Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2016) 33:5568
DOI 10.1007/s10560-015-0402-8
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer Youth: Associations Among Risk Factors
Lisa Langenderfer-Magruder1 N. Eugene Walls1 Darren L. Whitfield1
Samantha M. Brown1 Cory M. Barrett2
Published online: 23 May 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Literature shows that youth who identify as les-
bian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) experi-
ence high rates of victimization across various contexts,
though there is little research specific to partner violence vic-
timization. Given the deleterious effects of partner violence
seen in both youth generally and LGBTQ adults, it is im-
perative to investigate partner violence among LGBTQ youth.
The authors investigated the prevalence of partner violence
among a community sample of LGBTQ youth (N = 140) and
examined potential correlates of said violence. Approximately
half of the participants had ever experienced some form of
partner violence. Rates of ever experiencing partner violence
were approximately 2.5 times higher for youth who had binge
drank in the past month or ever experienced familial abuse and
nearly three times higher for youth who had experienced an
episode of homelessness in the past year. Implications for
professionals who serve LGBTQ youth are discussed.
Keywords Adolescents
LGBTQ
Partner violence

Sexual minority
Victimization
Introduction
Youth partner violence (PV) is an important social problem
needing the attention of researchers and practitioners alike.
Yet, much of the extant research has focused solely on the
& Lisa Langenderfer-Magruder
llangen2@du.edu
1
Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, 2148
South High Street, Denver, CO 80208, USA
2
Cooperative Innovation Consultants, Denver, CO, USA
experiences of heterosexual youth or youth in general, with
far less attention paid to the PV experiences of sexual
minority youth, or those identifying as lesbian, gay, bi-
sexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ). Without knowl-
edge of correlates specific to LGBTQ youth that increase
their likelihood of experiencing PV and understanding how
such correlates may function differently for these young
people than their heterosexual counterparts, practitioners
may overlook signs that youth are experiencing victim-
ization in an intimate partnership or base their assessment
on correlates that are not appropriate for this population.
The present study helps fill this gap in the literature by
examining the prevalence of PV victimization among
LGBTQ youth and investigating potential demographic
and psychosocial risk factor correlates of ever experiencing
a form of PV victimization. Given the deleterious impact of
PV victimization on youth health demonstrated in other
populations (e.g., Ackard et al. 2007), it is essential that
practitioners are able to recognize potential PV victimiza-
tion in the LGBTQ population as well. The authors use the
term partner violence throughout this article in lieu of
the more oft-used intimate partner violence to convey
that sexual intimacy is not a pre-requisite for experiencing
PV (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC],
2013), particularly with samples of youth. Additionally, for
the purposes of the present study, the authors define
youth as those younger than 25 years of age. It is im-
portant to note that not all researchers cited in this manu-
script have uniformly defined youth.
In national samples of youth in the U.S. in relationships
with persons of a different sex, almost one-third of youth
report experiencing some form of PV victimization
(Freedner et al. 2002; Halpern et al. 2001). While some
studies report similar rates of PV victimization between
LGBTQ and heterosexually identified youth (e.g., Jones
123
56
and Raghaven 2012), others report higher prevalence
among LGBTQ youth than their heterosexual peers
(Freedner et al. 2002; Martin-Storey 2015). For example, in
a recent study using Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior
Survey data, Martin-Storey (2015) found that gay/lesbian,
bisexual, and unsure identified youth experienced sig-
nificantly higher rates of dating violence victimization than
heterosexual youth. While research is beginning to amass
on PV among LGBTQ youth, there is still comparatively
less literature than that relating to other populations. Thus,
in the following subsections, we briefly examine what is
known about PV among youth in general, LGBTQ adults,
and LGBTQ youth, ending with an overview of what is
known about PV correlates.
Partner Violence Among Youth
Among youth generally, PV victimization appears to be a
common occurrence (Howard et al. 2007; Jezi et al. 1996;
Silverman et al. 2001). In a sample of high school students,
96, 59, and 15 % of youth reported experiencing psycho-
logical, physical, and sexual PV victimization, respectively
(Jezi et al. 1996). Studies only exploring the prevalence of
physical PV victimization among high school youth report
rates between 10.3 and 20.2 % (Howard et al. 2007; Sil-
verman et al. 2001). Prevalence of IPV can vary greatly
depending on how it is measured. For example, in the Jezi
et al. (1996) study, a modified version of the empirically
validated Conflict Tactics Scale was used, whereas the
Silverman et al. (2001) and Howard et al. (2007) studies
used single-item measures of PV victimization. This may
be one explanation for the wide variation seen in the
physical PV victimization rates noted above.
Literature suggests that females are at particularly high risk
for experiencing PV victimization in youth (e.g., Howard et al.
2007; Silverman et al. 2001). Results from the 1997 and 1999
Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveys revealed that
approximately 1 in 10 and 1 in 25 female youths reported
being physically or sexually abused by a partner, respectively
(Silverman et al. 2001). Rates of psychological abuse are even
higher, with one sample of undergraduate females reporting a
prevalence of 78 % (Eshelman and Levendosky 2012). These
high rates of PV victimization extend across communities
with diverse demographic characteristics (Howard and Wang
2003; Howard et al. 2007). For example, studies have
demonstrated that female youth who identify racially or eth-
nically as Black (Howard and Wang 2003; Howard et al.
2007) or Hispanic (Howard and Wang 2003) tend to report
higher rates of exposure to PV victimization than do their
White peers.
In terms of PV commission, at least some research
suggests gender symmetry among young adult males and
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
females. Using data from the International Dating Violence
Study, Straus and Ramirez (2007) found that male and
female university students in three disparate locations (i.e.,
New Hampshire, Texas, Mexico) committed physical PV at
similar rates, including severe PV. Further research with
this data shows that, among 13,601 university students in
32 nations, females and males committed PV at rates of
21.4 and 9.9 % respectively (Straus 2007). Moreover, the
most common pattern of PV among those in the sample
who reported at least one incident of violence (n = 4239)
was bidirectional (68.6 %), followed by female-only per-
petration, and, finally, male-only perpetration, indicating
that gender symmetry in PV commission may be present
among young adults (Straus 2007). Straus (2007) notes
that, though the dominant narrative in the PV literature is
that males are perpetrators and females are victims, there is
a growing literature base that defies this notion. We would
add that the dominant narrative is hetero- and cisnormative
and may be inappropriate if applied to LGBTQ youth.
Specifically, some LGBTQ youth do not engage in male
female romantic partnerships and/or may not identify in
binary gender terms.
Youth who experience PV victimization also experience
high rates of mental and physical health issues (Ackard
et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2009; Kreiter et al. 1999; Sil-
verman et al. 2001). In a small sample of youth ages 1524
seeking mental health services, 13 % reported PV victim-
ization in the past 12 months (Brown et al. 2009). Identi-
fied mental and physical health correlates of youth PV
victimization include substance abuse (Ackard et al. 2007;
Kreiter et al. 1999; Silverman et al. 2001); unhealthy
weight-related behaviors, such as laxative use and binge-
eating (Ackard et al. 2007; Silverman et al. 2001); early
sexual intercourse (Silverman et al. 2001); pregnancy
(Kreiter et al. 1999; Silverman et al. 2001); depression
(Ackard et al. 2007); and suicidality (Ackard et al. 2007;
Kreiter et al. 1999; Silverman et al. 2001). While most of
the studies can say little about the causal direction between
these correlates and PV victimization because of their
cross-sectional designs (e.g., Ackard et al. 2007; Silverman
et al. 2001), the evidence that does exist suggests sig-
nificant associations between many of the psychosocial
correlates and PV victimization.
Partner Violence Among LGBTQ Adults
Recent literature suggests LGBTQ adults experience PV
victimization at a higher rate than their heterosexual peers
(Goldberg and Meyer 2013; Messinger 2011). Results from
the California Health Interview Survey indicate that, after
controlling for various risk factors (e.g., race, education,
age, binge drinking), women who identify as a sexual
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth:
minority have greater odds of experiencing both lifetime
and past-year PV victimization than women who identify
as heterosexual (Goldberg and Meyer 2013). Similarly, gay
men appear to be at higher odds for lifetime and past-year
PV victimization than heterosexual men (Goldberg and
Meyer 2013).
Results of one meta-analysis revealed large disparities in
reported PV victimization among males, including gay
males, largely related to the type of PV measured and
whether lifetime or recent rates were assessed (Nowinski
and Bowen 2012). Lifetime prevalence estimates of PV
range from 27 to 33 % for gay men (Bartholomew et al.
2008b; Goldberg and Meyer 2013; Houston and McKirnan
2007; Waldner-Haugrud et al. 1997) and 3239 % for
lesbian women (Goldberg and Meyer 2013; West 2012)
compared to approximately 811 % for heterosexual men
