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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Testing a Model of Domestic Abuse Against 

Elder Women and Perceived Barriers to HelpSeeking: Comparing Victim and Non-Victim 

Responses 

Author: Frederick L. Newman, Ph.D., Laura Seff, M.B.A., 

Richard Beaulaurier, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 231095 

Date Received: June 2010 

Award Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 

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

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

traditional paper copies. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Final Technical Report for 

Testing a Model of Domestic Abuse Against Elder Women and 

Perceived Barriers to Help-Seeking: 

Comparing Victim and Non-Victim Responses 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008
	

Principle Investigator:		 Frederick L Newman, Ph.D., Professor 

Health Policy & Management 

Co-Investigator:		 Laura Seff, M.B.A. Research Associate 

Project Director 

Co-Investigator:		 Richard Beaulaurier, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor School of Social Work 

Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work 

Florida International University 

11200 SW 8th Street, HLS 561 

Miami, FL 33199 

The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the 

position of the National Institute of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

 INDEX/CONTENTS
 

Section I Introduction 

Page 

5 

A 

B 

Purpose, Goals, and Objectives 

Review of Publications from DVAOW Research 

5 

8 

C 

Section II 

Key Findings 

Methods 

9 

11 

A 

1 

Participants

Victims and non-victims 

1

11

 2 

3 

4 

Race and ethnicity 

Relationships of the participant and a close other 

Gender of the close other 

11

11

12

B 

5 

1 

2 

Participant age 

Data Collection and Data Entry 

Subject recruitment 

Questionnaire 

12 

15

15

15

 a 

b 

c 

Pilot testing 

Final questionnaire 

Translation 

15

16

17

 3 Data collection environment 17

 4 

5 

6 

C 

D 

E 

Section III 

Protection of human subjects 

Data entry and data cleaning 

Frequency of response tables 

Preliminary Analyses to Develop a Working Model 

Follow-up Victim Interviews 

Community Participation 

Results 

18

18

18 

19 

19 

20 

21 

A 

1 

2 

B 

1 

2 

C 

1 

2 

D 

1 

2 

Specific Aim 1 

Description of the six-factor model (PBHS.v2) 

Mean perceived barrier score 

Specific Aim 2 

Severity of abuse and the PBHS.v2 factors 

Action taken and severity of abuse 

Specific Aim 3 

Goodness of fit for three race-ethnicity subgroups 

Race-ethnicity and severity of abuse 

Specific Aim 4 

Relationship of close other 

Gender of close other 

21

23

24 

28

30

34 

36

37

38 

38

38

40

E 

3 

1 

2 

Age of participant 

Specific Aim 5 

Increase knowledge about domestic abuse in later life 

Gain commitment 

41 

44

44

44

 a Survey 45 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Page

 b Relevance of models 47

 c Vision statements 47

 3 Connect research findings to practice 48

 4 Outline coordinated community response planning 48

 5 Development of draft plan and solicitation of feedback 49

 6 Feedback 52 

Section IV Discussion 53 

A Prevalence and Incidence 53 

B Severe Abuse Victims 54 

C Reported Help-Seeking Activities 55 

D The PBHS.v2 Model 55 

E The Six PHS Factors 56

 1 Self blame 56

 2 Secrecy 57

 3 Abuser behaviors 58

 4 Emotional gridlock 58

 5 Informal external responses 59

 6 Formal system responses 60 

F Major Variables of Interest 60

 1 Race and ethnicity 60

 2 Relationship to close other 61

 3 Gender of close other 61

 4 Participant age 61 

G. Bringing Data to Community Stakeholders and Coordinated 62 

Community Response 

H Implications for Future Research 63 

I Limitations 64 

Section V References 66 

Attachment A BHS Assessment English Version 70 

Attachment B Draft CCR Plan and Feedback Request Form 84 

Attachment C Response Frequency Distributions and Distribution 102 

Characteristics 

Attachment D SEM Details by Subgroup 105 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of survey participants 13 

Table 2 Number of participants by level of abuse and major 14 

demographic subgroups 

Table 3 Factor items selected for SEM analyses with reliability 26 

coefficients & decisions made for the 445 participants in the 

final construction of the model 

Table 4 Regression coefficients for each barrier indicator or intervening 31 

variable 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Page
 

Table 4a Comparing differences in measurement weights & covariance 32
	

structures across levels for each major between-group variable 

Table 5 Factor bivariate correlation coefficients* for major intervening 33 

variables 

Table 6 Action taken by level of abuse 34
	

Table 7 Type of abuse by severity of abuse* 43
	

Table 8 Coordinated community response perspectives 46
	

Table 9 PBHS Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item 102
	

Table 10 CTS2S Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item 103
	

Table 11 Model Factors Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item 103
	

List of Figures 

Figure 1 PBHS.v2: Prediction of barrier scores for 445 participants 

Figure 2 CTS2S score and prediction of overall perceived barrier score 

Figure 3 Prediction of barrier scores for 215 respondents with no abuse 105
	

on CTS2S 

Figure 4 Prediction of barrier scores for 147 respondents with minor 106
	

abuse on CTS2S 

Figure 5 Prediction of barrier scores for 83 respondents with severe 107
	

abuse on CTS2S
 

Figure 6 Prediction of barrier scores for 150 White non-Hispanic 108
	

respondents 

Figure 7 Prediction of barrier scores for 145 Hispanic respondents 109
	

Figure 8 Prediction of barrier scores for 139 Black non-Hispanic 110
	

respondents 

Figure 9 Prediction of barrier scores for 186 respondents with 111
	

husband/partner close other
 

Figure 10 Prediction of barrier scores for 117 respondents with 112
	

child/grandchild close other 

Figure 11 Prediction of barrier scores for 104 respondents with other 113
	

relative/close friend close other 

Figure 12 Prediction of barrier scores for 154 respondents with female 114
	

close other 

Figure 13 Prediction of barrier scores for 267 respondents with male 115
	

close other 

Figure 14 Prediction of barrier scores for 156 respondents age 50 to 64 116
	

years 

Figure 15 Prediction of barrier scores for 168 respondents age 65 to 74 117 

years 

Figure 16 Prediction of barrier scores for 118 respondents age 75+ years 118
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 4
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

A. Purpose, Goals and Objectives 

“Why didn’t they ask for help...?” Practitioners and researchers who seek to 

improve prevention and intervention effectiveness for family violence victims across the 

life span are challenged to explain this enigma. Most research regarding barriers to 

help-seeking has focused on service delivery systems and how they attract/ 

accommodate or deter/repel victims’ help-seeking behavior. Research regarding 

perceived barriers to help-seeking from the perspective of a victim’s personal attitudes 

and beliefs is more difficult and has less often been undertaken. The research 

described in this report was designed to address this latter challenge in a population 

that has been largely overlooked by practitioners and researchers, i.e. women age 50 

and older who experience domestic abuse. 

Specifically, we sought to understand perceived barriers to help-seeking for female 

victims of domestic abuse age 50+ (by a spouse, partner, adult child, grandchild, other 

relative or close friend) relative to the perceived barriers for women in the same age 

group who are not victims of such abuse. Additionally, we wanted to explore the impact 

of key demographic variables of race and ethnicity, relationship to the presumed 

abuser, and age at the time of the survey on perceived barriers of victims. To address 

these research questions we tested an empirical model that described relevant factors 

regarding perceived barriers to help-seeking and explored if and how this model 

changed based on the identified variables. This report describes how the research was 

conducted, presents technical results of the analyses, and discusses possible 

implications for future research and practice in the field. 

Study participants represented a community sample of females age 50 and older 

interested in participating in research regarding conflict in close personal relationships 

experienced by women in this target age range. The 50 and older age threshold was 

applied because earlier research had documented that victims in this age range often 

were not well served by either the domestic violence or elder abuse service systems 

(Dunlop et al., 2000) and is consistent with other research on this topic (e.g., Leisey, 

Kuptas & Cooper, 2009; Paranjape, Rodriguez & Gaughan, 2009; Zink & Fisher, 2006). 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 5
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

The sampling approach, i.e., not prescreening to specifically identify and exclusively 

enroll victims, was the same approach we had used with great success in our earlier 

qualitative research on domestic abuse in later life (Dunlop et al., 2005). Like the 

previous sample, we expected the sample for this research to include both victims and 

non-victims. We used this approach for the following reasons: 

1. Already-identified victims were likely to be those who had relatively low helpseeking barriers. 

2. This strategy seemed likely to include the difficult-to-obtain perspectives of 

victims who had yet to identify themselves as such. 

3. It was important to see the dynamics of perceived help-seeking barriers for nonvictims in order to identify factors that are unique to victims, i.e. how perceived 

barriers for victims differ. 

Based on an earlier study (described in next paragraph) we expected that 

approximately 25% of the sample would have experienced some form of domestic 

abuse after age 50, thereby providing a “victim” subsample for the desired comparison. 

The project proposal was submitted in response to the NIJ Crime and Justice 

Research Solicitation 2006-NIJ-1162 and built on research previously conducted by the 

research team, i.e., Domestic Violence Against Older Women (DVAOW, NIJ#2002-WGBX-0100). In the DVAOW study we collected data from 134 older women in 21 focus 

groups. Analyses with computerized qualitative data analysis software indicated that 

DVAOW participants perceived possible relationships between the abuse experience 

and two sets of help-seeking barriers. These analyses and a review of the domestic 

violence (DV) and elder abuse literatures led to the design of the Perceived Barriers to 

Help-Seeking (PBHS) model that was tested in this study. Both the DVAOW and the 

current research were conducted in Miami-Dade County, Florida where ethnic diversity 

permits testing the model’s applicability to Hispanic and Black and White non-Hispanic 

subsamples, allowing us to clarify how the model can be adapted to describe PBHS for 

older female victims of domestic abuse within and across the three racial-ethnic groups. 

Specific aims for the project were intended to lead to increased knowledge regarding 

perceived barriers to help-seeking among older women and, in particular, to develop a 

basis for describing a) if and how these perceived barriers were unique to domestic 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 6
                                                           

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

abuse victims relative to non-victims in this age group and b) how they varied based on 

selected variables. Our assumption was that perceived help-seeking barriers for victims 

would uniquely reflect the influence of abuser behaviors on internal and external factors 

described by the proposed PBHS model. 

The Specific Aims were: 

Aim 1: Using a model derived from the DVAOW study that describes the relationships 

of an abuser’s behaviors to an elder victim’s internal and external perception of barriers 

to help-seeking, determine which indicators, and in what arrangement with the 

underlying factors, will provide the best fit of an overarching PBHS model. 

Aim 1.1: Test the fit of the PBHS model; if the fit does not meet the fit criteria 

consider other arrangements of the factors identified in the DVAOW study to create 

a better fitting model. 

Aim 1.2: If under Aim 1.1 attempts to find a best fitting model result in two or more 

competing versions, each of which has reasonably strong fit indices, then test all 

these good fitting models as alternative models under the remaining Specific Aims. 

Aim 2: Describe the relationships between perceived barriers to help-seeking and 

abuser behaviors. 

Aim 2.1: Describe the model’s(s) ability to predict a victim’s factor scores on the 

Conflict Tactics Scales-Revised, Short Version (CTS2S, Straus et al.,1996). The 

prediction is that the greater the victim’s perceived barriers, as measured by the 

Perceived Barriers to Health Seeking (PBHS) Assessment1, the more severe the 

composite CTS2S factor score will be. 

Aim 2.2: Explore victims’ understanding of the relationship between help-seeking 

and abuser behaviors through face-to-face interviews and a qualitative analysis of 

interview data. 

Aim 3: Determine the statistical goodness of fit of the model or models to each of three 

race/ethnicity subgroups: Hispanic, Black, non-Hispanic, and White, non-Hispanic. 

1

 The PBHS Assessment was developed as part of the DVAOW project to measure factors, based on 

grounded theory and informed by feedback from health and social service professionals and input from a 

sub-group of focus group participants. The initial pre-pilot version included 101 BHS items; the version 

used in the current study was reduced to 46 items following pilot data analyses. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 7
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Aim 4: Describe the extent to which the proposed model(s) has the best fit with key 

variables (1) type of abuser and (2) type of abuse. 

Aim 4.1.a: Determine if the path coefficients of the model(s) vary as a function of: (1) 

the abuser-victim relationship for the subgroups spouse/intimate partner, adult 

child/adult grandchild, paid caregiver, and other; and (2) type of abuse for the 

subgroups emotional abuse only, emotional and physical abuse only, emotional and 

sexual abuse only, and combined abuse (all three types present). 

Aim 4.1.b: Determine if there are indicators within the model(s) that have different 

predictive values for: (1) the four abuser-victim relationship subgroups and (2) the 

four types of abuse subgroups. 

Aim 5: Use the resulting best fitting model(s) for each ethnic group and identified 

predictive values of type of abuser and type of abuse as the basis for a draft 

coordinated community response (CCR) initiative plan. 

Aim 5.1: Convene a community work group to assist in review of survey data and 

best practices literature and to assist the research team in development of a draft 

CCR plan.
 

Aim 5.2: Document the process by which a CCR initiative is designed. 

Aim 5.3: Prepare a ready-for-testing (in a future project) draft CCR initiative plan. 

B. Review of Publications from DVAOW Research 

In a series of papers reporting on the results of the DVAOW qualitative study 

(Beaulaurier, Seff, Newman, & Dunlop, 2005, 2007; and Beaulaurier, Seff & Newman, 

2008), we were able to articulate a model of perceived barriers to help-seeking for older 

women who experienced domestic abuse. Data were collected from 134 women ages 

45 to 85 years in 21 focus groups representing the three race-ethnicity combinations 

that were most common in South Florida: Hispanic, Black, non-Hispanic and White, 

non-Hispanic. Computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti) was 

used to organize transcript analysis and provided access to the quotations upon which 

codes, themes, relationship maps, and other elements of the analysis were constructed. 

Twelve themes emerged that showed strong relationships with the experience of 

domestic abuse and perceived barriers to help-seeking concepts. Abuser behaviors 

included themes of isolation, intimidation and jealousy. Internal barriers included five 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 8
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

themes: protect family, self blame, powerlessness, hopelessness and secrecy. External 

barriers had four themes, three of which were perceived responses by family/friends, by 

clergy and by the justice system/police. The fourth external barrier was the perception 

that community resources did not exist, were poorly integrated or non-responsive. The 

resulting model illustrated how identified internal and external factors interrelated with 

each other and with abuser behaviors to create perceived help-seeking barriers. The 

PBHS model reflected the apparent belief of study participants that there was no 

discernable point where characteristics of the experience of domestic abuse ended and 

resistance to help-seeking began. Seff, Beaulaurier & Newman (2008) reviewed the 

DVAOW data and determined that emotional abuse was the abuse type of primary 

concern to the women who participated in the focus groups. 

C. Key Findings of Current Study 

Overall analyses of the model show that perceived barriers to help-seeking involve six 

factors that present in unique ways based on severity of abuse, race-ethnicity, 

relationship of close other, gender of close other, and age of respondent. In particular: 

1. Six factors representing perceived barriers to help-seeking were confirmed to 

predict an overall perceived barrier to help-seeking (PBHS) score based on 445 

responses to a 37-item questionnaire. The contribution pattern for the six factors 

was significantly different for victims than for non-victims. 

2. Victims had a unique, less complex pattern of bivariate correlation coefficients 

among the six PBHS factors compared to non-victims. Where there were 

correlations the values were relatively weak, again in comparison to non-victims. 

3. Significantly more minor abuse victims indicated they “did nothing” (74.1%) 

compared to severe abuse victims (55.4%) when asked, “If you experienced 

abuse what did you do?” In fact, victims of severe abuse were significantly more 

likely to seek each kind of help listed on the questionnaire than victims of minor 

abuse [(χ2

 (2 df) = 12.134, p = .002]. The exception was shelter use, which was 

not reported by any respondents. 

4. Overall, 18.7% of the total sample reported abuse in the severe category based 

on the CTS2S score (Straus & Douglas, 2004). Almost half of the sample 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 9
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

(48.3%) indicated no minor or severe abuse in the previous year on the CTS2S 

scale. 

5. The levels of Black, non-Hispanics at the no abuse and severe abuse levels were 

notable, although they were not statistically significant. The percent of Black, 

non-Hispanic respondents who reported no abuse (41.1%) appeared low 

compared to percents for the other two subgroups (50.7% for White, nonHispanics and 53.1% for Hispanics). Likewise, the percent of Black, nonHispanics with severe abuse scores (25.1%) appeared high compared to the 

other two groups (14.6% and 15.2%, respectively). 

6. Although we were unable to completely analyze the relationship between type of 

abuse and the model, we found that cases of minor abuse were usually limited to 

the psychological type, while severe abuse, in addition to the psychological only 

group, combined psychological abuse with other the types of abuse somewhat 

equally (see Table 7). Also notable, six participants indicated severe sexual 

coercion but did not identify psychological abuse at either the minor or severe 

level. 

7. Many of the agencies that would be key stakeholders in a local coordinated 

community response (CCR) to domestic abuse in later life expressed strong 

interest in further development of this concept and generally agreed to an initial 

draft plan as a jumping off point for additional work toward a CCR plan. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 10
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION II: METHODS 

A. Participants 

A total of 519 subjects were recruited to participate in the study. As was described in 

the project proposal, subjects were not pre-screened regarding previous experience 

with domestic abuse or violence. Based on results of the DVAOW study we expected 

that approximately 25% of the sample would have experienced some form of domestic 

abuse after age 50. 

1. Victims and non-victims 

Identification of a “victim” was based on responses to the eight non-negotiation items 

on the CTS2S. We used Straus and Douglas’s (2004) three-tiered level of abuse 

classification system: no violence, only minor violence, and severe violence. As defined 

by Straus and Douglas (2004) the three classification categories are mutually exclusive. 

Table 1 shows the frequencies and percent of each level of abuse in the sample. 

2. Race and ethnicity 

Subjects identified their race and ethnicity in separate survey questions. By design, 

the recruited sample included roughly equal numbers of the three most prevalent raceethnicity groups in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the research was done, in order 

to examine differences in statistical models that describe the perceived help-seeking 

barriers among women in the three groups: Hispanics; White, non-Hispanics; and Black, 

non-Hispanics. We used the latter term to refer to people originally of African descent 

who come from any non-Hispanic country in the "Americas", including nations of the 

Caribbean. Table 1 shows the frequencies and percent of six races and two ethnicities 

reported. Table 2 presents the frequencies of the three race-ethnicity subgroups by 

level of abuse. 

3. Relationship of the participant and a close other 

Respondents were instructed to think about a specific individual when responding to 

items in Sections I (described abuser behaviors) and IV (CTS2S) of the questionnaire. 

In the instructions for these sections, this one individual was described as the person 

the respondent lived with, or if she lived alone, the person she was closest to and on 

whom she most depended. Questionnaire item #71 asked participants to select one of 

seven categories that best described the relationship between themselves and the 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 11
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

person they were thinking of when they answered items in Sections I and IV. In the 

analyses these response categories were clustered to achieve subgroup sizes required 

to conduct the statistical analyses. The grouped categories were spouse/partner, 

child/grandchild and other relative/friend. The wording of item #71 allows us to assume 

that for respondents who’s CTS2S responses indicated minor or severe abuse, the 

close other person identified is the “abuser”. Table 1 presents the frequencies and 

percent of the seven relationship of close other types reported. Table 2 presents the 

frequencies of the three relationship of close other subgroups by level of abuse. 

4. Gender of the close other 

The gender item (#72) referred to the same individual identified in item 71. 

Respondents selected from the traditional male or female options. Table 1 presents the 

frequencies and percent of the gender of close other reported. Table 2 presents the 

frequencies of each close gender subgroup by level of abuse. 

5. Participant age 

Although research regarding elder abuse generally focuses on adults age 65 and 

older, we included women age 50 and older because earlier research had documented 

that, beginning at age 50, domestic abuse victims were not well served by either the 

domestic violence or elder abuse services systems (Dunlop et al., 2000). Additionally, 

we wanted to document results of the aging “baby boomer” group and to identify 

differences between women in this age group, i.e., 50-64 and women in the more 

traditionally-identified “elder” age range of 65+. 

