Contreras 1

Dariana Contreras

Dr. Sharity Nelson

ENGL 1301-130

16 November 2023

A Rhetorical Analysis of a Peer-Reviewed Article About Teen Dating Violence

“Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School Students” by Vagi,

et al. is a scientific research article focused on the health-risk behaviors newly distinguished as

symptoms of Teen Dating Violence (TDV) from the revisions made in 2013 by The Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Given that the topic

touches on the lived experiences of adolescents and their social impact, the audience narrowed

down to school staff, students, and parents. The authors’ claim for this article was to

demonstrate that the TDV questions are connected to strong associations between health risk

behaviors and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. As a result, the authors establish strong

credibility in the article because it illustrates data reasoned by experts and implies reliable

sources supporting their arguments.

Firstly, Vagi et al. present tables illustrating the prevalence of TDV among high school

students, categorized by demographic factors. The fourth table sets them apart by sex, and it

studies how the types of TDV they have experienced impact their behavior by risking their

health, such as attempting suicide, abusing alcohol, or having inconsistent sexual activity. Under

the subtitle named Results, the authors state that Table 4 proved that “every risk behavior was

most prevalent among students who had experienced both physical and sexual TDV.” The table

also showed that females were more likely to consider suicide, get into a physical fight, possess a

weapon, get bullied online, and binge drink if they went through sexual TDV only. Among
 Contreras 2

males, those who exclusively experienced sexual TDV were also more likely to engage in these

health-risk behaviors. Additionally, they were more prone to having multiple sexual partners and

currently being sexually active. This table, reasoned by experts, displays correlations between

experiencing TDV and engaging in a concerning manner. By stating that “every risk behavior

was most prevalent among students who had both physical and sexual TDV,” the authors

highlight the strength of their research. In addition, the breakdown of their results for both

females and males adds depth to the analysis, making their rhetorical strategy, logos, more

convincing.

Secondly, including academic credentials beneath the article’s title and references to

credible sources serves as a strategic use of ethos, reinforcing the reliability of the information

given throughout the passage. The authors each have their degrees listed next to their names,

shown as “Kevin J. Vagi, PhD; Emily O’Malley Olsen, MSPH; Kathleen C. Basile, PhD; Alana

M. Vivolo-Kantor, MPH” (474). As well as giving credit to 36 professionals and giving insight

into why their knowledge was relevant to the passage. For instance, they mentioned the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) frequently, so as a reference, they gave credit to all

the authors under the organization of the CDC. They also relied on other people’s articles, which

is demonstrated by the title of articles given next to experts’ names, such as “Longitudinal effect

of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents” (482). Then, next to it is

their DOI number to properly give credit to their references. This evidence further supports the

assertion that including the expertise of each author and using connections strategically indicates

ethos to cultivate trustworthiness. The authors’ academic degrees clearly indicate ethos by the

shown academic qualifications. Additionally, with the recognition of 36 professionals, such as

the CDC, the authors align themselves with reputable entities. The meticulous referencing not
 Contreras 3

only acknowledges the contributions of other scholars but also adds a layer of verifiability to

their research, ultimately enhancing the overall ethos of the passage.

Lastly, the authors fortify their credibility in the article by deliberately incorporating a

factor of ethos through the breakdown of their design and showing the history that creates

rigorous research of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). For example, transparency is

shown when they state, “Student participation in the survey is anonymous and voluntary, and

local parental permission procedures are used. Students record their responses directly on a self-

administered computer-scannable questionnaire.” This shows that Vagi, et al. want to imply that

the survey is trustworthy by respecting their participants' privacy. They also mention parental

permission procedures to ensure the survey has ethical guidelines they carefully follow. By using

an approachable and open strategy for gathering information, analysis, and reporting in the

YRBS, the authors improve their credibility. The passage refers to the fact that the prevalence of

physical and sexual TDV has been published in past years, indicating that the study is part of a

broader body of research. On page 475, the authors explain how “the national school-based

YRBS is a cross-sectional survey that has been conducted biennially since 1991.” This adds

credibility by showcasing a history of scholarly work on the topic by updating it every two years

to ensure accurate results.

In conclusion, Vagi et al.'s "Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High

School Students" is a notable scientific contribution that delves into the varied subject of Teen

Dating Violence (TDV). The study, prompted by revisions to The Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention's National Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 2013, focuses on health-risk behaviors

that have recently been identified as indications of TDV. The writers address an important topic

and customize their work to a specific audience, including school staff, students, and parents, by
 Contreras 4

focusing on the lived experiences of teenagers and the societal effects of TDV. The article's

critical argument, which intends to establish a connection between TDV questions and strong

connections with health risk behaviors as determined by the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, is

supported by a precise and extensive approach. The authors diligently reason the data, depending

on the knowledge of professionals in the field and credible sources, to support the legitimacy of

their arguments. The deliberate incorporation of expert insights and relevant references

emphasizes the study's integrity and presents it as a trustworthy resource on the TDV topic.

Developing strong credibility through expert reasoning and reliance on reputable sources

establishes this research as an essential component in the ongoing discussion about Teen Dating

Violence. It not only grows academic understanding of TDV, but it also has the potential to

encourage real-world changes in how society addresses and combats this widespread issue

affecting the lives of adolescents. Finally, Vagi et al.'s work goes beyond the limitations of an

academic article, emerging as a comprehensive and significant contribution to the collective

effort to address and reduce Teen Dating Violence among US high school students.
 Contreras 5

Work Cited

Vagi, Kevin, et al. “Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School

Students.” Findings From the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, vol. 169, no. 5, 2015,

pp. 474-482.American Medical Association, doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577.