Psychology of Violence

Teen Dating Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review of

Prevalence Rates
Katherine Wincentak, Jennifer Connolly, and Noel Card
Online First Publication, April 11, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040194

CITATION
Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2016, April 11). Teen Dating Violence: A Meta-Analytic
Review of Prevalence Rates. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040194
 Psychology of Violence © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 6, No. 2, 000 2152-0828/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040194

Teen Dating Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Prevalence Rates

Katherine Wincentak and Jennifer Connolly Noel Card

York University University of Connecticut

Objective: The goals of the present review were to determine the prevalence of physical and sexual TDV
among adolescents, obtain the rates of teen dating violence (TDV) separately by gender, and examine the
potential moderation effects of age, demographics, and measurement. Method: A systematic literature
search elicited 101 studies reporting rates for youth aged 13 to 18. Results: Meta-analytic combination
produced an overall prevalence of 20% for physical TDV and 9% for sexual TDV. Significant variability
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

in rates was found, with physical TDV ranging from 1% to 61% and sexual TDV ranging from ⬍1% to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

54%. Gender differences in physical TDV were significant for perpetration (boys 13% vs. girls 25%) but
not for victimization (21% boys and girls). A different pattern was observed for sexual TDV with girls
reporting lower rates of perpetration compared with boys (3% vs. 10%) and higher rates of victimization
(14% vs. 8%). Moderator analyses revealed higher rates in samples representing higher proportions of
older teens (sexual TDV), cultural minority girls (physical TDV), and disadvantaged neighborhoods
(physical TDV). Studies using broad measurement tools yielded higher rates of both forms of TDV across
gender. Conclusions: Basing the meta-analysis on a large pool of studies with comparable samples, 1 in
5 adolescents reported physical TDV and roughly 1 in 10 reported sexual TDV. Systematic bias in boys’
and girls’ self-reports was evident along with high variability in TDV rates across studies and significant
moderator influences. These findings are suggestive of substantive methodological challenges in extant
studies. The obtained rates should be cautiously interpreted and future research should address the
methodological limitations of self-reported TDV, taking into consideration the potential influences of
gender, demographics, age, and measurement issues when designing TDV research.

Keywords: gender, intimate partner violence, meta-analysis, prevalence, teen dating violence

Adolescence is characterized by the emergence of romantic
relationships. These partnerships play an important role in social
development as they provide a context for learning intimacy skills
as well as for developing identity and autonomy (Connolly &
McIsaac, 2009). However, romantic relationships are also sources
of intense emotion and conflict, which together may set a founda-
tion for the emergence of teen dating violence (TDV) (Larson,
Clore, & Wood, 1999). According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (2009), dating violence refers to a wide
range of harmful partner-directed behaviors. Psychological TDV
refers to emotionally or socially manipulative acts designed to
indirectly damage the partner. Physical TDV can vary from acts
such as shoving and slapping to punching, kicking, choking, or
burning. Sexual TDV includes sexual activity forced on the part-
ner, ranging from behaviors such as unwanted touching to forced
penetration. In this analysis we focus specifically on physical and
sexual TDV because of their consistent links with harmful out-
comes.
Katherine Wincentak and Jennifer Connolly, Department of Psychology,
Faculty of Health, LaMarsh Centre for Child and Youth Research, York
University; Noel Card, Department of Educational Psychology, University
of Connecticut.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katherine
Wincentak, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, LaMarsh Centre
for Child and Youth Research, York University, 4700 Keele Street, To-
ronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada. E-mail: kwincent@yorku.ca
Alarmingly, many adolescents report experiencing violence
within their romantic relationships and these experiences have
been associated with serious physical and mental health conse-
quences (Foshee & Matthew, 2007; Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff,
2004; Jouriles, Platt, & McDonald, 2009). Depression, substance
use, eating disorders, school failure, early pregnancy, suicide at-
tempts, and injuries requiring medical attention are all associated
with experiences of teenage dating violence (Muñoz-Rivas, Grana,
O’Leary, & Gonzalez, 2007; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway,
2001). Further augmenting the importance of focusing on this life
stage, adolescence is when interactional patterns for romantic
relationships are being learned and these patterns frequently carry
over into adulthood (Bouchey & Furman, 2003). Thus, adolescents
who experience violence in their emergent dating relationships
may have a trajectory of increased risk for further and more severe
violence as they mature (Foshee et al., 2009; Williams, Connolly,
Pepler, Craig & Laporte, 2008).
Given the significant implications for current and long-term
adjustment, TDV constitutes a significant public health issue.
Consequently, several researchers have focused their efforts on
informing the design, implementation, and evaluation of preven-
tion programs. These programs aim to eliminate TDV (Foshee &
Matthew, 2007; Jouriles et al., 2009; Wolfe et al., 2003), and an
essential precondition to achieving this goal is to obtain a clearer
understanding of its scope. However, the reported prevalence rates
of TDV vary widely between studies. In light of the divergent
findings within the body of TDV research and the fact that this
literature has not yet been quantitatively synthesized, a meta-