Participants were asked to provide their date of birth and current age. Age was 

extracted from the date of birth field if data were included. Current age was used, if it 

was available and no date of birth was entered. Table 1 shows the frequencies and 

percent of the three age groups reported. Table 2 presents the frequencies of the three 

age groups by level of abuse. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 12
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of survey participants (N=445) 

Demographic Total (%a) 

Victim or Non-Victim [0 missing] 

No violence 

Only minor violence 

Severe violence
 

Race [22 missing] 

White 

Black 

Asian 

Native American
 

Any other race 

More than one race
 

Ethnicity [19 missing] 

Hispanic 

Non-Hispanic 

Close Other [38 missing] 

Husband 

Intimate partner 

Son 

Daughter 

Grandchild 

Friend 

Other Relative 

Gender Close Other [24 missing] 

Female 

Male 

Respondent Age [3 missing] 

50 - 64 years 

65 – 74 years 

75 years or more
 

215 (48.3%) 

147 (33.0%) 

83 (18.7%) 

258 (61.0%) 

133 (31.4%) 

0 

10 (2.4%) 

9 (2.1%) 

13 (3.1%) 

145 (34.0%) 

281 (66.0%) 

141 (34.6%) 

45 (11.1%) 

51 (12.5%) 

59 (14.5%) 

7 (1.7%) 

51 (12.5%) 

53 (13.0%) 

154 (36.6%) 

267 (63.4%) 

156 (35.3%) 

168 (38.0%) 

118 (26.7%) 

a The percent was computed on a total that did not include the missing values. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 13
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 2. Number of participants by level of abuse and major demographic subgroups 

No Minor Severe 

Violence Violence Violence Demographic Totalb 

Total Total Total 

# (%) # (%) # (%) 

Race - Ethnicityc [21 missing] 

White Non-Hispanic 76 (50.7%) 52 (34.7%) 22 (14.6%) 150 (100%) 

Hispanic 77 (53.1%) 46 (31.7%) 22 (15.2%) 145 (100%) 

Black Non-Hispanic 57 (41.1%) 47 (33.8%) 35 (25.1%) 139 (100%) 

Relationship Respondent Identified as Close Other [48 missing] 

Spouse/Partner 73 (39.2%) 72 (38.7%) 41 (22.1%) 186 (100%) 

Child or Grand Child 65 (55.5%) 38 (32.5%) 14 (12.0%) 117 (100%)

Other Relative or Close Friend 51(58.6%) 14 (16.1%) 22 (25.3%) 87 (100%) 

Gender of Close Other [24 missing] 

Female 94 (61.1%) 39 (25.3%) 21 (13.6%) 154 (100%) 

Male 105 (39.3%) 102 (38.2%) 60 (22.5%) 267 (100%) 

Age [3 missing] 

50 - 64 years 57 (36.5%) 65 (41.7%) 34 (21.8%) 156 (100%) 

65 - 74 years 84 (50.0%) 54 (32.1%) 30 (17.9%) 168 (100%) 

75 years or more 72 (61.0%) 28 (23.7%) 18 (15.3%) 118 (100%) 

a Chi Square tests for differences among victim versus non-victim subgroup frequencies within each 

demographic were all non-significant.

b

 Totals are not equal across the demographic groupings due to missing data.
 c

 One Native American with MSQ = 9 not included here.
 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 14
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

B. Data Collection and Data Entry 

1. Subject recruitment 

The recruitment strategy focused on attracting survey respondents who were evenly 

represented in the three targeted racial-ethnic subgroups: Hispanic, White, nonHispanic and Black, non-Hispanic (150 in each group). Initially age, i.e. ≥ 50, was the 

only criterion for screening potential subjects. No effort was made to specifically recruit 

victims as previously described. However, as we reached the 150 completed surveys 

target for a particular racial-ethnic subgroup we no longer accepted subject volunteers 

from that group and therefore had to begin screening on race-ethnicity thereafter. 

Ads and flyers used the description “survey about conflict in relationships” for older 

women. A total of 519 participants signed consent forms and received a stipend for 

some level of participation. An additional 186 women participated in three pilot studies 

(48 in each of the first two pilots and 90 women in the 3rd) to test the readability and 

distribution assumption of the instrument, and also received a stipend. 

Subjects were recruited primarily via ads in newspapers, flyers and announcements 

provided at senior centers. At two points during subject recruitment, which was ongoing 

for almost one year, we sent out an announcement to a mailing list of local agencies 

and organizations that were likely to have elder constituents, offering to send flyers if 

there was an appropriate audience. Although response to both mailings was modest, 

each one did generate several new sources for potential subject recruitment as well as 

identify sites where data collection groups could be scheduled. Finally, flyers were 

distributed to study participants to share with friends, neighbors, and associates in any 

groups to which they belonged (e.g., church, civic, etc.), which in some cases also was 

effective in generating participant volunteers. 

2. Questionnaire 

a. Pilot testing. A total of 186 subjects participated in the three pilot tests, 48 in each 

of the first two and 90 in the third. The skewness and kurtosis of the response 

distributions for each item were evaluated. Some items were reworded and/or 

eliminated over successive pilot tests with the objective of finding a good distribution 

across participants. In total 55 of the original 101 items were trimmed to assure that 

distribution issues and ability of participants to rate items were satisfactory. Additionally, 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 15
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

pilot participants expressed extreme dislike of the multi-interval response scales (e.g., 6 

or 8 levels) used in early versions of the instrument. They stated that these scales were 

cumbersome and sometimes confusing. As a result the response scales for the final 

PBHS and CTS2S were reduced to four options. Feedback from pilot subjects also led 

to modifications in the presentation and content of some of the demographic items. 

b. Final questionnaire. The final questionnaire (see Attachment A) included 78 

items as described below: 

	 PBHS Assessment – 46 items (Sections 1 – 3). The PBHS Assessment, 

developed as part of the DVAOW project to measure factor relationships in the 

proposed PBHS model, was based on grounded theory and was informed by 

feedback from health and social service professionals and input from a subgroup 

of focus group participants. Items were phrased as statements of belief or 

opinions using the actual language of focus group participants as much as 

possible. 

Each item was rated on a four point scale with 1 = strongly agree and 4 = 

strongly disagree. A low score indicated agreement and a high score indicated 

disagreement for 37 items (80%). For the remaining nine items (20%) low and 

high score meaning were reversed. To assure that all data had the same 

meaning with regard to a perceived barrier, data enters reversed the scoring on 

the nine items so that a relatively low mean score for all indicators consistently 

indicated greater perceived barriers to help seeking. 

	 CTS2 Short (CTS2S) – 10 items (Section 4). The CTS2S (Straus and Douglas, 

2004) was selected to (1) determine if, in the previous year, a participant had 

experienced one or more forms of domestic abuse, including psychological 

abuse, physical abuse, sexual coercion, and injuries resulting from the abuse, 

and (2) to understand the relationship between forms of abuse as measured by 

the CTS2S, perceived barriers to help seeking and selected demographic 

variables. We predicted that the greater the PBHS the higher the CTS2S factor 

score would be. 

As previously described a modified four-point response scale was used based 

on feedback from pilot study participants that more response options were too 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 16
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

confusing. Responses focused on frequency of described events or injuries 

within the previous year. 

Generally the CTS2S is administered to relationship pairs to control for 

mutuality of measured behaviors and injuries. In that context the negotiation 

items are an important element in the score. However, we employed CTS2S 

responses as a measure of actual abuse, by type, and only surveyed half of the 

relationship dyad. Therefore, while we included the two negotiation items on the 

survey, we did not include responses to these items in the mean CTS2S score or 

in the analyses. 

	 MSQ – 10 items (Section 5). The Mental Status Questionnaire (MSQ, Kahn et al., 

1960) was used to screen participants for cognitive impairment. To avoid 

upsetting or embarrassing participants, the screen was included as an integrated 

component of the questionnaire. Survey data from respondents who made three 

or more errors on the 10 item scale were eliminated from further analyses (n=33). 

c. Translation. To develop the Spanish version of the entire questionnaire we 

employed standard forward and backward translations by independent translators with 

follow-up negotiations of differences between the forward and the backward translations 

(Brislin, 1980). Notably, previously translated Spanish versions of the CTS2 were not 

found to be linguistically relevant for the local Hispanic community and were not used. 

3. Data collection environment 

The project design called for data to be collected using a self-administered 

questionnaire (Attachment A) in a small group setting. After questionnaires were 

completed and collected, a brief discussion was held regarding issues covered in the 

survey questions and help-seeking options were described. Each participant received a 

copy of a booklet (available in English and Spanish) that discussed domestic abuse in 

later life and the broader issue of elder abuse and described community resources for 

women who wanted assistance. 

Overall this was an efficient and effective way to collect data for a relatively large 

sample. However, in some cases the group setting was problematic. This was 

particularly true when there were respondents who were unable to complete the 

questionnaire without assistance due to illiteracy, cognitive and/or cultural difficulty with 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 17
                                                           

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

some or all of the items, or visual impairment. In some cases survey items were read 

aloud to subgroups or individuals. This made the process much slower so that some 

respondents had to wait quite a while for the group discussion. In some groups early 

finishers talked among themselves and did not appear to be bothered by the delay. 

However, some participants were noticeably annoyed, exhibiting an intolerance that 

was unexpected by the project team when the data collection strategy was developed. 

As a result some “slow finishers” may have rushed through and/or skipped some survey 

items. 

All participants who attended a data collection session (N=519) received a $25 cash 

stipend2 for their participation, regardless of whether they were able to complete the 

questionnaire. 

4. Protection of human subjects 

Prior to initiating data collection the full study design, including the initial instrument 

and all consent forms necessary to protect subjects and document payment of the cash 

stipend, received a full IRB review and was approved. Throughout the data collection 

process changes in the instrument, informed consent forms, translations, subject 

recruitment materials, and so forth were submitted as amendments for review and were 

approved. All staff, including students, who worked on any aspect of the project were 

required to successfully complete the NIH Human Participant Protections Education for 

Research Teams. 

5. Data entry and data cleaning 

Data were independently entered into Excel spreadsheets by two members of the 

evaluation team. The two spreadsheets were then compared by the project director. 

Discrepancies were resolved based on a review of the original survey form. After data 

were cleaned they were imported into SPSS for the analyses phase. 

6. Frequency of response distribution tables 

Frequency of response and row percentages per item tables for the PBHS 

Assessment and the CTS2S are shown in Appendix D. Model factors frequency and 

row percentages per item also are included in Appendix D. 

2

 Pilot subjects received $20 because the surveys were administered in settings where they attended 

group activities and therefore no transportation costs were incurred. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 18
                                                           

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

C. Preliminary Analyses to Develop a Working Model 

Preliminary analyses were conducted on data from the 486 surveys with an MSQ 

score of 8, 9 or 10. We determined that the model developed under the DVAOW project 

was not supported when analyzed via the Amos (version 17.0) structural equation 

modeling (SEM) employing a maximum likelihood estimation approach (Arbuckle, 

2008). However, keeping the basic logic of three sets of factors found in the DVAOW 

(abuser behaviors, internal and external barriers), we did a series of exploratory 

analyses following the guidelines of Arbuckle (2008), Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999) and 

Byrnes (2001) regarding criteria for trimming and goodness of fit. Three tiers of criteria 

were established for the goodness of fit3 as follows: 

χ2/DF CFI RMSEA & SRMR PClose 

Excellent Fit: < 2.00 > .95 < .05 > .500 

Very Good Fit: < 3.00 > .95 < .06 > .400 

Acceptable Fit: < 5.00 > .90 < .09 > .250 

The best fitting model for the entire sample that was logically most similar to the one 

described in the qualitative study was identified (Figure 1). Next, we set the following 

criterion for dropping cases where a participant did not provide sufficient data to obtain 

an estimate of an indicator or factor: A participant was considered to have a satisfactory 

data set if their questionnaire had: 

 no more than two responses missing in Sections 1 and 3 of the questionnaire 

 no missing data in the single or dual item factors measured in Section 2 

 responses recorded for all eight non-negotiation items on the CTS2S 

Application of these filters resulted in exclusion of 41 additional surveys, leaving data 

from 445 participants in the analyses required by Specific Aim 1 (Section III). 

D. Follow-up Victim Interviews 

Twelve open-ended interviews were conducted as a follow-up to the survey 

questionnaire. All of the respondents who participated in the follow-up interviews had 

responded “yes” to survey item 77, which asked respondents if they had experienced 

3

 The goodness of fit of a model describes how well the model “fits” a set of observations or 

measurements by statistically quantifying the difference between measured values and values expected 

under the model. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 19
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

any of the problems described in the questionnaire after age 50. All had signed a 

consent form confirming their willingness to be contacted for an interview. 

A relatively structured schedule was used for the follow-up interviews. The protocol 

followed the basic structure of the PBHS Assessment, which was the primary 

instrument used to test the model (Berg, 2001; Fontana & Frey, 1994; Padgett, 1998). 

The interviews were conducted in either English or Spanish, according to each 

participant’s preference. Respondents first were asked to describe their relationship to 

their abuser and then presented with the questions from each section of the PBHS 

Assessment, i.e., behavior of the abuser, internal barriers to help-seeking and external 

barriers to help seeking. Respondents were asked to clarify and discuss their responses 

in their own words. Each respondent was encouraged to talk in some detail about 

whether they would chose (or had chosen) to discuss the abuse they had experienced 

with others. They were also offered an opportunity to discuss anything that they felt was 

important but not covered in their previous responses. 

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the interviewer (Kvale, 

2007). The interview transcripts were entered into Atlas.ti (v.6.0.19). Transcripts were 

coded in their original language using a combination of a priori codes that followed the 

sections of the quantitative questionnaire and open coding (Gibbs, 2007; Muhr, 2003-

2005). Two members of the research team coded eleven of the twelve transcripts 

(Gibbs, 2007). 

A 12th transcript was dropped from the analysis because the respondent indicated 

during the interview that she had not, in fact, been the victim of domestic abuse. This 

was confirmed based on this respondent’s responses to the CTS2S and resulted in our 

eliminating response to the single item question (#77) as defining whether or not a 

respondent had been a victim of domestic abuse after age 55. 

All of the research team members who were involved in interviews and analysis of 

the qualitative data are fluent in Spanish. 

E. Community Participation 

Prior to funding an advisory panel was formed to conduct activities related to 

Specific Aim 5. During the first six months (February 2008), members of the advisory 

panel agencies were invited to a full-day training that was conducted in conjunction with 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 20
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

a County-funded initiative to address domestic violence in later life. Many of the 

advisory panel agencies sent at least one representative to this training. 

When preliminary data analyses for the current project were completed the advisory 

panel agencies were again invited to participate in a project-related workshop. The 

purpose of this workshop was to present preliminary research findings to relevant 

community agencies and to discuss how the model we had identified (Figure 1) could 

be incorporated into a coordinated community response to domestic abuse in later life 

aimed at prevention and intervention. 

The workshop was conducted on April 29, 2009. The 12 advisory panel members in 

attendance included representatives from the following agencies: 

 Alliance for Aging, Inc. (local Area Agency on Aging) 

 Miami-Dade County Elderly Services Division 

 Adult Protective Services 

 Miami-Dade County Police Department, Domestic Crimes Unit 

 Domestic Violence Court Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit 

 The Lodge Domestic Violence Shelter 

 Florida Council Against Domestic Violence 

A few key agencies were unable to send representatives, including: 

 The State Attorney’s Office 

 The Public Defender’s Office 

 Miami-Dade County Batterers Intervention and Victim Services 

Advisory panel participants developed vision statements for a coordinated 

community response. These statements were used as the basis for a draft coordinated 

community response plan, which was distributed to attendees (and potential 

collaborative partners unable to attend) for review. A final draft of this document is 

included as Attachment B. Unfortunately much of the analyses described in the results 

section had not been completed at the time the workshop was held. Therefore the 

agenda and presentation materials did not fully reflect our current understanding of the 

survey results. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 21
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION III: RESULTS 

Results of the research are discussed below in the context of the specific aims and 

sub-aims. 

A. Specific Aim 1 

Aim 1: Using a model derived from the DVAOW study that describes 

the relationships of an abuser’s behaviors to an elder victim’s 

internal and external perception of barriers to help-seeking, 

determine which indicators, and in what arrangement with the 

underlying factors, will provide the best fit of an overarching PBHS 

model. 

To meet this specific aim we examined the proposed relationships between abuser 

behaviors and perceived internal and external barriers to help-seeking as represented in 

the PBHS model. We wanted to determine if, when indicators of the three constructs 

were measured, the differences between measured values and expected values would 

fall within predetermined boundaries. The model did provide a statistically supported 

framework within which we could analyze effects of the following variables in specific 

aims 2, 3 and 4: 

 CTS severity level (presence and severity of abuse) 

 Type of abuse 

 Race-ethnicity group 

 Relationship of identified close other group 

 Gender of identified close other 

 Age group 

As described earlier, when applying structural equation modeling (SEM) to the 12 

factor model developed from the qualitative DVAOW study a satisfactory model was not 

obtained. In fact, a convergence of the model was not achieved even when minimization 

was extended 10-fold. Use of modification indices greater than 4.0 did not satisfy the 

search for a better fitting model with the factors identified in the DVAOW study sorted 

into the three major variables. Therefore Aims 1.1 and 1.2 were the focus of the next 

step in the analysis. 

Aim 1.1: Test the fit of the PBHS model; if the fit does not meet the fit 

criteria consider other arrangements of the factors identified in the 

DVAOW study to create a better fitting model. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 22
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Following the recommendations of Arbuckle (2008) and Byrne (2001) regarding 

exploratory analyses and discussions among co-investigators as to which items 

represented key issues from the qualitative study, the six-factor model shown in Figure 

1 evolved as the best fitting model in predicting the intervening variable of overall 

perceived barrier to help-seeking. The fit of this model met the criteria of an “excellent 

fit” (χ2/df = 1.902, df = 18 and p = .020, CFI = .980, RMSEA = .045). The model 

accounted for 84% of the total variance across the 37 PBHS items. 

Table 3 shows the factor items selected for SEM analyses in the final construction of 

the revised model (PBHS.v2) with reliability coefficients. 

1. Description of the six-factor model (PBHS.v2) 

The trimmed model (PBHS.v2, Figure 1) incorporated elements from the proposed 

model into six factors that contribute to overall perceived barriers to help-seeking. 

These six factors and their origins in the original model are described below: 

a. Self blame: Self blame describes a victim’s belief that she deserves the abuse 

inflicted by a significant other. A single item was used to measure this factor. 

b. Secrecy: Secrecy describes a victim’s reluctance to have others know she is 

experiencing domestic abuse. The two statements used to measure secrecy addressed 

either talking with “other people” or with “other family members” about family problems. 

c. Abuser behaviors: Abuser behaviors describe tactics used by an abuser that 

negatively impact an elder victim’s willingness to seek help as described in the DVAOW 

focus groups. Abuser behaviors reflect isolation, jealousy and intimidation as measured 

by 14 items. 

d. Emotional gridlock: Emotional gridlock incorporated the powerlessnesshopelessness and protective family factors from the original model. This new composite 

factor describes a victim’s belief that she is bound inextricably in her current context and 

is, therefore, without choices or without choices she is willing to make. Seven items 

contributed to this factor. 

e. Informal external responses: The new informal external responses factor 

incorporated the family-friend response and clergy response factors from the original 

model. This factor describes a victim’s belief that a help-seeking decision (a) should 

consider the anticipated response of people who are important to her personally and (b) 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 23
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

an expectation that such responses are likely to be negative and non-supportive. Nine 

items measured this factor. 

f. Formal system responses: The new formal system responses factor combined the 

community responses and justice system-law enforcement responses from the original 

model. This factor describes a victim’s belief that a help-seeking decision (a) should 

consider the anticipated response of law enforcement and community organizations and 

(b) an expectation that such responses are likely to be negative and non-supportive. 

Four items measured this factor. 

2. Mean perceived barrier score 

An overall mean perceived barrier score was computed for each of the 445 cases as 

follows: 

	 Analysis started with the factors measured in the PBHS survey and listed in the rows 

one to nine of Table 3. Potential and mean scores ranged from one to four in 

accordance with the survey response scale. Where an indicator had more than one 

item, as it did for nine of the 10 indicators, a mean value of the non-blank items was 

computed. 

	 A low score indicated agreement and a high score indicated disagreement with 32 of 

the 37 of 46 items used in the final analyses, where agreement identified greater 

perceived help-seeking barriers. For the remaining five items the meaning of the 

response scale was reversed. To assure that all items had the same meaning with 

regard to a perceived barrier, scoring was adjusted by data enterers such that 

agreement (i.e., lower score) consistently identified relatively more or higher 

perceived barriers to help-seeking. 

