Encyclopedia of Social Work is now a consistently updated digital resource. Visit About to learn more, meet the editorial board, or explore the latest articles.

Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal use, only (for details see Privacy Policy).

date: 24 September 2017

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

Abstract and Keywords

Intimate partner violence—the continual and systematic exercise of power and control within an intimate relationship that often also includes physical and sexual violence—has emerged as a significant and complex social problem warranting the attention of social workers. Risk and protective factors have been identified at the individual, family, community, and societal levels. Some of these risk factors for repeat and lethal violence have been organized into risk assessment instruments that can be used by social workers to educate and empower survivors. Intimate partner violence has multiple negative health and mental health consequences for female victims and their children. Social workers in all areas of practice should be prepared to intervene with victims of intimate partner violence in a culturally competent manner using a strengths-based framework.

Keywords: domestic violence, battering, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, risk assessment, intimate partner homicide


Intimate partner violence is a significant problem that has existed for centuries and affects the social welfare of women and their children. Feminist advocates brought attention to the issue in the 1970s and have successfully advocated for services, legal sanctions, and policy changes (Messing, 2011). However, many women remain unable to access the resources needed to become and remain violence free (Dichter & Rhodes, 2011). Screening by social workers tends to produce some of the highest disclosure rates of intimate partner violence (Trabold, 2007). Given the negative sequelae of intimate partner violence, social workers are likely to encounter survivors in their practice and should play an integral role in intervention. However, screening is underutilized (Lindhorst, Casey, & Meyers, 2010; Shlonsky & Friend, 2007) and many social workers have reported a lack of knowledge about intimate partner violence (Bent-Goodley, 2007a; Danis & Lockhart, 2003).


Intimate partner violence is the continual and systematic exercise of power and control within an intimate relationship that often also includes or culminates in violence (Johnson, 2008; Stark, 2007). Definitions and measurement of intimate partner violence generally focus upon the constellation of abusive or violent acts experienced, such as physical violence, sexual violence or coercion, threats of physical or sexual violence, stalking, and psychological or emotional aggression (Black et al., 2011; Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley, 2002). However, it is important that social workers recognize the pattern of coercive control indicative of intimate partner violence, even when physical violence is not apparent. The term intimate partner violence is intended to be broad enough to encompass all romantic relationships (heterosexual and homosexual, casual, dating, child in common, married, ex-, or separated), but narrow enough to specify that child abuse and other forms of domestic or family violence are excluded. The term intimate partner abuse may be more inclusive of emotional and psychological abuse and is used when no physical or sexual violence is present. The physical and sexual violence referred to in intimate partner violence is generally understood to be accompanied by emotional or psychological abuse (Cavanaugh et al., 2012; Smith, Thornton, DeVellis, Earp, & Coker, 2002).


The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), a nationally representative telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2010, found that 35.6% of women had experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). When examining severe physical violence such as being hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, or slammed against something, lifetime prevalence for women is 24.3%. In the past 12 months, an estimated 42 million women experienced at least one of these forms of violence (Black et al.).

When examining the forms of intimate partner violence measured by the NISVS separately, 32.9% of women reported physical violence, 9.4% reported rape, 16.9% reported intimate partner sexual violence other than rape (for example, sexual coercion), 10.7% reported stalking by an intimate partner, 48.8% reported psychological aggression, and 41.1% reported coercive control in their lifetime. Forms of intimate partner violence often co-occur, and 35.6% of women who experienced physical violence also experienced intimate partner rape or stalking (Black et al., 2011). In community samples of women who have experienced physical violence, rates of intimate partner sexual violence (including rape) range from 28% (Eby, Campbell, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995) to 68% (McFarlane et al., 2005).

Risk and Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Intimate partner violence disproportionately affects women from some social and demographic groups. However, it is important to remember that anyone can be the victim of intimate partner violence. Many of the variables that indicate high risk among women from some demographic groups (for example, race or ethnicity) may be conflated with other social and economic indicators (for example, poverty, unemployment). In fact, income has been described as “one of the most, if not the most, significant correlates of partner violence” with research demonstrating that poverty both predicts and is predicted by intimate partner violence (Goodman, Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009, p. 308).

Native American and African American women have been found to experience intimate partner violence at higher rates and in different ways than White women and, more recently, multiracial women have been found to be at the highest risk for intimate partner violence (Black et al., 2011; Potter, 2008; Smith, 2005). The relationship among income, education, and race or ethnicity makes it difficult to state with any certainty which factors increase risk for whom. When controlling for socioeconomic status, the effect of race on intimate partner violence often disappears (Cho, 2012). An emerging literature also suggests that the growing population of immigrant women may be more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than nonimmigrant women (Erez, Adelman, & Gregory, 2009; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Runner, Novick, & Yoshihama, 2009).

Research has found that women who are younger are more likely to experience intimate partner violence; nearly 70% of women who reported experiencing intimate partner violence reported that their first incident of abuse occurred before the age of 25 (Black et al., 2011). Women with disabilities are more likely to experience intimate partner violence and to be abused in ways that focus on their unique vulnerabilities (Lightfoot & Williams, 2009; Powers et al., 2002). Women with lower incomes and lower educational attainment have been shown to be more susceptible to experiencing intimate partner violence (for example, Cho, 2012), although it may be that women with greater economic and educational resources have means by which to leave a violent intimate relationship (Powers & Kaukinen, 2012). Women’s employment may decrease isolation and provide increased economic resources, although it may also indicate economic stress and lead to increased jealousy or feelings of inferiority on the part of a partner, particularly when that partner is unemployed (Fox, Benson, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2008; Powers & Kaukinen). Intimate partner violence has also been shown to decrease women’s ability to obtain and maintain employment; abusive partners may sabotage women’s employment through abuse and harassment and the psychological effects of repeated abuse may make it difficult for a woman to maintain employment (Goodman et al., 2009).

