Funded by the VA HSR&D (Project# SDR 10-012)

Spotlight on Women Cyberseminar Series
Complex Dynamics of Intim

Partner Violence in the Lives 

Veterans

CyberSeminar

November 17, 2011

April A. Gerlock Gerlock PhD, ARNP

VA Puget Sound Health Care System

HSR&D NW Center of Excellence

Seattle, WA

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
How do you describe your pr

work focus?

• I primarily provide direct patient care.

• I provide education to health care

professionals/others.

• I conduct conduct or am involved involved in research. research.

• I am involved in Veterans’ Treatment Courts• I am a vi ti c m ad t voca e.

• I provide batterer’s intervention.

• Other– (may include administrative work, o

work, political activist, etc.)

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
How would you rate your know

about intimate partner violen

• Very little – new topic for me.• I know that IPV stands for intimate pa

violence.

• I am aware of literature and research 

s bje t subject.

• I work with either victims or perpetrat

IPV.

• I consider consider myself an expert on this sub

sub

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Over‐view of today s today’s presen

presen

• Background studies of intimate partner vio

perpetration and the relationship to combaexposure and PTSD sy p m toms.

• Background studies of intimate partner vio

victimization victimization and health impact on lives of w

service members and veterans.

• Findings Findings from the Relationship Relationship and PTSD St

04‐040) & IPV perpetration and victimizatio

• I li ti Implications for research & practice.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background: IPV perpetration, c

& PTSD symptoms

• War zone deployment & IPV:

– Severe aggression significantly greater for soldiers deplo

past year. The longer the d l ep oyment, the more lk l i e y th

spousal aggression (deployment during time‐frame of 19

random sample, n = 26,835, married only). (McCarroll et 

‐ Bosnia Study: deployment not a predicto

▫ Recommend interventions target those with pre‐depl

violence not just deployed soldiers. (MacCarroll et al.

– Army Study: deployment not a predictor of IPV.

• Pre‐post dl t ep oyment, 1998; 1999‐2000. Young age, y

and pre‐deployment IPV related to post‐deployment JH et al. 2005)[3].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background: IPV perpetrat

combat & PTSD symptom

• Combat & PTSD:

– “Viet Nam returnees” reported more conflicts i

relationships (more expressed aggression and s

ideation) than non‐combat group...42 Marines, 

(Strange & Brown, 1970) [4].

– Increased aggression in war veterans more like

PTSD than combat (Lasko, et al., 1994)[5] 1994)[5].

– 21% of IPV nation‐wide is indirectly attributed t

(mediated (mediated by the development development of PTSD) (Priger

(Priger

2002)[6].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background: IPV perpetrat

combat & PTSD symptom

• Combat exposure indirectly associated with

aggression, through relationship to PTSD sy

(Taft, et al., 2007) [7].

• Veterans with PTSD have consistently been 

have a higher incidence of IPV perpetration 

veterans without PTSD (Kulka et al., 1988; J

al., 1992; Orcutt, et al., 2003; Taft, et al., 20

11].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background: IPV perpetrat

combat & PTSD symptom

• OIF/OEF and IPV:

– Close to half (53%) endorsed at least one act of 

aggression (VA study) (Jakupcak, et al., 2007)[1

– 75% family readjustment problems, with 60% o

reporting mild‐to‐moderate IPV within the prev

months (VA study) (Sayers, et al., 2009) ]13].

– C d ompared to OIF/OEF OIF/OEF vets wi ht out PTSD and V

with PTSD, 1.9 – 3.1 more likely to perpetrate a

toward their female partners partners (VA subjects) subjects) (Tet

2010)[14].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background IPV victimization, P

health impact

• Health and mental health impact of IP

victimization:

– Well documented severe and chronic he

problems problems to include include traumatic traumatic brain inju

(TBI)(see review by Campbell, 2002)[15], 

health problems problems like depression, depression, PTSD, a

a

disorders, & substance abuse (Coker, et a

2002)[16].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background IPV victimization

& health impact

• Women active duty military and milita

veterans:

– Pattern & severity of mutual and non‐mutual sp

abuse, US Army– Active duty female highest ris

becoming a victim; more women victims with g

severity of abuse (McCarroll, et al., 2004)[17].