(Goldberg and Meyer 2013; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000)
and 2022 % for heterosexual women (Goldberg and
Meyer 2013; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). There is, how-
ever, notable variation in these rates attributable to the
form of abuse experienced. For example, in a random
sample of gay and bisexual men in same-sex relationships
who were either victims-only or victims and perpetrators of
PV, nearly 94 % experienced psychological PV victim-
ization, 41 % experienced physical PV victimization, and
11 % experienced sexual PV victimization (Bartholomew
et al. 2008b). This disparity is also seen in lesbian women,
with reported physical, sexual, and verbal rates of PV
victimization of 25, 4, and 44 %, respectively (Messinger
2011). Notably, bisexual individuals tend to demonstrate
some of the highest rates of PV victimization, as high as
87 % for men and 91 % for women, higher than hetero-
sexuals, gay men, and lesbians (Messinger 2011). PV
victimization estimates of transgender persons are ex-
ceedingly rare in the literature. Authors of one study of
LGBT individuals found that male-to-female transgender
persons in the sample (n = 7) reported experiencing high
rates of sexual (28 %), physical (43 %), and emotional
(57 %) PV victimization (Turell 2000). Though the authors
note that results of such small sample sizes must be in-
terpreted with caution, the numbers nonetheless suggest
that PV victimization rates among transgender persons is
concerning and requires more research (Turell 2000).
Research with LGBTQ individuals reporting PV vic-
timization has revealed a number of significant correlates
including both physical and mental health problems
(Houston and McKirnan 2007). In a cross sectional survey
of men who have sex with men, compared to those who did
not experience PV victimization, PV victims reported
higher rates of physical ailments (e.g., high blood pressure,
obesity), sexually transmitted infections, and lifetime
mental health problems (e.g., depression, bipolar) (Houston
and McKirnan 2007). Additional identified correlates of
57
PV victimization among LGBTQ persons include sub-
stance use (Bartholomew et al. 2008a), HIV-positive status
(Feldman et al. 2007; Stall et al. 2003), and a history of
childhood maltreatment (Bartholomew et al. 2008a; Welles
et al. 2011).
Partner Violence Among LGBTQ Youth
Though not as abundant as the research with youth gen-
erally or with LGBTQ adults, research on PV victimization
among LGBTQ youth has recently increased. Results of a
recent study of over 10,000 youth in Massachusetts indi-
cate that, like adults (e.g., Goldberg and Meyer 2013),
sexual minority youth more often experience PV victim-
ization than their heterosexual peers (Martin-Storey 2015).
Specifically, girls who identified as lesbian (42 %), bi-
sexual (42 %), or unsure (25 %) self-reported experiencing
PV victimization more often than heterosexual girls (16 %)
(Martin-Storey 2015). Boys demonstrated this same pat-
tern, with gay (32 %), bisexual (20 %), and unsure (36 %)
boys self-reporting experiences of PV victimization more
often than heterosexual boys (6 %) (Martin-Storey 2015).
Dank et al. (2013) found similar results in a large sample of
youth, where LGB youth (N = 229) reported consistently
higher prevalence of victimization in the forms of physical
dating abuse (43 %), psychological dating abuse (59 %),
cyber dating abuse (37 %), and sexual coercion (23 %)
than heterosexual youth (N = 3,475; 29, 46, 26, and 12 %,
respectively).
Research informed by theoretical underpinnings (e.g.,
minority stress theory) has found that, because LGBTQ
youth likely experience higher rates of discrimination due
to stigma associated with being a sexual minority, these
youth also face increased risk of experiencing PV victim-
ization (Martin-Storey 2015). Data from national samples
indicating sexual minority men and women experience
higher rates of PV victimization than their heterosexual
counterparts (e.g., Goldberg and Meyer 2013) supports this
link, albeit indirectly.
Given the dearth of literature on PV among LGBTQ
youth, it is unsurprising that research on correlates is
limited as well. One study, using data from Wave II of the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, exam-
ined PV victimization correlates for youth in same-sex
romantic or sexual relationships and found that males
(compared to females), youth who attend larger schools,
and youth who report that religion is important to them
were less likely to report experiencing PV victimization
(Halpern et al. 2001). Despite limited research on the
correlates of PV specific to LGBTQ youth, interest in the
PV experiences of youth generally has fueled research on
correlates, such as familial abuse (e.g., Renner and
123
58
Whitney 2012), alcohol use (e.g., Temple and Freeman
2011), and homelessness (e.g., Slesnick et al. 2010). Those
risk correlates are examined next.
Partner Violence Correlates
Based on their prevalence in the literature among the
previously discussed populations, the authors chose to fo-
cus on familial abuse, binge drinking, homelessness, and
trading sex as correlates of partner violence.
Familial Abuse
When examining the deleterious effects of childhood
maltreatment, correlates of PV have often focused on
perpetration. For example, childhood neglect has been as-
sociated with PV perpetration among female youth (Renner
and Whitney 2012) while exposure to sexual abuse has
been found to predict PV perpetration among males (Fang
and Corso 2007). However, some research has focused on
the impact of experiencing familial abuse on risk of PV
victimization among youth (Renner and Whitney 2012). In
a nationally representative sample of youth, several risk
factors for uni- (i.e., being a victim only) and bi-directional
(i.e., being both a victim and perpetrator) PV were found,
including a history of childhood abuse and neglect (Renner
and Whitney 2012). Approximately 47 % of respondents in
this sample reported experiencing some form of PV vic-
timization, with risk factors varying by gender (Renner and
Whitney 2012). Although research on the linkages between
familial abuse and PV victimization among LGBTQ youth
is scarce, research suggests that for youth generally, ex-
posure to childhood maltreatment is one of the strongest
predictive factors for PV victimization (Renner and Whit-
ney 2012). Among females, those exposed to childhood
physical or sexual abuse are at significantly higher risk for
future PV victimization compared to their non-exposed
counterparts (Barnes et al. 2009; Baynard et al. 2000; Desai
et al. 2002). Among males, childhood neglect and child-
hood sexual abuse is associated with bidirectional PV
(Renner and Whitney 2012).
These associations suggest a relationship between expo-
sure to childhood maltreatment and becoming either per-
petrators or victims of PV (Huefner et al. 2007). Much of the
research uses Banduras (1978) social learning theory, ar-
guing that aggression is a learned behavior, stemming in part
from witnessing others use of violence. Accordingly, chil-
dren learn through observation and imitate these behaviors,
contributing to the intergenerational transmission of abuse
(Stith et al. 2000). Given that research continues to
demonstrate the association of familial abuse and PV, as
well as the increased rates of familial abuse of LGBTQ
youth (Saewyc et al. 2006), there is a critical need to
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
examine the effects of familial abuse among LGBTQ youth,
particularly in terms of victimization.
Binge Drinking
In samples of youth generally, alcohol consumption has
also been found to play a role in PV (e.g., Temple and
Freeman 2011; Waller et al. 2012). There is a dearth of
literature regarding alcohol use and PV among LGBTQ
youth; however, limited PV research specific to LGBTQ
adults identifies alcohol as a significant risk factor for PV
(e.g., Eaton et al. 2008). Alcohol use is one of the most
well documented correlates of PV in research with adults
generally (e.g., Hove et al. 2010; Lipsky and Caetano
2011). As with familial abuse, much of the PV literature
examines the alcohol use of the perpetrator (e.g., Cattaneo
and Goodman 2003; Chartier and Caetano 2012; Stuart
et al. 2003), though in studies that examined victims al-
cohol use, results indicate it may also be a relevant risk
factor for victimization (e.g., Lipsky et al. 2005). In one
nationally representative study of adult PV victims, 6.9 %
of women and 20.8 % of men reported having consumed
alcohol at the time of the referenced PV incident
(Thompson and Kingree 2006). Binge drinking in par-
ticular may play a strong role in predicting victimization.
In a sample of women seeking treatment at an emergency
department, alcohol abuse variables, including drinking
five or more drinks in one sitting at least once a month for
the past 12 months, significantly predicted experiencing
victimization (Lipsky et al. 2005). Given alcohols place in
the general body of PV literature, as well as in general
samples of youth experiencing PV, it is important to con-
sider this as a potential correlate of PV victimization
among LGBTQ youth.
Homelessness
Homelessness among LGBTQ youth is problematic in and
of itself, with 1729 % of youth in samples of homeless
youth identifying as LGBTQ (Gaetz 2004; Tyler and Beal
2010; Walls and Bell 2011). Moreover, in samples of
LGBTQ youth, between one-third and one-half of these
youth report experiencing homelessness (Longo et al.
2013; Walls et al. 2010; Rosario et al. 2012). PV vic-
timization in homeless LGBTQ youth is understudied, but
estimates among homeless youth in general are as high as
36 % (Slesnick et al. 2010). Many LGBTQ youth expe-
rience homelessness either after running away or being
kicked out of their home because of their sexual orien-
tation (Whitbeck et al. 2004). Because LGBTQ youth
make up a large subgroup of homeless youth, it is prudent
to examine their experiences separately from their
heterosexual peers.
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth:
Trading Sex
There is relatively little known about the relationship be-
tween PV victimization and trading sex (sometimes re-
ferred to as survival sex) in general. Estimates of trading
sex among women who have experienced PV victimization
range from 5.1 to 46 % (Cavanaugh et al. 2010; Mittal