Risk Assessment

Intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments can provide social-work practitioners with information on the likelihood that abusers will reassault, severely reassault, or kill their intimate partner and can facilitate communication between social workers and professionals in other intervention systems. Risk assessment should be utilized as part of an evidence-based practice approach to intimate partner violence intervention that also takes into account a social worker’s clinical expertise and client self-determination (Gambrill, 2006). Five risk assessment instruments have been validated (that is, tested for accuracy) in multiple studies across a variety of intervention settings (Messing & Thaller, 2013).

The Danger Assessment (http://www.dangerassessment.org) is the only intimate partner violence risk assessment instrument that relies on victim self-report and is also the only instrument intended to predict lethal intimate partner violence (Campbell et al., 2003b). This risk assessment is ideal for social workers who are in direct contact with domestic violence survivors. The Danger Assessment should be administered as a collaborative effort between a survivor and a social worker or other professional and is intended to empower women toward decisions of self-care. A social worker may use the administration of the risk assessment to facilitate a conversation about risk and safety, assist in the development of a safety plan, and educate the survivor about her individual risk and potential risk factors. The Danger Assessment has been adapted for immigrant women (Messing, Amanor-Boadu, Cavanaugh, Glass, & Campbell, 2013) and women in same-sex relationships (Glass et al., 2008b).

There are several other intimate partner violence risk assessments available. Social workers who work closely with police officers may consider using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA). The questions on this risk assessment instrument can be answered using criminal files or during a police interview, making the risk assessment relatively easy to administer in this context (Hilton et al., 2004). The Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI) was created to assist with determinations about pretrial release and may be useful for communicating risk to judges, prosecutors, and probation officers (Williams & Houghton, 2004). For social workers with advanced training and an interest in applying professional judgment to the risk assessment process, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) may be the most appropriate. This risk assessment relies on interviews with the offender and victim and the examination of case files, making access to each of these information sources key to the administration of this instrument (Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1995).

When making decisions about their relationship and accessing resources, survivors of intimate partner violence informally assess their own risk. Survivor risk assessments have been found to be relatively accurate (Bell, Cattaneo, Goodman, & Dutton, 2008; Campbell, Webster, & Glass, 2009; Cattaneo, Bell, Goodman, & Dutton, 2007; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2003; Connor-Smith, Henning, Moore, & Holdford, 2010). However, some risk assessment instruments have been shown to be more predictive than survivor’s assessments (Campbell et al., 2009; Messing & Thaller, 2013; Wilson, Batye, & Riveras, 2008) and survivors are more likely to underestimate than overestimate their risk (Campbell, 2004; Heckert & Gondolf, 2000). Risk assessment instruments can be used as an empowerment tool to educate survivors about risk and risk factors and to compliment a survivor’s assessment of risk (Campbell, 2004; Connor-Smith et al., 2010; Heckert & Gondolf, 2004; Weisz, Tolman, & Saunders, 2000), but should not be used to mandate intervention for survivors or remove their self-determination.

Protective Factors

Despite their experiences of abuse, survivors are resilient and continue to function as mothers, partners, employees, friends, and family members. Prior to seeking formal services, many survivors utilize informal strategies such as talking to their partner about the violence or seeking support from family and friends (Goodkind, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2004; Goodman, Dutton, Weinfurt, & Cook, 2003).

Limited prospective research exists on the specific factors that may reduce exposure to repeat assault or reduce the negative effects of intimate partner violence victimization. However, studies have found that women who report more social support or a better quality of life also report less repeat partner violence (Goodman et al., 2009). Social support, including having a supportive person in whom to confide, is thought to enhance self-esteem, affect perceptions of stressful events, provide concrete assistance, and increase knowledge of coping strategies and, in turn, reduce future violent victimization (Carlson, McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002; Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). For women experiencing the most severe abuse, however, social support does not appear to reduce future violence (Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, & Weinfurt, 2005). Access to financial resources, employment or employment opportunities, education, transportation, housing free of their abusive partner, and other material and financial resources that assist women in attaining financial independence are important for allowing women to become and remain violence free (Goodman et al., 2005).

Research on factors associated with resilience in the face of high levels of stress may also be informative. These factors include social support, positive self-regard, cognitive appraisal strategies, the perception of control, maintaining a positive outlook, self-efficacy, spirituality, good health, and type of coping strategies used (Carlson et al., 2002). Tactics of abusers, including isolation and limiting the economic independence of their victim, make resources such as social support and financial independence more difficult to attain for some intimate partner violence survivors. Physical and mental-health consequences of violence may also interfere with coping. Characteristics such as loyalty to partners, a desire to maintain a two-parent household for the sake of their children, and sensitivity to the needs and desires of other family members are often seen as barriers to leaving an abusive relationship, but should be reframed as indicators of strength and resilience.