	 Finally, an individual mean “overall perceived barrier score” was computed by finding 

the mean of the six factor scores for each participant. This barrier score uses the 

logic that each factor should be considered as an equal unit in the computation of 

the overall perceived barrier score, which is the standard recommended by Loehlin 

(2004) when studying populations where the exact parameter values are not known 

and could vary over repeated samplings. 

In Figure 1 the values (regression coefficients) on the single headed arrows from 

each of the six factors to the overall perceived barrier score represent the relative 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 24
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

contribution of each to the overall factor. Note that the sum of the six factor coefficients 

is greater than 1.00. This is because there are pairs of factors that correlate with each 

other (as described by the values listed with the two-headed arrows). Therefore both 

factors contribute overlapping value to the overall PBHS. Figures 3, 4 and 5 in 

Attachment D show prediction scores for the type of abuse subgroups. Figure 3 shows 

the no abuse subgroup, Figure 4 shows minor abuse subgroup and Figure 5 shows the 

severe abuse subgroup. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 25
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 3. Factor items selected for SEM analyses with reliability coefficients & decisions 

made for the 445 participants in the final construction of the model 

# Standardized Decision after Exploratory Analysis & Row Indicator Items Alpha (ICC) Trimming a 

Abuser’s One Factor high reliability, therefore use 1 14 .939 Behaviors Mean of all PBHS items (14 items) 

Self Blame (one Exploratory Analysis left one PBHS item: 2 1 NA item factor) @24_SB3 

3 Secrecy 2 .939 @23_S1RV and @20)S5RV 

Emotional Gridlock 

4 Protect Family 4 .741 Indicator Mean of 4 PBHS items 

Powerlessness 5 3 .668 Keep @19_H1, @25_H3 & @18_P1 Hopelessness 

Informal External Responses 

Clergy Keep all PBHS items. Use Factor Mean 6 4 .650 Response (4 items) 

Family/Friend Keep all PBHS items. Use Factor Mean 7 5 .733 Reponses (5 items) 

Formal System Responses 

Justice System Keep one BHS item for JS – Police: 8 1 NA /Police @34_JS2RV 

Community Keep all PBHS items. Use Factor Mean 9 3 .450 Response (3 items) 

Conflict Tactics Scale 2 Short Version (CTS2S) 

CTS2S without 10 8 .900 Keep all 8 items, use factor mean negotiation a Considerations in making decision: Factor Load > .50, Fit Statistics > “Very Good” or “Excellent” Fit. 

Factor means used when all items fit logical model, even if intra item reliability was low. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 26
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

PBHS.v2: Prediction of barrier scores for 445 participants with sufficient data to test the 

model based on 37 items shown in Table 3 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 N= 445
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 84% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (18) 1.902, p = .020, CFI = .980 TFI = .960 NFI = .959
 

RMSEA = .045 90%CI: (.021 to .068) P(Close) = .608, SRMR = .036.
 

All r's: p < .010.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External 

ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.16 

.27 

.60 

.59 

.78 

.19 

.80 

.35 

.63 

.74 

.67 

.25 

.28 

.50 

.38 .48 

.53 

.35 

.27 

.15 

.16 

.23 

.23 

.18 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 27
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Aim 1.2: If under Aim 1.1 attempts to find a best fitting model result in two or more 

competing versions, each of which has reasonably strong fit indices, then test all these 

good fitting models as alternative models under the remaining Specific Aims. 

No alternative models met the two-fold criteria of sustaining the logic of the three 

major sets of factors (abuser behaviors, internal barriers and external barriers) along 

with the goodness of fit criteria. Thus, we proceeded to specific aim 2. 

B. Specific Aim 2 

Aim 2: Describe the relationships between perceived barriers to helpseeking and abuser behaviors. 

Aim 2.1: Describe the model’s(s) ability to predict a victim’s factor 

scores on the Conflict Tactics Scales-Revised, short version (CTS2S, 

Straus et al., 1996). The prediction is that the greater the victim’s 

perceived barriers, as measured by the PBHS Assessment, the more 

severe the composite CTS2S factor score will be. 

To meet this specific aim we analyzed the relationship between the computed 

overall mean perceived barrier score (see Specific Aim 1) and a mean CTS2S score for 

each participant. The mean overall CTS2S score was computed based on responses to 

the eight non-negotiation items in the questionnaire, each of which employed a four 

point response scale from 1=never to 4=frequently. These items measured occurrence 

of four types of abuse within the previous year (psychological abuse, physical abuse, 

sexual coercion, and injuries resulting from the abuse) at four frequencies (never, 

sometimes, frequently, often), resulting in identification of three severity levels (no 

abuse, minor abuse, severe abuse). The mean of completed (non-blank) items was 

computed. A high score indicated more abuse than a low score. 

As Figure 2 shows, considering the four non-negotiation factors of the CTS2S 

together, the overall CTS2S score had a statistically significant regression coefficient of 

- .28 (p < .01) when predicting the overall perceived barrier score (labeled Barrier_Unit 

in Figure 2). The inverse relationship is expected because a high CTS2S score 

indicates more severe levels of conflict while a high barrier score indicates lower 

perceived barriers to help seeking. The fit of this model met the criteria of an “excellent 

fit” (χ2

/df = 1.915, df = 16 and p = .015, the CFI = .993, RMSEA = .045). The model 

accounted for 62% of the total variance. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 28
 

5 (90%

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 2. CTS2S score and prediction of overall perceived barrier score 

Conflict Tactics Scale 2, 8 Non-Negotiation Items with Overall Barrier Score
	

Accounting for 62% of total variance. Ch Square/DF (16) = 1.915, p = .015
	

CFI = .993, TLI = .980, NFI = .985
	

RMSEA = .04 CI: .020 to .069) P(Close) = .593, p-value for all r's < .02
	

.42 

.31 

Physical 

Assault 

PA-2 Severe 

.87 

PA-1 Minor .88 

e12 

e11 

Psychological 

Agression 

e22 Psych-2 Severe 

e21 Psych-1 Minor 

Injury Injury-2 Severe e32 

e31 Injury-1 Monor 

Sexual 

Coerion 

Sexual Coerion-2 

Severe 

e42 

.69 

Sexual Coerion-1 

Minor 

e41 

.92 

-.26 

.19 CTS2 

Overall 

ects2 

.19 

Barrier_Unit 

ebus 

.21 

-.28 

.79 

.14 

.78 

.81 

.66 

.16 

.83 

.56 

.98 

.30 .92 

.52 

.75 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 29
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. Severity of abuse and the PBHS.v2 factors 

Table 4 rows two through four show regression coefficients for each perceived 

barrier indicator by the three levels of abuse. The contribution of each barrier indicator 

to the overall barrier score is statistically significant in each group. 

The measurement weight of severity of abuse shown in Table 4a confirms that the 

same model can be used to describe the coefficients’ prediction of the mean PBHS 

score regardless of the severity of abuse. However, the structured covariance among 

the six factors, although statistically significant, shows that the same model does not 

predict that relationships among the six factors will show the same patterns across the 

three levels of abuse based on the relatively low CFI. 

Table 5 rows two through four reveals the presence or absence of relationships 

among factors for the three levels of abuse. Any cell containing a correlation coefficient 

indicates a statistically significant relationship. The correlation coefficients can range 

from 0.00 to +1.00 or from 0.00 to – 1.00, where 0.00 represents no relationship 

between the factors or variables, and a +1.00 or a -1.00 represents a perfect (positive or 

negative, respectively) relationship. Overall, respondents with a score of severe abuse 

had fewer correlations that those with minor abuse or no abuse scores. Also, the 

magnitude of the relationships was relatively low for cases of severe abuse in 

comparison to the other two levels. 

To further explain we can use the example of the correlation between self blame and 

emotional gridlock (relevant cells are shaded). Respondents in the no abuse group 

perceived a fairly strong relationship between these two factors (.53) while those with 

minor abuse scores perceived a much weaker relationship (.17). However, respondents 

with a severe abuse score did not associate these two factors. 

Differences across the three severity of abuse subgroups – no abuse, minor abuse 

and severe abuse – can be seen in greater detail in Figures 3 (no abuse), 4 (minor 

abuse), and 5 (severe abuse) as the two headed arrows between indicators (rectangles) 

or factors (ovals) (see Appendix D). 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 30
 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 4. Regression coefficients for each barrier indicator or intervening variable 

Internal Barriers External Barriers 

1 

 Variable 

All 445 

Self 

Blame 

.27 

Secrecy 

.35 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

.25 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

.28 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

.19 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

.16 

Type of Abuse 

2 No Abuse .25 .36 .25 .23 .23 .14 

3 Minor Abuse .31 .39 .24 .30 .12 .13 

4 Severe Abuse .35 .36 .30 .32 .23 .19 

Race-Ethnicity 

5 White nonHispanic 

.26 .37 .25 .25 .17 .19 

6 Hispanic .27 .36 .25 .31 .20 .13 

7 Black nonHispanic .32 

Relationship of Close Other 

8 Husband 

Partner 

.26 

.37 

.40 

.21 

.22 

.29 

.30 

.22 

.23 

.16 

.17 

9 Child 

Grandchild 

.29 .38 .24 .29 .19 .14 

10 Other Relative 

or Friend .28 .29 .30 .29 .18 .17 

Gender of Close Other 

11 Female .26 .33 .27 .28 .22 .17 

12 Male .27 .38 .22 .30 .20 .13 

Age 

13 50 to 64 years .23 .44 25 .33 .16 .21 

14 65to 74 years .30 .34 .27 .28 .19 .12 

15 75 years or 

older 

.27 .31 .30 .28 .19 .15 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 31
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 4a. Comparing differences in measurement weights & covariance structures 

across levels for each major between-group variable 

Between 

Model Characteristic Chi CFI RMSEA & Group Square/DFa [P(Close)] Variable 

Severity of 

Abuse 

Race – 

Ethnicity 

Relationship of 

Close Other 

Gender of 

Close Other 

Age 

Measurement Weight 

Structured Covariance 

Measurement Weight 

Structured Covariance 

Measurement Weight 

Structured Covariance 

Measurement Weight 

Structured Covariance 

Measurement Weight 

Structured Covariance 

2.183*** 

3.287* 

1.268 

2.565*** 

1.287* 

1.625*** 

1.935*** 

2.002*** 

1.744 

1.972*** 

.903 .052 [.383] 

.694 .072 [.026] 

.978 .025 [.998] 

.767 .060 [.026] 

.969 .027 [.998] 

.897 .039 [.962] 

.915 .047 [.639] 

.907 .049 [.547] 

.930 .092 [.892] 

.858 .105 [.696] 

a

 * p<.05 and *** p < .001 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 32
 

- - 

 

 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 5: Factor bivariate correlation coefficients* for major intervening variables Self Blame and Secrecy Self Blame and Emotional Gridlock Self Blame and Abuser Behaviors Self Blame and Informal External Responses Self Blame and Formal System Responses Secrecy and Emotional Gridlock Secrecy and Abuser Behaviors Secrecy and Informal External Responses Secrecy and Formal System Responses Emotional Gridlock and Abuser Behaviors Emotional Gridlock and Informal Ext Responses Emotional Gridlock and Formal Syst Responses

Abuser Behaviors and Informal Ext ResponsesAbuser Behaviors and Formal System RespInformal Ext Resp and Formal System Resp

Row

Variable 

All 445 - .38 .27 .53 - .15 - .16 .38 .50 .67 - .48 - .18

Level of Abuse 

No abuse .53 

.17 

-

- .42 .55 .25 - .67 .10 .34 .67 .75 - .60

Minor abuse - - .30 - .21 - .16 .56 .41 .79 - .42 .49 .35

Severe abuse - - .43 - .30 - .28 - .25 .29 - - - .24

Race-Ethnicity 

5 White nonHispanic - .37 .25 .38 - - - - .48 .42 .64 - .40 - .25 

6 Hispanic - .44 .33 .59 - - - .17 .35 .50 .83 - .55 - -

7 Black nonHispanic - .35 .19 .56 - - - - .39 .45 .58 - .35 - -

Relationship of Close Other 

8 Husband 

Partner - .34 .20 .56 - - - - .39 .54 .59 - .37 - -

9 Child Grandchild - .24 - .30 - .28 - .22 .36 .35 .77 - .34 .37 -

10 Other Relative 

or Friend - .37 .37 .58 - - - .19 .52 .54 .62 - .60 - -

Gender of Close Other 

11 Female - .34 .19 .54 - .32 - .14 .35 .42 .69 - .35 - .26 

12 Male - .39 .38 .46 - - - .20 .37 .56 .63 - .56 - -

Age 

13 50 to 64 years - - - - - - - - .45 .51 .54 - .44 - .22 

14 65 to 74 years - .38 .28 .57 - .25 - .29 .20 .46 .70 - .41 - -

15 75 years or 

older - .39 .39 .59 - - - - .48 .57 .60 - .61 - -

* All correlations with a numerical value indicted were statistically significant at p < .05 except where 

noted in the structural equation figures. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 33
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. Action taken and severity of abuse 

In addition to analyzing the relationship between the CTS2S and the PBHS, 

we analyzed the relationship between the level of abuse, as indicated by the 

CTS2S score, and any help-seeking action taken as described in the PBHS 

questionnaire, item 78a-k. Item 78a offered respondents a “did nothing” option 

while 78b-k included a list of possible help-seeking activities. Results are shown 

in Table 6 below. 

Table 6: Action taken by level of abuse 

Minor Abuse Severe Abuse 

Action Taken # (%) # (%) 

n=147 n=83 

Did Nothing 109 (74.1%) 46 (55.4%) 

Asked a family member to help 17 (11.6%) 15 (18.1%) 

Asked a friend to help 12 (8.2%) 13(15.7%) 

Asked a priest/rabbi for help 6 (4.1%) 4 (4.8%) 

Asked a doctor for help 6 (4.1%) 9 (10.8%) 

Asked a social worker/counselor for help 13 (8.8%) 11 (13.3%) 

Asked a lawyer for help 5 (3.4%) 6 (7.2%) 

Called the police (911) 3 (2.0%) 14 (16.9%) 

Filed restraining order /order of protection with the court 3 (2.0%) 5 (6.0%) 

Stayed in a domestic violence or homeless shelter 0 0 

Moved to a new place to live 4 (2.7%) 8 (9.6%) 

Overall, there is a significant relationship between the CTS2S score and 

actions taken, i.e., we can expect that differences in “CTS severity” will predict 

unique variations in “what victims did” [(χ2

 (2 df) = 12.134, p = .002]. Notably, 

55% of respondents with severe abuse “did nothing”. 

Aim 2.2: Explore victims’ understanding of the relationship between 

help-seeking and abusive behaviors through face-to-face interviews 

and a qualitative analysis of interview data. 

Of 11 interview participants whose data were analyzed, eight indicated that their 

abuser was a male partner or spouse; of these, six indicated that they had been married 

to this partner at the time of the abuse and 2 were not married to this partner at the time 

of the abuse. Three interview respondents indicated that they had been abused by a 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 34
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

daughter-in-law, sister or grand-daughter. All respondents indicated that they had been 

victims of emotional-psychological abuse. All denied that they had been physically or 

sexually abused after age 50 although a few indicated that they had experienced 

physical abuse at some point in their lives. 

Abuser behaviors were characterized in the interviews as either withdrawal or more 

active verbal assault. Some respondents said that while they were not particularly 

threatened by the individual, previous feelings of love and affection had waned and the 

abuser was no longer emotionally or socially available to them. Respondents did not 

describe active attempts by the abuser to isolate them. More common were reports that 

the abusers would isolate themselves, leaving the respondent feeling ignored or 

invisible. 

Most respondents did not express fear for their personal physical safety. Rather, 

they described feelings of abuse that resulted from a perceived negative emotional 

environment created by the abuser. However, while respondents indicated that they 

were not afraid of the abuser, the abuser’s behavior could still be controlling by 

threatening them with oppressive verbal assault, or loneliness and lack of social 

interaction. 

For the most part, responses in this section were consistent with findings in the 

DVAOW study. Findings in the DVAOW study indicated that some women used feelings 

about the importance of protecting their families as a reason to maintain family unity. In 

a few cases, however, women saw leaving their abusive partner as vital to the health 

and wellbeing of their families. Both sentiments were expressed by interview 

respondents as well. Interview respondents indicated that they did believe that family 

needs were at least on a par with their own, if not more important. Respondents were 

clearly unhappy with the status quo, but often expressed reluctance about trying to 

make changes. 

In contrast with the DVAOW study findings, most interview respondents expressed 

little compunction about discussing domestic violence with outsiders, including family 

and friends, with a few exceptions. More frequently there were indications that 

participants had few friends to whom they could relate problems, or that their friends’ 

reactions had been non-committal and therefore had little effect. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 35
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

In keeping with DVAOW findings, minority women were more likely to have talked 

about problems in a religious setting or with clergy. Of those women who did talk about 

their abuse with clergy, the experiences varied widely. One respondent who described a 

positive, supportive response said that her pastor had additional training as a counselor. 

In contrast another respondent indicated that pastors were poor choices when seeking 

help based on her experience. Several respondents who did not have direct experience 

indicated their belief that they would not receive help or support from clergy or otherwise 

through their religious affiliations. 

This same skepticism carried over to police. Most (but not all) women thought that 

the police were likely to be helpful in cases of physical abuse, but would not be 

responsive to the emotional or psychological abuse that they had experienced. Several 

reported having called the police, and not feeling that they had been helped. Most 

interview respondents expressed belief that in cases of abuse such as theirs, the police 

either could do very little or were likely to offer advice that would not be particularly 

helpful. 

By contrast, most interview respondents had a much more favorable attitude 

regarding help they might receive from counseling professionals. Several noted that 

seeking advice from a counseling professional such as a social worker, psychologist or 

psychiatrist was helpful. However respondents generally did not go into detail about the 

help, if any, they had actually received. Several thought that help was of dubious value, 

particularly to women who had experienced emotional or psychological abuse. 

The sentiment that services were difficult to access, difficult to find or generally 

unavailable to women like them was prevalent among the interview respondents 

C. Specific Aim 3 

Aim 3. Determine the goodness of fit of the model or models to each of 

three race/ethnicity subgroups: Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; and White, 

non-Hispanic. 

To meet this specific aim we first examined how overall mean perceived barrier 

scores for each of the three race-ethnicity subgroups differed and the resulting 

difference in contribution to the variance to determine if differences between our 

findings and expected values would fall within predetermined boundaries, indicating that 

the model predicts differences in mean perceived barrier scores for each race-ethnicity 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 36
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

subgroup. We then looked at the six factors of the model and observed relative 

differences in the contribution of each factor to the overall mean perceived barrier score 

as well as relative differences in strength of the between-factor relationship for these 

subgroups. 

1. Goodness of fit for three race-ethnicity subgroups 

The goodness of fit with the model for each race-ethnicity subgroup was very good 

to excellent, indicating that the six factors of the model were all significant contributors 

to an overall perceived mean barrier score for each group (see Table 4 rows five to 

seven). The goodness of fit statistics for each race-ethnicity subgroup are shown below: 

n Fit χ2

/DF CFI RMSEA PClose % of Total 

Variance 

White, non-Hispanic 150 Excellent 1.081 .994 .023 .742 74% 

Hispanic (White and 145 Very Good 1.366 .956 .052 .442 88% 

Black 

Black, non Hispanic 139 Very Good 1.366 .956 .052 .442 80% 

Table 4 rows five through seven shows the coefficients for each of the perceived 

barrier indicators of the PBHS.v2 model by the three race-ethnicity subgroups. The 

contribution of each indicator to the overall barrier score is statistically significant in all 

subgroups. The six measurement weights across the three levels of race-ethnicity in 

Table 4a were not statistically different from each other. However, the structured 

covariance among the six factors was statistically significant indicating that the covariances among the six factors are expected to vary independently in each raceethnicity group. 

Rows five through seven in Table 5 show the statistically significant relationships 

among the factors of the model based on race-ethnicity. A blank cell indicates there was 

no significant relationship. The correlation coefficients can range from 0.00 to +1.00 or 

from 0.00 to – 1.00, where 0.00 represents no relationship between the factors or 

variables, and a +1.00 or a -1.00 represents a perfect (positive or negative, respectively) 

relationship. Overall, the relationships described by the bivariate correlations were 

consistent, although the magnitude of the correlation coefficients varied. Hispanics had 

the highest correlations and Black, non-Hispanics correlations were the lowest. For 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 37
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

example, while self blame and abuser behaviors were significantly correlated in each 

race-ethnicity subgroup, the magnitude of the relationship is highest for Hispanics (.33) 

and lowest for Black, non-Hispanics (.19), with White, non-Hispanics in the middle (.25). 