et al. 2011). Mittal and colleagues (2011) found that, in a
sample of women attending a sexually transmitted disease
clinic, having experienced PV victimization in the past
3 months was associated with trading sex for money or
drugs. Specifically, 46 % of women who had experienced
PV victimization had also traded sex, compared to 28 % of
women who had not experienced PV victimization (Mittal
et al. 2011). Given that general populations of homeless
youth sometimes resort to trading sex for survival (Tyler
2009) and LGBTQ homeless youth are at increased risk of
engaging in survival sex (Walls and Bell 2011), coupled
with findings that trading sex is prevalent in other samples
of PV victims (e.g., Mittal et al. 2011), the authors deemed
trading sex an important potential risk factor to include in
the present analysis.
The purpose of the current study is to build on the
limited extant literature investigating the PV victimization
experiences of LGBTQ youth. Such investigation may help
to inform screening and treatment procedures for those
working with LGBTQ youth, such as social workers and
other social service providers. Because so little is known
about PV among sexual minority youth, we do not know if
risk accumulates differentially for these youth based on
intersection with other demographics like race and age.
While LGBTQ youth may be at increased risk for PV
victimization, the increase in risk may accrue differently
based on other social identities. Thus, this study examines
two primary research questions. First, what is the preva-
lence of PV victimization among LGBTQ youth? Second,
do psychosocial risk variables associated with PV victim-
ization among general samples of youth function similarly
among LGBTQ youth?
Methods
Sample and Recruitment
The authors utilized secondary data analysis of data
originally collected by Rainbow Alley, the youth program
of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Commu-
nity Center of Colorado (The Center). Rainbow Alley,
which supports LGBT youth and allies, has two drop-in
centers, located in Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado, and
offers a wide array of services such as a medical clinic,
computer lab, kitchen, and recreational activities (The
59
GLBT Community Center 2013). Rainbow Alley collects
annual data to assist in needs assessment and program
evaluation; the present study utilized data from the pro-
grams 2010 annual online survey. The survey included
items addressing myriad topics including, but not limited to
demographics, academic performance, experiences of vio-
lence, substance use, self-injurious behavior, and suici-
dality. The PV victimization items appeared near the
middle of the survey, immediately following an item
assessing whether or not the participant had a partner in the
past year.
Youth receiving services from or attending one of the
social events sponsored by Rainbow Alley or its affiliates
were invited by staff and volunteers to participate in the
survey. Additionally, youth who visited the programs
website could also have participated in the survey as an
invitation to participate was located there. Staff and vol-
unteers explained the surveys purpose and stressed that
non-participation would not affect service receipt. Youth
who chose to participate in the survey were given the op-
tion to enter themselves into a lottery for assorted gift
certificates.
Research indicates that the use of payment in research
can increase response rates (e.g., Deutskens et al. 2004),
though concerns over the ethicality of such payments have
been noted (e.g., Alderson and Morrow 2011). In their
discussion of using payment with young participants,
Alderson and Morrow (2011) provide several safeguards
for offering payment (i.e., reimbursement, compensation,
appreciation, incentive), such as adopting clear policies on
advertising payment to youth, ensuring payment to par-
ticipants who withdrawal from the study, and considering
non-cash payments. Given the nature of the present study
(i.e., secondary data analysis), the authors were uninvolved
in original survey planning and data collection, including
decision-making about incentive use. However, in the case
of lottery-based incentives, Alderson and Morrow (2011)
state that while almost everyone supports lotteries, re-
searchers should rely on ethical review committees when
possible so as not to make decisions about incentive use in
silo. Given that the present study underwent approval from
an institutional review board (IRB), the authors believe the
use of a lottery incentive is justified as jointly determined
by the researchers and the IRB per Alderson and Morrows
(2011) suggestion. Because this study utilizes secondary
data that was collected for programmatic planning and
evaluation purposes, we are unable to provide response rate
information, as the agency did not collect that information.
Utilizing skip patterns, the survey covered thirteen pri-
mary topics based upon questions included in the National
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (CDC 2004), the
GLSEN 2003 National Climate Survey (Kosciw 2004), and
other literature-based sources. Participants were required to
123
60
provide their anonymous, electronic consent prior to
completing the survey. Since Rainbow Alley collected the
data for the purposes of needs assessment and program
evaluation, a request to conduct secondary data analyses of
the dataset was submitted and approved by the authors
University IRB.
This analysis utilizes only responses from questions
pertaining to the present analysis. After screening for age
eligibility (under 25 years old), cases from the total sample
(n = 271) were removed from analysis if they did not meet
the inclusion criteria. Specifically, cases were removed if
the participant did not report having a romantic partner in
the past year (n = 78, 28.78 %), reported being cisgender
and heterosexual (n = 3, 1.11 %), or did not respond to
any PV variables (n = 1; 0.37 %) leaving a potential
sample of 189 youth. From this potential usable sample,
researchers removed those participants providing incon-
sistent responses to the 11 PV variables (n = 44, 16.24 %).
Several participants who reported having a partner later
indicated they had no partner when responding to each PV
variable. Additionally, several participants responded in-
consistently to PV variables providing answers indicating
both no partner and experiencing PV. Thus, these cases
were removed from analysis. Finally, those who were
missing data on an independent variable used in the ana-
lysis (n = 5, 1.85 %) were removed, leaving a final
analytic sample of 140.
Researchers assessed normality, missingness, and uni-
and multivariate outliers at each aforementioned step in
data cleaning. As expected, violations occurred, though
cases were retained given that most variables were to be
dichotomized. Following dichotomization, missing cases
on independent variables were classified as missing com-
pletely at random or at random and subsequently deleted.
Several univariate outliers existed for trading sex, though
this was expected as only 12.1 % of the sample endorsed
this variable. Removing two univariate outliers for age did
not significantly change results and thus were retained.
Mahalanobis distance indicated no multivariate outliers in
the final sample.
Measures
Demographics
Basic demographics included age; gender identity (female
[reference], male, other)1; sexual orientation (gay/lesbian
[reference], bisexual, other)2; and race/ethnicity (White
1
Gender identity was originally collected with additional categories
of trans/male to female, trans/female to male, gender variant/gen-
derqueer, and other. Due to small cell sizes, these were collapsed into
a single category of other.
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
[reference], people of color).3 Dummy codes were created
for gender identity and sexual orientation.
Dependent Variable
PV victimization was assessed from eleven items ad-
dressing various forms of PV (i.e., psychological, verbal,
physical, sexual). Identical response sets were given for
each question (1 = no partner in past year, 2 = never,
3 = 12 times, 4 = 34 times, 5 = 56 times, 6 = 7 or
more times). Due to issues of collinearity between the types
of PV, and because the research questions driving the study
were about ever having experienced any type of PV, the
items were collapsed into a single variable indicating
whether or not the youth had ever experienced any type of
PV victimization; that is, if a participant indicated having
experienced one or more of the 11 forms of PV assessed,
the participant was coded as having experienced PV vic-
timization. The authors have provided frequencies for in-
dividual PV items in Table 1; however, due to the
aforementioned collinearity issues, results should be in-
terpreted with caution.
Correlate Variables
Based on the existing literature of correlates of PV and the
data available for analysis, four variables were included in
analyses as potential correlates in this study: familial
abuse, binge drinking, homelessness, and trading sex.
Familial Abuse
Lifetime family-based victimization experiences were
assessed from five items addressing various forms of fa-
milial abuse (i.e., verbal, emotional, physical, sexual
pressure/coercion, sexual force). Identical response sets
were given for each question (1 = never, 2 = 12 times,
3 = 34 times, 4 = 56 times, 5 = 7 or more times). Re-
sponses were summed and dichotomously recoded into
ever experienced familial abuse (yes/no). This was done
to account for issues of multicollinearity among the five
2
Sexual orientation was originally collected with additional
categories of queer, heterosexual, not sure/questioning, and other.
Those identified as heterosexual (and not transgender) were removed
from the sample. Then, due to small cell sizes, the remaining
categories were collapsed into a single category of other.
3
Race and ethnicity were originally collected with additional
categories of American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Asian
American, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino/a, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Biracial/multiracial, and other.
Due to small cell sizes, these were collapsed into a single category of
people of color.
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth: 61

