This is the html version of the file https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=845429745fccda85d56cace8f982e407fae69ac5.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
These search terms have been highlighted: domestic violence incidence prevalence
Page 1
May/July 1996 77
Prevalence of Domestic Violence in the United States
SUSAN WILT, DrPH, MS
SARAH OLSON, PhD, MA
This comprehensive review of the lit-
erature reports on the annual and life-
time prevalence of domestic violence
against women in the United States.
Data on population-based samples,
pregnant women, and women treated
in emergency rooms are each presented
separately, as are the effects of age,
marital status, socioeconomic status,
race and ethnicity, and alcohol and
drug use. Prevalence reports vary
across studies, due in part to defini-
tional issues and differences in the
populations studied, but this is pri-
marily true for lifetime and not for
current prevalence. Prevalence is 0.3%
to 4% for severe violence and 8% to
17% for total violence in the past year.
Lifetime occurrence is 9% for severe
violence and 8% to 22% for total vio-
lence. When minor as well as severe
acts of physical violence toward
women in the general female popula-
tion are included, prevalence appears
to be between 10% and 15% and
somewhat higher for some subgroups.
Domestic violence has been widely rec-
ognized as a serious public health prob-
lem in recent years, but reports present
widely ranging estimates of its preva-
lence. This review was undertaken to
provide a better estimate of the preva-
lence of domestic violence in the US
population as a whole and in various
subpopulations, as well as to describe the
characteristics of individuals who experi-
ence domestic violence. This information
will help us assess the magnitude of the
problem and determine where public
health efforts should be directed.
For this review, domestic violence was
defined as acts of physical violence per-
petrated against women by current or
former intimate partners, whether spouses
or cohabitors. Because we were assessing
prevalence, we did not systematically
review studies conducted among women
identified as battered; these present a
picture of severe, frequent, and long-
term abuse at the hands of husbands.1-3
Although psychological and sexual abuse
are important components of such abuse,
they were not included because they have
been poorly defined and measured, and
therefore the literature is sparse. Abuse
in homosexual relationships was also
excluded because data are lacking. Pub-
lished reports from the mid-1970s to
1995 that provided primary data on the
prevalence of domestic violence and the
characteristics of individuals who experi-
ence it were reviewed for this article.
Results of studies among the general
population will be presented first. Some
of these used probability samples of the
United States or an individual state, and
therefore the results can be generalized to
the population studied. Others did not
use probability methods, but included a
range of socioeconomic and age groups
in the samples. Results of studies that
focused on pregnant women and patients
in emergency rooms, subgroups that
have been frequently studied, will follow.
Measurement of Violent Acts
Straus et al4 developed a measurement
instrument known as the Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTS), which has been used in a
number of studies. Respondents indicate
specific techniques used to settle dis-
agreements with their spouses or part-
ners. Violent acts on the CTS are report-
ed in two ways: severe violence and total
violence. Acts of severe violence carry a
high likelihood of physical injury and
include kicking, biting, hitting, choking,
beating up, threatening with a knife or
gun, and using a knife or gun. Total
domestic violence includes severe vio-
lence as well as less injurious physical
acts such as throwing something, shov-
ing, pushing, grabbing, slapping, or
spanking. Whether the CTS or another
measure is used, all the studies reviewed
define domestic violence by a measure of
physical assault.
Annual Prevalence of Domestic
Violence in the General Population
Table 1 shows the annual prevalence of
severe and total violence, that is, the per-
centage of women who were the victims
of domestic violence at least once during
the past year. The four studies using the
CTS among representative, randomly
selected samples5-8 found that between
3.2% and 4.1% of women had been the
victims of severe domestic violence in the
past year; another study using the same
measure and a sample of convenience in
Nebraska also found a rate of 5%.9
Two other studies used a narrower
definition of severe violence and reported
a slightly lower annual prevalence. Hor-
nung10 reanalyzed the stratified represen-
tative sample used by Shulman, but
excluded about 250 cases for whom
socioeconomic data were missing and
narrowed the definition of severe violence
(beating, threatening with or using a
knife or gun); he found an annual preva-
lence of 2.9% compared to Shulman’s
4.1%. Grisso et al11 reviewed emergency
room records from 11 Philadelphia hos-
pitals to find instances of violent injuries,
defined as those caused by assault, fights,
abuse, or rape. They then projected the
findings to the general population of
women age 15 and over in a low-income
area of Philadelphia and found an annual
prevalence of 1.3%.