Health and Mental Health

The physical health consequences of intimate partner violence include injury that is the result of violent victimization, as well as chronic health problems as a result of repeated abuse over time. According to the NISVS, 41.6% of women who reported experiencing intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking also reported injury as a result of their victimization. Slightly over half of the women who reported injury reported that they needed medical care because of the injury (Black et al., 2011). Physical health consequences include poor appetite, low energy, chronic fatigue, headaches, difficulty sleeping, breathing problems, gastrointestinal problems, muscle tension or soreness, traumatic brain injury, and gynecological problems (Bonomi et al., 2006; Campbell, 2002; Kwako et al., 2011). Physical health consequences appear to be cumulative; that is, women who experience more severe abuse will also experience more severe physical health consequences (Scott-Storey, 2011).

Intimate partner violence also affects women’s mental health, resulting in depression, suicide or suicidal ideation, shame, and posttraumatic stress disorder (including dissociation, increased arousal, irritability, angry outbursts, hypervigilance, and sleep disturbances) (Afifi et al., 2009; Beydoun, Beydoun, Kaufman, Bruce, & Zonderman, 2012; Cavanaugh, Messing, Del-Colle, O’Sullivan, & Campbell, 2011; Devries et al., 2013; Feinstein, Bovin, Humphreys, Marx, & Resick, 2011; Golding, 1999; Leone, 2011; Messing, Thaller, & Bagwell, in press; Wilson, West, Messing, Patchell, & Campbell, 2011). Intimate partner rape may be more emotionally harmful than rape by a stranger, causing higher levels of perceived stress and dissociation (Bergen, 2006; Temple, Weston, Rodriguez, & Marshall, 2007). Women may turn to substances to cope with the trauma resulting from victimization, and the misuse of alcohol and drugs is associated with intimate partner violence victimization (Afifi, Hendriksen, Asmundson, & Sareen, 2012; Fazzone, Holton, & Reed, 1997; Schneider, Burnette, Ilgen, & Timko, 2009).


The single largest risk factor for intimate partner homicide is intimate partner violence. Between 65% and 80% of intimate partner femicide victims were previously abused by the partner who killed them (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughton, & Bloom, 2007; Campbell et al., 2003a; Moracco, Runyan, & Butts,1998; Pataki, 1998; Sharps et al., 2001). Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner; at least 45% of murdered women are killed by an intimate (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009; Cooper & Smith, 2011; Violence Policy Center, 2011), whereas the same is true for 5–7% of murdered men (Fox, 2005). Between 1980 and 2008, there was a 5% increase in the proportion of female homicide victims killed by an intimate partner (Cooper & Smith).

African American and Native American women are at higher risk for intimate partner homicide (Mercy & Saltzman, 1989; Morton, Runyan, Moracco, & Butts, 1998). However, similar to the risk for intimate partner violence, racial or ethnic differences may be reflective of other social and economic indicators. For example, the increased risk posed by Native American and African American men may actually be a function of higher unemployment among these groups (Campbell et al., 2003b). In addition, education appears to interact with race and ethnicity—African American women with higher levels of education are at greater risk for intimate partner homicide and White women with higher levels of education are at decreased risk for intimate partner homicide (Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 2003a, 2003b).

Other social, demographic, and relationship characteristics indicate risk for intimate partner homicide. These include an increase in the frequency and severity of abuse, having a child who is not the abuser’s child, controlling behaviors, partner unemployment, threats to kill or threats with a weapon, avoiding arrest for domestic violence, extreme sexual jealousy (Campbell et al., 2003b), recent estrangement (Dawson & Gartner, 1998; Websdale, 1999; Wilson & Daly, 1993; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995), stalking (McFarlane et al., 1999), strangulation (Glass et al., 2008a), partner access to a firearm (Campbell, 1995; Campbell et al., 2003b, 2007; Fox & Zawitz, 2004), partner use of illegal drugs or problem drinking (Sharps, Campbell, Campbell, Garry, & Webster, 2003), abuse during pregnancy (McFarlane, Campbell, Sharps, & Watson, 2002), forced sex (Campbell et al., 2003b; Messing et al., in press), and perpetrator suicide threats or attempts (Koziol-McLain et al., 2006).

The Effects on Children

Intimate partner violence negatively affects the cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional development of children, resulting in both internalizing (for example, depression) and externalizing (for example, aggression) behaviors (Carlson, 2000; Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008). Among infants as young as six months old, high nonphysical interparental conflict affects functioning in areas of the brain related to stress and emotional processes (Graham, Fisher, & Pfeifer, 2013). As intimate partner violence increases in frequency, severity, and chronicity, negative effects increase (Edleson, 2006) and children exposed to extreme intimate partner violence may present with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (Evans et al.). Witnessing intimate partner violence as a child results in similar negative outcomes as experiencing physical child abuse (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003), although it has been found that other adverse childhood events may increase the difficulties that children exposed to intimate partner violence face (Edleson). The presence of a protective adult, the social environment, and coping strategies may buffer against the negative effects of witnessing intimate partner violence (Edleson). Group interventions for children have been found to be effective at helping children develop coping and safety skills (Jouriles et al., 2009; Sullivan, Bybee, & Allen, 2002).