Table 1 Partner violence prevalence by item (N = 140)

Item: My partner has n %

Insulted me or put me down 54 38.6

Isolated me from my friends and family 21 15.0
Threatened me or someone I care about 15 10.6
Physically abused me (slapped, kicked, beat up) 20 14.3
Touched me sexually in unwanted ways 24 17.3
Pressured me into unwanted sexual behaviors 28 20.0
Physically forced me to engage in unwanted sexual behaviors 13 9.2
Engaged in unwanted sexual behaviors with me while I was intoxicated or unconscious (drugs or alcohol) 11 7.8
Pressured me into engaging in sexual behaviors without protection (condoms, gloves, dental dams, etc.) 18 12.7
Physically forced me to engage in sexual behaviors without protection (condoms, gloves, dental dams, etc.) 16 4.2
Sexually assaulted/raped me. 9 6.4
Due to issues of collinearity, these items were collapsed into a single variable indicating whether or not the youth had ever experienced any type
of PV. Interpret these findings with caution. There was one missing response for touched me sexually in unwanted ways though the case was
retained due to self-reporting of one or more other PV victimization item(s)

items as well as to reduce the number of variables for
possible inclusion in the binary logistic regression given
the limited sample size. Bivariate correlations among all
five forms of familial abuse were significant at the p \ .05
and p \ .01 levels.
Binge Drinking
Binge drinking experiences were assessed from one-item
asking the number of days youth experienced binge drinking
(five or more drinks in one sitting) in the past month
(1 = 0 days, 2 = 12 days, 3 = 35 days, 4 = 69 days,
5 = 1019 days, 6 = 2029 days, 7 = every day). Two
prior questions (age at first drink and any drinking in the past
30 days) instigated a skip pattern to arrive at this question.
Those who responded negatively (i.e., had not ever drank, or
had drank, but not in the previous 30 days) to the previous
two questions were coded as not having binge drank in the
past month. Responses were dichotomously recoded into
binge drank in the past month (yes/no). Although the
National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse (2004)
defines binge drinking for a typical adult to be consuming at
least four (female) or five (male) alcoholic beverages in
approximately 2 hours, due to secondary data analysis, the
authors relied on five or more drinks in one sitting to capture
binge drinking across all participants.
Homelessness
times, 5 = 79 times, 6 = 10 or more times). Responses to
the three items were summed and dichotomously recoded
into experienced an episode of homelessness in the past
year (yes/no), where an episode refers to one or more
nights away from home. It is important to acknowledge
that the variable the authors used does not capture chronic
homelessness, but rather having experienced any spell of
homelessness in the previous year. A recent longitudinal
study of homeless LGBTQ youth included overnight
experiences in their conceptualization of homelessness
(Rosario et al. 2012). Because these youth are already
vulnerable due to their age and minority status, it is im-
portant to acknowledge that any amount of time a youth
reports having nowhere else to go may be significant; thus,
any episode of homelessness was included for the purposes
of the present study.
Trading Sex
Experiences of ever having traded sex for food, money,
shelter, drugs, clothing, or other needs were assessed di-
chotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Data Analysis
After examining and reporting demographic statistical infor-
mation, the authors proceeded with two primary steps aimed at
answering the two research questions driving the study.

Homelessness experiences were assessed from three items
asking youths experiences of spending the night away
from home (i.e., on someones couch, outside, at a home-
less or youth shelter) in the past year because they had
nowhere else to stay. Identical response sets were given for
each question (1 = never, 2 = 1 time, 3 = 23 times, 46
Step 1: Identifying Significant Correlates of Partner
Violence
Depending on the types of variables included in analysis,
phi and point-biserial correlations were run to examine the
associations between each of the variables (Table 2). Chi

123
62 L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.