Another measure of the prevalence of
severe violence is provided by the US
Department of Justice’s National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) for 1987
to 1991.12 In this study, 0.5% of women
age 12 and over reported themselves to
have been victims of rape, robbery,
simple or aggravated assault by intimate
partners in the past year. In NCVS data
covering the periods 1973 to 1975 and
1973 to 1981,13,14 0.3% to 0.4% of
women age 12 and over reported assault
by current or former husbands. One rea-
son for this relatively low prevalence is
Dr. Wilt is director of Epidemiology and Surveil-
lance in the Injury Prevention Program of the New
York City Department of Health, and Dr. Olson is
a research associate with Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center in New York City.

Page 2
78
JAMWA Vol.51, No.3
that the NCVS focused on crime and
did not directly question participants
about attacks by intimates or other fami-
ly members. Aware of these shortcom-
ings, NCVS redesigned its questionnaire
in 1992 to ask directly about violence
perpetrated by current or former inti-
mate partners. In this survey,15 0.93% of
women were victims of assault, including
sexual assault. Overall, the studies sug-
gest that severe violence is experienced
by about 2% to 4% of women annually,
and that these battered women are those
most likely to come to the attention of
the medical and social work communi-
ties.
Table 1 also shows results from studies
that reported total violence. In the three
national representative samples,5,6,8 the
prevalence of total violence against
women in the year prior to the surveys
was 8.4% to 12.1%. The Kentucky
study,7 of a socioeconomically mixed
sample, had a similar finding, while
Hornung’s reanalysis10 found a some-
what higher prevalence (16%) just as it
had for severe violence.
Four of the six studies reviewed here,
all but one of which used national or
statewide stratified random samples,
reported the prevalence of total violence
over the past year to be between 8% and
12%. All used the same measure (the
CTS), are consistent in their findings,
and are generalizable to the adult female
married or cohabiting population.
As Straus et al point out,6 these find-
ings are likely to be underestimates of
the true prevalence of domestic violence
for several reasons. For some women,
acts of minor violence may be so com-
mon that they are not recalled, while for
others, shame or guilt about violent acts
may lead to underreporting. Although
asking about violence in the context of
dealing with disagreements has advan-
tages, some violent acts may not be pre-
ceded by explicit disagreements. In addi-
tion, all of the six studies reviewed here
included married or cohabiting women
only, thereby excluding women who suf-
fer abuse at the hands of boyfriends who
are not cohabitors, or ex-partners.
Frequency of Domestic Violence
A number of studies reported on the
frequency of abuse. Straus et al5 found
that about two-thirds of married or
cohabiting women experiencing severe
Table 1: Annual Prevalence of Severe and Total Domestic Violence
Severe
Total
Domestic Domestic
Violence
Violence
Type of
Source
(%)
(%)
Perpetrator
Sample*
Straus5
(n=2,143)
3.8
12.1
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Straus6
(n=6,002)
3.4
11.6
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Schulman7
(n=1,793)
4.10
10.0
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Plitcha8
(n=1,324)
3.20
8.4
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Meredith9
(n=304)
5.00
22.0
Husband
Mixed SES
Hornung10
(n=1,533)
2.90
16.0
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Grisso11
(n=3,083)
1.30
. . .
Husband or boyfriend
Low SES
Bachman12
(n=400,000)
0.50
. . .
Current or former
Prob
husband or boyfriend
Gaquin13
(n=60,000)
0.39
. . .
Current or former husband
Prob
Klaus14
(n=60,000)
0.27
. . .
Current or former husband
Prob
Bachman15
(n=200,000)
0.93
. . .
Current or former
Prob
husband or boyfriend
*Sample type: Prob=probability sample; Low SES=mainly respondents of low socioeconomic status (SES);
SRS=stratified random sample; Mixed SES=respondents of various socioeconomic statuses.
Severe violence includes being kicked, bitten, hit, beat up, choked, threatened with a knife or gun, wounded
by a knife or gun. Total violence includes acts included in severe violence plus: throwing things, shoving,
pushing, grabbing, slapping, spanking.