1
 2 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD
analytic review of the existing research on the prevalence of TDV
is warranted. The goals of the current research are to use meta-
analytic techniques to obtain prevalence estimates of physical and
sexual TDV among boys and girls and to account for diversity
within the reported rates.
Prevalence of Teen Dating Violence
In 2000, Archer published a seminal meta-analysis of the extant
research on physical violence between romantic partners. This
review generated many significant findings about dating violence.
Importantly, Archer highlighted that higher rates were found
among younger samples and that women were perpetrators of
violence at least as often as men. However, Archer’s meta-analysis
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
was limited in that it did not examine sexual dating violence and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
focused primarily on college samples (White, Smith, Koss, &
Figueredo, 2000). Furthermore, since Archer’s report, empirical
research examining TDV has grown exponentially. Within the
years 2000 through 2013, more than 1,000 articles investigating
this phenomenon have been published. Despite these research
efforts, prevalence rates of TDV remain uncertain because of the
amount of variation across studies. More precisely current research
suggests that the prevalence of physical and sexual TDV ranges
from less than 10% to more than 50% across studies (Ackard &
Neumark-Sztainer, 2002; Serquina-Ramiro, 2005; Ulloa, Jaycox,
Marshall, & Collins, 2004; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008). To
explain this variation, our meta-analysis incorporates a focus on
gender and also examines the impact of developmental, demo-
graphic, and measurement variables on the rates found.
A Gendered Developmental Perspective of Teen
Dating Violence
Romantic relationships change throughout adolescence, and
these changes occur within the context of adolescents’ gendered
environments (Smith, White, & Moracco, 2009). Relationships
tend to progress from casual interactions to more lasting dyadic
relationships (Connolly & McIsaac, 2009), and within these emer-
gent relationships it is commonly reported that girls are more
likely to perpetrate violence against boys (O’Leary, Smith Slep,
Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008; Sears, Byers, & Price, 2007;
Wolfe, Scott, Reitzel-Jaffe, Wekerle, Grasley, & Straatman, 2001)
but that girls are more likely to experience negative consequences
or injury as a result of TDV (Hamby, Sugarman, Boney-McCoy,
2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). To understand this pattern of
findings, researchers have suggested that it may be important to
consider the problem solving approaches boys and girls learn
within sex-segregated friendships during childhood and then bring
with them to the initiation of romantic relationships (Connolly &
McIsaac, 2009; Underwood, 2007). Specifically, it has been pos-
tulated that boys and girls may use behaviors more typical of the
opposite sex in conflict situations. Thus, boys may inhibit aggres-
sive behaviors with girls, and girls may use more violence with
boys (McIsaac, Connolly, McKenney, Pepler, & Craig, 2008; Rose
& Rudolph, 2006; Shute & Charlton, 2006). Reinforcing these
behavioral styles, girls’ aggression toward boys is less socially
sanctioned than boys’ aggression toward girls, with adolescents
often reporting that it is quite acceptable for girls to hit their
boyfriends (Simon, Miller, Gorman-Smith, Orpinas, & Sullivan,
2010).
As adolescents gain competence in romantic interactions and
progress toward stable dyads in late adolescence, the function of
violent behaviors within relationships may differ from early ado-
lescence. At the late adolescent stage, violence between romantic
partners is thought to be for the purpose of controlling or domi-
nating a partner by causing some level of harm (Wolfe, Scott, &
Crooks, 2005). As adolescent boys’ and girls’ physical capacities
reach full expression, girls may reduce their aggression toward
their partner because it is less likely to be effective in controlling
the relationship (Stets & Straus, 1990). Conversely, some late
adolescent boys may act with aggression toward their partner
because their acts of violence are likely to be successful in con-
trolling or dominating their partner (Hamby et al., 2006). Despite
the evidence that rates of TDV appear to decline in later adoles-
cence (Foshee et al., 2009), evidence also suggests that a subset of
relationships may become more conflictual and involve increas-
ingly severe acts of violence (O’Leary et al., 2008; Roberts,
Auinger, & Klein, 2006). A central goal for this meta-analysis will
be to determine rates of physical and sexual TDV victimization
and perpetration for both boys and girls and to examine how the
rates change with age.
Demographic Predictors of Teen Dating Violence
Demographic variables related to the cultural, economic, and
familial characteristics of a sample have been commonly reported
in the physical TDV literature, allowing for the consideration of
these variables as potential predictors of physical TDV rates within
this meta-analysis. Sexual TDV has not been studied as exten-
sively as physical TDV; however, the cultural composition of
samples has been reported consistently and thus this variable will
be explored as a potential predictor of sexual TDV as well.
Examination of the influence of cultural or ethnic background
on violence is complex and controversial. Unsurprisingly, the
association between TDV and culture has yielded conflicting re-
sults. Several studies have reported no cultural or ethnic differ-
ences in TDV prevalence rates (Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel,
1997; O’Leary et al., 2008). In contrast, several other studies have
identified differences, with higher TDV rates reported among
particular cultural subgroups within a given sample (Howard,
Wang, & Yan, 2007; Kennedy, 2008; O’Keefe, 1997; Ulloa et al.,
2004). Structural factors have mitigated against drawing firm
conclusions, especially increased economic disadvantage and com-
munity violence which are disproportionately faced by cultural
minority groups. However, investigation of the association be-
tween economic disadvantage and TDV has also been inconclu-
sive, largely because of a lack of heterogeneity in the economic
status of samples within studies (Hird, 2000; Malik et al., 1997).
Meta-analysis can address these limitations by considering effects
across many studies, spanning different countries and economic
backgrounds. In this study, minority status refers to membership in
any cultural group other than the predominant group in one’s
country of origin. For example, youth who identify as being of
Chinese heritage in a European country are within the cultural
minority whereas they would be within the cultural majority in
China. Economic disadvantage refers to whether a sample is de-
scribed as being obtained from a disadvantaged neighborhood,
school, or region, or was reported to be receiving services targeted
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE
for low income families or communities. Both cultural and eco-
nomic influences on TDV will be considered in the current study.
Results regarding the effect of family structure on TDV have
also been mixed. Malik et al. (1997) found that living in a single-
parent family was a correlate of TDV for girls, whereas O’Keeffe
(1986) did not find an association between family structure and
TDV. Evidence from a study by Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, and
Bangdiwala (2001) suggests that although family structure may be
correlated with rates of TDV, family structure does not predict
TDV rates in longitudinal models. Thus family structure will also
be evaluated as potential predictor of physical TDV rates.
Measuring Teen Dating Violence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Methods of measuring TDV vary considerably between studies.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Many studies use multiitem questionnaires such as the Conflict
Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)
or the Conflict in Adolescent Relationships Inventory (Wolfe et
al., 2001) to assess physical TDV. But there are also studies that
inquire about physical TDV using a single item, often as part of a
questionnaire such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Sussman,
Jones, Wilson, & Kann, 2002). The conceptualizations of TDV
with these measurement tools are not consistent, with multiitem
questionnaires capturing a broader spectrum of behaviors com-
pared to single-item tools. The definition of sexual TDV also
varies between studies, with some studies focusing on experiences
of forced sex and others inquiring about a range of unwanted
sexual contact. Additionally, the reference period that is assessed
for TDV is not consistent within the literature. Depending on the
study, adolescents are asked to consider whether they have expe-
rienced dating violence either across their lifetime, with a current
or most recent partner, or within a set time interval, usually the last
two to six months. It is possible that these differences in measure-
ment strategies account for much of the variation in the TDV
prevalence rates reported in the literature (Hamby et al., 2006).
Thus, measurement tool as well as reference period for reporting
will be evaluated as potential predictors of the obtained prevalence
rates.
Research Goals
1. Establish overall prevalence rate estimates of physical
and sexual TDV;
2. Obtain separate prevalence rate estimates of physical and
sexual TDV victimization and perpetration for boys and
girls, and to evaluate gender differences;
3. Conduct moderator analyses to determine whether sam-
ple age, cultural minority representation, family struc-
ture, economic disadvantage, measurement tool, and ref-
erence period account for differences in the TDV
prevalence rates found within the literature.
Method
Selection of Studies
Studies were obtained through two search techniques. First,
literature searches were conducted for the period of 1980
3
through 2013 in several electronic databases, including Psy-
cINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and the Education Resources
Information Center. Search terms included the following: teenⴱ
OR adolescenⴱ OR high school AND dating OR romantic OR
romance OR intimaⴱ AND violenⴱ OR aggressⴱ OR victimⴱ OR
abuse OR abusive. Second, references cited in works obtained
through the first search technique were examined. To be in-
cluded in this meta-analytic review, studies met the following
criteria: (a) physical or sexual dating violence rates were re-
ported; (b) the sample consisted of teens between the ages of 13
and 18 (postsecondary samples were not included; neither were
studies with a wider age range that encompassed adolescence
unless they reported prevalence rates separately for the adoles-
cent subsample); (c) the sample could be considered normative
(studies of special populations such as those selected for med-
ical or psychological referrals, pregnant or parenting teens, or
homeless youth were excluded); (d) the studies were published
in peer reviewed journals or as a dissertation; and (e) the studies
were available in written English. The search yielded 1,410
studies. From scanning the titles and abstracts of these articles
and dissertations, a subset of studies which appeared to meet the
inclusion criteria were selected for further inspection. After
careful review of the Method and Results sections of these
articles and dissertations, a total of 101 studies that met the five
inclusion criteria were retrieved and analyzed as part of this
meta-analysis. To address missing data within these studies, 54
authors were contacted to provide further information regarding
their studies and seven of these authors provided usable data for
this meta-analysis. See Figure 1 for exclusion details at each
stage of article selection.
Coding of Studies
For each study, the sample size and proportion of teens reporting
victimization and perpetration were coded separately for physical
and sexual violence; this information was later meta-analytically
aggregated to provide overall prevalence estimates. The number of
boys and girls and the proportion of boys and girls who reported
TDV victimization and perpetration were coded for subsequent
evaluations of gender differences in physical and sexual preva-
lence rates. The following demographic and measurement vari-
ables were also coded: (a) mean age of the sample, coded in years;
(b) cultural minority composition, coded as the percent of the
sample that is part of a cultural minority group relative to the
majority cultural group of the country from which the sample was
taken; (c) economic disadvantage, coded as whether the sample
was described as being obtained from a disadvantaged neighbor-
hood, school, region or was reported to be receiving services
targeted for low income families or communities; (d) family struc-
ture, coded as the percent of the sample living in a two-parent
household; (e) measurement tool, coded as a single item on a
questionnaire or a multiitem scale for physical TDV and for sexual
TDV, coded as inquiring about any unwanted sexual contact or
inquiring about attempted/forced sex only; (f) reference period for
TDV, coded as lifetime prevalence or a specific interval of one
year or less; and (g) publication status, coded as a published study
or an unpublished dissertation.
 4 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Literature search process. Note. Articles may have been excluded based on multiple criterion.

Interrater and Intrarater Reliability Results

Nine undergraduate student volunteers were recruited to assist
with coding the articles over the course of this meta-analytic
review. The students participated in training sessions to learn the
coding procedure and began to code articles within this meta-
analysis after establishing an overall percent agreement rate above
95%. All articles were double coded to ensure reliability. Further-
more, following the original double coding, 25% of the articles
were recoded by the first researcher between 12 to 14 months after
the articles were first coded. The overall percent agreement was
98%. Inconsistencies in coding were addressed by carefully re-
reading the article and consulting the coding manual to resolve the
disagreement.
Determining Prevalence Rates
The prevalence of TDV was examined using Comprehensive
Meta-Analysis Software (CMA). Of the 101 articles included in
this meta-analysis, 96 studies reported rates of physical TDV and
31 studies reported rates of sexual TDV. Physical TDV prevalence
rates from the 96 studies ranged from 1% to 61% (see Figure 2).
Rates of sexual TDV from the 31 studies ranged from ⬍1% to
54% (see Figure 3). To calculate overall prevalence rates, the
sample size, the proportion of teens in the sample who reported
physical TDV, and/or the proportion of teens in the sample who
reported sexual TDV were coded from each study. Effect sizes

.6 01

.5 006799
.4 0124555667
.3 01333446677889
.2 001112223344777899
.1 00001111122245557777788899
.0 13334666777778888999

Figure 2. Stem-and-leaf plot of physical TDV prevalence rates. Values represent the proportion of boys and
girls who reported either victimization or perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .20
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE 5

.5 4

.4 8
.3 03
.2 136
.1 00122378
.0 1111224555788999

Figure 3. Stem-and-leaf plot of sexual TDV prevalence rates. Values represent the proportion of boys and girls
who reported either victimization or perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .09
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were transformed according to common practices for meta- The results indicated significant gender differences in the pro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

analytic combination and comparison. Specifically, proportions
were transformed to logits where logit ⫽ ln[p/(1 ⫺ p)] (Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001, pp. 39 – 40) to provide an approximately normal
distribution. The average effect sizes were back-transformed into
their more intuitive metric for reporting. Multiple effects sizes
from the same study were averaged to yield one effect size per
study in any given analysis. This ensured that the independence
assumptions necessary when testing significance and computing
standard errors were not violated. Significant heterogeneity was
found across studies, indicating that the variance among effect
sizes was greater than would be expected due to sampling error.
No studies appeared to be outliers. The weighted mean effect sizes
for physical and sexual TDV were computed using random effects
models (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Card, 2012). To evaluate poten-
tial publication bias, publication status was evaluated; no differ-
ence was found between published and unpublished rates (B ⫽
1.64, p ⫽ .28). Results indicate that 20% of teens reported physical
violence in their dating relationships, p(proportion) ⫽ .20, (95%
CI ⫽ .17–.23), and 9% of teens reported sexual violence in their
dating relationships, p (proportion) ⫽ .09, (95% CI ⫽ .05⫺.14).
portion of teens who reported physical dating violence perpetration
but not victimization. The odds of reporting perpetration were
significantly higher for girls OR ⫽ .51, (95% CI ⫽ .41–.63), p ⬍
.001. Specifically, 25% of girls and 13% of boys reported that they
had been the perpetrators of physical dating violence. However,
there was no evidence of gender differences in physical TDV
victimization, OR ⫽ 1.18 (95% CI ⫽ .99 –1.40), p ⫽ .06. Across
gender, 21% of teens reported that they had been victims of
physical dating violence. The results of the gender analysis for
physical TDV are presented in Table 1.
A different pattern of gender differences emerged for sexual
TDV. Specifically, the odds of reporting perpetration were signif-
icantly higher for boys than for girls, OR ⫽ 2.54, (95% CI ⫽
2.21–2.92), p ⬍ .001, and the odds of reporting victimization were
significantly lower for boys than for girls, OR ⫽ .57, (95% CI ⫽
.41–79), p ⬍ .001. Results indicated that 10% of boys and 3% of
girls reported that they had been the perpetrators of sexual dating
violence and 14% of girls and 8% of boys reported that they had
been the victims of sexual TDV. The results of the gender analysis
for sexual TDV are presented in Table 2.