Table 2 Correlation matrix of variables included in analysis

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Age
2. Gender (male) .02
3. Gender (other) -.02
4. Sexual orientation (bisexual) -.19* -.08 -.15?
5. Sexual orientation (other) .16 -.24** .20*
6. Race (people of color) -.07 .18* -.04 .02 -.08
7. Familial abusea .001 -.27** -.05 .07 -.09 .08
8. Homeless episodeb -.03 -.07 .21* .06 -.11 -.01 .24**
9. Binge drinkingc .21* -.02 .02 .07 -.07 .10 .08 .25**
10. Trading sexa .13 .17? .01 -.08 .06 -.12 .13 .27** .19*
a
11. Partner abuse .11 -.09 .05 .02 .03 .07 .26** .30*** .27** .18*
Reference categories = female for gender, gay/lesbian for sexual orientation, White for race/ethnicity
?
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001; p\.10
a
Ever
b
In the past year
c
In the past month

square analyses were then run to determine differences in
those who had and had not experienced PV on each of the
variables, with the exception of age, for which authors ran
an independent samples t test (Table 3). Further, since
three of the demographic variables were dichotomized for
use in the binomial logistic regression, one-way analyses of
variance (ANOVAs) were run on the original demographic
variables with a non-dichotomized sum score of PV ex-
periences to further examine significant correlates.
Step 2: Binary Logistic Regression
The PV dependent variable was then regressed on the
correlates included in step one of data analysis. The model
examined whether experiencing familial abuse, binge
drinking, an episode of homelessness, or trading sex pre-
dicted ever experiencing PV in the multivariate context.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Sample characteristics including demographic variables,
prevalence of risk variables, and PV experiences are de-
scribed in Table 3. Overall, 53 % (n = 74) of participants
reported ever experiencing a form of PV victimization.
An independent samples t test and Chi square statistics
indicated no significant differences in ever experiencing
PV victimization by age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, or
sexual orientation (Table 3). Results of the one-way
ANOVAs on the independent variables prior to
dichotomization confirmed non-significant differences in
experiences of PV victimization by gender identity and
race/ethnicity. However, a significant difference was found
for sexual orientation, F(5, 131) = 2.48, p = .035. Post
hoc Tukeys analysis revealed that not sure/questioning
youth had higher mean sum scores of PV victimization
(M = 32.83, SD = 16.71) than both bisexual (M = 23.81,
SD = 2.75) and gay male (M = 24.59, SD = 5.82) youth.
Chi square analyses revealed significant differences in
ever experiencing PV victimization by whether or not
participants reported ever experiencing familial abuse
[v2(1, N = 140) = 9.48, U = .26, p = .002]; experiencing
an episode of homelessness in the past year [v2(1,
N = 140) = 12.63, U = .30, p \ .001]; binge drinking in
the past month [v2(1, N = 140) = 10.43, U = .27,
p = .001]; and ever having traded sex [v2(1,
N = 140) = 4.33, U = .18, p = .037]. Using Cohens D
as a measure of effect size, results suggest ever experi-
encing familial abuse, experiencing an episode of home-
lessness in the past year, and binge drinking in the past
month have a small effect on experiencing PV victimiza-
tion. Ever having traded sex has a negligible effect on ever
experiencing PV victimization.
Binary Logistic Regression
A binary logistic regression model examined the significant
correlates (i.e., family abuse, binge drinking, homelessness,
and trading sex) of ever experiencing PV in a multivariate
context (Table 4). Model results (v2 (10) = 28.35,
p = .002; Nagelkerke R2 = .245) indicated that youth who
had ever experienced PV victimization, compared to those

123
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth: 63

Table 3 Sample demographics and differences by PV victimization experience

Total sample N = 140 Experienced PV N = 74 Did not experience PV N = 66
M SD M SD M SD df t p Cohens d

Age 16.61 2.14 16.84 2.29 16.35 1.96 138 -1.35 .175 .23
n % n % n % v2 p U
Gender 2 1.15 .564 .09
Female 80 57.1 44 59.5 36 54.5
Male 45 32.1 21 28.4 24 36.4
Other 15 10.7 9 12.2 6 9.1
Sexual orientation 2 .25 .882 .04
Gay/Lesbian 67 47.9 34 45.9 33 50.0
Bisexual 48 34.3 26 35.1 22 33.3
Other 25 17.9 14 18.9 11 16.7
Race 1 .64 .422 .07
White 95 67.9 48 64.9 47 71.2
People of color 45 32.1 26 35.1 19 28.8
a
Familial abuse 1 9.48 .002 .26
Yes 102 72.9 62 83.8 40 60.6
No 38 27.1 12 16.2 26 39.4
Homeless episodeb 1 12.63 \.001 .30
Yes 44 31.4 33 44.6 11 16.7
No 96 68.6 41 55.4 55 83.3
c
Binge drinking 1 10.43 .001 .27
Yes 49 35.0 35 47.3 14 21.2
No 91 65.0 39 52.7 52 78.8
Traded sexa 1 4.33 .037 .18
Yes 17 12.1 13 17.6 4 6.1
No 123 87.9 61 82.4 62 93.9
a
Ever
b
In the past year
c
In the past month

Table 4 Binary logistic

Predictor B SE p OR 95 % CI
regression predicting ever
experiencing PV Age 0.08 0.10 .401 1.08 [0.90, 1.31]
Gender (male) -0.07 0.48 .880 .930 [0.36, 2.39]
Gender (other) 0.05 0.68 .942 1.05 [0.28, 3.99]
Sexual orientation (bisexual) 0.12 0.44 .071 1.13 [0.48, 2.67]
Sexual orientation (other) 0.45 0.56 .421 1.57 [0.53, 4.66]
Race/Ethnicity (people of color) 0.30 0.42 .484 1.35 [0.59, 3.08]
Familial abuse 0.98 0.48 .039 2.67 [1.05, 6.79]
Homeless episode 1.03 0.46 .026 2.79 [1.13, 6.89]
Binge drinking 0.91 0.42 .032 2.49 [1.08, 5.72]
Traded sex 0.55 0.69 .426 1.73 [0.45, 6.69]
CI = confidence interval for odds ration (OR). Reference categories = female for gender, gay/lesbian for
sexual orientation, White for race/ethnicity

who had not, were more likely to have also ever experi- in the past 30 days (OR = 2.49). Having ever traded sex
enced familial abuse (OR = 2.67), an episode of home- was not, however, a statistically significant predictor of
lessness in the past year (OR = 2.79), and binge drinking ever experiencing PV when controlling for demographics