– Risk factors for victims included serious violenc

stalking & assaults –incidents precipitated by “r

problems problems, jealously jealously, & infidelity infidelity (McCarroll (McCarroll, et a

2008)[18].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background IPV victimization, P

health impact

• Women active duty military military and military military v

v

– Women veterans reported nearly half (48%) ex

vio e ce l n du g rin milita yr se ce rvi inc ud g l in assau

had chronic health problems & PTSD...a large n

women who reported no violence in the militar

post‐military rape, physical abuse, & domestic v

study) (Sadler, A, et al., 2000) [19].

– Women veterans wi ht “f ” requent” breast pain m

to have a trauma history to include DV victimiza

diagnosis diagnosis of PTSD, depression depression, panic, alcohol alcohol m

other medical problems (VA study) (Johnson, et 

[20].

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Background IPV victimization

& health impact

• Are women as intimately violent as men? P

with measurement:

– Women slightly more likely to use one or more 

physical aggression, and use it more frequently 

b t u also more lik l e y to be ij d n ure (A h rc er, 2000

• See J. White, et al. (2000) for discussion on t

problems problems with this metal‐analysis analysis [22].

– Male OIF/OEF veterans 1.6 to 6 times more like

experiencing experiencing aggression aggression from their female part

part

et al., 2010)[14]. Is this mutual violence?

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Conducting IPV Research

The Importance of Contex

Contex

Looking Looking at the context context of the

violence means going deeper

than just the incident – to thehistory

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Three Contexts

y Violence in exercise of coercive control (batteri

y Patterned set of behaviors.y Coercion and intimidation distinguish it fro

b tt i battering.

y Entrapment essential goal.

y Vi l t i t Violent resistance

y Part of a broader strategy to stop or contain 

including violence directed at the abuser.

y Non-battering use of violence

y NOT part of an attempt to establish an ongo

position of dominance in a relationship or in to being battered (common couple, situation

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Relationships and PTSD Study: Dete

Intimate Partner Violence (NRI‐04‐0

Research Study Team:Principle Investigator: April Gerlock PhD, ARNPProject Director Project Director: Jackie Grimesey PhD; : Jackie Grimesey, PhD;

Study Team: Ofer Harel, PhD; Alisa Pisciotta, MSW; Lynne Berthiaume, MN; Elaine Nevins, BA; Christina Cho, BA; 

Koriann Brousseau, BA; George Sayre, PsyDThis material is based upon work supported by the US DepartmenThis material is based upon work supported by the US Departmen

Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Nursing Research Iresearch does not reflect VA policy. Opinions expressed do not nethose of the VA. 

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Goals of the Study

Phase II

Th l l f th 

There were several goals for three separafoci. (for results from phase 1 go to: www ajnonline com www.ajnonline.com Nov 2011) Nov. 2011)

Phase II:

– Describe the study sample in respect to sub

Describe the study sample in respect to subexposure to IPV as children, PTSD severityseverity, relationship mutuality/partnershid hi i bl demographic variables.

– Discriminate between the IPV YES and NO 

– Determine which variables reliably predict 

detection by treatment providers of psychop yh sical abuse. 

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
IPV Defined

F f thi t d IPV d 

For purposes of this study IPV was das: The use of physical and/or sexuaviolence or credible threat at any timviolence, or credible threat at any timduring the current or past relationshia current ( p y )p within the past year) pattepsychologically abusive and coercive behavior.

IPV was NOT a standl h l 

d alone physical ass

occurred as part of a PTSD symptom.

IPV was NOT general psychological abu

behavior UNLESS there was also a physand/or sexual assault (or credible threa

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
IPV Defined

If either the Veteran or Partner ide

these behaviors (g 

during the RBI an

during the ABI); the primary perpewas determined and then coded awas determined, and then coded aYES.”

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample

R d l i f l V Random selection of male Veteran

actively in treatment in PTSD progVAP S d lhC S 

A Puget Sound Health Care Syste

the Tacoma Vet Center. 

o Selected from ≈ 5600 male veterans in 

treatment.

o Veteran either married or in a commi

intimate relationship for at least one y

o Veteran’s partner also willing to part

the study.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample

Coup py les were interviewed separatelyFocus on Veteran’s level of relationsh

mutuality war zone deployments sumutuality, war zone deployments, suuse, early life, PTSD, and IPV perpetr

Both Veteran and Partner:

Completed a semi-structured Relationsh

Behavior Interview (RBI).

Rated the Veteran’s IPV severity( ) ABI .

Rated their own and their Partner’s leve

mutuality( ) MPDQ .

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample

 Male Veterans only:

o Completed the Clinician Administere

Scale (CAPS).

o Completed a modified scale (CTS) th

measured their exposure to relationshconflict and IPV when they were chil

o Completed an alcohol use scale (ADU

drug use scale (DAST) drug use scale (DAST).