Table 2: Lifetime Prevalence of Total and Severe Domestic Violence
Severe
Total
Domestic Domestic
Violence
Violence
Type of
Source
(%)
(%)
Perpetrator
Sample*
Straus5
(n=2,143)
12.6
28.0
Either partner
SRS
Straus6
(n=6,002)
11.6
30.0
Either partner
SRS
Schulman7
(n=1,793)
9.0
21.0
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Teske16
(n=1,210)
. . .
30.0
Husband or cohabitor
Systematic
random sample
Petersen17
(n=602)
9.0
. . .
Husband or cohabitor
SRS
Nisonoff18
(n=297)
. . .
13.0
Husband
SRS
McFarlane19
(n=300
interviews)
. . .
29.3
Male partner
Mixed SES;
(n=477
self-reports)
. . .
7.3
Male partner
Ambulatory care pts
*Sample type: SRS=stratified random sample; Mixed SES=respondents of various socioeconomic statuses.
Severe violence includes being kicked, bitten, hit, beat up, choked, threatened with a knife or gun, wounded
by a knife or gun. Total violence includes acts included in severe violence plus: throwing things, shov-
ing, pushing, grabbing, slapping, spanking.

Page 3
May/July 1996 79
violence in the past year had experienced
more than one violent incident. In their
1990 study, Straus et al6 reported a mean
number of six violent incidents among
women who had experienced any vio-
lence over the course of a year. Only 2%
of the women had gone to a shelter for
abused women. Schulman7 reported that
50% of respondents who were victims of
domestic violence in a one-year period
experienced more than one incident,
while Teske,16 who used a definition of
violence that included psychological and
sexual abuse, found a figure of 65%.
National Crime Survey data from the
1970s classified 17% of spouse abuse
incidents as “series incidents,” three or
more separate victimizations for which
the victim could not recall separate
details.13 Unfortunately, the lack of con-
sistency in the measures and methodology
used in these studies makes it difficult to
generalize about the frequency of violent
events.
Lifetime Prevalence
of Domestic Violence
A number of studies have provided
information on domestic violence over
time periods longer than one year, such
as the length of the partnership or an
individual’s lifetime. Straus et al reported
that in 11.6% to 12.6% of couples, one
had been beaten up by the other at some
time during their relationship.5,6 Two
studies using representative or socioeco-
nomically mixed samples have reported
that 9%7,17 of women had ever experi-
enced severe domestic violence. These
results are summarized in Table 2.
The prevalence of long-term total
domestic violence reported in these
studies ranged widely, from 13% to
30%. The lowest figure was reported by
Nisonoff,18 probably because the defini-
tion of domestic violence was restricted
to “hitting.” At the high end of the
range, Teske16 reported that 30% of the
women had ever been abused by their
partners, but this included sexual and
emotional abuse. The other studies7,19
found long-term prevalence of domestic
violence from 21% to 29%. The highest
percentage (29.3%)19 was based on nurse
interviews and contrasted sharply with
the 7.3% obtained in the same study
when women reported violence on a self-
administered checklist. Straus et al5,6 did
not report long-term prevalence against
individuals in their national probability
samples, but found that 28% to 30% of
couples had experienced some domestic
violence during the course of the marriage.
Overall, we can conclude that at least
9% of women in the general population
have experienced severe domestic vio-
lence at some time, and at least 30%
have experienced any domestic violence.
The results cited may be subject to
underreporting.
Domestic Violence
Against Pregnant Women
Recent investigations have focused on
domestic violence against pregnant
women, partially because violence against
these victims may have detrimental
effects on pregnancy outcome and partly
because women are likely to come into
the health care system when pregnant,
making them more accessible to
researchers. Current and long-term
prevalence of domestic violence among
pregnant women is summarized in Table
3. Many of these studies were conducted
among low-income women receiving
prenatal care from clinics, and most
found that fewer than 10% of pregnant
women had been physically abused dur-
ing the current pregnancy.20-24 McFar-
lane25 was the only one to report a con-
siderably higher percentage (17%),
perhaps because questions were asked at
each trimester instead of at the initial
visit only and sexual abuse was included.