123
64
and the other psychosocial correlates included in the
model. This insignificance appears to be due in large part to
the small cell size, as only 17 participants reported trading
sex; however, the correlations between having ever traded
sex and both experiencing an episode of homelessness in
the past year and ever experiencing familial abuse
(Table 2) may also have influenced these results. When the
homeless episode and familial abuse variables were ex-
cluded from analysis, ever having traded sex reached
marginal significance; however, only when all three other
psychosocial risk factor variables were excluded from the
model did ever having traded sex become a statistically
significant predictor of ever experiencing PV victimization.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to identify correlates
of PV victimization among LGBTQ youth. The present
findings indicate LGBTQ youth experience high rates of
PV victimization, commensurate with the literature (e.g.,
Freedner et al. 2002). Findings indicate that none of the
demographic variables,4 but each of the risk factor vari-
ables was significantly correlated with ever experiencing
PV. Specifically, those who had ever experienced familial
abuse, an episode of homelessness in the past year, and
binge drinking in the past 30 days were at a significantly
increased risk of ever experiencing PV victimization.
Though ever having traded sex was significantly correlated
with ever experiencing PV victimization when examined in
its bivariate relationship, this risk factor was not sig-
nificantly predictive in the binary logistic model.
The present findings contribute to the extant literature on
the victimization experiences of LGBTQ youth, helping to
fill a gap in knowledge of PV victimization specifically.
Previous work on this topic is limited, with few studies
establishing estimates of PV victimization prevalence
among LGBTQ youth (Dank et al. 2013; Freedner et al.
2002; Jones and Raghaven 2012; Martin-Storey 2015),
let alone population-specific correlates. The present find-
ings suggest that, similar to their heterosexual peers, fa-
milial abuse, homelessness, and binge drinking appear to
exacerbate risk for PV victimization among LGBTQ youth.
Unfortunately, the risk of experiencing these predictors
tend to be higher for LGBTQ youth (e.g., Corliss et al.
2002), suggesting that they might be contributing factors to
the higher PV victimization prevalence among LGBTQ
youth noted in the literature (e.g., Freedner et al. 2002).
4
However, when examining the number of PV incidents and
retaining the sexual orientation variable in its original form,
questioning youth appeared to be at risk for experiencing higher
numbers of PV incidents.
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
Moreover, the current findings may also support Martin-
Storeys (2015) suggestion that minority stress theory ac-
counts for the increased prevalence of PV victimization
among LGBTQ youth. While the present study does not
compare LGBTQ youth to heterosexual youth, the current
findings indicate that LGBTQ youth do experience high
rates of PV victimization, higher than those documented in
the literature for general samples of youth (Freedner et al.
2002; Halpern et al. 2001).
As with adult women who experience PV victimization
(Lipsky et al. 2005), binge drinking among this sample of
LGBTQ youth was associated with increased likelihood of
having experienced PV victimization. Without temporal
order, the authors cannot assert whether binge drinking was
a precursor to or a consequent behavior of experiencing PV
victimization in this sample, though victimization research
with youth in other contexts offers explanations for both
orders. For example, in samples of homeless youth, re-
searchers have suggested that alcohol may impair judgment
and make one more vulnerable to potential victimization
(Champion et al. 2004); conversely, other researchers have
suggested that alcohol may be used to self-medicate fol-
lowing victimization (e.g., Bender et al. 2014; Kilpatrick
et al. 2003). In the context of PV victimization, researchers
of a study of 369 women who had recently experienced PV
victimization found the relationship between alcohol use
and trauma was mediated by drinking to cope, leading the
researchers to assert that self-medication is a plausible
explanation for consuming alcohol following PV victim-
ization (Kaysen et al. 2007). Self-medication as a potential
explanation for binge drinking among the present sample
warrants consideration, given the numerous adversities
these youth may face in addition to PV victimization, such
as homelessness. Future research should attempt to estab-
lish temporal order of these variables in order to better
assess the relationship between binge drinking and PV
victimization among LGBTQ youth.
Limitations
Several limitations must be taken into consideration when
interpreting findings from the current study. The cross-sec-
tional design limits assumptions of causality; it is possible that
youth who experience PV victimization may be at greater risk
for familial abuse, homelessness, and binge drinking as a re-
sult of having experienced PV victimization. This seems
particularly likely for homelessness and binge drinking. More
research, specifically longitudinal studies, is needed to de-
termine causation of the relationships found in this study.
Moreover, though standardized measures exist for the vari-
ables included in the present study (e.g., Thompson et al.
2006), the data was collected using a survey created by agency
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth:
staff for the purposes of programmatic planning. Since stan-
dardized measures were not used, results should be interpreted
with caution.
The present sample consisted of youth who associate in
some way (receipt of services, attending social events, or
visiting program website) with a program for LGBTQ
youth; these youth may significantly differ from those
LGBTQ youth who do not participate in these services.
Similarly, self-report items are subject to social desirability
bias. Given the sensitive nature of the questions, it is pos-
sible that some experiences or behaviors of these youth were
underreported. This point is particularly salient for experi-
ences of PV victimization, as research has demonstrated that
PV victimization is underreported in general populations
(Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Brown (2008) has suggested
that PV victimization among LGBTQ individuals may go
especially underreported due to issues such as homophobia,
heterosexism, lack of appropriate resources, and shame (e.g.,
fear of revealing sexual orientation).
The small sample size influenced many of the decisions
regarding analysis, specifically, the dichotomization of
variables. Authors attempted to address some concerns by
running additional one-way ANOVAs on the original in-
dependent variables. These additional models confirmed
non-significant differences in experiences of PV victim-
ization by gender identity and race/ethnicity, but not sexual
orientation, when the PV victimization sum score was used
as the dependent variable. Additionally, due to the con-
straints of secondary data analysis, the time limits on
several variables included in the model differ (e.g., past
30 days, past year). Given this, it is important to reiterate
that the authors are not arguing the present findings indi-
cate causal relationships, but rather correlational ones.
The current study relied on self-reported sexual orien-
tation to assess sexual minority status. It is important to
note that there are additional ways to assess sexual mi-
nority status, including sexual behavior (e.g., Martin-S-
torey 2015); however, the limitations of secondary data
analysis prevented the authors from more comprehensively
assessing sexual orientation. In the future, researchers
should strive to assess sexual orientation through multiple
items (e.g., identity, attraction, behavior).
Because the present analysis is of secondary data, the
authors were not able to determine the specific perpetrator
in instances of familial abuse, only whether or not abuse
occurred. There may be qualitative differences based on
the nature of the relationship with the perpetrator of the
abuse and subsequent association with PV victimization. In
the present study, the goal of the research was not to dif-
ferentiate how different types of abuse may be differen-
tially correlated with risks, but rather conduct an initial
inquiry into whether familial abuse in general is associated
with increased risk of PV victimization. Future research
65
should explore the more nuanced question of the relation-
ship of types of familial abuse with risks for PV victim-
ization; however, that is beyond the scope of this study.
Lastly, due to issues of collinearity, the primary research
question being about the risk of ever having experienced
any type of PV victimization, and the limited sample size,
the authors collapsed a number of different forms of PV
into one category. We dichotomized PV variables as an
initial step to understanding PV victimization within
LGBTQ youth relationships; however, we acknowledge
that this may have obscured qualitative differences in
specific forms of PV (e.g., psychological, physical, sexual).
Future analyses with larger samples should examine the
prevalence and correlates of different forms of PV, which
may lead to more nuanced implications for practice.
However, the results of the present analysis may prove
useful to practitioners in identifying clients at higher risk
for PV victimization generally.
Implications for Practice and Research
Despite the limitations, this exploratory study provides
some initial evidence that may be helpful in social work
practice with LGBTQ youth and young adults as well as
point to future directions in research. With regard to
practice, the present findings are congruent with the
alarming rate of PV among LGBTQ youth and young
adults noted in extant literature (e.g., Freedner et al. 2002).
Given the trends in LGBTQ youth experiencing PV, it is
imperative that social workers and helping professionals
have adequate training and levels of cultural competency
when working with youth and young adults. The results of
this study demonstrate that PV is as common in same-
gender youth and young adult relationships as it is in male
female partnerships. Individuals working with this
population should acknowledge that this form of victim-
ization can occur for all youth and young adults, regardless
of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Moreover,
these helping professionals need not work exclusively with
LGBTQ youth or victims of violence. For example, pro-