Children in homes where intimate partner violence occur are also more likely to experience child abuse (Edleson, 1999). Witnessing intimate partner violence as a child or experiencing child abuse results in a two to six times greater likelihood of experiencing intimate partner violence as an adult (Bensley, Van Eenwyk, & Simmons, 2003; Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000; Schaaf & McCanne, 1998). Some research indicates that posttraumatic stress and depression, particularly resulting from childhood experiences of abuse, may increase risk for subsequent intimate partner violence (Devries et al., 2013; Engstrom, El-Bassel, Go, & Gilbert, 2008; Messing, LaFlair, Cavanaugh, Kanga, & Campbell, 2012; West, Williams, & Siegel, 2000).


Individual and Group Interventions

Social service interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence include crisis intervention, shelter, advocacy, legal advocacy, support groups, and individual counseling. For the most part, the focus of these interventions is to increase physical safety, enhance knowledge of intimate partner violence dynamics and the resources available, refer women to community resources and assist with accessing the justice system, normalize women’s experiences, increase coping, and decrease isolation (Macy, Giattina, Sangster, Crosby, & Montijo, 2009). Interventions with survivors should be client oriented and founded on women’s strengths, resilience, and empowerment (Dutton, 2000).

Exiting an abusive relationship is a dangerous, difficult, and lengthy process that requires social, emotional, and financial resources (Amanor-Boadu et al., 2012; Messing, Mohr, & Durfee, 2012). Women who have experienced intimate partner violence have needs in multiple areas of their lives, often including housing, employment, child care, education, financial capital, legal services, and mental health, and it is not likely that a single service provider can effectively intercede in all of these areas. As such, community referrals are often relied upon as a component of social-work intervention with intimate partner violence survivors and must provide adequate services (Sullivan, 2005). Survivors have identified shelters, victim advocates, the police, family, and friends as the most helpful of available resources (Goodman et al., 2003). Advocacy interventions appear to increase women’s use of safety strategies and may also increase self-efficacy and self-esteem, as well as reduce depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Ramsay et al., 2009).

Many social-work interventions focus on survivors of abuse, but without effective services for abusers, intimate partner violence will continue to be a social problem. Arrest may occur in 40% or fewer of intimate partner violence incidents (Sloan, Platt, Chepke, & Blevins, 2013), and there is mixed evidence on the efficacy of arrest as a deterrent (Campbell et al., 2003b; Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2002; Stover, Meadows, & Kaufman, 2009). Prosecution is less likely than arrest and has been examined as a deterrent in fewer studies, and research has been similarly inconclusive (Sloan et al.; Ventura & Davis, 2005). Batterers intervention programs, including those utilizing cognitive behavioral therapy, have not demonstrated significant decreases in repeat violence (Smedslund, Dalsbo, Steiro, Winsvold, & Clench-Aas, 2011; Stover et al.), although evidence exists that these programs may be successful for certain types of perpetrators (Buttell & Carney, 2006).

Social and Political Interventions

In addition to individual interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence, the domestic violence advocacy movement has placed a great emphasis on policy advocacy and changing social norms about violence against women (Messing, 2011; Stark, 2007). The Violence against Women Act (1994) and its reauthorizations (2000, 2005, 2012) have provided resources at the state and federal level for domestic violence services, with a particular emphasis on legal remedies. Particularly given funding constraints of recent years, domestic violence service providers struggle to provide services to all intimate partner violence survivors in need (National Network to End Violence Against Women, 2011). In addition to policies that directly refer to intimate partner violence victims (for example, mandatory arrest, primary aggressor), many policies have intended and unintended effects on survivors (for example, child custody and divorce statutes, firearm availability). These consequences may be more salient for survivors of color and those with limited economic resources (Bent-Goodley, 2007b). In addition to the provision of direct services, social workers should advocate for laws and policies that protect survivors of domestic violence and their children.

Cultural Competence

Research on interventions for intimate partner violence have focused on White women, women in heterosexual relationships, and women of lower socioeconomic status, often generalizing findings to all survivors of intimate partner violence despite their many differences (Bent-Goodley, 2005). There are a multitude of reasons that women of color may avoid accessing formal services including discrimination, stigma, self-blame, fear of bringing shame upon their community, fear of reinforcing stereotypes, the belief that violence is a private or family matter, language barriers, definitional barriers, and distrust of the legal system (Abraham, 2000; Adam & Schewe, 2007; Bent-Goodley, 2007b; Bhuyan, Mell, Senturia, Sullivan, & Shiu-Thornton, 2005; Dasgupta & Warrier, 1996; Kasturirangan, Krishnan, & Riger, 2004; Sullivan, Senturia, Negash, Shiu-Thornton, & Giday, 2005). For immigrant women, fear of deportation, fear of the deportation of loved ones, or separation from children may lead to further isolation and reluctance to seek services (Abraham; Crandall, Senturia, Sullivan, & Shiu-Thornton, 2005; Erez & Hartley, 2003). Women with disabilities, particularly women of color with disabilities, face unique barriers to service such as negative attitudes, lack of accessibility, and differential experiences of abuse (Lightfoot & Williams, 2009).