The general conclusion that can be
drawn from these data is that the preva-
lence of domestic violence is probably
not higher among pregnant women than
among the population as a whole. In an
analysis of data from the 1985 National
Family Violence Resurvey, Gelles26
found no difference in reports of domes-
tic violence between pregnant and non-
pregnant women after controlling for age.
Reports of the long-term prevalence
of domestic violence among pregnant
women range from 11%20,22 to 24%.24
The reasons for these differences are not
clear, since similar definitions of domes-
tic violence were used, the women were
of similar age (means of 23-26 years),
and the studies were based on interviews
by health care providers. Variations in
the socioeconomic status of respondents
and in the source of the violence did not
appear to account for the differences.
The prevalence of long-term physical
abuse found in studies of pregnant
women is somewhat lower than that
found in studies of the general popula-
tion. Pregnant women are younger, so
their long-term experience with domestic
violence should be lower, but many of
these studies were conducted among
low-income populations, and some con-
sidered violence by family members
other than the male partner, factors that
would lead to higher prevalence.
Table 3: Current and Lifetime Prevalence of Domestic Violence Against Pregnant Women
Current
Lifetime
Domestic Domestic
Violence
Violence
Type of
Source
(%)
(%)
Perpetrator
Sample*
Hillard20
(n=328)
4.0
11.0
Household member
Low SES;
ob/gyn clinic pts
Berenson21
(n=501)
6.0
20.0
Current or former male
Low SES
partner or other family
Campbell22
(n=488)
7.0
11.2
Male partner
Low SES;
ob/gyn pts
Amaro23
(n=1,243)
7.0
. . .
Family or nonfamily;
Low SES;
known to victim
postpartum pts
Helton24
(n=290)
8.0
23.0
Male partner
Mixed SES;
prenatal clinic pts
McFarlane25
(n=691)
17.0
. . .
Current or former
Low SES;
male partner
prenatal clinic pts
*Sample type: Low SES=respondents of low socioeconomic status; Mixed SES=respondents of various
socioeconomic statuses

Page 4
Violence among Women
Treated At Emergency Rooms
Several studies have been conducted on
domestic violence among women treated
at emergency rooms. Most have focused
on women who were seen because of
injuries and have included populations
primarily of low socioeconomic status.
Studies based on reviews of medical
records or routine questioning of women
treated in emergency rooms reported
that 4% to 6% of women had injuries
clearly inflicted by spouses or partners.27-29
Two of these studies28,29 included cases
likely to have been caused by domestic
violence, but not explicitly identified as
such. In “probable” cases, the assailant
was not identified, and in “suggestive”
cases, the injuries were not consistent
with the woman’s explanation of how
they occurred. Using these expanded
criteria, 14% to 26% of injured women
seen in the emergency room could be
victims of domestic violence. Direct
questioning of women by specially trained
nurses confirmed the higher of these esti-
mates: 30% of injuries were attributable
to domestic violence (Table 4).
Abbott et al30 used a 34-item self-
administered questionnaire to assess
both acute domestic violence (reason
for current visit) and nonacute domestic
violence (one year and cumulative preva-
lence). Women with current partners
only were asked about acute domestic
violence (418), 11.7% of whom reported
domestic violence as a reason for their
visit.
The Chicago Department of Public
Health conducted a study in nine of its
clinics, seven comprehensive health and
two obstetrics/gynecology.31 They also
used a self-administered questionnaire
designed to assess both frequency and
history of abuse, and they asked about
abuse at the hands of former as well as
current partners; 18.9% of women
reported being physically abused within
the past year. There were similar findings
from a study of three ambulatory care
clinics in California,32 where 17% of the
women were currently being battered.
Domestic violence is an important
cause of injuries in women seen in emer-
gency rooms. When studies that directly
questioned women about their experi-
ence are compared with those that relied
on chart review, it is clear that physicians
and nurses do not routinely identify and
record domestic violence. Reliance on
charts leads to serious underestimates of
the extent of domestic violence among
emergency room patients.