This pattern is fairly consistent for all factor pairs. 

These differences across the three race-ethnicity groups can be seen in greater 

detail in Figures 6 (White, non-Hispanic), 7 (Hispanic, White or Black), and 8 (Black, 

non-Hispanic) as the two headed arrows between indicators (rectangles) or factors 

(ovals) (see Appendix D). 

2. Race-ethnicity and severity of abuse 

Table 2 shows that the percent of Black, non-Hispanic respondents who reported no 

abuse (41.1%) appeared low compared to percents for the other two subgroups (50.7% 

for White, non-Hispanic and 53.1% for Hispanic). Likewise, the percent of Black, nonHispanics with severe abuse scores (25.1%) appeared high compared to the other two 

groups (both 14.6% and 15.2%, respectively). These relationships were not statistically 

significant. 

D. Specific Aim 4 

Aim 4: Describe the extent to which the proposed model(s) has the best fit 

with key variables (1) type of abuser (i.e., close other) and (2) type of 

abuse. 

Aim 4.1.a. Determine if the path coefficients of the model(s) vary as a 

function of: (1) the abuser-victim relationship for the subgroups 

spouse/intimate partner, adult child/adult grandchild, paid caregiver, 

and other; and (2) type of abuse for the subgroups emotional abuse 

only, emotional and physical abuse only, emotional and sexual abuse 

only, and combined abuse (all three types present). 

1. Relationship of close other 

We explored the similarities and differences among three “relationship of close 

other” subgroups for the 410 women in the sample who identified their relationship to 

the person who they were thinking about when answering questions in Sections 1 and 4 

of the questionnaire. As previously discussed we aggregated the relationship 

categories into three groups for the analysis: husband/intimate partner, 

son/daughter/grandchild and other relative/friend. 

The specific goodness of fit statistics for each relationship of close other subgroup is 

shown below: 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 38
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

n Fit χ2/DF CFI RMSEA PClose % of Total 

Variance 

Husband/partner 186 Excellent: 1.137 .994 .027 .752 79% 

Child/grandchild 117 Very Good 1.394 .953 .058 .361 79% 

Other relative/friend 104 Excellent 1.010 .999 .010 .727 88% 

Table 4 rows eight through 10 show the coefficients for each of the factors of the 

PBHS.v2 model by close other subgroup. The contribution of each barrier indicator to 

the overall barrier score is statistically significant in each group. The magnitude of each 

contribution is generally similar at each level. 

The six measurement weights across the three relationship of close other categories 

shown in Table 4a were statistically different from each other, confirming that the model 

can be used to describe the coefficients’ prediction of mean PBHS score regardless of 

the close other relationship. The structured covariance among the six factors is 

statistically significant indicating that the covariances among the six factors are 

expected to vary independently for each relationship of close other group. 

Table 5 rows eight through 10 shows the relationships among factors for the three 

levels of abuse. Any cell containing a correlation coefficient indicates a statistically 

significant relationship. The numbers (correlation coefficients) can range from 0.00 to 

+1.00 or from 0.00 to – 1.00, where 0.00 represents no relationship between the factors 

or variables, and a +1.00 or a -1.00 represents a perfect (positive or negative, 

respectively) relationship. Overall the relationships described by the bivariate 

correlations were somewhat inconsistent and the magnitude of the correlation 

coefficients differed as well. The child/grandchild appears to be the most complex with 

slightly more significant relationships that the other two subgroups. Child/grandchild 

also had a very strong correlation between emotional gridlock and informal system 

response (.77). 

These differences across relationship of close other groups can be seen in greater 

detail in Figures 9 (spouse/partner), 10 (child/grandchild), and 11 (other relative/ friend) 

as the two headed arrows between indicators (rectangles) or factors (ovals) (see 

Appendix D). 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 39
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 2 shows that 25.3% of the other relative/close friend subgroup was associated 

with severe abuse. Smaller percents of the other two subgroups (22.1% of 

spouse/partner and 12.0% of child/grandchild) were observed. However, 

spouse/partners accounted for a relatively low proportion of the no abuse group (39.2%) 

compared with 55.5% of child/grandchild and 58.6% of other relative/close friend. 

Although interesting, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. 

2. Gender of close other 

Next we explored similarities and differences based on the gender of the person who 

was identified as the close other to the participant in item #71 as reported in item #72, 

The six factor model fit was very good for the female close others and excellent for the 

male close others as shown below: 

The specific goodness of fit statistics for gender of close other are shown below: 

n Fit χ2/DF CFI RMSEA PClose % of Total 

Variance 

Female 154 Very Good 1.424 .975 .052 .426 87% 

Male 267 Excellent 1.448 .982 .041 .638 81% 

Table 4 rows 11 and 12 show the coefficients for each of the perceived barrier 

indicators of the PBHS.v2 model by two relationship of close other categories. The 

contribution of each barrier indicator to the overall barrier score is statistically significant 

in both groups. 

The six measurement weights across the two gender of the close other subgroups 

shown in Table 4a were statistically significant as were the structured covariances, 

indicating that the model predicts significant correlations among the six factors based on 

gender of the close other. This is the only variable for which both measures have strong 

statistical significance. 

Table 5 rows 11 and 12 show the relationships among factors for the two gender of 

close other subgroups. Any cell containing a correlation coefficient indicates a 

statistically significant relationship. The numbers (correlation coefficients) can range 

from 0.00 to +1.00 or from 0.00 to – 1.00, where 0.00 represents no relationship 

between the factors or variables, and a +1.00 or a -1.00 represents a perfect (positive or 

negative, respectively) relationship. Overall, the relationships described by the bivariate 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 40
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

correlations were consistent as was the magnitude in most cases. Relatively large 

variations in correlations for abuser behaviors with both self-blame and informal external 

responses were notable. 

These differences across the gender of close other groups can be seen in greater 

detail in Figures 12 (female close other) and 13 (male close other) as the two headed 

arrows between indicators (rectangles) or factors (ovals) (see Appendix D). 

Table 2 shows that a much larger percent of female close others (61.1%) than male 

close others (39.3%) fell in the no abuse group. The percentage of male close others in 

both the minor and severe abuse groups was higher than the percentage of female 

close others. These relationships were not found to be statistically significant. 

3. Age of participant 

Finally we explored similarities and differences based on age of the participant at the 

time she completed the survey for three subgroups: a) 50 to 64 years, b) 65 to 74 years, 

and c) 75 years or older. The goodness of fit statistics for the three age groups were all 

excellent as shown below: 

n Fit χ2/DF CFI RMSEA PClose % of Total 

Variance 

Ages 50 to 64 years 156 Excellent 1.360 .964 .048 .490 81% 

Ages 65 to 74 years 168 Excellent 1.085 .995 .023 .765 86% 

Ages 75 years or 118 Excellent 0.813 .999 < .001 .908 86% 

older 

Table 4 rows 13 through 15 shows the coefficients for each of the PBHS.v2 

indicators by the three age categories. The contribution of each indicator to the overall 

barrier score is statistically significant in each of the three groups. The six measurement 

weights across the three age groups shown in Table 4a were not statistically different 

from each other. However the structured covariance among the six factors was 

statistically significant. 

Table 5 rows 13 through 15 show the relationships among factors for the three age 

subgroups. Any cell containing a correlation coefficient indicates a statistically 

significant relationship. The numbers (correlation coefficients) can range from 0.00 to 

+1.00 or from 0.00 to – 1.00, where 0.00 represents no relationship between the factors 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 41
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

or variables, and a +1.00 or a -1.00 represents a perfect (positive or negative, 

respectively) relationship. Overall, respondents in the youngest age group (50 to 64 

years) had fewer bivariate correlations than those in both of the older groups. Notably, 

the middle age group (65 to 74 years) had the most bivariate relationships and the 

oldest group (75 years and older) was somewhere in the middle. The strength of these 

relationships varied widely among the three groups on some variables, e.g. emotional 

gridlock and informal external response (ranged from .54 in youngest group to .70 in 

middle group). 

These differences across the three age groups can be seen in greater detail in 

Figures 14 (50 to 64 years), 15 (65 to 74 years), and 16 (75 years and older) as the two 

headed arrows between indicators (rectangles) or factors (ovals) (see Appendix D). 

Table 2 shows a slightly greater percentage of the 50-64 subgroup (21.8%) reported 

serious abuse than the other two age groups (17.9% for 65-74 and 15.3% for 75+). In 

both the minor and severe abuse categories the percentages declined as the age of 

participants increased. Again these differences were not statistically significant. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 42
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Aim 4.1.b: Determine if there are indicators within the model(s) that have 

different predictive values for the four types of abuse subgroups: 1) emotional 

abuse only, 2) emotional and physical abuse only, 3) emotional and sexual 

abuse only, and 4) combined abuse (all three types present). 

Although the logic of this aim is attractive, the data did not permit an analysis that 

would address the issue. One difficulty was the fact that only 49 women had an average 

CTS score over 1.50 (where 1 = never and 2 = sometimes on a 4-point scale) across 

the 8 items that represented emotional, physical and sexual abuse and injury. The 

correlations of these 49 participants’ CTS2S values with their barrier scores were 

statistically significant (r = .271 to .280) but did not differ among the four types of abuse 

subgroups. In fact, the correlations among the four types of abuse ranged from .833 to 

.983, implying that one could use any of the subgroups to describe the other three. 

Table 7 below presents the frequencies for each type of abuse by severity of abuse. 

The small n in most cells further illustrates the inability to conduct meaning without 

additional analyses for this Specific Aim. 

Table 7: Type of abuse by severity of abuse* 

No Minor Severe 

Abuse Abuse Abuse Total 

# (%) # (%) 

Psych Only N/A 144 (98.0%) 25 (30.1%) 169 

Psych and Physical Only N/A 2 (1.4%) 17 (20.5%) 19 

Psych and Sexual Only N/A 0 21 (25.3%) 21 

Psych, Physical and Sexual N/A 1 (0.6%) 14 (16.9%) 15 

Sexual Only N/A 0 6 (7.2%) 6 

Total 215 147 (100%) 83 (100%) 230 

The most reasonable conclusion to draw with these data is that the overall CTS2S 

scores are related to the barrier scores as described in the discussion of Aim 2. 

However, it is not possible to discern the differences in barrier scores or even factor 

scores on the basis of the CTS2S subscale scores using data collected in the current 

study. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 43
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

E. Specific Aim 5 

Aim-5: Use the resulting best fitting model(s) for each ethnic group and identified 

predictive values of type of abuser and type of abuse as the basis for a draft 

coordinated community response (CCR) initiative plan. 

Aim 5.1: Convene a community work group to assist in review of survey data 

and best practices literature and to assist the research team in development of 

a draft CCR plan. 

As previously described, members of the advisory panel agencies were invited to 

participate in a meeting on April 29, 2009 to review results of analyses of survey data, to 

look at existing models for designing coordinated community response, and to identify a 

framework for responding to older victims of domestic abuse in Miami-Dade County. 

Specific goals for meeting attendees were: (1) increase knowledge about domestic 

abuse in later life; (2) gain commitment from attendees to actively participate in the 

coordinated community response planning process; (3) connect research findings to 

practice in Miami-Dade County; and (4) outline a coordinated community response 

planning process. 

1. Increase knowledge about domestic abuse in later life. 

All attendees had received previous training regarding elder abuse, and most had 

previously learned about domestic abuse in later life. We showed a short DVD about 

domestic abuse in later life, entitled “What’s Age Got to do With It”, to initiate a 

discussion about the complex dynamics of the issues from both the victims’ and service 

systems’ perspectives. These themes were revisited when preliminary findings from the 

survey data were presented. 

2. Gain commitment from attendees to actively participate in the coordinated community 

response planning process. 

Attendees were asked to describe how their agencies responded to incidents of 

domestic abuse in later life, including any frustrations they perceived from the system 

response perspective and barriers they had encountered in terms of reaching and 

assisting victims. System gaps were discussed from both of these perspectives and 

included recognition that system response is often driven by legal imperatives and/or 

availability of resources in contrast to a more optimal victim-centered approach. All 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 44
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

attendees acknowledged a strong interest in working toward a more victim-centered 

coordinated response to domestic abuse in later life in Miami-Dade County. 

a. Survey. Prior to the meeting, invitees were asked to complete a survey (see 

Attachment D). Section A of the survey, which included three items, was based on 

Worden’s (2001) discussion regarding problem definition in understanding diverse 

community models for agency coordination in partner violence cases. Worden 

described three perspectives on problems and solutions relative to coordination efforts. 

Section A was designed to identify which perspective each of the participants was most 

comfortable with and to provide a basis for a discussion of these concepts. The three 

perspectives are shown in Table 8. The majority of respondents initially identified with 

the institutional failure point of view. However, when we discussed these models late in 

the workshop, many participants were more inclined toward the victim-system mismatch 

perspective. This is most likely a result of the detailed discussions throughout the day 

regarding victim perspectives and barriers to help-seeking. 

Section B items focused on dimensions of coordination, also based on Worden’s 

2001 report. Section B consisted of six statements regarding availability of resources 

related to community response to domestic abuse in later life and six statements related 

to the involvement of specific agencies/organizations in planning for coordinated 

response to later life DV. For each statement respondents were asked to reply based on 

their own agency AND from the perspective of the community at large. For the 

workshop discussion we focused on responses representing a community perspective. 

What was most notable about responses to these items was the inconsistency across 

respondents, i.e., there were wide variations on the 10 point response scale for virtually 

all 12 items in regard to the perspective of the community at large. 

It should be noted that the response rate on this survey was low (6 of 20 invited 

participants). Therefore we addressed specific survey items in the discussion. Survey 

responses and the related workshop discussions are reflected in the draft coordinated 

community response plan. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 45
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 8: Coordinated community response perspectives 

Response Categories and Survey Response Options* 

Survey Question Institutional Failure Victim Reluctance Victim-System Mismatch 

The main problem with Failure of legal system to Reluctance of victims to Mismatch between needs of 

the current community appropriately criminalize enlist aid of police and victims and offenders, and 

response to domestic family violence. courts and to persevere diverse, contradictory rules 

abuse in middle and once their cases have of responding organizations 

later life is: entered legal system. and institutions. 

Primary objectives of 

coordinated community 

response to domestic 

abuse in middle and 

later life should be: 

Increase rates of arrest, 

prosecution, and 

conviction; increase 

consensus among police, 

prosecutors, and courts 

re: responding to family 

violence; make agencies 

accountable for case 

outcomes. 

Increase advocacy, 

victim autonomy and 

empowerment, economic 

and social support, and 

“user friendliness” of the 

criminal justice system. 

Realign response systems to 

prioritize agencies’ claims on 

victims, reconcile and 

address contradictions, and 

stream-line access to 

tangible and intangible 

resources. 

The most urgent 

coordinated response 

efforts regarding 

domestic abuse in 

middle and later life 

are: 

Implement strong proarrest/pro-prosecution 

policies; develop effective 

sentencing programs; 

train police, prosecutors, 

judges and probation 

officers through 

coordination mechanisms 

designed to iron out 

differences in practices, 

priorities, and (mis-) 

understandings that might 

stand in the way of a 

comprehensive law 

enforcement response. 

Create safer, more 

supportive and more 

affirmative 

environment(s) for 

victims in criminal justice 

system and the 

community. 

Criminal courts, family 

courts, social, health, and 

victim services agencies 

acknowledge fragmentation; 

reach consensus on working 

definition of victim needs and 

system priorities; accept 

compromise protocols or 

priorities in collective pursuit 

of a more systemic 

response. 

*Instructions: Below are descriptions of problems and solutions. For each item please mark an “X” next to the statement 

that best describes your agency’s current policies and perspectives. Select ONLY ONE RESPONSE for each item. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 46
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

b. Relevance of models. A detailed review of the statistical results of preliminary 

survey data and the resulting model (Figure 1) as well as variations in the factor 

relationships based on demographic and other variable considerations, also contributed 

to increasing commitment of participants. We found that participants were eager to find 

“evidence” in our data that supported their experiences in the field, which provided an 

empirical foundation they believed would be useful both for developing training curricula 

and supporting funding requests. 

One example of a strong correlation was noted in our meeting with community 

professionals to review project data and discuss development of a coordinated 

community response relative to Specific Aim 5. Specifically, the community 

professionals commented that the strong correlation between emotional gridlock and 

informal external responses that appeared in the model (see Figure 1) accurately 

reflected what they had observed when working with victims in the field. 

As a second example, participants noted that differences in the magnitude of 

correlations among the three racial-ethnic subgroups were consistent with their field 

experience and offered insights that they believed would be useful in improving their 

cultural effectiveness in day-to-day interactions with victims. 

c. Vision statements. Near the end of the workshop participants were asked to work 

in groups to develop vision statements for a coordinated community response. Multiple 

representatives from the same agency were asked to work in separate groups for this 

exercise. The following three statements were produced: 

	 A vision for a coordinated community response in Miami-Dade County for 

domestic abuse victims in middle and later life should be one that is clientcentered, geared toward empowerment, independence and self efficacy, while 

providing a culturally competent foundation. 

	 We envision a community coordinated response to domestic abuse in middle and 

later life with a collaboration of traditional and non-traditional partners that will 

create a victim-centered response to best serve the needs of older victims. This 

approach must address the specific barriers of older victims: their dignity, safety, 

medical condition and economic stability, while helping them move toward self 

efficacy. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 47
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

	 Enhance client safety, taking into account agency policies and practices, in order 

to empower the client to seek solutions which will assure accountability from the 

offender/batterer. We would have as our goal to empower the elderly victims with 

the economic, emotional, or social connections to fulfill her needs for safety in the 

community. 

These statements were used as the basis for the remaining discussions and are 

reflected in the draft coordinated community response plan, which was distributed to 

attendees (and key agencies unable to attend) for review on June 30, 2009. A final draft 

of this document is included as Attachment B. 

3. Connect research findings to practice in Miami-Dade County 

As previously noted, when we presented the statistical results of our survey data 

analyses, participants were able to confirm many observations they had made as 

professionals who worked with victims. 

4. Outline coordinated community response planning process 

The last session of the workshop focused on what needed to be done to develop a 

coordinated community response in Miami-Dade County. The discussion was based on 

identification of existing coordination models and a status review of a CCR for rape 

victims that had successfully been developed and implemented in Miami-Dade several 

years ago. The following items were identified as essential elements of a plan: 

 Leadership structure (lead agency vs. council) 

 Who needs to be at the table? 

 Staffing 

 Funding 

 Evaluation 

 Formal agreements 

 Point(s) of entry for
 

o older victims who are not covered under the state elder abuse statute 

o older victims who are covered, but are determined to be competent and 

who refuse APS services 

Aim 5.3: Prepare a ready-for-testing (in a future project) draft CCR initiative
 

plan.
 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 48
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. Development of draft plan and solicitation of feedback 

The draft CCR plan was developed as previously described, with input from 

community partners at several points in the development process and informed by a 

review of existing coordinated community response initiatives in Miami-Dade County 

and other U.S. communities. 

The purpose of the plan is to provide guidance and procedural direction for all 

agencies and organizations in Miami-Dade County, Florida that work with older adults 

and/or older victims of domestic violence. To that end, efforts will be made to identify 

any agency or organization that meets this definition and to obtain a formalized 

agreement regarding their participation in this collaborative approach. The goal is to 

ensure that all agencies or authorities responding to or working with such victims will 

share appropriate information, make informed decisions, and act with a coordinated 

effort to maximize victim safety while respecting individual rights. 

Recognizing that each law enforcement, public safety, health care, social service, 

and advocacy agency has its own policies and procedures, some of which are statutory, 

the coalition’s function is to provide first responders and other professionals who 

interact with people age 50 and older who may experience domestic abuse with a 

decision-making tool that will be used to develop a triaged response that focuses on 

matching an individual victim’s situation, attitudes, beliefs and needs to a multi-level 

response plan. 

The following mission statement for the CCR was based on statements developed 

by three teams at the leadership workshop in April 2009. 