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample

 Sample si e 441 couples Sample size: 441 couples

• Yes IPV 190 (44%) No IPV 251 (

o Within IPV NO group: 3 women primar

aggressors; 

o Within IPV YES group: 2 mutual violen

 Male Veteran’s age range (mean a

• 22 y o 22 y.o. - 88 y o 88 y.o.

 Partner’s age range (mean age 52)

• 20 y o 20 y.o. – 85 y o. .

 Served in war zone:

• 423 (96%) Yes 17 (4%) No

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample:

Marital/Partnered statu

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
The Sample

300

first deployment

ency260Frequ200

100

64

first deployment

WWII Korea Persian Gulf other OEF/OIF Vietn

0 4 20 35 41

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
IPV Perpetration Across t

Lifespan

Veteran’s and Partner’s Reports

n = 441 couples (882 total samp

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
V t e eran currently vil t o en in i t

n 

relationship?

Veteran Report Partner Re

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Veteran previously previously violent violent in t

relationship?

Veteran Report Partner Report

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Veteran physically physically violent violent in 

relationship?

Veteran Report Partner Re

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Partner Partner s Use of Physical Fo

’s Use of Physical Fo

(Discussion)

Women’s use of physical force is significantly related to 

current current* and past* physical physical violence violence (or credible credible thr

thr

relationship.

* [r=.465, p = .000]

*[r=.500, p = .000]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Partner Partner s’ use of physical physical fo

Veteran report Partner rep

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
IPV YES Group

B h h Both the V t d P t d Veteran and Partner agreed 

there was abuse based on the Veteranrati f hi b (ABI) d th P t 

ting of his abuse (ABI) and the Part

rating of his abuse (ABI):

o [ 190 h 173 017) [n = 190, rho = .173, p = .017)

However, the Partner rated the psych

and h i l b d physical abuse as much worse th Veteran’s report (matched pairs):

o Psychological: [n = 190, t = -4.143, p = .0o Physical: [n = 190, t = -4.324, p = .000] 

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
IPV No Group

B th th Both the V t d P t d Veteran and Partner agreed 

there was abuse based on the Veteranrating of his abuse (ABI) and the Partrating of his abuse (ABI) and the Partrating of his abuse (ABI):

o [ 5 , o .333, p .000] n = 251, rho = .333, p = .000]

However, they did not differ on their 

of current p yh sical violence in a matc

pair analysis, but did differ in their re

psychological abuse. Partner’s rated 

psych l i l b hi h hological abuse as higher:

o [n = 251, t = -2.278, p = .024]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
PTSD Severity Severity and IPV Perpet

Perpet

• Veteran’s and Partner’s Reports• n = 441 couples (882 total sample)

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
PTSD Severity and IPV Perpetr

(Whole Sample)

There is a significant relationship b

b th th V t ’ lf ti f hi both the Veteran’s self rating of his (CAPS) and abuse (ABI) 

o [n = 441 Veterans, rho = .168, p = .000

And his self rating of PTSD severi

And, his self rating of PTSD severi

(CAPS) and his Partner’s rating of ab (ABI) buse (ABI):

o [n = 441 couples, rho = .102, p = .031]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
PTSD Severity Severity and IPV Perpet

Perpet

IPV YES Group

The Partners The Partners ratings of the Vetera

’ ratings of the Vetera

abuse is significantly related to the Veteran Veteran s self rating of his PTSD se

’s self rating of his PTSD se

o [n = 190 couples, rho = .177, p = .015

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
PTSD Severity Severity and IPV Perpet

Perpet

IPV No Group

Veterans report a significant relatio

between their abuse and their PTSD severity but Partners do not severity, but Partners do not.

o [n = 190 coupes, rho = .175, p = .005]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Deployments

& IPV Seve

Seve

60

quency

5040

Fre

302010

IPV severity timeline

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

Mean =

Std. Dev. 

