpetrators were

included in SVFU6 (i.e., when INSVFU6 = 1), missing data are recoded to ‐9.  When perpetrators were

not included in SVFU6 (i.e., when INSVFU6 = 0), missing data are recoded to ‐99.  SVFU6 was rechecked

and no problems were found.  As before, analysts should carefully consider which sample to select

before conducting analyses with SVFU6.

Finally, missing values in SVFU7 are recoded based on (a) whether perpetrators were identified in SV7 to

SV17 and (b) whether the respondent was American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN).  Respondents

should not have been included in SVFU7 when they were not American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN =

0) or when the perpetrator had not been identified in SV7 to SV17 (SV7TO17 = 0).  However, one

respondent who was not American Indian or Alaska Native was included in SVFU7.  As a result, a new

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.
    254

variable (INSVFU7) was created to indicated if perpetrators were included in SVFU7.  INSVFU7 was set to

1 when INSVFU = 1 and AIAN = 1.  In addition, it was set to 1 for one respondent who provided an

answer to SVFU7 even though AIAN = 0.  Missing data in SVFU7 are then recoded to ‐99 when INSVFU7 =

0 and to ‐9 when INSVFU = 1.  As explained above, the skip pattern for this question appears to be

incorrect (and none of the respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample were

asked this question).  Analysts should again think carefully about which sample to select when

conducting analyses with SVFU7 (and selecting a sample based on INSVFU7 is likely to be misleading).

The data cleaning in this section is limited to recoding missing values.  Analysts who wish to use these

data will need to perform additional data checks and recodes.  For example, some respondents were

older when they were first victimized than when they were last victimized (i.e., SVFU4 > SVFU6).  This is

not possible, and analysts should consider how to handle such cases if SVFU4 and SVFU6 data are

analyzed.  For now, data cleaning is limited to recoding missing values.

All checks and recodes for these perpetrator‐level sexual violence follow‐up data are included in the

“SVFU PERP DATA CHECKS.SPS” syntax file.  The recoded variables are saved in new data file (“CLEAN

PERP SVFU.SAV”).  It includes 51,485 observations and 123 variables.

Data & Files in the “SVFU DATA CHECKS” folder:

The final clean data files (“CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV” and “CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV”) were then both copied

to the “SVFU” folder.  Data & Folders in the “SVFU” folder:

   

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.
255

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 21

GENERAL FOLLOW‐UP SECTION

The general follow‐up section includes questions at both the respondent‐ and perpetrator‐levels.  In this

chapter, the general follow‐up data are extracted and cleaned.  This section includes multiple selection

criteria and skip patterns.  It appears that these criteria and patterns were incorrectly described in the

CDC / RTI documentation and/or were implemented incorrectly.  In some cases, selection criteria and

skip patterns changed (but changes were not documented).  This chapter begins with an overview of the

data structure for the general follow‐up section.  Data extraction and cleaning are then summarized in

Sections B and C respectively.  Clean respondent‐ and perpetrator‐level files are then created.

A. DATA STRUCTURE

Not all perpetrators were selected for the general follow‐up section.  The selection criteria included in

the survey instrument appear to be incorrect.  In addition, the selection criteria changed at the

beginning of the third quarter.  These changes are not documented in the survey instrument.  During the

first and second quarter of 2010, perpetrators were selected for the general follow‐up section if the

respondent reported that they committed at least one behavior in the psychological aggression,

coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, stalking, or sexual violence sections.  During the

third and fourth quarter of 2010, perpetrators were selected for the general follow‐up section if the

respondent reported that they (a) committed at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at

least twice in the psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment, or stalking sections; or (b)

committed at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence sections.  However,

perpetrators were excluded if the respondent reported that they (a) did not commit (1) at least two

behaviors (or the same behavior twice) in the psychological aggression or coercive control and

entrapment sections, (2) at least two behaviors (or the same behavior twice) in ST3B to ST7B in the

stalking section, or (3) at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence sections; and (b)

committed at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B in the stalking section but did not cause fear, did not

damage property, did not threaten the respondent with physical harm, and did not cause the

respondent to believe that they would be seriously harmed or killed (i.e., STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and

STFU9 all equal 2).   

Perpetrators can be selected by examining the final clean perpetrator‐level file (“FINAL CLEAN NISVS

PERP.SAV”; see Chapter 17).  Perpetrators in the first and second quarters of 2010 were selected if the

respondent reported that they committed at least one behavior in the psychological aggression section

(i.e., PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, or PA5B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one behavior in the coercive

control and entrapment section (i.e., CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B,

CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, or CCE14B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one behavior in

the physical violence section (i.e., PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B,

PV11B, or PV12B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one behavior in the stalking section (i.e., ST1B, ST2B,

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.
    256

ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, or ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one behavior in the sexual violence

section (i.e., SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B,

SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, or SV22B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 100).

Perpetrators in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 were selected if the respondent reported that

they:

(a) committed at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at least twice in the

psychological aggression, coercive control, or stalking sections (i.e., PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B,

PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B,

CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, or ST7B = 2 to 4; or at least two

behaviors from PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B,

CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B,

ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1), or

(b) committed at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., PV1B,

PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, or PV12B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to

4; or SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B,

SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, or SV22B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 100).

However, they were deselected if they:

(a) committed at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B (i.e., ST1B or ST2B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4) but did

not cause fear, did not damage property, did not threaten the respondent with physical harm,

and did not cause the respondent to believe that they would be seriously harmed or killed (i.e.,

STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 = 2) and

(b) did not commit:

1. More than one behavior (or the same behavior more than once) in the psychological

aggression or coercive control and entrapment sections (i.e., PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B,

PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B,

CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, and CCE14B ≠ 2 to 4; and fewer than two behaviors from

PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B,

CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, and CCE14B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1) or  

2. More than one behavior (or the same behavior more than once) in ST3B to ST7B in the

stalking section (i.e., ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B ≠ 2 to 4; and fewer than two

behaviors from ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1) or   

3. Any behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., PV1B, PV2B, PV3B,

PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, and PV12B ≠ ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4;

and SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B,

SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B ≠ ‐3, ‐2, ‐

1, or 1 to 100).

The initials for the perpetrators that were selected for the general follow‐up section are included in

FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94 (in alphabetical order).  Respondents with no perpetrators selected for

the general follow‐up section skipped to the next section (Intimate Partners).

Once perpetrators were selected to be included in the general follow‐up section, respondents were

asked FU1 (i.e., “Were you ever concerned for your safety...?”).  If respondents answered “No” (FU1 =

2), they skipped to the next question (FU2).  If respondents answered “Yes” (FU1 = 1) and more than one

perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, they were asked FU1a (i.e., “Which of these

people made you feel concerned for your safety?”).  Their responses are included in FU1a_1 to FU1a_94.  

Each response is a perpetrator number which should be linked to FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.  For

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.
    257

example, when FU1a_1 = #, the perpetrator which made the respondent concerned for his/her safety is

the one included in FUINITIALS_#.  If respondents answered “Yes” (FU1 = 1) and only one perpetrator

was selected for the general follow‐up section, they skipped to the next question (FU2).  In these cases,

FU1a_1 must be recoded to 1.

Respondents were then asked FU2 (“Were you ever fearful...?”).  This question was only asked to

respondents who reported at least one behavior (by any perpetrator) in the psychological aggression,

coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, or sexual violence sections.  This is a respondent‐

level selection, not a perpetrator‐level selection.  If the respondent reported at least one behavior (by

any perpetrator [including those not selected for the general follow‐up section]) in the psychological

aggression, coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, or sexual violence sections, that

respondent was asked FU2 for all perpetrators that had been selected for the general follow‐up section.  

It is important to note that it is possible that a respondent was selected for FU2 when none of the

perpetrators selected for the general follow‐up section committed at least one behavior in the

psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, or sexual violence

sections.  In these cases, other perpetrators committed at least one behavior in the psychological

aggression, coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, or sexual violence sections; but they

were not selected for the general follow‐up section.  This selection criterion was miscoded, and analysts

should consider how respondents and perpetrators were selected before analyzing these data.  For

example, one may want to restrict analyses only to the sample of perpetrators that were selected for

the general follow‐up section and committed at least one behavior in the psychological aggression,

coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, or sexual violence sections.

If respondents answered “No” (FU2 = 2), they skipped to question FU3.  If respondents answered “Yes”

(FU2 = 1) and more than one perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, they were

asked FU2a (i.e., “Which of these people made you feel fearful?”).  Their responses are included in

FU2a_1 to FU2a_94.  Each response is a perpetrator number which should be again linked to

FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.  For example, when FU2a_1 = #, the perpetrator which made the

respondent fearful is the one included in FUINITIALS_#.  If respondents answered “Yes” (FU2 = 1) and

only one perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, they skipped question FU2a.  In

these cases, FU2a_1 must be recoded to 1.  For each perpetrator that made the respondents feel fearful

(i.e., for each perpetrator in FU2a_1 to FU2a_94), the respondents were asked FU2b (“Thinking about

when you were the most fearful, how fearful were you...?”).  Answers are recorded in FU2b_1 to

FU2b_94 (for perpetrators in FU2a_1 to FU2a_94).  Data for the FU2b_# questions should be linked to

FU2a_# (not to FUINITIALS_#).   

Respondents were asked FU3 only for the perpetrators that had been identified in either FU1a or FU2a

(after the recodes identified above).  For each perpetrator identified in FU1a or FU2a, respondents were

asked if they had ever had nightmares about it (FU3_1); had ever tried hard not to think about it or go

out of their way to avoid being reminded of it (FU3_2); had ever felt like they were constantly on guard,

watchful, or easily startled (FU3_3); and had ever felt numb or detached from others, their activities, or

their surroundings (FU3_4).  Responses to FU3_1 are recorded in FU3_1_FU3_1 to FU3_94_FU3_1 (for

perpetrator #1 to 94).  Similarly, responses to FU3_2, FU3_3, and FU3_4 are recoded in FU3_1_FU3_2 to

FU3_94_FU3_2, FU3_1_FU3_3 to FU3_94_FU3_3, and FU3_1_FU3_4 to FU3_94_FU3_4 respectively (for

perpetrator #1 to 94).  The order of the perpetrators in FU3 is unclear.  Perpetrators in FU3 may have

been presented in the same order as presented by the respondent in FU1a and then FU2a.  

Alternatively, perpetrators in FU3 may have been presented in alphabetical order (following

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.
    258

FUINITIALS_#).  Analysts who wish to use these data will need to confirm how perpetrators are ordered

in FU3 data.

Respondents were then asked about injuries caused by perpetrators (FU4).  More specifically, they were

asked about minor bruises or scratches (FU4b_1); cuts, major bruises, or black eyes (FU4b_2); broken

bones or teeth (FU4b_3); being knocked out after getting hit, slammed against something, or choked

(FU4b_4); and other injuries (FU4b_5).  Perpetrator initials for all FU4 questions are included in

FU4INITIALS_1 to FU4INITIALS_94 (in alphabetical order).  In the first and second quarters of 2010,

perpetrators were selected for FU4 if the respondent reported that they committed at least one

behavior in the physical violence, stalking, or sexual violence sections.  More specifically, perpetrators

were selected (in the first and second quarters of 2010) when the respondent reported that they

committed at least one behavior in the physical violence section (i.e., PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B,

PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, or PV12B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one behavior in the

stalking section (i.e., ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, or ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4), or at least one

behavior in the sexual violence section (i.e., SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B,

SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, or SV22B = ‐3,

‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 100).  In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, perpetrators were selected if the

respondent reported that they committed (a) at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual

violence section, or (b) at least two behaviors (or the same behavior at least twice) in ST3B to ST7B in

the stalking section, or (c) at least two behaviors (or the same behavior at least twice) in ST1B to ST7B in

the stalking section, but only if they did not commit at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B while not

causing fear, not damaging property, not threatening the respondent with physical harm, and not

causing the respondent to believe that they would be seriously harmed or killed.  More specifically,

perpetrators were selected (in the third and fourth quarters of 2010) when the respondent reported

that they:

(a) committed at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., PV1B,

PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, or PV12B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to

4; or SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B,

SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, or SV22B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 100),

(b) committed at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at least twice in ST3B to ST7B

in the stalking section (i.e., ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, or ST7B = 2 to 4; or at least two behaviors

from ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1), or

(c) committed at least two different behaviors or the same behavior at least twice in the stalking

section (i.e., ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, or ST7B = 2 to 4; or at least two behaviors from

ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1), but only if they did not commit

at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B while not causing fear, not damaging property, not

threatening the respondent with physical harm, and not causing the respondent to believe that

they would be seriously harmed or killed (i.e., not [(ST1B or ST2B = ‐3, ‐2, ‐1, or 1 to 4) and

(STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 = 2)]).

Respondents were asked if they were injured by any of these selected perpetrators (FU4).  If the

respondents answered “No” (FU4 = 2), they skipped to question FU5.  If respondents answered “Yes”

(FU4 = 1) and more than one perpetrator was selected for FU4, they were asked FU4a (i.e., “Which of

these people caused your injuries?”).  Their responses are included in FU4a_1 to FU4a_94.  Each

response is a perpetrator number which should be linked to FU4INITIALS_1 to FU4INITIALS_94.  For

example, when FU4a_1 = #, the perpetrator which caused injuries to the respondent is the one included

in FU4INITIALS_#.  If respondents answered “Yes” (FU4 = 1) and only one perpetrator was selected for

FU4, they skipped question FU4a.  In these cases, FU4a_1 must be recoded to 1.  For each perpetrator

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.
    259

that caused injuries (i.e., for each perpetrator in FU4a_1 to FU4a_94), the respondent was asked about

minor bruises or scratches (FU4b_1); cuts, major bruises, or black eyes (FU4b_2); broken bones or teeth

(FU4b_3); being knocked out after getting hit, slammed against something, or choked (FU4b_4); and

other injuries (FU4b_5).  Responses to FU4b_1 are recorded in FU4b_1_FU4b_1 to FU4b_94_FU4b_1

(for perpetrator #1 to 94, identified in FU4a_#).  Similarly, responses to FU4b_2, FU4b_3, FU4b_4, and

FU4b_5 are recoded in FU4b_1_FU4b_2 to FU4b_94_FU4b_2, FU4b_1_FU4b_3 to FU4b_94_FU4b_3,

FU4b_1_FU4b_4 to FU4b_94_FU4b_4, and FU4b_1_FU4b_5 to FU4b_94_FU4b_5 respectively (for

perpetrator #1 to 94, identified in FU4a_#).  If the perpetrator caused other injuries (i.e., if

FU4b_#_FU4b_5 = 1), respondents were asked to specify those injuries and their answers were recorded

in FU4b_#_FU4b_5sp.  Again, these data for FU4b should be linked to the perpetrators identified in

FU4a_#.   

The remaining questions (FU5, FU6, and FU7) were asked for each perpetrator included in the general

follow‐up section (i.e., for each perpetrator in FUINITIALS_#).  In FU5_1, respondents were asked if they

had talked to the police about what these perpetrators did.  Respondents were also asked if they had

talked to a doctor or nurse (FU5_2), a psychologist or counselor (FU5_3), a crisis hotline operator

(FU5_4), a non‐intimate partner (FU5_5), a family member (FU5_6), a romantic or sexual intimate

partner (FU5_7), or someone else (FU5_8) about what these perpetrators did.  If the respondents had

talked to someone else, they were then asked to specify who that someone else was, and their

responses are recorded in FU5_8sp.  FU5_8sp is at the respondent‐level, not the perpetrator‐level.  

When respondents answered “No” to these questions (FU5_1 to FU5_8), they skipped to the next

question (e.g., if FU5_1 = 2, the respondent skipped to FU5_2).  If respondents answered “Yes” and

more than one perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, they were asked FU5a to

determine which perpetrator(s) the respondent had talked about.  Responses for FU5_1 are recorded in

FU5a_1_1 to FU5a_1_94, responses for FU5_2 are recorded in FU5a_2_1 to FU5a_2_94, responses for

FU5_3 are recorded in FU5a_3_1 to FU5a_3_94, responses for FU5_4 are recorded in FU5a_4_1 to

FU5a_4_94, responses for FU5_5 are recorded in FU5a_5_1 to FU5a_5_94, responses for FU5_6 are

recorded in FU5a_6_1 to FU5a_6_94, responses for FU5_7 are recorded in FU5a_7_1 to FU5a_7_94, and

responses for FU5_8 are recorded in FU5a_8_1 to FU5a_8_94.  Each response to these questions is a

perpetrator number which should be linked to FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.  For example, when

FU5a_1_1 = #, the respondent identified the perpetrator in FUINITIALS_#.  If respondents answered

“Yes” to the FU5_# questions (FU5_1 to FU5_8) but only one perpetrator was selected for the general

follow‐up section, they were not asked FU5a.  In these cases, data in FU5a must be recoded.  When only

one perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, FU5a_1_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when

FU5_1 = 1, FU5a_2_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU5_2 = 1, FU5a_3_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when

FU5_3 = 1, FU5a_4_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU5_4 = 1, FU5a_5_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when

FU5_5 = 1, FU5a_6_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU5_6 = 1, FU5a_7_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when

FU5_7 = 1, and FU5a_8_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU5_8 = 1.

For each perpetrator identified in FU5a, respondents were asked FU5b to determine how helpful it was

to talk to someone.  For perpetrators identified in FU5a_1_1 to FU5a_1_94, responses are included in

FU5b_1_1 to FU5b_1_94.  Similarly, responses for perpetrators identified in FU5a_2_1 to FU5a_2_94 are

included in FU5b_2_1 to FU5b_2_94, responses for perpetrators identified in FU5a_3_1 to FU5a_3_94

are included in FU5b_3_1 to FU5b_3_94, responses for perpetrators identified in FU5a_4_1 to

FU5a_4_94 are included in FU5b_4_1 to FU5b_4_94, responses for perpetrators identified in FU5a_5_1

to FU5a_5_94 are included in FU5b_5_1 to FU5b_5_94, responses for perpetrators identified in

FU5a_6_1 to FU5a_6_94 are included in FU5b_6_1 to FU5b_6_94, responses for perpetrators identified

in FU5a_7_1 to FU5a_7_94 are included in FU5b_7_1 to FU5b_7_94, and responses for perpetrators

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.
    260

identified in FU5a_8_1 to FU5a_8_94 are included in FU5b_8_1 to FU5b_8_94.  Data for the FU5b

questions should be linked to FU5a (not to FUINITIALS_#).   

FU6 asks about the respondents’ needs for services.  For all perpetrators included in the general follow‐

up section, respondents were asked if they ever needed medical care (FU6_1), housing services (FU6_2),

community services (FU6_3), victim’s advocate services (FU6_4), or legal services (FU5_5).  If

respondents answered “No” to these questions, they skipped to the next question (e.g., if FU6_2 = 2, the

respondent skipped to FU6_3).  If the respondent answered “Yes” to these questions and multiple

perpetrators were included in the general follow‐up section, respondents were then asked FU6a to

determine which perpetrators caused the need for these services.  Following the same structure as

found for FU5, responses for FU6_1 are recorded in FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6a_1_94.  Similarly,

responses for FU6_2 are recorded in FU6a2_FU6a_2_1 to FU6a2_FU6a_2_94, responses for FU6_3 are

recorded in FU6a3_FU6a_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6a_3_94, responses for FU6_4 are recorded in

FU6a4_FU6a_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6a_4_94, and responses for FU6_5 are recorded in FU6a5_FU6a_5_1 to

FU6a5_FU6a_5_94.  Each response to these questions is a perpetrator number which should be linked

to FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.  For example, when FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 = #, the respondent identified

the perpetrator in FUINITIALS_#.  If respondents answered “Yes” to these questions (FU6_1 to FU6_5)

but only one perpetrator was selected for the general follow‐up section, they were not asked FU6a.  In

these cases, data in FU6a must be recoded.  FU6a1_FU6a_1_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU6_1 = 1,

FU6a2_FU6a_2_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU6_2 = 1, FU6a3_FU6a_3_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when

FU6_3 = 1, FU6a4_FU6a_4_ 1 must be recoded to 1 when FU6_4 = 1, and FU6a5_FU6a_5_ 1 must be

recoded to 1 when FU6_5 = 1.

For each perpetrator identified in FU6a, respondents were asked FU6b to determine if they were able to

get these services.  For each perpetrator that caused the respondent to need medical care

(FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6a_1_94), respondents were asked if they were able to get medical care.  

Their responses are included in FU6a1_FU6b_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6b_1_94 (and these should be linked to

the perpetrators in FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6a_1_94).  Similarly, respondents’ answers about

their ability to get housing services are included in FU6a2_FU6b_2_1 to FU6a2_FU6b_2_94 (for

perpetrators FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6a_1_94).  Respondents’ answers about their ability to get

community services are included in FU6a3_FU6b_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6b_3_94 (for perpetrators

FU6a3_FU6a_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6a_3_94).  Respondents’ answers about their ability to get victim’s

advocate services are included in FU6a4_FU6b_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6b_4_94 (for perpetrators

FU6a4_FU6a_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6a_4_94).  Finally, respondents’ answers about their ability to get legal

services are included in FU6a5_FU6b_5_1 to FU6a5_FU6b_5_94 (for perpetrators FU6a5_FU6a_5_1 to

FU6a5_FU6a_5_94).  In all of these, data in FU6b should be linked to the data in FU6a (not to

FUINITIALS_#).

If respondents answered “No” to the FU6b questions, they were then asked to indicate why they were

unable to get the assistance that they needed (FU6c).  If respondents were unable to get medical care (*

= 1), housing services (* = 2), community services (* = 3), victim’s advocate services (* = 4), or legal

services (* = 5) because of what a perpetrator did (# = 1 to 94, linked to FU6a), respondents were asked

to indicate why they were unable to get the assistance that they needed, and their answers were

recorded in FU6a*_FU6c_*_#.  For example, when respondents were unable to get housing services (* =

2) because of what the third perpetrator in FU6a_2 did (# = 3, linked to FU6a2_FU6a_2_3), the

respondents were asked to indicate why they were unable to get housing services, and their answers

were recorded in FU6a2_FU6c_2_3.  Data for the FU6b and FU6c questions should be linked to FU6a

(not to FUINITIALS_#).   

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.
    261

The last question in the general follow‐up section is FU7, asking respondents if they ever had to miss

days of work or school.  This question was asked for all perpetrators selected for the general follow‐up

section.  If respondents answered “No” to FU7 (i.e., if FU7 = 2), they skipped to the next section

(Intimate Partner questions).  If the respondent answered “Yes” to FU7 (i.e., FU7 = 1) and multiple

perpetrators were included in the general follow‐up section, respondents were then asked FU7a to

determine which perpetrators caused the respondent to miss work or school.  Responses are recorded

in FU7a_1 to FU7a_94.  Each response is a perpetrator number which should be linked to FUINITIALS_1

to FUINITIALS_94.  For example, when FU7a_1 = #, the respondent identified the perpetrator in

FUINITIALS_#.  If respondents answered “Yes” to FU7 but only one perpetrator was selected for the

general follow‐up section, they were not asked FU7a.  In these cases, data in FU7a must be recoded

(FU7a_1 must be recoded to 1).  For each perpetrator identified in FU7a, respondents were then asked

FU7b to determine how many days of work or school they missed.  Responses are recorded in FU7b_1 to

FU7b_94 (for perpetrators FU7a_1 to FU7a_94).  Data in FU7b should be linked to FU7a (not to

FUINITIALS_#).   

To summarize, the structure of the general follow‐up section is as follows (variable names are included

in italics):

(1) Select perpetrators for general follow‐up section (if none, skip to Intimate Partner section)

(2) Ask FU1 (FU1)

a. If FU1 = 2, skip FU1a

b. If FU1 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (1), skip FU1a

c. If FU1 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (1), ask FU1a (FU1a_1 to FU1a_94)

(3) Select perpetrators for FU2 section (if none, skip to (5) below)

(4) Ask FU2 (FU2)

a. If FU2 = 2, skip FU2a and FU2b

b. If FU2 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (1), skip FU2a but ask FU2b (FU2b_1)

c. If FU2 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (1), ask FU2a and FU2b (FU2a_1 to

FU2a_94 and FU2b_1 to FU2b_94)

(5) Select FU1 and FU2 perpetrators (if none, skip to (10) below)

(6) Ask FU3_1 (FU3_1_FU3_1 to FU3_94_FU3_1)

(7) Ask FU3_2 (FU3_1_FU3_2 to FU3_94_FU3_2)

(8) Ask FU3_3 (FU3_1_FU3_3 to FU3_94_FU3_3)

(9) Ask FU3_4 (FU3_1_FU3_4 to FU3_94_FU3_4)

(10) Select FU4 perpetrators (if none, skip to (12) below)

(11) Ask FU4 (FU4)

a. If FU4 = 2, skip to (12) below

b. If FU4 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (10), skip FU4a but ask FU4b_1,

FU4b_2, FU4b_3, FU4b_4, and FU4b_5 (FU4b_1_FU4b_1, FU4b_1_FU4b_2,

FU4b_1_FU4b_3, FU4b_1_FU4b_4, FU4b_1_FU4b_5, and FU4b_1_FU4b_5sp)

c. If FU4 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (10), ask FU4a, FU4b_1, FU4b_2,

FU4b_3, FU4b_4, and FU4b_5 (FU4a_1 to FU4a_94, FU4b_1_FU4b_1 to

FU4b_94_FU4b_1, FU4b_1_FU4b_2 to FU4b_94_FU4b_2, FU4b_1_FU4b_3 to

FU4b_94_FU4b_3, FU4b_1_FU4b_4 to FU4b_94_FU4b_4, FU4b_1_FU4b_5 to

FU4b_94_FU4b_5, and FU4b_1_FU4b_5sp to FU4b_94_FU4b_5sp)

(12) Select perpetrators from general follow‐up section (same as (1) above)

(13) Ask FU5_1 (FU5_1)

a. If FU5_1 = 2, skip to FU5_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.
    262

b. If FU5_1 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_1_1)

c. If FU5_1 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_1_1 to FU5a_1_94 and FU5b_1_1 to FU5b_1_94)

(14) Ask FU5_2 (FU5_2)

a. If FU5_2 = 2, skip to FU5_3

b. If FU5_2 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_2_1)

c. If FU5_2 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_2_1 to FU5a_2_94 and FU5b_2_1 to FU5b_2_94)

(15) Ask FU5_3 (FU5_3)

a. If FU5_3 = 2, skip to FU5_4

b. If FU5_3 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_3_1)

c. If FU5_3 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_3_1 to FU5a_3_94 and FU5b_3_1 to FU5b_3_94)

(16) Ask FU5_4 (FU5_4)

a. If FU5_4 = 2, skip to FU5_5

b. If FU5_4 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_4_1)

c. If FU5_4 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_4_1 to FU5a_4_94 and FU5b_4_1 to FU5b_4_94)

(17) Ask FU5_5 (FU5_5)

a. If FU5_5 = 2, skip to FU5_6

b. If FU5_5 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_5_1)

c. If FU5_5 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_5_1 to FU5a_5_94 and FU5b_5_1 to FU5b_5_94)

(18) Ask FU5_6 (FU5_6)

a. If FU5_6 = 2, skip to FU5_7

b. If FU5_6 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_6_1)

c. If FU5_6 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_6_1 to FU5a_6_94 and FU5b_6_1 to FU5b_6_94)

(19) Ask FU5_7 (FU5_7)

a. If FU5_7 = 2, skip to FU5_8

b. If FU5_7 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_7_1)

c. If FU5_7 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_7_1 to FU5a_7_94 and FU5b_7_1 to FU5b_7_94)

(20) Ask FU5_8 (FU5_8)

a. If FU5_8 = 2, skip to FU6_1

b. If FU5_8 = 1, ask respondent to specify those in FU5_8 (FU5_8sp)

c. If FU5_8 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU5a but ask FU5b

(FU5b_8_1)

d. If FU5_8 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12) ask FU5a and FU5b

(FU5a_8_1 to FU5a_8_94 and FU5b_8_1 to FU5b_8_94)

(21) Ask FU6_1 (FU6_1)

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.
    263

a. If FU6_1 = 2, skip to FU6_2

b. If FU6_1 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU6a but ask FU6b

(FU6a1_FU6b_1_1)

c. If FU6_1 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU6a and FU6b

(FU6a1_FU6a_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6a_1_94 and FU6a1_FU6b_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6b_1_94)

d. If FU6b = 2, ask FU6c (FU6a1_FU6c_1_1 to FU6a1_FU6c_1_94)

(22) Ask FU6_2 (FU6_2)

a. If FU6_2 = 2, skip to FU6_3

b. If FU6_2 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU6a but ask FU6b

(FU6a2_FU6b_2_1)

c. If FU6_2 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU6a and FU6b

(FU6a2_FU6a_2_1 to FU6a2_FU6a_2_94 and FU6a2_FU6b_2_1 to FU6a2_FU6b_2_94)

d. If FU6b = 2, ask FU6c (FU6a2_FU6c_2_1 to FU6a2_FU6c_2_94)

(23) Ask FU6_3 (FU6_3)

a. If FU6_3 = 2, skip to FU6_4

b. If FU6_3 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU6a but ask FU6b

(FU6a3_FU6b_3_1)

c. If FU6_3 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU6a and FU6b

(FU6a3_FU6a_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6a_3_94 and FU6a3_FU6b_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6b_3_94)

d. If FU6b = 2, ask FU6c (FU6a3_FU6c_3_1 to FU6a3_FU6c_3_94)

(24) Ask FU6_4 (FU6_4)

a. If FU6_4 = 2, skip to FU6_5

b. If FU6_4 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU6a but ask FU6b

(FU6a4_FU6b_4_1)

c. If FU6_4 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU6a and FU6b

(FU6a4_FU6a_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6a_4_94 and FU6a4_FU6b_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6b_4_94)

d. If FU6b = 2, ask FU6c (FU6a4_FU6c_4_1 to FU6a4_FU6c_4_94)

(25) Ask FU6_5 (FU6_5)

a. If FU6_5 = 2, skip to FU7

b. If FU6_5 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU6a but ask FU6b

(FU6a5_FU6b_5_1)

c. If FU6_5 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU6a and FU6b

(FU6a5_FU6a_5_1 to FU6a5_FU6a_5_94 and FU6a5_FU6b_5_1 to FU6a5_FU6b_5_94)

d. If FU6b = 2, ask FU6c (FU6a5_FU6c_5_1 to FU6a5_FU6c_5_94)

(26) Ask FU7 (FU7)

a. If FU7 = 2, skip to Intimate Partner section

b. If FU7 = 1 and only one perpetrator was selected in (12), skip FU7a but ask FU7b

(FU7b_1)

c. If FU7 = 1 and multiple perpetrators were selected in (12), ask FU7a and FU7b (FU7a_1

to FU7a_94 and FU7b_1 to FU7b_94)

All data in the “b” and “c” variables should be linked to the “a” variables.  Data in the “a” variables

should be linked to FUINITIALS_# (# = 1 to 94) for FU1, FU2, FU5, FU6, and FU7; but should be linked to

FU4INITIALS_# (# = 1 to 94) for FU4.  Data in the “a” variables for FU3 should be linked to the

perpetrators identified in FU1a and FU2a (but again, the order of these perpetrators is unclear).

Analysts who wish to use data in this section should exercise great care.  The skip patterns, links, and

perpetrator selection criteria appear to be incorrectly described in the survey.  It is not always possible

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.
    264

to know with certainty how respondents and perpetrators were selected.  The skip patterns, links, and

perpetrator selection criteria detailed in this section can be used to reproduce how the data were

collected.  However, there are likely to be multiple ways to reproduce how the data were collected.  In

other words, the solutions described in this section may not be unique.  Other solutions may exist.

B. DATA EXTRACTION

The “CREATE GFU PERP.SPS” syntax file first merges the general follow‐up data from the 2010 NISVS

general population sample (“NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV”) and the 2010 AIAN oversample

(“NISVS2010AIANFINAL.SAV”).  The merged data file is saved as “FINAL GFU.SAV”.  It includes 21,378

observations and 5,011 variables.

Before constructing a perpetrator‐level data set, the following data checks were performed to make

sure that no data would be lost when creating a perpetrator‐level file:

(1) FU8 has no valid data (and can be deleted)

(2) The number of perpetrator initials selected for the general follow‐up section (IFUINITIALS)

matches the number of initials provided in FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.

(3) The number of perpetrator initials selected for FU4 (IFU4INITIALS) matches the number of

initials provided in FU4INITIALS_1 to FU4INITIALS_94.

(4) Valid data are found in FU_INTRO only when perpetrator initials are included in FUINITIALS_#.

(5) Valid data are found in FU4 only when perpetrator initials are included in FU4INITIALS_#.

(6) The “a” variables for FU1, FU2, FU5_1 to FU5_8, FU6_1 to FU6_5, and FU7 are skipped when

only one perpetrator was selected in FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.

(7) The “a” variable for FU4 is skipped when only one perpetrator was selected in FU4INITIALS_1 to

FU4INITIALS_94.

(8) There are no valid data in the “a,” “b,” or “c” variables (for FU1, FU2, FU5, FU6, and FU7) when

perpetrator initials are not included in FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.

(9) There are no valid data in the “a” and “b” variables for FU4 when perpetrator initials are not

included in FU4INITIALS_1 to FU4INITIALS_94.

No problems were found.

A perpetrator index file for the general follow‐up section is then created from all perpetrator initials

included in FUINITIALS_1 to FUINITIALS_94.  Results are saved in the “GFU PERP INDEX.SAV” data file

(some respondent‐level variables are also saved in this data file).  It includes 44,344 observations and 23

variables.  Data checks were performed to make sure that respondents did not have duplicate

perpetrator initials.  Two problems were found (with ZRID 102652711 and 104669681).  Both problems

had been previously identified (102652711 in Chapter 6 and 104669681 in Chapter 11).  The initials in

the general follow‐up section were recoded because it is not possible to know if the respondents were

referring to the same perpetrator or to different perpetrators.  (As a result, these data will not match

the other perpetrator‐level data).  Similarly, a perpetrator index file for FU4 was created from all

perpetrator initials included in FU4INITIALS_1 to FU4INITIALS_94.  Results are saved in the “GFU4 PERP

INDEX.SAV” data file.  It includes 35,563 observations and four variables.  Duplicate initials were again

found for respondent 104669681.  The duplicate initials were again recoded (details are available in the

“CREATE GFU PERP FILE.SPS” syntax file.  Again, these data will not match to the other perpetrator‐level

data.   

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.
    265

Separate perpetrator‐level files were created for each section (FU1, FU2, FU3, FU4, FU5_1, FU5_2,

FU5_3, FU5_4, FU5_5, FU5_6, FU5_7, FU5_8, FU6_1, FU6_2, FU6_3, FU6_4, FU6_5, and FU7).  When

applicable, the “a” variables were recoded to 1 (when only one perpetrator was selected and the “a”

questions were skipped; see above).  When “b” or “c” variables were included in these separate

perpetrator‐level files, data checks were performed to make sure that valid data were found only when

a perpetrator was identified in the “a” variables.  Since “a” variables were not included in FU3, data

checks were performed to make sure that valid FU3 data were found only when perpetrators had been

identified in FU1 or FU2.  

Problems were found in the FU4, FU6_1, FU6_2, FU6_3, FU6_4, and FU6_5 sections. These problems

occurred when (1) the “a” variable was coded as ‐1 or ‐2 but no valid data were found in the “b” or “c”

variables, (2) the “a” variable was coded as ‐1 or ‐2 but valid data were found in the “b” or “c” variables,

and (3) valid data were found in the “b” or “c” variables but the “a” variable was system missing.  When

no valid data were found in “b” or “c”, these observations were dropped (there were no data to retain).  

When valid data were found in “b” or “c”, “a” was recoded (from ‐2, ‐1, or system missing to a new

perpetrator number).  Although these data cannot be linked to a specific perpetrator, they might be

useful to analyze perpetrator‐level data or to aggregate the perpetrator‐level data to the respondent‐

level (e.g., to determine if the respondent was ever able to get medical care when needed).   

The separate perpetrator‐level files were then combined to create one perpetrator‐level file.  First, the

data in the perpetrator‐level file for FU3 was linked to the perpetrators identified in FU1 and FU2, so

that the data for the nth perpetrator in FU3 was linked to the nth perpetrator identified in FU1 and FU2.  

A list of perpetrators identified in FU1 and FU2 was created.  Duplicates were removed from this list

(duplicates occurred when respondents identified the same perpetrators in both FU1 and FU2).  The FU3

data were then linked to this list of perpetrators.  As explained in the previous section, the order of the

perpetrators in FU3 is unclear.  We assumed that they were presented in the order that the respondents

identified them in FU1 and FU2, but the order of the perpetrators in FU3 remains unknown.  Analysts

should clarify the ordering of perpetrators in FU3 before analyzing these data.  After linking the FU3 data

to the perpetrators in FU1 and FU2 (perhaps incorrectly), the perpetrator‐levels files for FU1, FU2, FU3,

FU5_1, FU5_2, FU5_3, FU5_4, FU5_5, FU5_6, FU5_7, FU5_8, FU6_1, FU6_2, FU6_3, FU6_4, FU6_5, and

FU7 were matched (by perpetrator number).  They were also matched to the perpetrator index file

(“GFU PERP INDEX.SAV”).   