Mission Statement: Respond to identified victims of domestic abuse in 

later life in Miami-Dade County, Florida through a collaboration of 

traditional and non-traditional agencies offering support and services 

designed to empower such victims to achieve the economic stability, 

self efficacy, and personal support they require to reduce the negative 

effects of abuse, increase personal safety, and improve their overall 

quality of life while providing appropriate services and support for 

abusers as proscribed by law but with due consideration of the victim’s 

wishes. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 49
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

The CCR plan contains 4 sections, which are outlined below. The entire plan is 

included as Attachment E to this report. 

Section One: Overarching Coordination Issues 

 Formal collaboration structure and oversight 

 Practice guidelines for first responder triage and referrals to CCR partners 

 Information sharing guidelines 

 Measuring outcomes 

 Guidelines for review and revision of CCR plan 

Section Two: Details Regarding Each CCR Partner 

 Brief agency description including local, state and federal Reporting 

relationships 

 Goal of agency 

 Service description 

 Ongoing case management 

 Service outcomes 

 Screening process and questions used 

 Case disposition options and definitions
 

 Mandates for reporting to other agencies
 

 Non-mandated referral options
 

Section Three: Directory of Services 

Section Four: Directory of Resources 

Primary CCR Partners 

 Adult Protective Services 

 Law Enforcement (County and municipalities) 

 Fire Rescue (County and municipalities) 

 State Attorney’s Office 

 Civil Courts 

 Criminal Courts 

 Public Defender 

 Probation Department 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 50
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Affiliate CCR Partners 

 Diversion Service Provider(s) 

 Abuser Service Provider(s) 

 Guardianship Service Provider(s) 

 Domestic Violence Shelter(s) 

 Alliance for Aging, Inc. 

 Legal Aid 

 Immigrant Services
 

 Florida Office of the Attorney General 

 County Attorney’s Office 

Development and implementation of the CCR plan. The following approach is 

recommended for final development and implementation of the CCR plan: 

Step 1: Engage core partners to develop a funding proposal that will support a 

community effort to fully develop the CCR protocols and the plan that documents those 

protocols and to implement the plan. The remaining steps assume success for Step 1. 

Step 2: Establish ad-hoc group representing the primary CCR partners to oversee 

the development and implementation process. 

 Create a group meeting schedule. 

 Set goals with timelines 

 Provide the group with a minimum of 8 hours per week staffing dedicated to the 

collaborative. 

 As appropriate, divide into subgroups to develop critical subsections of the plan, 

including: 

o	 Obtain Section Two details from all primary and affiliate partners. 

o	 Develop Section Three. 

o	 Develop Section Four. 

o	 Develop memorandum of understanding that outlines roles and 

responsibilities of primary and affiliate partners that includes language 

acceptable to all partners. 

Step 3: Design and implement a pilot project to test the plan. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 51
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Step 4: Continue to work with all partners to resolve problems identified through the 

pilot process and revise plan as needed. 

Step 5: Plan and fund sustainability of the collaborative. 

6. Feedback 

The draft plan, which only reflected preliminary analyses completed prior to April 29, 

was distributed to one or more representatives from every agency in attendance on 

April 29 and an additional 14 people from relevant agencies that did not have 

representatives in attendance. A total of 25 draft plans with detailed feedback 

solicitation forms were distributed by e-mail. Of these, seven were returned. Clearly this 

was an insufficient number to allow us to draw any conclusions regarding the draft plan. 

Most of those who responded were approved the general outline of the plan. One 

respondent did not believe that a separate CCR protocol for older victims was needed. 

One respondent requested inclusion of language that would include older victims with 

disabilities. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 52
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION IV: DISCUSSION 

The results of analyses of the survey data show that our predictions, as reflected in 

the proposed PBHS model, were supported in this sample of 445 women age 50 and 

older. However, because the research design and the findings were largely theoretical, 

implications of the results in terms of future research and practice in the field are 

speculative. In terms of research, the study may have raised as many new questions as 

were answered, as will be discussed later in this section. For practitioners, the themes 

and concepts offer new perspectives or confirm existing notions that ultimately should 

be applicable in the clinical or advocacy arena, with further testing. 

A. Prevalence and Incidence 

Although we did not set out to measure prevalence and incidence and did not 

structure the research sample or instruments to do this, we did arrive at numbers that 

should be discussed relative to other research findings. Using item 77, “after you were 

50 years old did you experience any of the problems described in this questionnaire 

with someone you are close to?” as a potential prevalence indicator we found that 127 

(28.5%) of all respondents said “yes”. This is just slightly higher than the top of the 

range (3.2 – 27.5%) identified by Cooper, Selwood & Livingston (2008) who reviewed 

49 studies regarding prevalence of elder abuse and neglect. Obviously we cannot 

establish the 28.5% we found as representative of prevalence, even in our sample, 

particularly because we were unable to control for many of the biases that could affect 

the outcome. Nevertheless, the significant relationship between results to item 77 and 

the CTS2S scores and the inclusion of women in the lower age range that was not 

included in many of the studies Cooper, Selwood & Livingston (2008) reviewed makes 

our result at least plausible. 

In terms of incidence, as discussed earlier we measured past year occurrences with 

eight CTS2S non-negotiation items. Here we found that 51.7% of the total sample had 

experienced at least one incident of some type of abuse in the previous year; 83 

(18.7%) had experienced severe abuse according to the CTS2S results (Straus & 

Douglas, 2004). Of these 24 (32.9% of all severe abuse and 5.4% of the total sample) 

reported psychological abuse only. Laumann, Leitsch and Waite (2008) asked 3,005 

participants, ages 57-85, in The National Social Life, Health and Aging Project sample if 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 53
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

in the past year they had experienced verbal, financial and/or physical mistreatment. 

The results were generally similar to ours for psychological (9% compared to our 5.4% 

for severe psychological/verbal abuse) and physical abuse (0.2% compared to our 3.1% 

for severe physical abuse). Zink and Fisher (2008) found an incidence of 3.3% for 

controlling behaviors, 7.4% for threats, and 1.0% for physical abuse. Zink and Fisher 

also provided incidence of sexual abuse (1.3%), which is low compared with our 8.5% 

reporting at least one incident of severe sexual coercion in the previously year. 

Notably each study uses different definitions and measures, which somewhat 

nullifies the usefulness of comparisons. Overall we can conclude that our results 

generally fall on the high end of previous prevalence and incidence measures. 

B. Severe Abuse Victims 

Perhaps what stands out most is the striking difference in bivariate correlation 

coefficients among the six factors between participants with no abuse and victims with 

severe abuse. As previously noted, victims with severe abuse had fewer correlations 

among the six factors overall, although there were relationships between secrecy and 

emotional gridlock and informal external responses and formal system responses that 

did not exist at all for the no abuse subgroup. Additionally, where both groups showed 

correlations, the relative size of the relationship was remarkably different. For example 

for emotional gridlock and abuser behaviors the correlation coefficient was .67 for the 

no abuse group and .25 for the severe abuse group. Similarly emotional gridlock and 

informal external responses had a .75 correlation for the no abuse group and a .29 for 

severe abuse. While data from the current study does not allow us to explain the 

differences in these presentations, it is clear that victims’ perceived barriers to helpseeking are uniquely contrasted to those of non-victims. 

Interpreting these findings must be speculative until they can be explored more 

rigorously in future research. One possibility is that the relative simplicity of the severe 

abuse victim model and the comparatively low value of the correlations among the six 

factors may reflect a reality that includes few personal relationships and isolation from 

an outside world. We also found it interesting that the strongest inter-factor correlation 

for victims of severe abuse was found between self blame and informal external 

responses. Victims may be more likely to assume personal blame than other 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 54
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

subgroups, possibly a reflection of the effectiveness of the abuser’s tactics and/or a 

predisposition to accepting blame for negative experiences. 

Another observation that should be further investigated was that cases of minor 

abuse were usually limited to the psychological type, while severe abuse, in addition to 

the psychological only group, combined psychological abuse with other the types of 

abuse somewhat equally (see Table 7). It was also interesting that six participants 

indicated severe sexual coercion but did not identify psychological abuse at either the 

minor or severe level. 

C. Reported Help-Seeking Activities 

When asked, “If you experienced abuse what did you do?” significantly more minor 

abuse victims “did nothing” (74.1%) compared to severe abuse victims (55.4%). In fact, 

victims of severe abuse were significantly more likely to seek each kind of help listed on 

the questionnaire than victims of minor abuse [(χ2 (2 df) = 12.134, p = .002]. This may 

not be consistent with Randall‘s (1990, cited in Reidy & Von Korff, 1991) finding that, as 

abuse escalates, so do victims’ feelings of intense isolation from the institutions and 

resources that might offer help. 

 This seeming contradiction may, at least partially, be explained by Grossman & 

Lundy’s (2003) contextually based proposal that persons who seek help may differ from 

other victims of DV, particularly with regard to their experience of abuse. In our sample 

44.6% of women who experienced severe abuse reported one or more help-seeking 

activities. Most frequently this involved asking a family member for help (15), calling 911 

(14), or asking a friend for help (13). Only 25.9% of women who experienced minor 

abuse reported one or more help-seeking behaviors. The most likely action was to ask a 

family member for help. 

Interestingly none of the women in our sample had gone to either a homeless or DV 

shelter. 

D. The PBHS.v2 Model 

Overall analyses of the model showed that perceived barriers to help-seeking 

involved six factors that present in unique ways based on severity of abuse, raceethnicity, relationship of close other, gender of close other, and age of respondent. The 

revised model (PBHS.v2, Figure 1) was confirmed and, in particular showed very strong 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 55
                                                           

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

results based on level of abuse, the measure used to determine whether or not a 

respondent had been a victim of domestic abuse after age 50. Victims of severe abuse 

showed a unique pattern of relative contribution of the six factors to the computed 

PBHS. 

The PBHS.v2 model is consistent with the literature on barriers to help-seeking for 

domestic violence and abuse in both younger and elder populations. In describing elder 

abuse risk factors, for example, Kosberg & Nahmiash (1996) suggested a trichotomous 

classification plan that considered characteristics of the abused person and the abuser, 

and the environment in which the two parties come together, indicating a relationship 

among the three factors, a theory supported by Ansello’s (1996) research. Reidy & Von 

Korff’s (1991) study of women seeking help from agencies that serve abused women 

specifically asked, “Is battered women’s help-seeking connected to their level of 

abuse?”4 Belknap (1999) noted that choices made in the context of abuse are 

essentially coerced by the situation. 

Similarly, the PBHS.v2 model recognizes that domestic violence must be viewed in a 

context that reflects social construction of the meaning of violence (Barker & Himchak, 

2006; Lindhorst and Tajima, 2008). While recognizing the need to measure behaviors, 

as we did by utilizing the CTS2S scales for physical abuse, psychological abuse, and 

sexual coercion, the PBHS Assessment added contextual elements such as sensitivity 

to an abuser’s power and control tactics and the personal impact of these behaviors, 

perceptions of women’s roles in the family, and beliefs regarding how the informal and 

formal external “world” are likely to view a victim’s situation, culpability for it, and options 

for modifying the circumstances that were reflected in the DVAOW focus group data. 

Statistical affirmation of the model moves the knowledge base forward in terms of 

demonstrating the complexity of a victim’s beliefs, situation and help-seeking choices. 

E. The Six PBHS Factors 

1. Self blame 

Although the original conception of self blame didn’t change, the one retained 

statement that measured this factor implies a more discrete definition. 

4

 Although their data indicated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of delay in reporting 

across abuse severity categories, the research question itself suggests support for making this 

connection. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 56
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

“It is okay for people who are close to a woman your age to scream at her when 

she does something “wrong” or makes a mistake.” 

It is interesting that this statement worked well with the model, when a similar statement 

that replaced “to scream at” with “to hit” was not supported in the analysis. It would 

seem that there may be limits to self blame in terms of defining acceptable 

consequences. Victims may “assume” that they deserve to be screamed at if they do 

something wrong and even assume that if someone screams at them it means it must 

be deserved. However, such assumptions may not extend to physical forms of abuse 

for this population. 

As presented in Table 5, our data did not show a connection between self blame and 

either secrecy or formal system responses in any subgroup, with the exception of self 

blame and formal system response for the no abuse subgroup. The general pattern of 

bivariate correlation coefficients between self blame and the other five factors in the 

model is similar across all subgroups with two exceptions. First, for cases of minor and 

severe abuse there were only two and one relationships, respectively, out of a potential 

five. Second, self blame had no correlations for participants age 50-64. As a result we 

can speculate that the concept of self blame may be perceived in a unique way by 

abuse victims and by all women between ages 50 and 64 in our sample. 

2. Secrecy 

Secrecy also kept its original definition in the model. The two retained statements 

used to measure secrecy addressed either talking with “other people” or with “other 

family members” about family problems. Our data did not show a connection between 

secrecy and self blame (discussed above) nor was secrecy connected to abuser 

behaviors in any subgroup. Secrecy did not correlate to emotional gridlock for most 

subgroups, although there was a weak correlation in the full sample (.15) and in the 

group where the close other was a male, the correlation was significant at .30. Secrecy 

only correlated with informal external responses for about half of the subgroups and 

was relatively low when it did correlate. 

These results may be an indication that secrecy about family problems is an 

imperative unrelated to the nature of those problems. This is further supported by the 

finding that secrecy’s contribution to the overall barrier score was similar for both victim 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 57
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

and non-victims subgroups and, in fact, across all subgroups. The value dipped lowest 

for respondents who reflected on their relationship with an “other relative or friend”, 

which possibly implies that secrecy is a stronger barrier when the abuser is a relatively 

close relation. Secrecy was consistently the largest contributor to the overall barrier 

score for the full group and for all subgroups we looked at. 

3. Abuser behaviors 

All of the original statements regarding abuser behaviors were retained. However 

the distinction between types of behaviors proposed in the original model, i.e., jealousy, 

isolation and intimidation, were not supported by the data. It is not clear to us if or how 

this impacts barriers to help-seeking overall. 

Most subgroups showed a relationship between abuser behaviors and self blame. 

This relationship was strongest among participants who were age 75+ years of age 

(.39), those whose close other was male (.38), and for participants with no abuse (.42). 

Correlations between abuser behaviors and both emotional gridlock and informal 

external responses existed for all subgroups. The exception was the absence of 

correlations between abuser behaviors and informal external responses for severe 

abuse victims. Abuser behaviors and formal system response were not correlated with 

the exception of victims of minor abuse and participants whose close other was a child 

or grandchild. The latter relationship may reflect the complexities of help-seeking when 

the abuser is an adult child or grandchild. 

In general these findings indicate a strong relationship between abuser behaviors 

and internal and external help-seeking barriers, possibly supporting the notion that 

abusive behavior itself is inextricably linked to an older woman’s responses to such 

tactics. 

4. Emotional gridlock 

The emotional gridlock factor reflects a combination of items developed to measure 

the hopelessness, powerlessness and protecting family factors in the original PBHS 

model. The retained statements address the following themes: 

 Long-standing relationship problems cannot be changed or fixed. 

 Asking for help puts an older woman at risk for losing control of personal 

decisions. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 58
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

 The interests of the family as a unit supersede an older woman’s personal 

needs. 

See the next section for a discussion of the correlation between emotional gridlock 

and informal external responses. 

5. Informal external responses 

This new factor is composed of statements that supported two previous factors: 

friends and family response and clergy response as described by DVAOW focus group 

participants. In terms of clergy response retained items focused on beliefs within the 

context of the respondent’s religion (statements were qualified by the phrase “according 

to your religious beliefs) and one item that reflected expectations regarding how clergy 

might respond if consulted by a victim of domestic abuse in later life. Retained items for 

friends and family response focused on perceptions that family/friends would expect an 

older woman to put family considerations first and would be disapproving of any acts 

that threatened the family’s status quo. A statement regarding concern for the personal 

safety of family members were not supported in the new model. 

Of the six factors in the PBHS.v2 model, informal external responses is the only one 

that connects to each of the other factors in addition to contributing to the overall barrier 

score. For all of the subgroups the strongest factor relationships were between 

emotional gridlock and informal external responses. Notably the strength of this 

relationship was much lower for the severe abuse subgroup (.29) than for any other 

subgroup. In fact, the highest coefficients for this factor pair were in the no abuse and 

minor abuse subgroups (.75 and .79, respectively). 

The implications of these findings in terms of interventions may be significant. 

Because the strongest relationship in the BHS.v2 is between emotional gridlock and 

informal external responses, it may be necessary to address these issues and the 

underlying beliefs they represent with victims before attempting to address other helpseeking barriers. Improving support from family members, friends and clergy may help 

victims more effectively ameliorate the effects of an abusive relationship and even 

increase willingness to consider separating from the abuser. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 59
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. Formal system responses 

This new factor is composed of statements that supported two previous factors: 

justice system response and community resources response. Retained justice system 

statements reflect a respondents beliefs regarding whether or not police will respond at 

all or respond in a helpful way to an older DV victim. The retained community resource 

statements focus on availability of specific services for older women who are victims of 

domestic abuse in later life. 

Considering the widespread belief that domestic abuse in later life is largely 

unreported, it is not surprising that the formal system responses factor contributed least 

to the overall barrier score for the full sample and in correlations between factors for all 

subgroups. Nevertheless, addition research is required to determine implications for 

intervention strategies. 

F. Major Variables of Interest 

1. Race and ethnicity 

Research findings regarding the impact of ethnicity and race on occurrence of abuse 

against older women as well as how ethnicity and race effect PBHS are ambiguous. 

Some studies suggested that DV may be more prevalent among minority elders 

(Grossman & Lundy, 2003; Pearlman, 2003) while others suggested that Black and 

Hispanic elders are held in such great respect that there was likely to be little or no EA 

(Griffin & Hall, 1999). In terms of PBHS, Yoshihama (2002) found that minority DV 

victims may not be willing to reveal their situation for fear of bringing shame to their 

families or communities, or reluctance to support stereotypes, and Campbell (1996) 

found that minority women often had to choose between staying in a violent situation or 

leaving and being rejected by the community. In contrast, Kasturirangan et al. (2004) 

cited several examples of effective, culturally-acceptable grassroots community 

responses to domestic abuse victims. 

DVAOW data suggested that older women in the three race-ethnicity groups studied 

talked about domestic abuse in much the same terms and all confirmed its occurrence 

in their communities. At least some from each ethnic/racial group had experienced 

domestic abuse. Nevertheless, variations based on ethnicity-race were noted. For 

example, more Black and White non-Hispanic participants said that they might seek 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 60
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

help from police and the courts than Hispanic women. 

The current study was designed to allow for more specific conclusions regarding the 

impact of race-ethnicity on PBHS. 

2. Relationship to close other 

The most complex array of inter-factor correlations was found for the 

husband/intimate partner category and the least complex was for a relative/friend. At 

this point, we do not have a theory or interpretation of these differences other than they 

exist and the differences are sufficiently strong that follow-up with both qualitative and 

quantitative studies are needed here. Moreover, perhaps the most interesting analysis 

would occur within the victim sub-group. See the section on limitations for a discussion 

of why we could not analyze the data at that level. 

3. Gender of close other 

There were specific differences for the factor correlations where the close other was 

identified as male versus female. When a male was the close other the relationship 

between emotional gridlock and informal external responses was high (.89). For this 

group, the next highest correlation (.56) was between self blame and informal external 

responses. When the close other was identified as a female, relationships were found in 

the same pairings as were generally found in other sub-groups and these correlations 

were relatively strong with the exception of secrecy and informal external responses, 

which, consistent with other subgroups, was relatively low at .19. 

4. Participant age 

As described in the results section, we considered variations in the model’s effects 

when we separated participants into three age groups: a) 50 to 64 years, b) 65 to 74 

years, and c) 75 years or older. Although the difference was not statistically significant, 

like Fisher and Regan (2006) we found that a higher percentage of the 50-64 subgroup 

(21.8%) reported serious abuse than the other two age groups (17.9% for 65-74 and 

15.3% for 75+). In both the minor and severe abuse categories the percentages 

declined as the age of participants increased. 

The measurement weights that included the prediction coefficients for the six factors 

were not significantly different across the three age groups. However, the covariance 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 61
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

structure differed significantly between the three groups (see Table 6), indicating that 

the relationships among the factors were different for each of the three age groups. 