Four studies reported on long-term
domestic violence among patients seen at
emergency rooms (Table 4). In their
review of records, Stark et al28 found that
11% had been definite victims of domes-
tic violence and 21% had been definite,
probable, or suggestive victims. A survey
conducted by Goldberg33 found that
24% of women seen in an emergency
room had been victims of domestic vio-
lence at some time. Fifty-four percent of
women at five emergency rooms in Col-
orado reported having been threatened
or physically injured by husbands or
boyfriends at some time in their lives. In
the Chicago Department of Health
Study,31 34.2% of the 1,255 women sur-
veyed reported being physically abused
during their lifetime. The California
ambulatory care clinic also found a life-
time prevalence of 34%.32
Differences in the definition of domes-
tic violence and the methodologies used
may explain the range of 11% to 54% of
lifetime prevalence. Changes in the social
acceptability of admitting that battering
has occurred between the 1980s and
1995 may also contribute. The Colorado
study, which found a lifetime prevalence
of 54%, included stress as well as injury
in its definition of domestic violence.
Demographic Characteristics
and Domestic Violence
Age. Most studies have found recent
domestic violence to be more prevalent
among younger than older people. The
two studies by Straus et al using national
probability samples found that violence
was strongly concentrated in couples
younger than 30 years of age5 or among
respondents age 18 to 24 years.6 The
studies in Kentucky7 and Texas16 both
found higher prevalence in the past year
among younger women. Grisso11 reported
that emergency room visits due to vio-
lence (primarily domestic violence) were
highest among women between the ages
of 25 and 34. Data from the National
Crime Survey13 showed the rates of abuse
by current or former spouses were high-
est for women under 20 and declined
steadily for older age groups. Some stud-
ies among emergency room and general
clinic populations21,28,29,33 have supported
this finding, while others34,35 have found
no age difference between battered and
nonbattered women. Studies among
pregnant women, a young population,
have produced various results, with one
80
JAMWA Vol.51, No.3
Table 4: Current and Lifetime Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Emergency Room Patients
Current
Lifetime
Domestic Domestic
Violence
Violence
Type of
Source
(%)
(%)
Perpetrator
Sample*
Rounsaville27
(n=986)
3.8
. . .
Male partner
Mixed SES
Stark28
(n=2,676)
6.4 P
11.0 P
Male partner
Low SES
13.8 PPS 21.0 PPS
McLeer29
(n=359)
5.6 P
. . .
Husband or boyfriend
Low SES
25.7 PPS
McLeer29
(n=412)
30
. . .
Current or former
Low SES
male partner
Abbott30
(n=403)
11.7
54.2
Current male partner
Low SES
Whitman31
(n=1404)
18.9
34.2
Current or former
Low SES;
male partner
PH clinic pts
Gin32
(n=319)
17.0
34.0
Husband or boyfriend
Mixed SES;
ambulatory care pts
Goldberg33
(n=492)
24.0
. . .
Husband or boyfriend
Low SES
*Sample type: Low SES=respondents of low socioeconomic status; Mixed SES=respondents of various
socioeconomic statuses
P=positive; PPS=positive/probable/suggestive (See text for definitions)

Page 5
May/July 1996 81
study36 finding violence victims some-
what younger, one finding them some-
what older,20 and others21,24 finding no
difference in the ages of abused and non-
abused pregnant women.
Marital Status. Not surprisingly,
women who are separated or divorced
are far more likely to have experienced
domestic violence.7,12-14,18,20,21,34 Several
studies have found single women more
likely to be abused by an intimate than
married women,12,23,32,33 but others have
found single women less likely to be
abused.20,21 Perhaps married women are
more reluctant to admit being abused.