Social workers who are part of the majority culture may be seen as outsiders, causing women of color to be reluctant to disclose their abuse. Further, the coping strategies employed by White middle-class women may not be effective for women of color or for women of lower socioeconomic status (Kasturirangan et al., 2004). Social workers must understand the cultural and historical context of violence and abuse, challenge stereotypes that may make it more difficult for survivors of color to access services, and provide culturally appropriate methods of intervention (Bent-Goodley, 2005). Sources of strength and methods of coping may be derived from women’s cultural traditions and values, and these cultural values should be accessed as strengths and built upon during intervention (Bent-Goodley, 2007b; Kasturirangan et al.). Social workers should employ community organizing strategies that focus on community education, community participation, and building capacity to respond to violence against women within communities of color (Bent-Goodley, 2007b; Kasturirangan et al.; Messing et al., 2013). Ensuring that staff reflect the culture and differential abilities of clients is also important, as is training on cultural competence (Lightfoot & Williams, 2009).

Trends and Challenges

There is a growing recognition that the traditional shelter-based model of services for intimate partner violence does not meet the needs of all survivors. Many survivors of intimate partner violence will remain in contact with their abuser, either because they choose to remain in the relationship or because shared custody of children requires coparenting. Advocacy beyond leaving, also called victim-defined advocacy, focuses on safety for women and children who remain in contact with an abusive partner through risk reduction, meeting survivor-defined goals, and a focus on basic necessities such as food and income (Davies, 2009). The housing-first model, adapted from interventions with homeless populations, focuses on permanent housing rather than emergency shelter. Driven by the belief that survivors often return to an abusive partner after a short shelter stay because they lack options for housing, employment, and child care, this model aims to provide women with long-term community-based housing rather than emergency shelter. As technological advances continue, Internet- or smart phone–based interventions may also become more accessible (Glass, Eden, Bloom, & Perrin, 2010).

Interventions focused on changing the behavior of abusive men have not demonstrated widespread success (for example, Smedslund et al., 2011). Without effective interventions that reduce men’s violence against women, the problem of intimate partner violence will not cease. Yet even as feminist organizations work to reduce violence against women, the basic understanding of intimate partner violence as a gendered phenomenon faces assault. Popular media discourse is rife with myth-based beliefs that blame women and exonerate men (Thaller & Messing, 2013). In recent years, father’s rights or men’s rights groups have proliferated. These antifeminist groups have named the domestic violence movement their political opponent and utilize their political and legal capital to reduce sanctions against intimate partner violence, particularly within the arenas of divorce, custody, and child-support decisions (Dragiewicz, 2011).


Abraham, M. (2000). Isolation as a form of marital violence: The South Asian immigrant experience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 221–236.Find this resource:

Adam, N. M., & Schewe, P. A. (2007). A multilevel framework exploring domestic violence against immigrant and Pakistani women in the United States. Journal of Muslim Health, 2(1), 5–20.Find this resource:

Afifi, T. O., Hendriksen, C. A., Asmundson, G. J. G., & Sareen, J. (2012). Victimization and perpetration of intimate partner violence and substance use disorders in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(8), 684–691.Find this resource:

Afifi, T. O., MacMillan, H., Cox, B. J., Asmundson, G. J. G., Stein, M. B., & Sareen, J. (2009). Mental health correlates of intimate partner violence in marital relationships in a nationally representative sample of males and females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1398–1417.Find this resource:

Amanor-Boadu, Y., Messing, J. T., Stith, S. M., Anderson, J. R., O’Sullivan, C., & Campbell, J. C. (2012). Immigrant and non-immigrant women: Factors that predict leaving an abusive relationship. Violence against Women, 18(5), 611–633.Find this resource:

Bell, M. E., Cattaneo, L. B., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (2008). Assessing the risk of future psychological abuse: Predicting the accuracy of battered women’s predictions. Journal of Family Violence, 23(2), 69–80.Find this resource:

Bensley, L., Van Eenwyk, J., & Simmons, K. W. (2003). Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor health. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 25(1), 38–44.Find this resource:

Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2005). Culture and domestic violence: Transforming knowledge development. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(2), 195–203.Find this resource:

Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2007a). Teaching social work students to resolve ethical dilemmas in domestic violence. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(1-2), 7–88.Find this resource:

Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2007b). Health disparities and violence against women: Why and how cultural and societal influences matter. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(2), 90–104.Find this resource:

Bergen, R. K. (2006). Marital rape: New research and directions. Harrisburg, PA: National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women.Find this resource:

Beydoun, H. A., Beydoun, M. A., Kaufman, J. S., Bruce, L., & Zonderman, A. B. (2012). Intimate partner violence against adult women and its association with major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms and postpartum depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 75(6), 959–975.Find this resource:

Bhuyan, R., Mell, M., Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2005). Women must endure according to their karma: Cambodian immigrant women talk about domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 902–921.Find this resource:

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Find this resource:

Bonomi, A. E., Thompson, R. S., Anderson, M., Reid, R. J., Carrell, D., Dimer, J. A., et al. (2006). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 30, 458–466.Find this resource:

Buttell, F. P., & Carney, M. M. (2006). A large sample evaluation of a court-mandated batterer intervention program: Investigating differential program effect for African-American and Caucasian men. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(2), 121–131.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness (pp. 96–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C. (2002). The health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331–1336.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situation of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464–1477.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications for research and policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 653–674.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003a). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 14–19.Find this resource:

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D.Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D. W., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003b). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089–1097.Find this resource:

Carlson, B. E. (2000). Children exposed to intimate partner violence: Research findings and implications for intervention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1(4), 321–342.Find this resource:

Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002). Intimate partner abuse and mental health. Violence Against Women, 8, 720–745.Find this resource:

Catalano, S., Smith, E., Snyder, H., & Rand, M. (2009). Bureau of Statistics. Female victims of violence (NCJ 228356). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Find this resource:

Cattaneo, L. B., Bell, M. E., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (2007). Intimate partner violence victims’ accuracy in assessing their risk of re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 429–440.Find this resource:

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2003). Victim-reported risk factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the dangerousness of arrested batterers. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(4), 349–369.Find this resource:

Cavanaugh, C. E., Messing, J. T., Del-Colle, M., O’Sullivan, C., & Campbell, J. C. (2011). Prevalence and correlates of suicidal behavior among adult female victims of intimate partner violence. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 41(4), 373–383.Find this resource:

Cavanaugh, C. E., Messing, J. T., Petras, H., Fowler, B., LaFlair, L., Kub, J., et al. (2012). Patterns of violence against women: A latent class analysis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(2), 169–176.Find this resource:

Cho, H. (2012). Racial differences in the prevalence of intimate partner violence against women and associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(2), 344–363.Find this resource:

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, J. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99–125.Find this resource:

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. R. (2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90(4), 553–559.Find this resource:

Connor-Smith, J. K., Henning, K., Moore, S., & Holdford, R. (2010). Risk assessments by female victims of intimate partner violence: Predictors of risk perceptions and comparison to an actuarial measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2517–2550.Find this resource:

Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Find this resource:

Crandall, M., Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2005). No way out: Russian speaking women’s experiences with domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 941–958.Find this resource:

Danis, F. S., & Lockhart, L. (2003). Domestic violence and social work education: What do we know, what do we need to know? Journal of Social Work Education, 39(2), 215–224.Find this resource:

Dasgupta, S. D., & Warrier, S. (1996). In the footsteps of “Arundhati”: Asian Indian women’s experiences of domestic violence in the United States. Violence against Women, 2, 238–259.Find this resource:

Davies, J. (2009). Advocacy beyond leaving: Helping battered women in contact with current or former partners. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.Find this resource:

Dawson, M., & Gartner, R. (1998). Differences in the characteristics of intimate femicides. Homicide Studies, 2(4), 378–399.Find this resource:

Devries, K. M., Mak, J. M., Bacchus, L. J., Child, J. C., Felder, G., Petzold, M., et al. (2013). Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLOS Medicine, 10(5), 1–11.Find this resource:

Dichter, M. E., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011). Intimate partner violence survivors’ unmet social service needs. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 481–489.Find this resource:

Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003a). Do domestic violence services save lives? National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 20–25.Find this resource:

Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003b). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37, 169–198.Find this resource:

Dutton, M. A. (2000). Empowering and healing the battered woman: A model for assessment and intervention. New York, NY: Springer.Find this resource:

Dragiewicz, M. (2011). Equality with a vengeance: Men’s groups, battered women, and antifeminist backlash. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Find this resource:

Eby, K. K., Campbell, J. C., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). Health effects of experiences of sexual violence for women with abusive partners. Health Care for Women International, 16(6), 563–576.Find this resource:

Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman abuse. Harrisburg, PA: National Online Resource Center on Violence against Women.Find this resource:

Edleson, J. L. (2006). Emerging responses to children exposed to domestic violence. Harrisburg, PA: National Online Resource Center on Violence against Women.Find this resource:

Engstrom, M., El-Bassel, N., Go, H., & Gilbert, L. (2008). Childhood sexual abuse and intimate partner violence among women in methadone treatment: A direct or mediated relationship? Journal of Family Violence, 23(7), 605–617.Find this resource:

Erez, E., Adelman, M., & Gregory, C. (2009). Intersections of immigration and domestic violence. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 32–56.Find this resource:

Erez, E., & Hartley, C. C. (2003). Battered immigrant women and the legal system: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4, 155–169.Find this resource:

Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140.Find this resource:

Fazzone, P. A., Holton, J. K., & Reed, B. G. (1997). Substance abuse treatment and domestic violence. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Find this resource:

Feinstein, B. A., Bovin, M. J., Humphreys, K. L., Marx, B. P., & Resick, P. A. (2011). Victim–offender relationship status moderates the relationships of peritraumatic emotional responses, active resistance, and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in female rape survivors. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3(2), 192–200.Find this resource:

Fox, G. L., Benson, M. L., DeMaris, A. A., & Van Wyk, J. (2008). Economic distress and intimate violence: Testing family stress and resource theories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 793–807.Find this resource:

Fox, J. A. (2005). Uniform crime reports [United States]: Supplementary homicide reports, 1976–2002 [Computer file] (ICPSR ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Find this resource:

Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (2004). Homicide trends in the US. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Find this resource:

Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), pp. 338–357.Find this resource:

Glass, N., Eden, K. B., Bloom, T., & Perrin, N. (2010). Computerized aid improves safety decision process for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 1947–1964.Find this resource:

Glass, N., Laughton, K., Campbell, J.., Block, C. R., Hanson, G., Sharps, P. W., et al. (2008a). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 35(3), 329–335.Find this resource:

Glass, N., Perrin, N., Hanson, G., Bloom, T., Gardner, E., & Campbell, J. C. (2008b). Risk for reassault in abusive female same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1021–1027.Find this resource:

Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99–132.Find this resource:

Goodkind, J. R., Sullivan, C. S., & Bybee, D. I. (2004). A contextual analysis of battered women’s safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10(5), 514–533.Find this resource:

Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005). Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors for reabuse over time. Violence against Women, 11(3), 311–336.Find this resource:

Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Weinfurt, K., & Cook, S. (2003). The intimate partner violence strategies index: Development and application. Violence Against Women, 9(2), 163–186.Find this resource:

Goodman, L. A., Smyth, K. F., Borges, A. M., & Singer, R. (2009). When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women’s mental health and coping. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(4), 306–329.Find this resource:

Graham, A. M., Fisher, P. A., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2013). What sleeping babies hear: A functional MRI study of interparental conflict and infants’ emotion processing. Psychological Science, 24(5), 782–789.Find this resource:

Heckert, D. A., & Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Assessing assault self-reports by batterer program participants and their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2), 181–197.Find this resource:

Heckert, D. A., & Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Battered women’s perceptions of risk versus risk factors and instruments in predicting repeat reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 778–800.Find this resource:

Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lang, C., Cormier, C. A., & Lines, K. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario domestic assault risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16, 267–275.Find this resource:

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.Find this resource:

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Stephens, N., Corbitt-Shindler, D., & Miller, P. C. (2009). Reducing conduct problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A randomized clinical trial examining effects of Project Support. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 705–717.Find this resource:

Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The impact of culture and minority status on women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 318–332.Find this resource:

Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339–352.Find this resource:

Koziol-McLain, J., Webster, D., McFarlane, J., Block, C. R., Ulrich, Y., Glass, N., et al. (2006). Risk factors for femicide–suicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. Violence & Victims, 21(1), 3–21.Find this resource:

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the spousal assault risk assessment guide (2nd ed.). Vancouver, British Columbia: BC Institute on Family Violence.Find this resource:

Kwako, L. E., Glass, N., Campbell, J., Melvin, K. C., Barr, T., & Gill, J. M. (2011). Traumatic brain injury in intimate partner violence: A critical review of outcomes and mechanisms. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 12, 115–126.Find this resource:

Leone, J. M. (2011). Suicidal behavior among low-income, African American female victims of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2568–2591.Find this resource:

Lightfoot, E., & Williams, O. (2009). The intersection of disability, diversity, and domestic violence: Results of national focus groups. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 133–152.Find this resource:

Lindhorst, T., Casey, E., & Meyers, M. (2010). Frontline worker responses to domestic violence disclosure in public welfare offices. Social Work, 55(3), 235–243.Find this resource:

Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. (2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 14, 359–373.Find this resource:

Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventative effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: Research, policy and theory. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(1), 51–80.Find this resource:

McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P., & Watson, K. (2002). Abuse during pregnancy and femicide: Urgent implications for women’s health. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 100(1), 27–36.Find this resource:

McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and intimate partner femicide. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 300–316.Find this resource:

McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Watson, K., Gist, J., Batten, E., Hall, I., et al. (2005). Intimate partner sexual assault against women: Frequency, health consequences, and treatment outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105(1), 99–108.Find this resource:

Messing, J. T. (2011). The social control of family violence. Affilia: The Journal of Women and Social Work, 26(2), 154–168.Find this resource:

Messing, J. T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Cavanaugh, C. E., Glass, N., & Campbell, J. C. (2013). Culturally competent intimate partner violence risk assessment: Adapting the Danger Assessment for immigrant women. Social Work Research. doi:10.1093/swr/svt019Find this resource:

Messing, J. T., LaFlair, L., Cavanaugh, C., Kanga, M., & Campbell, J. C. (2012). Testing posttraumatic stress as a mediator of childhood trauma and adult intimate partner violence. The Journal of Maltreatment, Aggression & Trauma, 21(7), 792–811.Find this resource:

Messing, J. T., Mohr, R., & Durfee, A. (2012). Women’s experiences of grief upon leaving an abusive relationship. Child & Family Social Work. doi:10.1111/cfs.12051Find this resource:

Messing, J. T., & Thaller, J. (2013). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessments. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1537–1558.Find this resource:

Messing, J. T., Thaller, J., & Bagwell, M. (in press). Factors related to sexual abuse and forced sex in a sample of women experiencing police involved intimate partner violence. Health & Social Work.Find this resource:

Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States 1976–85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595–599.Find this resource:

Moracco, K. E., Runyan, C. W., & Butts, J. (1998). Femicide in North Carolina. Homicide Studies, 2, 422–446.Find this resource:

Morton, E., Runyan, C. W., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J. (1998). Partner homicide victims: A population based study in North Carolina, 1988–1992. Violence and Victims, 13(2), 91–106.Find this resource:

National Network to End Violence Against Women. (2011). Domestic violence counts: A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services across the United States. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.nnedv.org/policy/issues/fvpsa.html#

Pataki, G. (1998). Intimate partner homicides in New York State. Albany, NY: State of New York.Find this resource:

Potter, H. (2008). Battle cries: Black women and intimate partner violence. New York, NY: New York University Press.Find this resource:

Powers, L. E., Curry, M. A., Oschwald, M., Maley, S., Eckels, K., & Saxton, M. (2002). Barriers and strategies in addressing abuse: A survey of disabled women’s experiences. Journal of Rehabilitation, 68(1), 4–14.Find this resource:

Powers, R., & Kaukinen, C. E. (2012). Trends in intimate partner violence: 1980–2008. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(15), 3072–3090.Find this resource:

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 8, 367–398.Find this resource:

Ramsay, J., Carter, Y., Davidson, L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Feder, G., et al. (2009). Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD005043.Find this resource:

Runner, M., Novick, S., & Yoshihama, M. (2009). Intimate partner violence in immigrant and refugee communities: Challenges, promising practices and recommendations. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.Find this resource:

Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley, G. A. (2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Find this resource:

Schaaf, K. K., & McCanne, T. R. (1998). Relationship of childhood sexual, physical and combined sexual and physical abuse to adult victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(11), 1119–1133.Find this resource:

Schneider, R., Burnette, M. L., Ilgen, M. A., & Timko, C. (2009). Prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence victimization among men and women entering substance use disorder treatment. Violence and Victims, 24, 744–756.Find this resource:

Scott-Storey, K. (2011). Cumulative abuse: Do things add up? An evaluation of the conceptualization, operationalization, and methodological approaches in the study of the phenomenon of cumulative abuse. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(3), 135–150.Find this resource:

Sharps, P., Campbell, J. C., Campbell, D., Gary, F., & Webster, D. (2003). Risky mix: Drinking, drug use and homicide. NIJ Journal, 250, 9–13.Find this resource:

Sharps, P. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Campbell, J. C., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C. J., & Xu, X. (2001). Health care provider’s missed opportunities for preventing femicide. Preventive Medicine, 33, 373–380.Find this resource:

Shlonsky, A., & Friend, C. (2007). Double jeopardy: Risk assessment in the context of child maltreatment and domestic violence. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7(4), 253–274.Find this resource:

Sloan, F. A., Platt, A. C., Chepke, L. M., & Blevins, C. E. (2013). Deterring domestic violence: Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46, 51–80.Find this resource:

Smedslund, G., Dalsbo, T. K., Steiro, A. K., Winsvold, A., & Clench-Aas, J. (2011). Cognitive behavioral therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD006048.Find this resource:

Smith, A. (2005). Conquest: Sexual violence and American Indian genocide. New York, NY: South End Press.Find this resource:

Smith, P. H., Thornton, G., DeVellis, R., Earp, E., & Coker A. (2002). Prevalence and distinctiveness of battering, physical assault and sexual assault in a population-based sample. Violence Against Women, 8(10), 1209–1232.Find this resource:

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Stover, C. S., Meadows, A. L., & Kaufman, J. (2009). Interventions for intimate partner violence: Review and implications for evidence based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 223–233.Find this resource:

Sullivan, C. (2005). Interventions to address intimate partner violence: The current state of the field. In J. R. Lutzker (Ed.), Preventing violence: Research and evidence based intervention strategies. Washington DC: APA.Find this resource:

Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D. I., & Allen, N. E. (2002). Findings from a community-based program for battered women and their children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 915–936.Find this resource:

Sullivan, M., Senturia, K., Negash, T., Shiu-Thornton, S., & Giday, B. (2005). “For us it is like living in the dark”: Ethiopian women’s experiences with domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 922–940.Find this resource:

Temple, J. R., Weston, R., Rodriguez, B. F., & Marshall, L. L. (2007). Differing effects of partner and nonpartner sexual assault on women’s mental health. Violence Against Women, 13, 285–198.Find this resource:

Thaller, J. E., & Messing, J. T. (2013). Loving, lying, dying: Common (mis)perceptions around intimate partner violence as depicted in “Love the way you lie.” Feminist Media Studies. doi:10.1080/14680777.2013.826267Find this resource:

Trabold, N. (2007). Screening for intimate partner violence within a healthcare setting: A systematic review of the literature. Social Work in Health Care, 45(1), 1–18.Find this resource:

Ventura, L. A., & Davis, G. (2005). Domestic violence: Court case conviction and recidivism. Violence Against Women, 11(2), 255–277.Find this resource:

Violence Policy Center. (2011). When men murder women: An analysis of 2009 homicide data. Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center.Find this resource:

Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Find this resource:

Weisz, A. N., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 75–90.Find this resource:

West, C. M., Williams, L. M., & Siegel, J. A. (2000). Adult sexual revictimization among Black women sexually abused in childhood: A prospective examination of serious consequences of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 49–57.Find this resource:

Williams, K. R., & Houghton, A. B. (2004). Assessing the risk of domestic violence reoffending: A validation study. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 437–455.Find this resource:

Wilson, D. B., Batye, K., & Riveras, R. (2008). Testing and evaluation of the use of polygraphs to combat violence against women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Find this resource:

Wilson, J. S., West, J., Messing, J. T., Patchell, B., & Campbell, J. C. (2011). Factors related to post traumatic stress symptoms in women experiencing police involved intimate partner violence. Advances in Nursing Science, Special Issue on Trauma and Stress, 34(3), E14–E28.Find this resource:

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 3–15.Find this resource:

Wilson, M., Johnson, H., & Daly, M. (1995). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37(3), 331–362.Find this resource:

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPV_factsheet-a.pdf

The Danger Assessment: http://www.dangerassessment.org

Futures without Violence: http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/

HelpGuide: http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm

The Hotline: http://www.thehotline.org/

Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

National Network to End Domestic Violence: http://nnedv.org/

One Love Foundation: http://www.joinonelove.org/resources-help

Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network: http://www.rainn.org/

Safety Decision Aid: http://www.safetydecisionaid.com/

Stalking Resource Center: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center