N =

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Substance Use and IPV Perpet

• Veteran’s Reports• n = 441

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Substance Use and IPV Severi

Severi

Veteran’s Reports of Drug Us

Veterans report a significant relation

between severity of current drug u

current physical assaults:

o Current drug use and current physical a

[rho = -.134, p = .005]

o The number of times weekly using drug

current physical assaults: [rho = -.141, p 

o The number of different types of drugs 

and current physical assaults: [rho = -.12.009]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Substance Use and IPV Severi

Veteran’s Reports of Drug Us

Veterans report a significant relatio

between severity of past drug use past p yh sical assaults:

o Frequency of drug use weekly in the 

py p p [ hysical assaults on past partner: [rhp = .002]

o Number of typ g 

es of drugs used in the 

and physical assaults on past partner.157, p = .001]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Substance Use and IPV Sev

Sev

Veteran’s Reports of Alcohol 

Sig p

nificant relationship between bi

drinking and current physical (or cthreat) assault: [rho = 161 p = 001threat) assault: [rho = .161, p = .001

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
RELATIONSHIP

MUTUALITY/PARTNERSHIP AIPV PERPETRATION

Veteran’s and Partner’s Reportsn = 441 couples (882 ttl o a sampl ) e

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Relationship Mutuality & Partn

Partn

Bi-directional communication, respesupp g ortin each other’s decisions angoals, enjoying each other.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Deployments and Relations

Breakup

Histogram

80

quency

6040

Fre

20

deploy separation TL1 mos

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

M

Std

py p

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Relationship Mutuality

According to the Partners the Vete

According to the Partners, the Vete

more likely to talk about war zone experiences when there is a higher mutuality in the relationship:

o Relationship between the Partner’s ra

the Veteran’s mutuality( ) MPDQ , and 

reporting that they have talked about zone: (rho = -.144, p = .002)

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Relationship Mutuality and 

Perpetration

V t d t th t l 

Veterans and partners agree that lowis related to higher relationship mutu

o According to Partners, there is less abus

when the Veteran’s relationship mutualhigher (MPDQ): [rho = -.452, p = .000];

o According to Partners and Veterans, Pa

report higher Veteran relationship mutu

(MPDQ) when Veterans report lower leabuse (ABI): [rho = -.190, p = .000];

o According to Veterans, theyp g re ort high

relationship mutuality is related to loweabuse: [rho = -.352, p = .000]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Relationship Mutuality

Irrespective of IPV YES/NO status

Veterans and Partners rated their o

mutuality higher than the other’s.

The only variable significantly rela

talking about the war zone was the of li i h l i hi ( f mutuality in the relationship (norelated to PTSD severity 

 or level of 

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Does the model discrimin

Does the model discrimin

based on the research variabbased on the research variab

• Discriminant Function analysis:

– Comparisons: (CTSParent, CAPS total severi

MPDQSM, Audit, DAST, Age for men, PTSD 

treatment month D l h) hs, 

Dep

loyment mont

h

s

)

– IPV Yes = 185; IPV No = 241 N = 426 [15 ca

dropped]

• Function Coefficients: 

– (MPDQSM) IPV Y 7 870 IPV N 8 28

(MPDQSM) IPV

Yes = 

7.870; IPV

No = 

8.28

• Wilks' Lambda = .962; Chi-square = 16.425, df = 

.037
TIME IN PTSD TREATMENT AN

IPV SEVERITY

Veteran’s and Partner’s Reportsn = 441 couples (882 total sample)

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
More time in PTSD tt 

rea me

positively related related to lower ph

ph

abuse:

• Agree• Disagree

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Months in PTSD Treatment

x A

Men

x IPV Severity

N t i ifi t N

ot 

sig

nifican

t:

o Months in PTSD treatment is not signifi

related to the Veteran related to the Veteran s reports of their ’s reports of their psychological abuse: [t = 1.725, p = .085]

o The Veteran’s re

p py g ort of their 

p

s

ycholo

gi

is not related to their age: [t = -1.043, p = 

Significant relationship between mon

PTSD t t t d h i l b PTSD trea

tment and 

phy

s

ical 

a

buse:

o More time in treatment is positively rela

higher levels of physical abuse (per Vetereport): [t = 2.167, p = .031]

o This is not a factor of a

ge: [t = -.706, 

p = 

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
Months in PTSD Treatment x A

Men x IPV Severity

According to the Veteran According to the Veteran s report of 

’s report of 

over-all abusiveness (both psycholoand physical) the longer time in PTand physical), the longer time in PTtreatment (months) is positively relahi h g er over-all b i (ABI 

ll abusiveness (ABI me

total score) p : [t = 1.944, p = .05]

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
What variables are related 

provider awareness of IPV i

rel ti hi ? lationship?

• Logistic Logistic regression regression (provider (provider awaren

awaren

physical violence):

– Wald = 14.424, df = 1, p = .000, Exp(B)

• PTSDtrmtm11 (months in treatment): Scor

df = 1, p = .004
Take Home Points

R h IPV h ld i l d d t f 

Research on IPV should include data froparties and CONTEXT of the violence sconsidered.