Gender Differences in Victimization and Perpetration Moderator Analyses

To evaluate gender differences, effect sizes were coded from
each study as the proportion of girls and boys who reported
victimization or perpetration of physical and/or sexual TDV (Fig-
ures 4 –11). Odds ratios were calculated to quantify the gender
differences in victimization and perpetration within each study.
The odds ratios were log transformed for sample-size weighted
analysis (Fleiss, 1994) and then back transformed for reporting.
Developmental, demographic, and measurement variables were
evaluated as potential predictors in sets of regression analyses
(Card, 2012). Specifically, a regression analysis was conducted for
each potential moderator on each of the following rates of physical
and sexual TDV: girls’ victimization, boys’ victimization, girls’
perpetration, and boys’ perpetration. Tables 3 and 4 include com-
plete moderator results for physical and sexual TDV, respectively.

.6 0

.5 1456677
.4 1268
.3 0023568899
.2 1344999
.1 0000003344467778889
.0 14557777788999

Figure 4. Stem-and-leaf plot of physical TDV victimization rates for girls. Values represent the proportion of
girls who reported victimization. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .21
 6 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD

.6 00178

.5 4
.4 13334
.3 01356678889
.2 22368
.1 00022445789
.0 <15556688889999

Figure 5. Stem-and-leaf plot of physical TDV victimization rates for boys. Values represent the proportion of
boys and girls who reported either victimization or perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .21
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Developmental predictor. Mean age of the sample did not
significantly predict the proportion of boys’ or girls’ reports of
either perpetration or victimization of physical TDV. However,
mean age of sample did significantly predict girls’ and boys’
reported rates of sexual TDV victimization (B ⫽ 1.96, p ⬍ .001;
B ⫽ 2.00, p ⬍ .01, respectively), such that older teens reported
higher rates.
Demographic predictors. Cultural minority composition
(relative to the majority cultural group of the country from which
the sample was taken) was a significant predictor of girls’ reports
of physical TDV victimization and perpetration, such that, as the
number of cultural minority adolescents increased in the sample,
the proportion of girls reporting victimization (B ⫽ 1.01, p ⬍ .001)
and perpetration (B ⫽ 1.01, p ⬍ .05) increased as well. Percent
cultural minority did not predict boys’ victimization or perpetra-
tion. Furthermore, cultural minority status was not a significant
predictor of the proportion of boys’ or girls’ reports of sexual TDV
victimization or perpetration.
Economic disadvantage significantly predicted boys’ and girls’
physical TDV victimization and perpetration. Being in a sample
characterized by economic disadvantage increased the proportion
of victimization for girls and boys (B ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .001; B ⫽ .26,
p ⬍ .001, respectively), as well as perpetration for girls and boys
(B ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001; B ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .001, respectively). Economic
disadvantage was not evaluated for sexual TDV due to limited
reporting of this variable in the sexual TDV literature.
The proportion of the sample living in a two-parent household
did not significantly predict the proportion of boys’ or girls’
reports of either the perpetration or victimization of physical TDV.
Family structure was not evaluated for sexual TDV due to
limited reporting of this variable in the sexual TDV literature.
Measurement predictors. Measurement tool and reference
period were evaluated as predictors of girls’ and boys’ physical
and sexual victimization and perpetration rates. It was found that
studies which used multiitem scales to assess physical TDV had
higher reports of both victimization and perpetration for girls (B ⫽
2.85, p ⬍ .001; B ⫽ 3.20, p ⬍ .05) and for boys (B ⫽ 5.68, p ⬍
.001; B ⫽ 1.57, p ⬍ .05) compared with studies which used a
single item. Measurement tool also significantly predicted rates of
sexual TDV. Studies which used a broader definition of sexual
victimization as opposed to a narrow definition of forced sex or
attempted forced sex, had higher reports of girls’ victimization
(B ⫽ 4.10, p ⬍ .001), boys’ perpetration (B ⫽ 4.26, p ⬍ .05), as
well as boys’ victimization (B ⫽ 5.09, p ⬍ .05).
Reference period did not significantly predict girls’ or boys’
reported physical or sexual victimization or perpetration rates.
Discussion
From a search of more than 1400 articles, the rigorous selection of
studies which met specific criteria allowed us to extract and combine
results from 96 studies of physical TDV and 31 studies of sexual
TDV. Overall, 20% of adolescents reported physical TDV and 9%
reported sexual TDV. However, high variability in rates was observed
across studies. Gender accounted for some of this variability in that
physical TDV perpetration differed between boys and girls as did
sexual perpetration and victimization. Demographics and approaches
to measurement also contributed, with age, cultural minority status,
disadvantaged neighborhoods, and the use of broad measurement
tools all influencing TDV rates. Despite grounding the obtained
prevalence rates of TDV in a comprehensive pool of the available
base of evidence, the meta-analytic findings also highlight substantive

.5 12359

.4 022344
.3 0034
.2 11236889
.1 0156778
.0 899

Figure 6. Stem-and-leaf plot of physical TDV perpetration rates for girls. Values represent the proportion of
girls who reported perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .25
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE
.5 8
.4 8
.3 159
.2 0011468
.1 0122345666889
.0 223466666779
Figure 7. Stem-and-leaf plot of physical TDV perpetration rates for boys. Values represent the proportion of
boys who reported perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .13
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and unresolved issues in the self-report methodologies currently being
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
used to assess TDV as reported by boys and girls in diverse settings.
Our findings call for a careful review of methodological approaches to
studying TDV in order to advance knowledge in this domain.
Male-perpetrated intimate partner violence has long been a
public concern. However, many researchers have indicated that
females are equally or even more likely to report perpetrating
physical violence within a romantic relationship, particularly
when referring to minor acts of aggression or adolescent sam-
ples (Archer, 2000; Gray & Foshee, 1997; O’Leary et al., 2008;
Wolfe et al., 2005). Our findings appear to support these
concerns in that one in four teen girls in the extant research
report perpetrating physical dating violence, compared to one in
eight boys. Our findings would also be consistent with the
developmental perspective that teen girls’ aggression toward
their boyfriends may result from their relative inexperience in
managing romantic relationships and then adopting typically
masculine aggressive behaviors to express their frustration or to
resolve conflicts (Connolly et al., 2015; McIsaac et al., 2008;
O’Leary et al., 2008; Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Wolfe et al.,
2005). Furthermore, our results would fit with the view that
girls’ use of physical violence may persist because there is
societal acceptance of girls’ romantic aggression and their use
of aggression is relatively unsanctioned (Simon et al., 2010).
At the same time our meta-analytic findings call into question
the straightforward interpretation of the obtained physical TDV
prevalence rates. Given that the studies in the meta-analysis in-
cluded heterosexual samples of teens, it would follow that reported
rates of victimization should be similar to the perpetration rates
reported by the opposite gender. We can conceptualize this com-
parison as a validity check of our obtained rates. Although boys’
victimization (21%) was indeed roughly comparable with girls’
.6 5
.5 4
.4 8
.3 8
.2 236
.1 0000456788
.0 1236689
Figure 8. Stem-and-leaf plot of sexual TDV victimization rates for girls. Values represent the proportion of
girls who reported victimization. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .14
7
perpetration (25%), the reverse was not found for girls’ victimiza-
tion (21%), which was much higher than boys’ perpetration (13%).
These inconsistent comparisons suggest that there are methodolog-
ical factors which lead to overreporting by girls, underreporting by
boys, or both (Hamby, 2005). For example, it has been suggested
that girls are more attentive to acts of interpersonal violence and so
are more likely than boys to endorse them in a self-report survey
(Jackson, 1999; McIsaac et al., 2008). Conversely, underreporting
of TDV may occur because of social desirability biases (Sugarman
& Hotaling, 1997). These biases may especially influence boys’
reporting, due to the societal stigmatization of male violence
toward women (Hamby & Jackson, 2010). Given that boys have a
physical advantage over girls (Reeves & Orpinas, 2012), male-on-
female violence is more frightening and more serious than female-
on-male violence (Hamby & Jackson, 2010). Thus social desir-
ability is more salient for boys than girls and likely contributes to
boys’ lower rates of self-reported perpetration. Such methodolog-
ical limitations need to be rectified if we are to be confident in the
prevalence rates of boys’ and girls’ physical TDV.
The pattern of prevalence rates was quite different for sexual
TDV compared with physical TDV. First, both girls and boys
reported higher rates of sexual victimization (14% and 8%) com-
pared to their reports of perpetration (3% and 10%). We have
suggested that boys’ lower physical TDV perpetration rates reflect
a social desirability bias leading to underreporting. This explana-
tion may also account for the lower sexual perpetration rates
reported by both genders as sexual violence may not considered
commonplace or acceptable for either boys or girls. Second, in
contrast to physical TDV, girls reported higher rates of sexual
victimization and lower rates of perpetration with boys reporting
the complementary pattern of higher rates of perpetration and
lower rates of victimization. Compared with physical TDV sexual
 8 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD
.4 26
.3 0
.2 2
.1 013
.0 <1113467889
Figure 9. Stem-and-leaf plot of sexual TDV victimization rates for boys. Values represent the proportion of
boys who reported victimization. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .08
TDV typically includes more severe acts of violence, which boys
are more likely to commit than girls (Hamby, 2009). It is also the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
case that girls are more likely than boys to experience fear and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
physical injury as a consequence of any form of TDV and this
increases their likelihood of reporting victimization (Hamby &
Turner, 2013; Molidor & Tolman, 1998; O’Keefe, 1997). These
facts provide some support for the credibility of the sexual vic-
timization rates we obtained while still leaving open the problem-
atic reporting of perpetration in the methodologies currently in use
to study TDV.
Turning to the influence of demographic variables, higher rates of
physical TDV victimization and perpetration were found in samples
from disadvantaged neighborhoods and in samples having a higher
percentage of cultural minority youth, but for girls only. Research has
suggested that the structural conditions that members of a minority
cultural group face, such as discrimination and reduced economic
opportunities, are related to violence (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van
Wyk, 2003; Carbone-Lopez, 2013). Specifically, as restricted access
to economic resources is associated with higher levels of social
disorganization, weaker social bonds, lower informal social control,
and higher levels of crime, it may be these latter factors that more
directly influence the reported rates of TDV (Benson et al., 2003;
Malik et al., 1997). Furthermore, evidence has supported the finding
that women of cultural minority status who are living in poverty are
at greatest risk of violence by intimate partners (Benson et al., 2003).
The meta-analytic results highlight the reality that minority girls, who
are more likely to experience a cumulative effect of multiple risks, are
particularly vulnerable to experiencing physical TDV. It is important
to note that sexual TDV rates were not predicted by cultural minority
status, further highlighting the distinct nature of these two forms of
TDV.
The finding that age did not predict rates of physical TDV is not
consistent with previous developmental research, which has sug-
gested curvilinear trajectories for TDV rates (Foshee et al., 2009).
Although our results failed to support a significant age effect it is
important to be cautious when interpreting these null results. The
majority of the studies within the field of physical TDV research focus
on high school students between the ages of 13 to 18 with a mean age
of approximately 16. With only mean age of sample available for
.2 0
.1 7
.0 <11112334456
Figure 10. Stem-and-leaf plot of sexual TDV perpetration rates for girls. Values represent the proportion of
girls who reported perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .03
analysis, a lack of variation in age between the samples limited its
ability as a moderator to detect developmental differences. Thus,
developmental pathways need to be further explored using more
statistically sensitive age variables to examine trajectories across early
to late adolescence. Sexual TDV research, on the other hand, encom-
passes greater variation in mean age between studies, and this allowed
for the detection of changing sexual TDV rates with age. Specifically,
it was found that older adolescents, both girls and boys, reported
higher sexual TDV victimization rates. Developmentally, romantic
relationships increase in sexual expression across adolescence (Con-
nolly et al., 2014); thus, the opportunity for sexually coercive behav-
iors to arise increases over time and this is reflected in increasing rates
of victimization.
With respect to family structure and TDV, the literature has
been mixed. The finding of null effects in this meta-analysis
suggests that other family level variables, such as low parental
monitoring and exposure to parental intimate partner violence
(Banyard, Cross, & Modecki, 2006; Garrido & Taussig, 2013;
Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008) may be more impor-
tant than family structure when considering the influence of family
on TDV.
In contrast to the other moderator influences, strong effects were
found for measurement in that studies using multiitem scales to
assess physical TDV yielded higher prevalence rates than studies
using a single item. There are several possible interpretations of
this finding. First, it is possible that broad scales with multiple
items are better than scales with a single item at eliciting recall of
dating violence by orienting the adolescent to the context of TDV
and asking questions about specific behaviors. Furthermore, as
single items about TDV tend to be embedded within a list of
questions about a range of negative or harmful behaviors, it is
possible that this approach may elicit a response bias, wherein
teens endorse a lack of participation in socially unacceptable
behaviors, including TDV. On the other hand, broader scales may
elicit more false positives. Acts such as pushing or kicking may
occur within a playful context and are not necessarily indicative of
violence between partners. Several researchers have posited that
measures inquiring about these acts may also be capturing play
fighting or mock violence in addition to acts of aggression. Thus,
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE 9