fessionals working with youth who experience homeless-
ness, which likely includes LGBTQ youth specifically
(e.g., Tyler and Beal 2010), should be cognizant that ex-
periencing homelessness appears to increase risk for PV
victimization nearly three-fold and screen for PV victim-
ization clients as appropriate.
While the rates may be inflated due to the type of sample
(i.e., youth associated with LGBTQ services and social
events who may be at greater risk than LGBTQ youth not
needing services), it seems prudent for social workers and
other helping professionals to ensure that routine screening
for PV victimization and education around PV is happen-
ing with LGBTQ youth and young adults. In this sample,
123
66
LGBTQ youth reported associations between PV victim-
ization and both familial abuse and homelessness demon-
strated in other samples of youth generally (Renner and
Whitney 2012) and LGBTQ youth (Slesnick et al. 2010),
respectively. Moreover, this research indicates that, similar
to LGBTQ adults (e.g., Eaton et al. 2008, binge drinking
functions as a potential risk factor for PV victimization
among LGBTQ youth.
With all three of these correlates, the odds ratios indicate
that the youth who have experienced these correlates were
at more than twice the risk for PV victimization than their
peers, suggesting that social workers and helping profes-
sionals should have a process in place to screen for PV
victimization when LGBTQ youth clients report one or
more of these risk factors.
Additionally, and in contrast to studies using general
youth samples, the authors found no differences in PV
victimization rates by gender. These findings are congruent
with Straus (2007) critique of the dominant narrative of
PV (i.e., males are perpetrators and females are victims)
and suggest that treating all LGBTQ youthnot just fe-
male and transgender youthas being at higher levels of
risk may be prudent. The same can be said for age, race/
ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Education around PV
should be inclusive and not assume all youth and young
adults identify as heterosexual or that PV is solely an issue
among malefemale romantic partners. As previously
stated, special attention should be given to youth and
young adults who have a history of the risk factors included
in the study. However, all LGBTQ youth might benefit
from preventative interventions and education, even when
a history of experiencing PV victimization is not disclosed,
in an effort to reduce the incidence of PV among this
population of youth and young adults.
Given the paucity of research in this area, much work
remains to be done to understand the experience of PV
victimization among LGBTQ youth. Clearly, studies with
representative samples that examine correlates are needed
to corroborate the present findings of similarity in corre-
lates across sexual orientations. Additionally, larger sam-
ples that allow for more nuanced examination of gender
identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age are
clearly warranted. Likewise larger samples would allow for
a more nuanced understanding of prevalence and correlates
of different forms of PV. Findings of difference in these
areas could allow social workers and other helping pro-
fessionals to tailor their interventions based on the demo-
graphics of the target audience or the specific form of PV
that is occurring. Additionally, researchers should consider
the use of qualitative and mixed methodologies to better
understand the phenomenon of PV victimization among
LGBTQ youth, particularly as it relates to potential risk
factors noted in this study and throughout extant literature.
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
The present results are congruent with literature indi-
cating that PV victimization does occur at high rates among
LGBTQ youth, but qualitative and mixed methodologies
could lend more explanation as to why PV victimization
occurs and in what contexts. Given that some researchers
have suggested that high rates of PV victimization among
LGBTQ youth may be a function of high victimization
rates among this population generally (e.g., Martin-Storey
2015), qualitative and mixed-methodologies would be ap-
propriate in exploring the unique victimization experiences
of LGBTQ youth, to include PV victimization specifically.
Moreover, examining participant narratives about why PV
occurs may further disentangle the issue of gender sym-
metry in PV, as in-depth, descriptive data could be col-
lected to provide contextualization to the numeric data
already present in the literature.
References
Ackard, D. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007).
Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behav-
ioral and psychological health of male and female youth. The
Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 476481. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.
04.034.
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). Money matters: Contracts,
funding projects and paying participants. (2011). In P. Alderson
& V. Morrow (Eds.), The ethics of research with children and
young people: A practical handbook. (2nd ed., pp. 6373).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of
Communication, 28, 1229.
Barnes, J. E., Noll, J. G., Putnam, F. W., & Trickett, P. K. (2009).
Sexual and physical revictimization among victims of severe
childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(7),
412420. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.013.
Bartholomew, K., Regan, K.V., Oram, D. & White, M.A. (2008a).
Correlates of partner abuse in male same-sex relationships.
Violence and Victims, 23, 344360. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.
3.344.
Bartholomew, K., Regan, K.V., White, M.A., & Oram, D. (2008b).
Patterns of abuse in male same-sex relationships. Violence and
Victims, 23, 617636. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.5.617.
Baynard, V. L., Arnold, S., & Smith, J. (2000). Childhood sexual
abuse and dating experiences of undergraduate women. Child
Maltreatment, 5, 3948. doi:10.1177/1077559500005001005.
Bender, K., Thompson, S., Ferguson, K., & Langenderfer, L. (2014).
Substance use predictors of victimization profiles among home-
less youth: A latent class analysis. Journal of Adolescence,
37(2), 155164. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.11.007.
Brown, C. (2008). Gender-role implications on same-sex intimate
partner abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 457462. doi:10.
1007/s10896-008-9172-9.
Brown, A., Cosgrave, E., Killackey, E., Purcell, R., Buckby, J., &
Yung, A. R. (2009). The longitudinal association of adolescent
dating violence with psychiatric disorders and functioning.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 19641979. doi:10.
1177/0886260508327700.
Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2003). Victim-reported risk
factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the
Partner Violence Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth:
dangerousness of arrested batterers. Journal of Community
Psychology, 31, 349369. doi:10.1002/jcop.10056.
Cavanaugh, C. E., Hansen, N. B., & Sullivan, T. P. (2010). HIV
sexual risk behavior among low-income women experiencing
intimate partner violence: The role of posttraumatic stress
disorder. AIDS and Behavior, 14, 318327. doi:10.1007/s10461-
009-9623-1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2004). 2004
Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.
gov/yrbss.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2013). Injury
prevention and control: Intimate partner violence. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnervio
lence/.
Champion, H. L. O., Foley, K. L., DuRant, R. H., Hensberry, R.,
Altman, D., & Wolfson, M. (2004). Adolescent sexual victim-
ization, use of alcohol and other substances, and other health risk
behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 321328.
Chartier, K. G., & Caetano, R. (2012). Intimate partner violence and
alcohol problems in interethnic and intraethnic couples. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 17801801. doi:10.1177/
0886260511430392.
Corliss, H. L., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2002). Reports of
parental maltreatment during childhood in a United States
population-based survey of homosexual, bisexual, and hetero-
sexual adults. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26(11), 11651178.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00385-X.
Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2013). Dating
violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846857. doi:10.
1007/s10964-013-9975-8.
Desai, S., Arias, I., Thompson, M. P., & Basile, K. C. (2002).
Childhood victimization and subsequent adult revictimization
assessed in a nationally representative sample of women and
men. Violence and Victims, 17, 639653. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.6.
639.33725.
Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004).
Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An
experimental study. Marketing Letters, 15, 2136.
Eaton, L., Kaufman, M., Fuhrel, A., Cain, D., Cherry, C., Pope, H., &
Kalichman, S. C. (2008). Examining factors co-existing with
interpersonal violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Family
Violence, 23, 697705. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9194-3.
Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental
health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and
Victims, 27, 215228. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.215.
Fang, X., & Corso, P. S. (2007). Child maltreatment, youth violence,
and intimate partner violence: Developmental relationships.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, 281290. doi:10.
1016/j.amepre.2007.06.003.
Feldman, M. B., Ream, G. L., Daz, R. M., & El-Bassel, N. (2007).
Intimate partner violence and HIV sexual risk behavior among
Latino gay and bisexual men. Journal of LGBT Health Research,
3(2), 919. doi:10.1300/J463v03n02_02.
Freedner, N., Freed, L. H., Yang, Y. W., & Austin, S. B. (2002).
Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents:
Results from a community survey. Journal of Adolescent Health,
31, 469474. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00407-X.
Gaetz, S. (2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social
exclusion, and criminal victimization. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 423455. doi:10.3138/
cjccj.46.4.423.
Goldberg, N. G., & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Sexual orientation disparities
in history of intimate partner violence: Results from the