Data checks were then performed to make sure that the perpetrator numbers linked to an actual

perpetrator.  Fifteen problems were found.  In 14 of these cases, the perpetrator number had been

recoded (see problems and recodes in previous paragraph; details can be found in the syntax file

“CREATE GFU PERP FILE.SPS”).  In the other case (ZRID = 101147831), four perpetrators were selected

for the general follow‐up section.  Four perpetrators were identified in FU5a_2, including the first

(FU5a_2_1 = 1), the 24th (FU5a_2_2 = 24), the second (FU5a_2_3 = 2), and the fourth (FU5a_3_4 = 4).  In

this case, it is probably reasonable to assume that the 24th perpetrator should actually be the third

perpetrator.  For now, the perpetrator initials were recoded to “REC01 MISSING”.  Analysts may want to

link these data, rather than create a new perpetrator.   

Results of this data match are saved in “GFU PERP PART 1.SAV”.  It includes 44,359 observations and 65

variables.  The FU4 data were then matched to the FU4 perpetrator index file (“GFU4 PERP INDEX.SAV”).  

Again, data checks were performed to make sure that all perpetrator numbers linked to an actual

perpetrator.  No problems were found.  Results of this data match are saved in “GFU PERP PART 2.SAV”.  

It includes 35,563 observations and 12 variables.  These two data files (“GFU PERP PART 1.SAV” 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.
    266

“GFU PERP PART 2.SAV”) were then matched to create the final perpetrator‐level data file.  New

perpetrator initials were created (recoded) for perpetrators whose initials had already been recoded in

previous chapters.  All variables were renamed and new variable labels were created.  The “FINAL GFU

PERP.SAV” data file includes 44,362 observations and 69 variables.

All data extractions and recodes are included in the “CREATE GFU PERP FILE.SPS” syntax file.  The “GFU

GENPOP.SAV” and “GFU AIAN.SAV” data files include the original respondent‐level general follow‐up

data from the general population sample (with 18,957 observations and 5,012 variables) and the AIAN

oversample (with 3,612 observations and 5,011 variables).  These data files were added to create the

“FINAL GFU.SAV” data file (21,378 observations and 5,011 variables).  The “GFU PERP INDEX.SAV” data

file (44,344 observations and 23 variables) includes all perpetrators selected for the general follow‐up

section and the “GFU4 PERP INDEX.SAV” data file (35,563 observations and 4 variables) includes all

perpetrators selected for the FU4 section.  The “GFU PERP PART 1.SAV” data file includes the

perpetrator‐level data for the FU1, FU2, FU3, FU5_1 to FU5_8, FU6_1 to FU6_5, and FU7 sections

(44,359 observations and 65 variables).  The “GFU PERP PART 2.SAV” data file includes the perpetrator‐

level data for the FU4 section (35,563 observations and 12 variables).  Both parts are then added to

create the final perpetrator‐level data file, “FINAL GFU PERP.SAV”, which has 44,362 observations and

69 variables.

Data & Files in the “MERGE GFU DATA” folder:

The “GFU PERP SELECTION” folder includes the syntax file to select perpetrators for the general follow‐

up section, the FU2 section, and the FU4 section (“GFU PERP SELECTION.SPS”).  It creates four data files.   

The “PERP BEHAVIORS.SAV” data file includes the number of behaviors that each perpetrator

committed in the psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, stalking,

and sexual violence sections (from the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV“ data file created in Chapter 17).  

It includes 51,482 observations and eight variables.   

The stalking exclusion criterion is created from the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file (created in Chapter 18).  

Results are saved in the “ST EXCLUDE.SAV” data file (with 51,484 observations and eight variables).    

The “PERP BEHAVIORS.SAV” data file and the “ST EXCLUDE.SAV” data file are then matched to the

“FINAL GFU PERP.SAV” data file (created earlier in this chapter).  Results are saved in the “FINAL PERP

BEHAVIORS.SAV” data file.  It includes 51,532 observations and 81 variables.  This is the file that includes

all data necessary to select respondents and perpetrators for the general follow‐up section.   

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.
    267

Selection criteria are computed for the general follow‐up section, the FU2 section, and the FU4 section.  

Results are saved in the “GFU PERP SELECTION.SAV” data file which includes 51,532 observations and

five variables.

Data & Files in the “GFU PERP SELECTION” folder:

C. DATA CLEANING

The “FINAL GFU PERP.SAV” data file was matched to the “GFU PERP SELECTION.SAV” data file to create

the “GFU WITH SELECT.SAV” data file.  This data file includes a total of 51,532 perpetrators and 72

variables.   

There are multiple ways that one could clean these data.  For example, the data could be cleaned based

on who should have been selected for the general follow‐up section, based on who was actually

selected for the general follow‐up section, or based on who was actually included in the general follow‐

up section.  (These distinctions are elaborated further when creating the final perpetrator‐level file in

the next section).  Depending on the purpose of one’s analysis, these distinctions could be important.  

For example, it could impact how missing data are coded as “not applicable” versus “unknown.”  In

addition, data cleaning could account for cases where eligibility is unknown (this would account for

respondents who skipped questions).  There are at least three reasons that could explain why certain

respondents and perpetrators were excluded from parts or all of the general follow‐up section.  Some

were known to be ineligible.  For some, eligibility was unknown (and they were not included).  For

others, their initials had been recoded.  The previous data calculations (such as those in the “GFU PERP

SELECTION.SPS” syntax file) were not designed to identify cases where eligibility was unknown.  The best

way to clean these data will depend entirely on the purpose of one’s analysis.  As a result, minimal data

cleaning is performed in this section.  Most data cleaning is limited to recoding missing data.  Depending

on the purpose of one’s analysis, additional data cleaning may be necessary.

For now, all data cleaning is based on whether respondents or perpetrators were included in each part

of the general follow‐up section (not on whether they should have been selected or were actually

selected).  Those data are included in INGFU, INGFU2, INGFU3, and INGFU4.  INGFU indicates whether

perpetrators were included in FU1, FU5, FU6, and FU7 (0 = No, 1 = Yes).  Respectively, INGFU2, INGFU3,

and INGFU4 indicate whether perpetrators were included in FU2, FU3, and FU4 (0 = No, 1 = Yes).  When

INGFU = 0 (i.e., when perpetrators were not included in the general follow‐up section), INGFU2, INGFU3,

and INGFU4 were all coded to ‐99.

There are 22 perpetrators whose initials were recoded in the “CREATE GFU PERP FILE.SPS” syntax file.  

For these 22 perpetrators, INGFU needs to be recoded to 1.  INGFU then accurately represents who was

included in the general follow‐up section (even if they should not have been selected or were not

actually selected).   

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.
    268

Consistent missing data codes were used throughout this section.  A code of ‐99 means that the

perpetrator was not included in the general follow‐up section (INGFU = 0).  A code of ‐92 means that the

perpetrator was included in the general follow‐up section (INGFU = 1), but was excluded from the FU2

section (INGFU2 = 0).  Similarly, a code of ‐93 means that the perpetrator was included in the general

follow‐up section (INGFU = 1) but was excluded from the FU3 section (INGFU3 = 0) and a code of ‐94

means that the perpetrator was included in the general follow‐up section (INGFU = 1) but was excluded

from the FU4 section (INGFU4 = 0).  A code of ‐9 means that the perpetrator was included in that

particular section, but data about that perpetrator are unknown.

Missing data in FU1, FU5, FU6, and FU7 are recoded based on INGFU.  More specifically, missing data in

FU1R, FU5R1, FU5R2, FU5R3, FU5R4, FU5R5, FU5R6, FU5R7, FU5R8, FU6R1, FU6R2, FU6R3, FU6R4,

FU6R5, and FU7R are recoded to ‐99 when INGFU = 0 and to ‐9 when INGFU = 1.  Missing data in FU1P

were then cleaned based on FU1R.  When FU1R = ‐99 (which occurred when INGFU = 0), missing data in

FU1P are recoded to ‐99.  When FU1R = ‐9 (which only occurred when INGFU = 1), missing data in FU1P

are recoded to ‐9.  When FU1R = 1 or FU1R = 2, missing data in FU1P are recoded to 0.  In these cases,

the respondents were not concerned for their safety (FU1R = 2) or they were concerned for their safety

(FU1R = 1), but it was not that perpetrator who made them concerned for their safety (it was another

perpetrator).  The same logic was used to recode missing values in FU5P1, FU5P2, FU5P3, FU5P4, FU5P5,

FU5P6, FU5P7, FU5P8, FU6P1, FU6P2, FU6P3, FU6P4, FU6P5, and FU7P.  Missing data in these variables

are recoded based on value in their “R” counterpart.  For example, missing data in FU5P3 are recoded

based on FU5R3.  When the “R” values are ‐99, missing data in “P” are recoded to ‐99.  When the “R”

values are ‐9, missing data in “P” are recoded to ‐9.  When “R” values are 1 or 2, missing data in “P” are

recoded to 0.

Data in the “B” variables (for FU5, FU6, and FU7) were then cleaned based on the “P” variables.  For

example, missing data in FU5B3 are recoded based on FU5P3.  When P = ‐99 (i.e., when the perpetrators

were not included in the general follow‐up section), missing data in B are recoded to ‐99.  When P = ‐9

or P = 1, missing data in B are recoded to ‐9.  In these cases, it is unknown if the perpetrator was

identified in this question.  Finally, when P = 0 (when the perpetrators were not identified), missing data

in B are recoded to ‐98.  A code of ‐98 means that the “B” question is not applicable because the

perpetrator was not identified in the “P” variable.

To summarize, all missing data for FU1, FU5, FU6, and FU7 are recoded to ‐99 when the perpetrators

were not included in the general follow‐up section (i.e., when INGFU = 0).  Missing data in the

respondent‐level variables (i.e., the “R” variables) are recoded to ‐99 when INGFU = 0 and to ‐9 when

INGFU = 1.  Missing data in the “P” variables were then recoded based on the “R” variables.  Missing

data in P are recoded to ‐99 when R = ‐99, to ‐9 when R = ‐9, and to 0 when R = 1 or R = 2.  Then, missing

data in the “B” variables are recoded based on the “P” variables.    More specifically, missing data in B

are recoded to ‐99 when P = ‐99, to ‐9 when P = ‐9 or P = 1, and to ‐98 when P = 0.

A similar strategy was used to recode the missing data in FU2.  The data in FU2R were cleaned based on

INGFU2.  The data in FU2R were then used to clean the data in FU2P, and the data in FU2P were then

used to clean the data in FU2B.  Missing data in FU2R are recoded to ‐99 when INGFU2 = ‐99 (meaning

that the perpetrators were not included in the general follow‐up section), to ‐92 when INGFU2 = 0

(meaning that the perpetrators were not included in the GFU2 section), and to ‐9 when INGFU2 = 1.  

When FU2R = ‐99 (which occurred when INGFU = 0 and INGFU2 = ‐99), missing data in FU2P are recoded

to ‐99.  When FU2R = ‐92 (which occurred when INGFU = 1 but INGFU2 = 0), missing data in FU2P are

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.
    269

recoded to ‐92.  When FU2R = ‐9 (which occurred when INGFU = 1 and INGFU2 = 1), missing data in

FU2P are recoded to ‐9.  (Note, there are no cases where INGFU = 0 but INGFU2 = 1).  When FU2R = 1 or

FU2R = 2, missing data in FU2P are recoded to 0.  In these cases, the respondents were not fearful (FU2R

= 2) or were fearful (FU2R = 1), but it was not that perpetrator who made them fearful (it was another

perpetrator).  Missing values for FU2B were then recoded to ‐99 when FU2P = ‐99 (when perpetrators

were not included in the general follow‐up section), to ‐92 when FU2P = ‐92 (when perpetrators were

included in the general follow‐up section, but not in the GFU2 section), to ‐98 when FU2P = 0 (when the

perpetrators were included in the GFU2 section but did not cause fear), and to ‐9 when FU2P = ‐9 or

FU2P = 1 (when perpetrators were included in the GFU2 section but it is unknown if they made the

respondent fearful).

FU3P1, FU3P2, FU3P3, and FU3P4 were all cleaned based on INGFU3.  For all four of these FU3 variables,

missing data are recoded to ‐99 when INGFU3 = ‐99 (i.e., when perpetrators were not included in the

general follow‐up section; INGFU = 0), to ‐93 when INGFU3 = 0 (i.e., when perpetrators were included in

the general follow‐up section but were excluded from the FU3 section), and to ‐9 when INGFU3 = 1 (i.e.,

when perpetrators were included in the FU3 section).

The data in FU4R were cleaned based on INGFU4.  Then, the data in FU4R were used to clean the data in

FU4P, and the data in FU4P were used to clean the data in FU4P1, FU4P2, FU4P3, FU4P4, and FU4P5.  

Missing data in FU4R are recoded to ‐99 when INGFU4 = ‐99 (i.e., when the perpetrators were not

included in the GFU section), to ‐94 when INGFU4 = 0 (i.e., when the perpetrators were included in the

GFU section, but not in the GFU4 section), and to ‐9 when INGFU4 = 1 (i.e., when the perpetrators were

included in the GFU4 section).  Then, missing data in FU4P are recoded to ‐99 when FU4R = ‐99 (i.e.,

when perpetrators were not included in the GFU section), to ‐94 when FU4R = ‐94 (i.e., when

perpetrators were included in the GFU section but were not included in the GFU4 section), to ‐9 when

FU4R = ‐9 (i.e., when perpetrators were included in the GFU4 section, but it was unknown if they caused

injuries), and to 0 when FU4R = 1 or FU4R = 2 (i.e., when perpetrators were included in the GFU4 section

but they did not cause injuries to the respondents).  The types of injuries caused by perpetrators are

recorded in FU4P1 to FU4P5.  For all five of these variables, missing data are recoded to ‐99 when FU4P

= ‐99 (i.e., when perpetrators were not included in the GFU section), to ‐94 when FU4P = ‐94 (i.e., when

perpetrators were included in the GFU section but were not included in the GFU4 section), to ‐9 when

FU4P = ‐9 or FU4P = 1 (i.e., when perpetrators were included in the GFU4 section but it was unknown if

they caused injuries or what types of injuries they caused), and to ‐98 when FU4P = 0 (i.e., when

perpetrators were included in the GFU4 section but did not cause injuries).  In these cases, the

respondents either did not report injuries (FU4R = 2) or reported injuries (FU4R = 1), but the injuries

were not caused by this perpetrator (FU4P = 0).  They were caused by other perpetrators.

All recodes are included in the “GFU DATA CLEANING.SPS” syntax file.  Data checks were then

performed to make sure that all data had been cleaned successfully.  One problem was found for FU5R2.  

The perpetrator’s initials had been recoded.  For this case, FU5P2 = 1 but FU5R2 = ‐9 (i.e., the

respondent talked to a doctor or nurse about this perpetrator, but it was unknown if the respondent

had talked to a doctor or nurse about any of the perpetrators).  In this case, FU5R2 was recoded from ‐9

to 1.  Fourteen problems were found with FU6 (eight with FU6R1, five with FU6R2, and one with FU6R4).  

In all of these cases, the perpetrator initials had been recoded.  For these cases, the “P” variables

equaled 1 but the “R” variables equaled ‐9 (i.e., the respondent needed services because of what the

perpetrator did [P = 1] but it was unknown if the respondent needed services because of what any of

the perpetrators did [R = ‐9]).  In these cases, the “R” variable (i.e., FU6R1, FU6R2, or FU6R4) are

recoded from ‐9 to 1.

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.
    270

Data checks were also performed to make sure that respondent‐level data did not include both “Yes”

and “No” answers.  No problems were found.  Finally, data checks were performed to make sure that

when respondents answered “Yes” to a respondent‐level question (in “R” variables), there was at least

one perpetrator identified in the “P” variables.  Problems were found for 117 perpetrators.  In these

cases, the respondent answered “Yes” to a respondent‐level question, but none of the data in “P”

equals 1.  These problems are not addressed in this chapter.  The important point is that respondent‐

level data are inconsistent with perpetrator‐level data.  For example, estimates of the need for services

will be different if they are based on respondent‐level data or perpetrator‐level data.  That occurs

because some respondents indicated the need for services (in “R” variables), but also indicated that

none of perpetrators caused the need for these services (in the “P” variables).  Analysts who wish to use

these data should consider which data to use and whether additional recodes are necessary (for

example, recoding “P” data from “No” to “Unknown”).

The final clean data are saved in the “CLEAN GFU.SAV” data file (in the “C:\GFU\GFU DATA CLEANING\”

folder).  It includes 51,532 observations and 74 variables.

D. FINAL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL FILE FOR GENERAL FOLLOW‐UP DATA

The “CREATE CLEAN P GFU.SPS” syntax file uses the “CLEAN GFU.SAV” data file (created in the previous

section) to create a final clean perpetrator‐level data file.  Minor recodes are performed (e.g., recoding

“No” answers from 2 to 0) and new variable and value labels are created.  Data checks were then

performed, including detailed data checks by perpetrator‐level response patterns.  No problems were

found.

Several new selection variables are created.  Three variables can be used to identify perpetrators for the

general follow‐up section.  The GFUSHOULD variable indicates whether perpetrators should have been

selected for the general follow‐up section.  The GFUSELECT variable indicates whether perpetrators

were actually selected for the general follow‐up section.  As previously defined, the INGFU variable

indicates whether perpetrators were actually included in the general follow‐up section.  Again, data

cleaning in the previous section was based on INGFU.  Depending on the goals of their analyses, analysts

should consider whether it would be more appropriate to clean their data based on GFUSHOULD or

GFUSELECT.

Ideally, perpetrators that should have been selected would have actually been selected and would have

actually been included (i.e., GFUSHOULD = 1 and GFUSELECT = 1 and INGFU = 1).  Conversely,

perpetrators that should not have been selected would not have been selected and would not have

been included (i.e., GFUSHOULD = 0 and GFUSELECT = 0 and INGFU = 0).  There are 419 perpetrators

that do not fit these patterns.  Of these 419 perpetrators, 18 were included when they should not have

been selected and were not selected (i.e., GFUSHOULD = 0 and GFUSELECT = 0 but INGFU = 1), 30 were

selected and included when they should not have been selected (i.e., GFUSHOULD = 0 but GFUSELECT =

1 and INGFU = 1), and 371 should have been selected but were not selected and were not included (i.e.,

GFUSHOULD = 1 but GFUSELECT = 0 and INGFU = 0).  These inconsistencies are due to perpetrator

initials that were recoded in this chapter and in previous chapters.  Analysts should consider whether

different recodes would be better for the purpose of their analyses.   

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.
    271

After checking the consistency between GFUSHOULD, GFUSELECT, and INGFU, data checks were

performed to examine the consistency between FU1P and INGFU, INGFU2 and INGFU, FU2P and

INGFU2, FU2B and FU2P, INGFU3 and INGFU, INGFU3 and FU1P / FU2P, FU3P1 and INGFU3, FU3P2 and

INGFU3, FU3P3 and INGFU3,  and FU3P4 and INGFU3.  No problems were found.  

Selection variables were also created for the FU4 perpetrator selection.  The GFU4SHOULD variable

indicates whether perpetrators should have been selected for the GFU4 section.  The GFU4SELECT

variable indicates whether perpetrators were actually selected for the GFU4 section and the INGFU4

variable still indicates whether perpetrators were actually included in the GFU4 section.  There are 304

perpetrators that should have been selected for GFU4 but were not (i.e., GFU4SHOULD = 1 but

GFU4SELECT = 0) and 19 perpetrators that should not have been selected for GFU4 but were (i.e.,

GFU4SHOULD = 0 but GFU4SELECT = 1).  Again, these problems are due to recoded perpetrator initials

and analysts should consider if these recodes are appropriate for the purpose of their analyses.

After checking the consistency between GFU4SHOULD, GFU4SELECT, and INGFU4, data checks were

performed to examine the consistency between FU4P and INGFU4, FU4P1 and FU4P, FU4P2 and FU4P,

FU4P3 and FU4P, FU4P4 and FU4P, FU4P5 and FU4P, FU5P1 and INGFU, FU5B1 and FU5P1, FU5P2 and

INGFU, FU5B2 and FU5P2, FU5P3 and INGFU, FU5B3 and FU5P3, FU5P4 and INGFU, FU5B4 and FU5P4,

FU5P5 and INGFU, FU5B5 and FU5P5, FU5P6 and INGFU, FU5B6 and FU5P6, FU5P7 and INGFU, FU5B7

and FU5P7, FU5P8 and INGFU, FU5B8 and FU5P8, FU6P1 and INGFU, FU6B1 and FU6P1, FU6P2 and

INGFU, FU6B2 and FU6P2, FU6P3 and INGFU, FU6B3 and FU6P3, FU6P4 and INGFU, FU6B4 and FU6P4,

FU6P5 and INGFU, FU6B5 and FU6P5, FU7P and INGFU, and FU7B and FU7P.  No problems were found.

The final clean perpetrator‐level data file is saved as “CLEAN P GFU.SAV”.  It includes 51,532

observations and 57 variables.  The “CREATE CLEAN P GFU.SPS” syntax file and the “CLEAN P GFU.SAV”

data file are both included in the “C:\GFU\GFU DATA CLEANING\” folder.  The “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” data

file was also copied to the “C:\GFU\” folder.

E. FINAL RESPONDENT‐LEVEL FILE FOR GENERAL FOLLOW‐UP DATA

The “CREATE CLEAN R GFU.SPS” syntax file uses the “CLEAN GFU.SAV” data file to create a final clean

respondent‐level data file.  For each respondent‐level variable (FU1R, FU2R, FU4R, FU5R_1 to FU5R_8,

FU6R_1 to FU6R_5, and FU7R), the perpetrator‐level data were aggregated to the respondent‐level.  

New respondent‐level variables were created to count the number of perpetrators in each value of each

perpetrator‐level variable.  For example, FU1R includes four values (‐99, ‐9, 1, and 2).  When aggregating

the perpetrator‐level data to the respondent‐level, new variables were created to count the number of

perpetrators with a value of ‐99 (in FU1R_99), the number of perpetrators with a value of ‐9 (in

FU1R_9), the number of perpetrators with a value of 1 (in FU1R_1), and the number of perpetrators

with a value of 2 (in FU1R_2).  Similarly, when aggregating the perpetrator‐level data for FU2, new

variables were created to count the number of perpetrators with a value of ‐99 (in FU2R_99), the

number of perpetrators with a value of ‐9 (in FU2R_9), the number of perpetrators with a value of 1 (in

FU2R_1), and the number of perpetrators with a value of 2 (in FU2R_2).  In addition, because ‐92 is

value in FU2R, a new variable was created to count the number of perpetrators with a value of ‐92 (in

FU2R_92).   

Then, new respondent‐level data were created using the following rules:

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.
    272

(1) If any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value of 1 (“Yes”), the respondent‐level data were

coded to 1.  For example, if FU1R_1 > 0, FU1R was coded to 1.

(2) Else, if any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value of 2 (“No”), the respondent‐level data were

coded to 0.  For example, if FU2R_2 > 0 (and FU2R_1 = 0), FU2R was coded to 0.

(3) Else (i.e., if not (1) and (2) above), if any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value of ‐9

(“Unknown”), the respondent‐level data were coded to ‐9.  For example, if FU4R_9 > 0 (and

FU4R_1 = 0 and FU4R_2 = 0), FU4R was coded to ‐9.

(4) Else (i.e., if none of the above), and for FU2 only, if any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value

of ‐92 (“Not in GFU2 Section”), the respondent‐level data were coded to ‐92.  For example, if

FU2R_92 > 0 (and FU2R_1 = 0 and FU2R_2 = 0 and FU2R_9 = 0), FU2R was coded to ‐92.

(5) Else (i.e., if none of the above), and for FU4 only, if any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value

of ‐94 (“Not in GFU4 Section”), the respondent‐level data were coded to ‐94.  For example, if

FU4R_94 > 0 (and FU4R_1 = 0 and FU4R_2 = 0 and FU4R_9 = 0), FU4R was coded to ‐94.

(6) Else (i.e., if none of the above), if any of the perpetrator‐level data had a value of ‐99 (“Not in

GFU Section”), the respondent‐level data were coded to ‐99.  For example, if FU5R1_99 > 0 (and

FU5R1_1 = 0 and FU5R1_2 = 0 and FU5R1_9 = 0), FU5R1 was coded to ‐99.

Finally, FU5R8_SP was recoded to delete all ‐3 values.  Data are then saved in the “R GFU.SAV” data file.  

It includes 14,658 observations and 22 variables.

Data checks were then performed to make sure that the respondent‐level data (created above from the

perpetrator‐level data) matched the original respondent‐level data.  No problems were found.  At the

same time, respondents were re‐inserted (if they had been excluded because no perpetrators had been

selected for the general follow‐up section).  For these respondents, all data were coded to ‐99 (“Not in

GFU Section”).  New variable and value labels were created.   The final clean respondent‐level data are

saved in the “CLEAN R GFU.SAV” data file.  It includes 21,378 observations and 23 variables.

All files for data cleaning, for creating the final perpetrator‐level file, and for creating the final

respondent‐level file are included in the “C:\GFU\GFU DATA CLEANING\” folder.   

Data & Files in the “GFU DATA CLEANING” folder:

   

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.
    273

Data, Files & Folders in the “GFU” folder:

The “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” and “CLEAN R GFU.SAV” data files are the same as those created in the “GFU

DATA CLEANING” folder.  Finally, the “MATCH GFU R AND P.SPS” syntax file provides a basic way to

merge the respondent‐level data and the perpetrator‐level data back into a single respondent‐level file.  

Data checks are then performed to make sure that the respondent‐level data are consistent with the

perpetrator‐level data.  As explained previously, they are not.  There are 114 cases where the

respondent‐level data are coded as “Yes”, but no perpetrators are identified in the perpetrator‐level

data (e.g., FU1R = 1, but FU1P ≠ 1).  There are a total of 169 such problems (from 114 respondents, or

117 perpetrators).  Analysts will need to think carefully when choosing the respondent‐level data, the

perpetrator‐level data, or a mixture of the two data.

   

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.
274

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 22

INTIMATE PARTNER SECTION

The intimate partner (IP) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)

includes six questions (all at the respondent‐level):

IP1 During your lifetime, have you had sex with only men, only women, or both men and women?

IP1a Do you consider yourself to be heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, or bisexual?

IP2 If IP2 ≠ 1: Are you currently married, divorced, separated, widowed, or have you never been

married?

IP3 If IP2 ≠ 1 and IP3 ≠ 1: Are you currently living with a man or woman as a couple at least part of

the time?

IP4 Are you currently romantically or sexually involved with someone like a boyfriend or girlfriend?

IP5 If IP2 = 1: Is your spouse male or female?

If IP3 = 1: Is the person you are living with as a couple male or female?

If IP4 = 1: Is the person you are romantically or sexually involved with a man or a woman?

IP3 was only asked for respondents that were not married (i.e., if IP2 ≠ 1).  IP4 was only asked for

respondents who were not married (i.e., if IP2 ≠ 1) and who were not currently living with a man or

woman at least part of the time (i.e., if IP3 ≠ 1).  IP5 determined the gender of the respondent’s spouse

(if IP2 = 1), of the person that the respondent was living with (if IP3 = 1), or of the person the respondent

was romantically or sexually involved with (if IP4 = 1).  For IP1, respondents who answered “Other” (i.e.,

IP1 = 4) were asked to specify their answers and their responses are included in IP1_SP.  Similarly, for

IP2, respondents who answered “Other” (i.e., IP2 = 6) were asked to specify their answers and their

responses are included in IP2_SP.

Although the CDC/RTI surveys do not show a skip pattern for IP1a, a skip pattern was used during the

first and second quarters of 2010 (details are included in Section B below).

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the intimate partner sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010

AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the

psychological aggression section.  Data & Files in the “MERGE IP DATA” folder:

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.
    275

The “FINAL IP.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 14 variables.   

B. DATA CHECKING AND CLEANING

Data cleaning consisted of recoding missing values to ‐9 (when unknown) and to ‐99 (when not

applicable).  While skip patterns were checked, detailed data checks were not performed.  In particular,

there are clearly answers provided by the respondents in IP1_SP and IP2_SP that could be used to

recode data values in IP1 and IP2, respectively.  Data recodes in IP2 could then impact how data should

be cleaned in IP3, IP4, and IP5.  For example, some respondents answered “Other” for IP2 (“Are you

currently married, divorced, separated, widowed, or have you never been married?”), but then specified

“common law marriage” in IP2_SP.  In these cases, analysts may want to recode IP2 from 6 (“Other”) to

1 (“Married”).  These respondents would then skip IP3 and IP4 to IP5.  In this section, data cleaning was

limited to recoding missing values (it again appears that the ‐3 code was inconsistently used).

For IP1, all missing data are recoded to ‐9.  Missing data (‘‐3’ values) in IP1_SP are recoded to system

missing when IP1 ≠ 4.  

A skip pattern was used for IP1a (even though it is not shown in the CDC/RTI surveys).  This skip pattern

was only used during the first and second quarters of 2010.  During the first two quarters of 2010,

respondents were not asked IP1a when they were male (RSEX = “1”) and reported having had sex with

women only (IP1 = 2).  Similarly, respondents were not asked IP1a when they were female (RSEX = “2”)

and reported having had sex with men only (IP1 = 1).  (Note, the “neither” option for IP1 [for

respondents that had not had sex with others during their lifetime] was not available until the beginning

of the third quarter).  A new variable (INIP1A) was created to identify the respondents that were

included in IP1A (1 = “Yes”, 0 = “No”).  INIP1A was coded to 1, and was recoded to 0 when (QUARTER =

“101” or QUARTER = “102”) and ((RSEX = “1” and IP1 = 2) or (RSEX = “2” and IP1 = 1)).  Missing data in

IP1A are then recoded to ‐9 when INIP1A = 1 and to ‐99 when INIP1A = 0.

For IP2, all missing data are recoded to ‐9.  Missing data (‘‐3’ values) in IP2_SP are recoded to system

missing when IP2 ≠ 6.  

Skip patterns for IP3, IP4, and IP5 were checked.  More specifically, data were checked to make sure that

IP3 was skipped when IP2 = 1 and only when IP2 = 1 and to make sure that IP4 was skipped when IP2 = 1

or IP3 = 1, and only when IP2 = 1 or IP3 = 1.  No problems were found.   For IP3, missing data are

recoded to ‐99 when IP2 = 1 (when the respondent was married) and to ‐9 when IP2 ≠ 1.  For IP4,

missing data are recoded to ‐99 when IP2 = 1 (when the respondent was married) or IP3 = 1 (when the

respondent was living with a man or a woman as a couple at least part of the time).  When the

respondent was not married (IP2 ≠ 1) and was not living with a man or a woman as a couple at least part

of the time (IP3 ≠ 1), missing data in IP4 are recoded to ‐9.  Finally, missing data in IP5 are recoded to ‐99

when IP2 ≠ 1 (when the respondent was not married), IP3 ≠ 1 (when the respondent was not living with

a man or a woman as a couple at least part of the time), and IP4 ≠ 1 (when the respondent as not

currently romantically or sexually involved with someone like a boyfriend or girlfriend).  When the

respondent was married (IP2 = 1), was living with a man or a woman as a couple at least part of the time

(IP3 = 1), or was currently romantically or sexually involved with someone like a boyfriend or girlfriend

(IP4 = 1), missing data in IP5 are recoded to ‐9.   

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    276

Finally, three new variables were created to split IP5 into IP6 (for the gender of the respondent’s spouse

[from IP2]), IP7 (for the gender of the respondent’s co‐habitant [from IP3]), and IP8 (for the gender of

the respondent’s romantic/sexual partner [from IP4]).  In IP6, IP7, and IP8, missing data were again

recoded to ‐99 when not applicable and to ‐9 when unknown.  Data for IP6 were not applicable when

IP2 ≠ 1 (when the respondent was not married).  Data for IP7 were not applicable when IP3 ≠ 1 (when

the respondent was not living with a man or a woman as a couple at least part of the time).  Data for IP8

were not applicable when IP4 ≠ 1 (when the respondent as not currently romanƟcally or sexually

involved with someone like a boyfriend or girlfriend).   

New variable and value labels were created.  All data checking and cleaning is included in the “CLEAN IP

FILES.SPS” syntax file in the “IP DATA CLEANING” folder.  Final results are saved in the “CLEAN IP.SAV”

data file.  It includes 21,378 observations and 18 variables.

Data & Files in the “IP DATA CLEANING” folder:

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.
277

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 23

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS SECTION

The respondent characteristics (RC) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

(NISVS) includes demographic questions at the respondent‐level:

RC1 What year were you born?

RC2 What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

RC3 Are you of Hispanic or Latina/Latino origin?

RC3a If RC3 = 1: Which of these Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish groups best describes you?

RC4 If SAMPLE = 1: What is your race? (Data are included in RC4_1 to RC4_6, for the first to the

sixth answer)

RC5 If SAMPLE = 1: Were you born in the United States, including U.S. territories and U.S. military

bases?

RC5a If SAMPLE = 1 and RC5 = 2: In what country were you born?

RC5b If SAMPLE = 1 and RC5 = 2: How many years have you lived in the United States?

RC6 If respondent is American Indian or Alaska Native: Are you affiliated or enrolled with a tribe or

village?

RC6a If respondent is American Indian or Alaska Native and RC6 = 1: Which tribe or village are you

affiliated or enrolled with?

RC6b   If respondent is American Indian or Alaska Native: Have you ever lived within reservation

boundaries or in an Alaska Native village?

RC6c If respondent is American Indian or Alaska Native and RC6b = 1: Have you lived within

reservation boundaries or in an Alaska Native village during the past 12 months?

RC7a Was your income less than $25,000?

RC7b If RC7a = 1: Was your income less than $20,000?

RC7c If RC7b = 1: Was your income less than $15,000?

RC7d If RC7c = 1: Was your income less than $10,000?

RC7e If RC7a = ‐1 or RC7a = 2: Was your income less than $35,000?

RC7f If RC7e = ‐1 or RC7e = 2: Was your income less than $50,000?

RC7g If RC7f = ‐1 or RC7f = 2: Was your income less than $75,000?

RC7h If RC7g = ‐1 or RC7g = 2: Was your income $75,000 or more?

RC8 Have you been without any telephone service for more than two weeks at any point in the

past year?

RC10 What is your zip code?

Note that some of the skip patterns above appear to be missing from the survey (RC6 through RC6c).  

Others appear to be incorrectly described in the survey (RC7a through RC7h).  For RC3a, respondents

who answered “Other” (i.e., RC3a = 7) were asked to specify their answers and their responses are

included in RC3a_SP.  Similarly, for RC4, respondents who answered “Other” (i.e., RC4 = 6) were asked

to specify their answers and their responses are included in RC4_SP.  There are two other questions

where respondents were asked to specify their answers (but these other questions are not included 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.
    278

the survey).  For RC5a, respondents who answered “Other” were asked to specify their answers and

their responses are included in RC5O.  Similarly, for RC6a, respondents who answered “Other” were

asked to specify their answers and their responses are included in RC6O.

The first answer to RC4 was recorded in RC4_1.  Respectively, the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth

answers to RC4 were recorded in RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, and RC4_6.  Note, there are no

respondents who provided a sixth answer.

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the respondent characteristics sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the

2010 AIAN oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the

psychological aggression section.  In addition, RSEX (respondent gender) was also retained.

Data & Files in the “MERGE RC DATA” folder:

The “FINAL RC.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 38 variables.   

B. DATA CHECKING AND CLEANING

Values for RSEX, RC1, RC2, and RC3 were checked.  No problems were found.  Missing data are recoded

to ‐9 and new variable and value labels were created.

Data checks were performed to make sure that RC3a had a value when RC3 = 1, and only when RC3 = 1.  

No problems were found.  Missing data in RC3a are recoded to ‐99 when RC3 ≠ 1, and to ‐9 otherwise.  A

new variable label and new value labels were created.  Data checks were then performed to make sure

that RC3a_SP had a value when RC3a = 7, and only when RC3a = 7.  No problems were found.  A new

variable label was created.  The data in RC3a_SP were not checked; and values in RC3a_SP were not

used to recode RC3.  There are only 48 cases where RC3a = 7 (and where a value was provided in

RC3a_SP).  Some of the values in RC3a_SP do not represent a Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish group.  

Analysts who wish to use data in RC3, RC3a, and RC3a_SP should examine these data further.

Data checks were performed to make sure that the RC4 variables were defined in the general population

sample only (i.e., when SAMPLE = 1).  No problems were found.  System missing data in the RC4

variables (RC4_1 to RC4_6) are recoded to ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2 (i.e., when respondents were in the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample) and to ‐3 when SAMPLE = 1.  Note that a code of ‐3 does

not mean that the respondent’s answer is unknown.  Instead, it means that the are no data.  For

example, if RC4_2 = ‐3, it simply means that there are not data in RC4_2, because the respondent did

not provide a second answer to RC4.  That could have occurred because the respondent did not have a

second racial group to report, because the respondent did not know the answer to RC4 (in which case

RC4_1 = ‐1), or because the respondent did not want to answer RC4 (in which case RC4_1 = ‐2).  Missing

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.
    279

data in RC4_1 are coded as ‐1 when the respondent didn’t know the answer to the question and as ‐2

when the respondent refused to answer the question.  For the 165 respondents with a code of ‐1 or ‐2

in RC4_1, there are no subsequent data in RC4_2 to RC4_6 (and these were recoded to ‐3).    

New race variables were computed to determine if the respondent was White alone or in combination

(R_WHITE), Black or African American alone or in combination (R_BLACK), Asian alone or in combination

(R_ASIAN), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone or in combination (R_NHPI), American Indian

or Alaska Native alone or in combination (R_AIAN), or of another race alone or in combination

(R_OTHER).  For respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample, R_AIAN was coded

as 1 (for “Yes”).  All other variables were coded as ‐99 (for “N/A: SAMPLE = 2”).  In the American Indian

and Alaska Native oversample, the RC4 question was not asked and it is therefore not possible to know

if the respondents also identified with another racial group.  For respondents in the general population

sample, these variables (R_WHITE, R_BLACK, R_ASIAN, R_NHPI, R_AIAN, and R_OTHER) were coded as ‐

9 (for “Unknown”) when the respondent didn’t know the answer to RC4 or refused to provide an answer

(i.e., when RC4_1 = ‐1 or ‐2), as 1 (for “Yes”) when the respondent identified with that racial group (in

RC4_1 to RC4_6), and as 0 (for “No”) when the respondent did not identify with that racial group (in

RC4_1 to RC4_6).