Socioeconomic Status. Although some
studies have found no significant differ-
ences, domestic violence has generally
been found to be more common among
couples of lower socioeconomic status,
as measured by education, income, occu-
pation, or other measures. Some studies
have reported an inverse association
between domestic violence and years of
education,17,20,35 while others have reported
that the highest prevalence is among
individuals with some high school educa-
tion.6,7,10,33 Campbell37 reported no dif-
ferences in education levels between
battered and nonbattered women in
“troubled families.” Results about the
effect of family income were consistent:
income was inversely related to preva-
lence of domestic violence.6,13,17,21,32,35,38
Some studies reported occupational data,
and, in general, the prevalence of domes-
tic violence is somewhat higher in blue
collar occupations,5,8,17 although not con-
sistently,7 and among the unemployed.5,21
Studies that used other indicators of
socioeconomic status also confirmed that
domestic violence is more of a problem
for families in the lower socioeconomic
groups.23,25,39,40
Race and Ethnic Group. Results of
analyses of race and ethnicity are less
clear than for other demographic vari-
ables. Some studies5,7,28,37 reported higher
prevalence among minorities or African-
Americans. In contrast, the National
Crime Surveys have found similar rates
of abuse for African-Americans and
whites,12-14 and Amaro23 found pregnant
African-American women less likely to
experience violence than pregnant white
women. White non-Latinas have been
found to experience more domestic vio-
lence than Latinas.21,32 Other investiga-
tors13,33,35 have found no differences
among racial or ethnic groups.
In light of the consistent differences in
domestic violence according to socioeco-
nomic groups, and the higher proportion
of racial and ethnic minorities in lower
socioeconomic groups, it is important to
control for socioeconomic status when
examining the influence of race or eth-
nicity. Two studies that exercised such
controls found that race was not an inde-
pendent factor. Lockhart39 analyzed the
relationship between violence, socioeco-
nomic status, and race, and found that
among upper or lower class women,
whites were somewhat more likely to
experience violence, while in the middle
class, blacks were more likely to experi-
ence violence. Centerwall40 found that
the higher rates of domestic homicides in
black census tracts could be explained by
the effect of income.
Influence of Alcohol and
Drug Use on Domestic Violence
Several studies have investigated the
relationship between substance use and
domestic violence against women. Gen-
erally, frequent alcohol use by the male
partner has been found to be associated
with increased likelihood of violence in
the home.6,23,35 Alcohol use by the woman
has also been associated with increased
likelihood of violence,21,23 but not consis-
tently,35 and not in all subgroups.21 Each
of these studies used multivariate analyses
to assess the effect of alcohol use. Another
study41 found the husband’s alcoholism
to be an important problem for abused
women receiving individual psychological
treatment, but not for abused women in
conjoint therapy.
While these studies focused on the
usual pattern of alcohol use, others have
examined the use of alcohol at the time
of the violent incident. Results are mixed:
Straus and Gelles6 found that in 76% of
instances, neither member of the couple
was drinking. One-half of Texas women
who had been abused in the previous
year (including those sexually and psy-
chologically abused) reported that abuse
took place when the male partner was
drinking.16 Eberle42 studied women who
had experienced four or more batterings
and found that male partners of 81% of
the women used alcohol at the time of at
least one of the incidents. Only 16% of
the women reported that the man had
used alcohol at the time of each battering.
A recent review by Leonard43 concluded
that in spite of the methodological weak-
nesses of many studies on alcohol and
family violence, the data “strongly sug-
gest that alcoholism and acute alcohol
consumption . . . are related to marital
violence. The research indicates that a
high percentage of those who engage in
marital violence are alcoholics or at least
very heavy drinkers, and that the marital
violence is often associated with alcohol
consumption.”
Discussion
A number of methodological factors help
to explain the variability in prevalence
found in different studies. Definitions of
domestic violence, time frames for the
violent event, populations studied, and
methods of data collection have all var-
ied. Considering these factors, there is
actually considerable agreement on rates.
Careful attention to the variables that
influence prevalence rates has been lack-
ing. As a result both the popular and
professional literatures have misrepre-
sented domestic violence study findings,
frequently overstating the extent of the
problem. For example, the American
Medical Association’s Diagnostic and
Treatment Guidelines on Domestic
Violence,44 states that 22% to 35% of
women seeking care for any reason in
emergency rooms may be battered. One
study of women seen in an emergency
room for any reason found that 24%
were battered.33 Two studies found 30%
to 35% of women with trauma injuries
had been battered.29
Systematic research in domestic vio-
lence is relatively new, and many of the
studies reviewed here were done among
“convenience” samples. Confidence
intervals for prevalence estimates were
generally not reported, and few studies
used multivariate techniques.
Nevertheless, the prevalence of domes-
tic violence among intimate partners in
America is quite high. Population-based
studies report that 8% to 12% of women
experience some form of domestic vio-
lence in a one-year period. Severe vio-
lence with the potential to cause injury is
experienced by 2% to 4% in a year.