For the youngest age group (50-64) self blame did not correlate with any of the other 

five factors. In fact, of the 15 potential variable pairs, the youngest age group showed 

correlations in only five: secrecy and formal system response (.45), emotional gridlock 

and abuser behaviors (.51), emotional gridlock and informal external responses (.54), 

abuser behaviors and informal external responses (.44) and informal external 

responses and formal system responses (.22). The virtual non-existence of self blame 

in the covariance structure for this age group compared to some strong relationships in 

the other two age groups, underscores the importance of understanding that the needs 

of the “youngest old” victims may be quite different from older victims when developing 

intervention programs. This, of course, is not surprising as there are high expectations 

that the needs of the aging baby boom generation may well be different from their 

predecessors across all social and health support service sectors. 

Most notable regarding the oldest old group (75+) was the lack of correlation 

between secrecy and any of the other five factors in the model. For the middle age 

range (65-74) the correlation between emotional gridlock and informal external 

responses was quite large (.70). The next highest correlation for this subgroup was .57 

for self blame and informal external responses. 

G. Bringing Data to Community Stakeholders and Coordinated Community 

Response 

We found that community stakeholders were anxious to receive empirical data 

regarding the issue of domestic abuse in later life and barriers to help-seeking for its 

victims. The challenge was to conduct a rigorous statistical analysis to support the data 

and then to describe the resulting findings in terms that were understandable to 

community stakeholders. In preparing for our presentation at the April 29 meeting great 

effort was put into showing the strength of the statistical support for our findings while 

not overwhelming participants with highly technical concepts. Response from 

participants, particularly their ability to engage in dialogue based on the presentation of 

our data, indicates that we were successful in this effort. 

In terms of further development and implementation of the draft plan, the current 

environment where funding for many community services is extremely scare, resulting 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 62
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

in wide-spread reductions in staff and services, is challenging. We estimate that full 

development of the plan, including the pilot testing, would require between 18 and 24 

months. During that time, funded staff would be essential to keep the process moving. 

While members of the project team are committed to working toward development of 

such a plan, their efforts also may be hampered by lack of funding. Many of the 

agencies that would be key stakeholders in a coordinated community response (CCR) 

to domestic abuse in later life expressed strong interest in further development of this 

concept and generally agreed to an initial draft plan as a jumping off point for additional 

work toward a CCR plan. 

Our results indicate that the development of services specifically suitable to the 

needs, personal beliefs and values of older women who experience DV is vital. 

Professionals in all service segments must more fully understand the help-seeking 

barriers that older DV victims face. To this end, the research community is challenged to 

replace myths and stereotypes about the nature and prevalence of DV among older 

people with empirically derived knowledge. New qualitative studies that focus on some 

of the relationships of interest as well as a quantitative study with a larger sample size 

would help in this regard and also help to clarify many of the observations identified in 

this section. 

H. Implications for Future Research 

The results of analyses of the survey data show that our predictions, as reflected in 

the proposed PBHS model, were supported in this sample of 445 women age 50 and 

older. However, because the research design and the findings were largely theoretical, 

implications of the results in terms of future research and practice in the field are 

speculative. In terms of research, the study may have raised as many new questions as 

were answered, as will be discussed later in this section. 

There are a number of questions that must be addressed for it to be considered 

useful. Specifically, can the instrument be of any use in the delivery of DV services to 

older victims and to help the justice system and its community partners be more 

effective and cost effective in delivering services? Can the PBHS Assessment be used 

in other urban, suburban, and rural communities and with other cultural subgroups as a 

means of describing perceived help-seeking barriers for older victims of domestic abuse 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 63
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

and/or to inform intervention planning for individual victims or a group of victims within a 

community? Will the instrument be sensitive to changes in the delivery of services? The 

results of the current study are sufficiently strong to recommend that these questions be 

pursued in follow up studies. 

Additional future research questions proposed by a reviewer include: 

 The relationship between perceived barriers and barriers that victims have 

actually encountered. 

 Barriers (or perceived barriers) associated with the various forms of domestic 

abuse in later life and domestic violence. 

 The impact of criminal justice approaches in resolving various forms of 

domestic abuse in later life and domestic violence. 

 The impact of alternative approaches to resolving various forms of domestic 

abuse in later life and domestic violence. 

 Effective approaches to generating cross disciplinary, collaborative 

approaches to service delivery for victims of domestic abuse in later life. 

Finally, although not part of the current research, we believe it is essential to look at 

male victims, whose perceived help-seeking barriers may be even more intense and 

complex. Also, anecdotally it would seem likely that there is a strong relationship 

between financial abuse and exploitation and other forms of abuse involving power and 

control dynamics within the realm of domestic abuse in later life. As the baby boom 

generation ages this phenomenon may become even more widespread. Therefore 

additional research to better understand how financial abuse and exploitation fit in the 

domestic abuse in later life paradigm is indicated. Notably, financial exploitation is 

reflected in the Abuse in Later Life Wheel (NCALL, 2006) 

I. Limitations 

The following limitations were identified during data collection and/or analysis. 

Variation in how questionnaire was administered and other data collection 

considerations. The project design called for data to be collected using a selfadministered questionnaire in small groups arranged by the project team based on 

convenience of time and location. Overall this was an efficient and effective way to 

collect data for a relatively large sample. However, in some cases the group setting was 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 64
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

problematic. This was particularly true when there were respondents who were unable 

to complete the questionnaire without assistance due to illiteracy, cognitive and/or 

cultural difficulty with some or all of the items, or visual impairment. In some cases 

survey items were read aloud to subgroups or even to individuals. Additionally in some 

groups participants who had to wait for “slower” responders were noticeably impatient 

and intolerant, perhaps resulting in some of the slower respondents rushing through the 

final pages or not completing the survey. 

Correlation of CTS with relevant BHS.v2 items. In the section that describes results 

for specific aim 4.1.b we address the methodological limitations we faced in attempting 

these comparisons. Additionally, the time frame for CTS items is specified as “in the 

previous year” while item #77 focuses on after age 50. As a result we could not use the 

CTS data to confirm respondents’ self reports regarding being a victim. However, 

overall victims indicated “often” or “frequently” for the 8 non-negotiation items on the 

CTS2 significantly more than non-victims. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 65
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION V: REFERENCES 

Ansello, EF (1996). Causes and Theories. In LA Baumhover & SC Beall (Eds), Abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation of older persons: Strategies for assessment and 

intervention (pp. 9-29), Baltimore: Health Professions Press. 

Arbuckle, J. I. (2008). Amos 17.0 User’s Guide. Crawfordville, FL. Amos Development 

Corporation. 

Barker, NN & Himchak, MV (2006). Environmental Issues Affecting Elder Abuse 

Victims in Their Reception of Community Based Services, Journal of 

Gerontological Social Work, 48(1), 233 - 255. 

Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L.R., Newman, F. L., & Dunlop, B. (2005). Internal Barriers to 

Help Seeking for Middle Aged and Older Women who Experience Intimate 

Partner Violence. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect. 

Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L. R., Newman, F. L., & Dunlop, B. D. (2007). External barriers 

to help seeking for older women who experience intimate partner violence. 

Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 733-745. 

Beaulaurier, R.L., Seff, L.R., & Newman, F.L. (2008). Barriers to Help Seeking for Older 

Women Who Experience Intimate Partner Violence: A Descriptive Model. Journal 

of Women and Aging, 20(3/4), 231-248. 

Belknap, RA (1999). Why did she do that? Issues of moral conflict in battered women’s 

decision-making. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 20:387-404. 

Berg, B., L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: 

Allyn and Bacon. 

Brislin, RW (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In HC 

Triandis & JW Berry (Eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2: 

Methodology, (pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Byrnes, BM (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Campbell, JC (1996). Cultural competence in the care of abused women. Journal of 

Nurse Midwifery, 41(6):457. 

Cooper, C, Selwood, A & Livingston, G (2008). The prevalence of elder abuse and 

neglect: a systemic review. Age and Aging, 37, 151-160. 

Dunlop, BD, Beaulaurier, RL, Seff, LR, Newman, FL, Malik, N, & Fuster, M. (2005). 

Domestic Violence Against Older Women: Final Technical Report, NIJ#2002-

WG-BX-0100, submitted to the National Institute of Justice, April 2005. 

Dunlop,BD, Rothman,MB, Condon,KM, Hebert,KS, & Martinez,IL (2000). Elder Abuse: 

Risk Factors and Use of Case Data to Improve Policy and Practice. Journal of 

Elder Abuse & Neglect, 12(3/4), 95-122. 

Fisher, BS & Regan, SL (2006). The Extent and Frequency of Abuse in the Lives of 

Older Women and Their Relationship With Health Outcomes. The Gerontologist, 

46 (2), 200-209. 

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. 

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361-376). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles: Sage. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 66
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Griffin, LW & Hall, JM (1999). Elder maltreatment in the African American community. In 

T Tatara (Ed.), Understanding Elder Abuse in Minority Populations, (pp. 27-48), 

Philadelphia, PA:Brunner/Mazel. 

Grossman, SF & Lundy, M (2003). Use of Domestic Violence Services Across Race and 

Ethnicity by Women Aged 55 and Older. Violence Against Women, 9(12), 1442-

1452. 

Hu, L, & Bentler, P (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to 

Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-

453. 

Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff crietiera for fit indices in covariance structure 

analysis: conventinal criteria versus new alternatives. Stuctural Equation 

Modeling, 6, 1-55. 

Kasturirangan, A, Krishnan, S, & Riger, S (2004). The Impact of Culture and Minority 

Status on Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence. Trauma, Violence, & 

Abuse, 5(4):318-332. 

Kosberg, JI & Nahmiash, D(1996). Characteristics of victims and perpetrators and 

milieus of abuse and neglect. In LA Baumhover & SC Beall (Eds.). Abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation of older persons: Strategies for assessment and 

intervention (pp. 31-49). Baltimore: Health Professions Press. 

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews Los Angeles: Sage. 

Lauman, EO, Leitsch, SA & Waite, LJ (2008). Elder Mistreatment in the United States: 

Prevalence Estimates from a Nationally Representative Study. Journal of 

Gerontology, 63B(4), S248-S254. 

Leisey, M, Kupstas, PK, and Cooper, A. (2009). Domestic Violece in the Second Half of 

Life. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 21, 141–155. 

Lindhorst, T & Tajima, E (2008). Reconceptualizing and Operationalizing Context in 

Survey Research on Intimate Partner Violence. 23 (3), 362-388). 

Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and 

structural analysis (Fourth Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Muhr, T. (2003-2005). Archiv für Technik, Lebenswelt und Alltagssprache: Text 

Interpretation [ATLAS.ti] (Version 5.0.65). Berlin: Scientific Software 

Development, GmbH. 

National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life (2006). Abuse in Later Life Wheel. 

Available on line at http://www.ncall.us/docs/Later_Life_PCWheel.pdf. Last 

downloaded November 6, 2009. 

Padgett, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Paranjape, A, Rodriguez, M & Gaughan, J (2009). Psychometric Properties of a New 

Scale to Assess Family Violence in Older African American Women: The Family 

Violence Against Older Women (FVOW) Scale. Violence Against Women, 15(10) 

1213–1226. 

Pearlman, DN, Zierler, S, Gjelsvik, A, & Verhoek-Oftedahl, W (2003). Neighborhood 

environment, racial position and risk of police reported domestic violence: A 

contextual analysis. Public Health Reports, 118:44-58. 

Randall, T (1990). Domestic violence begets other problems of which physicians must 

be aware to be effective. JAMA, 264:940-944. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 67
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Reidy, R & Von Korff, M (1991). Is battered women’s help seeking connected to the 

level of their abuse? Public Health Reports, 106(4):360(5). 

Seff, L.R., Beaulaurier, R.L., & Newman, F.L. (2008). Non-Physical Abuse of Older 

Women. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(3), 355-374. 

Straus, MA & Douglas, EM (2004). A Short Form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales 

and Typologies for Severity and Mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19 (5), 507-520. 

Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A 

Multi-Site Comparative Analysis, Final Report. Project #NIJ-95-WT-NX-0006. 

Submitted to the National Institute of Justice March 21, 2001. 

Yoshihama, M (2002). Breaking the web of abuse and silence: voices of battered 

women in Japan. Social Work 47(4):389(12). 

Zink, T & Fisher, BS (2007). The Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate Partner and 

Interpersonal Mistreatment in Older Women in Primary Care Offices. Journal of 

Elder Abuse & Neglect, 18(1), 83-105. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 68
NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Attachment A: 

BHS Assessment English Version 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 69
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT QUESTIONNAIRE 

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 

Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. Your 

involvement is very important to our project. Project results will be used to 

help women age 50 and older who experience problems in close personal 

relationships. 

We want to learn how often women age 50 and older experience domestic 

abuse by a husband, intimate partner, or close relative or friend, and how 

women feel about such abuse, even those who are not abuse victims. 

We expect the survey questions to have many different answers, 

depending on each survey participant’s own personal situation and 

attitudes. Therefore, responses to this questionnaire should be based on 

your opinions, experiences, and values. There are no right or wrong 

answers! 

Remember, your participation in this project is completely confidential. No 

one will be able to identify you from your responses in any way. 

When you have completed the questionnaire, please let project staff know 

if you have any questions or concerns that one or more situations like those 

described in the survey have happened to you or to someone you know. 

We can provide you with additional information for assistance with 

problems in relationships, including local resources and a personal referral, 

if you request it. 

Now you may turn the page and begin answering the questionnaire any 

time you are ready. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 70
 

 

1 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 1: Please think about one person, such as your 

husband, intimate partner, or close relative or friend, when answering 

the questions in Section 1. This should be the person you live with now. If 

you currently live with more than one person, think about the one with 

whom you have the most conflict. If you live alone, think about the person 

in your life now with whom you have the most conflict. Please write the first 

name of this person on the blank file card we gave you to help you 

remember who this person is as you go through the questionnaire. You 

may keep this card or throw it away at the end of this session. It will not be 

collected with the questionnaire. 

Thinking about this one person, please tell us if you agree or disagree 

with the statements below based on your personal situation with this 

person. Please circle the rating on the 1 to 4 scale next to each item that 

best represents your opinion about the statement. If you get stuck or 

confused, please raise your hand so someone from the project staff can 

assist you. 

You are afraid of what will happen to 

you if you say “no” to this person. 

2 This person gets angry with you if 

you talk to anyone he or she does 

not know. 

3 This person does not want your 

family to visit you where you live. 

4 This person can scare you without 

laying a hand on you. 

5 This person is suspicious if you 

spend time with anyone else. 

6 This person makes it difficult for 

you to spend time with your family. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 71
 

9 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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 Your decisions are based on what 

this person wants you to do. 

8 This person does not trust you. 

This person makes it difficult for 

you to get out and do things you 

enjoy. 

10 This person suspects that you 

cheat on him/her. 

11 You are afraid of this person. 

12 You have no privacy from this 

person where you live. 

13 This person does not want your 

friends to visit you where you live. 

14 This person would hurt you if you 

told anyone about any problems 

between you. 

You have finished Section 1. Please turn the page 

to begin the next group of questions. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 72
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 2: We want to know your opinions regarding the 

statements that follow. Based on your personal attitudes and beliefs, 

please circle the rating on the 1 to 4 scale next to each item that best 

represents your opinion about the statement. If you get stuck or confused, 

please raise your hand so someone from the project staff can assist you. 

15 A woman your age should tell 

someone if she is hurt by a person 

she is close to. 

16 A woman your age should take 

care of her family no matter how 

they treat her. 

17 A woman your age is responsible 

for making the people she is close 

to happy. 

18 A woman your age risks losing 

control of her personal situation 

when she asks for “outside” help. 

19 There is nothing a woman your 

age can do about emotional or 

physical abuse when it has been 

going on for many years. 

20 It is okay for a woman your age to 

discuss family problems with other 

family members. 

21 A woman your age should do 

whatever it takes to keep her 

family together. 

22 A woman your age should put the 

needs of her family before her 

own. 

23 It is okay for a woman your age to 

talk with “other people” about 

family problems. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 73
 

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

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

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24 It is okay for people who are close 

to a woman your age to scream at 

her when she does something 

“wrong” or makes a mistake. 

25 A woman your age cannot change 

problems in her close personal 

relationships. 

26 A woman your age should discuss 

family problems with a doctor or 

counselor. 

27 A woman your age should protect 

her family’s reputation even if 

someone in her family treats her 

badly. 

28 It is okay for people who are close 

to a woman your age to hurt her 

when she does something “wrong” 

or makes a mistake. 

29 A woman your age should protect 

the people she cares about even 

when it means that she may be 

injured. 

30 It is okay for a woman your age to 

discuss family problems with 

friends. 

31 It is better for a woman your age 

to be with someone who treats her 

badly than for her to be alone. 

Great! You have finished Section 2. Please turn the page and begin 

Section 3. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 74
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 3: We want to know your opinions regarding the 

statements that follow. Based on your personal attitudes and beliefs, 

please circle the rating on the 1 to 4 scale next to each item that best 

represents your opinion about the statement. If you get stuck or confused, 

please raise your hand so someone from the project staff can assist you 

32 A woman your age should tolerate 

being scared or hurt by her 

husband, according to your 

religious beliefs. 

33 Family members expect a woman 

your age to keep the family together 

no matter how she is treated. 

34 The police are helpful to women 

your age who are hurt by people 

close to them. 

35 Pastors, priests, rabbis, or other 

spiritual leaders believe it is “God’s 

will” when a woman your age is 

harmed by someone close to her. 

36 A woman your age should take care 

of the people in her family no matter 

how they treat her, according to 

your religious beliefs. 

37 Friends expect a woman your age 

to “stick it out” when she is hurt by 

someone close to her. 

38 A woman your age can expect to 

get good advice from a social 

worker or counselor when she is 

harmed by someone close to her. 

39 The police will not do anything to 

help when they go to a house 

where there is domestic abuse 

involving a woman your age. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 75
 

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

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

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

40 Family members get angry at a 

woman your age who “presses 

charges” with the police when 

someone close to her hurts her. 

41 The community you live in has 

services to help a woman your age 

who is hurt by a family member or 

close friend. 

42 A family member or close friend 

who hurts a woman your age 

should be arrested. 

43 Family members believe a woman 

your age is to blame when she is 

hurt by another family member or 

close friend. 

44 A woman your age is expected to 

put the needs of her family before 

her own, according to your religious 

beliefs. 

45 It is difficult to find community 

services to help women your age 

who are hurt by family members or 

other people close to them. 

46 Family members expect a woman 

your age to put the family’s needs 

before her own. 

That’s all for Section 3! Turn the page to begin Section 4 when you are 

ready. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 76
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 4: When you answer the questions in this section 

please think about the same person whose name you wrote on the file card 

we gave you. 

No matter how well two people who care about each other get along, there 

are times when they disagree, get annoyed with one another, want different 

things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they are in a 

bad mood, are tired, or are upset for some other reason. People also have 

many different ways of trying to settle their differences. This is a list of 

things that might happen when you have differences with this person. 

Please circle the response that represents your experience with this 

person in the past year only. 

47 This person explained his or her side 

or suggested a compromise for a 

disagreement with me. 

48 This person insulted or swore or 

shouted or yelled at me. 

49 I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut or 

felt pain the next day because of a 

fight with this person. 

50 This person showed respect for, or 

showed that he or she cared about 

my feelings about an issue we 

disagreed on. 

51 This person pushed, shoved, or 

slapped me. 

52 This person punched or kicked or 

beat me up. 

53 This person destroyed something 

belonging to me or threatened to hit 

me. 

54 I went to see a doctor (M.D.) or 

needed to see a doctor because of a 

fight with this person. 

55 This person used force (like hitting, 

holding down, or using a weapon) to 

make me have sex. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 77
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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 This person insisted on sex when I 

did not want to or insisted on sex 

without a condom (but did not use 

physical force). 

You have finished Section 4. The last two sections are very short. Please 

turn the page to begin the next group of questions. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 78
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 5: Please answer each of the questions below to the best of 

your knowledge in the response column. If you are unsure about what the 

question is asking, use your best guess for the answer. Please do not ask other 

people in the room to help with your responses. 

Question Response 

57 What is the name of the building 

where you are now? 

58 Where is this place located? 

59 What day in the month is it today? 

60 What day of the week is it? 

61 What year is it? 

62 How old are you? 

63 When is your birthday? 

64 In what year were you born? 

65 What is the name of the President? 

66 Who was President before this 

one? 

You have finished Section 5. There is only one more very short section. 

Please turn the page to begin the last group of questions. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 79
 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

DIRECTIONS SECTION 6: You’re almost done! Please follow instructions for 

each item. 