Data checks were then performed to make sure that RC4_SP was defined when R_OTHER = 1, and only

when R_OTHER = 1.  Problems were found with 212 respondents.  These 212 respondents provided an

answer in RC4_SP, but had not indicated that they identified with another racial group (i.e., R_OTHER =

0).  It is unclear why or how respondents were asked to specify their answers and it is unclear why their

answers were recorded in RC4_SP.  Nonetheless, answers in RC4_SP were examined to determine if any

of the race information should be recoded.  Recodes for the R_WHITE to R_AIAN variables were based

on the race categories included in RC4_SP.  When respondents indicated “White” or “Caucasian” in

RC4_SP, R_WHITE was recoded to 1.  R_BLACK was recoded to 1 when the respondent indicated “Black”

or “African American.”  R_ASIAN was recoded to 1 when the respondent indicated “Asian.”  R_NHPI was

recoded to 1 when the respondent indicated “Native Hawaiian” or “Pacific Islander.”  Finally, R_AIAN

was recoded to 1 when the respondent indicated “American Indian,” “Alaska Native,” or “Native

American.”  Seven recodes were performed (details are available in the “CLEAN RC FILE.SPS” syntax file

and in the “RACE RECODES.XLSX” excel spreadsheet).  Additional recodes would be possible if they were

based on ethnicity and/or ancestry.  For example, analysts could check that R_WHITE = 1 when RC4_SP =

“German.”  The US Census defines “White” as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa,” which “includes people who indicate their race as ‘White’ or

report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”   Recodes based

on ethnicity and/or ancestry were not completed.  The variables R_WHITE to R_AIAN were only recoded

based on race information included in RC4_SP.   

Finally, a single race variable was created to determine if the respondent was White alone, Black alone,

Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone, of another race alone, or of two or more

races.  Results are included in the R_RACE variable.  

RC5 asks respondents if they were born in the United States.  Missing data in RC5 are recoded to ‐9 for

respondents from the general population sample (SAMPLE = 1) and to ‐99 for respondents from the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample (SAMPLE = 2).  New variable and value labels were

created.  Data checks were performed to make sure that RC5A was defined when RC5 = 2, and only

when RC5 = 2.  Four problems were found.  For two of these four cases, the “Other” location was a US

city or state (but RC5 = 2 or ‐9).  For these two cases, RC5 was recoded to 1 and values in RC5A were

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    280

deleted.  For the other two cases, the “Other” location was another country (but RC5 = ‐9).  For these

two cases, RC5 was recoded to 2.  Data checks were also performed to make sure that RC5O was

defined when RC5A = “Other”, and only when RC5A = “Other”.  No problems were found, and values in

RC5O were then copied to RC5A.   For RC5B, data were checked to make sure that RC5B was defined

when RC5 = 2, and only when RC5 = 2.  Three respondents provided RC5B data but they were born in the

United States.  Their RC5B data are recoded to system missing.  Then, all missing data in RC5B are

recoded to ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2 (respondent was in American Indian and Alaska Native oversample

[and was not asked this question]), to ‐98 when RC5 ≠ 2 (respondent was not born outside of the United

States [and was not asked this question]), and to ‐9 otherwise.   

The RC6 questions were for American Indian and Alaska Native respondents.  Missing data in RC6 and

RC6B are coded to ‐99 when the respondent was not American Indian or Alaska Native (R_AIAN ≠ 1) and

to ‐9 when the respondent was American Indian or Alaska Native (R_AIAN = 1).  Data checks were

performed to make sure that RC6 and RC6B were defined when R_AIAN = 1, and only when R_AIAN = 1.  

There are 35 American Indian and Alaska Native respondents (R_AIAN = 1) with no data in RC6 or RC6B

(missing data were recoded to ‐9).  There are also 12 respondents who were not American Indian and

Alaska Native (R_AIAN = 0) with data in RC6 and RC6B.  It is unclear how these data problems occurred.  

All 12 non‐American Indian or Alaska Native respondents reported that they were not affiliated or

enrolled with a tribe or village (RC6 = 2) and all twelve reported that they had never lived within

reservation boundaries or in an Alaska Native village (RC6B = 2).  For these twelve respondents, data in

RC6 and RC6B are recoded to ‐99 (i.e., “N/A: R_AIAN<>1”).   

Data were checked to make sure that RC6O was defined when RC6A = “Other” and only when RC6A =

“Other”.  No problems were found and data from RC6O were copied to RC6A.  Data checks were then

performed to make sure that RC6A was defined when RC6 = 1 and only when RC6 = 1.  Again, no

problems were found.  Finally, data checks were performed to make sure that RC6C was defined when

RC6B = 1 and only when RC6B = 1.  No problems were found.  Missing values in RC6C are recoded to ‐99

when the respondent was not American Indian or Alaska Native (R_AIAN ≠ 1), to ‐98 when the

respondent was American Indian or Alaska Native (R_AIAN = 1) but had never lived within reservation

boundaries or in an Alaska Native village (RC6B ≠ 1), and to ‐9 otherwise (i.e., when the respondent was

American Indian or Alaska Native [R_AIAN = 1] and had lived within reservation boundaries or in an

Alaska Native village [RC6B = 1]).

The structure of the RC7 questions is shown in Figure 23.1.  (Note, this is different than what is shown in

the survey).  Using the structure below, we can determine that respondents earned less than $10,000

when RC7A = 1, RC7B = 1, RC7C = 1, and RC7D = 1; more than $10,000 but less than $15,000 when RC7A

= 1, RC7B = 1, RC7C = 1, and RC7D = 2; more than $15,000 but less than $20,000 when RC7A = 1, RC7B =

1, and RC7C = 2; more than $20,000 but less than $25,000 when RC7A = 1 and RC7B = 2; more than

$25,000 but less than $35,000 when RC7A = 2 and RC7E = 1; more than $35,000 but less than $50,000

when RC7A = 2, RC7E = 2, and RC7F = 1; more than $50,000 but less than $75,000 when RC7A = 2, RC7E

= 2, RC7F = 2, and RC7G = 1; and $75,000 or more when RC7A = 2, RC7E = 2, RC7F = 2, RC7G = 2, and

RC7H = 1.  Of the 21,378 respondents in the data, 19,200 (90%) provided answers that fit into one of the

patterns above.  (The others had missing data).

Whenever respondents refused to answer one of the RC7 questions (i.e., RC7A, RC7B, RC7C, RC7D,

RC7E, RC7F, RC7G, or RC7H = ‐2), they skipped to RC8.  If respondents did not know the answer to RC7B,

RC7C, RC7D, or RC7H (i.e., when RC7B, RC7C, RC7D, or RC7H = ‐1), they also skipped to RC8.  However, if

they did not know the answer to RC7A (RC7A = ‐1), they skipped to RC7E; if they did not know 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.
    281

answer to RC7E (RC7E = ‐1), they skipped to RC7F; if they did not know the answer to RC7F (RC7F = ‐1),

they skipped to RC7G; and if they did not know the answer to RC7G (RC7G = ‐1), they skipped to RC7H.  

(Again, this is different than what is shown in the survey instrument).

Figure 23.1.  RC7 Questions for Income

Data checks were performed to make sure that the data structure shown in Figure 23.1 (rather than the

data structure shown in the survey) was accurate.  No problems were found.  System missing values in

RC7A to RC7H are recoded (‐1’s and ‐2’s were not recoded).  System missing values in RC7B are recoded

to ‐99 when RC7A ≠ 1 (and to ‐9 otherwise), system missing values in RC7C are recoded to ‐99 when

RC7B ≠ 1 (and to ‐9 otherwise), and system missing values in RC7D are recoded to ‐99 when RC7C ≠ 1

(and to ‐9 otherwise).  System missing values in RC7H are recoded to ‐99 when RC7G ≠ ‐1 or 2 (and to ‐9

otherwise), system missing values in RC7G are recoded to ‐99 when RC7F ≠ ‐1 or 2 (and to ‐9 otherwise),

system missing values in RC7F are recoded to ‐99 when RC7E ≠ ‐1 or 2 (and to ‐9 otherwise), system

missing values in RC7E are recoded to ‐99 when RC7A ≠ ‐1 or 2 (and to ‐9 otherwise).  There were no

system missing values in RC7A, so RC7A was not recoded.

A new variable (INCOME) was then created to determine if respondents earned less than $10,000

(INCOME = 1), more than $10,000 but less than $15,000 (INCOME = 2), more than $15,000 but less than

$20,000 (INCOME = 3), more than $20,000 but less than $25,000 (INCOME = 4), more than $25,000 but

less than $35,000 (INCOME = 5), more than $35,000 but less than $50,000 (INCOME = 6), more than

$50,000 but less than $75,000 (INCOME = 7), or $75,000 or more (INCOME = 8).  (See logic above).   

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.
    282

There are 19 respondents who did not know the answer to some of the income questions, but their

income level can still be determined.  Nine of them indicated that they did not make less than $75,000

per year (RC7G = 2).  They then either refused to answer RC7H or did not know the answer to RC7H (i.e.,

RC7H = ‐2 or ‐1).  For these nine respondents, INCOME was recoded to 8 because they indicated that

they did not make less than $75,000.  The other 10 respondents all indicated that they did not make less

than $50,000 (RC7F = 2).  They did not know if they made less than $75,000 (RC7G = ‐1), but they

indicated that they did not make more than $75,000 (RC7H = 2).  For these 10 respondents, INCOME

was recoded to 7 (because they made more than $50,000 but less than $75,000).

By examining response patterns that include missing data, analysts can determine partial information on

income for an additional 949 respondents.  Additional details are provided in Table 23.1 (and in the

“INCOME RECODES.XLSX” spreadsheet.

Table 23.1.  Income Information Available when Data are Missing

N RC7A RC7B RC7C RC7D RC7E RC7F RC7G RC7H INCOME

1 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 2 ‐1 ‐1 Income 50k+

1 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 2 ‐1 ‐1 Income 50k+

18 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 2 ‐2 ‐99 Income 50k+

24 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 2 ‐1 ‐1 Income 50k+

3 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 ‐1 2 Income 35k+ to <75k

34 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 1 ‐99 Income 35k+ to <75k

3 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 Income 35k+

14 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 Income 35k+

3 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 ‐2 ‐99 Income 35k+

17 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 Income 35k+

2 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 2 ‐1 1 ‐99 Income 35k to <75k

2 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 2 Income 25k+ to <75k

6 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 1 ‐99 Income 25k+ to <75k

42 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 1 ‐99 ‐99 Income 25k+ to <50k

71 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income 25k+

3 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 Income 25k+

1 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 ‐2 ‐99 Income 25k+

34 2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 Income 25k+

17 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 2 Income <75k

33 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 ‐1 1 ‐99 Income <75k

40 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐1 1 ‐99 ‐99 Income <50k

178 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <35k

911 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <20k

148 1 1 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <20k

4111 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <15k

51 1 1 1 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <15k

16 1 ‐2 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <25k

174 1 ‐1 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 ‐99 Income <25k

Note that if the first three categories of the INCOME variable are collapsed (to less than $20,000), 212

missing values could be recoded (see information in Table 23.1).  If the first four categories were

collapsed (to less than $25,000), 402 missing values could be recoded.

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.
    283

Values in RC8 and RC10 were checked and no problems were found.  New variable and value labels were

created.  Missing data in RC8 are recoded to ‐9.

All data checks and recodes are included in the “CLEAN RC FILE.SPS” syntax file.  Results are saved in the

“CLEAN RC.SAV” data file.  It includes 21,378 observations and 42 variables.  

Data & Files in the “RC DATA CLEANING” folder:

The “INCOME RECODES.XLSX” worksheet includes details on the recodes to the INCOME variables (and

the information in Table 23.1).  The “RACE RECODES.XLSX” worksheet includes details on the recodes to

R_WHITE, R_BLACK, R_ASIAN, R_NHPI, and R_AIAN.   

   

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.
284

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 24

HEALTH SECTION

The health (H) section of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) includes the

following questions (all at the respondent‐level):

H1_A Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you had

asthma?

H1_IBS Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you had

irritable bowel syndrome or IBS?

H1_D Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you had

diabetes?

H1_HBP Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you had high

blood pressure?

H2_FH Do you have frequent headaches?

H2_CP Do you have chronic pain?

H2_DS Do you have difficulty sleeping?

H3 In the past 12 months, how often would you say you were worried or stressed about having

enough money to pay your rent or mortgage?

H4 In the past 12 months, how often would you say you were worried or stressed about having

enough money to buy nutritious meals?

H5 Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not

because you could not afford it?

H6 Are any of your activities limited in any way because of physical, mental, or emotional

problems?

H6A If H6 = 1: How long have you been limited in this way?

H7 Do you have any health problems that require you to use special equipment, such as a cane,

wheelchair, a special bed, or a special headphone?

H7A If H7 = 1: How long have you been using this equipment?

H8 Would you say that in general your physical health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or

poor?

H9 Would you say that in general your mental health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or

poor?

H10 Have you ever had any children under the age of 18 living with you?

A. DATA MERGE

Data for the heath sections from the 2010 NISVS general population sample and the 2010 AIAN

oversample were combined.  Cases were selected if the respondent had completed the psychological

aggression section.   

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.
    285

Data & Files in the “MERGE H DATA” folder:

The “FINAL H.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 23 variables.   

B. DATA CHECKING AND CLEANING

All data values were checked and no problems were found.  In addition, data checks were performed to

verify that H6A was defined when H6 = 1 and only when H6 = 1 and to verify that H7A was defined when

H7 = 1 and only when H7 = 1.  No problems were found.

All missing data values are recoded to ‐9.  For H6A, missing values were then recoded to ‐99 (for “N/A:

H6<>1”) when H6 ≠ 1.  For H7A, missing values were then recoded to ‐99 (for “N/A: H7<>1”) when H7 ≠ 

1. New variable and value labels were created.

Data & Files in the “H DATA CLEANING” folder:

The “CLEAN H.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 21 variables.  (A copy was also saved in

the “H” folder.

   

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.
286

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 25

FINAL DATA FILES

In this chapter, final perpetrator‐level and respondent‐level files are created.  More specifically, a final

perpetrator‐level file is created by adding data from the core victimization section (in “FINAL CLEAN

NISVS PERP.SAV” from Chapter 17), the stalking follow‐up section (in “FULL ST PERP.SAV” from Chapter

18), the sexual violence follow‐up section (in “CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV” from Chapter 20), and the general

follow‐up section (in “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” from Chapter 21).   

A final respondent‐level file is created by adding data from the core victimization sections (in “CLEAN

NISVS CORE.SAV” from Chapter 14), the core victimization composites (in “CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV”

and “STALKING CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” from Chapter 19), the sexual violence follow‐up section (in

“CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV” from Chapter 20), the general follow‐up section (in “CLEAN R GFU.SAV” from

Chapter 21), the intimate partner section (in “CLEAN IP.SAV” from Chapter 22), the respondent

characteristics section (in “CLEAN RC.SAV” from Chapter 23), the health section (in “CLEAN H.SAV” from

Chapter 24), and the original 2010 NISVS general population data file (in “NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” from

Chapter 3).   

Data checks are also performed for both the perpetrator‐level file and the respondent‐level file.

A. FINAL PERPETRATOR‐LEVEL DATA

An initial perpetrator‐level file was created in Chapter 15 (“NISVS PERP.SAV”).  It includes perpetrator‐

level data from the PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV sections (51,450 observations and 541

variables).   

In Chapter 16, perpetrator‐level relationship information was saved in the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file.  It

includes 51,482 observations and 56 variables.  As explained in Chapter 16, there are 32 perpetrator

initials included in the relationship data that were previously recoded.  Because it was not possible to

link the relationship information for these 32 perpetrators, their initials were again recoded.  As a result,

the “CLEAN R.SAV” data file includes 32 perpetrators that were not included in the “NISVS PERP.SAV”

data file (51,450 + 32 = 51,482).   

A final perpetrator‐level file was then created in Chapter 17.  This final perpetrator‐level file added the

relationship information to the perpetrator‐level data from the PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, and SV

sections (i.e., the “NISVS PERP.SAV” and “CLEAN R.SAV” data files were combined).  Results were saved

in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file, which includes 51,482 observations and 596 variables.   

The stalking follow‐up data (all at the perpetrator‐level) were produced in Chapter 18 and were first

saved in the “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV” data file (18,723 observations and 11 variables).  Of the 51,482

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.
    287

perpetrators in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file, 18,723 were selected for the stalking

follow‐up section (and are included in the “CLEAN ST PERP.SAV” data file).  The remainder (N = 32,759)

were not.  After data cleaning, final results were saved in the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file which

includes 51,484 observations and 71 variables.  This data file includes two more perpetrators than the

“FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file because two perpetrator initials were recoded to new

perpetrator initials.  

In Chapter 20, perpetrator‐level sexual violence follow‐up data were extracted and saved to the “CLEAN

PERP SVFU.SAV” data file (with 51,485 observations and 123 variables).  The initials for three

perpetrators included in the SVFU section had been previously recoded.  Because the SVFU data for

these three perpetrators could not be linked to the SV data, the perpetrator initials were again recoded

(for a new total of 51,485 perpetrators).  The sexual violence follow‐up data includes three more

perpetrators than the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.

The perpetrator‐level data from the general follow‐up section were extracted in Chapter 21.  Included in

the general follow‐up section are 50 perpetrators whose initials had been previously recoded.  Their

initials in the general follow‐up section were recoded because their general follow‐up data do not link to

previous data.  As a result, the final “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” data file includes 51,532 observations (and 57

variables).  The general follow‐up data includes 50 more perpetrators than the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS

PERP.SAV” data file (two of these perpetrators were added in the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file).

To summarize, there are 51,482 perpetrators in the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.  Two

perpetrators were added in the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file.  Three perpetrators were added in the

“CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV” data file and 50 were added in the “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” data file (including the

two that were previously added in the “FULL ST PERP.SAV” data file and 48 new ones).  After combining

all of these files, the combined perpetrator‐level file will include 51,535 perpetrators (51,482 from

“FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV”, two additional ones from “FULL ST PERP.SAV”, three additional ones

from “CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV”, and 48 additional ones from “CLEAN P GFU.SAV”).  The final merged data

file includes 53 more perpetrators than the “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” data file.  Of these 53

perpetrators, three have data from the sexual violence follow‐up section only, two have data from the

stalking follow‐up and general follow‐up sections only, and 48 have data from the general follow‐up

section only.   

The “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SPS” syntax file merges these four data files to create the “FINAL PLEVEL

NISVS.SAV” data file.  The final perpetrator‐level data file is created using the following steps:

(1) Start with “FINAL CLEAN NISVS PERP.SAV” (Chapter 17): QUARTER, RSEX, RC1, H10; all N99, B, C,

N36, E, F, N12, and H variables for PA1 to PA5, CCE1 to CCE14, PV1 to PV12, ST1 to ST7, and SV1

to SV22; all N12 and H variables for EPA1 to EPA5, ECCE1 to ECCE11, and EPV1 to EPV11; and all

variables from the relationship section (NUMVIC to R8SP).

(2) Add stalking follow‐up data from “FULL ST PERP.SAV” (Chapter 18): STFU1 to STFU9.

(3) Add sexual violence follow‐up data from “CLEAN PERP SVFU.SAV” (Chapter 20): AIAN, SV7TO17,

MULT7TO17, and SV1O to SVFU7.

(4) Add general follow‐up data from “CLEAN P GFU.SAV” (Chapter 21): GFUSHOULD to FU7B.

Because perpetrator initials were recoded, the final data file includes missing data.  All missing data in

the respondent‐level variables are recoded to their original respondent‐level values.  For example, if the

perpetrator initials were recoded for a female respondent, the missing RSEX value for that perpetrator is

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    288

recoded to 2.  Respondent‐level variables include QUARTER, RSEX, RC1, H10, and AIAN; all N99, N36,

and N12 variables for PA1 to PV12 and for ST1 to SV22; and all N12 variables for EPA1 to EPV12.

Perpetrator‐level data for SV7, SV9, SV12, SV14, and SV18 are then recoded by the gender of the

perpetrator (see Chapter 17).  However, the recodes in this chapter are different than they were in

Chapter 17.  In this chapter, all missing data and data that were previously recoded as “not applicable”

for SV7 and SV12 are recoded to zero when the respondent and the perpetrator are the same gender

(i.e., when RSEX = “2” and R1A = 2, or when RSEX = “1” and R1A = 1).  Missing data and data that were

previously recoded as “not applicable” for SV9 and SV14 are recoded to zero when the perpetrator is

female.  Finally, missing data and data that were previously recoded as “not applicable” for SV18 are

recoded to zero when the perpetrator is male.

Missing perpetrator‐level data from the core victimization section (PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV) are recoded

as follows (see additional details and explanations in Chapter 17).

For interviews in the first and second quarters of 2010:

(1) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not

applicable).

(2) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not

answered).

(3) If N99 = 0, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(4) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to 0 (because

respondent was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other

perpetrators).

(5) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B, E, and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent

was victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(6) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and E is missing:

a. If N36 = ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past

three year initials).

b. If N36 ≠ ‐9, missing data in E are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in

the past three years or was victimized by other perpetrators).

c. If E is recoded to 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

d. If E is recoded to ‐9:

i. If F = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not

answer past year questions).

ii. If F = 0, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not

victimized in the past year).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, E ≠ 0, E ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, H is recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, H is recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized in the past year or

was victimized by other perpetrators).

For interviews in the third and fourth quarters of 2010:

(1) All missing data in E are recoded to ‐99 (because past three year questions were not asked in

third and fourth quarter of 2010).

(2) If N99 = ‐99, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐99 (because questions are not applicable).

(3) If N99 = ‐9, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because questions were not answered).

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.
    289

(4) If N99 = 0, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized).

(5) If 0 ≤ N99 ≤ 14 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to 0 (because respondent

was not victimized by these perpetrators, respondent was victimized by other perpetrators).

(6) If N99 = 15 and B is missing, missing data in B and H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent was

victimized, but perpetrator was not included in the list of 15).

(7) If 1 ≤ N99 ≤ 15, B ≠ 0, B ≠ ‐9, and H is missing:

a. If N12 = ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to ‐9 (because respondent did not provide

past year initials).

b. If N12 ≠ ‐9, missing data in H are recoded to 0 (because respondent was not victimized

in the past year or was victimized by other perpetrators).

As detailed in Chapter 17, all missing data for the H variables in the elder abuse sections (EPA, ECCE, and

EPV) are recoded to ‐99 when N12 = ‐99, to ‐9 when N12 = ‐9, to 0 when 0 ≤ N12 ≤ 14 (there are no

cases where N12 = 15).

All variables indicating whether perpetrator initials are included in various sections are recoded.  The

variables INPA, INCCE, INPV, INELDER, INSV1TO6, INSV7TO17, INSV18TO22, NUMVIC (recoded to

MULTVIC), and MULT7TO17 are all dichotomized so that values of 1 indicate “yes” while values of 0

indicate “no” or “unknown”.  These variables are included in the final perpetrator level file because they

are necessary to examine the skip patterns in the follow‐up sections.   

The skip patterns in the R section are included in the INR, IP1, INR2, INR2A, INR3, INR4, INR5, and INR6

variables.  When missing, these variable are recoded to 0.  All missing relationship data are then recoded

to ‐98.

The main skip pattern for the stalking follow‐up section is included in the INSTFU variable.  INSTFU is set

to 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one of the stalking behaviors.  More specifically, INSTFU is

set to 1 when (a) ST1B > 0 or ST2B > 0 or ST3B > 0 or ST4B > 0 or ST5B > 0 or ST6B > 0 or ST7B > 0 or (b)

ST1B < 0 when ST1B ≠ ‐9, or ST2B < 0 when ST2B ≠ ‐9, or ST3B < 0 when ST3B ≠ ‐9, or ST4B < 0 when

ST4B ≠ ‐9, or ST5B < 0 when ST5B ≠ ‐9, or ST6B < 0 when ST6B ≠ ‐9, or ST7B < 0 when ST7B ≠ ‐9.  In

addition, INSTFU is set to 1 for two perpetrators whose initials were previously recoded.  Then, missing

data in STFU1, STFU2, STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 are all recoded to ‐98 when INSTFU = 0.  A new

variable (SAMEAGE) is created to indicate whether the perpetrator and the respondent are the same

age.  When the perpetrator and the respondent are the same age, missing data in STFU4 are then

recoded to ‐99.  Finally, missing data in STFU6 are recoded to ‐98 when STFU5 ≠ 1.

Before recoding missing data in the sexual violence follow‐up section, new selection variables were

created (see INSVFU, INSVFU3, INSVFU6, and INSVFU7).  INSVFU was created to indicate which

perpetrators were included in the sexual violence follow‐up section.  INSVFU was set to 1 when

SV7TO17 = 1 (i.e., when perpetrators were identified in SV7 to SV17).  In addition, INSVFU was set to 1

for three perpetrators whose initials were previously recoded.  Missing data in SVFU1, SVFU2, SVFU4,

and SVFU5 are then recoded to ‐99 when INSVFU = 0 and to ‐9 when INSVFU = 1.  INSVFU3 was created

to indicate which perpetrators were included in the SVFU3 section.  INSVFU3 was set to 1 when

perpetrators were included in the sexual violence follow‐up section (i.e., when INSVFU = 1) and were

female (i.e., RSEX = “2”).  Missing data in SVFU3 are then recoded to ‐99 when INSVFU3 = 0 and to ‐9

when INSVFU3 = 1.  INSVFU6 was created to indicate which perpetrators were included in the SVFU6

section.  INSVFU6 was set to 1 when MULT7TO17 = 1.  In addition, INSVFU6 was set to 1 for three

perpetrators whose initials were previously recoded.  Missing data in SVFU6 are then recoded to ‐99

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.
    290

when INSVFU6 = 0 and to ‐9 when INSVFU6 = 1.  Finally, INSVFU7 was created to indicate which

perpetrators were selected for the SVFU7 section.  INSVFU7 was set to 1 when AIAN = 1.  In addition,

INSVFU7 was set to 1 for four perpetrators that were included in SVFU7 even though AIAN ≠ 1.  Missing

data in SVFU7 are then recoded to ‐99 when INSVFU7 = 0 and to ‐9 when INSVFU7 = 1.   

Missing data in the other sexual violence follow‐up section are also recoded using the logic in Chapter

20.  More specifically, missing values in SV#O, SV#P, SV#Q, SV#R, and SV#S (# = 1 to 22, when applicable)

are recoded to ‐99 when SV#B = ‐99, to ‐98 when SV#B = ‐9 or SV#B = 0, and to ‐9 when SV#B > 0 or

SV#B = ‐3 or SV#B = ‐2, or SV#B = ‐1.  Missing values in SV#* (# = 7 to 11 and * =  12 to 17) are recoded

based on whether perpetrators were identified in SV# and SV*.  When perpetrators were not identified

in both SV# and SV* (i.e., when SV# = ‐99, ‐9, or 0; or SV* = ‐99, ‐9, or 0), missing values in SV#* are

recoded to ‐99.  When perpetrators were identified in both SV# (i.e., when SV# > 0 or SV# = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1)

and SV* (i.e., when SV* > 0 or SV* = ‐3, ‐2, or ‐1), missing values in SV#* are recoded to ‐9.   

For the general follow‐up section, all missing data in the selection variables (GFUSHOULD, GFUSELECT,

INGFU, GFU4SHOULD, and GFU4SELECT) are recoded to 0.  Missing data in all other variables from the

general follow‐up section are then recoded to ‐99 (see additional details in Chapter 21).  

Key measures of stalking (P_STALK99, P_STALK12, P_ST1, P_ST2, P_ST3, P_ST4, P_ST5, P_ST6, and

P_ST7) were computed (see details in Chapter 19).

All ‐3, ‐2, and ‐1 values in the core victimization data (PA1B to ST7H and SV1B to SV22H) are recoded to ‐

8.  Missing data codes for CCE8 are changed to indicate when CCE8 is not applicable (i.e., when H10 ≠ 1).  

Similarly, missing data codes for SV8, SV13, and SV18 are changed to indicate when these variables are

not applicable (i.e., when RSEX = “2”).

Finally, a variety of variable and value labels were changed.  Some were corrected.  Others were clarified

or shortened.

The final data file is saved as “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV”.  Variable and value labels were updated.  The

final data file includes 51,537 observations and 442 variables.  Data checks are then performed in the

“PLEVEL DATA CHECK.SPS” syntax file.   

More precisely, the following data checks are performed:

(1) RSEXQ = 1 when RSEX = “2” and (QUARTER = 101 or QUARTER = 102), and 0 otherwise.

(2) H10Q = 1 when  H10 ≠ 1 and (QUARTER = 101 or QUARTER = 102), and 0 otherwise.

(3) MULTVIC = 1 when the perpetrator committed (a) at least one behavior two or more times in

the PA, CCE, PV, EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, or SV sections (i.e., at least one behavior in {PA1B, PA2B,

PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B,

CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B,

PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, PV12B, EPA1H, EPA2H, EPA3H, EPA4H, EPA5H, ECCE1H, ECCE2H,

ECCE3H, ECCE4H ECCE5H, ECCE6H, ECCE7H, ECCE8H, ECCE9H, ECCE10H, ECCE11H, EPV1H,

EPV2H, EPV3H, EPV4H, EPV5H, EPV6H EPV7H, EPV8H, EPV9H, EPV10H, EPV11H, EPV12H,

ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, ST7B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B,

SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B,

SV21B, and SV22B} > 1) or (b) committed at least two different behaviors in the PA, CCE, PV,

EPA, ECCE, EPV, ST, or SV sections (i.e., at least two behaviors in {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B,

PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B,

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.
    291

CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B,

PV11B, PV12B, EPA1H, EPA2H, EPA3H, EPA4H, EPA5H, ECCE1H, ECCE2H, ECCE3H, ECCE4H

ECCE5H, ECCE6H, ECCE7H, ECCE8H, ECCE9H, ECCE10H, ECCE11H, EPV1H, EPV2H, EPV3H,

EPV4H, EPV5H, EPV6H EPV7H, EPV8H, EPV9H, EPV10H, EPV11H, EPV12H, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B,

ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, ST7B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B,

SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B}

= ‐8 or 1), and 0 otherwise.

(4) INPA = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the PA section (i.e., when

at least one behavior in {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, and PA5B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0

otherwise.

(5) INCCE = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the CCE section (i.e.,

when at least one behavior in {CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B,

CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, and CCE14B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0 otherwise.

(6) INPV = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the PV section (i.e., when

at least one behavior in {PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B,

PV11B, and PV12B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0 otherwise.

(7) INELDER = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the EPA, ECCE, or EPV

sections (i.e., when at least one behavior in {EPA1H, EPA2H, EPA3H, EPA4H, EPA5H, ECCE1H,

ECCE2H, ECCE3H, ECCE4H, ECCE5H, ECCE6H, ECCE7H, ECCE8H, ECCE9H, ECCE10H, ECCE11H,

EPV1H, EPV2H, EPV3H, EPV4H, EPV5H, EPV6H, EPV7H, EPV8H, EPV9H, EPV10H, EPV11H, and

EPV12H} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0 otherwise.  

(8) INST = 1 when  the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the ST section (i.e., when

at least one behavior in {ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and

0 otherwise.

(9) INSV1TO6 = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in SV1 to SV6 (i.e., when

at least one behavior in {SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, and SV6B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0

otherwise.

(10) INSV7TO17 = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in SV7 to SV17 (i.e.,

when at least one behavior in {SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B,

SV16B, and SV17B} = ‐8 or 1 to 100), and 0 otherwise.

(11) MULT7TO17 = 1 when the perpetrator committed (a) at least one behavior two or more times

in SV7 to SV17 (i.e., when at least one behavior in {SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B,

SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, and SV17B} > 1) or (b) at least two different behaviors in SV7 to

SV17 (i.e., when at least two behaviors in {SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B,

SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, and SV17B} = ‐8 or 1), and 0 otherwise.

(12) INSV18TO22 = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in SV18 to SV22 (i.e.,

when at least one behavior in {SV18, SV19, SV20, SV21, and SV22} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and 0

otherwise.

(13) INR = 0 for all recoded perpetrator initials, and 1 otherwise; except for 32 perpetrator initials

that were recoded in Chapter 16 (for these 32, INR = 1).

(14) INR2 = 0 when R1 = ‐98 or R1 = ‐9 or R1 = 8 or MULTVIC = 0, and 1 otherwise; except for 28

recoded perpetrator initials (for these 28, INR2 = 1; see details in Chapter 16).

(15) INR2A = 1 when R1_1 = 1 and R2_1 = 2, and 0 otherwise.

(16) When QUARTER = 101 or 102, INR3 = 1 when R1 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 11.  When QUARTER

= 103 or 104, INR3 = 1 when (a) R1 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 11, and (b) R2 ≠ 10.  Otherwise,

INR3 = 0.  

(17) INR4 = 0 when (a) the perpetrator was not included in the R section (i.e., when INR = 0), (b)

the perpetrator only committed behaviors in the ST section (i.e., when INPA = 0, INCCE = 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.
    292

INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, and INSV17TO22 = 0), (c) the

perpetrator only committed behaviors in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections (i.e., when INPA = 0,

INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 1, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, and INSV17TO22 =

0), (d) the perpetrator only committed behaviors in the SV7 to SV17 section (i.e., when INPA =

0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 1, and INSV17TO22

= 0), or (e) the perpetrator only committed behaviors in the ST and SV7 to SV17 sections (i.e.,

when INPA = 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 1, and

INSV17TO22 = 0), and 1 otherwise; except for two recoded perpetrator initials (for these two,

INR4 = 0).

(18) INR5 = 0 when (a) the perpetrator was not included in the R section (i.e., when INR = 0), (b)

the perpetrator only committed behaviors in the ST section (i.e., when INPA = 0, INCCE = 0,

INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 0, and INSV17TO22 = 0), (c) the

perpetrator only committed behaviors in the SV7 to SV17 section (i.e., when INPA = 0, INCCE =

0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 0, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 1, and INSV17TO22 = 0), or (d)

the perpetrator only committed behaviors in the ST and SV7 to SV17 sections (i.e., when INPA

= 0, INCCE = 0, INPV = 0, INELDER = 0, INST = 1, INSV1TO6 = 0, INSV7TO17 = 1, and

INSV17TO22 = 0), and 1 otherwise; except for two recoded perpetrator initials (for these two,

INR5 = 0).

(19) INR6 = INR5, but is recoded to 0 when MULTVIC = 0; except for 30 perpetrator initials (for

these 30, INR6 = 1).

(20) INSTFU = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the ST section (i.e., when

at least one behavior in {ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = ‐8, 1, 2, 3, or 4), and

0 otherwise; except for two recoded perpetrator initials (for these two, INSTFU = 1).

(21) SAMEAGE = 1 when STFU1 > 0 and STFU1 = STFU2, and 0 otherwise.

(22) SV0712 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV12B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(23) SV0812 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV12B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(24) SV0912 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV12B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(25) SV1012 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV12B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(26) SV1112 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV12B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(27) SV0713 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV13B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98}.  

(28) SV0813 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV13B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98}.  

(29) SV0913 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV13B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98}.  

(30) SV1013 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV13B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98}.  

(31) SV1113 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV13B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98}.  

(32) SV0714 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV14B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(33) SV0814 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV14B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(34) SV0914 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV14B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(35) SV1014 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV14B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(36) SV1114 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV14B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(37) SV0715 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV15B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(38) SV0815 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV15B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(39) SV0915 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV15B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(40) SV1015 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV15B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(41) SV1115 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV15B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(42) SV0716 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV16B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(43) SV0816 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV16B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(44) SV0916 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV16B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(45) SV1016 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV16B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
    293

(46) SV1116 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV16B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(47) SV0717 is defined only when SV7B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV17B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(48) SV0817 is defined only when SV8B ≠ {0, ‐9, or ‐98} and SV17B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(49) SV0917 is defined only when SV9B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV17B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(50) SV1017 is defined only when SV10B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV17B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.

(51) SV1117 is defined only when SV11B ≠ {0 or ‐9} and SV17B ≠ {0 or ‐9}.  

(52) INSVFU = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the SV7 to SV17 section

(i.e., when INSV7TO17 = 1), and 0 otherwise; except for three recoded perpetrator initials (for

these three, INSVFU = 1).

(53) INSVFU3 = 1 when the perpetrator committed at least one behavior in the SV7 to SV17 section

(i.e., when INSV7TO17 = 1) and the respondent was female (i.e., when RSEX = “2”), and 0

otherwise; except for three recoded perpetrator initials (for these three, INSVFU3 = 1).

(54) INSVFU6 = 1 when the perpetrator committed the same behavior at least twice or committed

at least two different behaviors in the SV7 to SV17 section (i.e., when MULT7TO17 = 1), and 0

otherwise; except for three recoded perpetrator initials (for these three, INSVFU6 = 1).

(55) INSVFU7 = 1 when the perpetrator was included in the sexual violence follow‐up section (i.e.,

when INSVFU = 1) and the respondent was American Indian or Alaska Native (i.e., when AIAN

= 1), and 0 otherwise; except for four perpetrators (for these four perpetrators, INSVFU7 = 1).