.3 4

.2 05
.1 01112347
.0 1445

Figure 11. Stem-and-leaf plot of sexual TDV perpetration rates for boys. Values represent the proportion of
boys who reported perpetration. Random effects mean proportion ⫽ .10

roughhousing and other behaviors that are commonly carried out tion reported in the original studies (Card, 2012); this allows for
with the intent of being teasing or flirtatious may be miscatego- the possibility that any significant predictor identified through
rized, potentially resulting in overestimates of TDV rates (Capaldi meta-analysis may only be a covariate of a true predictor
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

& Crosby, 1997; Fernández-González, O’Leary, & Muñoz-Rivas, (Lipsey, 2003). Furthermore, as each primary study was de-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2013; Hamby, 2009; Lehrner & Allen, 2014).
In the measurement of sexual TDV, broader definitions simi-
larly yielded significantly higher rates of victimization and perpe-
tration than narrow definitions focused on forced sex only. These
results indicate that the experience of sexual violence within teen
relationships includes patterns of sexual violence that are broader
than forced sex and more commonly include other forms of un-
wanted sexual contact from romantic partners, such as unwanted
kissing, touching, and threatening behaviors. The accurate mea-
surement of sexual dating violence, distinguishing between rape
and various other forms of sexual harassment or assault, is crucial
for understanding gendered patterns in victimization and perpetra-
tion (Hamby, 2009).
The lack of a significant effect for reference period appears
counterintuitive, as it was expected that the likelihood of TDV
being reported would increase when inquiring about TDV within a
longer timeframe. Interestingly, a careful examination of the cur-
rent literature revealed that broader assessments of TDV (which
elicit higher reported rates) are more than twice as likely to ask
about TDV within a specific time interval, than to ask about
lifetime prevalence. These null results highlight the way in which
measurement practices in the study of TDV can combine to influ-
ence the rates reported.
Limitations
Despite the contributions of this meta-analytic review, there
are some limitations to the findings. One limitation of meta-
analysis is that the data are inherently constrained to informa-
signed with different goals, the data reported in these studies is
highly variable. This increases the potential for encountering
missing data for any given variable in the meta-analysis and
limits possibilities for conducting multivariate analysis. Specif-
ically, we note that it was not possible to examine potential
associations of economic disadvantage and family structure
with rates of sexual TDV as these variables were not well
represented within the literature. In general, teen sexual vio-
lence is underrepresented in the TDV literature and so findings
related to sexual TDV may require cautious interpretation.
Furthermore, TDV was defined by physical and sexual acts of
violence within this meta-analysis; however, there are other
definitions of TDV, notably those which encompass psycholog-
ical, emotional, and cyber dating aggression. Although various
forms of TDV may co-occur (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lach-
man, 2013), these forms of TDV are represented by definitional
heterogeneity even greater than that of physical and sexual
TDV. The rates, predictors, and outcomes of psychological,
emotional, and cyber TDV require further study. It is also
important to note that sexual minority youth were not repre-
sented within this meta-analysis. Despite research indicating
that sexual minority youth experience high rates of bullying and
harassment (Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2005), there
has been limited study of TDV among these youth. Assuming
heterosexuality for all adolescents is problematic, and further
investigation of the prevalence, predictors, and consequences of
TDV for sexual minority adolescents is necessary to target
prevention and intervention programming (Dank, Lachman,
Zweig, & Yahner, 2014; Reuter, Sharp, & Temple, 2015).

Table 1 Table 2
Prevalence Rates and Gender Differences in Physical TDV Prevalence Rates and Gender Differences in Sexual TDV

Prevalence 95% confidence 95% confidence

TDV k rate interval k Odds ratios TDV k Prevalence rate interval k Odds ratios

Overall rate 96 .20 [.17, .23] Overall rate 31 .09 [.05, .14]
Victimization 50 1.18 Victimization 17 .57ⴱⴱⴱ
Girls 62 .21 [.17, .25] Girls 24 .14 [.08, .24]
Boys 52 .21 [.16, .26] Boys 17 .08 [.03, .16]
Perpetration 32 .51ⴱⴱⴱ Perpetration 12 2.54ⴱⴱⴱ
Girls 35 .25 [.21, .30] Girls 13 .03 [.02, .06]
Boys 38 .13 [.11, .16] Boys 15 .10 [.06, .15]
Note. k ⫽ number of studies. Odds ratios were calculated from studies Note. k ⫽ number of studies. Odds ratios were calculated from studies
that included prevalence rates for both boys and girls within each study. that included prevalence rates for both boys and girls within each study.
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .001. p ⬍ .001.
 10 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD

Table 3
Summary of Meta-Analysis Regressions: Predictors of the Prevalence of Physical TDV

Girls’ Boys’ Girls’ Boys’

Moderator victimization victimization perpetration perpetration

Mean age K 42 32 26 26
B 1.16 .94 1.01 1.09
95% CI [.88, 1.55] [.68, 1.31] [.75, 1.37] [.76, 1.58]
Q 51.54 48.76 33.17 29.85
% cultural minority K 53 43 32 34
B 1.01ⴱⴱⴱ 1.01 1.01ⴱ 1.01
95% CI [1.01, 1.02] [1.00, 1.02] [1.00, 1.02] [1.00, 1.02]
Q 81.38ⴱⴱⴱ 48.86 45.32ⴱ 43.11

% nuclear family K 17 13 10 11
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

B 1.00 1.03 1.01 1.01

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

95% CI [.99, 1.02] [1.00, 1.05] [.98, 1.05] [.99, 1.04]

Q 22.95 15.26 9.59 11.85

Economic disadvantage K 62 51 35 38
B .29ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ
95% CI [.19, .45] [.13, .50] [.21, .60] [.20, .67]
Q 117.59ⴱⴱⴱ 77.44ⴱⴱⴱ 67.05ⴱⴱⴱ 60.39ⴱⴱⴱ
Method of measurement K 62 51 35 38
B 2.85ⴱⴱⴱ 5.68ⴱⴱⴱ 3.20ⴱ 1.57ⴱ
95% CI [1.92, 4.22] [3.80, 8.50] [1.87, 5.46] [.99, 2.49]
Q 127.56ⴱⴱⴱ 159.19ⴱⴱⴱ 61.04ⴱⴱⴱ 58.61ⴱ
Reference period K 62 51 35 38
B 1.21 1.00 1.43 .98
95% CI [.73, 2.01] [.53, 1.88] [.86, 2.36] [.55, 1.75]
Q 72.03 63.25 59.91ⴱⴱⴱ 56.39ⴱ
Note. K ⫽ number of studies; B ⫽ the amount of difference in dating violence prevalence rates associated with a one-unit difference in the moderator variable.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

Lastly, we note that the studies within the meta-analysis rely on
the report of one partner in a relationship. Further research on
the agreement between partners about experiences of violence
may be important for informing the development of tools with
higher validity (Vicario-Molina, Baz, Martín, Ortega, & Álva-
rez, 2015).
Research Implications
Findings reveal that violence in dating relationships is a reality for
many adolescents. Exploring TDV in terms of the context, severity,
and consequences would be valuable in better understanding gender
differences as well as addressing higher rates of victimization and

Table 4
Summary of Meta-Analysis Regressions: Predictors of the Prevalence of Sexual TDV

Girls’ Boys’ Girls’ Boys’