67 Mark “X” in the box to the left of the White 

ONE selection that best describes Black 

your race. Asian 

Native American 

Any other race 

More than one race 

68 Mark “X” in the box to the left of the Hispanic 

ONE selection that best describes Non-Hispanic
 your ethnicity:
 

69 What is the name of the country 

where you were born? Country where you were born 

70 Please tell us your birth date.

 Month Day Year 

71 When you answer this question 

please think about the same 

person whose name you wrote on 

the file card we gave you. Please 

mark “X” in the box to the left of the 

ONE selection that best describes 

this person’s relationship to 

you. This person is your: 

Husband 

Intimate partner 

Son 

Daughter 

Grandchild 

Friend 

Other relative (please specify) 

72 What is this person’s sex? Male Female 

73 Can the person you referred to in Yes No 

questions 70 and 71 take care of 

his/her own basic needs? 

74 If the person you referred to You 

questions 70 and 71 needs help Paid caregiver with basic needs, who usually Someone else (specify) takes care of him/her? PLEASE 

CHECK ONLY ONE BOX.
 

75 Can you take care of your own Yes No 

basic needs? 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 80
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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 If you need help to meet your basic 

needs, who usually takes care of 

you? 

PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE 

This person 

Paid caregiver 

Someone else (specify) 

BOX. 

77 After you were 50 years old did 

you experience any of the 

problems described in this 

questionnaire with someone you 

are close to? 

Yes No 

If you answered “No” to question 77, you have completed the survey. 

Thank you so much. 

Your participation is very important to the success of this project. 

DO NOT ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS. 

If you answered “Yes” to question 77, please turn the page to answer one 

final question.
 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 81
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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 If you answered “yes” to 

question 77 above, please mark 

“X” in the box to the left of any of 

the things listed that you actually 

did. MARK ALL THAT APPLY. 

 Nothing 

 Asked a family member to help 

 Asked a friend to help 

 Asked a priest/rabbi for help 

 Asked a doctor for help 

 Asked a social 

worker/counselor for help 

 Asked a lawyer for help 

 Called the police (911) 

 Filed a restraining order or 

order of protection with the 

court 

 Stayed in a domestic violence 

or homeless shelter 

 Moved to a new place to live 

Congratulations! You are finished. 

Thank you so much. 

Your participation is very important to the success of this project. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 82
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Attachment B: 

Draft CCR Plan and Feedback Request Form 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 83
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Coordinated Community Response to 

Victims of Domestic Abuse in Later Life 

Development Plan and Outline 

Preparation of this document was supported by funding from the 

National Institute of Justice 

NIJ #2002-WG-BX-0100 

April 2005 

Revised 

NIJ #2006-WG-BX-0008 

August 31, 2009
 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 84
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Plan to Develop a Coordinated Community Response Collaborative 

to respond to 

Victims of Domestic Abuse in Later Life and their Abusers 

Step 1: Obtain advisory group feedback to initial outline and concepts (see 

questionnaire). 

Step 2: Obtain written commitment from primary and affiliate partner agencies to 

develop the CCR Collaborative, to include: 

o	 Agreement to work with other CCR Collaborative agencies to obtain 

development funding, 

o	 Agreement to test, evaluate and implement CCR when funding is obtained, 

o	 Agreement to work with other CCR Collaborative agencies to obtain 

sustainability funding. 

Step 3: Work with partner agencies to fill out components of draft CCR protocol as a 

precursor to a funding request. 

Step 4: Obtain initial funding (to include staffing). 

Step 5: Obtain formal MOUs from each partner agency. 

Step 6: Train partner agency staff on the draft CCR protocol and underlying principles. 

Step 7: Test and evaluate the draft CCR protocol. 

Step 8: Revise and finalize CCR protocol. 

Step 9: Train partner agency staff on final CCR protocol and underlying principles. 

Step 10: Implement CCR protocol. 

Step 11: Implement broad public awareness campaign regarding domestic abuse in 

later life and local resources. 

Step 12: Continue to evaluate, address ongoing cooperative barriers, integrate already 

evaluated evidence-based practices as appropriate, and seek sustainability 

funding. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 85
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

SECTION I 

A. BACKGROUND 

1. Introduction 

Many older women who experience domestic abuse are poorly served by the 

systems that target domestic violence and elder abuse, respectively. Moreover, the 

attitudes and needs of this population are poorly understood. In 2005 researchers at 

The Center on Aging and the School of Social Work of Florida International University 

(FIU) completed a research study (Domestic Violence Against Older Women [DVAOW], 

NIJ #2002-WG-BX-0100) to increase knowledge in this area. Through analysis of data 

collected in 21 focus groups with a sample of 134 women, we have documented what a 

group of women between 45 and 85 years of age think about domestic violence in older 

age, its manifestations, its causes, appropriate and acceptable assistance and 

intervention, barriers to help-seeking, and consequences for perpetrators. 

In August 2009 members of the DVAOW team working under the Robert Stempel 

School of Public Health at FIU completed a quantitative study of barriers to help-seeking 

involving collecting survey data from 519 women age 50 and older (NIJ #2006-WG-BX0008). Near the end of the second project we met with an advisory group representing 

relevant community agencies to review findings and to collaborate on development of a 

draft coordinated community response plan. 

Findings from both studies regarding barriers to help-seeking for older women who 

experience domestic violence or abuse are incorporated into this plan as well as 

considerations for agency-specific and/or legally driven mandates regarding response to 

older victims. ThIs plan was reviewed by representatives from the following advisory 

agencies: 

 Law Enforcement (County and municipalities) 

 Civil Courts 

 Domestic Violence Shelter(s) 

 Alliance for Aging, Inc. 

 Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Council of Miami-Dade 

2. Purpose 

This document is intended to provide guidance and procedural direction for all 

agencies and organizations in Miami-Dade County, Florida that encounter or work with 

older victims of domestic violence. To that end, efforts have been made to identify any 

agency or organization that meets this definition and to obtain a formalized agreement 

regarding their participation in this collaborative approach. The goal is to ensure that all 

agencies or authorities responding to or working with such victims will share appropriate 

information, make informed decisions, and act with a coordinated effort to maximize 

victim safety while respecting individual rights. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 86
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Recognizing that each law enforcement, public safety, health care and social service 

agency has its own policies and procedures, some of which are statutory, this 

collaborative function is to provide first responders and other professionals who interact 

with people age 50 and older who may experience domestic abuse with a tool that will 

be used to develop a triaged response that focuses on matching an individual victim’s 

situation, attitudes, beliefs and needs to a multi-level response plan. 

3. Benefits of Coordinated Community Response Protocol 

	 Clearly illustrate the role of each agency/service in responding to victim/survivors 

of sexual assault 

 Reduce the risks for any victim from "falling through the cracks" 

 Foster open communications and enhance working relationships 

 Educate agencies and the community at large on the issue of sexual assault 

 Serve as a quality control mechanism for the service delivery 

 Allow for feedback directly from victim/survivors to the service providers 

 Maintain accountability of service providers to the victim/survivors and increase 

responsiveness 

 Alleviate barriers and historical misunderstandings 

 Increase informal problem-solving with less adversarial approaches 

 Encourage everyone to keep the "big picture" in mind 

 Generate co-ordinated advocacy efforts 

 Build inter-agency relationships 

 Promote the development of "best practice approach" to victim/survivors and 

move agencies beyond what they "are doing" to what they "should or could be 

doing" to assist victim/survivors 

 Enhance the quality of service provision 

4. Lessons learned in the development of CCRs in Wisconsin 

	 Strong advocates are a key ingredient. In communities where the local domestic 

abuse program has not been strong, the CCR has been in danger of becoming a 

system tool to further victimize both victims and advocates. 

	 While this may seem contradictory, sometimes the local battered women's 

program is not where the staunch advocates reside. 

	 Safety alone as a focus can be dangerous. Increasingly, apparent allies have 

violated the civil liberties of victims in the name of protecting them and their 

children. It is critical to incorporate a discussion of liberty, as well as safety, as 

core values in working with CCRs. 

	 Everyone needs support. 

	 When CCRs can reach a level of trust that supports candid values discussions 

about roles and limitations of respective participating agencies, amazing things 

can happen. 

 People want to do the right thing. 

 People do not agree on what the right thing is. 

 Human nature presents us with a chronic danger of advocates selling out and 

giving up too much in order to get along with their CCR colleagues. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 87
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. Considerations in Working With Victims of Domestic Abuse in Later Life 

 Treat victims and their suspected abusers with dignity, respect, and compassion, 

and with sensitivity to age, culture, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Older 

women express great concern regarding the safety and protection of their 

[abusive] partners or loved ones. 

 While accepting that no one deserves to experience domestic abuse, respect a 

victim’s right and ability to make decisions about her relationships and living 

situation. 

 Some individuals may display behaviors that may not be understood or 

considered appropriate. It is essential that these behaviors be viewed as coping 

strategies and the victim/survivor is responding in a way they believe necessary 

for their survival. 

 Recognize that the purpose of the assessment and intervention process is to 

empower older women who experience abuse. Even subtle coercion or 

pressure to make certain decisions may reinforce existing barriers to helpseeking or create new ones. 

 Educate victims about the “commonness” of this problem and about options in 

the community for support, counseling, and intervention. Establish at least one 

line of communication for each identified victim, which will remain open 

and available even if assistance is not accepted at the time of initial 

screening. 

 Discuss safety planning with all victims. Acknowledge the safety planning or 

survival behaviors they have adapted over the course of their relationship with 

the abuser, while expanding their awareness of additional options. Take at least 

a few minutes to help each victim begin the process of forming a safety plan. If 

more time is available, try to complete a safety plan. 

 Help each victim assess their lethality risk by helping them to better understand 

the specific risk factors they face, with the goals of increasing personal safety 

and empowering decision-making. 

 Understand that the process of leaving an abusive relationship is often long and 

gradual, or may never occur, and that some complex issues faced by an older 

victim in making this decision may be similar to issues faced by younger victims, 

while other issues may be unique to this age group. 

 There is a somewhat broader range of abuse in the case of older women than in 

younger women. Examples of abuse characteristics that may be specific to older 

women: 

o	 In some cases what needs to be addressed is abuse that results from 

behavior changes related to aging or caregiving. Some older women 

experience domestic violence at the hands of a spouse who is dependent 

because of disease or other infirmity, or an adult child who is dependent 

because of mental health and/or substance abuse issues that prevent the 

adult child from living on his or her own. In both cases, responders should 

understand that the victim may not accept any intervention strategy that 

does not include appropriate care for the dependent abuser, whom they 

see as their responsibility to care for. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 88
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

o	 Dependent victim issues also must be addressed. Victims who rely on the 

abuser for daily care worry about how their needs will be met if the abuser 

is removed from the home. This was one of the most important findings in 

the study. Older women who experience abuse at the hands of their 

spouses, whether emotional, psychological, sexual, or physical, do not 

want to live with the abuse, but very often they literally do not believe they 

can live without it. 

o	 Diseases such as aging-related dementia or Alzheimer’s can cause a 

sudden onset of aggressive behavior that was not present for most of the 

partners’ time together. In some cases this results in ongoing abuse of the 

spouse, adult child, close friend, etc who is providing help with activities of 

daily living. 

	 Responders need to be aware that intervention may create a dangerous situation 

for the victim, the abuser or both. 

B. CCR COLLABORATIVE VALUES 

1. Mission Statement 

Respond to identified victims of domestic abuse in later life in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida through a collaboration of traditional and non-traditional agencies offering 

support and services designed to empower such victims to achieve the economic 

stability, self efficacy, and personal support they require to reduce the negative effects 

of abuse, increase personal safety, and improve their overall quality of life while 

providing appropriate services and support for abusers as proscribed by law but with 

due consideration of the victim’s wishes. 

2. Common Values 

 Abuse is a misuse of power 

 Anyone can be a victim 

 Domestic abuse is a serious social problem connected to all forms of oppression. 

 Abuse isolates, diminishes, weakens and destroys 

 Domestic abuse affects the individual and the entire family 

 Domestic abuse victimizes the entire community 

3. Guiding Principals 

RESPECT AND DIGNITY 

Every individual deserves to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. We 

acknowledge the intrinsic worth of each victim/survivor and abuser. 

QUALITY CARE 

Collaborative partners provide qualified, knowledgeable, professionally trained and 

open-minded staff who understand that trauma affects memory and decision-making. 

Staff working with older victims and their abusers will also understand diverse needs 

and have knowledge of their own limitations. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 89
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

COMMITMENT 

Each collaborative partner agency and service has clear, well-developed and integrated 

protocols around their response to domestic abuse in later life. There is on-going 

commitment to professional development for those in management, supervision and 

delivery of service. 

INCLUSIVENESS 

The collaborative is inclusive, equitable and sensitive to gender, race, age, ability, 

sexual orientation, culture, socio-economic and religious issues. 

CHOICES 

The collaborative respects the right of the individual to self-determination. We 

consistently support client empowerment by supporting their personal choices, including 

medical, legal, counseling and living arrangements. 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

Agencies that provide services for domestic abuse in later life victims/survivors and their 

abusers must be accountable to those who use their services. 

COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 

As individual agencies and as a collaborative we are working toward educating, 

preventing and stopping the violence in ourselves and throughout Miami-Dade County. 

We will ensure that the community has awareness of these response protocols. 

TIMELY RESPONSE 

There is expediency in response and referral for all victim/survivors. 

NON-JUDGEMENTAL 

A victim/survivor's experience of later life domestic abuse in any form is to be 

supported, respected and taken seriously. 

ADEQUATE FUNDING 

As individual agencies and as a collaborative we advocate to obtain funding for 

adequate programs and facilities to meet the needs older victims of domestic abuse in 

later life and their abusers in our community. 

SAFETY 

Safety of the victim/survivor (and children, family, other loved ones and pets) should be 

a primary focus of any intervention. 

CO-ORDINATED SERVICES 

Our community response protocol is well-developed, integrated, clear and organized so 

that we offer seamless service delivery and includes appropriate follow-up and resource 

provision for victims and abusers. 

CONFIDENTIALITY 

All service providers will protect the confidentiality of the victims, abusers and their 

families, and will always disclose to a victim when confidentiality cannot be promised. 

INCLUDE ABUSER IN SOLUTION 

Because older victims generally indicate ongoing concern regarding the well-being of 

their abuser, solutions must include addressing the abuser’s needs. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 90
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

C. CCR COLLABORATIVE OVERVIEW 

Victim

Medical and Mental 

Health Services 

Courts 

Law Enforcement 

Adult Protective 

Services 

Offender Systems 

HCB Services for 

Elders 

DV Victim Services 

Faith and CommunityBased Organizations 

Animal Welfare 

Services 

1. Outline of Coordinated Community Response Plan: 

The CCR plan contains 4 sections, which are outlined below: 

Section 1: Background and Overview 

Section 2: Overarching Coordination Issues 

 Formal collaboration structure and oversight 

 Practice guidelines for first responder triage and referrals to CCR partners 

 Information sharing guidelines 

 Training 

 Measuring outcomes 

 Guidelines for review and revision of CCR plan 

Section 3: Details Regarding Each CCR Partner Agency 

1. Collaborative Commitment Statement 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 91
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

a. WE WILL, WITHIN THE MANDATE OF OUR SERVICE: utilize 

humanitarian and egalitarian ideals, thereby acknowledging the intrinsic 

worth and dignity of all human beings accessing our services, and their 

right to inclusive and equal treatment while being sensitive to the issues 

related to race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status and/or abilities of individuals. 

b. We will provide: 

2. Brief agency descriptions including local, state and federal reporting relationships 

3. Service description 

4. Accountability (where to direct concerns) 

5. Screening process and questions used 

6. Case disposition options and definitions 

7. Mandates for reporting to other agencies 

8. Hours of operation 

9. Fees 

Section 4: Directory of Resources 

2. Primary CCR Partners 

Adult Protective Services 

Law Enforcement (County) 

State Attorney’s Office 

11th Judicial Circuit 

Public Defender 

Probation Department 

3. Affiliate CCR Partners 

Law Enforcement (Municipalities) 

Diversion Service Provider(s) 

Abuser Service Provider(s) 

Guardianship Service Provider(s) 

Domestic Violence Shelter(s) 

Alliance for Aging, Inc. 

Legal Aid Services 

Immigrant Services
 

Animal Welfare Services 

Florida Office of the Attorney General 

County Attorney’s Office 

SECTION 2: OVERARCHING COORDINATION ISSUES 

A. Formal collaboration structure and oversight 

B. Practice guidelines for first responder triage and referrals to CCR partners 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 92
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

C. Information Sharing Guidelines 

D. Measuring Outcomes 

E. Guidelines for Review and Revision of CCR 

SECTION 3: DETAILS REGARDING EACH CCR PARTNER 

Details Regarding Each CCR Partner Organized as Follows: 

A. Agency Name 

1. CCR Collaborative Commitment Statement 

a. WE WILL, WITHIN THE MANDATE OF OUR SERVICE: utilize 

humanitarian and egalitarian ideals, thereby acknowledging the intrinsic 

worth and dignity of all human beings accessing our services, and their 

right to inclusive and equal treatment while being sensitive to the issues 

related to race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic 

status and/or abilities of individuals. 

b. We will: [specify services to be provided relative to the CCR] 

2. Brief agency description including local, state and federal reporting relationships 

3. Service description 

4. Accountability (where to direct concerns) 

5. Screening process and questions used 

6. Case disposition options and definitions 

7. Mandates for reporting to other agencies 

8. Hours of operation 

9. Fees 

SECTION 4: DIRECTORY OF RESOURCES 

[To be added.] 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 93
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Feedback Questionnaire 

Community Response to Domestic Abuse in Later Life 

Background:
	

In 2005 researchers at The Center on Aging and the School of Social Work of Florida 

International University (FIU) completed a research study (Domestic Violence Against Older 

Women [DVAOW], NIJ #2002-WG-BX-0100) to increase knowledge about middle aged and 

older victims of domestic abuse in later life (DALL). Through analysis of data collected in 21 

focus groups with a sample of 134 women, we have documented what a group of women 

between 45 and 85 years of age think about domestic violence in older age, its manifestations, 

its causes, appropriate and acceptable assistance and intervention, barriers to help-seeking, 

and consequences for perpetrators. 

In August 2009 members of the DVAOW team working under the Robert Stempel School of 

Public Health at FIU completed a quantitative study of barriers to help-seeking involving 

collecting survey data from 519 women age 50 and older (NIJ #2006-WG-BX-0008). Near the 

end of the second project we met with an advisory group representing relevant community 

agencies to review findings and to collaborate on development of a draft coordinated community 

response plan. 

Findings from both studies are incorporated into this plan as well as considerations for 

agency-specific and/or legally driven mandates regarding response to older victims. The 

purpose of the plan is to provide guidance and procedural direction for all agencies and 

organizations in Miami-Dade County, Florida that encounter or work with DALL victims or their 

abusers. To that end, efforts have been made to identify any agency or organization that meets 

this definition and to obtain a formalized agreement regarding their participation in this 

collaborative approach. The goal is to ensure that all agencies or authorities responding to or 

working with such victims will share appropriate information, make informed decisions, and act 

with a coordinated effort to maximize victim safety while respecting individual rights. 

Development of this draft plan is a component of the second study (NIJ #2006-WG-BX0008). We are asking you to provide invaluable feedback regarding the attached materials as a 

component of meeting our funding requirements and in the interest of leveraging the funding 

received to move forward as a community to develop a victim-centered response to DALL 

victims. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 94
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Instructions: Please review the attached plan and give us your feedback by answering the 

following questions. We know your time is very valuable and appreciate your willingness to help 

us prepare the plan for future development. 

There are two ways you can respond: 

1. Preferred: If you know how to use the edit tracker feature in word, you can activate that 

feature to mark your comments, questions and recommended edits. If you use this 

method please make sure you address the specific questions we are asking of 

reviewers. Save the document with the markings and return as an e-mail attachment to 

lseff@bellsouth.net. 

2. Alternative: Answer the questions posed. You may e-mail the completed form to 

lseff@bellsouth.net. If you mark up any pages of the plan, you can fax any pages with 

changes to 305-279-5752. Please use a cover sheet. 

PLEASE RESPOND BY JULY 31, 2009 

PART A: Contact Information: 

Your Name 

Agency Name 

Title 

Your telephone 

Other telephone 

Your email 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 95
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

PART B: Please review Section I of the draft plan, which begins on p. 3 of the document 

and respond to the following: 

1. Overall this section does not have enough details?  I agree  I disagree 

1.a. If you agree, please indicate what type of additional information should be added to this 

section: 

2. Overall this section includes too many details?  I agree  I disagree 

2.a. If you agree, please indicate what information should be deleted from this section: 

3. My agency would support the Mission Statement as it is written on p. 6. 

 I agree  I disagree 

3.a. If you disagree, please indicate what specific language would need to be modified by 

highlighting objectionable text. 