(56) In the first and second quarter of 2010, GFUSHOULD = 1 when the perpetrator committed at

least one behavior in the psychological aggression section, coercive control and entrapment

section, physical violence section, stalking section, or sexual violence section (i.e., when at

least one behavior in {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B,

CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, PV1B, PV2B, PV3B,

PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, PV12B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B,

ST6B, ST7B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B,

SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} = ‐8, or 1 to

100); and 0 otherwise.  In the third and fourth quarter of 2010, GFUSHOULD = 1 when the

perpetrator committed at (a) least two different behaviors in the psychological aggression,

coercive control, or stalking sections (i.e., at least two different behaviors in {PA1B, PA2B,

PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B,

CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B, CCE13B, CCE14B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = {‐

8 or 1}), or (b) the same behavior at least twice in the psychological aggression, coercive

control, or stalking sections (i.e., at least one behavior in {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B,

CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B,

CCE13B, CCE14B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = {2, 3, or 4}), or (c)

committed at least one behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., at

least one behavior in {PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B,

PV11B, PV12B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B,

SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} = {‐8 or 1 to

100}); and 0 otherwise.  In addition, GFUSHOULD = 0 in the third and fourth quarter of 2010

when the perpetrator (a) committed at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B (i.e., ST1B or ST2B =

‐8, or 1 to 4) but did not cause fear, did not damage property, did not threaten the respondent

with physical harm, and did not cause the respondent to believe that they would be seriously

harmed or killed (i.e., STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 = 2) and (b) did not commit more than

one behavior (or the same behavior more than once) in the psychological aggression or

coercive control and entrapment sections (i.e., {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B,

CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B,

CCE13B, and CCE14B} ≠ 2 to 4, and fewer than two behaviors in {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B,

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.
    294

PA5B, CCE1B, CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B,

CCE12B, CCE13B, and CCE14B} = ‐8 or 1), or more than one behavior (or the same behavior

more than once) in ST3B to ST7B in the stalking section (i.e., {ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and

ST7B} ≠ 2 to 4, and fewer than two behaviors in {ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = ‐8 or 1),

or any behavior in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., {PV1B, PV2B, PV3B,

PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, PV12B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B,

SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B,

SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} ≠ ‐8, or 1 to 100).

(57) GFUSELECT = GFUSHOULD, but is recoded to 0 for all recoded perpetrator initials; except for

30 recoded perpetrator initials (for these 30, GFUSELECT = 1).

(58) INGFU = GFUSELECT; except for 18 recoded perpetrator initials (for these 18, INGFU = 1).

(59) INGFU2 = INGFU, but is recoded to 0 when the respondent did not report any behaviors (by

any perpetrator) in the psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment, physical

violence, or sexual violence sections (i.e., when {PA1B, PA2B, PA3B, PA4B, PA5B, CCE1B,

CCE2B, CCE3B, CCE4B, CCE5B, CCE6B, CCE7B, CCE8B, CCE9B, CCE10B, CCE11B, CCE12B,

CCE13B, CCE14B, PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B,

PV12B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B,

SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} ≠ ‐8 or 1 to 100) and

to ‐99 when INGFU = 0.  In addition, INGFU2 = 0 for 18 recoded perpetrator initials.

(60) INGFU3 = 1 when FU1P = 1 or FU2P = 1, ‐99 when INGFU = 0, and 0 otherwise.

(61) In the first and second quarters of 2010, GFU4SHOULD = 1 when the perpetrator committed at

least one behavior in the physical violence, stalking, or sexual violence sections (i.e., when at

least one behavior in {PV1B, PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B,

PV11B, PV12B, ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, ST7B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B, SV4B, SV5B,

SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B, SV17B, SV18B,

SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} = ‐8, or 1 to 100), and 0 otherwise.  In the third and fourth

quarters of 2010, GFU4SHOULD = 1 when the perpetrator committed (a) at least one behavior

in the physical violence or sexual violence section (i.e., when at least one behavior in {PV1B,

PV2B, PV3B, PV4B, PV5B, PV6B, PV7B, PV8B, PV9B, PV10B, PV11B, PV12B, SV1B, SV2B, SV3B,

SV4B, SV5B, SV6B, SV7B, SV8B, SV9B, SV10B, SV11B, SV12B, SV13B, SV14B, SV15B, SV16B,

SV17B, SV18B, SV19B, SV20B, SV21B, and SV22B} = ‐8, or 1 to 100); or (b) at least two

behaviors (or the same behavior at least twice) in ST3B to ST7B in the stalking section (i.e.,

when at least one behavior in {ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = 2 to 4, or when at least

two behaviors in {ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = ‐8 or 1); or (c) at least two behaviors (or

the same behavior at least twice) in ST1B to ST7B in the stalking section (i.e., when at least

one behavior in {ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = 2 to 4, or at least two

behaviors in {ST1B, ST2B, ST3B, ST4B, ST5B, ST6B, and ST7B} = ‐8 or 1), but only if they did not

commit at least one behavior in ST1B or ST2B while not causing fear, not damaging property,

not threatening the respondent with physical harm, and not causing the respondent to believe

that they would be seriously harmed or killed (i.e., not [(ST1B or ST2B = ‐8, or 1 to 4) and

(STFU5, STFU7, STFU8, and STFU9 = 2)]); and 0 otherwise.

(62) GFU4SELECT = GFU4SHOULD, but is recoded to 0 for all recoded perpetrator initials; except for

19 recoded perpetrator initials (for these 19, GFU4SELECT = 1).

(63) INGFU4 = GFU4SELECT, but INGFU4 is recoded to ‐99 when INGFU = 0.

(64) All stalking variables were checked (P_STALK99, P_STALK12, P_ST1, P_ST2, P_ST3, P_ST4,

P_ST5, P_ST6, and P_ST7), following the logic in Chapter 19 (note that all ‐3’s, ‐2’s, and ‐1’s

were recoded to ‐8’s).

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.
    295

No problems were found.  Note that the “PLEVEL DATA CHECK.SPS” syntax file is important because it

includes the syntax to create all selection criteria, using the final (recoded) data.

A data codebook is then produced in the “PLEVEL CODEBOOK.SAS” syntax file (using the proc_codebook

macro available at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/research/tools/data_analysis/proc_codebook).  Results are

saved in the “PLEVEL CODEBOOK.PDF” file.  Recall that the numbering on the SV and STFU variables was

changed in Chapters 12 and 18 (see also Chapter 2).  The final data file, “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV”

includes 51,535 observations and 442 variables.

Data & Files in the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS” folder:

The “PLEVEL VARS.SPS” syntax file contains alternate code for all variables and composites created in

the perpetrator‐level data.  This syntax matches the descriptions provided in the perpetrator‐level

codebook (see Appendix B).

B. FINAL RESPONDENT‐LEVEL DATA

In Chapter 14, two respondent‐level files were created with the core victimization data (“CLEAN NISVS

CORE.SAV” and “CLEAN CORE ANALYSIS.SAV”).  Both include the core victimization data (from

psychological aggression to sexual violence; with 21,378 observations and 420 variables).  The analysis

data file (“CLEAN CORE ANALYSIS.SAV”) includes additional recodes when respondents were victimized

in the lifetime by more than 15 perpetrators.  The final respondent‐level data file created in this chapter

does not include these additional recodes.  To create an analysis file with the final respondent‐level data

file, analysts should consider recoding all C, N36, F, and N12 variables when N99 = 15.  The code is

included at the end of the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file (see “recodes for respondents with 15 or

more lifetime perpetrators” section).

In Chapter 19, victimization composites were created.  Composites from the psychological aggression,

coercive control and entrapment, physical violence, and sexual violence sections are included in the

“CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file (with 21,378 observations and 473 variables).  Composites from

the stalking section are included in the “STALKING CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” data file (with 21,378

observations and 58 variables).  The core composites and weights from these two data files (SAMPLE to

WTAIANSV, CFP_99 to CRSH_12, and STALK_99 to ST7_99) are merged to the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV”

data file.  

A respondent‐level data file for the sexual violence follow‐up data was created in Chapter 20.   This data

file (“CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV”) includes the respondent‐level sexual violence follow‐up data and all

previous sexual violence data (21,378 observations and 5,542 variables).  The respondent‐level 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.
    296

violence follow‐up data (NUMP and SVFU_O to SVFU_Q5) are extracted for the final respondent‐level

file.

A respondent‐level data file for the general follow‐up section was created in Chapter 21.  The “CLEAN R

GFU.SAV” data file includes 21,378 observations and 23 variable.  Respondent‐level files also were

created for the intimate partner section in Chapter 22 (“CLEAN IP FILES.SAV” with 21,378 observations

and 18 variables), for the respondent characteristics section in Chapter 23 (“CLEAN RC.SAV” with 21,378

observations and 42 variables), and for the health section in Chapter 24 (“CLEAN H.SAV” with 21,378

observations and 21 variables.  The respondent‐level data in each of these sections are extracted for the

final respondent‐level file.  Finally, information about sampling strata is extracted from the

“NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” data file created in Chapter 2 (18,957 observations and 26,111 variables) and

from the “WEIGHTS.SAV” data file also created in Chapter 2 (3,978 observations and nine variables).

To summarize, the final respondent‐level data file is created using the following steps:

(1) Start with “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV” (Chapter 14): PA1 to SV22N12.

(2) Add weights and composites from “CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” (Chapter 19): SAMPLE to

WTAIANSV and CFP_99 to CRSH_12.

(3) Add composites from “STALKING CORE WITH WEIGHTS.SAV” (Chapter 19): STALK_99 to ST7_99.

(4) Add sexual violence follow‐up data from “CLEAN RESP SVFU.SAV” (Chapter 20): NUMP and

SVFU_O to SVFU_Q5.

(5) Add general follow‐up data from “CLEAN R GFU.SAV” (Chapter 21): INGFU to FU7R.

(6) Add intimate partner data from “CLEAN IP.SAV” (Chapter 22): IP1 to IP8.

(7) Add respondent characteristic data from “CLEAN RC.SAV” (Chapter 23): RSEX to RC10.

(8) Add health data from “CLEAN H.SAV” (Chapter 24): H1_A to H10.

(9) Add sampling strata information from “NISVSGENPOP2010.SAV” and “WEIGHTS.SAV” (Chapter

2): STRATUM.

The final data file is saved as “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV”.  Variable and value labels are updated or

corrected.  In particular, all “Not Applicable” value labels are updated to clearly show why the data are

not applicable.  Missing data codes for CCE8 are changed to indicate when CCE8 is not applicable (i.e.,

when H10 ≠ 1).  Because this impacts all composites that include CCE8 (i.e., CC_99, CC_12, PA_99, and

PA_12), these composites are recalculated.  Missing data codes for SV8, SV13, and SV18 are also

changed to indicate when these variables are not applicable (i.e., when RSEX = “2”).  Missing data codes

for SVFU_P are recoded to indicate when SVFU_P is not applicable (i.e., when NUMP < 2).  SVFU_Q1,

SVFU_Q2, SVFU_Q3, SVFU_Q4, and SVFU_Q5 are then recoded according to the new values in SVFU_P.  

Missing data codes are also changed for IP4 and IP5.  A new variable “INIP5” is created to indicate when

IP5 is applicable (i.e., when IP2 = 1 or IP3 = 1 or IP4 = 1).  Finally, variable labels were shortened, and

some value labels were updated for consistent formatting.  Details are available in the “FINAL RLEVEL

NISVS.SPS” syntax file.   

All N99 variables in the PA, CCE, PV, ST, and SV sections are updated so that they indicate the number of

lifetime perpetrators.  The variable label is changed to “# of lifetime perpetrators” and the value label

for 15 is changed to “15 or more.”  Similarly, all N12 variables in the EPA, ECCE, and EPV sections are

updated so that they indicate the number of past year perpetrators.  The variable label is changed to “#

of past year perpetrators” and the value label for 15 is changed to “15 or more.”  But again, no changes

were made to C, N36, F, or N12 variables (these variables refer to the number of initials collected, not

the number of perpetrators; see Chapter 14 for additional explanations).   

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.
    297

Data checks are then performed in the “RLEVEL DATA CHECK.SPS” syntax file.  More precisely, the

following data checks are performed:

(1) RSEXQ = 1 when RSEX = “2” and QUARTER = 101 or 102, and 0 otherwise.

(2) R_WHITE = ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1

and one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 1, and 0

when SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 1.

(3) R_BLACK = ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1

and one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 2, and 0

when SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 2; except for two respondents (for these

two respondents, R_BLACK = 1, see recodes in Chapter 23).

(4) R_ASIAN = ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1

and one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 3, and 0

when SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 3; except for one respondent (for whom

R_ASIAN = 1, see recode in Chapter 23).

(5) R_NHPI = ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1 and

one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 4, and 0 when

SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 4; except for three respondents (for these three

respondents, R_NHPI = 1, see recodes in Chapter 23).

(6) R_AIAN = 1 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1 and

one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 5, and 0 when

SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 5; except for one respondent (for whom R_AIAN

= 1, see recode in Chapter 23).

(7) R_OTHER = ‐99 when SAMPLE = 2, ‐9 when SAMPLE = 1 and RC4_1 = ‐3, 1 when SAMPLE = 1

and one of the RC4 variables (i.e., RC4_1, RC4_2, RC4_3, RC4_4, RC4_5, or RC4_6) = 6, and 0

when SAMPLE = 1 and none of the RC4 variables = 6.

(8) R_RACE = ‐99 if SAMPLE = 2; 1 if R_WHITE = 1, R_BLACK = 0, R_ASIAN = 0, R_NHPI = 0, R_AIAN

= 0, and R_OTHER = 0; 2 if R_WHITE = 0, R_BLACK = 1, R_ASIAN = 0, R_NHPI = 0, R_AIAN = 0,

and R_OTHER = 0; 3 if R_WHITE = 0, R_BLACK = 0, R_ASIAN = 1, R_NHPI = 0, R_AIAN = 0, and

R_OTHER = 0; 4 if R_WHITE = 0, R_BLACK = 0, R_ASIAN = 0, R_NHPI = 1, R_AIAN = 0, and

R_OTHER = 0; 5 if R_WHITE = 0, R_BLACK = 0, R_ASIAN = 0, R_NHPI = 0, R_AIAN = 1, and

R_OTHER = 0; 6 if R_WHITE = 0, R_BLACK = 0, R_ASIAN = 0, R_NHPI = 0, R_AIAN = 0, and

R_OTHER = 1; 7 If the respondent reported multiple race categories (i.e., at least two of the

variables in {R_WHITE, R_BLACK, R_ASIAN, R_NHPI, R_AIAN, R_OTHER} = 1); and ‐9 otherwise.

(9) INCOME = 1 if RC7D = 1; 2 if RC7C = 1 and RC7D = 2; 3 if RC7B = 1 and RC7C = 2; 4 if RC7A = 1

and RC7B = 2; 5 if RC7E = 1 and RC7A = 2; 6 if RC7F = 1 and RC7E = 2; 7 if RC7G = 1 and RC7F =

2; and 8 if RC7H = 1.  In addition, INCOME = 7 when (a) RC7A = ‐1 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐

99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = ‐1 and RC7F = 2 and RC7G = ‐1 and RC7H = 2, or (b) RC7A = ‐1

and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = 2 and RC7F = 2 and RC7G = ‐1 and

RC7H = 2, or (c) RC7A = 2 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = 2 and

RC7F = 2 and RC7G = ‐1 and RC7H = 2; and INCOME = 8 when (a) RC7A = ‐1 and RC7B = ‐99 and

RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = ‐1 and RC7F = ‐1 and RC7G = 2 and RC7H = ‐1, or (b)

RC7A = ‐1 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = ‐1 and RC7F = 2 and

RC7G = 2 and RC7H = ‐1, or (c) RC7A = ‐1 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and

RC7E = 2 and RC7F = 2 and RC7G = 2 and RC7H = ‐1, or (d) RC7A = 2 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C =

‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = 2 and RC7F = ‐1 and RC7G = 2 and RC7H = ‐1, or (e) RC7A = 2

and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = 2 and RC7F = 2 and RC7G = 2 and

RC7H = ‐2, or (f) RC7A = 2 and RC7B = ‐99 and RC7C = ‐99 and RC7D = ‐99 and RC7E = 2 and

RC7F = 2 and RC7G = 2 and RC7H = ‐1.

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.
    298

(10) H10Q = 1 when H10 ≠ 1 and QUARTER = 101 or 102, and 0 otherwise.

(11) NUMP is the number of perpetrators for each respondent in the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV”

data file who committed at least one behavior in the SV7 to SV17 section.

(12) INGFU = 1 if at least one perpetrator from the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file is included

in the general follow‐up section, and 0 otherwise.

(13) INGFU4 = ‐99 if none of the perpetrators in the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file were

included in the general follow‐up section (i.e., INGFU = 0), 1 if at least one perpetrator from

the “FINAL PLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file was included in the GFU4 section, and 0 otherwise.

(14) INIP1A = 1 if the respondent was interviewed in the first or second quarter of 2010 (QUARTER

= 101 or 102) and (a) RSEX = “1” and IP1 = 1, or (b) RSEX = “1” and IP1 = 3, or (c) RSEX = “2”

and IP1 = 2, or (d) RSEX = “2” and IP1 = 3; 1 if the respondent was interviewed in the third or

fourth quarter of 2010 (QUARTER = 103 or 104); and 0 otherwise.

(15) INIP5 = 1 if IP2 = 1 or IP3 = 1 or IP4 = 1, and 0 otherwise.

(16) All core victimization composites were checked (CFP_99, CFP_12, RVAF_99, RVAF_12, ROF_99,

ROF_12, PVAF_99, PVAF_12, POF_99, POF_12, CADFP_99, CADFP_12, RVAI_99, RVAI_12,

ROI_99, ROI_12, PVAI_99, PVAI_12, POI_99, POI_12, AFP_99, AFP_12, SVP_99, SVP_12, SC_99,

SC_12, USC_99, USC_12, NCUSE_99, NCUSE_12, OVS_99, OVS_12, SV_99, SV_12, SPS_99,

SPS_12, SPV_99, SPV_12, PV_99, PV_12, EA_99, EA_12, CC_99, CC_12, PA_99, PA_12,

CRSH_99, CRSH_12, P_STALK99, P_STALK12, P_ST1, P_ST2, P_ST3, P_ST4, P_ST5, P_ST6, and

P_ST7), following the logic in Chapter 19.  Note that an analysis file must be created before

computing composites.

No problems were found.  Note that the “RLEVEL DATA CHECK.SPS” syntax file is important because it

includes the syntax to create all selection criteria and to compute all composites, using the final

(recoded) data.

A data codebook is then produced in the “RLEVEL CODEBOOK.SAS” syntax file (using the proc_codebook

macro available at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/research/tools/data_analysis/proc_codebook).  Results are

saved in the “RLEVEL CODEBOOK.PDF” file.  The final data file, “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV”, includes

21,378 observations and 493 variables.

Data & Files in the “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS” folder:

The “RLEVEL VARS.SPS” syntax file contains alternate code for all variables and composites created in

the respondent‐level data.  This syntax matches the descriptions provided in the respondent‐level

codebook (see Appendix C).

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.
    299

It is important to emphasize again that this data file is based on the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SAV” data file,

not the “CLEAN CORE ANALYSIS.SAV” data file (see differences in Chapter 14).  Analysts should strongly

consider making additional recodes when 15 (or more) perpetrators were identified by the respondent

in the lifetime questions.  More specifically, this includes the following recodes:

(1) When N99 = 15 and C = 0:  C, N36, F, and N12 should be recoded to ‐9.

(2) When N99 = 15, C = 1, and F = 0:  N36, F, and N12 should be recoded to ‐9.

(3) When N99 = 15, C = 1, and F = 1:  N36 and N12 should be recoded to ‐9.

(4) When N99 = 15, C = ‐99, and F = 0:  F and N12 should be recoded to ‐9.

(5) When N99 = 15, C = ‐99, and F = 1:  N12 should be recoded to ‐9.

These recodes are shown in the “CLEAN NISVS CORE.SPS” syntax file and are included at the end of the

“FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SPS” syntax file (but data are not saved after these recodes).

   

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.
300

DOCUMENTATION FOR ANALYSIS OF 

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN: 2010 

FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL INTIMATE PARTNER AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVEY (NISVS)

BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 

CHAPTER 26

VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN AND MEN

This chapter provides the technical documentation for all analyses and results included in the final

report on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and men.  All analyses are based

on the final data files created in the previous chapter (“FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV” and “FINAL PLEVEL

NISVS.SAV”).  The first two sections in this chapter provide details on the samples and their

characteristics.  Section C describes how new variables were computed to determine the race of each

perpetrator.  Core measures of victimization are then computed in Section D and the analysis is

described in Section E.  Important limitations are summarized in Section F.  Victimization estimates are

presented in sections G through K.  Section L provides a summary of the impact of physical violence by

intimate partners, stalking, and sexual violence.  Finally, all confidence intervals for all estimates in this

Chapter are provided in Section M.

A. SAMPLES

All estimates of violence are computed on the sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women and

men (R_AIAN = 1; n = 3,978) and on the sample of women and men who reported being non‐Hispanic

and White alone (RC3 = 2 and R_RACE = 1; n = 13,696; 72.6% of respondents for whom R_AIAN ≠ 1).  The

non‐Hispanic White alone group was selected to be consistent with the CDC analyses.

Respondents were placed in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample if they were included in the

American Indian and Alaska Native oversample.  They were also placed in the American Indian or Alaska

Native sample if they were included in the general population sample and identified themselves as

American Indian or Alaska Native in any of the race questions (RC4_1 to RC4_SP).  Being of Hispanic

origin did not impact placement in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample.  In other words, the

American Indian and Alaska Native sample includes respondents who reported being of Hispanic origin,

respondents who reported not being of Hispanic origin, and respondents who did not report whether

they were of Hispanic origin.  The sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women and men

includes 3,329 respondents from the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample, 305 respondents

from the general population sample who reported being American Indian or Alaska Native alone (52 of

these also reported being of Hispanic origin and 253 reported not being of Hispanic origin), and 344

respondents from the general population sample who reported being American Indian or Alaska Native

in combination with another race (26 of these also reported being of Hispanic origin, 316 reported not

being of Hispanic origin, and two did not report whether they were of Hispanic origin).   

The sample of non‐Hispanic White alone women and men includes respondents in the general

population sample who indicated not being of Hispanic origin (RC3 = 2) and identified themselves as

White alone (R_RACE = 1).  Respondents who did not know or refused to answer the RC3 or RC4

questions were not placed in this sample.   

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.
    301

To summarize, the American Indian and Alaska Native sample includes all respondents in the American

Indian and Alaska Native oversample and all respondents in the general population sample who

identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native either alone or in combination, regardless of

their ethnic origin.  The non‐Hispanic White alone sample includes respondents in the general

population sample who reported not being of Hispanic origin and being White alone.  The following

table describes the composition of the different samples based on respondents’ Hispanic origin (RC3)

and race (R_RACE).   

Table 26.1.  Race/Ethnic Categories for Final Report, by Hispanic Origin and Race

Ethnicity Race American Indian or

Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone Other

Unknown N/A: Sample = 2 38 0 0

Unknown 0 0 13

White alone 0 0 24

Black alone 0 0 13

Asian alone 0 0 3

NHPI alone 0 0 0

AIAN alone 0 0 0

Other alone 0 0 1

Multiracial 2 0 0

Total (unknown ethnicity) 40 0 54

Hispanic N/A: Sample = 2 74 0 0

Unknown 0 0 114

White alone 0 0 766

Black alone 0 0 50

Asian alone 0 0 13

NHPI alone 0 0 6

AIAN alone 52 0 0

Other alone 0 0 416

Multiracial 26 0 36

Total (Hispanic) 152 0 1,401

Non‐Hispanic N/A: Sample = 2 3,217 0 0

Unknown 0 0 38

White alone 0 13,696 0

Black alone 0 0 1,504

Asian alone 0 0 388

NHPI alone 0 0 55

AIAN alone 253 0 0

Other alone 0 0 61

Multiracial 316 0 203

Total (non‐Hispanic) 3,786 13,696 2,249

Total 3,978 13,696 3,704

Notes: Respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample are those for whom RACE

= “N/A: Sample = 2” (RC4 was not asked to respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native

oversample, and R_RACE is therefore undefined).  NHPI = Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.  AIAN

= American Indian or Alaska Native.

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.
    302

Table 26.2.  Race/Ethnic Categories by Gender of Respondent

Ethnicity Race Female Male Female Male Female Male

Unknown N/A: Sample = 2 27 11 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0 0 0 6 7

White alone 0 0 0 0 12 12

Black alone 0 0 0 0 7 6

Asian alone 0 0 0 0 1 2

NHPI alone 0 0 0 0 0 0

AIAN alone 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other alone 0 0 0 0 0 1

Multiracial 0 2 0 0 0 0

Total (unknown ethnicity) 27 13 0 0 26 28

Hispanic N/A: Sample = 2 46 28 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0 0 0 66 48

White alone 0 0 0 0 430 336

Black alone 0 0 0 0 26 24

Asian alone 0 0 0 0 7 6

NHPI alone 0 0 0 0 2 4

AIAN alone 23 29 0 0 0 0

Other alone 0 0 0 0 198 218

Multiracial 12 14 0 0 16 20

Total (Hispanic) 81 71 0 0 745 656

Non‐Hispanic N/A: Sample = 2 2,051 1,166 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0 0 0 14 24

White alone 0 0 7,646 6,050 0 0

Black alone 0 0 0 0 850 654

Asian alone 0 0 0 0 177 211

NHPI alone 0 0 0 0 25 30

AIAN alone 129 124 0 0 0 0

Other alone 0 0 0 0 23 38

Multiracial 185 131 0 0 115 88

Total (non‐Hispanic) 2,365 1,421 7,646 6,050 1,204 1,045

Total 2,473 1,505 7,646 6,050 1,975 1,729

Other Non‐Hispanic White

Alone

American Indian or

Alaska Native

Notes: Respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample are those for whom RACE = “N/A:

Sample = 2” (RC4 was not asked to respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample).  

NHPI = Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.  AIAN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Categorizations by respondent gender are shown in Table 26.2.  Of the 2,473 women in the American

Indian and Alaska Native sample, 2,124 (85.9%) were women from the American Indian and Alaska

Native oversample, 152 (6.1%) were women from the general population sample who reported being

American Indian or Alaska Native alone (23 of them reported being of Hispanic origin and 129 reported

not being of Hispanic origin), and 197 (8.0%) were women from the general population sample who

reported being American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race (12 of them reported

being of Hispanic origin and 185 reported not being of Hispanic origin).  Of the 1,505 men in the

American Indian and Alaska Native sample, 1,205 (80.1%) were men from the American Indian 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.
    303

Alaska Native oversample, 153 (10.2%) were men from the general population sample who reported

being American Indian or Alaska Native alone (29 of them reported being of Hispanic origin and 124

reported not being of Hispanic origin), and 147 (9.8%) were men from the general population sample

who reported being American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with another race (14 of them

reported being of Hispanic origin, 131 reported not being of Hispanic origin, and two did not report

whether they were of Hispanic origin).     

It is important to note that these racial and ethnic categorizations are different than those computed by

RTI/CDC.  Unfortunately, the race and ethnic categories that were used during the weighting of the

general population data are not available in the original dataset.  It is likely that the “RACECAT” variable

in the original data file was used to weight the general population data, but this variable includes

missing values and the imputed values are not available.  In addition, some categorizations appear to be

incorrect.  For example, three respondents were classified as being non‐Hispanic and multiracial when

they should have been classified as non‐Hispanic and White alone.  Although these three did provide

two answers to the race questions (found in RC4_1 and RC4_2), all of their answers were “White /

Caucasian”.  One additional respondent was classified as being non‐Hispanic and White alone instead of

non‐Hispanic and multiracial (for this respondent, RC4_SP = “White and African American”).  Because of

these problems, the RACECAT variable was not included in the final dataset (but is available in the

original dataset).  The race/ethnicity categories in the NISVS final report are also unclear because they

omit respondents who reported being non‐Hispanic and who identified their racial group as something

other than White or Caucasian alone, Black or African American alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian or

Pacific Islander alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, or multiracial.   

It is important to emphasize that the samples used for the final report on violence against American

Indian and Alaska Native women and men are different than the samples used in the NISVS final report.  

The American Indian and Alaska Native sample is different than the one found in the NISVS final report

because it includes all respondents from the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample and

includes all respondents from the general population sample who identified themselves as American

Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination (regardless of ethnicity).  In addition, it excludes two

respondents that were classified by RTI/CDC as American Indian or Alaska Native (see Chapter 3 for

details).  The non‐Hispanic White alone sample is different than the one found in the NISVS final report

because it excludes all respondents with missing data on either ethnicity or race.  After missing data

imputations (that are not included in the RTI/CDC data sets), some of these respondents were likely

included in RTI/CDC’s categorization for non‐Hispanic White alone.  In addition, the non‐Hispanic White

alone sample includes three respondents that were probably misclassified by RTI/CDC as multiracial

(when all of their answers to the race questions were “White / Caucasian”) and excludes one

respondent that was probably misclassified by RTI/CDC as White alone (when RC4_SP = “White and

African American”).  Unfortunately, too little documentation is available to determine with certainty

how respondents were classified by RTI/CDC.   

The “SAMPLES.SPS” syntax file produces Tables 26.1 and 26.2.  This syntax file is included in the “FINAL

ANALYSIS\SAMPLES” folder.  No output file is created at this time.

   

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.
    304

B. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

All analyses in this chapter are based on the sample of women who identified themselves as American

Indian or Alaska Native (n = 2,473), the sample of men who identified themselves as American Indian or

Alaska Native (n = 1,505), the sample of women who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone

(n = 7,646), and the sample of men who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (n = 6,050).  

This section describes the age, educational attainment, and income distributions across all samples.  

Because these results are used to describe the samples (rather than the populations), the tables present

unweighted results.   

Age

The age of the respondents in each sample is shown Tables 26.3 and 26.4.  The age of each respondent

was computed using RC1 (i.e., AGE = 2010 – RC1).  Values were then categorized into four groups: 18 to

29 years of age, 30 to 44 years of age, 45 to 64 years of age, and 65 years of age or older.  Population

data for the following tables were extracted from the 2010 US Census (Summary File 2, Table QT‐P1).

Table 26.3.  Age of American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men (Unweighted Frequencies)

N % N% N % N%

18 to 29 490,744 26.7% 484 19.6% 496,370 28.7% 294 19.6%

30 to 44 517,831 28.2% 633 25.6% 501,611 29.0% 420 28.0%

45 to 64 615,343 33.5% 993 40.2% 567,887 32.8% 592 39.5%

65+ 213,253 11.6% 358 14.5% 166,316 9.6% 193 12.9%

Total 1,837,171 2,468 1,732,184 1,499

Age

Female

Population Sample

Male

Population Sample

Note: Data on age are missing for five women and six men.  

Table 26.4.  Age of Non‐Hispanic White Alone Women and Men (Unweighted Frequencies)

N % N% N % N%

18 to 29 14,682,274 18.2% 1,072 14.1% 15,092,052 19.8% 1,095 18.1%

30 to 44 18,243,743 22.6% 1,526 20.0% 18,454,788 24.2% 1,290 21.4%

45 to 64 29,626,265 36.7% 3,200 42.0% 28,792,437 37.7% 2,488 41.2%

65+ 18,177,564 22.5% 1,825 23.9% 14,031,867 18.4% 1,167 19.3%

Total 80,729,846 7,623 76,371,144 6,040

Age

Female

Population Sample

Male

Population Sample

Note: Data on age are missing for 23 women and 10 men.  

On average, female respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were 46

years old (s = 16.4).  On average, male respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or

Alaska Native were also 46 years old (s = 16.0).  For both female and male respondents who identified

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native, age ranged from 18 years to 92 years.  The average

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.
    305

ages of female and male respondents who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone were 52

years (s = 17.5) and 49 years (s = 17.1), respectively.  

Individuals in each sample tended to be older than individuals in the population.  The proportion of

individuals between the ages of 18 to 29 was significantly lower in each sample than in the population (p

< 0.05).  The proportion of individuals between the ages of 30 to 44 was also significantly lower in each

sample than in the population (p < 0.05, except in the American Indian and Alaska Native male sample).  

Conversely, the proportion of individuals between the ages of 45 to 64 was significantly greater in each

sample than in the population (p < 0.05) and the proportion of individuals 65 years of age or older was

significantly greater in each sample than in the population (p < 0.05, except in the non‐Hispanic White

alone male sample).

Differences in mean age by gender and race/ethnicity were generally consistent with differences in the

population.  Women who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone were significantly older

than men who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (p < 0.01).  Both were significantly

older than people who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native (p < 0.01).  Among

people who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native, the difference in mean age

between women and men was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Educational Attainment

The educational attainment of each respondent is included in RC2.  Respondents were asked to indicate

the highest level of education they had completed (RC2 = 1 for no schooling, 2 for 1st to 8th grade, 3 for

some high school, 4 for high school graduate, 5 for technical or vocational school, 6 for some college, 7

for four‐year college degree, and 8 for post‐graduate).  Values were collapsed to create three categories

of educational attainment – less than a high school degree (RC2 = 1, 2, or 3), a high school degree (RC2 =

4), or more than a high school degree (RC2 = 5, 6, 7, or 8).   

Table 26.5.  Educational Attainment of Respondents (Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% N% N%

Less than high school 487 19.7% 318 21.2% 383 5.0% 324 5.4%

High school (HS) degree 741 30.0% 538 35.8% 1,835 24.0% 1,554 25.7%

More than HS degree 1,239 50.2% 647 43.0% 5,422 71.0% 4,167 68.9%

Total 2,467 1,503 7,640 6,045

Educational Attainment

American Indian or Alaska Native

Female Male

Non‐Hispanic White Alone

Female Male

Note: Data on educational attainment are missing for six women and two men in the American Indian or Alaska

Native sample and for six women and five men in the non‐Hispanic White alone sample.  

In all samples, over half of the women and men reported having at least a high school degree.  However,

consistent with other data sources, educational attainment was significantly lower among people who

identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native than among people who identified

themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (p < 0.01).  Gender differences in educational attainment were

not statistically significant among people who identified themselves as Non‐Hispanic White Alone (p >

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.
    306

0.05), but were statistically significant among people who identified themselves as American Indian or

Alaska Native (p < 0.01, with men having lower educational attainment than women).

Income

Respondents were asked to indicate the total income from all household members during the previous

calendar year, before taxes.  Respondents were further asked to include income from all sources such as

work, investments, child support, and public assistance.   

Over half of the women and men in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample reported a total annual

household income before taxes that was below $35,000 (73.8% of women and 68.9% of men).  

Conversely, over half of the women and men in the non‐Hispanic White alone sample reported a total

annual household income before taxes that was $35,000 or more (61.9% of women and 70.3% of men).   

Table 26.6.  Income of Respondents (Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% N% N%

<$35,000 1,733 73.8% 988 68.9% 2,677 38.1% 1,688 29.7%

$35,000 to <$75,000 440 18.7% 304 21.2% 2,308 32.9% 1,852 32.6%

$75,000 or more 175 7.5% 142 9.9% 2,039 29.0% 2,143 37.7%

Total 2,348 1,434 7,024 5,683

Income

American Indian or Alaska Native

Female Male

Non‐Hispanic White Alone

Female Male

Note: Data on income are missing for 125 women and 71 men in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample

and for 622 women and 367 men in the non‐Hispanic White alone sample.  

Women who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native had significantly lower annual

household income levels than men who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native (p <

0.05).  Both had significantly lower annual household income levels than women who identified

themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (p < 0.01), and all had significantly lower annual household

income levels than men who identified themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (p < 0.01).

Tribal Status

Respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were asked if they were

affiliated or enrolled with a tribe or village (RC6), if they had ever lived within reservation boundaries or

in an Alaska Native village (RC6B), and if they had lived within reservation boundaries or in an Alaska

Native village in the past year (RC6C).   

Over three quarters of the women and men in the American Indian and Alaska Native sample were

affiliated or enrolled with a tribe or village (82.6% and 79.0% respectively).  Women who identified

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were significantly more likely than men to be affiliated

or enrolled with a tribe or village (p < 0.01), but the difference across gender groups was small (3.6

percentage points).

   

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.
    307

Table 26.7.  Tribal Affiliation and Enrollment of American Indian and Alaska Native Respondents  

(Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% N%

2,026 82.6% 1,167 79.0% 3,193 81.2%

426 17.4% 311 21.0% 737 18.8%

Total 2,452 1,478 3,930

Affiliated or enrolled with Female Male

a tribe or village

All

Yes

No

Note: Data are missing for 21 women and 27 men.

Over half of the women and men in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample had lived within

reservation boundaries or in an Alaska Native village (59.8% and 60.1% respectively).  Differences across

gender groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Table 26.8.  Lifetime Residence of American Indian and Alaska Native Respondents  

(Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% N%

1,465 59.8% 891 60.1% 2,356 59.9%

984 40.2% 592 39.9% 1,576 40.1%

Total 2,449 1,483 3,932

Female Male Ever lived within reservation

boundaries or in Alaska

Native village

All

Yes

No

Note: Data are missing for 24 women and 22 men.

Over half of the women and men in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample had lived within

reservation boundaries or in an Alaska Native village in the past year (54.0% and 53.7% respectively).  

Differences across gender groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Table 26.9.  Past Year Residence of American Indian and Alaska Native Respondents  

(Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% N%

1,318 54.0% 796 53.7% 2,114 53.8%

1,125 46.0% 687 46.3% 1,812 46.2%

Total 2,443 1,483 3,926

Female Male Lived within reservation

boundaries or in Alaska

Native village in past year

All

Yes

No

Note: Data are missing for 30 women and 22 men.