Moderator victimization victimization perpetration perpetration

Mean age K 17 13 9 9
B 1.96ⴱⴱⴱ 2.00ⴱⴱ 1.31 1.50
95% CI [1.30, 2.96] [1.19, 3.35] [.66, 2.61] [.86, 2.64]
Q 24.51 21.69ⴱ 16.09ⴱ 8.87
% cultural minority K 16 13 10 12
B .99 .99 .96 .99
95% CI [.96, 1.04] [.95, 1.03] [.93, 1.00] [.96, 1.01]
Q 8.75 7.82 8.82 12.10
Method of measurement K 24 17 13 15
B 4.10ⴱⴱⴱ 5.09ⴱ 1.66 4.26ⴱ
95% CI [1.43, 11.76] [1.26, 20.65] [.13, 21.69] [1.35, 13.41]
Q 28.64 27.33ⴱ 10.47 18.28
Reference period K 24 17 13 15
B 1.00 .33 .41 1.17
95% CI [.29, 3.44] [.08, 1.41] [.11, 1.60] [.42, 3.30]
Q 13.92 15.01 11.24 15.89
Note. K ⫽ number of studies; B ⫽ the amount of difference in dating violence prevalence rates associated with a one-unit difference in the moderator variable.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE
perpetration among economically disadvantaged and cultural minority
youth. Importantly, the results highlight a remarkable level of vari-
ability in TDV prevalence within the literature as well as evidence of
systematic bias in boys’ and girls’ reporting of TDV. There is a need
in this field of research to address the methodological limitations in
measurement including the continued refinement of measurement
tools, exploration of best practices for assessing TDV among boys
and girls as well as measuring trajectories of TDV from early ado-
lescence to adulthood.
Clinical and Policy Implications
As dating violence is common in adolescence, it is important for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
clinicians to keep this in mind when working with teens. Questions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
about adolescents’ relationships can act as a gateway to more specific
questions regarding TDV. Addressing violence within teen relation-
ships may also be an important part of addressing other social,
physical, and mental health concerns. Prevention and intervention
efforts must be informed by the current literature, with attention given
to gender differences, cultural sensitivity, and understanding of con-
textual factors.
Conclusion
This meta-analytic review sheds new light on the study of TDV,
addressing several important questions regarding factors that pre-
dict the prevalence of violence reported in teen dating relation-
ships. Moving forward it is important that research in the field of
TDV emphasizes issues of gender, cultural, and sexual minority
youth, as well as refining best practices for measuring TDV. Taken
together, the findings provide researchers as well as community
agencies, educational partners, and frontline workers with impor-
tant information to consider in their research, prevention, and
intervention efforts addressing this pressing public health issue.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
ⴱ
Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002). Date violence and date
rape among adolescents: Associations with disordered eating behaviors
and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455– 473. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00322-8
ⴱ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Understanding teen
Alleyne-Green, B., Coleman-Cowger, V. H., & Henry, D. B. (2012).
Dating violence perpetration and/or victimization and associated sexual
risk behaviors among a sample of inner-city African American and
Hispanic adolescent females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27,
1457–1473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511425788
ⴱ with date fighting among high school students. Women & Health, 47,
Antônio, T., & Hokoda, A. (2009). Gender variations in dating violence
and positive conflict resolution among Mexican adolescents. Violence
and Victims, 24, 533–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.4
.533
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651– 680.
ⴱ
Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., O’Leary, K. D., & Cano, A. (1997). Effi-
cacy of a dating violence prevention program on attitudes justifying
aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 11–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1054-139X(96)00309-6
ⴱ ⴱ
Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating vio-
lence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Vio-
11
lence Against Women, 14, 998 –1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077801208322058
ⴱ
Banyard, V. L., Cross, C., & Modecki, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal
violence in adolescence: Ecological correlates of self-reported perpetra-
tion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1314 –1332. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0886260506291657
ⴱ
Baumann, B. D. (2006). Alcohol use and dating violence: A high-school
prevention model. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 3938, AAI3182776. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/6215649
86?accountid⫽15182
Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., DeMaris, A., & van Wyk, J. (2003). Neigh-
borhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against
women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
19, 207–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024930208331
ⴱ
Bergman, L. (1992). Dating violence among high school students. Social
Work, 37, 21–27. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy
.library.yorku.ca/docview/618131813?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Boksa, A. (2005). The dynamics of conflict and violence in adolescent
heterosexual romantic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 2810, AAI3177405.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/
docview/621061542?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Bossarte, R. M., Swahn, & M. H., & Breiding, M. (2009). Racial, ethnic,
and sex differences in the associations between violence and self-
reported health among U.S. high school students. Journal of School
Health, 79, 74 – 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00379.x
Bouchey, H. A., & Furman, W. (2003). Dating and romantic experiences
in adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of adolescence (pp. 313–329). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub-
lishing.
ⴱ
Brooks-Russell, A., Foshee, V. A., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). Predictors of
latent trajectory classes of physical dating violence victimization. Jour-
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 566 –580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-012-9876-2
ⴱ
Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Adolescent
dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 18, 664 – 681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0743558403254784
Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological
and physical aggression young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6,
184 –206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00101.x
Carbone-Lopez, K. (2013). Across racial/ethnic boundaries: Investigating
intimate violence within a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28, 3–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512448850
Card, N. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
dating violence. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc
.gov/chooserespect/pdfs/TeenDatingViolence2009-a.pdf
ⴱ
Champion, H., Foley, K. L., Sigmon-Smith, K., Sutfin, E. L., & DuRant,
R. H. (2008). Contextual factors and health risk behaviors associated
1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03630240802132286
ⴱ
Chapple, C. L. (2003). Examining intergenerational violence: Violent role
modeling or weak parental controls? Violence and Victims, 18, 143–162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.143
ⴱ
Chiodo, D., Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., McIsaac, C., Hughes, R., &
Jaffe, P. G. (2012). Longitudinal prediction and concurrent functioning
of adolescent girls demonstrating various profiles of dating violence and
victimization. Prevention Science, 13, 350 –359. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11121-011-0236-3
Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F.,
& Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life
 12 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD
among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Pre-
ventive Medicine, 19, 220 –227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-
3797(00)00227-0
Connolly, J., Baird, K., Bravo, V., Lovald, B., Pepler, D., & Craig, W.
(2015). Adolescents’ use of affiliative and aggressive strategies during
conflict with romantic partners and best-friends. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 549 –564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17405629.2015.1066244
Connolly, J. A., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Romantic relationships in adoles-
cence. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 101–151). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Connolly, J., McIsaac, C., Shulman, S., Wincentak, K., Joly, L., Heifetz,
M., & Bravo, V. (2014). Development of romantic relationships in
adolescence and emerging adulthood: Implications for community men-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tal health. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 33, 7–19.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2014-002
ⴱ
Connolly, J., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., Pepler, D., Craig, W., &
Williams, T. S. (2010). Adolescent dating aggression in Canada and
Italy: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34, 98 –105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01650254093
60291
Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846 – 857. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-
013-9975-8
ⴱ
Ellis, W. E., Chung-Hall, J., & Dumas, T. M. (2013). The role of peer
group aggression in predicting adolescent dating violence and relation-
ship quality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 487– 499. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9797-0
ⴱ Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1155–1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
Enosh, G. (2007). Cognition or involvement? Explaining sexual-coercion
in high-school dating. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treat-
ment, 19, 311–329.
ⴱ prosocial peers moderate the association between intimate partner vio-
Espinoza, G., Hokoda, A., Ulloa, E. C., Ulibarri, M. D., & Castañeda, D.
(2012). Gender differences in the relations among patriarchal beliefs,
parenting, and teen relationship violence in Mexican adolescents. Jour-
nal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21, 721–738. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.703289
ⴱ emergency department. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 113–
Fernández-Fuertes, A. A., & Fuertes, A. (2010). Physical and psycholog-
ical aggression in dating relationships of Spanish adolescents: Motives
and consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 183–191. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.002
ⴱ
Fernández-González, L., O=Leary, K. D., & Muñoz-Rivas, M. J. (2013).
We are not joking: Need for controls in reports of dating violence.
Journal of international Violence, 28, 602– 620. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0886260512455518
ⴱ
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The
victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey.
Child Maltreatment, 10, 5–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10775595
04271287
ⴱ Practice, and Policy, 1, 24 –34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015066
Flanagan, A. S., & Furman, W. C. (2000). Sexual victimization and
perceptions of close relationships in adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5,
350 –359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005004006
Fleiss, J. L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H.
Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp.
245–260). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
ⴱ study. Violence and Victims, 21, 507–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/
Flisher, A. J., Myer, L., Mèrais, A., Lombard, C., & Reddy, P. (2007).
Prevalence and correlates of partner violence among South African
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 619 – 627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01711.x
ⴱ
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse
prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, 275–286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/11.3.275-a
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T., Suchindran, C., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E.,
Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., . . . Mathias, J. (2009). The development of four
types of adolescent dating abuse and selected demographic correlates.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 380 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00593.x
Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001).
Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating
violence. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to
Practice and Theory, 32, 128 –141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000
.0793
Foshee, V., & Matthew, R. A. (2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetra-
tion: A review of findings, methodological limitations, and suggestions
for future research (pp. 431– 449). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
ⴱ
Foshee, V. A., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Ennett, S. T., Cance, J. D.,
Bauman, K. E., & Bowling, J. M. (2012). Assessing the effects of
Families for Safe Dates, a family-based teen dating abuse prevention
program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 349 –356. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.029
ⴱ
Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Mathias, J. P.,
Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., . . . Benefield, T. S. (2011). Risk and protective
factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence
perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 344 –350. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.030
ⴱ
Friedlander, L. J., Connolly, J. A., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2013).
Extensiveness and persistence of aggressive media exposure as longitu-
dinal risk factors for teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 3,
310 –322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032983
ⴱ
Gagné, M. H., Lavoie, F., & Hébert, M. (2005). Victimization during
childhood and revictimization in dating relationships in adolescent girls.
.chiabu.2004.11.009
Garrido, E. F., & Taussig, H. N. (2013). Do parenting practices and
lence exposure and teen dating violence? Psychology of Violence, 3,
354 –366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034036
ⴱ
Goldstein, A. L., Walton, M. A., Cunningham, R. M., Resko, S. M., &
Duan, L. (2009). Correlates of gambling among youth in an inner-city
121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013912
Gray, H., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences
between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 12, 126 –141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08862609
7012001008
Hamby, S. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence:
Implications from research on other forms of violent and socially unde-
sirable behavior. Sex Roles, 52, 725–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-005-4195-7
Hamby, S. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence:
Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Hamby, S., & Jackson, A. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender
on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324 –331. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9816-0
Hamby, S., Sugarman, D. B., & Boney-McCoy, S. (2006). Does question-
naire format impact reported partner violence rates?: An experimental
0886-6708.21.4.507
ⴱ
Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males
and females: Insights from the national survey of children’s exposure to
violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0029706
ⴱ
Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., &
Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization
among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE
health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53,
194 –201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.008
ⴱ
Hébert, M., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., McDuff, P., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008).
Association of child sexual abuse and dating victimization with mental
health disorder in a sample of adolescent girls. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 21, 181–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.20314
ⴱ Jouriles, E. N., Platt, C., & McDonald, R. (2009). Violence in adolescent
Helland, T. A. (1998). The role of the peer group on individual use and
acceptance of physical aggression in adolescent dating relationships.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and En-
gineering, 4450, AAM9804825. Retrieved from http://search.proquest
.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/619378482?accountid⫽15182
Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating violence
among adolescents: Prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention pro-
gram effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 123–142. http://dx
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262332
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ⴱ
Hird, M. J. (2000). An empirical study of adolescent dating aggression in
the U. K. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 69 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jado.1999.0292
ⴱ
Hokoda, A., Galván, D. B., Malcarne, V. L., Castañeda, D. M., & Ulloa,
E. C. (2007). An exploratory study examining teen dating violence,
acculturation and acculturative stress in Mexican-American adolescents.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 14, 33– 49. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1300/J146v14n03_03
ⴱ
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2003). A cluster analytic investigation of
victimization among high school students: Are profiles differentially
associated with psychological symptoms and school belonging? Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 19, 81–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J008v19n02_06
ⴱ Health, 30, 375–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Social support as a moderator
between dating violence victimization and depression/anxiety among
African American and Caucasian adolescents. School Psychology Re-
view, 34, 309 –328. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy
.library.yorku.ca/docview/620900950?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 359 –372. http://dx
Howard, D. E., Beck, K., Kerr, M. H., & Shattuck, T. (2005). Psychos-
ocial correlates of dating violence victimization among Latino youth.
Adolescence, 40, 319 –331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08862605093
36958
ⴱ
Howard, D. E., Debnam, K. J., Wang, M. Q., & Gilchrist, B. (2011).
10-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among U.S.
adolescent males. International Quarterly of Community Health Educa-
tion, 32, 283–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/IQ.32.4.c
ⴱ
Howard, D. E., Qiu, Y., & Boekeloo, B. (2003). Personal and social
contextual correlates of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adoles-
cent Health, 33, 9 –17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)
00061-2
Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Yan, F. (2007). Psychosocial factors associ-
ated with reports of physical dating violence among U.S. adolescent fe-
males. Adolescence, 42, 311–324. Retrieved from http://search.proquest
.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/621849009?accountid⫽15182
Jackson, S. M. (1999). Issues in the dating violence research: A review of
the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 233–247. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00049-9
ⴱ
Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and sexual
coercion in high school students’ dating relationships. Journal of Family
Violence, 15, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007545302987
ⴱ
Jewkes, R., Vundule, C., Maforah, F., & Jordaan, E. (2001). Relationship
dynamics and teenage pregnancy in South Africa. Social Science &
Medicine, 52, 733–744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)
00177-5
ⴱ
Jezl, D. R., Molidor, C. E., & Wright, T. L. (1996). Physical, sexual and