3.b. If you disagree, please indicate any necessary language you believe is missing: 

4. My agency would support the Common Values Statement as it is written on p. 7. 

 I agree  I disagree 

4.a. If you disagree, please indicate what specific language would need to be modified by 

highlighting objectionable text. 

4.b. If you disagree, please indicate any necessary language you believe is missing: 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 96
 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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. My agency would support the Guiding Principles Statement as it is written on pp. 7-8. 

 I agree  I disagree 

5.a. If you disagree, please indicate what specific language would need to be modified by 

highlighting objectionable text. 

5.b. If you disagree, please indicate any necessary language you believe is missing: 

6. My agency would agree that the major types of partners are included in the figure at the top 

of p. 9.  I agree  I disagree 

6.a. If you disagree, please indicate what types of agencies should be added and/or deleted: 

Add: 

Delete: 

7. Regarding the primary CCR partners listed on p. 10, is this list correct? 

 Yes  No 

7.a. If no, please indicate which agencies should be added and/or deleted: 

Add: 

Delete: 

8. Regarding the affiliate CCR partners listed on p. 10, is this list correct? 

 Yes  No 

8.a. If no, please indicate which agencies should be added and/or deleted: 

Add: 

Delete: 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 97
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

PART C: Please review the outline of Section 2 at the top of p. 11 and answer the 

question below: 

9. What, if any, critical sections are missing from the Section 2 outline?  None 

9.a. If one or more critical sections are missing from the Section 2 outline, please list below: 

PART D: Below are descriptions of problems and solutions to community response to 

DALL. For each item please mark an “X” next to the statement that best describes your 

agency’s current policies and perspectives. Select ONLY ONE RESPONSE for each item. 

10. The main problem with the current community response to domestic abuse in middle and 

later life is:

 Failure of the legal system to appropriately criminalize family violence. 

 Reluctance of victims to enlist the aid of police and the courts and to persevere once 

their cases have entered the legal system.

 Mismatch between needs of victims and offenders, and diverse, sometimes 

contradictory norms and missions of responding organizations and institutions. 

11. Primary objectives of coordinated community response to domestic abuse in middle and 

later life should be:

 Increase rates of arrest, prosecution, and conviction; increase building consensus 

among police, prosecutors, and the courts re: responding to family violence; make 

these agencies accountable case outcomes. 

 Increase advocacy, victim autonomy and empowerment, economic and social 

support, and “user friendliness” of the criminal justice system. 

 Realign response systems to prioritize agencies’ claims on victims, reconcile and 

address contradictions, and stream-line access to tangible and intangible resources. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 98
 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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 most urgent coordinated response efforts regarding domestic abuse in middle and later 

life are:

 Implement strong pro-arrest/pro-prosecution policies; develop effective sentencing 

programs; train police, prosecutors, judges and probation officers through 

coordination mechanisms designed to iron out differences in practices, priorities, and 

(mis-)understandings that might stand in the way of a comprehensive law 

enforcement response.

 Create safer, more supportive and more affirmative environment(s) for victims in the 

criminal justice system and in the community. 

Criminal courts, family courts, social, health, and victim services agencies 

acknowledge fragmentation; reach consensus on a working definition of victim needs 

and system priorities; accept compromise protocols or priorities in collective pursuit 

of a more systemic response. 

PART E: Additional Questions: 

13. How much time per month would your agency allow you to work on drafting a coordinated 

community response to DALL if there were no specific funding attached? 

 None 1-2 hrs/month  3-4 hrs/month  5-8 hrs/month  >8 hrs/month 

14. Does your agency currently have any written protocols with regard to responding to, 

evaluating, and/or providing services to older victims of domestic abuse in later life? 

Yes  No 

14.a. If yes, and if you are willing to share these protocols, please send as an email attachment 

when you return this survey. 

15. Have you attended any training or meetings where you received information about 

evidence-based programs or best practices related to intervention and/or services for victims 

of DALL and/or their abusers?  Yes  No 

15.a. If yes, and if you are willing to share these protocols, please send as an email attachment 

when you return this survey. 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 99
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Comments / Recommendations: 

PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN BY JULY 31, 2009 

LSEFF@BELLSOUTH.NET
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 100
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Attachment C: 

Response Frequency Distributions and Distribution Characteristics 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 101
 

 Skew 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 9. PBHS Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item (Skewness and Kurtosis) 

PBHS Item 1 2 3 4 9 Skewness Kurtosis 

1_IN6 32 (7.2) 63 (14.2) 59 (13.3) 289 (64.9) 2 (.4) -1.256 .192 

2_J1 28 (6.3) 49 (11.0) 60 (13.5) 304 (68.3) 4 (.9) -1.500 .966 

3_IS1 28 (6.3) 24 (5.4) 47 (10.6) 339 (76.2) 7 (1.6) -2.075 3.103 

4_IN1 37 (8.3) 44 (9.9) 53 (11.9) 302 (67.9) 9 (2.0) -1.475 .766 

5_J2 36 (8.1) 42 (9.4) 67 (15.1) 297 (66.7) 3 (.7) -1.464 .827 

6_IS2 32 (7.2%) 43 (9.7%) 56 (12.6) 311 (69.9) 3 (.7) -1.570 1.139 

7_IN2 40 (9.0) 84 (18.9) 100 (22.5) 214 (48.1) 7 (1.6) -.754 -.724 

8_J3 43 (9.7) 52 (11.7) 61 (13.7) 256 (57.5) 33 (7.4) -1.152 -.122 

9_IS3 42 (9.4) 46 (10.3) 55 (12.4) 300 (67.4) 2 (.4) -1.385 .471 

10_J4 21 (4.7) 31 (7.0) 43 (9.7) 336 (75.5) 14 (3.1) -2.073 3.163 

11_IN4 25 (5.6) 37 (8.3) 37 (8.3) 338 (76.0) 8 (1.8) -1.924 2.393 

12_J5 38 (8.5) 32 (7.2) 43 (9.7) 323 (72.6) 9 (2.0) -1.718 1.508 

13_IS5 28 (6.3) 33 (7.4) 45 (10.1) 333 (74.8) 6 (1.3) -1.893 2.303 

14_IN5 29 (6.5) 25 (5.6) 39 (8.8) 352 (79.1) 4 (.9) -2.123 3.221 

17_1SB1 123 (27.6) 116 (26.1) 82 (18.4) 120 (27.0) 4 (.9) .106 -1.449 

18_P1 49 (11.0) 59 (13.3) 98 (22.0) 233 (52.4) 6 (1.3) -.949 -.434 

19_H1 44 (9.9%) 22 (4.9%) 39 (8.8%) 335 (75.3) 5 (1.1) -1.820 1.786 

20_S5RV 51 (11.5) 38 (8.5) 109 (24.5) 245 (55.1) 2 (.4) -1.138 .021 

21_PF2 157 (35.3) 100 (22.5) 94 (21.1) 93 (20.8) 1 (.2) .269 -1.385 

22_PF3 55 (12.4) 82 (18.4) 126 (28.3) 181 (40.7) 1 (.2) -.608 -.880 

23_S1RV 71 (16.0) 57 (12.8) 158 (35.5) 154 (34.6) 5 (1.1) -.620 -.827 

24_SB3 19 (4.3) 7 (1.6) 31 (7.0) 388 (87.2) 0 -3.225 9.637 

25_H3 49 (11.0) 42 (9.4) 94 (21.1) 249 (56.0) 11 (2.5) -1.142 -.028 

27_PF4 67 (15.1) 50 (11.2) 72 (16.2) 250 (56.2) 6 (1.3) -.940 -.668 

32_CG1 15 (3.4) 8 (1.8) 9 (2.0) 411 (92.4) 2 (.4) -3.969 14.691 

33_FF1 39 (8.8) 48 (10.8) 58 (13.0) 299 (67.2) 1 (.2) -1.387 .514 

34_JS2RV 47 (10.8) 58 (13.0) 117 (26.3) 223 (50.1) 0 -.934 -.360 

35_CG2 26 (5.8) 16 (3.6) 42 (9.4) 358 (80.4) 3 (.7) -2.408 4.686 

36_CG5 32 (7.2) 31 (7.0) 40 (9.0) 337 (75.7) 5 (1.1) -1.894 2.215 

37_FF3 18 (4.0) 40 (9.0) 51 (11.5) 332 (74.6) 4 (.9) -1.879 2.418 

38_CR3RV 29 (6.5) 32 (&.2) 128 (28.8) 253 (56.9) 3 (.7) -1.375 1.088 

40_FF6 76 (17.1) 83 (18.7) 71 (16.0) 205 (46.1) 10 (2.2) -.531 -1.267 

41_CR4RV 48 (10.8) 47 (10.6) 123 (27.6) 215 (48.3) 12 (2.7) -.985 -.223 

43_FF8 31 (7.0) 50 (11.2) 61 (13.7) 295 (66.3) 8 (1.8) -1.425 .710 

44_CG6 43 (9.7) 72 (16.2) 67 (15.1) 257 (57.8) 6 (1.3) -.979 -.482 

45_CR5 71 (16.0) 96 (21.6) 108 (24.3) 166 (37.3) 4 (.9) -.400 -1.209 

46_FF7 57 (12.8) 86 (19.3) 83 (18.7) 216 (48.5) 3 (.7) -.664 -1.002 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 102
 

 Skew 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 10. CTS2S Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item (Skewness and Kurtosis) 

CTS2S Item 1 2 3 4 9 Skewness Kurtosis 

48_PSYCH1 226 (50.8) 159 (35.7) 31 (7.0) 25 (5.6) 4 (.9) 1.262 .232 

49_INJ1 391 (87.9) 31 (7.0) 6 (1.3) 7 (1.6) 10 (2.2) 4.045 .234 

51_PA1 404 (90.8) 29 (6.5) 3 (.7) 5 (1.1) 4 (.9) 4.684 .232 

52_PA2 417 (93.7) 12 (2.7) 4 (.9) 5 (1.1) 7 (1.6) 5.782 .233 

53_PSYCH2 380 (84.5) 44 (9.9) 9 (2.0) 7 (1.6) 5 (1.1) 3.339 .232 

54_INJ2 420 (94.4) 14 (3.1) 1 (.2) 6 (1.3) 4 (.9) 6.117 .232 

55_SC1 420 (94.4) 10 (2.2) 4 (.9) 1 (.2) 10 (2.2) 6.763 .234 

56_SC2 392 (88.1) 29 (6.5) 4 (.9) 5 (1.1) 15 (3.4) 4.479 .235 

Table 11: Model Factors Frequency and Row Percentages Per Item (Skewness and 

Kurtosis) 

Factor N Mean 

Skewness Kurtosis 

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error 

Self Blame 445 3.7846 -3.225 .116 9.637 .231 

Secrecy 445 3.0674 -.810 .116 -.188 .231 

Emotional Gridlock 445 3.0078 -.717 .116 -.089 .231 

Abuser Behaviors 445 3.4494 -.589 .116 1.946 .231 

Informal External 445 3.4183 -1.317 .116 1.703 .231 

Formal Systems 445 3.1414 -.701 .116 -.171 .231 

Barrier Strength 445 3.3092 -.987 .116 1.245 .231 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 103
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Attachment D: 

SEM Details by Subgroup 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 104
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 3. Prediction of barrier scores for 215 respondents with no abuse on CTS2S 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10, No Abuse as per CTS, n = 215.

 Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 85% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF(21) = 1.539, p = .049, CFI = .977 NFI = .961
 

RMSEA = .051 90%CI: (.003 to .083) P(Close) = .443, SRMR = .047.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External 

ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.14 

.25 

.54 

.67 

.95 

.23 

.78 

.36 

.65 

.67 

.75 

.53 

.67 .25 .10 

.60 

.42 

.55 

.34 

.23 

.23 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 105
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 4: Prediction of barrier scores for 147 respondents with minor abuse on CTS2S 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10,
 

Victims with Minor Ratings on the CTS, n = 147.

 Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 77% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF(18) = 1.427, p = .107, CFI = .964 TLI = .927, NFI = .896
 

RMSEA = .054 90%CI: (< .001 to .098) P(Close) = .405, SRMR = .062.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.13 

.31 

.40 

.69 

.49 

.72 

.39 

.59 

.78 

.79 

.30 

.41 .24 

.56 

.27 

.42 

.35 

.12 

.24 

.30 

.17 

.21 

.16 

.39
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 106
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Table 5: Prediction of barrier scores for 83 respondents with severe abuse on CTS2S 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Severe CTS2, N= 83

 Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 83% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (23) 1.303, p = .150, CFI = .955 TFI = .930 NFI = .844
 

RMSEA = .061 90%CI: (<.001 to .116) P(Close) = .357, SRMR = .098.
 

All r's: p < .040 except r = .24 between Informal and Formal Responses.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External 

ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.19 

.35 

.68 

.67 

.83 

.23 

.86 

.36 

.70 

.84 

.29 

.30 

.32 

.25 

.43 

.28 

.55 

.30 

.24 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 107
 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 6: Prediction of barrier scores for 150 White non-Hispanic respondents 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 White Non-Hispanic, N = 150
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 74% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (20) 1.081, p = .361, CFI = .994 TFI = .989 NFI = .928
 

RMSEA = .023 90%CI: (<.001 to .076) P(Close) = .742, SRMR = .064.
 

All r's: p =< .01.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External 

ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.19 

.26 

.60 

.63 

.72 

.17 

.84 

.37 

.59 

.83 

.64 

.25 

.25 

.42 

.48 .40 

.38 

.37 

.25 

.41 

.27 

.28 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 108
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 7: Prediction of barrier scores for 145 Hispanic respondents 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Hispanic, N = 145
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 88% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (21) 1.550, p = .052, CFI = .959 TFI = .930 NFI = .898
 

RMSEA = .062 90%CI: (<.001 to .101) P(Close) = .294, SRMR = .060.
 

All r's: p =< .040.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) 

ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.13 

.27 

.51 

.57 

.20 

.36 

.63 

.83 

.31 

.55 

.57 

.44 

.33 

.50 .17 

.24 

.35 

.72 

.25 

.77 

.81 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 109
 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 8: Prediction of barrier scores for 139 Black non-Hispanic respondents 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 African American, N = 139
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 80% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (23) 1.366, p = .113, CFI = .956 TFI = .932 NFI = .863
 

RMSEA = .052 90%CI: (<.001 to .093) P(Close) = .442, SRMR = .093.
 

All r's: p =< .040.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) 

ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.16 

.32 

.51 

.67 

.22 

.37 

.70 

.58 

.29 

.35 

.56 

.35 

.19 

.45 

.39 

.70 

.21 

.85 

.60 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 110
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 9: Prediction of barrier scores for 186 respondents with husband/partner close 

other 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 "Close Other": Husband/Partner, N = 186
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 79% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (19) 1.426, p = .103, CFI = .970 TFI = 944 NFI = .912
 

RMSEA = .048 90%CI: (<.001 to .086) P(Close) =.494, SRMR = .056.
 

All r's: p =< .02 Except r for Secrecy & Formal System Response (.116).
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.17 

.26 

.51 

.56 

.37 

.54 

.22 

.40 

.54 

.59 

.30 

.55 

.23 

.35 

.66 

.82 

.69 

.31 

.20 

.24 

.21 

.36 

-.25 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 111
 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 10: Prediction of barrier scores for 117 respondents with child/grandchild close 

other 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 "Close Other": Child-Grandchild, N = 117
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 79% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (21) 1.212, p = .176, CFI = .968 TFI = 946 NFI = .878
 

RMSEA = .049 90%CI: (<.001 to .098) P(Close) =.474, SRMR = .067.
 

All r's: p =< .05 Except r for Abuser Behavior & Formal System Response (.08).
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.14 

.29 

.63 

.80 

.34 

.48 

.24 

.38 

.35 

.77 

.29 

.30 

.19 

.24 

.67 

.67 

.84 

.28 

.36 

.22 

.25 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 112
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 11: Prediction of barrier scores for 104 respondents with other relative/close 

friend close other 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 "Close Other": Close relative or Friend, N = 104
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 88% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (21) 0.994, p = .467, CFI = 1.000 TFI = 1.001 NFI = .929
 

RMSEA = < .001 90%CI: (<.001 to .083) P(Close) =.741, SRMR = .063.
 

All r's: p =< .02.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.17 

.28 

.71 

.67 

.60 

.69 

.30 

.29 

.62 

.29 

.58 

.18 

.94 

.74 

.80 

.52 

.19 

.38 

.54 

.37 

.37 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 113
 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 12: Prediction of barrier scores for 154 respondents with female close other 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Female Close-Other, N = 154
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 87% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (22) 1.379, p = .111, CFI = .977 TFI = .962 NFI = .923
 

RMSEA = .050 90%CI: (<.001 to .089) P(Close) = .467, SRMR = .054.
 

All r's: p =< .010.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) 

ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.17 

.26 

.65 

.75 

.22 

.33 

.74 

.63 

.28 

.56 

.46 

.39 

.38 

.56 

.37 

.86 

.27 

.90 

.68 

.20 

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 114
 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 13: Prediction of barrier scores for 267 respondents with male close other 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Male Close-Other, N = 267
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 81% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (17) 2.012, p = .008, CFI = .961 TFI = .917 NFI = .928
 

RMSEA = .062 90%CI: (.031 to .092) P(Close) =.236, SRMR = .0455.
 

All r's: p =< .05..
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) 

Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) 

ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.13 

.27 

.47 

.54 

.20 

.38 

.63 

.69 

.30 

.35 

.54 

.34 

.19 

.42 

.35 

.65 

.22 

.81 

.71 

.32 

.26 

.30 

.15 

.14 

.31
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 115
 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 14: Prediction of barrier scores for 156 respondents age 50 to 64 years 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Ages 50-64 years, N = 156
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 81% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (22) 1.360, p = .120, CFI = .964 TFI = .941 NFI = .883
 

RMSEA = .048 90%CI: (<.001 to .088) P(Close) =.490, SRMR = .086.
 

All r's: p =< .05..
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) 

ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.21 

.23 

.48 

.54 

.44 

.60 

.95 

.22 

.62 

.25 

.44 

.45 .16 

.51 

.54 

.33 

.69 

.18 

.33 

.30
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 116
 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 15: Prediction of barrier scores for 168 respondents age 65 to 74 years 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Ages 50-64 years, N = 168
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 86% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (19) 1.360, p = .384, CFI = .996 TFI = .993 NFI = .940
 

RMSEA = .019 90%CI: (<.001 to .072) P(Close) =.783, SRMR = .049.
 

All r's: p =< .05 except r Secrecy & Formal System Response (p = .20).
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family 

ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.12 

.30 

.75 

.64 

.41 

.79 

.72 

.46 

.27 

.34 

.46 

.70 

.28 

.23 

.57 

.19 

.38 

.25 

.29 

.28 .85 

.20 

.20
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 117
 

 

 

 

NIJ Grant Number: 2006-WG-BX-0008 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

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

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

Figure 16: Prediction of barrier scores for 118 respondents age 75+ years 

Full Outcome Means Model-III, MSQ 8-10 Ages 75 years or more, N = 118
 

Model prediction of Barrier Scores accounts for 86% of the total variance.
 

Chi Square/DF = (21) 0,823, p = .694, CFI = 1.000 TFI = 1.002 NFI = .946
 

RMSEA = <.001 90%CI: (<.001 to .062) P(Close) =.902, SRMR = .062.
 

All r's: p =< .01.
 

Informal 

External 

Responses 

Secracy 

(Internal) 

Protecting 

Family ei3 

Self Blame 

(Intrernal) Hopeless-Powerless 

(Internal) ei5 

Formal 

System 

Responses 

Clergy Response 

External 

ee1 

Family Friend 

Response (External) 

ee2 

Community Responses 

(External) ee3 

Justice System 

Police (External) 

ee4 

Abuser 

Behaviors 

Emotional 

Gridlock 

Barriers 

(Overall) 

eb1 

.15 

.27 

.71 

.63 

.61 

.62 

.30 

.31 

.57 

.60 

.28 

.59 

.19 

.39 .39 .95 

.48 

.34 

.85 

.70 

.57
	

Second Draft Final Technical Report 11/07/2009 Page 118