The “DEMOG.SPS” syntax file produces Tables 26.3 through 26.9.  This syntax file is included in the

“FINAL ANALYSIS\DEMOG” folder.  No output file is created at this time.  

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.
    308

The “FINAL ANALYSIS\DEMOG\CENSUS” folder includes the data from the 2010 US Census (Summary

File 2, Table QT‐P1).

C. PERPETRATOR RACE AND ETHNICITY

New variables were computed to determine the race and ethnicity of each perpetrator.  In addition, a

new variable was computed to determine if each perpetrator was of a different race and ethnicity than

the respondent.

Information about each perpetrator’s race is included in the final perpetrator‐level data file in the

variables R8_1 to R8_6 and in R8_SP.  New race variables were computed to determine if the

perpetrator was White alone or in combination (P_WHITE), Black or African American alone or in

combination (P_BLACK), Asian alone or in combination (P_ASIAN), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific

Islander alone or in combination (P_NHPI), American Indian or Alaska Native alone or in combination

(P_AIAN), or of another race alone or in combination (P_OTHER).  These variables (P_WHITE, P_BLACK,

P_ASIAN, P_NHPI, P_AIAN, and P_OTHER) were coded as ‐9 (for “Unknown”) when the respondent

didn’t know the answer to R8 or refused to provide an answer (i.e., when R8_1 = ‐1 or ‐2), as 1 (for

“Yes”) when the respondent identified that racial group (in R8_1 to R8_6), and as 0 (for “No”) when the

respondent did not identify that racial group (in R8_1 to R8_6).

Answers in R8_SP were then examined to determine if any of the perpetrator race information should

be recoded.  Recodes for the P_WHITE to P_AIAN variables were based on the race categories included

in R8_SP.  When respondents indicated “White” or “Caucasian” in R8_SP, P_WHITE was recoded to 1.  

P_BLACK was recoded to 1 when the respondents indicated “Black” or “African American.”  P_ASIAN

was recoded to 1 when the respondents indicated “Asian.”  P_NHPI was recoded to 1 when the

respondents indicated “Native Hawaiian” or “Pacific Islander.”  Finally, P_AIAN was recoded to 1 when

the respondents indicated “American Indian,” “Alaska(n) Native,” “Alaska Indian,” or “Native American.”  

Race information was recoded for 125 perpetrators (details are available in the “RACE.SPS” syntax file

and in the “PERP RACE RECODES.XLSX” excel spreadsheet).  Additional recodes would be possible if they

were based on ethnicity and/or ancestry.  For example, analysts could check that P_WHITE = 1 when

R8_SP = “German.”  The US Census defines “White” as “a person having origins in any of the original

peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa,” which “includes people who indicate their race as

‘White’ or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”   

Recodes based on ethnicity and/or ancestry were not completed.  The variables P_WHITE to P_AIAN

were only recoded based on race information included in R8_SP.   

A variable was then created to indicate if the perpetrator was non‐Hispanic White alone (P_NHWA).  

Perpetrators were non‐Hispanic White alone (P_NHWA = 1) when they were White alone (i.e., P_WHITE

= 1, and P_ BLACK to P_OTHER = 0) and were not of Hispanic origin (i.e., R7 = 2).   Out of the 51,535

perpetrators, 25,912 (50.3%) were identified as non‐Hispanic White alone.   

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.
    309

Information about the respondent’s race was then merged to compute whether the perpetrators were

interracial.  For respondents who were American Indian or Alaska Native, perpetrators were interracial if

they were known to not be American Indian or Alaska Native.  For respondents who were non‐Hispanic

White alone, perpetrators were interracial if they were known to not be non‐Hispanic White alone.

There were 3,978 respondents that were classified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2,726 of

them identified at least one perpetrator.  These 2,726 respondents identified a total of 9,651

perpetrators.  Out of these 9,651 perpetrators, 3,027 were interracial and 4,583 were intra‐racial (2,041

had missing data).  There were 13,696 respondents that were classified as non‐Hispanic White alone,

and 9,270 of them identified at least one perpetrator.  These 9,270 respondents identified a total of

32,453 perpetrators.  Out of these 32,453 perpetrators, 4,080 were interracial and 22,041 were intra‐

racial (6,332 had missing data).   

   

Table 26.10.  Perpetrator Race

(Unweighted Frequencies)

N% N% Total

American Indian or Alaska Native 3,027 39.8% 4,583 60.2% 7,610

Non‐Hispanic White alone 4,080 15.6% 22,041 84.4% 26,121

Perpetrator is

Interracial

Perpetrator is         

Intra‐racial

Respondent Race

Note: For American Indian and Alaska Native respondents, data are missing for 2,041 perpetrators.   

For non‐Hispanic White alone respondents, data are missing for 6,332 perpetrators.

The “RACE.SPS” syntax file creates all perpetrator‐level variables (P_WHITE to P_OTHER, P_NHWA, and

INTERRACIAL.  This syntax file is included in the “FINAL ANALYSIS\RACE” folder.  Data are saved in the

“RACE.SAV” data file (51,535 observations and 14 variables).

D. COMPUTING CORE MEASURES OF VICTIMIZATION

The logic for computing core measures of victimization is similar to the logic shown in Chapter 19, where

core measures of victimization were computed using the respondent‐level data.  However, for the final

analysis, the core measures of victimization were first computed using the perpetrator‐level data.  In

other words, we began by using the perpetrator‐level data to compute measures of perpetration.  This

was necessary to determine if any of the perpetrators for a specific type of victimization were interracial

or intra‐racial.  It was also necessary to examine the impact of physical violence by intimate partners,

stalking, and sexual violence (see Section L).

The following table identifies all of the indicators included in each measure of victimization (for both

lifetime and past year measures).  Note that in Chapter 19, the control of reproductive or sexual health

was not included as a measure of psychological aggression.  It was instead included separately.  In 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.
    310

Chapter, the control of reproductive or sexual health is included as a measure of psychological

aggression.   

Table 26.11.  Indicators in Core Measures of Victimization

Female Respondents Male Respondents

SPS Slapped, pushed or shoved

SPV Severe physical violence

PV Physical violence

ST Stalking

CFP Completed forced penetration SV12, SV14, SV15, SV16,

and SV17

SV12, SV13, SV14, SV15,

SV16, and SV17

RVAF Receive vaginal or anal by force SV12, SV14, and SV17 SV14 and SV17

ROF Receive oral by force

PVAF Perform vaginal or anal by force N/A SV12 and SV13

POF Perform oral by force

CADFP Completed alcohol or drug facilitated

penetration

SV7, SV9, SV10, and SV11 SV7, SV8, SV9, SV10, and

SV11

RVAI Receive vaginal or anal by intoxication SV7 and SV9 SV9

ROI Receive oral by intoxication

PVAI Perform vaginal or anal by intoxication N/A SV7 and SV8

POI Perform oral by intoxication

AFP Attempted forced penetration SV19 SV18 and SV19

SVP Sexual violence with penetration

SC Sexual coercion

USC Unwanted sexual contact

NCUSE Non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences

OSV Other sexual violence

SV Sexual violence

EA Expressive aggression

CC Coercive control

CRSH Control of reproductive/sexual health

PA Psychological aggression

VIO Violence

SV16

SV15

PV, ST, SV, and PA

PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4, and PA5

CCE1, CCE2, CCE3, CCE4, CCE5, CCE6, CCE7, CCE8,

CCE9, CCE10, CCE11, CCE12, and PV1

EA, CC, and CRSH

CCE13 and CCE14

SV20, SV21, and SV22

SV5 and SV6

SVP and OSV

Core Measure

SV1, SV2, and SV3

SC, USC, and NCUSE

SV11

SV10

CFP, CADFP, and AFP

P_STALK

PV2 and PV3

PV4, PV5, PV6, PV7, PV9, PV10, PV11, and PV12

SPS and SPV

Lifetime measures of victimization were computed using the B variables (# of lifetime victimizations).  If

the perpetrator did not do any of the behaviors (i.e., all B variables equaled zero), the lifetime measure

was then coded to zero (for “no”).  If the perpetrator did any of the behaviors – either at least once (B >

0) or an unknown number of times (B = ‐8) – the lifetime measure was then coded to one (for “yes”).  

The lifetime measure was coded to ‐9, for “unknown,” when any of the B variables equaled ‐9 and none

of the B variables equaled ‐8 and none were greater than zero.  The past year measures were computed

using the same logic, with the H variables instead of the B variables.  The perpetrator‐level stalking

variables were not computed using the B and H variables, because the stalking variables were already

included in the perpetrator‐level data (P_STALK99 and P_STALK12).

   

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.
    311

The following code shows how the lifetime measure for being slapped, pushed or shoved was computed

using the perpetrator‐level data for PV2 and PV3:

* COMPUTE SPS_99.

COMPUTE SPS_99=‐8.

IF PV2B=‐8 OR PV2B>0 OR PV3B=‐8 OR PV3B>0 SPS_99=1.

IF PV2B=0 AND PV3B=0 SPS_99=0.

IF (PV2B=‐9 OR PV3B=‐9) AND NOT (PV2B=‐8 OR PV2B>0 OR PV3B=‐8 OR PV3B>0) SPS_99=‐9.

VARIABLE LABEL SPS_99 'PERP DID SPS IN LIFETIME'.

VALUE LABELS SPS_99 0 'NO' 1 'YES' ‐9 'UNKNOWN'.

The same code can be used to calculate the past year measure for being slapped, pushed or shoved

(SPS_12, instead of SPS_99), using PV2H and PV3H (instead of PV2B and PV3B).   

Again, measures were coded to zero when all indicators equaled zero, were coded to one when at least

one of the indicators equaled ‐8 or was greater than zero, and were coded to ‐9 when at least one of the

indicators equaled ‐9 and none equaled ‐8 and none were greater than zero.  When not applicable (see

PVAF and PVAI for female respondents), measures were coded to ‐99.

After computing whether each perpetrator committed these different types of victimizations, new

variables were computed to examine whether perpetrators were interracial.  For each measure of

victimization (SPS_99 to VIO_12), new variables were created (SPS99_INTER to VIO12_INTER).  If a

perpetrator did a particular behavior, then the “_INTER” variable for that behavior was coded to equal

INTERRACIAL.    On the other hand, if a perpetrator did not do a particular behavior, then the “_INTER”

variable for that behavior was coded as ‐7 (for “not applicable”).  Following the example above for

SPS_99, a new variable “SPS99_INTER” was created.  If SPS_99 equaled 1, SPS99_INTER was coded to

equal INTERRACIAL.  Otherwise, SPS99_INTER was coded as ‐7.

Using a similar logic, new variables were also computed to examine whether perpetrators were intra‐

racial.  For each measure of victimization (SPS_99 to VIO_12), new variables were created (SPS99_INTRA

to VIO12_INTRA).  If perpetrator did a particular behavior, then the “_INTRA” variable for that behavior

was coded to equal INTERRACIAL.  Values were then recoded from 0 to 1 and from 1 to 0 (so that

interracial data became intra‐racial data).  As before, if a perpetrator did not do a particular behavior,

then the “_INTRA” variable for that behavior was coded as ‐7 (for “not applicable”).  Following the

example above for SPS_99, a new variable “SPS99_INTRA” was created.  If SPS_99 equaled 1,

SPS99_INTRA was coded to equal INTERRACIAL, but values were recoded from 0 to 1 and from 1 to 0.  

Otherwise, SPS99_INTRA was coded as ‐7.

To summarize, the perpetrator‐level data were used to compute 26 core measures of victimization (see

table above).  For each core measure of victimization, lifetime and past year measures were computed

(for a total of 52 measures).  For each of the 52 measures, one variable was computed to determine if

the perpetrator was interracial and another variable was computed to determine if the perpetrator was

intra‐racial.  These variables are saved in the “FINAL PLEVEL COMPOSITES.SAV” data file (with 51,535

observations and 609 variables).

These perpetrator‐level data were then aggregated, to create a respondent‐level data file.  In the new

respondent‐level data file, the victimization data indicate whether any perpetrators victimized the

respondent.  More specifically, for each type of victimization (SPS_99 to VIO_12), data were aggregated

to one (for “yes”) if any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as one.  Data were aggregated to zero

(for “no”) if all of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as zero.  Finally, data were aggregated to ‐9 (for

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.
    312

“unknown”) if any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as ‐9 and none were coded as one.  The

aggregated data were saved in the P_SPS99 to P_VIO12 variables.  When data were not applicable (see

PVAF and PVAI for female respondents), data were aggregated to ‐99.

The interracial data were aggregated to indicate whether any of the perpetrators were interracial.  It is

important to note that the interracial data were not aggregated from all perpetrators.  Instead, the

interracial data for a particular type of victimization were aggregated only from the perpetrators who

were identified for that type of victimization.  In other words, the aggregated value for SPS99_INTER

indicates whether any of the SPS_99 perpetrators were interracial.  Data were aggregated to one (for

“yes”) if any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as one (i.e., when at least one of the perpetrators

was interracial).  Data were aggregated to zero (for “no”) when all of the perpetrator‐level data were

coded as zero (i.e., when none of the perpetrators were interracial).  Finally, data were aggregated to ‐9

(for “unknown”) when any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as ‐9 and none were coded as one.  

A similar strategy was used to aggregate the intra‐racial data.  Data were aggregated to one (for “yes”) if

any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as one (i.e., when at least one of the perpetrators was

intra‐racial).  Data were aggregated to zero (for “no”) when all of the perpetrator‐level data were coded

as zero (i.e., when none of the perpetrators were intra‐racial).  Finally, data were aggregated to ‐9 (for

“unknown”) when any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as ‐9 and none were coded as one.  

There are two instances when data are not applicable.  First, if a respondent did not experience a

particular type of victimization, then there are no perpetrators for that type of victimization.  In those

cases, the interracial and intra‐racial data were coded to ‐7.  Second, data about interracial and intra‐

racial perpetrators were only computed for respondents who identified themselves as American Indian

or Alaska Native, or as non‐Hispanic White alone.  For all others, the interracial and intra‐racial data

were coded to ‐8.

To summarize, data were aggregated to the respondent‐level.  The perpetrator‐level data in SPS_99 to

VIO_12 were used to create the P_SPS99 to P_VIO12 variables in the respondent‐level data.  The

respondent‐level data were coded to one if any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as one, to zero

if all of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as zero, and to ‐9 if any of the perpetrator‐level data were

coded as ‐9 and none were coded as one.  The perpetrator‐level data in SPS99_INTER to VIO12_INTER

were used to create the SPS99_INTER to VIO12_INTER variables in the respondent‐level data.  Similarly,

the perpetrator‐level data in SPS99_INTRA to VIO12_INTRA were used to create the SPS99_INTRA to

VIO12_INTRA variables in the respondent‐level data.  For all of these, the respondent‐level data were

coded to one if any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as one, to zero when all of the perpetrator‐

level data were coded as zero, and to ‐9 when any of the perpetrator‐level data were coded as ‐9 and

none were coded as one.  Interracial and intra‐racial data were recoded to ‐7 when respondents were

not victimized and to ‐8 when respondents were not in the American Indian or Alaska Native sample or

the non‐Hispanic White alone sample.

These new variables were then added to the “FINAL RLEVEL NISVS.SAV” data file.  When adding the

aggregated data to the final respondent‐level data file (i.e., when moving the perpetrator‐level data to

the respondent‐level data), important recodes are necessary.  These recodes are necessary for the

aggregated perpetrator‐level data to replicate the respondent‐level data.  When merging the

aggregated perpetrator‐level data to the respondent‐level data, analysts will need to recode data to

account for the differences between the respondent‐level data file and the perpetrator‐level data file.  

There are times when the perpetrator‐level data file will show that a respondent was not victimized, but

the respondent‐level data file will show that this respondent was victimized.   This happens when

respondents indicated being victimized in the respondent‐level questions, but provided no perpetrator‐

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.
    313

level data.  In other cases, the perpetrator‐level data file will show that a respondent was not victimized,

but the respondent‐level data file will show that a respondent’s victimization status is unknown.  This

happens when a respondent was victimized in the lifetime by 15 or more perpetrators but was not

victimized in the past year by any of the 15 perpetrators whose initials were recorded.  That respondent

may have been victimized in the past year by other perpetrators whose initials were not recorded.   

After merging the aggregated perpetrator‐level data to the respondent‐level data, five recodes are

necessary.  First, system missing values in the interracial and intra‐racial variables were recoded to ‐7.  In

these cases, the respondent was not victimized (according to the perpetrator‐level data that were just

aggregated).  Second, system missing values in the lifetime victimization data were recoded to zero

when all N99 variables equaled 0 (i.e., when the respondent was not victimized) or to ‐9 when at least

one of the N99 variables did not equal zero (e.g., when data in the N99 variables are missing).  Third,

system missing values in the past year victimization data were recoded to zero when all N12 variables

equaled 0 (i.e., when the respondent was not victimized) or to ‐9 when at least one of the N12 variables

did not equal zero (e.g., when data in the N12 variables are missing).  Fourth, the lifetime and past year

victimization data were recoded from 0 to ‐9 when any of the N99 variables equaled 15 or ‐9.  In these

cases, the perpetrator‐level data indicated that the respondent was not victimized.  However, the

perpetrator‐level data were incomplete (i.e., perpetrator initials were missing – the respondent did not

provide all initials or only the first 15 initials were recorded).  In case any of the missing perpetrators

victimized the respondent (and to be consistent with the respondent‐level data), the aggregated

perpetrator‐level data were recoded from 0 to ‐9.  In other words, the aggregated perpetrator‐level data

incorrectly classified these respondents as non‐victims.  Finally, the past year victimization data were

recoded to 1 when any of the F variables equaled 1 and their corresponding N12 variable equaled ‐9.  

The past year interracial and intra‐racial data were then recoded from ‐7 to ‐9.  In these cases, the

respondent was victimized, but that information was not included in the perpetrator‐level data file.

To summarize, computing core measures of victimization was a three step process.  First, measures

were computed using the perpetrator‐level data file.  Second, the perpetrator‐level measures were

aggregated to the respondent‐level.  Third, the aggregated measures were recoded.  The rules used at

each step were detailed above and are summarized below:

(1) New measures were computed using the perpetrator‐level data file.

a. Lifetime victimization measures were computed using the B variables while past year

measures were computed using the H variables.

i. If all variables equaled zero, the measure was coded to zero.

ii. If any of the variables equaled ‐8 or were greater than zero, the measure was

coded to one.

iii. If any of the variables equaled ‐9 and none equaled ‐8 and none were greater

than zero, the measure was coded to ‐9.

iv. If the measure was not applicable, it was coded ‐99.

b. For each victimization measure, new variables were created to indicate whether

perpetrators were interracial.

i. If the victimization measure equaled one, the interracial variable was coded to

equal INTERRACIAL.

ii. If the victimization measure did not equal one, the interracial variable was

coded to ‐7.   

c. For each victimization measure, new variables were created to indicate whether

perpetrators were intra‐racial.

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.
    314

i. If the victimization measure equaled one, the intra‐racial variable was coded to

equal INTERRACIAL.  Values were then recoded from 0 to 1 and from 1 to 0.

ii. If the victimization measure did not equal one, the intra‐racial variable was

coded to ‐7.   

(2) Perpetrator measures were aggregated to the respondent‐level.

a. The perpetrator‐level victimization measures were aggregated to:

i. One, if any of the perpetrator‐level measures equaled one.

ii. Zero, if all of the perpetrator‐level measures equaled zero.

iii. ‐9, if any of the perpetrator‐level measures equaled ‐9 and none equaled one.

iv. ‐99, if the victimization measure was not applicable.

b. The perpetrator‐level interracial and intra‐racial variables were aggregated to:   

i. One, if any of the perpetrator‐level variables equaled one.

ii. Zero, if all of the perpetrator‐level variables equaled zero.

iii. ‐9, if any of the perpetrator‐level variables equaled ‐9 and none equaled one.

iv. ‐7, if there were no perpetrators for this victimization measure.

v. ‐8, if the respondent was not American Indian or Alaska Native and was not non‐

Hispanic White alone.

c. The aggregated variables were then added to the final respondent‐level data file.

(3) The aggregated measures were recoded.

a. System missing values in the interracial and intra‐racial variables were recoded to ‐7.

b. System missing values in the lifetime victimization variables were recoded to 0 when all

N99 variables equaled 0, and to ‐9 otherwise.

c. System missing values in the past year victimization variables were recoded to 0 when

all N12 variables equaled 0, and to ‐9 otherwise.

d. The lifetime and past year victimization data were recoded from 0 to ‐9 when any of the

N99 variables equaled 15 or ‐9.

e. The past year victimization data were recoded to 1 when any of the F variables equaled

1 and their corresponding N12 variable equaled ‐9.  In these cases, the past year

interracial and intra‐racial data were then recoded from ‐7 to ‐9.   

The “FINAL COMPOSITES.SPS” syntax file includes all of the code necessary to compute measures using

the perpetrator‐level data, to aggregate the perpetrator‐level measures to the respondent‐level, and to

recode the aggregated measures.  This syntax file creates two data files – the “FINAL PLEVEL

COMPOSITES.SAV” data file with 51,535 observations and 609 variables and the “FINAL RLEVEL

COMPOSITES.SAV” data file with 21,378 observations and 652 variables.  These files are all included in

the “FINAL ANALYSIS\COMPOSITES” folder:

E. DATA ANALYSIS

All estimates were computed using the sample of respondents that completed the survey through at

least the psychological aggression section.  In other words, estimates were computed using the

WTGENPA and WTAIANPA weights (rather than the WTGENSV and WTAIANSV weights).

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.
    315

All NIJ estimates were produced in SAS 9.3 (SAS/STAT 12.1), using the SURVEYMEANS procedure, with

the following specifications:

PROCSURVEYMEANS DATA=*** NOMCAR; STRATA ***; DOMAIN ***; VAR ***; 

WEIGHT ***; RUN;

Estimates for American Indian and Alaska Native women and men were computed from the combined

American Indian and Alaska Native sample (i.e., R_AIAN = 1) using the AIANSTRAT strata and the

WTAIANPA weights.  Estimates for non‐Hispanic White alone women and men were computed from the

full general population sample (i.e., SAMPLE = 1) while specifying non‐Hispanic White alone (R_NHWA)

as a domain, using the GENSTRAT strata and the WTGENPA weights.  Estimates include the percentage

and number of women and men who have experienced violence.  The estimated numbers of American

Indian and Alaska Native victims are based on the total population of women and men in the 2010 US

Census who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native, alone or in combination with

another race (N = 1,837,171 women and 1,732,184 men).   

The default Taylor series method was used to estimate the standard error of each estimate.  No finite

population corrections were used (sampling fractions are very small).  All estimates were produced

assuming that item non‐response was not missing completely at random.   

Statistically significant differences across racial and ethnic groups were examined with risk ratios (or

relative risk).  The relative risk is simply the percentage in the American Indian and Alaska Native sample

divided by the percentage in the non‐Hispanic White alone sample.   

The “FINAL ESTIMATES.SPS” syntax file extracts all of the variables that are necessary to compute the

final estimates from the “FINAL RLEVEL COMPOSITES.SAV” data file.  Missing data were recoded to

system missing.  Data were then saved in the “FINAL RLEVEL DATA.SAV” data file (with 21,378

observations and 232 variables).  The “FINAL ESTIMATES.SAS” system file then produces all of the

victimization estimates.  Results are saved in the “FINAL ESTIMATES.PDF” file.  All files are included in

the “FINAL ANALYSIS\ESTIMATES” folder:

F. IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS FOR ALL ESTIMATES

The victimization estimates in this report have important limitations.  All victimization estimates,

including ones derived from the NISVS data are impacted by recall errors and by the continuing stigma

associated with disclosing experiences of victimization.  The NISVS surveys were only administered by

phone and were only administered in English (for respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native

oversample) or in English and Spanish (for respondents in the general population sample).  Men and

women who only spoke other languages (including indigenous languages) were excluded.  In addition,

people were excluded if they did not have access to a phone.  To be included in the American Indian and

Alaska Native oversample, respondents were required to have a landline telephone.  To be included 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.
    316

the general population sample, respondents were required to have either a landline telephone or a cell

phone.  People were also excluded if they did not live in a private residence.  For example, people were

excluded if they currently lived in shelters, hotels, dorms, jails, or on the streets.   

The estimates provide information about the number of people who have experienced victimizations in

their lifetime and in the past year.  They do not provide information about the number victimizations.   

More specifically, they do not provide information about how often people were victimized or how

many different types of victimizations they experienced.  In addition, not all forms of victimization were

measured.  For example, measures of attempted forced penetration do not include penetration by

fingers or objects (whereas penetration by fingers or objects is included in measures of completed

penetration).   

Because these limitations may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups, comparisons of

estimates across racial/ethnic groups may be invalid.  For example, comparisons across racial/ethnic

groups are compromised if the stigma associated with disclosing experiences of victimization is greater

in one racial/ethnic group than in another.  Comparisons across different types of victimization

experiences are similarly compromised if the stigma associated with disclosing some experiences is

greater than for other experiences.  Many of the differences across racial/ethnic group are not

statistically significant.  High margins of error (particularly in the American Indian and Alaska Native

sample) make it difficult to find statistically significant differences across racial/ethnic groups.  

Confidence intervals for all estimates are provided in Section M for readers to gauge the precision of

each estimate.

G. SEXUAL VIOLENCE

Sexual violence includes sexual violence with penetration and other sexual violence.  Sexual violence

with penetration includes completed forced penetration, completed alcohol or drug facilitated

penetration, and attempted forced penetration.  Other sexual violence includes sexual coercion,

unwanted sexual contact, and non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.   

Figure 26.1.  Measures of Sexual Violence

Sexual

Violence

Sexual Violence

with

Penetration

Completed Forced Penetration

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Attempted Forced Penetration

Other Sexual

Violence

Sexual Coercion

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

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.
    317

Completed forced penetration includes being made to receive vaginal or anal sex, being made to receive

oral sex, being made to perform oral sex, and (for men only) being made to perform vaginal or anal sex.

• Being made to receive vaginal or anal sex includes instances when perpetrators used physical

force or threats of physical harm to put their penis, their fingers, or objects in the victim’s vagina

(for women) or anus (for both women and men).   

• Being made to receive oral sex includes instances when perpetrators used physical force or

threats of physical harm to put their mouth on the victim’s penis (for men), vagina (for women),

or anus (for both men and women).   

• Being made to perform oral sex includes instances when perpetrators used physical force or

threats of physical harm to make the victim put his or her mouth on the perpetrator’s penis,

vagina, or anus.  

• Being made to perform vaginal or anal sex includes instances when a perpetrator used physical

force of threats of physical harm to make a male victim put his penis into the perpetrator’s

vagina or anus.

Completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration includes the same four types of penetration (being

made to receive vaginal or anal sex, being made to receive oral sex, being made to perform oral sex, and

being made to perform vaginal or anal sex).  In these instances, instead of using force or threats of

physical harm, perpetrators used victims who were unable to consent because they were drunk, high,

drugged, or passed out.

Attempted forced penetration includes instances when perpetrators tried to have vaginal, oral, or anal

sex with a victim, but sex did not happen.  Attempted forced penetration also includes instances when

female perpetrators tried to make a male victim perform vaginal sex, but sex did not happen.

Sexual coercion includes instances when perpetrators pressured the victim to have vaginal, oral, or anal

sex.  Perpetrators used pressure by telling lies, making promises about the future they knew were

untrue, threatening to end relationships, threatening to spread rumors, repeatedly asking for sex,

showing they were unhappy, or using influence or authority (such as that of a boss or teacher).

Unwanted sexual contact includes instances when perpetrators kissed a victim in a sexual way or

fondled or grabbed a victim’s sexual body parts when the victim didn’t want these things to happen.

Non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences includes instances when perpetrators exposed their sexual

body parts to a victim, flashed a victim, masturbated in front of a victim, made a victim show his or her

sexual body parts, or made a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies (all when the victim

didn’t want these things to happen).

Differences between NIJ and CDC Measures of Sexual Violence

The NIJ measures of sexual violence are different than the CDC measures.  The NIJ measures of sexual

violence do not include being harassed in a public place (CDC included being harassed in a public place

as an indicator of non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences).  In addition, the NIJ measures of sexual

violence are mutually exclusive, while the CDC measures are not.  Under the CDC plan, being penetrated

is a form of rape while being made to penetrate is a form of other sexual violence.  Unfortunately, the

NISVS survey includes questions that simultaneously measure being penetrated and being made to

penetrate.  It is not possible to split being penetrated (a form or rape) from being made to penetrate (a

form of other sexual violence), even when considering different combinations of respondents 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.
    318

perpetrators by gender.  As a result, the CDC estimates for rape include instances of other sexual

violence and the estimates for other sexual violence include instances of rape (for additional details, see

Chapter 19).  The NIJ measures include being penetrated and being made to penetrate as forms of

forced penetration.

Estimates of Sexual Violence  

Lifetime estimates for the prevalence of sexual violence against women are presented in the following

table.  More than one in two American Indian and Alaska Native women (56.1%) have experienced

sexual violence in their lifetime.

   

Table 26.12.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Sexual Violence with Penetration 35.0% 20.1% 1.7

Completed Forced Penetration 29.5% 13.6% 2.2

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration 16.7% 9.0% NS

Attempted Forced Penetration 12.2% 5.3% 2.3

Other Sexual Violence 52.1% 46.8% NS

Sexual Coercion 24.5% 13.7% 1.8

Unwanted Sexual Contact 42.5% 30.5% 1.4

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences 38.4% 31.0% NS

All Sexual Violence 56.1% 49.7% NS

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Women

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in three (35.0%) have experienced sexual violence with penetration:

 29.5% have experienced completed forced penetration.

 16.7% have experienced completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

 12.2% have experienced attempted forced penetration.

More than one in two (52.1%) have experienced other sexual violence:

 24.5% have experienced sexual coercion.

 42.5% have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

 38.4% have experienced non‐contact unwanted sexual experience.

Overall, more than one million American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced sexual

violence in their lifetime.   

Relative to non‐Hispanic White women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are:

 1.7 times more likely to have experienced sexual violence with penetration (p < 0.05).

 2.2 times more likely to have experienced completed forced penetration (p < 0.05).

 2.3 times more likely to have experienced attempted forced penetration (p < 0.05).

 1.8 times more likely to have experienced sexual coercion (p < 0.05).

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced unwanted sexual contact (p < 0.05).

Other differences are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

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.
    319

Lifetime estimates for the prevalence of sexual violence against men are presented in the following

table.  More than one in four American Indian and Alaska Native men (27.5%) have experienced sexual

violence in their lifetime.   

More than one in 10 (10.8%) have experienced sexual violence with penetration:

 2.7% have experienced completed forced penetration.

 7.9% have experienced completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

 2.4% have experienced attempted forced penetration.

More than one in five (23.8%) have experienced other sexual violence:

 10.1% have experienced sexual coercion.

 13.0% have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

 11.8% have experienced non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.

Table 26.13.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Sexual Violence with Penetration 10.8% 5.1% NS

Completed Forced Penetration 2.7% 1.6% NS

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration 7.9% 3.7% NS

Attempted Forced Penetration 2.4% 1.2% NS

Other Sexual Violence 23.8% 19.6% NS

Sexual Coercion 10.1% 5.4% NS

Unwanted Sexual Contact 13.0% 12.3% NS

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences 11.8% 9.7% NS

All Sexual Violence 27.5% 20.9% NS

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Overall, more than 475,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced sexual violence in

their lifetime.  Differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Past year estimates for the prevalence of sexual violence against women are presented in the following

table.  More than one in seven American Indian and Alaska Native women (14.4%) have experienced

sexual violence in the past year.   

More than one in 22 (4.6%) have experienced sexual violence with penetration:

 3.6% have experienced completed forced penetration.

 3.3% have experienced completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

 2.8% have experienced attempted forced penetration.

More than one in eight (13.5%) have experienced other sexual violence:

 7.2% have experienced sexual coercion.

 7.3% have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

 5.0% have experienced non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.

Overall, more than 260,000 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced sexual

violence in the past year.  Differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p >

0.05).

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.
    320

Table 26.14.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Sexual Violence Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Sexual Violence with Penetration 4.6% 1.2% NS

Completed Forced Penetration 3.6% 0.5% NS

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration 3.3% 0.8% NS

Attempted Forced Penetration 2.8% 0.3% NS

Other Sexual Violence 13.5% 4.9% NS

Sexual Coercion 7.2% 1.6% NS

Unwanted Sexual Contact 7.3% 2.5% NS

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences 5.0% 1.7% NS

All Sexual Violence 14.4% 5.4% NS

Past Year Sexual Violence Against Women

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Past year estimates for the prevalence of sexual violence against men are presented in the following

table.  More than one in 11 American Indian and Alaska Native men (9.9%) have experienced sexual

violence in the past year.   

More than one in 44 (2.3%) have experienced sexual violence with penetration:

 0.4% have experienced completed forced penetration.

 2.0% have experienced completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

 Less than 0.1% have experienced attempted forced penetration.

More than one in 13 (7.9%) have experienced other sexual violence:

 4.5% have experienced sexual coercion.

 3.1% have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

 3.2% have experienced non‐contact unwanted sexual experiences.

Table 26.15.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Sexual Violence Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Sexual Violence with Penetration 2.3% 0.8% NS

Completed Forced Penetration 0.4% 0.1% NS

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration 2.0% 0.5% NS

Attempted Forced Penetration <0.1% 0.2% 0.1

Other Sexual Violence 7.9% 3.5% NS

Sexual Coercion 4.5% 0.9% NS

Unwanted Sexual Contact 3.1% 1.8% NS

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences 3.2% 1.7% NS

All Sexual Violence 9.9% 3.8% NS

Past Year Sexual Violence Against Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Overall, more than 170,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced sexual violence in

the past year.  Only one difference across racial and ethnic groups is statistically significant.  American

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.
    321

Indian and Alaska Native men are significantly less likely to experience an attempted forced penetration

in the past year than non‐Hispanic White men (p < 0.05).

The following four tables provide additional details on completed forced penetration and completed

alcohol or drug facilitated penetration for both women and men (these additional details are not

included in the final report).   

Table 26.16.  Weighted Estimates of Completed Forced Penetration Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Lifetime Estimate 29.5% 13.6% 2.2

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 28.7% 13.0% 2.2

Made to receive oral sex 4.8% 2.5% NS

Made to perform oral sex 7.9% 4.0% NS

Past Year Estimate 3.6% 0.5% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 3.6% 0.5% NS

Made to receive oral sex <0.1% <0.1% NS

Made to perform oral sex 0.8% <0.1% NS

Completed Forced Penetration Against

Women

Note: N/A, not applicable.  NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly  

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.17.  Weighted Estimates of Completed Forced Penetration Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Lifetime Estimate 2.7% 1.6% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 1.7% 0.9% NS

Made to receive oral sex 0.8% 0.5% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 1.6% 0.7% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1.1% 0.8% NS

Past Year Estimate 0.4% 0.1% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex <0.1% 0.1% NS

Made to receive oral sex <0.1% 0.1% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 0.4% 0.1% NS

Made to perform oral sex <0.1% <0.1% NS

Completed Forced Penetration Against

Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    322

Table 26.18.  Weighted Estimates of Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration  

Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Lifetime Estimate 16.7% 9.0% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 15.4% 7.9% 2.0

Made to receive oral sex 3.0% 2.1% NS

Made to perform oral sex 3.1% 2.3% NS

Past Year Estimate 3.3% 0.8% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 3.2% 0.6% NS

Made to receive oral sex <0.1% 0.3% 0.0

Made to perform oral sex 0.7% 0.1% NS

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated

Penetration Against Women

Note: N/A, not applicable.  NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly  

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.19.  Weighted Estimates of Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Lifetime Estimate 7.9% 3.7% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 0.4% 0.8% NS

Made to receive oral sex 3.8% 1.8% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 4.4% 1.9% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1.3% 0.9% NS

Past Year Estimate 2.0% 0.5% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex <0.1% <0.1% NS

Made to receive oral sex 1.9% 0.3% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 0.2% 0.3% NS

Made to perform oral sex <0.1% 0.1% NS

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated

Penetration Against Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Race and Ethnicity of Perpetrators

The race/ethnicity of sexual violence perpetrators is shown in the following tables and graphs.  These

provide information about the percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native victims who have

experienced sexual violence in their lifetime by a perpetrator who was American Indian or Alaska Native

(intra‐racial) and by a perpetrator who was not American Indian or Alaska Native (interracial).  Similarly,

they provide information about the percentage of non‐Hispanic White alone victims who have

experienced sexual violence in their lifetime by a perpetrator who was non‐Hispanic White alone (intra‐

racial) and by a perpetrator who was not non‐Hispanic White alone (interracial).

   

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.
    323

Table 26.20.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial and Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 96.2% 31.9% 3.0

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 20.6% 90.9% 0.2

Male Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 88.6% 27.3% 3.2

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 29.3% 90.6% 0.3

Gender of Victim

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

All differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05).  American Indian and

Alaska Native victims are significantly more likely to have experienced sexual violence by an interracial

perpetrator:

 Female victims are 3.0 times as likely to have experienced sexual violence by an interracial

perpetrator as non‐Hispanic White female victims (96% versus 32%).

 Male victims are 3.3 times as likely to have experienced sexual violence by an interracial

perpetrator as non‐Hispanic White male victims (89% versus 27%).