psychological abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates
and self-esteem issues. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13,
69 – 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01876596
13
ⴱ
Josephson, W. L., & Proulx, J. B. (2008). Violence in young adolescents’
relationships: A path model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23,
189 –208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309340
ⴱ
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & Brown, A. S.
(2005). Assessing aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Can
we do it better? Psychological Assessment, 17, 469 – 475.
dating relationships. Prevention Researcher, 16, 3–7. Retrieved from
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-194277145.html
ⴱ
Kennedy, A. C. (2008). An ecological approach to examining cumulative
violence exposure among urban, African American adolescents. Child &
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 25– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10560-007-0110-0
ⴱ
Kernsmith, P. D., & Tolman, R. M. (2011). Attitudinal correlates of girls’
use of violence in teen dating relationships. Violence Against Women,
17, 500 –516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801211404312
ⴱ
Kim, K. L., Jackson, Y., Hunter, H. L., & Conrad, S. M. (2009). Inter-
parental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: The role of per-
ceived threat and self-blame appraisals. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 24, 844 – 865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317187
Larson, R. W., Clore, G. L., & Wood, G. A. (1999). The emotions of
romantic relationships. Do they wreak havoc on adolescents? In W.
Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic
relationships in adolescence (pp. 19 – 49). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.003
ⴱ
Lavoie, F., Hébert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vézina, L., & McDuff,
P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating
violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent
00347-6
Leadbeater, B. J., Banister, E. M., Ellis, W. E., & Yeung, R. (2008).
Victimization and relational aggression in adolescent romantic relation-
ships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors and individual
.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0
Lehrner, A., & Allen, N. E. (2014). Construct validity of the conflict tactics
scales: A mixed-method investigation of women’s intimate partner vi-
olence. Psychology of Violence, 4, 477– 490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0037404
Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis:
Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 587, 69 – 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271620
2250791
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
ⴱ
Maas, C. D., Fleming, C. B., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Catalano, R. F. (2010).
Childhood predictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and
Victims, 25, 131–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.2.131
ⴱ
Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and
dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1054-139X(97)00143-2
ⴱ
Marquart, B. S., Nannini, D. K., Edwards, R. W., Stanley, L. R., &
Wayman, J. C. (2007). Prevalence of dating violence and victimization:
Regional and gender differences. Adolescence, 42, 645– 657. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/
621993367?accountid⫽15182
McIsaac, C., Connolly, J., McKenney, K. S., Pepler, D., & Craig, W.
(2008). Conflict negotiation and autonomy processes in adolescent ro-
mantic relationships: An observational study of interdependency in
boyfriend and girlfriend effects. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 691–707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.005
ⴱ
Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata,
M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching boys
 14 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD
into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence
prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 431– 438. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.018
ⴱ
Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in
adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4, 180 –194. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004002004
ⴱ ⴱ
Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Graña, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & González, M. P.
(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, jus-
tification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40,
298 –304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137
ⴱ ⴱ
Nahapetyan, L., Orpinas, P., Song, X., & Holland, K. (2014). Longitudi-
nal association of suicidal ideation and physical dating violence among
high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 629 – 640.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0006-6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ⴱ Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer
Nicodemus, P. D., Porter, J. A., & Davenport, P. A. (2011). Predictors of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
perpetuating physical date violence among adolescents. North American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 13, 123–132. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/862788068?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school
students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546 –568. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/088626097012004005
ⴱ
O’Keefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating violence among
high school students. Are the predictors different for males and females?
Violence Against Women, 4, 195–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077801298004002005
O’Keeffe, N. K. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465– 468.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/
docview/617312278?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ B. M. (2004). Acculturation, ethnic identity, and dating violence among
O’Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M.
(2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 473– 479. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012
ⴱ sion among high school students. Violence and Victims, 12, 295–305.
Orpinas, P., Hsieh, H. L., Song, X., Holland, K., & Nahapetyan, L. (2013).
Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school:
Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 551–565. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10964-012-9881-5
ⴱ
Pinhey, T. K., & Millman, S. R. (2004). Asian/Pacific islander adolescent
sexual orientation and suicide risk in Guam. American Journal of Public
Health, 94, 1204 –1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.7.1204
ⴱ
Poitras, M., & Lavoie, F. (1995). A study of the prevalence of sexual
coercion in adolescent heterosexual dating relationships in a Quebec
sample. Violence and Victims, 10, 299 –313. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/61885018
6?accountid⫽15182
Reeves, P. M., & Orpinas, P. (2012). Dating norms and dating violence
among ninth graders in Northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys
and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1677–1698.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511430386
Reuter, T., Sharp, C., & Temple, J. (2015). An exploratory study of teen
dating violence in sexual minority youth. Partner Abuse, 6, 8 –28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.8
ⴱ
Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A. (2013). Sexual dating aggression across
grades 8 through 12: Timing and predictors of onset. Journal of Youth
and Adolescents, 42, 581–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-
9864-6
ⴱ
Richards, T. N., & Branch, K. A. (2012). The relationship between social
support and adolescent dating violence: A comparison across genders.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1540 –1561. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0886260511425796
ⴱ
Rivera-Rivera, L., Allen-Leigh, B., Rodríguez-Ortega, G., Chávez-Ayala,
R., & Lazcano-Ponce, E. (2007). Prevalence and correlates of adolescent
dating violence: Baseline study of a cohort of 7,960 male and female
Mexican public school students. Preventive Medicine, 44, 477– 484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.02.020
Roberts, T. A., Auinger, P., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Predictors of partner
abuse in a nationally representative sample of adolescents involved in
heterosexual dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 21, 81– 89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/vivi.21.1.81
Romito, P., Beltramini, L., & Escribà-Agüir, V. (2013). Intimate partner
violence and mental health among Italian adolescents: Gender similar-
ities and differences. Violence Against Women, 19, 89 –106. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212475339
Roscoe, B., & Callahan, J. E. (1985). Adolescents self-report of violence
in families and dating relations. Adolescence, 20, 545–553. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.comandezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/
617134883?accountid⫽15182
relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behav-
ioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98 –
131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98
ⴱ
Russell, M., Cupp, P. K., Jewkes, R. K., Gevers, A., Mathews, C.,
LeFleur-Bellerose, C., & Small, J. (2014). Intimate partner violence
among adolescents in Cape Town, South Africa. Prevention Science, 15,
283–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0405-7
ⴱ
Salazar, L. F., Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., Lang, D. L., &
Harrington, K. (2004). The role of social support in the psychological
well-being of African American girls who dating violence victimization.
Violence and Victims, 19, 171–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.2
.171.64100
ⴱ
Sanderson, M., Coker, A. L., Roberts, R. E., Tortolero, S. R., & Reininger,
Latino ninth-grade students. Preventive Medicine, 39, 373–383. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.034
ⴱ
Schwartz, M., O’Leary, S. G., & Kendziora, K. T. (1997). Dating aggres-
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/
docview/619319873?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., & Price, E. L. (2007). The co-occurrence of
adolescent boys’ and girls’ use of psychologically, physically, and
sexually abusive behaviors in their dating relationships. Journal of
Adolescence, 30, 487–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006
.05.002
Serquina-Ramiro, L. (2005). Physical intimacy and sexual coercion among
adolescent intimate partners in the Philippines. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 20, 476 – 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558405275170
ⴱ
Shen, A. C., Chiu, M. Y., & Gao, J. (2012). Predictors of dating violence
among Chinese adolescents: The role of gender-role beliefs and justifi-
cation of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1066 –1089.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511424497
ⴱ
Sherer, M. (2009). The nature and correlates of dating violence among
Jewish and Arab youths in Israel. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 11–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9201-8
Shute, R., & Charlton, K. (2006). Anger or compromise? adolescents’
conflict resolution strategies in relation to gender and type of peer
relationship. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 13, 55–
69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2006.9747966
ⴱ
Silverman, J. G. (1999). An outcome evaluation of a school-based cur-
riculum for the primary prevention of dating violence among adoles-
cents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 858, AAM9920092. Retrieved from http://search.proquest
.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/619436172?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating
violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy
weight control, sexual risk behaviour, and suicidality. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 286, 572–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
jama.286.5.572
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE
Simon, T. R., Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Orpinas, P., & Sullivan, T.
(2010). Physical dating violence norms and behavior among sixth-grade
students from four U.S. sites. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30,
395– 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431609333301
ⴱ
Simons, R. L., Lin, K., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of
origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 60, 467–478. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy
.library.yorku.ca/docview/619327625?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Smith, J. P., & Williams, J. G. (1992). From abusive household to dating
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 153–165. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF00978703
Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Moracco, K. E. (2009). Becoming who we
are: A theoretical explanation of gendered social structures and social
networks that shape adolescent interpersonal aggression. Psychology of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Women Quarterly, 33, 25–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.2008.01470.x
ⴱ
Spencer, G. A., & Bryant, S. A. (2000). Dating violence: A comparison of
rural, suburban, and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27,
302–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00125-7
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital
violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A.
Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families:
Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151–166).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996).
The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary
psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social
desirability: A meta–analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
12, 275–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002008
Sussman, M. P., Jones, S. E., Wilson, T. W., & Kann, L. (2002). The Youth
Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Updating policy and program ap-
plications. Journal of School Health, 72, 13–17. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06504.x
ⴱ
Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Arias, I., & Bossarte, R. M. (2008).
Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration
within date and same-sex peer relationships. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23, 1120 –1138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314086
ⴱ
Swart, L. A., Seedat, M., Stevens, G., & Ricardo, I. (2002). Violence in
adolescents’ romantic relationships: Findings from a survey amongst
school-going youth in a South African community. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 25, 385–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0483
ⴱ
Teitelman, A., Ratcliffe, S. J., McDonald, C. C., Brawner, B. M., &
Sullivan, C. M. (2011). Relationships between physical and non-
physical forms of intimate partner violence and depression among urban
minority adolescent females. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16,
92–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00572.x
ⴱ
Teitelman, A. M., Ratcliffe, S. J., Morales-Aleman, M. M., & Sullivan,
C. M. (2008). Sexual relationship power, intimate partner violence, and
condom use among minority urban girls. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 23, 1694 –1712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314331
ⴱ
Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Tortolero, S. R., Wolfe, D. A., & Stuart,
G. L. (2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the
relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpe-
tration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 343–352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.02.001
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of
male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as mea-
sured by the national violence against women survey. Violence Against
Women, 6, 142–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181769
ⴱ
Ulloa, E. C., Jaycox, L. H., Marshall, G. N., & Collins, R. L. (2004).
Acculturation, gender stereotypes, and attitudes about dating violence
15
among Latino youth. Violence and Victims, 19, 273–287. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1891/vivi.19.3.273.65765
Underwood, M. K. (2007). Girlfriends and boyfriends diverging in middle
childhood and coming together in romantic relationships. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 53, 520 –526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007
.0024
ⴱ
Valois, R. F., Oeltmann, J. E., Waller, J., & Hussey, J. R. (1999).
Relationship between number of sexual intercourse partners and selected
health risk behaviors among public high school adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 25, 328 –335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-
139X(99)00051-8
Vicario-Molina, I., Orgaz Baz, B., Fuertes Martín, A., González Ortega, E.,
& Martínez Álvarez, J. L. (2015). Dating violence among youth couples:
Dyadic analysis of the prevalence and agreement. The Spanish Journal
of Psychology, 18, E36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.39
ⴱ
Vicary, J. R., Klingaman, L. R., & Harkness, W. L. (1995). Risk factors
associated with date rape and sexual assault of adolescent girls. Journal
of Adolescence, 18, 289 –306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1995.1020
ⴱ
Volpe, E. M., Hardie, T. L., Cerulli, C., Sommers, M. S., & Morrison-
Beedy, D. (2013). What’s age got to do with it? partner age difference,
power, intimate partner violence, and sexual risk in urban adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2068 –2087. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0886260512471082
ⴱ
Watson, J. M., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001).
High school students’ responses to dating aggression. Violence and
Victims, 16, 339 –348. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/619579095?accountid⫽15182
ⴱ
Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N.,
& Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse
to teen dating violence among child protective services-involved youth.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 45–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu
.2008.12.006
White, J. W., Smith, P. H., Koss, M. P., & Figueredo, A. J. (2000). Intimate
partner aggression—What have we learned? Comment on Archer
(2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 690 – 696. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-2909.126.5.690
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victim-
ization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 471– 482. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7264-x
ⴱ
Williams, T. S., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2008).
Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relation-
ships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 76, 622– 632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.76.4.622
ⴱ
Windle, M., & Mrug, S. (2009). Cross-gender violence perpetration and
victimization among early adolescents and associations with attitudes
toward dating conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 429 – 439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9328-1
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K. L., & Crooks, C. V. (2005). Abuse and violence in
adolescent girls’ dating relationships. In D. J. Bell, S. L. Foster, & E. J.
Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of behavioural and emotional problems in girls
(pp. 381– 414). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press Pub-
lishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48674-1_13
ⴱ
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., &
Straatman, A. L. (2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in
Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment,
13, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277
ⴱ
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Wekerle, C., & Pittman, A. L. (2001). Child
maltreatment: Risk of adjustment problems and dating violence in ado-
lescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 282–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-2001
03000-00007
 16 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD

Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A. L., Grasley, C., &
Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A
controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ⴱ
ogy, 71, 279 –291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.279
ⴱ
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Ruggiero, K. J., Danielson, C. K., Resnick,
H. S., Hanson, R. F., Smith, D. W., . . . Kilpatrick, D. G. (2008).
Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of
adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 47, 755–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318
172ef5f
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of
cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen
dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063–1077.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8

Appendix
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table A1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Studies Reporting Prevalence Estimates of Physical TDV

Cultural Nuclear
Pub. Proportion Mean age minority family Economic Ref.
First author Year statusa (p) N Female (%) (years) (%) (%) disadvantageb Methodc Periodd

Ackard 2002 1 .059 81,247 50.4 — 13.9 — 2 1 2

Alleyne-Green 2012 1 .360 140 100.0 16.9 100.0 — 1 2 2
Antonio 2009 1 .041 285 63.9 16.2 .0 — 2 2 1
Avery-Leaf 1997 1 .377 193 45.1 16.5 20.2 — 2 2 2
Banyard 2006 1 .095 980 52.0 — — — 2 1 2
Banyard 2008 1 .169 2,101 51.0 — — — 2 1 2
Baumann 2004 2 .192 256 46.0 16.9 7.0 — 2 2 2
Bergman 1992 1 .112 631 53.4 — — — 2 2 2
Boksa 2005 2 .326 49 59.0 16.5 65.0 — 2 2 1
Bossarte 2009 1 .099 12,690 50.4 — 51.3 — 2 1 1
Brooks-Russell 2013 1 .081 2,566 51.9 14.6 55.7 12.0 2 2 1
Callahan 2003 1 .458 190 52.6 15.9 50.5 — 1 2 2
Champion 2008 1 .060 2,090 49.4 — 38.9 — 2 1 1
Chapple 2003 1 .110 980 51.0 15.2 13.6 — 2 1 2
Chiodo 2011 1 .225 519 100.0 13.8 12.0 72.0 2 2 1
Coker 2000 1 .073 5,414 52.4 — 50.6 48.8 2 1 1
Connolly 2010a 1 .325 664 55.3 15.4 26.3 66.7 2 2 1
Connolly 2010b 1 .336 578 47.2 15.3 4.2 89.7 2 2 1
Ellis 2013 1 .210 589 59.0 15.5 19.9 — 2 2 1
Espinoza 2012 1 .105 204 63.2 15.5 .0 — 2 2 1
Fernandez-Fuertes 2010 1 .220 567 58.4 16.6 .0 76.3 2 2 1
Fernandez-Gonzalez 2013 1 .331 863 54.4 15.0 15.85 — 2 2 1
Finkelhor 2005 1 .135 2,030 50.0 — 24.0 — 2 2 1
Flisher 2007 1 .099 521 56.2 15.0 — — 2 1 2
Foshee 1996 1 .208 1,405 50.5 13.9 21.5 — 2 2 2
Foshee 2011 1 .151 2,808 53.6 — 41.0 68.8 2 2 1
Foshee 2012 1 .032 324 58.0 — 57.0 88.0 2 2 1
Friedlander 2013 1 .500 484 50.8 15.0 35.0 66.0 2 2 1
Gagne 2005 1 .290 622 100.0 16.3 — — 1 2 1
Goldstein 2009 1 .147 1,128 54.1 16.0 63.9 — 1 2 2
Hamby 2013 1 .060 1,680 50.5 14.6 42.1 — 2 1 2
Haynie 2013 1 .094 2,203 53.0 16.2 43.6 — 2 2 1
Hebert 2008 1 .090 492 100.0 15.0 —- 64.4 2 2 1
Helland 1997 2 .500 416 59.0 — 32.0 — 2 2 1
Hird 2000 1 .145 487 49.7 — — — 2 2 1
Hokoda 2007 1 .223 82 72.0 15.5 .0 — 2 2 1
Holt 2003 1 .420 504 54.2 16.0 38.0 — 1 2 2
Holt 2005 1 .373 681 53.2 14.5 39.0 — 1 2 1
Howard 2003 1 .065 444 55.0 14.5 — — 2 1 1
Howard 2005 1 .088 446 48.2 16.1 100.0 60.3 2 1 1
Howard 2011 1 .118 7,949 .0 — 51.3 — 2 1 1