Pregnant women do not appear to be
more vulnerable, despite their younger
age and lower socioeconomic status in
most of the studies reviewed. A substan-
tial proportion of injuries among women

Page 6
seen at emergency rooms, possibly as
high as 30%, may be attributable to
domestic violence. Survey results may
underestimate the prevalence of violence,
yet even at reported rates, there is no
doubt that this is a serious and wide-
spread public health problem.
While the present situation in the
United States is sometimes referred to
as an epidemic of domestic violence, it
would be more accurate to say that
domestic violence is endemic, that it
exists as a constant feature of American
family life.
An important question to be addressed
by future research is whether there is any
relationship between the severe violence
that afflicts women at shelters and the
more moderate violence reported by
larger portions of the population. Longi-
tudinal studies following couples over
time are needed to evaluate the likeli-
hood that moderate violence will escalate
into serious violence or that new violence
will begin. Another issue for further
research is the meaning of minor vio-
lence to participants and its association
with marital satisfaction and with physi-
cal or mental health problems. Risk fac-
tors for worsening and new violence also
need to be identified.
Because of the relatively high preva-
lence of severe domestic violence and the
associated risk of serious injury, patients
in emergency rooms and other health
care settings should be questioned rou-
tinely and explicitly about domestic
violence and should have the full range
of medical and social services offered to
them.
References
1. Dobash RE, Dobash, RP. Violence Against
Wives. A Case Against the Patriarchy. New York,
NY: The Free Press; 1979.
2. Pagelow M. Woman Battering: Victims and
Their Experiences. Riverside, Calif: University of
California; 1981.Thesis.
3. Walker LE. The Battered Woman Syndrome.
New York, NY: Springer; 1984.
4. Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and
violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. J
Marriage Fam. 1979;41:75-78.
5. Straus MA, Gelles RJ, Steinmetz SK. Behind
Closed Doors; Violence in the American Family.
New York, NY: Anchor Books; 1980.
6. Straus MA, Gelles RJ. Physical Violence in
American Families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers; 1990.
7. Schulman MA. Survey of Spousal Violence
Against Women in Kentucky. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office; 1979.
8. Plitcha SB, Weisman CS: Spouse or partner
abuse, use of health services, and unmet need
for medical care in U.S. women. Journal of
Women’s Health 1995;4:45-54.
9. Meredith AW, Abbott D, Adams S. Family vio-
lence: Its relation to marital and parental satis-
faction and family strengths. Journal of Family
Violence. 1986;1:299-305.
10.Hornung CA, McCullough BC, Sugimoto T.
Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in
spouse abuse. J Marriage Fam. 1981;43:675-692.
11.Grisso JA, Wishner AR, Schwartz DF, Weene
BA, Holmes JH, Sutton RL. A population-
based study of injuries in inner-city women. Am
J Epidemiol. 1991;134:59-86.
12.Bachman R. Violence Against Women. National
Crime Victimization Survey Report.Washington,
DC: US Department of Justice; 1994. NCJ-
145325.
13.Gaquin DA. Data from the National Crime
Survey. Victimology. 1978; 2:632-43.
14.Klaus PA, Rand MR. Family Violence. Special
Report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Wash-
ington, DC: US Department of Justice; 1984.
15.Bachman R, Saltzman LE. Violence Against
Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, a
National Crime Victimization Report. Washing-
ton, DC: US Department of Justice; 1995.
NCJ-154348.
16.Teske RHC, Parker ML. Spouse Abuse in Texas:
A Study of Women’s Attitudes and Experiences.
Huntsville, Tex: Criminal Justice Center, Sam
Houston State University; 1983.
17.Petersen R. Social class, social learning, and
wife abuse. Soc Serv Rev. 1980; 54:390-406.
18.Nisonoff L, Bitman I. Spouse abuse: Incidence
and relationship to selected demographic vari-
ables. Victimology. 1979;4:131-140.
19.McFarlane J, Christoffel K, Bateman L, Miller
V, Bullock L. Assessing for abuse: Self-report
versus nurse interview. Public Health Nurs.
1991; 8:245-250.