Conversely, American Indian and Alaska Native victims are significantly less likely to have experienced

sexual violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator:

 Female victims are 0.2 times as likely to have experienced sexual violence by an intra‐racial

perpetrator as non‐Hispanic White female victims (21% versus 91%).

 Male victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced sexual violence by an intra‐racial

perpetrator as non‐Hispanic White male victims (29% versus 91%).

Figure 26.2.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

   

27%

89%

32%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing sexual violence by an interracial perpetrator

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.
    324

Figure 26.3.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

The following eight tables provide additional details on interracial and intra‐racial experiences of sexual

violence for both women and men (these additional details are not included in the final report).  Sample

sizes are sometimes very small (particularly in the past year tables).  Some of the results included in the

following eight tables are rather meaningless due to these very small sample sizes and very large

confidence intervals.  Despite having very large confidence intervals, the differences across racial and

ethnic groups are often large enough to be statistically significant.  Details on confidence intervals are

provided in Section M and in the “FINAL ESTIMATES.PDF” output file.   

Table 26.21.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

89.5% 28.7% 3.1

88.2% 27.2% 3.2

89.6% 26.4% 3.4

72.1% 23.6% 3.1

91.8% 18.6% 4.9

87.3% 23.3% 3.7

86.1% 22.7% 3.8

73.2% 18.6% 3.9

96.1% 23.5% 4.1

82.3% 26.7% 3.1

96.3% 29.0% 3.3

88.1% 18.6% 4.7

96.1% 24.8% 3.9

92.2% 22.9% 4.0

96.2% 31.9% 3.0

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other sexual violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

   

91%

29%

91%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing sexual violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator

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.
    325

Table 26.22.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

22.6% 83.3% 0.3

14.4% 81.0% 0.2

12.2% 80.8% 0.2

27.9% 89.7% 0.3

11.4% 86.3% 0.1

20.3% 84.0% 0.2

20.5% 82.3% 0.2

37.3% 84.3% NS

8.4% 82.1% 0.1

18.0% 79.3% 0.2

19.0% 91.1% 0.2

23.7% 87.7% 0.3

6.4% 88.0% 0.1

15.1% 88.4% 0.2

20.6% 90.9% 0.2

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other sexual violence

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female

Victims

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.23.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

93.5% 23.5% 4.0

87.5% 17.0% 5.2

78.3% 20.3% 3.9

98.8% 25.4% 3.9

98.9% 21.1% 4.7

98.4% 9.6% 10.3

92.2% 23.5% 3.9

96.9% 16.2% 6.0

95.3% 22.3% 4.3

87.4% 21.7% 4.0

96.4% 11.1% 8.7

87.6% 23.4% 3.7

86.8% 26.0% 3.3

84.1% 22.4% 3.8

93.8% 21.2% 4.4

91.1% 24.0% 3.8

88.6% 27.3% 3.2

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other Sexual Violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Note: Samples are restricted to 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.
    326

Table 26.24.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

9.4% 85.5% 0.1

13.2% 85.1% 0.2

22.0% 83.0% 0.3

2.1% 75.8% 0.0

1.6% 78.9% 0.0

2.2% 93.0% 0.0

8.2% 84.8% 0.1

4.1% 84.4% 0.0

5.1% 82.8% 0.1

13.2% 85.1% 0.2

3.9% 89.9% 0.0

12.5% 81.5% 0.2

31.8% 91.4% 0.3

25.7% 88.1% 0.3

16.2% 90.4% 0.2

23.5% 89.1% 0.3

29.3% 90.6% 0.3

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other Sexual Violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Table 26.25.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

99.1% 40.8% 2.4

99.0% 61.1% 1.6

99.0% 61.1% 1.6

0.0% 9.0% NS

95.5% 83.5% NS

99.9% 19.2% 5.2

99.9% 19.9% 5.0

75.8% 0.0% ‐‐

99.6% 26.7% 3.7

98.7% 34.1% 2.9

99.2% 33.2% 3.0

99.4% 21.6% 4.6

98.8% 44.1% 2.2

99.9% 34.3% 2.9

99.3% 34.0% 2.9

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other sexual violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female

Victims

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).  ‐‐, statistically significant (p < 0.05) but cannot calculate relative risk (division by zero).

   

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.
    327

Table 26.26.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

3.6% 70.9% 0.1

1.0% 52.2% 0.0

1.0% 52.2% 0.0

100.0% 91.0% NS

4.5% 16.5% NS

3.0% 80.8% 0.0

3.0% 80.1% 0.0

24.2% 100.0% 0.2

0.4% 73.3% 0.0

1.3% 65.9% 0.0

1.1% 74.0% 0.0

0.6% 87.4% 0.0

1.6% 62.3% 0.0

0.1% 67.9% 0.0

2.0% 74.2% 0.0

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other sexual violence

Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female

Victims

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.27.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

97.2% 37.7% 2.6

97.8% 56.1% NS

100.0% 100.0% NS

0.0% 89.8% 0.0

97.0% 36.5% NS

100.0% 82.3% NS

97.1% 41.0% 2.4

27.8% 0.0% NS

98.4% 30.2% 3.3

78.1% 56.0% NS

22.6% 80.8% NS

16.4% 21.3% NS

76.6% 17.7% 4.3

70.2% 29.8% NS

94.4% 9.4% 10.1

94.9% 17.8% 5.3

82.8% 23.4% 3.5

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other Sexual Violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    328

Table 26.28.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

3.4% 78.3% 0.0

3.1% 43.9% NS

100.0% 0.0% ‐‐

100.0% 10.2% 9.9

3.0% 63.5% NS

100.0% 17.7% 5.6

3.3% 83.0% 0.0

100.0% 100.0% NS

1.6% 72.5% 0.0

77.8% 84.1% NS

100.0% 19.2% 5.2

100.0% 78.7% NS

27.7% 88.0% 0.3

30.7% 77.3% NS

17.6% 91.7% 0.2

5.6% 84.1% 0.1

21.6% 85.5% 0.3

Made to receive oral sex

Made to perform oral sex

Made to receive oral sex

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration

Made to perform oral sex

Other Sexual Violence

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Attempted Forced Penetration

Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex

Any Sexual Violence

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Sexual Violence with Penetration

Sexual Coercion

Completed Forced Penetration

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).  ‐‐, statistically significant (p < 0.05) but cannot calculate relative risk (division by zero).

H. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

Physical violence by intimate partners includes (a) being slapped, pushed or shoved, and (b) severe

physical violence.  Severe physical violence includes being hit with a fist or something hard, being kicked,

being hurt by having your hair pulled, being slammed against something, being hurt by being choked or

suffocated, being beaten, being burned on purpose, or having a knife or gun used on you.

Differences between NIJ and CDC Measures of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

The NIJ measure for physical violence by intimate partners is different than the CDC measure for

violence by intimate partners.  Both the CDC and NIJ measures include being slapped, pushed, or

shoved, and severe physical violence.  However, the CDC measure for violence by an intimate partner

also includes stalking, sexual violence (both rape and other sexual violence), psychological aggression

(both expressive aggression and coercive control), and the control of reproductive and sexual health.  

The NIJ measure does not include these additional forms of violence because it focuses on physical

violence.  In addition, it only includes violence by intimate partners.  Measures of sexual violence and

stalking were not limited to intimate partners.  Respondents were asked about the behaviors that they

experienced from anyone.  To measure whether sexual violence and stalking were committed by

intimate partners, respondents were asked about their relationship to the perpetrator the first time

s/he committed any of the behaviors in the psychological aggression, coercive control and entrapment,

physical violence, stalking, or sexual violence sections.  If perpetrators were not intimate partners the

first time they did any of these behaviors, they are not counted as intimate partners (even if they

subsequently became intimate partners prior to sexually assaulting or stalking the respondent).  

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.
    329

Because it is impossible to determine with certainty whether stalking and sexual violence were

committed by current or former intimate partners, these measures are not included in the NIJ measure.   

To summarize, contrary to the CDC measures, the NIJ measures do not include stalking, sexual violence,

psychological aggression, or the control of reproductive and sexual health.  Stalking and sexual violence

were excluded from NIJ’s measures because it is impossible to determine with certainty if these forms of

violence were committed by intimate partners or by non‐intimate partners.  Psychological aggression

and the control of reproductive or sexual health were excluded to focus on physical violence.

Estimates of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners  

Lifetime and past year estimates for women are presented in the following table.

Table 26.29.  Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

55.5% 34.5% 1.6

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 52.2% 32.3% 1.6

Severe Physical Violence 42.4% 24.8% 1.7

8.6% 4.1% NS

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 8.0% 3.6% NS

Severe Physical Violence 2.8% 2.6% NS

Past Year Estimate

Lifetime Estimate

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against

Women

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in two American Indian and Alaska Native women (55.5%) have experienced physical

violence by intimate partners in their lifetime:

 52.2% have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by intimate partners.

 42.4% have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners.

Overall, more than one million American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced physical

violence by intimate partners in their lifetime.   

More than one in 12 American Indian and Alaska Native women (8.6%) have experienced physical

violence by intimate partners in the past year:

 8.0% have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by intimate partners.

 2.8% have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners.

Overall, more than 155,000 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced physical

violence by intimate partners in the past year.   

Relative to non‐Hispanic White women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are:

 1.6 times more likely to have experienced physical violence by intimate partners (p < 0.05).

 1.6 times more likely to have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by intimate partners (p < 0.05).

 1.7 times more likely to have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners (p <

0.05).

Past year differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

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.
    330

Table 26.30.  Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

43.2% 30.5% 1.4

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 36.5% 28.0% NS

Severe Physical Violence 25.2% 14.5% 1.7

5.6% 4.5% NS

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 5.4% 4.2% NS

Severe Physical Violence 4.2% 1.8% NS

Past Year Estimate

Lifetime Estimate

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against

Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native men (43.2%) have experienced physical

violence by intimate partners in their lifetime:

 36.5% have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by intimate partners.

 25.2% have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners.

Overall, more than 745,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced physical violence

by intimate partners in their lifetime.   

More than one in 18 American Indian and Alaska Native men (5.6%) have experienced physical violence

by intimate partners in the past year:

 5.4% have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by intimate partners.

 4.2% have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners.

Overall, more than 95,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced physical violence

by intimate partners in the past year.   

Relative to non‐Hispanic White men, American Indian and Alaska Native men are:

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced physical violence by intimate partners (p < 0.05).

 1.7 times more likely to have experienced severe physical violence by intimate partners (p <

0.05).

Other differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

The following two tables provide additional details on the forms of physical violence by intimate

partners experienced by female and male victims.  Non‐victims are not included in the following tables.  

Only the lifetime results are included in the final report (sample sizes for the past year results are small;

details on samples sizes and confidence intervals are provided in Section M and in the “FINAL

ESTIMATES.PDF” output file).   

Among female victims, the most common forms of physical violence include being pushed or shoved

(experienced by 83.2% of victims) and being slapped, slammed against something, and hit with a fist or

something hard (all experienced by more than half of victims).  Almost one in two female victims were

beaten.  More than one in three female victims were hurt by being choked or suffocated and more than

one in four were kicked, were hurt by having their hair pulled, and had a knife or gun used on them.  

Almost one in ten female victims were burned on purpose.

   

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.
    331

Table 26.31.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Victims

   

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

Slapped 59.8% 62.7% NS

Pushed or shoved 83.2% 85.9% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 53.6% 41.5% NS

Kicked 28.3% 22.5% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 27.3% 31.7% NS

Slammed against something 53.8% 54.6% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 37.6% 28.6% NS

Beaten 45.9% 32.1% NS

Burned on purpose 9.1% 3.4% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 27.1% 14.8% NS

Male Victims

Slapped 66.4% 66.2% NS

Pushed or shoved 64.0% 70.3% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 43.9% 32.6% NS

Kicked 22.0% 16.1% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 18.6% 10.5% NS

Slammed against something 18.0% 10.0% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 6.3% 3.8% NS

Beaten 17.5% 9.1% NS

Burned on purpose 0.2% 1.9% 0.1

Had a knife or gun used on them 11.3% 9.0% NS

Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Among male victims, the most common forms of physical violence include being slapped (experienced

by 66.4% of victims), being pushed or shoved (experienced by 64.0% of victims), and being hit with a fist

or something hard (experienced by 43.9% of victims).  More than one in five male victims were kicked

and more than one in six were hurt by having their hair pulled, were slammed against something, and

were beaten.  More than one in nine male victims had a knife or gun used on them.   

Relative to female victims, male victims were less likely to have been slammed against something, to

have been hurt by being choked or suffocated, to have been beaten, or to have been burned on purpose

(differences across gender groups are statistically significant, p < 0.05; results not shown here, see

confidence intervals in Section M).

   

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.
    332

Table 26.32.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Victims

   

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

Slapped 43.8% 42.8% NS

Pushed or shoved 85.8% 76.1% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 22.4% 24.0% NS

Kicked 11.3% 8.3% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 19.0% 17.1% NS

Slammed against something 17.7% 39.9% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 8.0% 25.3% NS

Beaten 15.6% 13.2% NS

Burned on purpose 5.3% 0.9% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 7.3% 8.2% NS

Male Victims

Slapped 44.9% 58.9% NS

Pushed or shoved 82.5% 75.9% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 41.5% 26.2% NS

Kicked 27.5% 14.7% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 1.1% 9.3% 0.1

Slammed against something 24.0% 8.4% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 0.1% 1.5% NS

Beaten 6.4% 5.7% NS

Burned on purpose <0.1% 1.0% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 0.1% 2.4% NS

Past Year Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Race and Ethnicity of Perpetrators

The race/ethnicity for perpetrators of physical violence by intimate partners is shown in the following

tables and graphs.  These provide information about the percentage of American Indian and Alaska

Native victims who have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner who was American Indian

or Alaska Native (intra‐racial) and by an intimate partner who was not American Indian or Alaska Native

(interracial).  Similarly, they provide information about the percentage of non‐Hispanic White alone

victims who have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner who was non‐Hispanic White

alone (intra‐racial) and by an intimate partner who was not non‐Hispanic White alone (interracial).

   

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.
    333

Table 26.33.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Physical Violence  

by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

% victimized by interracial intimate partner 89.8% 18.5% 4.9

% victimized by intra‐racial intimate partner 17.8% 88.9% 0.2

Male Victims

% victimized by interracial intimate partner 84.8% 17.5% 4.9

% victimized by intra‐racial intimate partner 20.8% 90.4% 0.2

Gender of Victim

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

All differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05).  American Indian and

Alaska Native victims are significantly more likely to have experienced physical violence by an interracial

intimate partner:

 Female victims are 4.9 times as likely to have experienced physical violence by an interracial

intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White female victims (90% versus 19%).

 Male victims are 4.9 times as likely to have experienced physical violence by an interracial

intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White male victims (85% versus 18%).

(Note: differences between technical and full reports are due to differences in rounding).

Conversely, American Indian and Alaska Native victims are significantly less likely to have experienced

physical violence by an intra‐racial intimate partner:

 Female victims are 0.2 times as likely to have experienced physical violence by an intra‐racial

intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White female victims (18% versus 89%).

 Male victims are 0.2 times as likely to have experienced physical violence by an intra‐racial

intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White male victims (21% versus 90%).

Figure 26.4.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Physical Violence by Interracial Intimate Partners

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

   

18%

85%

19%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing physical violence by an interracial intimate partner

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.
    334

Figure 26.5.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Physical Violence by Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

The following two tables provide additional details on interracial and intra‐racial experiences of physical

violence by intimate partners for both women and men (these additional details are not included in the

final report).  Sample sizes are sometimes very small (particularly for past year victimizations).  Some of

the results are rather meaningless due to these very small sample sizes and very large confidence

intervals.  Despite having very large confidence intervals, the differences across racial and ethnic groups

are almost always large enough to be statistically significant.  Details on confidence intervals are

provided in Section M and in the “FINAL ESTIMATES.PDF” output file.  

Table 26.34.  Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence by Interracial and Intra‐Racial  

Intimate Partners Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

89.8% 18.5% 4.9

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 90.2% 18.5% 4.9

Severe Physical Violence 85.7% 20.6% 4.2

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 17.8% 88.9% 0.2

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 17.3% 87.5% 0.2

Severe Physical Violence 23.6% 86.8% 0.3

Past Year Interracial Physical Violence 86.4% 15.3% 5.6

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 86.6% 12.5% 6.9

Severe Physical Violence 85.6% 21.2% 4.0

Past Year Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 13.6% 87.7% 0.2

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 13.4% 88.1% 0.2

Severe Physical Violence 14.4% 83.1% 0.2

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against

Female Victims

Lifetime Interracial Physical Violence

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

   

90%

21%

89%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing physical violence by an intra‐racial intimate partner

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.
    335

Table 26.35.  Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence by Interracial and Intra‐Racial  

Intimate Partners Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

84.8% 17.5% 4.9

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 82.0% 16.8% 4.9

Severe Physical Violence 89.6% 15.5% 5.8

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 20.8% 90.4% 0.2

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 25.1% 90.5% 0.3

Severe Physical Violence 16.7% 88.5% 0.2

Past Year Interracial Physical Violence 78.7% 17.1% 4.6

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 78.6% 16.4% 4.8

Severe Physical Violence 95.2% 13.2% 7.2

Past Year Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 31.2% 84.2% 0.4

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 32.0% 84.9% NS

Severe Physical Violence 8.8% 86.9% 0.1

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Against

Male Victims

Lifetime Interracial Physical Violence

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

I. STALKING

Respondents experienced stalking in the lifetime when they experienced a course of conduct (multiple

stalking behaviors) that would reasonably cause fear.  The 2010 NISVS survey includes seven different

stalking behaviors.  Respondents were asked if someone had made unwanted phone calls to them or left

them messages; sent them unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like

MySpace or Facebook; left them unwanted cards, letters, flowers, or presents; watched or followed

them from a distance, or spied on them with a listening device, camera, or GPS; approached them or

showed up in places, such as their home, workplace, or school when unwanted; left strange or

potentially threatening items for them to find; and sneaked into their home or car and did things to

scare them.  Victims of stalking experienced these stalking behaviors multiple times (i.e., the same

stalking behavior multiple times or multiple types of stalking behaviors).  In addition, they experienced

fear.  Respondents were asked if the perpetrator had ever caused them to be fearful; had ever damaged

their personal property or belongings, such as in their home or car; had ever threatened them with

physical harm; or had ever made them believe that they or someone close to them would be seriously

harmed or killed.  Respondents experienced stalking in the past year if their lifetime stalking experience

extended into the past year (i.e., if any of the stalking behaviors occurred in the past year).

Differences between NIJ and CDC Measures of Stalking

Contrary to the CDC analysis plan, the NIJ stalking measure does not require respondents to feel very

fearful or to believe that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.   Instead, the NIJ

stalking measure requires respondents to report that (a) they felt fear (any level of fear, from a little

fearful to very fearful), (b) the perpetrator damaged their personal property or belongings, such as in

their home or car, (c) the perpetrator made threats to physically harm them, or (d) they believed that

they or someone close to them would be seriously harmed or killed.  Under any of these conditions, a

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.
    336

reasonable person would be afraid and the perpetrator’s course of conduct would meet the definition of

stalking.   

Estimates of Stalking  

Lifetime and past year estimates for both women and men are presented in the following table.  Almost

one in two American Indian and Alaska Native women (48.8%) have experienced stalking in their

lifetime, and one in nine (11.6%) have experienced stalking in the past year.  Relative to non‐Hispanic

White women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are 1.8 times more likely to have experienced

stalking in the lifetime (p < 0.05).  Past year differences across racial and ethnic groups are not

statistically significant (p > 0.05).  Overall, more than 895,000 American Indian and Alaska Native women

have experienced stalking in their lifetime and more than 210,000 have experienced stalking in the past

year.   

Table 26.36.  Weighted Estimates of Stalking

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Lifetime Estimate 48.8% 26.8% 1.8

Past Year Estimate 11.6% 7.0% NS

Lifetime Estimate 18.6% 13.4% NS

Past Year Estimate 3.8% 3.7% NS

Men

Women

Stalking

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in six American Indian and Alaska Native men (18.6%) have experienced stalking in their

lifetime, and one in 27 (3.8%) have experienced stalking in the past year.  Differences across racial and

ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).  Overall, more than 320,000 American Indian and

Alaska Native men have experienced stalking in their lifetime and more than 65,000 have experienced

stalking in the past year.   

The following table provides additional details on the stalking behaviors that were experienced by

female and male victims of lifetime stalking.  Non‐victims are not included in this table.  The most

common stalking behaviors, experienced by more than half of American Indian and Alaska Native

victims, were receiving unwanted phone calls and being approached at home, work, or school.  

Differences across racial and ethnic group are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).   

   

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.
    337

Table 26.37.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

Received unwanted phone calls 82.1% 82.2% NS

Received unwanted emails or messages 19.0% 14.1% NS

Received unwanted cards, flowers, gifts 35.0% 24.8% NS

Was watched or followed from a distance 29.1% 35.6% NS

Was approached at home, work, or school 53.6% 53.7% NS

Found strange or threatening items 10.8% 10.1% NS

Had home or car intruded 27.6% 18.5% NS

Male Victims

Received unwanted phone calls 75.3% 80.8% NS

Received unwanted emails or messages 13.7% 19.0% NS

Received unwanted cards, flowers, gifts 12.7% 14.1% NS

Was watched or followed from a distance 37.6% 28.3% NS

Was approached at home, work, or school 61.0% 42.0% NS

Found strange or threatening items 4.4% 7.3% NS

Had home or car intruded 23.2% 12.9% NS

Lifetime Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Race and Ethnicity of Perpetrators

The race/ethnicity for perpetrators of stalking is shown in the following tables and graphs.  These

provide information about the percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native victims who have

experienced stalking by a perpetrator who was American Indian or Alaska Native (intra‐racial) and by a

perpetrator who was not American Indian or Alaska Native (interracial).  Similarly, they provide

information about the percentage of non‐Hispanic White alone victims who have experienced stalking

by a perpetrator who was non‐Hispanic White alone (intra‐racial) and by a perpetrator who was not

non‐Hispanic White alone (interracial).

Table 26.38.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Stalking by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Perpetrators

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 88.9% 26.2% 3.4

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 30.5% 87.5% 0.3

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 90.7% 20.5% 4.4

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 23.1% 90.3% 0.3

Gender of Victim

Female Victims

Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to 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.
    338

Figure 26.6.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Stalking by Interracial Perpetrators

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Figure 26.7.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Stalking by Intra‐Racial Perpetrators

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

All differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05).  American Indian and

Alaska Native victims are significantly more likely to have experienced stalking by an interracial

perpetrator:

 Female victims are 3.4 times as likely to have experienced stalking by an interracial perpetrator

as non‐Hispanic White female victims (89% versus 26%).

 Male victims are 4.4 times as likely to have experienced stalking by an interracial perpetrator as

non‐Hispanic White male victims (91% versus 21%).

(Note: differences between technical and full reports are due to differences in rounding).

Conversely, American Indian and Alaska Native victims are significantly less likely to have experienced

stalking by an intra‐racial perpetrator:

 Female victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced stalking by an intra‐racial perpetrator

as non‐Hispanic White female victims (31% versus 88%).

21%

91%

26%

89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing stalking by an interracial perpetrator

90%

23%

88%

31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing stalking by an intra‐racial perpetrator

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.
    339

 Male victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced stalking by an intra‐racial perpetrator as

non‐Hispanic White male victims (23% versus 90%).

(Note: differences between technical and full reports are due to differences in rounding).

The following table provides additional details on interracial and intra‐racial experiences of stalking in

the past year (these additional details are not included in the final report).  Sample sizes are very small

and results are rather meaningless due to very large confidence intervals.  Despite having very large

confidence intervals, the differences across racial and ethnic groups for female victims are large enough

to be statistically significant.  Details on confidence intervals are provided in Section M and in the “FINAL

ESTIMATES.PDF” output file.  

Table 26.39.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Stalking by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Perpetrators

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 71.0% 27.9% 2.5

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 40.1% 81.6% 0.5

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 58.8% 14.8% NS

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 52.0% 91.5% NS

Gender of Victim

Female Victims

Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

J. PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION BY INTIMATE PARTNERS

Psychological aggression by intimate partners includes expressive aggression, coercive control, and the

control of reproductive or sexual health.  (Note: in Chapter 19, the control of reproductive or sexual

health was not included as a measure of psychological aggression; it was instead included separately).  

Expressive aggression includes instances when perpetrators acted very angry towards the victim in a

way that seemed dangerous; told the victim that s/he was a loser, a failure, or not good enough; called

the victim names like ugly, fact, crazy, or stupid; insulted, humiliated, or made fun of the victim in front

of others; and told the victim that no one else would want him or her.  Coercive control includes

instances when perpetrators tried to keep the victim from seeing or talking to his/her family or friends;

made decisions for the victim that should have been hers/his to make, such as the clothes s/he wears,

things s/he eats, or the friends s/he has; kept track of the victim by demanding to know where s/he was

and what s/he was doing; made threats to physically harm the victim; threatened to hurt themselves or

commit suicide when they were upset with the victim; threatened to hurt a pet or to take a pet away

from the victim; threatened to hurt someone the victim loves; hurt someone the victim loves;

threatened to take the victim’s children away; kept the victim from leaving the house when s/he wanted

to go; kept the victim from having money for her/his own use; destroyed something that was important

to the victim; and said things like “if I can’t have you, then no one can.”  The control of reproductive or

sexual health includes instances when perpetrators tried to stop the victim from using birth control and

instances when perpetrators refused to use a condom when the victim wanted them to use one.  In

addition, the control of reproductive or sexual health includes instances when male perpetrators tried to

get a female victim pregnant when she did not want to become pregnant and instances when female

perpetrators tried to get pregnant when a male victim did not want them to get pregnant.

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.
    340

Differences between NIJ and CDC Measures of Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

NIJ’s measure of psychological aggression by intimate partners includes (a) expressive aggression, (b)

coercive control, and (c) the control of reproductive or sexual health.  There are no differences between

NIJ’s and CDC’s measures of expressive aggression, coercive control, and the control of reproductive or

sexual health (other than differences in data cleaning and data analysis).  The only difference is that the

control of reproductive or sexual health is included in NIJ’s measure of psychological aggression.  It is

not included in CDC’s measure of psychological aggression.  Instead, it is included separately as an

indicator of violence by intimate partners (along with physical violence, stalking, sexual violence, and

psychological aggression).

Estimates of Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners  

Lifetime and past year estimates of psychological aggression by intimate partners against women are

presented in the following table.

Table 26.40.  Weighted Estimates of Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

66.4% 52.0% 1.3

Expressive Aggression 56.9% 44.2% 1.3

Coercive Control 61.5% 42.7% 1.4

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 10.6% 8.0% NS

25.5% 16.1% 1.6

Expressive Aggression 20.8% 11.6% 1.8

Coercive Control 20.3% 11.8% 1.7

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 4.0% 1.3% NS

Past Year Estimate

Lifetime Estimate

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Against Women

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in two American Indian and Alaska Native women (66.4%) have experienced

psychological aggression by intimate partners in their lifetime:

 56.9% have experienced expressive aggression.

 61.5% have experienced coercive control.

 10.6% have experienced the control of reproductive or sexual health.

Overall, more than 1.2 million American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced

psychological aggression by intimate partners in their lifetime.   

More than one in four American Indian and Alaska Native women (25.5%) have experienced

psychological aggression by intimate partners in the past year:

 20.8% have experienced expressive aggression.

 20.3% have experienced coercive control.

 4.0% have experienced the control of reproductive or sexual health.

Overall, more than 465,000 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced psychological

aggression by intimate partners in the past year.   

Relative to non‐Hispanic White women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are:

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.
    341

 1.3 times more likely to have experienced psychological aggression by intimate partners in their

lifetime and 1.6 times more likely to have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

 1.3 times more likely to have experienced expressive aggression in their lifetime and 1.8 times

more likely to have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced coercive control in their lifetime and 1.7 times more

likely to have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

Differences across racial and ethnic groups for the control of reproductive or sexual health are not

statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Lifetime and past year estimates of psychological aggression by intimate partners against men are

presented in the following table.

Table 26.41.  Weighted Estimates of Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

73.0% 52.7% 1.4

Expressive Aggression 43.6% 35.3% NS

Coercive Control 67.4% 44.4% 1.5

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 19.9% 10.0% 2.0

27.3% 19.3% NS

Expressive Aggression 12.1% 9.5% NS

Coercive Control 21.7% 15.3% NS

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 6.7% 1.1% 6.0

Past Year Estimate

Lifetime Estimate

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Against Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

More than one in two American Indian and Alaska Native men (73.0%) have experienced psychological

aggression by intimate partners in their lifetime:

 43.6% have experienced expressive aggression.

 67.4% have experienced coercive control.

 19.9% have experienced the control of reproductive or sexual health.

Overall, more than 1.2 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced psychological

aggression by intimate partners in their lifetime.   

More than one in four American Indian and Alaska Native men (27.3%) have experienced psychological

aggression by intimate partners in the past year:

 12.1% have experienced expressive aggression.

 21.7% have experienced coercive control.

 6.7% have experienced the control of reproductive or sexual health.

Overall, more than 470,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced psychological

aggression by intimate partners in the past year.   

Relative to non‐Hispanic White men, American Indian and Alaska Native men are:

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced psychological aggression by intimate partners in their

lifetime (p < 0.05).

 1.5 times more likely to have experienced coercive control in their lifetime (p < 0.05).

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.
    342

 2.0 times more likely to have experienced the control of reproductive or sexual health in their

lifetime and 6.0 times more likely to have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

All other differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).  For

American Indian and Alaska Native women and men, differences across gender groups are not

statistically significant (p > 0.05).

The following four tables provide additional details on the behaviors that were experienced by female

and male victims of lifetime and past year psychological aggression by intimate partners.  More than half

of American Indian and Alaska Native female lifetime victims experienced very angry actions that

seemed dangerous (68.2%); were told they were a loser, a failure, or not good enough (53.6%); were

called names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid (55.8%); were insulted, humiliated, or made fun of in front of

others (52.2%); were kept from seeing or talking to family or friends (55.2%); had decisions made that

should have been theirs to make (50.2%); and were tracked by being asked about their locations and

actions (62.6%).  Only one behavior was experienced by more than half of American Indian and Alaska

Native male lifetime victims – 62.0% of American Indian and Alaska Native male lifetime victims were

tracked by being asked about their locations and actions.

   

Table 26.42.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Female Victims

   

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Expresive Aggression

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous 68.2% 52.2% 1.3

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough 53.6% 44.8% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 55.8% 56.9% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 52.2% 53.8% NS

Told no one else would want them 39.8% 33.1% NS

Coercive Control

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends 55.2% 37.4% 1.5

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make 50.2% 36.4% 1.4

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions 62.6% 53.1% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed 47.8% 38.3% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset 38.2% 31.6% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away 16.8% 12.1% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt 21.4% 13.3% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt 17.9% 13.9% NS

Threatened with having children taken away 40.0% 26.8% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go 43.5% 30.0% 1.4

Kept from having their own money to use 30.6% 20.8% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed 40.8% 37.1% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can" 40.0% 21.4% 1.9

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control 7.7% 8.5% NS

Forced to not use a condom 14.2% 12.3% NS

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Female Victims

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

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.
    343

Few differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant.  Relative to non‐Hispanic

White alone female victims, American Indian and Alaska Native female victims are 1.3 times more likely

to experience very angry actions that seemed dangerous, 1.5 times more likely to be kept from seeing or

talking to family and friends, 1.4 times more likely to have decisions made that should have been theirs

to make, 1.4 times more likely to be kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go, and 1.9 times

more likely to be told things like “if I can’t have you then no one can.”  Relative to non‐Hispanic White

alone male victims, American Indian and Alaska Native male victims are 3.2 times more likely to be

forced to not use a condom.

Table 26.43.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Male Victims

   

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Expresive Aggression

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous 28.0% 26.9% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough 28.6% 29.0% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 35.6% 34.5% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 26.2% 28.9% NS

Told no one else would want them 13.9% 13.6% NS

Coercive Control

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends 26.6% 26.0% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make 29.9% 32.8% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions 62.0% 52.5% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed 22.0% 16.9% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset 24.1% 21.5% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away 2.4% 4.4% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt 2.6% 3.8% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt 4.8% 6.1% NS

Threatened with having children taken away 25.1% 20.9% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go 16.1% 15.2% NS

Kept from having their own money to use 12.5% 11.9% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed 28.4% 25.5% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can" 18.5% 10.5% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control 21.7% 17.1% NS

Forced to not use a condom 16.5% 5.2% 3.2

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Male Victims

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

The behaviors experienced by past year victims are shown in the following two tables.  Among American

and Alaska Native female victims, the most common behavior experienced in the past year is being

called names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid.  Among American Indian and Alaska Native male victims, the

most common behavior experienced in the past year is being tracked by a perpetrator who was asking

about their locations and actions.

   

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.
    344

Table 26.44.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Female Victims

   

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Expresive Aggression

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous 40.0% 28.3% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough 39.5% 33.2% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 51.9% 48.0% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 35.8% 34.5% NS

Told no one else would want them 35.3% 15.3% NS

Coercive Control

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends 16.4% 17.3% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make 23.8% 23.1% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions 46.0% 39.4% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed 18.5% 15.5% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset 18.8% 16.6% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away 7.6% 4.9% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt 8.8% 5.8% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt 5.4% 8.9% NS

Threatened with having children taken away 14.6% 15.9% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go 21.7% 11.1% NS

Kept from having their own money to use 12.6% 8.4% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed 12.0% 15.0% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can" 19.9% 7.4% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control 3.9% 3.6% NS

Forced to not use a condom 15.4% 8.0% NS

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Female Victims

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    345

Table 26.45.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Male Victims

   

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Expresive Aggression

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous 7.7% 15.9% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough 23.8% 20.3% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 24.4% 27.7% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 18.0% 19.7% NS

Told no one else would want them 8.4% 7.1% NS

Coercive Control

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends 23.2% 13.2% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make 35.5% 33.4% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions 56.6% 44.3% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed 15.1% 8.7% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset 5.2% 9.1% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away 0.6% 2.4% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt 0.1% 2.8% 0.0

Had loved ones who were hurt 2.0% 4.5% NS

Threatened with having children taken away 4.5% 11.8% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go 12.4% 10.3% NS

Kept from having their own money to use 10.9% 8.3% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed 3.3% 9.0% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can" 11.9% 5.7% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control 12.0% 5.0% NS

Forced to not use a condom 24.8% 2.4% 10.2

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Experienced by Male Victims

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Race and Ethnicity of Perpetrators

The race/ethnicity for perpetrators of psychological aggression by intimate partners is shown in the

following tables and graphs.  These provide information about the percentage of American Indian and

Alaska Native victims who have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner who was

American Indian or Alaska Native (intra‐racial) and by an intimate partner who was not American Indian

or Alaska Native (interracial).  Similarly, they provide information about the percentage of non‐Hispanic

White alone victims who have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner who was

non‐Hispanic White alone (intra‐racial) and by an intimate partner who was not non‐Hispanic White

alone (interracial).

All differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05).  American Indian and

Alaska Native victims are significantly more likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an

interracial intimate partner:

 Female victims are 4.2 times as likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an

interracial intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White female victims (91% versus 22%).

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.
    346

 Male victims are 3.9 times as likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an

interracial intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White male victims (88% versus 23%).

Table 26.46.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial and Intra‐Racial  

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

% victimized by interracial intimate partner 91.1% 21.5% 4.2

% victimized by intra‐racial intimate partner 25.3% 92.6% 0.3

Male Victims

% victimized by interracial intimate partner 88.3% 22.6% 3.9

% victimized by intra‐racial intimate partner 27.9% 92.0% 0.3

Gender of Victim

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Figure 26.8.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Interracial Intimate Partners

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Conversely, American Indian and Alaska Native victims are significantly less likely to have experienced

psychological aggression by an intra‐racial intimate partner:

 Female victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an intra‐

racial intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White female victims (25% versus 93%).

 Male victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an intra‐

racial intimate partner as non‐Hispanic White male victims (28% versus 92%).

   

23%

88%

22%

91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing psychological aggression by an interracial intimate partner

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.
    347

Figure 26.9.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Psychological Aggression  

by Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

The following two tables provide additional details on interracial and intra‐racial experiences of

psychological aggression by intimate partners for both women and men (these additional details are not

included in the final report).  Sample sizes are sometimes small (particularly for past year victimizations).  

Some of the estimates have large confidence intervals.  Despite having large confidence intervals, the

differences across racial and ethnic groups are almost always large enough to be statistically significant.  

Details on confidence intervals are provided in Section M and in the “FINAL ESTIMATES.PDF” output file.   