California Health Interview Survey. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28, 11091118. doi:10.1177/0886260512459384.
67
Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper,
L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex
romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health,
91, 16791685. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.10.1679.
Houston, E., & McKirnan, D. J. (2007). Intimate partner abuse among
gay and bisexual men: Risk correlates and health outcomes.
Journal of Urban Health, 84, 681690. doi:10.1007/s11524-007-
9188-0.
Hove, M. C., Parkhill, M. R., Neighbors, C., McConchie, J. M., &
Fossos, N. (2010). Alcohol consumption and intimate partner
violence perpetration among college students: The role of self-
determination. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 7885.
Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003). Risk profiles of adolescent
girls who were victims of dating violence. Adolescence, 38,
114.
Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Yan, F. (2007). Psychological factors
associated with reports of physical dating violence among U.S.
adolescent females. Adolescence, 42, 311324.
Huefner, J. C., Ringle, J. L., Chmelka, M. B., & Ingram, S. D. (2007).
Breaking the cycle of intergenerational abuse: The long-term
impact of a residential care program. Child Abuse and Neglect,
31(2), 187199. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.003.
Jezi, 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 and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 13, 6987. doi:10.1007/BF01876596.
Jones, C. A., & Raghaven, C. (2012). Sexual orientation, social
support networks, and dating violence in an ethnically diverse
group of college students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 24, 122. doi:10.1080/10538720.2011.611107.
Kaysen, D., Dillworth, T. M., Simpson, T., Waldrop, A., Larimer, M.
E., & Resick, P. A. (2007). Domestic violence and alcohol use:
Trauma-related symptoms and motives for drinking. Addictive
Behaviors, 32, 12721283. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.007.
Kilpatrick, D. G., Ruggiero, K. J., Acierno, R., Saunders, B. E.,
Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2003). Violence and risk of PTSD,
major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comor-
bidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692700.
Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 National School Climate Survey: The
school-related experiences of our nations lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender youth. New York: GLSEN.
Kreiter, S. R., Krowchuk, D. P., Woods, C. R., Sinal, S. H., Lawless,
M. R., & DuRant, R. H. (1999). Gender differences in risk
behaviors among adolescents who experience date fighting.
Pediatrics, 104, 12861292. doi:10.1542/peds.104.6.1286.
Lipsky, S., & Caetano, R. (2011). Intimate partner violence perpe-
tration among men and emergency department use. The Journal
of Emergency Medicine, 40, 696703. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.
2008.04.043.
Lipsky, S., Caetano, R., Field, C. A., & Larkin, G. L. (2005). Is there
a relationship between victim and partner alcohol use during an
intimate partner violence event? Findings from an urban
emergency department study of abused women. Journals of
Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 66, 407412.
Longo, J., Walls, N. E., & Wisneski, H. (2013). Religion and
religiosity: Protective or harmful factors for sexual minority
youth? Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16, 273290. doi:10.
1080/13674676.2012.659240.
Martin-Storey, A. (2015). Prevalence of dating violence among
sexual minority youth: Variation across gender, sexual minority
identity and gender of sexual partners. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 44, 211214. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0089-0.
Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the
National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of
123
68
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 22282243. doi:10.1177/088626051
0383023.
Mittal, M., Senn, T. E., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Mediators of the
relation between partner violence and sexual risk behavior
among women attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 38, 510515. doi:10.1097/OLQ.
0b013e318207f59b.
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. NIAAA council
approves definition of binge drinking. NIAAA Newsletter 2004,
3. Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/News
letter/winter2004/Newsletter_Number3.pdf.
Nowinski, S. N., & Bowen, E. (2012). Partner violence against
heterosexual and gay men: Prevalence and correlates. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 17, 3652. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.
09.005.
Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirec-
tional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young
adults. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36(1), 4052. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2011.07.007.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2012). Homelessness
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Implications for
subsequent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 544560. doi:10.1007/s10964-
011-9681-3.
Saewyc, E. M., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., Reis, E. A., Bearinger,
L., Resnick, M., et al. (2006). Hazards of stigma: The sexual and
physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the
United States and Canada. Child Welfare, 85, 195213.
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 behavior, pregnancy,
and suicidality. The Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation, 286, 572579. doi:10.1001/jama.286.5.572.
Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Patton, R., & Buettner, C. (2010).
Prevalence of intimate partner violence reported by homeless
youth in Columbus, Ohio. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
15791593. doi:10.1177/0886260509354590.
Stall, R., Mills, T. C., Williamson, J., Hart, T., Greenwood, G., Paul,
J., et al. (2003). Association of co-occurring psychosocial health
problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban
men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public
Health, 93, 939942. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.6.939.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg,
K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission
of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62, 640654. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x.
Straus, M. A. (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence
by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children
and Youth Services Review, 30, 252275. doi:10.1016/j.child
youth.2007.10.004.
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in
prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression
against dating partners by university students in Mexico and
USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281290.
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Kahler, C. W., & Ramsey, S. E. (2003).
Substance abuse and relationship violence among men court-
referred to batterer intervention programs. Substance Abuse, 24,
107122. doi:10.1080/08897070309511539.
Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H, Jr. (2011). Dating violence and
substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of
123
L. Langenderfer-Magruder et al.
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701718. doi:10.1177/
0886260510365858.
The GLBT Community Center (2013). Rainbow Alley. Retrieved
April 6, 2014 from http://www.glbtcolorado.org/rainbow-alley/.
Thompson, M. P., Basile, K. C., Hertz, M. F., & Sitterle, D. (2006).
Measuring intimate partner violence victimization and perpetra-
tion: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
ncipc/pub-res/IPV_Compendium.pdf.
Thompson, M. P., & Kingree, J. B. (2006). The roles of victim and
perpetrator alcohol use in intimate partner violence outcomes.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 163177. doi:10.1177/
0886260505282283.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences
of intimate partner violence. U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf.
Turrell, S. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship
violence for a diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15,
281293. doi:10.1023/A:1007505619577.
Tyler, K. A. (2009). Risk factors for trading sex among homeless
young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 290297. doi:10.
1007/s10508-007-9201-4.
Tyler, K. A., & Beal, M. R. (2010). The high-risk environment of
homeless young adults: Consequences for physical and sexual
victimization. Violence and Victims, 25, 101115. doi:10.1891/
0886-6708.25.1.101.
Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L. V., & Magruder, B. (1997).
Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and
lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored. Violence and
Victims, 12, 173184.
Waller, M. W., Iritani, B. J., Christ, S. L., Clark, H. K., Moracco, K.
E., Halpern, C. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (2012). Relationships
among alcohol outlet density, alcohol use, and intimate partner
violence victimization among young women in the United
States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 20622086.
doi:10.1177/0886260511431435.
Walls, N. E., & Bell, S. (2011). Correlates of engaging in survival sex
among homeless youth and young adults. Journal of Sex
Research, 48, 423436. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.501916.
Walls, N. E., Laser, J., Nickels, S. J., & Wisneski, H. (2010).
Correlates of cutting behavior among sexual minority youths and
young adults. Social Work Research, 34, 213226. doi:10.1093/
swr/34.4.213.
Welles, S. L., Corbin, T. J., Rich, J. A., Reed, E., & Raj, A. (2011).
Intimate partner violence among men having sex with men,
women, or both: Early-life sexual and physical abuse as
antecedents. Journal of Community Health, 36, 477485.
doi:10.1007/s10900-010-9331-9.
West, C. M. (2012). Partner abuse in ethnic minority and gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender populations. Partner Abuse, 3,
336357. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.3.336.
Whitbeck, L. B., Chen, X., Hoyt, D. R., Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K.
D. (2004). Mental disorder, subsistence strategies, and victim-
ization among gay, lesbian, and bisexual homeless and runaway
adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 329342. doi:10.1080/
0022449040955224.