20.Hillard PJA. Physical abuse in pregnancy.
Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66:185-190.
21.Berenson A, Stiglich N, Wilkinson G, Ander-
son G. Drug abuse and other risk factors for
physical abuse in pregnancy among white non-
Hispanic, black, and Hispanic women. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 164:491-499.
22.Campbell J, Poland M, Waller J, Ager J. Corre-
lates of battering during pregnancy. Res Nurs
Health. 1992; 15:219-226.
23.Amaro H, Fried LE, Cabral H, Zuckerman B.
Violence during pregnancy and substance
abuse. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80:575-579.
24.Helton AS, McFarlane J, Anderson ET. Bat-
tered and pregnant: A prevalence study. Am J
Public Health. 1987; 77:1337-1339.
25.McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, Bullock L.
Assessing for abuse during pregnancy: Severity
and frequency of injuries and associated entry
into prenatal care. JAMA. 1992; 267:3176-
3178.
26.Gelles RJ. Violence and pregnancy: Are preg-
nant women at greater risk of abuse? J Marriage
Fam. 1988; 50:841-847.
27.Rounsaville BJ, Weissman MM. Battered
women: A medical problem requiring detection.
Int J Psychiatry Med. 1977; 8:191-202.
28.Stark E, Flitcraft A, Zuckerman D, Grey A,
Ribison J, Frazier W. Wife Abuse in the Medical
Setting: An Introduction for Health Personnel.
New Haven, Conn: Yale University; 1981.
29.McLeer SV, Anwar R. A study of battered
women presenting in an emergency depart-
ment. Am J Public Health. 1989; 79:65-66.
30.Abbott J, Johnson R, Koziol-McLain J, Lowen-
stein SR. Domestic violence against women.
Incidence and prevalence in the emergency
department population. JAMA.
1995;273:1763-1767.
31.Whitman S. Prevalence of Domestic Violence
Among Women Attending Chicago Department of
Health Public Health Clinics. Chicago, Ill:
Department of Public Health; 1995.
32.Gin NE, Rucker L, Frayne S, Cygan R,
Hubbell FA. Prevalence of domestic violence
among patients in three ambulatory care inter-
nal medicine clinics. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;
6:317-322.
33.Goldberg WG, Tomlanovich MC. Domestic
violence victims in the emergency department,
new findings. JAMA. 1984; 251:3259-3264.
34.Appleton W. The battered woman syndrome.
Ann Emerg Med. 1980; 9:84-91.
35.Coleman KH, Weinman ML, Hsi BP. Factors
affecting conjugal violence. J Psychol. 1980;
105:197-202.
36.Parker B, McFarlane J, Soeken K, Torres S,
Campbell D. Physical and emotional abuse in
pregnancy: A comparison of adult and teenage
women. Nurs Res. 1993; 42:173-178.
37.Campbell JC. A test of two explanatory models
of women’s responses to battering. Nurs Res.
1989; 38:18-24.
38.Kantor GK, Straus MA. Substance abuse as a
precipitation of wife abuse victimizations. Am J
Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1989; 15:173-189.
39.Lockhart LL. A reexamination of the effects of
race and social class on the incidence of marital
violence: A search for reliable differences. J
Marriage Fam. 1987; 49:603-610.
40.Centerwall BS. Race, socioeconomic status, and
domestic homicide, Atlanta, 1971-72. Am J
Public Health. 1984; 74:813-815.
41.Rosenbaum A, O’Leary KD. Marital violence:
Characteristics of abusive couples. J Consult
Clin Psychol. 1981; 49:63-71.
42.Eberle PA. Alcohol abusers and non-abusers: A
discriminate analysis of differences between 2
subgroups of batterers. J Health Soc Behav.
1982; 23:260-271.
43.Leonard KE, Jacob T. Alcohol, alcoholism, and
family violence. In: Van Hasselt VB, Morrison
RL, Bellack AS, Hersen M, eds. Handbook of
Family Violence. New York, NY: Plenum;
1988:383-406.
44.Flitcraft A, Hadley SM, Hendricks-Matthews
MK, McLeer SV, Warshaw C. Diagnostic and
Treatment Guidelines on Domestic Violence.
Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association;
1992.
82
JAMWA Vol.51, No.3