(Appendix continues)
 TEEN DATING VIOLENCE 17

Table A1 (continued)

Cultural Nuclear
Pub. Proportion Mean age minority family Economic Ref.
First author Year statusa (p) N Female (%) (years) (%) (%) disadvantageb Methodc Periodd

Jackson 2000 1 .200 304 65.8 16.7 45.3 66.4 2 2 2

Jewkes 2001 1 .600 353 100.0 16.4 100.0 — 1 1 2
Jezl 1996 1 .594 232 50.9 — 55.6 — 2 2 2
Josephson 2008 1 .340 138 — 13.6 — — 2 2 2
Jouriles 2005 1 .270 125 52.0 15.4 66.0 — 2 2 1
Kennedy 2008 1 .570 280 64.3 15.6 100.0 — 1 2 2
Kernsmith 2011 1 .590 102 100.0 — 66.0 — 1 2 2
Kim 2009 1 .240 169 47.3 16.5 43.2 — 2 2 1
Lavoie 2002 1 .205 717 .0 16.5 — 49.7 1 2 1
Maas 2010 1 .119 941 46.5 17.0 17.0 — 2 1 1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Malik 1997 1 .387 707 60.3 15.5 81.6 55.2 2 2 1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Marquart 2007 1 .170 20,807 50.5 16.4 35.0 — 2 2 2

Miller 2012 1 .030 2,251 .0 — 65.8 — 2 1 1
Molidor 1998 1 .365 631 47.7 15.5 50.4 62.7 2 2 1
Munoz-Rivas 2007 1 .377 2,416 58.6 17.0 .0 — 2 2 1
Nahapetyan 2013 1 .447 556 49.8 — 52.5 — 1 2 1
Nicodemus 2011 1 .455 688 50.9 14.8 98.0 — 1 2 1
O’Keefe 1997 1 .410 939 59.0 16.9 80.0 — 1 2 2
O’Keefe 1998 1 .443 939 59.0 16.9 80.0 — 2 2 2
O’Leary 2008 1 .310 1,249 56.5 16.7 44.9 — 2 2 1
Orpinas 2012 1 .269 624 52.0 14.8 51.0 — 2 2 1
Pinhey 2004 1 .080 1,381 51.2 — — — 2 1 1
Reyes 2013 1 .065 495 .0 — 24.0 18.0 2 2 1
Richards 2012 1 .104 970 51.0 15.5 36.0 — 2 2 1
Rivera-Rivera 2007 1 .176 7,960 57.6 — .0 — 2 2 1
Romito 2013 1 .113 586 55.8 18.3 .0 80.0 2 2 1
Roscoe 1985 1 .071 185 — — — — 2 2 2
Russell 2013 1 .286 549 56.6 — 58.2 — 1 1 1
Salazar 2004 1 .180 522 100.0 16.0 100.0 — 1 1 2
Sanderson 2004 1 .075 4,525 50.5 —- 100.0 — 2 1 1
Schwartz 1997 1 .279 228 46.5 16.8 11.5 — 2 2 2
Sears 2007 1 .025 633 48.8 14.6 — 79.0 2 2 2
Shen 2012 1 .226 976 51.0 15.9 .0 83.0 2 2 1
Sherer 2009 1 .224 778 42.5 16.2 52.8 86.5 2 2 1
Silverman 1999 2 .165 325 54.0 14.8 5.0 — 2 2 2
Silverman 2001 1 .165 2,186 100.0 16.0 27.0 — 2 1 2
Simons 1998 1 .120 113 .0 — .0 — 2 1 1
Smith 1992 1 .173 1,240 — — .0 — 2 2 2
Spencer 2000 1 .176 1,982 50.2 — 20.7 — 2 1 2
Swahn 2008 1 .272 2,888 51.9 — 76.4 — 1 2 1
Swart 2002 1 .395 928 53.2 16.5 — — 1 2 1
Temple 2013 1 .192 917 55.9 15.1 70.0 46.5 2 2 1
Teitelman 2008 1 .564 56 100.0 17.0 100.0 32.1 2 2 1
Teitelman 2011 1 .300 102 100.0 — 100.0 92.0 1 2 1
Ulloa 2004 1 .613 678 54.9 14.5 100.0 — 2 2 1
Valois 1999 1 .072 3,805 52.2 16.6 39.6 66.4 2 1 1
Volpe 2013 1 .360 155 100.0 16.1 93.0 — 1 2 1
Watson 2001 1 .474 393 45.3 16.6 68.5 — 1 2 1
Wekerle 2001 1 .078 978 56.5 15.5 20.0 — 2 2 1
Williams 2008 1 .450 621 56.0 15.4 30.0 62.0 2 2 1
Windle 2009 1 .454 601 48.1 13.1 80.0 — 1 2 2
Wolfe 2001a 1 .106 1,019 55.0 16.1 21.0 — 2 2 1
Wolfe 2001b 1 .203 1,419 57.2 16.1 21.0 78.9 2 2 1
Wolitzky-Tayler 2008 1 .007 3,614 — 14.5 31.0 — 2 1 2
Zweig 2013 1 .241 3,745 52.2 — 27.0 64.0 1 2 1
Note. Dashes represent information that could not be obtained from these studies.
a
Publication status (1 ⫽ published, 2 ⫽ dissertation). b Income level (1 ⫽ Economically disadvantaged sample, 2 ⫽ Not an economically disadvantaged
sample). c Method (1 ⫽ single item, 2 ⫽ multi-item questionnaire). d Reference period (1 ⫽ lifetime prevalence, 2 ⫽ set interval).

(Appendix continues)
 18 WINCENTAK, CONNOLLY, AND CARD

Table A2
Studies Reporting Prevalence Estimates of Sexual Teen Dating Violence

Cultural Nuclear
Pub. Proportion Female Mean age minority family Economic Ref.
First author Year statusa (p) N (%) (years) (%) (%) disadvantageb Methodc Periodd

Ackard 2002 1 .013 81247 50.4 — 13.9 — 2 1 2

Banyard 2006 1 .051 2101 52.0 — — — 2 2 2
Bergman 1992 1 .085 631 53.4 — — — 2 2 2
Enosh 2007 1 .116 346 51.7 — — — 2 2 1
Fernandez-Gonzalez 2013 1 .070 863 54.4 15.0 15.9 — 2 2 1
Flanagan 2000 1 .480 48 100.0 17.8 27.0 — 2 2 2
Foshee 1996 1 .049 1405 50.5 13.9 21.5 — 2 2 2
Gagne 2005 1 .260 622 100.0 16.3 — — 1 2 1
Hamby 2013 1 .019 1680 50.48 14.6 42.1 — 2 1 2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hebert 2008 1 .100 492 100.0 15.0 — 64.4 2 2 1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Hird 2000 1 .179 487 49.7 — — — 2 1 1

Kernsmith 2011 1 .010 102 100.0 — 66.0 — 1 2 2
Miller 2012 1 .007 2251 .0 — 65.8 — 2 1 1
Molidor 1998 1 .076 631 47.7 15.5 50.4 62.7 2 2 1
O’Keefe 1997 1 .020 939 59.0 16.9 80.0 — 1 2 2
O’Keefe 1998 1 .129 939 59.0 16.9 80.0 — 2 2 2
Poitras 1995 1 .174 644 52.2 16.5 4.0 71.0 2 2 2
Reyes 2013 1 .120 495 .0 — 24.0 18.0 2 2 1
Romito 2013 1 .107 586 55.8 18.3 .0 80.0 2 2 1
Russell 2013 1 .091 549 56.6 — 58.2 — 1 1 1
Sears 2007 1 .094 633 48.8 14.6 — 79.0 2 2 2
Serquina-Ramiro 2005 1 .536 600 49.7 17.7 — — 2 2 2
Shen 2012 1 .079 976 51.0 15.9 .0 83.0 2 2 1
Sherer 2009 1 .329 778 42.5 16.2 52.8 86.5 2 2 1
Silverman 2001 1 .101 2186 100.0 16.0 27.0 — 2 2 2
Vicary 1995 1 .230 112 100.0 — — — 2 2 2
Wekerle 2001 1 .041 978 56.5 15.5 20.0 — 2 1 1
Wolfe 2001a 1 .205 1019 55.0 16.1 21.0 — 2 2 1
Wolfe 2001b 1 .301 1419 57.2 16.1 21.0 78.9 2 2 1
Wolitzky-Tayler 2008 1 .007 3614 — 14.5 31.0 — 2 2 2
Zweig 2013 1 .052 3745 52.2 — 27.0 64.0 1 2 1
Note. Dashes represent information that could not be obtained.
a
Publication status (1 ⫽ published, 2 ⫽ dissertation). b Income level (1 ⫽ Economically disadvantaged sample, 2 ⫽ Not an economically disadvantaged
sample). c Method (1 ⫽ narrow definition, 2 ⫽ broad definition). d Reference period (1 ⫽ lifetime prevalence, 2 ⫽ set interval).

Received April 4, 2013

Revision received January 4, 2016
Accepted January 25, 2016 䡲