Identifying Youth at High Risk for Teen

Dating Violence:
Toward a Risk Assessment Instrument
Lucy Guarnera, M.A.
University of Virginia
Acknowledgments
Co-author:
N. Dickon Reppucci, Ph.D., Univ. of Virginia

Project D.A.T.E. research team, community
collaborators, participants, & their families

National Institute of Justice grant
#2009-IJ-CX-0004
Teen dating violence (TDV) is a legal,
health, and public policy issue
Direct
harm
Negative
outcomes
Adult
intimate
partner
violence
GOAL: Prevent TDV before it starts
Primary
prevention at
age 13 (Foshee &
Reyes, 2009)
Almost all TDV prevention programs to
date are school-based and universal
Limitations
Wasted resources
One-size-fits-all
materials
Schools may limit
programming
Selective prevention
How can we select high-risk teens for
prevention programming?
Risk assessment instrument: A
formal method of rating and
combing empirically validated
risk factors to specify an
individuals likelihood of future
violence
Developing a teen dating violence risk
assessment instrument
1. A TDV risk assessment instrument should consider
developmental risk factors unique to teen partner
violence.

2. A TDV risk assessment instrument should consider
dynamic risk factors in order to provide
information about how to reduce risk.

3. A TDV risk assessment instrument should
acknowledge that most teen partner violence is
mutual.
The present study
1. Investigate many potential developmental risk
factors for TDV.

2. Statistically aggregate relevant risk factors into
domains of static and dynamic risk, where relative
contribution of each risk factor is weighted.

3. Acknowledge mutual violence by considering
violent relationship (i.e., combined perpetration
and victimization) as outcome.
The Sample
Subset of N = 194 Project DATE teens
(59% female) who reported dating at
least one person in Wave 2
Dating Violence Measures
Physical Abuse: 12-item Physical Assault
subscale of the Conflict Tactic Scale-2
2

Emotional Abuse: 14-item Safe Dates Measure
of Psychological Aggression
1
, plus two items
from the CTS-2





1
Foshee, 1996;
2
Straus et al., 1996
Outcome variable = dyadic aggression (average
of reported perpetration and victimization in
most recent relationship in Wave 2)

Step 1:
Investigate many potential
developmental risk factors for TDV.
Developmental Risk Factors
Individual-Level Variables
Religiosity
Hope for the future
Depressive symptoms
Acceptance of partner
violence as normal

Family-Level Variables
Positive childrearing
Childhood emotional
abuse
Childhood physical abuse
Childhood neglect
Witnessing parental
violence
Number of residential
placements
Parental monitoring
Parental communication

Developmental Risk Factors
Individual-Level Variables
Religiosity
Hope for the future
Depressive symptoms
Acceptance of partner
violence as normal

Family-Level Variables
Positive childrearing
Childhood emotional
abuse
Childhood physical abuse
Childhood neglect
Witnessing parental
violence
Number of residential
placements
Parental monitoring
Parental communication

Developmental Risk Factors
Peer-Level Variables
Social support
Peer delinquency
Witnessing peer TDV

School-Level Variables
Classroom engagement
Classroom disaffection

Neighborhood-Level
Variable
Negative neighborhood
quality

Sexual History Variables
Age at first sex
Partner age gap at first
sex
Lifetime number of
sexual partners



Step 2:
Statistically aggregate relevant risk
factors into domains of static and
dynamic risk, where the relative
contribution of each risk factor is
weighted.
Results of Principle Components Analysis
Childhood emotional abuse
Witnessing parental violence
Family
Background
Age at first sex
Partner age gap at first sex
Lifetime number of sexual partners
Sexual
History
Acceptance of partner violence as normal
Peer delinquency
Witnessing peer TDV
Negative neighborhood quality
Social
Environment
Depressive symptoms
Classroom disaffection
Behavioral
Withdrawal
Static vs. Dynamic Risk Domains
Childhood emotional abuse
Witnessing parental violence
Family
Background
Age at first sex
Partner age gap at first sex
Lifetime number of sexual partners
Sexual
History
Acceptance of partner violence as normal
Peer delinquency
Witnessing peer TDV
Negative neighborhood quality
Social
Environment
Depressive symptoms
Classroom disaffection
Behavioral
Withdrawal
Static
Dynamic
DYADIC PHYSICAL ABUSE (stdized) R
2
STEP 1:
Sex (0 = female) -0.07
Age 0.00
Relationship length 0.36*** Model R
2
= 0.13***
DYADIC PHYSICAL ABUSE (stdized) R
2
STEP 1:
Sex (0 = female) -0.07
Age 0.00
Relationship length 0.36***
STEP 2 : R
2
= 0.03*
Sexual History -0.18* Model R
2
= 0.16***
DYADIC PHYSICAL ABUSE (stdized) R
2
STEP 1:
Sex (0 = female) -0.07
Age 0.00
Relationship length 0.36***
STEP 2 :
Sexual History -0.14
STEP 3: R
2
= 0.03*
Family Background 0.17* Model R
2
= 0.19***
DYADIC PHYSICAL ABUSE (stdized) R
2
STEP 1:
Sex (0 = female) -0.13
Age -0.02
Relationship length 0.42***
STEP 2 :
Sexual History 0.15*
STEP 3:
Family Background 0.16*
STEP 4: R
2
= 0.06**
Behavioral Withdrawal 0.26** Model R
2
= 0.25***
DYADIC PHYSICAL ABUSE (stdized) R
2
STEP 1:
Sex (0 = female) -0.10
Age 0.02
Relationship length 0.37***
STEP 2 :
Sexual History -0.07
STEP 3:
Family Background 0.08
STEP 4:
Behavioral Withdrawal 0.20**
STEP 5: R
2
= 0.12***
Social Environment 0.38*** Model R
2
= 0.37***
Conclusions 1
1. Risk factors for dating violence occur at multiple
ecological levels for teens.




Prevention programming targeted at higher
ecological levels (particularly peer group) may
be fruitful.

Conclusions 2
2. Family-level factors, particularly childhood physical
abuse, were unrelated or weakly related to dating
violence.




Child maltreatment seems to be a poor single
criterion for selection into indicated prevention
programming.

Conclusions 3
3. Dynamic risk domains were more strongly
associated with dating violence than static risk
domains.




Future research needs to focus on establishing
causal dynamic risk factors for TDV.

Toward a teen dating violence risk
assessment instrument