   

92%

28%

93%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing psychological aggression by an intra‐racial intimate partner

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.
    348

Table 26.47.  Weighted Estimates of Psychological Aggression by Interracial and Intra‐Racial  

Intimate Partners Against Female Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

91.1% 21.5% 4.2

Expressive Aggression 90.9% 20.7% 4.4

Coercive Control 85.1% 19.1% 4.5

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 98.0% 26.7% 3.7

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Psychological Aggression 25.3% 92.6% 0.3

Expressive Aggression 25.7% 91.8% 0.3

Coercive Control 22.1% 90.6% 0.2

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 17.2% 81.2% 0.2

92.8% 18.6% 5.0

Expressive Aggression 91.3% 16.1% 5.7

Coercive Control 92.3% 19.8% 4.7

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 99.0% 30.9% 3.2

Past Year Intra‐Racial Psychological Aggression 15.2% 86.8% 0.2

Expressive Aggression 11.7% 86.9% 0.1

Coercive Control 12.9% 84.6% 0.2

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 1.0% 76.5% 0.0

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Against Female Victims

Lifetime Interracial Psychological Aggression

Past Year Interracial Psychological Aggression

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Table 26.48.  Weighted Estimates of Psychological Aggression by Interracial and Intra‐Racial  

Intimate Partners Against Male Victims

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

88.3% 22.6% 3.9

Expressive Aggression 91.9% 21.0% 4.4

Coercive Control 87.3% 19.9% 4.4

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 85.4% 15.8% 5.4

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Psychological Aggression 27.9% 92.0% 0.3

Expressive Aggression 20.6% 89.8% 0.2

Coercive Control 25.4% 91.0% 0.3

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 25.3% 89.6% 0.3

78.2% 17.0% 4.6

Expressive Aggression 88.9% 18.6% 4.8

Coercive Control 74.4% 13.5% 5.5

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 80.7% 35.6% NS

Past Year Intra‐Racial Psychological Aggression 41.9% 86.9% 0.5

Expressive Aggression 24.8% 83.9% 0.3

Coercive Control 38.8% 88.9% 0.4

Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health 21.5% 71.5% 0.3

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners

Against Male Victims

Lifetime Interracial Psychological Aggression

Past Year Interracial Psychological Aggression

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    349

K. VIOLENCE

Violence includes psychological aggression by intimate partners, physical violence by intimate partners,

stalking, and sexual violence.

Estimates of Violence  

Lifetime and past year estimates of violence against women are presented in the following table.

More than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women (84.3%) have experienced violence in

their lifetime:

 66.4% have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner.

 55.5% have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner.

 48.8% have experienced stalking.

 56.1% have experienced sexual violence.

Overall, more than 1.5 million American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in

their lifetime.   

More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women (39.8%) have experienced violence in

the past year:

 25.5% have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner.

 8.6% have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner.

 11.6% have experienced stalking.

 14.4% have experienced sexual violence.

Overall, more than 730,000 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in the

past year.   

Table 26.49.  Weighted Estimates of Violence Against Women

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

84.3% 71.0% 1.2

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 66.4% 52.0% 1.3

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 55.5% 34.5% 1.6

Stalking 48.8% 26.8% 1.8

Sexual Violence 56.1% 49.7% NS

39.8% 23.3% 1.7

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 25.5% 16.1% 1.6

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 8.6% 4.1% NS

Stalking 11.6% 7.0% NS

Sexual Violence 14.4% 5.4% NS

Any Past Year Violence

Any Lifetime Violence

Violence Against Women

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    350

Relative to non‐Hispanic White women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are:

 1.2 times more likely to have experienced violence in their lifetime and 1.7 times more likely to

have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

 1.3 times more likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in

their lifetime and 1.6 times more likely to have experienced it in the past year (p < 0.05).

 1.6 times more likely to have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their

lifetime (p < 0.05; past year differences are not statistically significant, p > 0.05).

 1.8 times more likely to have experienced stalking in their lifetime (p < 0.05; past year

differences are not statistically significant, p > 0.05).

Differences across racial and ethnic groups for sexual violence are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Table 26.50.  Weighted Estimates of Violence Against Men

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

81.6% 64.0% 1.3

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 73.0% 52.7% 1.4

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 43.2% 30.5% 1.4

Stalking 18.6% 13.4% NS

Sexual Violence 27.5% 20.9% NS

34.6% 25.7% NS

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners 27.3% 19.3% NS

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners 5.6% 4.5% NS

Stalking 3.8% 3.7% NS

Sexual Violence 9.9% 3.8% NS

Any Past Year Violence

Any Lifetime Violence

Violence Against Men

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Lifetime and past year estimates of violence against men are presented in the previous table.

More than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6%) have experienced violence in

their lifetime:

 73.0% have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner.

 43.2% have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner.

 18.6% have experienced stalking.

 27.5% have experienced sexual violence.

Overall, more than 1.4 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in

their lifetime.   

More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native men (34.6%) have experienced violence in

the past year:

 27.3% have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner.

 5.6% have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner.

 3.8% have experienced stalking.

 9.9% have experienced sexual violence.

Overall, more than 595,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in the

past year.   

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.
    351

Relative to non‐Hispanic White men, American Indian and Alaska Native men are:

 1.3 times more likely to have experienced violence in their lifetime (p < 0.05).

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in

their lifetime (p < 0.05).

 1.4 times more likely to have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their

lifetime (p < 0.05).

All other differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Race and Ethnicity of Perpetrators

The race/ethnicity for perpetrators of violence is shown in the following tables and graphs.  These

provide information about the percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native victims who have

experienced violence by a perpetrator who was American Indian or Alaska Native (intra‐racial) and by a

perpetrator who was not American Indian or Alaska Native (interracial).  Similarly, they provide

information about the percentage of non‐Hispanic White alone victims who have experienced violence

by a perpetrator who was non‐Hispanic White alone (intra‐racial) and by a perpetrator who was not

non‐Hispanic White alone (interracial).

All differences across racial and ethnic groups are statistically significant (p < 0.05).  American Indian and

Alaska Native victims are significantly more likely to have experienced violence by an interracial intimate

partner:

 Female victims are 2.7 times as likely to have experienced violence by an interracial perpetrator

as non‐Hispanic White female victims (97% versus 35%).

 Male victims are 3.0 times as likely to have experienced violence by an interracial perpetrator as

non‐Hispanic White male victims (90% versus 30%).

Table 26.51.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial and Intra‐Racial Violence

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 96.8% 35.3% 2.7

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 35.5% 95.3% 0.4

Male Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 90.4% 30.0% 3.0

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 32.7% 94.2% 0.3

Gender of Victim

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Conversely, American Indian and Alaska Native victims are significantly less likely to have experienced

violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator:

 Female victims are 0.4 times as likely to have experienced violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator

as non‐Hispanic White female victims (36% versus 95%).

 Male victims are 0.3 times as likely to have experienced violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator

as non‐Hispanic White male victims (33% versus 94%).

(Note: differences between technical and full reports are due to differences in rounding).

   

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.
    352

Figure 26.10.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Interracial Violence

   

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Figure 26.11.  Weighted Estimates of Lifetime Intra‐Racial Violence   

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

The following table provides details on past year interracial and intra‐racial experiences of violence for

both women and men.  As with lifetime experiences of violence, American Indian and Alaska Native

victims (both female and male) are significantly more likely to experience violence by an interracial

perpetrator and are significantly less likely to experience violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator than

non‐Hispanic White alone victims.

   

30%

90%

35%

97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing violence by an interracial perpetrator

94%

33%

95%

36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

% of victims experiencing violence by an intra‐racial perpetrator

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.
    353

Table 26.52.  Weighted Estimates of Past Year Interracial and Intra‐Racial Violence

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 95.2% 26.7% 3.6

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 22.9% 89.2% 0.3

Male Victims

% victimized by interracial perpetrator 82.6% 19.4% 4.3

% victimized by intra‐racial perpetrator 46.0% 88.8% 0.5

Gender of Victim

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

L. IMPACT OF  PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS, STALKING, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The general follow‐up section includes information about the impact of violence.  As documented in

Chapter 21, the skip patterns in the general follow‐up section appear to have been documented or

programmed incorrectly.  A sample of perpetrators was created by examining those who had been

identified as lifetime perpetrators of physical violence by an intimate partner, stalking, or sexual

violence.  For American Indian and Alaska Native respondents and for non‐Hispanic White alone

respondents, all of these lifetime perpetrators were included in the GFU1, GFU4, GFU5, GFU6, and GFU7

questions, except for 132 whose initials were previously recoded.  This section provides details on the

impact of the victimizations by these perpetrators of lifetime physical violence by intimate partners,

stalking, and sexual violence.  Perpetrators were selected from the final perpetrator‐level file if PV_99 =

1 or ST_99 = 1 or SV_99 = 1.  This selection criterion is computed in the PVSTSV variable.  This selection

includes 3,920 perpetrators identified by American Indian and Alaska Native women, 1,758 perpetrators

identified by American Indian and Alaska Native men, 12,103 perpetrators identified by non‐Hispanic

White alone women, and 5,340 perpetrators identified by non‐Hispanic White alone men (for a total of

23,121 perpetrators).

All data in FU1P, FU4P, FU6P*, FU6B* (* = 1 to 5), and FU7P were then recoded to system missing for

perpetrators that did not meet this selection criterion (i.e., when PVSTSV ≠ 1).  For perpetrators that met

this selection criterion (i.e., when PVSTSV = 1), all missing data were recoded to ‐9.

Three new variables were computed (FU5P, FU6P, and FU6B).  FU5P indicates if the respondent had

talked to anyone about this perpetrator (i.e., to police [FU5P1], to a doctor or nurse [FU5P2], to a

psychologist or counselor [FU5P3], to a crisis hotline operator [FU5P4], to a friend [FU5P5], to a family

member [FU5P6], to a romantic or sexual partner [FU5P7], or to anyone else [FU5P8]).  FU6P indicates if

the respondent ever needed services because of the things this perpetrator did (i.e., needed medical

care [FU6P1], housing services [FU6P2], community services [FU6P3], victim’s advocate services [FU6P4],

or legal services [FU6P5]).  FU6B indicates if the respondent was ever unable to get the services that

were needed because of the things this perpetrator did.   

Data were then aggregated to the respondent‐level to create 12 new variables: PVSTSV, whether the

respondent identified any perpetrators of physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, or sexual

violence; FU1P, whether any of the PV/ST/SV perpetrators ever caused the respondent to be concerned

for his/her safety; FU4P, whether any of the PV/ST/SV perpetrators ever injured the respondent; FU5P,

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.
    354

whether the respondent ever talked to anyone about what the PV/ST/SV perpetrators did; FU6P,

whether any of the PV/ST/SV perpetrators ever caused the respondent to need services including

medical care (FU6P1), housing services (FU6P2), community services (FU6P3), victim’s advocate services

(FU6P4), and legal services (FU6P5); FU6B, whether the respondent was ever unable to get the services

that were needed because of the things that the PV/ST/SV perpetrators did; and FU7B, whether any of

the PV/ST/SV perpetrators ever caused the respondent to have to miss days of work or school.

The PVSTSV indicator was then recoded based on the respondent‐level data.  If the respondent was not

a victim of physical violence by intimate partners (i.e., PV_99 = 0), stalking (i.e., STALK_99 = 0), or sexual

violence (SV_99 = 0), system missing data in PVSTSV were recoded to 0.  Otherwise, system missing data

were recoded to ‐9.  If there were no perpetrators identified in the physical violence by intimate

partners, stalking, or sexual violence section (i.e., PVSTSV = 0) but it is unknown if the respondent was a

victim of physical violence by intimate partners (i.e., PV_99 = ‐9), stalking (i.e., STALK_99 = ‐9), or sexual

violence (SV_99 = ‐9), PVSTSV was recoded from 0 to ‐9.   

After recoding PVSTSV based on the respondent‐level data, the follow‐up data were recoded.  System

missing data in FU1P, FU4P, FU6P, FU6P* (* = 1 to 5), and FU7P were recoded to ‐99 when PVSTSV ≠ 1.  

Similarly, system missing data in FU6B were recoded to ‐99 when FU6P ≠ 1.  (Note: ulƟmately these

recodes are unnecessary as all missing data are recoded to system missing for the final analysis).   

These new variables are computed in the “FOLLOWUP.SPS” syntax file.  Results are saved in the “FINAL

RLEVEL FOLLOWUP.SAV” data file with 21,378 observations and 21 variables.  Final estimates are then

computed in the “FOLLOWUP ESTIMATES.SAS” syntax file.  Results are saved in the “FINAL

FOLLOWUP.PDF” file.  These files are all included in the “FINAL ANALYSIS\FOLLOWUP” folder:

The following two tables describe the impact of physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, and

sexual violence on female and male victims.

Among American Indian and Alaska Native female victims of lifetime physical violence by intimate

partners, stalking, and sexual violence:

 66.5% were concerned for their safety.

 41.3% were physically injured.

 92.6% had talked to someone about what the perpetrators did.

 49.0% needed services because of what the perpetrators did.

 40.5% had to miss days of work or school because of what the perpetrators did.

Relative to non‐Hispanic White female victims of lifetime physical violence by intimate partners,

stalking, and sexual violence, American Indian and Alaska Native female victims were:

 1.5 times more likely to be injured (p < 0.05).

 1.8 times more likely to need services (p < 0.05).

 1.9 times more likely to have to miss days of work or school (p < 0.05).

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.
    355

Table 26.53.  Impact of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners, Stalking, and Sexual Violence on

Female Victims

Impact on Female Victims American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Concerned for safety 66.5% 59.6% NS

Physically injured 41.3% 27.4% 1.5

Talked to someone 92.6% 89.9% NS

Needed services 49.0% 27.7% 1.8

Missed work/school 40.5% 21.6% 1.9

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic

groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Among American Indian and Alaska Native male victims of lifetime physical violence by intimate

partners, stalking, and sexual violence:

 26.0% were concerned for their safety.

 20.3% were physically injured.

 74.3% had talked to someone about what the perpetrators did.

 19.9% needed services because of what the perpetrators did.

 9.7% had to miss days of work or school because of what the perpetrators did.

Differences across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Table 26.54.  Impact of Physical Violence by Intimate Partners, Stalking, and Sexual Violence on Male

Victims

Impact on Male Victims American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Concerned for safety 26.0% 23.2% NS

Physically injured 20.3% 10.6% NS

Talked to someone 74.3% 68.9% NS

Needed services 19.9% 15.3% NS

Missed work/school 9.7% 12.2% NS

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic

groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

The specific services that were needed by female and male victims are shown in the following two

tables.  These include whether victims needed medical care, housing services, community services,

victim’s advocate services, and legal services.

The most common service needed by American Indian and Alaska Native female victims of lifetime

physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, and sexual violence is medical care (needed by 38% of

victims).  American Indian and Alaska Native female victims of lifetime physical violence by intimate

partners, stalking, and sexual violence are 2.3 times more likely to need medical care than non‐Hispanic

White female victims (p < 0.05).

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.
    356

Table 26.55.  Services Needed by Female Victims of  

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners, Stalking, and Sexual Violence

Services Needed by Female Victims American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Needed medical care 38.0% 16.6% 2.3

Needed housing services 11.2% 4.2% NS

Needed community services 4.3% 4.6% NS

Needed advocacy services 8.8% 5.9% NS

Needed legal services 15.8% 16.4% NS

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are

not significantly different (p > 0.05).

The most common service needed by American Indian and Alaska Native male victims of lifetime

physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, and sexual violence is also medical care (needed by 9.3%

of victims).  Differences in the need for medical care across racial and ethnic groups are not statistically

significant (p > 0.05).

Table 26.56.  Services Needed by Male Victims of  

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners, Stalking, and Sexual Violence

Services Needed by Male Victims American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Needed medical care 9.3% 5.1% NS

Needed housing services 0.7% 1.3% NS

Needed community services 0.0% 1.4% 0.0

Needed advocacy services 3.0% 1.0% NS

Needed legal services 9.0% 11.1% NS

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are

not significantly different (p > 0.05).

The final table and graph show the percentage of victims who needed services that were unable to get

these services.  Among victims who needed services, 38.2% of American Indian and Alaska Native

women and 16.9% of American Indian and Alaska Native men were unable to get the services that they

needed.  Among victims who needed services, American Indian and Alaska Native women were

significantly less likely to get services than non‐Hispanic White women (p < 0.05).  Differences across

racial and ethnic groups are not statistically significant for male 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.
    357

Table 26.57.  Percent of Victims Unable to Get Needed Services

Gender of Victim who Needed

Services

American Indian

or Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Relative

Risk

Female 38.2% 15.4% 2.5

Male 16.9% 13.8% NS

Note: Samples are restricted to victims who needed services.

Figure 26.12.  Percent of Victims Unable to Get Needed Services

Note: Samples are restricted to victims who needed services.

M. CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AND ODDS RATIOS  

Confidence intervals and odds ratios for all estimates (percentages) in Chapter 26 are included in this

section.  Confidence intervals are not provided for the estimated numbers of victims (but those can be

computed by simply multiplying the limits of the confidence intervals with the population totals – i.e.,

1,837,171 for women who identify themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native women, 1,732,184

for men who identify themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native, 80,729,846 for women who

identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone, and 76,371,144 for men who identify themselves as

non‐Hispanic White alone).

Confidence Intervals

The estimates presented in the previous sections are based on a sample of people who identified

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and on a sample of people who identified themselves as

non‐Hispanic White alone.  Not all people in the U.S. population who identify themselves as American

Indian or Alaska Native were included in this sample.  Similarly, not all people in the U.S. population who

identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone were included.  Because statistics were calculated

using samples rather than populations, the estimates have a margin of error.  To provide information

about this margin of error, confidence intervals  were computed for each weighted estimate.  These

confidence intervals provide a range of likely values for the true percentage of victims in the entire

38%

17% 15% 14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Female Victims Male Victims

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Non‐Hispanic

White Alone

Percent of Victims

Unable to Get Needed Services

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.
    358

population of people who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and in the entire

population of people who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone.   

The width of these confidence intervals provides information about the precision of each estimate.  

Estimates with wide confidence intervals indicate that there is much uncertainty about the extent to

which the estimates accurately reflect the percentages of victims in the entire population.   Confidence

intervals were computed using a confidence level of 95%.  Statistically, this indicates that if multiple

independent samples were taken and confidence intervals were computed with each sample, 95% of

these confidence intervals would include the percentage of victims in the entire population.  In practice,

interpretations for confidence intervals are more straightforward.   Each confidence interval has a lower

bound and an upper bound (for example, 15% to 25%).  The straightforward way to interpret a 95%

confidence interval of 15% to 25% is that we are 95% confident that the percentage of victims in the

entire population is somewhere between 15% and 25%.

Odds Ratios

Odds ratios examine the difference in the odds of being a victim between people who identify

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and people who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic

White alone (whereas relative risk examines the difference in the risk or probability of being a victim

between people who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and people who identify

themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone).   

The odds of being a victim for people who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native

(AIAN Odds) are calculated as:

AIAN Odds = P (victim | AIAN) / P (non‐victim | AIAN), where

P (victim | AIAN) is the probability of being a victim for people who identify themselves as American

Indian or Alaska Native and P (non‐victim | AIAN) is the probability of not being a victim for people who

identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.

The odds of being a victim for people who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone (NHWA

Odds) are calculated as:

NHWA Odds = P (victim | NHWA) / P (non‐victim | NHWA), where

P (victim | NHWA) is the probability of being a victim for people who identify themselves as non‐

Hispanic White alone and P (non‐victim | NHWA) is the probability of not being a victim for people who

identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone.

The odds ratio (OR) is then calculated as:

OR = AIAN Odds / NHWA Odds

When the odds ratio (OR) equals 1.0, the odds of being a victim are the same for people who identify

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native people as they are for people who identify themselves

as non‐Hispanic White alone.  Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that the odds of being a victim are

greater for people who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native than they are for people

who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone.  For example, an odds ratio of 2.5 would indicate

that the odds of being a victim are 2.5 times greater for people who identify themselves as American

Indian or Alaska Native than they are for people who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic White alone.  

Odds ratios smaller than 1.0 indicate that the odds of being a victim are smaller for people who identify

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.
    359

themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native than they are for people who identify themselves as

non‐Hispanic White alone.  

Odds ratios were not calculated when the confidence interval for the American Indian or Alaska Native

sample overlapped with the confidence interval for the non‐Hispanic White alone sample (in these

cases, the odds ratios are shown as “NS”, indicating that the probability of being a victim for people who

identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native is not significantly different, at a probability

level of 0.05, from the probability of being a victim for people who identify themselves as non‐Hispanic

White alone).

Table 26.58.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Women (Table 26.12)

Percent of women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Women N

Odds

Ratio

2,126 26.2% to 43.9%

7,034 18.6% to 21.5% 2.15

2,151 21.1% to 38.0%

7,078 12.4% to 14.8% 2.66

2,129 9.9% to 23.4%

7,058 8.0% to 10.0% NS

2,131 6.1% to 18.3%

7,044 4.5% to 6.1% 2.49

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: AIAN 2,154 42.5% to 61.7%

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: NHWA 7,104 45.1% to 48.6% NS

2,121 15.7% to 33.2%

7,012 12.5% to 14.9% 2.04

2,174 33.3% to 51.8%

7,160 28.9% to 32.1% 1.69

2,199 29.2% to 47.5%

7,246 29.3% to 32.6% NS

2,138 46.4% to 65.8%

7,072 48.0% to 51.4% NS

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: AIAN

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Note: AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White alone; NS, percentages across racial

and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    360

Table 26.59.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Men (Table 26.13)  

Percent of men who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Men N

Odds

Ratio

1,297 5.3% to 16.4%

5,650 4.3% to 5.9% NS

1,322 0.9% to 4.6%

5,679 1.1% to 2.0% NS

1,305 2.9% to 12.9%

5,670 3.0% to 4.4% NS

1,319 ‐0.1% to 5.0%

5,669 0.8% to 1.5% NS

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: AIAN 1,306 16.5% to 31.1%

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: NHWA 5,635 18.0% to 21.2% NS

1,313 4.7% to 15.5%

5,647 4.4% to 6.4% NS

1,326 7.9% to 18.0%

5,692 11.0% to 13.6% NS

1,336 6.4% to 17.2%

5,727 8.5% to 10.9% NS

1,299 19.6% to 35.4%

5,625 19.3% to 22.6% NS

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: AIAN

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Note: AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White alone; NS, percentages across racial

and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    361

Table 26.60.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of

Past Year Sexual Violence Against Women (Table 26.14)  

Percent of women who experienced sexual violence in past year

Past Year Sexual Violence Against Women N

Odds

Ratio

2,066 ‐0.7% to 9.8%

6,927 0.7% to 1.7% NS

2,137 ‐1.3% to 8.5%

7,042 0.2% to 0.8% NS

2,111 ‐1.7% to 8.2%

7,017 0.4% to 1.2% NS

2,126 ‐2.0% to 7.7%

7,043 0.1% to 0.6% NS

Past Year Other Sexual Violence: AIAN 2,072 5.4% to 21.5%

Past Year Other Sexual Violence: NHWA 6,836 4.0% to 5.8% NS

2,111 0.4% to 14.0%

6,979 1.2% to 2.1% NS

2,152 0.9% to 13.8%

7,092 1.8% to 3.1% NS

2,184 ‐0.2% to 10.1%

7,194 1.1% to 2.3% NS

2,019 6.2% to 22.6%

Past Year All Sexual Violence: NHWA 6,739 4.5% to 6.4% NS

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: AIAN

Past Year Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Past Year Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Past Year All Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Note: AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White alone; NS, percentages across racial

and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    362

Table 26.61.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of

Past Year Sexual Violence Against Men (Table 26.15)  

Percent of men who experienced sexual violence in the past year

Lifetime Sexual Violence Against Men N

Odds

Ratio

1,285 ‐1.3% to 5.8%

5,624 0.4% to 1.1% NS

1,322 ‐0.2% to 0.9%

5,672 0.0% to 0.3% NS

1,298 ‐1.5% to 5.6%

5,654 0.2% to 0.8% NS

1,318 0.0% to 0.0%

5,668 0.1% to 0.3% 0.08

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: AIAN 1,280 2.8% to 13.0%

Lifetime Other Sexual Violence: NHWA 5,557 2.7% to 4.3% NS

1,307 0.6% to 8.5%

5,640 0.5% to 1.3% NS

1,317 0.0% to 6.2%

5,670 1.3% to 2.4% NS

1,331 0.1% to 6.3%

5,711 1.1% to 2.2% NS

1,258 3.7% to 16.0%

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: NHWA 5,526 3.0% to 4.6% NS

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: AIAN

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Lifetime Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Lifetime All Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Note: AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White alone; NS, percentages across racial

and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    363

Table 26.62.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Completed Forced Penetration (Tables 26.16 and 26.17)  

Percent of women and men who experienced completed forced penetration  

in their lifetime and in the past year

N N

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Women 2,151 21.1% to 38.0% 7,078 12.4% to 14.8% 2.66

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 2,153 20.3% to 37.2% 7,079 11.8% to 14.3% 2.69

Made to receive oral sex 2,157 1.7% to 8.0% 7,082 1.9% to 3.1% NS

Made to perform oral sex 2,159 3.4% to 12.4% 7,090 3.2% to 4.7% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Women 2,137 ‐1.3% to 8.5% 7,042 0.2% to 0.8% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 2,140 ‐1.3% to 8.5% 7,047 0.2% to 0.8% NS

Made to receive oral sex 2,156 0.0% to 0.0% 7,082 0.0% to 0.1% NS

Made to perform oral sex 2,159 ‐0.7% to 2.2% 7,089 0.0% to 0.1% NS

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Men 1,322 0.9% to 4.6% 5,679 1.1% to 2.0% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 1,325 0.1% to 3.3% 5,679 0.5% to 1.3% NS

Made to receive oral sex 1,323 ‐0.3% to 1.9% 5,678 0.3% to 0.8% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 1,328 0.3% to 2.9% 5,692 0.4% to 1.0% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1,325 ‐0.1% to 2.2% 5,684 0.4% to 1.2% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Men 1,322 ‐0.2% to 0.9% 5,672 0.0% to 0.3% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 1,325 0.0% to 0.0% 5,675 0.0% to 0.1% NS

Made to receive oral sex 1,323 0.0% to 0.0% 5,678 0.0% to 0.1% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 1,328 ‐0.2% to 0.9% 5,691 0.0% to 0.2% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1,325 0.0% to 0.0% 5,684 0.0% to 0.1% NS

95% CI 95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone Odds

Ratio Completed Forced Penetration

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

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.
    364

Table 26.63.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration (Tables 26.18 and 26.19)  

Percent of women and men who experienced completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration  

in their lifetime and in the past year

N N

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Women 2,129 9.9% to 23.4% 7,058 8.0% to 10.0% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 2,143 8.9% to 22.0% 7,114 6.9% to 8.8% 2.13

Made to receive oral sex 2,140 0.6% to 5.5% 7,065 1.5% to 2.7% NS

Made to perform oral sex 2,155 0.9% to 5.3% 7,100 1.7% to 2.8% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Women 2,111 ‐1.7% to 8.2% 7,017 0.4% to 1.2% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 2,134 ‐1.6% to 8.1% 7,105 0.3% to 0.9% NS

Made to receive oral sex 2,140 0.0% to 0.0% 7,063 0.0% to 0.5% 0.00

Made to perform oral sex 2,155 ‐0.6% to 2.0% 7,100 0.0% to 0.2% NS

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Men 1,305 2.9% to 12.9% 5,670 3.0% to 4.4% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 1,329 ‐0.1% to 0.9% 5,698 0.4% to 1.2% NS

Made to receive oral sex 1,317 0.0% to 7.6% 5,675 1.3% to 2.3% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 1,317 1.1% to 7.7% 5,692 1.4% to 2.3% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1,323 ‐0.5% to 3.0% 5,684 0.5% to 1.4% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Men 1,298 ‐1.5% to 5.6% 5,654 0.2% to 0.8% NS

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex 1,329 0.0% to 0.0% 5,697 0.0% to 0.1% NS

Made to receive oral sex 1,316 ‐1.5% to 5.4% 5,675 0.1% to 0.6% NS

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex 1,313 ‐0.1% to 0.4% 5,688 0.0% to 0.5% NS

Made to perform oral sex 1,323 0.0% to 0.0% 5,683 0.0% to 0.1% NS

95% CI 95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone Odds

Ratio

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated

Penetration

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    365

Table 26.64.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims (Tables 26.20 & 26.21)

Percent of lifetime female victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one interracial perpetrator

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims N Odds

Ratio

408 80.6% to 98.4%

1162 24.7% to 32.7% 21.24

295 78.2% to 98.2%

801 22.4% to 32.0% 19.96

293 79.8% to 99.3%

767 21.5% to 31.3% 23.91

46 39.2% to 105.1%

120 12.3% to 35.0% 8.36

67 78.8% to 104.9%

222 11.9% to 25.3% 49.36

221 72.8% to 101.8%

519 18.1% to 28.5% 22.72

216 71.3% to 101.0%

484 17.3% to 28.0% 21.18

37 36.9% to 109.5%

95 8.3% to 28.8% 12.01

46 89.5% to 102.7%

119 13.5% to 33.5% 81.03

131 63.6% to 101.0%

343 19.6% to 33.8% 12.76

608 91.7% to 100.9%

2617 26.4% to 31.7% 64.05

233 76.1% to 100.2%

852 14.7% to 22.6% 32.42

447 92.4% to 99.9%

1829 21.8% to 27.9% 75.14

377 83.9% to 100.5%

1720 19.8% to 25.9% 39.69

681 91.9% to 100.5%

2750 29.2% to 34.5% 54.00

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone.

   

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.
    366

Table 26.65.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims (Tables 26.20 & 26.22)

Percent of lifetime female victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one intra‐racial perpetrator

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims N

Odds

Ratio

416 9.8% to 35.5%

1223 79.8% to 86.7% 0.06

302 3.6% to 25.3%

815 76.7% to 85.3% 0.04

298 2.1% to 22.3%

781 76.3% to 85.2% 0.03

46 ‐5.1% to 60.8%

119 83.7% to 95.7% 0.04

66 ‐5.1% to 27.8%

221 80.6% to 92.0% 0.02

222 2.7% to 38.0%

536 79.3% to 88.7% 0.05

214 2.7% to 38.4%

489 77.3% to 87.4% 0.06

37 ‐6.9% to 81.4%

95 74.5% to 94.2% NS

48 ‐3.4% to 20.1%

117 72.9% to 91.2% 0.02

131 ‐0.7% to 36.7%

344 73.1% to 85.5% 0.06

603 9.0% to 28.9%

2855 89.3% to 92.8% 0.02

234 6.3% to 41.0%

866 84.3% to 91.1% 0.04

440 1.6% to 11.1%

1891 85.6% to 90.4% 0.01

372 4.7% to 25.5%

1808 86.0% to 90.8% 0.02

680 10.8% to 30.4%

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA 3043 89.2% to 92.5% 0.03

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone; NS – percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    367

Table 26.66.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims (Tables 26.20 & 26.23)

Percent of lifetime male victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one interracial perpetrator

Lifetime Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims N

Odds

Ratio

128 87.6% to 99.3%

245 15.8% to 31.3% 46.49

30 66.5% to 108.5%

74 6.4% to 27.6% 34.32

12 39.4% to 117.2%

39 3.4% to 37.1% 14.18

9 96.0% to 101.5%

27 2.3% to 48.4% 234.51

18 97.2% to 100.5%

27 0.9% to 41.2% 323.42

10 95.3% to 101.6%

34 ‐0.6% to 19.7% 594.62

101 84.6% to 99.9%

166 14.0% to 33.0% 38.77

7 89.9% to 103.9%

24 ‐0.5% to 32.8% 162.58

43 88.3% to 102.2%

94 10.5% to 34.1% 70.50

80 74.0% to 100.9%

92 12.9% to 30.6% 25.07

16 90.2% to 102.6%

32 0.7% to 21.5% 212.89

29 65.5% to 109.8%

70 9.1% to 37.7% 23.21

257 75.1% to 98.5%

911 21.6% to 30.4% 18.73

91 62.5% to 105.7%

277 13.9% to 30.9% 18.35

157 87.7% to 99.9%

580 16.5% to 25.9% 56.37

131 78.1% to 104.0%

466 18.0% to 29.9% 32.41

296 78.3% to 98.9%

976 22.9% to 31.6% 20.71

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone.

   

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.
    368

Table 26.67.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims (Tables 26.20 & 26.24)

Percent of lifetime male victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one intra‐racial perpetrator

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims N

Odds

Ratio

125 1.1% to 17.7%

257 79.5% to 91.5% 0.02

29 ‐8.5% to 34.8%

76 75.1% to 95.1% 0.03

12 ‐16.9% to 61.0%

41 67.6% to 98.5% 0.06

9 ‐2.1% to 6.2%

27 52.8% to 98.7% 0.01

17 ‐0.5% to 3.6%

27 58.8% to 99.1% 0.00

10 ‐1.6% to 6.1%

34 84.3% to 101.7% 0.00

100 0.2% to 16.2%

172 77.3% to 92.3% 0.02

7 ‐4.4% to 12.6%

25 68.5% to 100.4% 0.01

44 ‐2.1% to 12.4%

93 71.4% to 94.2% 0.01

78 ‐0.8% to 27.1%

92 76.6% to 93.6% 0.03

16 ‐2.7% to 10.5%

33 80.0% to 99.8% 0.00

28 ‐9.7% to 34.7%

70 68.8% to 94.2% 0.03

247 14.3% to 49.3%

966 88.8% to 94.1% 0.04

89 ‐1.3% to 52.7%

281 82.6% to 93.5% 0.05

154 1.2% to 31.2%

602 87.2% to 93.5% 0.02

127 2.1% to 44.9%

481 84.8% to 93.5% 0.04

283 13.1% to 45.4%

1042 87.9% to 93.4% 0.04

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone.

   

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.
    369

Table 26.68.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims (Table 26.25)

Percent of past year female victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one interracial perpetrator

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims N Odds

Ratio

28 97.3% to 101.0%

39 18.2% to 63.3% 163.60

14 96.6% to 101.4%

16 29.3% to 92.9% 63.49

14 96.5% to 101.5%

16 29.3% to 92.9% 63.49

4 0.0% to 0.0%

3 ‐12.1% to 30.1% NS

6 79.0% to 112.0%

3 47.4% to 119.7% NS

18 99.6% to 100.1%

23 0.8% to 37.6% 3069.27

15 99.6% to 100.1%

18 ‐1.3% to 41.2% 3173.41

3 31.0% to 120.7%

5 0.0% to 0.0% ‐‐

7 98.8% to 100.5%

6 ‐17.0% to 70.5% 761.33

9 95.2% to 102.3%

11 ‐13.9% to 82.1% 152.26

90 98.3% to 100.2%

211 22.6% to 43.8% 263.70

39 98.2% to 100.6%

94 7.2% to 35.9% 577.53

51 97.1% to 100.6%

103 28.9% to 59.3% 107.10

28 99.7% to 100.0%

79 14.6% to 54.0% 1669.72

95 98.4% to 100.2%

220 23.8% to 44.2% 280.00

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone; NS – percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05); ‐‐, statistically

significant (p < 0.05) but cannot calculate odds ratio (division by zero).

   

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.
    370

Table 26.69.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims (Table 26.26)

Percent of past year female victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one intra‐racial perpetrator

Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Female Victims N Odds

Ratio

29 ‐3.5% to 10.7%

39 49.6% to 92.3% 0.02

15 ‐1.4% to 3.4%

14 17.7% to 86.7% 0.01

14 ‐1.5% to 3.5%

14 17.7% to 86.7% 0.01

4 100.0% to 100.0%

3 69.9% to 112.1% NS

6 ‐12.0% to 21.0%

3 ‐19.7% to 52.6% NS

19 ‐4.2% to 10.2%

23 62.4% to 99.2% 0.01

15 ‐4.2% to 10.1%

18 58.8% to 101.3% 0.01

3 ‐20.7% to 69.0%

5 100.0% to 100.0% ‐‐

7 ‐0.5% to 1.2%

6 29.5% to 117.0% 0.00

9 ‐2.3% to 4.9%

11 17.9% to 113.9% 0.01

89 ‐0.3% to 2.5%

223 63.9% to 84.2% 0.00

38 ‐0.6% to 1.8%

93 77.9% to 96.8% 0.00

52 ‐0.8% to 3.9%

108 46.6% to 77.9% 0.01

28 0.0% to 0.3%

82 48.5% to 87.4% 0.00

97 ‐0.7% to 4.7%

237 64.5% to 83.9% 0.01

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone; NS – percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05); ‐‐, statistically

significant (p < 0.05) but cannot calculate odds ratio (division by zero).