Veterans report that IPV severity is wor

the first few y p

ears after a war zone depl

However, according to both Veterans anPartners, the IPV behaviors may persist the Veteran the Veteran s lifespan ’s lifespan.

Standard PTSD treatment (which usuall

includes both anger management and cincludes both anger management and cwork) does not correlate with a reductioeither physical or psychological violenc

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
References:

1. McCarroll, J. E. et al. (2000). Deployment and the probability of spousal a

Army soldiers soldiers. Military Military Medicine Medicine, 165(1): 41‐44; & May, 2010, 175 (5): 352

2. MacCarroll, J. E., et al. (2003). Domestic Violence and Deployment in US A

J Nervous Mental Disease, 191(1): 3 ‐ 9.

3. Newby, JH (2005). Postdeployment Postdeployment domestic domestic violence violence by US Army soldier

soldier

Medicine, 170 (8): 643‐ 647.

4. Strange, RE & Brown, DE (1970). Home from the war: A study of psychiatr

Viet Nam returnees. Amer. J Psychiatr, 127 (4): 130‐134.

5. Lasko, N.B. et al. (1994). Aggression and its correlates in Vietnam veteran

without chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 

6. Prigerson, HG, et al. (2002). Population attributable fractions of psychiatr

behavioral outcomes associated with combat exposure among US men. A

92 (1):59‐63.

7. Taft, CT, et al. (2007). Aggression among combat veterans: Relationships w

exposure and symptoms of postt ti raumatic stress di d sor er, d hi ysp oria, and 

Traumatic Stress, 20 (2): 135 – 145.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
References

8. Orcutt, HK, et al., (2003). Male‐perpetrated violence among Vietnam vetera

Relationships with veteran’s early life characteristics, trauma history, and 

sy p gy m tomatology. J of Traumatic Stress, 16 ( ) 4 : 381 – 390.

9. Taft, CT, et al., (2005). Risk factors for partner violence among a national sam

veterans. J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73 (1): 151 – 159.

10. Jordan, et al. ( ) 1992 . Problems in families of male Vietnam veterans with p

stress disorder. J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (6): 916 – 926.

11. Kulka, R. et al. (1988). National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study: Co

of Findings from the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, Volu(Veterans Administration Contract No. V101( ) 93 P‐1040). Research Triangl

Research Triangle Institute.

12. Jakupcak, M., et al. (2007). Anger, hostility, and aggression among Iraq an

veterans veterans reporting reporting PTSD and subthreshold subthreshold PTSD. J of Traumatic Traumatic Stress, 20 

13. Sayers, SL, et al. (2009). Family problems among recently returned militar

referred for a mental health evaluation. J Clin Psychiatry, 70 (2): 163‐170.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
References

14. Teten, AL, et al. (2010). Intimate partner aggression perpetrated and sustain

Afg , hanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam veterans with and without posttraumatic str

Interpersonal Violence, 25 (9): 1612 – 1630.

15. Campbell, J. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The 

1331‐ 1336; & Campbell, J. et al., (2002). Intimate partner violence and phy

consequences. Arch Intern Med, 162 (10): 1157 – 1163.

16. Coker, AL, et al., (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partn

men and women. Am J Prev Medicine, 23(4): 260 – 268.

17. M C ll c arroll, et al. (2004). Patterns of mutual and nonmutual spouse abuse in 

Violence and Victims, 19 (4): 453‐468.

18. McCarroll, et al. (2008). Characteristics of domestic violence incidents repo

by volunteer volunteer victim advocates advocates. Military Military Medicine Medicine, 173 (9): 865 – 870.

19. Sadler, AG, et al. (2000). Health‐related consequences of physical and sexua

Women in the military. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 96 (3): 473 – 480.

20. Johnson, Johnson, KM, et al. (2006). (2006). Frequency Frequency of mastalgia mastalgia among women veterans

veterans

psychiatric conditions and unexplained pain syndromes. J of Gen Internl Me

575.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011 
References

21. A h rc er, J. (2000) Sex differences in aggression between h l eterosexual partne

analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5): 651 – 680.

22. White, JW, et al. (2000) Intimate partner aggression ‐‐‐what have we learne

Archer (2000). Psychological Psychological Bulletin Bulletin, 126 (5): 690 – 696.

Cyber Seminar Gerlock Nov 17 2011