   

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.
    371

Table 26.70.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims (Table 26.27)

Percent of past year male victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one interracial perpetrator

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims N Odds

Ratio

26 92.1% to 102.2%

27 13.4% to 62.1% 56.36

7 93.1% to 102.4%

6 4.8% to 107.3% NS

1 100.0% to 100.0%

3 100.0% to 100.0% NS

3 0.0% to 0.0%

3 67.9% to 111.8% 0.00

6 88.4% to 105.6%

2 ‐27.8% to 100.7% NS

1 100.0% to 100.0%

2 41.8% to 122.7% NS

21 91.4% to 102.7%

17 8.7% to 73.2% 47.71

3 ‐26.4% to 81.9%

1 0.0% to 0.0% NS

10 95.1% to 101.8%

12 1.1% to 59.4% 145.34

16 44.6% to 111.6%

8 10.7% to 101.3% NS

3 ‐20.2% to 65.3%

5 50.0% to 111.5% NS

6 ‐15.0% to 47.8%

10 ‐6.2% to 48.7% NS

74 45.0% to 108.3%

144 9.5% to 25.9% 15.27

28 27.2% to 113.2%

48 10.2% to 49.3% NS

44 86.1% to 102.8%

74 3.9% to 14.8% 163.45

32 87.5% to 102.2%

59 6.1% to 29.5% 85.71

80 56.5% to 109.1%

152 14.1% to 32.8% 15.72

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone; NS – percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    372

Table 26.71.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Intra‐Racial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims (Table 26.28)

Percent of past year male victims who experienced sexual violence  

by at least one intra‐racial perpetrator

Past Year Interracial Sexual Violence Against Male Victims N Odds

Ratio

24 ‐2.8% to 9.5%

26 62.0% to 94.6% 0.01

7 ‐2.8% to 8.9%

6 ‐7.3% to 95.2% NS

1 100.0% to 100.0%

3 0.0% to 0.0% ‐‐

3 100.0% to 100.0%

3 ‐11.8% to 32.1% ‐‐

6 ‐5.6% to 11.6%

2 ‐0.7% to 127.8% NS

1 100.0% to 100.0%

2 ‐22.7% to 58.2% ‐‐

20 ‐3.2% to 9.7%

16 64.7% to 101.4% 0.01

3 100.0% to 100.0%

1 100.0% to 100.0% NS

10 ‐1.8% to 4.9%

11 43.2% to 101.8% 0.01

15 50.9% to 104.6%

8 61.3% to 106.8% NS

3 100.0% to 100.0%

5 ‐11.5% to 50.0% ‐‐

5 100.0% to 100.0%

10 51.3% to 106.2% NS

72 ‐5.9% to 61.3%

149 81.2% to 94.9% 0.05

27 ‐13.4% to 74.7%

47 59.7% to 95.0% NS

42 ‐12.3% to 47.5%

76 85.3% to 98.0% 0.02

32 ‐2.2% to 13.3%

57 72.5% to 95.7% 0.01

77 ‐6.1% to 49.3%

158 78.5% to 92.5% 0.05

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Coercion: AIAN

Other Sexual Violence: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: NHWA

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Completed Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: AIAN

95% Confidence

Interval

Sexual Coercion: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: NHWA

Non‐Contact Unwanted Sexual Experiences: NHWA

Any Sexual Violence: AIAN

Made to perform vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive vaginal or anal sex: NHWA

Unwanted Sexual Contact: AIAN

Completed Forced Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: NHWA

Sexual Violence with Penetration: AIAN

Made to receive oral sex: NHWA

Attempted Forced Penetration: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: AIAN

Made to perform oral sex: NHWA

Made to receive oral sex: AIAN

Completed Alcohol or Drug Facilitated Penetration: AIAN

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; AIAN – American Indian or Alaska Native; NHWA – non‐Hispanic White

alone; NS – percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05); ‐‐, statistically

significant (p < 0.05) but cannot calculate odds ratio (division by zero).

   

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.
    373

Table 26.72.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners (Tables 26.29 and 26.30)  

Percent of women and men who experienced physical violence  

by an intimate partner in their lifetime and in the past year

N N

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Women 2,386 46.5% to 64.5% 7,524 32.9% to 36.2% 2.37

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 2,396 43.2% to 61.2% 7,539 30.7% to 33.9% 2.29

Severe Physical Violence 2,385 33.4% to 51.3% 7,516 23.3% to 26.2% 2.23

Past Year Estimate ‐ Women 2,347 3.2% to 13.9% 7,462 3.2% to 5.0% NS

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 2,389 2.8% to 13.2% 7,521 2.8% to 4.5% NS

Severe Physical Violence 2,348 1.0% to 4.6% 7,472 2.0% to 3.3% NS

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Men 1,450 34.7% to 51.7% 5,906 28.7% to 32.3% 1.73

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 1,458 28.5% to 44.4% 5,930 26.2% to 29.7% NS

Severe Physical Violence 1,441 17.5% to 33.0% 5,914 13.1% to 15.9% 1.99

Past Year Estimate ‐ Men 1,429 1.2% to 10.0% 5,875 3.6% to 5.3% NS

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 1,449 1.0% to 9.7% 5,916 3.3% to 5.0% NS

Severe Physical Violence 1,434 0.1% to 8.3% 5,903 1.2% to 2.3% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI 95% CI

Physical Violence by Intimate

Partners

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.73.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Experienced by Female Victims (Table 26.31)

Percent of female victims who experienced each form of physical violence by intimate partners

N N

Slapped 1,074 47.2% to 72.3% 2,497 59.8% to 65.6% NS

Pushed or shoved 1,070 73.3% to 93.2% 2,491 83.8% to 88.0% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 1,066 41.1% to 66.1% 2,483 38.6% to 44.4% NS

Kicked 1,065 17.1% to 39.5% 2,478 20.1% to 24.9% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 1,066 17.7% to 37.0% 2,479 28.9% to 34.5% NS

Slammed against something 1,066 41.1% to 66.5% 2,472 51.7% to 57.6% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 1,063 25.8% to 49.4% 2,471 25.8% to 31.4% NS

Beaten 1,057 33.3% to 58.5% 2,470 29.3% to 34.8% NS

Burned on purpose 1,058 0.7% to 17.5% 2,471 2.3% to 4.4% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 1,053 15.5% to 38.7% 2,472 12.6% to 16.9% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate

Partners Experienced by Female

Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    374

Table 26.74.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Experienced by Male Victims (Table 26.31)  

Percent of male victims who experienced each form of physical violence by intimate partners

   

N N

Slapped 526 53.0% to 79.8% 1,752 62.8% to 69.6% NS

Pushed or shoved 521 51.1% to 76.9% 1,744 67.0% to 73.6% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 523 30.7% to 57.1% 1,747 29.2% to 35.9% NS

Kicked 521 11.2% to 32.8% 1,746 13.5% to 18.7% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 521 7.4% to 29.8% 1,742 8.3% to 12.7% NS

Slammed against something 519 7.6% to 28.4% 1,745 7.5% to 12.6% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 518 0.7% to 11.9% 1,745 2.4% to 5.2% NS

Beaten 517 7.7% to 27.2% 1,742 6.6% to 11.6% NS

Burned on purpose 515 0.0% to 0.4% 1,743 1.1% to 2.6% 0.12

Had a knife or gun used on them 515 2.8% to 19.9% 1,743 6.4% to 11.6% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Lifetime Physical Violence by Intimate

Partners Experienced by Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.75.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Experienced by Female Victims (Table 26.32)  

Percent of female victims who experienced each form of physical violence by intimate partners

   

N N

Slapped 175 11.8% to 75.8% 217 32.1% to 53.5% NS

Pushed or shoved 174 68.1% to 103.5% 218 66.3% to 85.9% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 174 2.3% to 42.6% 216 15.7% to 32.4% NS

Kicked 174 ‐2.1% to 24.6% 215 3.8% to 12.9% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 174 1.4% to 36.6% 214 9.6% to 24.6% NS

Slammed against something 173 0.9% to 34.6% 214 29.5% to 50.2% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 172 ‐2.9% to 18.9% 213 15.1% to 35.6% NS

Beaten 171 ‐0.6% to 31.8% 213 7.1% to 19.4% NS

Burned on purpose 171 ‐5.1% to 15.7% 213 ‐0.3% to 2.2% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 170 ‐4.1% to 18.6% 213 2.5% to 13.9% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Past Year Physical Violence by

Intimate Partners Experienced by

Female Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    375

Table 26.76.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Physical Violence by Intimate Partners Experienced by Male Victims (Table 26.32)  

Percent of male victims who experienced each form of physical violence by intimate partners

   

N N

Slapped 89 6.4% to 83.5% 224 49.2% to 68.6% NS

Pushed or shoved 87 65.3% to 99.7% 222 67.0% to 84.9% NS

Hit with a fist or something hard 87 1.2% to 81.9% 222 17.6% to 34.9% NS

Kicked 85 ‐14.0% to 69.0% 220 8.1% to 21.2% NS

Hurt by having hair pulled 86 ‐0.4% to 2.7% 221 4.3% to 14.4% 0.11

Slammed against something 85 ‐14.3% to 62.4% 221 3.5% to 13.4% NS

Hurt by being choked or suffocated 85 ‐0.1% to 0.3% 220 ‐0.2% to 3.1% NS

Beaten 85 ‐2.7% to 15.5% 219 2.1% to 9.3% NS

Burned on purpose 85 0.0% to 0.0% 220 ‐0.1% to 2.1% NS

Had a knife or gun used on them 85 ‐0.1% to 0.3% 220 0.1% to 4.6% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Past Year Physical Violence by

Intimate Partners Experienced by

Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.77.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence

by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners Against Female Victims (Tables 26.33 & 26.34)

Percent of female victims who experienced physical violence  

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial intimate partner

   

N N

897 80.3% to 99.2% 2,222 15.9% to 21.0% 38.69

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 839 80.4% to 100.1% 2,099 15.8% to 21.1% 40.77

Severe Physical Violence 744 73.3% to 98.2% 1,580 17.4% to 23.8% 23.11

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 913 7.3% to 28.3% 2,249 86.8% to 91.0% 0.03

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 846 6.4% to 28.2% 2,108 85.1% to 89.8% 0.03

Severe Physical Violence 756 10.1% to 37.1% 1,601 84.2% to 89.5% 0.05

137 67.4% to 105.4% 183 6.8% to 23.9% 35.11

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 127 67.6% to 105.7% 163 4.9% to 20.1% 45.27

Severe Physical Violence 91 63.1% to 108.2% 123 9.2% to 33.2% 22.16

Past Year Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 137 ‐5.4% to 32.6% 183 80.4% to 95.0% 0.02

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 127 ‐5.7% to 32.4% 163 80.6% to 95.6% 0.02

Severe Physical Violence 90 ‐8.1% to 36.9% 122 72.7% to 93.5% 0.03

Lifetime Interracial Physical Violence

Past Year Interracial Physical Violence

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Against Female Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to 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.
    376

Table 26.78.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Physical Violence

by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners Against Male Victims (Tables 26.33 & 26.35)

Percent of male victims who experienced physical violence  

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial intimate partner

   

N N

450 75.9% to 93.6% 1,597 14.7% to 20.3% 26.31

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 405 71.7% to 92.3% 1,479 13.9% to 19.6% 22.64

Severe Physical Violence 267 80.5% to 98.7% 753 11.7% to 19.3% 46.77

Lifetime Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 439 10.6% to 31.1% 1,619 88.3% to 92.5% 0.03

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 396 13.3% to 37.0% 1,489 88.3% to 92.7% 0.04

Severe Physical Violence 263 4.9% to 28.5% 759 85.5% to 91.6% 0.03

75 47.8% to 109.7% 198 8.4% to 25.8% 17.95

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 67 46.4% to 110.8% 180 7.4% to 25.4% 18.78

Severe Physical Violence 39 88.1% to 102.2% 87 4.7% to 21.6% 130.55

Past Year Intra‐Racial Physical Violence 74 ‐10.3% to 72.8% 202 75.7% to 92.7% 0.09

Slapped, Pushed, or Shoved 66 ‐12.0% to 76.0% 181 76.0% to 93.7% NS

Severe Physical Violence 38 ‐5.9% to 23.6% 89 78.5% to 95.3% 0.01

Lifetime Interracial Physical Violence

Past Year Interracial Physical Violence

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Physical Violence by Intimate Partners

Against Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.79.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Stalking  

(Table 26.36)  

Percent of women and men who experienced stalking in their lifetime and in the past year

   

N N

Women

Lifetime Estimate 2,205 39.2% to 58.5% 7,040 25.3% to 28.3% 2.60

Past Year Estimate 2,154 6.6% to 16.5% 6,918 6.1% to 7.9% NS

Men

Lifetime Estimate 1,297 11.9% to 25.3% 5,416 11.9% to 14.9% NS

Past Year Estimate 1,282 1.3% to 6.3% 5,361 2.9% to 4.5% NS

95% CI 95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone Odds

Ratio Stalking

Note: NS, percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    377

Table 26.80.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Female Victims (Table 26.37)

Percent of female victims who experienced each form of stalking behavior

N N

Unwanted phone calls 622 70.7% to 93.5% 1,803 79.8% to 84.7% NS

Unwanted emails and messages 648 7.0% to 30.9% 1,823 11.5% to 16.7% NS

Unwanted cards, flowers, gifts 656 22.2% to 47.7% 1,863 22.0% to 27.7% NS

Watched or followed 638 17.4% to 40.9% 1,818 32.5% to 38.8% NS

Approached at home/school/work 660 40.4% to 66.8% 1,860 50.5% to 57.0% NS

Found strange or threatening items 657 4.0% to 17.7% 1,859 8.0% to 12.2% NS

Had home or car intruded 656 15.5% to 39.7% 1,853 15.8% to 21.1% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Lifetime Stalking Behaviors

Experienced by Female Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different

(p > 0.05).

Table 26.81.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Male Victims (Table 26.37)

Percent of male victims who experienced each form of stalking behavior

N N

Unwanted phone calls 191 60.1% to 90.6% 659 76.0% to 85.6% NS

Unwanted emails and messages 198 0.8% to 26.6% 659 14.2% to 23.9% NS

Unwanted cards, flowers, gifts 198 1.0% to 24.4% 678 8.9% to 19.3% NS

Watched or followed 195 18.2% to 57.0% 651 22.0% to 34.5% NS

Approached at home/school/work 202 42.7% to 79.3% 673 35.8% to 48.2% NS

Found strange or threatening items 202 ‐0.1% to 8.9% 677 4.3% to 10.3% NS

Had home or car intruded 201 6.5% to 39.8% 681 9.1% to 16.7% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Lifetime Stalking Behaviors

Experienced by Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different

(p > 0.05).

   

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.
    378

Table 26.82.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Stalking by

Interracial and Intra‐Racial Perpetrators (Tables 26.38 & 26.39)

Percent of victims who experienced stalking

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial perpetrator

   

N N

Lifetime interracial stalking 525 80.7% to 97.1% 1,436 22.7% to 29.6% 22.66

Lifetime intra‐racial stalking 541 14.9% to 46.0% 1,565 84.9% to 90.0% 0.06

Past year interracial stalking 192 45.0% to 97.1% 354 20.9% to 34.9% 6.33

Past year intra‐racial stalking 203 13.5% to 66.7% 374 75.8% to 87.4% 0.15

Lifetime interracial stalking 159 80.2% to 101.3% 542 15.6% to 25.4% 37.89

Lifetime intra‐racial stalking 165 4.8% to 41.4% 594 86.8% to 93.8% 0.03

Past year interracial stalking 68 16.7% to 101.0% 152 8.0% to 21.5% NS

Past year intra‐racial stalking 68 9.0% to 94.9% 166 86.4% to 96.6% NS

Female Victims

Male Victims

Odds

Ratio

CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

CI

Stalking Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial/ethnic groups are not significantly different

(p > 0.05).

   

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.
    379

Table 26.83.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners (Tables 26.40 and 26.41)  

Percent of women and men who experienced psychological aggression  

by intimate partners in their lifetime and in the past year

N N

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Women 2,412 57.6% to 75.2% 7,536 50.3% to 53.6% 1.83

Expressive Aggression 2,423 47.8% to 66.0% 7,565 42.5% to 45.9% 1.67

Coercive Control 2,436 52.7% to 70.3% 7,572 41.0% to 44.3% 2.15

Control of Sexual Health 2,410 5.8% to 15.4% 7,538 7.1% to 8.9% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Women 2,335 17.6% to 33.4% 7,366 14.7% to 17.4% 1.79

Expressive Aggression 2,388 13.4% to 28.2% 7,494 10.4% to 12.8% 2.00

Coercive Control 2,389 13.1% to 27.4% 7,472 10.6% to 13.0% 1.90

Control of Sexual Health 2,407 0.0% to 8.0% 7,532 0.9% to 1.8% NS

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Men 1,452 65.6% to 80.3% 5,921 50.8% to 54.7% 2.42

Expressive Aggression 1,474 35.1% to 52.0% 5,957 33.4% to 37.1% NS

Coercive Control 1,458 59.6% to 75.2% 5,952 42.5% to 46.4% 2.58

Control of Sexual Health 1,443 12.9% to 26.9% 5,920 8.7% to 11.2% 2.25

Past Year Estimate ‐ Men 1,406 19.4% to 35.1% 5,765 17.8% to 20.9% NS

Expressive Aggression 1,456 5.9% to 18.2% 5,891 8.4% to 10.7% NS

Coercive Control 1,436 14.7% to 28.7% 5,860 14.0% to 16.7% NS

Control of Sexual Health 1,438 1.7% to 11.7% 5,912 0.7% to 1.6% 6.39

Odds

Ratio

95% CI 95% CI

Psychological Aggression by Intimate

Partners

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    380

Table 26.84.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced by Female Victims (Table 26.42)

Percent of lifetime female victims who experienced each form of  

psychological aggression by intimate partners

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced

by Female Victims N

Odds

Ratio

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: AIAN 1,394 58.2% to 78.3%

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: NHWA 3,764 49.9% to 54.6% 1.96

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: AIAN 1,393 42.8% to 64.5%

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: NHWA 3,748 42.4% to 47.1% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: AIAN 1,396 44.8% to 66.8%

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: NHWA 3,740 54.6% to 59.3% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: AIAN 1,397 41.1% to 63.2%

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: NHWA 3,739 51.4% to 56.1% NS

Told no one else would want them: AIAN 1,408 29.5% to 50.1%

Told no one else would want them: NHWA 3,758 30.8% to 35.4% NS

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: AIAN 1,412 44.5% to 66.0%

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: NHWA 3,776 35.1% to 39.7% 2.07

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: AIAN 1,404 39.4% to 61.1%

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: NHWA 3,763 34.1% to 38.7% 1.76

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: AIAN 1,396 52.0% to 73.3%

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: NHWA 3,755 50.7% to 55.4% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed: AIAN 1,368 37.0% to 58.5%

Threatened with being physically harmed: NHWA 3,728 36.0% to 40.6% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: AIAN 1,388 28.2% to 48.3%

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: NHWA 3,754 29.4% to 33.8% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: AIAN 1,383 9.6% to 24.1%

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: NHWA 3,756 10.6% to 13.7% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: AIAN 1,388 13.1% to 29.7%

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: NHWA 3,751 11.7% to 15.0% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt: AIAN 1,378 9.9% to 25.8%

Had loved ones who were hurt: NHWA 3,746 12.4% to 15.4% NS

Threatened with having children taken away: AIAN 1,069 27.4% to 52.6%

Threatened with having children taken away: NHWA 2,664 24.3% to 29.4% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: AIAN 1,382 32.8% to 54.1%

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: NHWA 3,747 27.9% to 32.2% 1.79

Kept from having their own money to use: AIAN 1,378 20.2% to 41.1%

Kept from having their own money to use: NHWA 3,749 18.9% to 22.6% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed: AIAN 1,377 30.3% to 51.3%

Had something that was important to them destroyed: NHWA 3,727 34.8% to 39.4% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": AIAN 1,371 29.4% to 50.6%

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": NHWA 3,733 19.4% to 23.5% 2.44

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: AIAN 1,373 3.8% to 11.6%

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: NHWA 3,737 7.2% to 9.8% NS

Forced to not use a condom: AIAN 1,368 7.2% to 21.3%

Forced to not use a condom: NHWA 3,725 10.7% to 13.8% NS

95% CI

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    381

Table 26.85.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced by Male Victims (Table 26.43)

Percent of lifetime male victims who experienced each form of  

psychological aggression by intimate partners

Lifetime Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced

by Male Victims N

Odds

Ratio

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: AIAN 820 18.7% to 37.2%

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: NHWA 2,988 24.4% to 29.4% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: AIAN 818 19.2% to 38.0%

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: NHWA 2,976 26.6% to 31.5% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: AIAN 818 25.9% to 45.2%

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: NHWA 2,956 31.9% to 37.1% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: AIAN 823 17.7% to 34.6%

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: NHWA 2,974 26.5% to 31.3% NS

Told no one else would want them: AIAN 827 7.7% to 20.0%

Told no one else would want them: NHWA 2,991 11.8% to 15.3% NS

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: AIAN 826 18.2% to 34.9%

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: NHWA 2,994 23.5% to 28.5% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: AIAN 821 20.8% to 38.9%

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: NHWA 2,971 30.3% to 35.4% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: AIAN 813 52.1% to 71.9%

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: NHWA 2,953 49.8% to 55.2% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed: AIAN 812 13.9% to 30.1%

Threatened with being physically harmed: NHWA 2,948 14.8% to 19.1% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: AIAN 819 15.8% to 32.5%

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: NHWA 2,975 19.3% to 23.8% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: AIAN 824 0.4% to 4.4%

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: NHWA 2,978 3.3% to 5.4% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: AIAN 820 0.0% to 5.2%

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: NHWA 2,975 2.7% to 4.9% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt: AIAN 816 0.9% to 8.8%

Had loved ones who were hurt: NHWA 2,971 4.9% to 7.2% NS

Threatened with having children taken away: AIAN 532 13.6% to 36.6%

Threatened with having children taken away: NHWA 1,865 17.9% to 23.9% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: AIAN 818 9.0% to 23.2%

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: NHWA 2,973 13.2% to 17.3% NS

Kept from having their own money to use: AIAN 818 6.7% to 18.3%

Kept from having their own money to use: NHWA 2,972 10.1% to 13.7% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed: AIAN 818 19.8% to 37.0%

Had something that was important to them destroyed: NHWA 2,961 23.1% to 27.8% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": AIAN 815 10.3% to 26.6%

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": NHWA 2,957 8.7% to 12.2% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: AIAN 808 13.1% to 30.4%

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: NHWA 2,934 15.0% to 19.3% NS

Forced to not use a condom: AIAN 804 8.4% to 24.6%

Forced to not use a condom: NHWA 2,940 3.9% to 6.4% 3.63

95% CI

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    382

Table 26.86.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced by Female Victims (Table 26.44)

Percent of past year female victims who experienced each form of  

psychological aggression by intimate partners

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced

by Female Victims N

Odds

Ratio

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: AIAN 537 22.4% to 57.6%

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: NHWA 1,007 24.0% to 32.7% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: AIAN 537 22.7% to 56.3%

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: NHWA 998 28.6% to 37.8% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: AIAN 532 33.7% to 70.1%

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: NHWA 1,000 43.2% to 52.8% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: AIAN 531 19.7% to 51.8%

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: NHWA 999 29.8% to 39.2% NS

Told no one else would want them: AIAN 541 18.0% to 52.6%

Told no one else would want them: NHWA 999 12.0% to 18.5% NS

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: AIAN 542 5.6% to 27.1%

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: NHWA 1,010 13.7% to 20.9% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: AIAN 535 8.1% to 39.6%

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: NHWA 1,003 18.9% to 27.3% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: AIAN 529 28.5% to 63.6%

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: NHWA 1,000 34.7% to 44.2% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed: AIAN 515 5.6% to 31.4%

Threatened with being physically harmed: NHWA 992 12.0% to 18.9% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: AIAN 528 5.7% to 32.0%

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: NHWA 1,004 13.0% to 20.2% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: AIAN 523 0.4% to 14.9%

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: NHWA 1,003 2.9% to 6.9% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: AIAN 526 ‐2.5% to 20.2%

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: NHWA 1,000 3.8% to 7.9% NS

Had loved ones who were hurt: AIAN 524 0.5% to 10.2%

Had loved ones who were hurt: NHWA 1,001 6.2% to 11.5% NS

Threatened with having children taken away: AIAN 418 4.7% to 24.6%

Threatened with having children taken away: NHWA 725 11.3% to 20.4% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: AIAN 522 7.7% to 35.6%

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: NHWA 1,002 8.3% to 14.0% NS

Kept from having their own money to use: AIAN 521 0.9% to 24.3%

Kept from having their own money to use: NHWA 1,004 6.1% to 10.8% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed: AIAN 518 3.7% to 20.3%

Had something that was important to them destroyed: NHWA 992 10.8% to 19.1% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": AIAN 518 4.6% to 35.2%

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": NHWA 993 4.7% to 10.1% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: AIAN 518 0.0% to 7.8%

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: NHWA 997 1.5% to 5.6% NS

Forced to not use a condom: AIAN 517 0.1% to 30.6%

Forced to not use a condom: NHWA 994 5.3% to 10.7% NS

95% CI

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    383

Table 26.87.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of  

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced by Male Victims (Table 26.45)

Percent of past year male victims who experienced each form of  

psychological aggression by intimate partners

Past Year Psychological Aggression by Intimate Partners Experienced

by Male Victims N

Odds

Ratio

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: AIAN 376 ‐1.6% to 17.0%

Experienced very angry actions that seemed dangerous: NHWA 1,083 12.5% to 19.3% NS

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: AIAN 372 6.3% to 41.2%

Told they were a loser, a failure or not good enough: NHWA 1,072 16.5% to 24.0% NS

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: AIAN 371 9.6% to 39.2%

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid: NHWA 1,062 23.7% to 31.7% NS

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: AIAN 375 4.3% to 31.7%

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of: NHWA 1,072 16.1% to 23.4% NS

Told no one else would want them: AIAN 376 ‐1.1% to 18.0%

Told no one else would want them: NHWA 1,081 5.1% to 9.1% NS

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: AIAN 377 9.4% to 37.0%

Kept from seeing or talking to family or friends: NHWA 1,084 10.3% to 16.0% NS

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: AIAN 372 18.7% to 52.2%

Had decisions made that should have been theirs to make: NHWA 1,071 29.3% to 37.5% NS

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: AIAN 369 39.3% to 73.9%

Was tracked by being asked about locations and actions: NHWA 1,065 39.9% to 48.7% NS

Threatened with being physically harmed: AIAN 369 1.9% to 28.3%

Threatened with being physically harmed: NHWA 1,057 6.0% to 11.3% NS

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: AIAN 372 ‐1.3% to 11.7%

Threatened with others hurting themselves when upset: NHWA 1,072 6.7% to 11.5% NS

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: AIAN 375 0.0% to 1.2%

Threatened with having pets hurt or taken away: NHWA 1,075 1.1% to 3.6% NS

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: AIAN 373 0.0% to 0.2%

Threatened with having loved ones hurt: NHWA 1,074 1.3% to 4.2% 0.04

Had loved ones who were hurt: AIAN 371 ‐0.7% to 4.7%

Had loved ones who were hurt: NHWA 1,071 2.9% to 6.1% NS

Threatened with having children taken away: AIAN 257 ‐2.0% to 10.9%

Threatened with having children taken away: NHWA 743 8.2% to 15.4% NS

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: AIAN 372 3.1% to 21.7%

Kept from leaving the house when they wanted to go: NHWA 1,073 7.6% to 13.0% NS

Kept from having their own money to use: AIAN 372 1.5% to 20.4%

Kept from having their own money to use: NHWA 1,074 6.0% to 10.5% NS

Had something that was important to them destroyed: AIAN 369 ‐1.0% to 7.5%

Had something that was important to them destroyed: NHWA 1,066 6.3% to 11.7% NS

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": AIAN 369 1.5% to 22.2%

Told things like "if I can't have you then no one can": NHWA 1,064 3.6% to 7.8% NS

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: AIAN 366 ‐1.5% to 25.4%

Forced to get pregnant or to stop using birth control: NHWA 1,056 2.8% to 7.2% NS

Forced to not use a condom: AIAN 364 8.2% to 41.4%

Forced to not use a condom: NHWA 1,059 1.1% to 3.8% 13.20

95% CI

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    384

Table 26.88.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Psychological

Aggression by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners Against Female Victims  

(Tables 26.46 & 26.47)

Percent of female victims who experienced physical violence  

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial intimate partner

   

N N

1,136 83.0% to 99.2% 3,289 19.3% to 23.7% 37.48

Expressive Aggression 954 81.7% to 100.1% 2,819 18.3% to 23.1% 38.23

Coercive Control 1,006 73.3% to 96.9% 2,757 16.8% to 21.3% 24.25

Control of Sexual Health 243 95.3% to 100.8% 466 20.7% to 32.7% 135.88

1,149 13.1% to 37.5% 3,416 91.1% to 94.0% 0.03

Expressive Aggression 959 12.2% to 39.2% 2,884 90.1% to 93.5% 0.03

Coercive Control 1,013 9.8% to 34.5% 2,820 88.9% to 92.4% 0.03

Control of Sexual Health 241 ‐2.6% to 37.0% 471 75.7% to 86.6% 0.05

419 86.6% to 99.1% 844 14.4% to 22.8% 56.76

Expressive Aggression 288 83.5% to 99.1% 610 11.6% to 20.6% 54.78

Coercive Control 347 84.7% to 99.8% 605 14.6% to 24.9% 48.47

Control of Sexual Health 55 97.2% to 100.9% 48 13.1% to 48.8% 230.40

418 3.6% to 26.9% 874 83.3% to 90.4% 0.03

Expressive Aggression 282 1.9% to 21.6% 621 83.0% to 90.9% 0.02

Coercive Control 350 1.1% to 24.8% 615 80.0% to 89.2% 0.03

Control of Sexual Health 55 ‐0.8% to 2.8% 48 62.1% to 90.9% 0.00

Past Year Interracial

Past Year Intra‐Racial

Lifetime Interracial

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Psychological Aggression by Intimate

Partners Against Female Victims

Lifetime Intra‐Racial

Note: Samples are restricted to 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.
    385

Table 26.89.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Psychological

Aggression by Interracial and Intra‐Racial Intimate Partners Against Male Victims  

(Tables 26.46 & 26.48)

Percent of male victims who experienced physical violence  

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial intimate partner

   

N N

684 82.5% to 94.1% 2,619 20.2% to 25.0% 25.92

Expressive Aggression 432 86.8% to 97.0% 1,787 18.1% to 23.8% 42.67

Coercive Control 621 81.0% to 93.6% 2,248 17.4% to 22.4% 27.70

Control of Sexual Health 174 71.9% to 98.9% 490 11.6% to 20.1% 31.09

692 18.0% to 37.7% 2,731 90.4% to 93.5% 0.03

Expressive Aggression 442 9.8% to 31.4% 1,828 87.5% to 92.1% 0.03

Coercive Control 618 15.8% to 35.0% 2,306 89.2% to 92.7% 0.03

Control of Sexual Health 175 8.0% to 42.6% 499 86.2% to 93.1% 0.04

303 64.1% to 92.4% 922 13.6% to 20.5% 17.49

Expressive Aggression 146 78.8% to 98.9% 472 13.2% to 23.9% 35.00

Coercive Control 271 58.0% to 90.7% 778 10.6% to 16.5% 18.59

Control of Sexual Health 37 50.6% to 110.8% 52 19.0% to 52.2% NS

312 22.6% to 61.2% 958 83.7% to 90.0% 0.11

Expressive Aggression 150 0.2% to 49.4% 478 78.8% to 89.1% 0.06

Coercive Control 270 18.7% to 58.9% 790 86.2% to 91.6% 0.08

Control of Sexual Health 38 ‐8.9% to 51.9% 53 56.5% to 86.5% 0.11

Past Year Interracial

Past Year Intra‐Racial

Lifetime Interracial

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Psychological Aggression by Intimate

Partners Against Male Victims

Lifetime Intra‐Racial

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    386

Table 26.90.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Violence  

(Tables 26.49 and 26.50)  

Percent of women and men who experienced violence in their lifetime and in the past year

N N

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Women 2,273 76.9% to 91.8% 7,229 69.4% to 72.6% 2.20

Psychological Aggression 2,412 57.6% to 75.2% 7,536 50.3% to 53.6% 1.83

Physical Violence 2,386 46.5% to 64.5% 7,524 32.9% to 36.2% 2.37

Stalking 2,205 39.2% to 58.5% 7,040 25.3% to 28.3% 2.60

Sexual Violence 2,138 46.4% to 65.8% 7,072 48.0% to 51.4% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Women 1,990 29.7% to 49.8% 6,480 21.6% to 24.9% 2.18

Psychological Aggression 2,335 17.6% to 33.4% 7,366 14.7% to 17.4% 1.79

Physical Violence 2,347 3.2% to 13.9% 7,462 3.2% to 5.0% NS

Stalking 2,154 6.6% to 16.5% 6,918 6.1% to 7.9% NS

Sexual Violence 2,019 6.2% to 22.6% 6,739 4.5% to 6.4% NS

Lifetime Estimate ‐ Men 1,362 75.1% to 88.1% 5,646 62.1% to 65.9% 2.50

Psychological Aggression 1,452 65.6% to 80.3% 5,921 50.8% to 54.7% 2.42

Physical Violence 1,450 34.7% to 51.7% 5,906 28.7% to 32.3% 1.73

Stalking 1,297 11.9% to 25.3% 5,416 11.9% to 14.9% NS

Sexual Violence 1,299 19.6% to 35.4% 5,625 19.3% to 22.6% NS

Past Year Estimate ‐ Men 1,220 25.6% to 43.7% 5,169 23.8% to 27.5% NS

Psychological Aggression 1,406 19.4% to 35.1% 5,765 17.8% to 20.9% NS

Physical Violence 1,429 1.2% to 10.0% 5,875 3.6% to 5.3% NS

Stalking 1,282 1.3% to 6.3% 5,361 2.9% to 4.5% NS

Sexual Violence 1,258 3.7% to 16.0% 5,526 3.0% to 4.6% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI 95% CI

Violence

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

Note: NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    387

Table 26.91.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Weighted Estimates of Violence by

Interracial and Intra‐Racial Perpetrators (Tables 26.51 & 26.52)

Percent of victims who experienced violence

by at least one interracial / intra‐racial perpetrator

   

N N

Lifetime interracial violence 1,247 94.1% to 99.4% 3,776 33.0% to 37.6% 54.94

Lifetime intra‐racial violence 1,305 23.2% to 47.8% 4,488 94.3% to 96.3% 0.03

Past year interracial violence 486 90.7% to 99.7% 989 22.3% to 31.1% 54.19

Past year intra‐racial violence 515 8.1% to 37.7% 1,133 86.6% to 91.8% 0.04

Lifetime interracial violence 716 85.2% to 95.6% 2,822 27.4% to 32.5% 22.08

Lifetime intra‐racial violence 744 22.3% to 43.2% 3,193 93.0% to 95.5% 0.03

Past year interracial violence 323 69.9% to 95.2% 974 15.8% to 22.9% 19.76

Past year intra‐racial violence 341 25.5% to 66.4% 1,101 86.0% to 91.5% 0.11

Female Victims

Male Victims

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Victims of Violence

Note: Samples are restricted to victims.

Table 26.92.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Impact of Physical Violence,  

Stalking, and Sexual Violence on Female Victims (Table 26.53)

Percent of female victims who reported an impact

N N

Concerned for safety 1,194 55.8% to 77.2% 4,087 57.4% to 61.8% NS

Physically injured 1,182 30.2% to 52.4% 4,078 25.4% to 29.4% 1.87

Talked to someone 1,183 88.4% to 96.9% 4,077 88.5% to 91.2% NS

Needed services 1,166 37.5% to 60.6% 4,053 25.6% to 29.7% 2.52

Missed work/school 1,168 29.1% to 52.0% 4,041 19.6% to 23.5% 2.48

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Impact on Female Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

   

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.
    388

Table 26.93.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Impact of Physical Violence,  

Stalking, and Sexual Violence on Male Victims (Table 26.54)  

Percent of male victims who reported an impact

N N

Concerned for safety 585 15.0% to 37.0% 2,255 20.5% to 25.9% NS

Physically injured 584 9.7% to 30.8% 2,247 8.7% to 12.4% NS

Talked to someone 583 64.6% to 84.0% 2,241 65.9% to 72.0% NS

Needed services 580 9.8% to 30.0% 2,237 13.3% to 17.4% NS

Missed work/school 584 1.8% to 17.5% 2,240 10.2% to 14.1% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Impact on Male Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.94.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Services Needed by Female Victims  

of Physical Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence (Table 26.55)  

Percent of female victims who reported needing services

N N

Needed medical care 1,173 26.1% to 50.0% 4,064 14.9% to 18.3% 3.08

Needed housing services 1,169 4.2% to 18.3% 4,061 3.3% to 5.1% NS

Needed community services 1,166 1.4% to 7.2% 4,058 3.7% to 5.5% NS

Needed advocacy services 1,170 3.9% to 13.7% 4,061 4.8% to 7.1% NS

Needed legal services 1,171 8.1% to 23.4% 4,061 14.8% to 17.9% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Services Needed by Female

Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

Table 26.95.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Services Needed by Male Victims  

of Physical Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence (Table 26.56)  

Percent of male victims who reported needing services

N N

Needed medical care 581 3.4% to 15.2% 2,242 3.7% to 6.5% NS

Needed housing services 582 ‐0.3% to 1.7% 2,244 0.6% to 2.0% NS

Needed community services 584 0.0% to 0.1% 2,244 0.6% to 2.1% 0.02

Needed advocacy services 584 ‐1.7% to 7.7% 2,241 0.4% to 1.6% NS

Needed legal services 582 1.0% to 17.0% 2,242 9.3% to 12.8% NS

Odds

Ratio

95% CI

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Services Needed by Male

Victims

Note: Samples are restricted to victims; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups are not significantly

different (p > 0.05).

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.
389

Table 26.96.  95% Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios for Percent of Victims  

Unable to Get Needed Services (Table 26.57)  

Percent of victims with service needs who reported being unable to get services

N N

Female 468 20.1% to 56.2% 1,157 12.2% to 18.6% 3.39

Male 90 ‐5.9% to 39.6% 374 9.0% to 18.5% NS

Odds

95% CI Ratio

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non‐Hispanic White Alone

95% CI

Gender of Victims

who Needed

Services

Note: Samples are restricted to victims who needed services; NS, percentages across racial and ethnic groups

are not significantly different (p > 0.05).

N. FINAL ANALYSIS FILES

The two key data files created for this Chapter (“FINAL RLEVEL DATA.SAV” and “FINAL RLEVEL

FOLLOWUP.SAV”) were combined to create a single data file (“FINAL RLEVEL ANALYSIS.SAV”).  This

single data file includes 21,378 observations and 244 variables.  Missing data are not defined (all are

system missing).  The single data file is included in the “FINAL ANALYSIS\FINAL DATA” folder:

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.