Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School Students: Findings From the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Howard  DE, Debnam  KJ, Wang  MQ.  Ten-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among U.S. adolescent females.  J Sch Health. 2013;83(6):389-399.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Haynie  DL, Farhat  T, Brooks-Russell  A, Wang  J, Barbieri  B, Iannotti  RJ.  Dating violence perpetration and victimization among U.S. adolescents: prevalence, patterns, and associations with health complaints and substance use.  J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(2):194-201.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wolitzky-Taylor  KB, Ruggiero  KJ, Danielson  CK,  et al.  Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(7):755-762.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding teen dating violence: fact sheet, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-2014-a.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2015.
Hamby  S, Turner  H.  Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: insights from the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence.  Psychol Violence.2013;3(4):323-339. http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2012-23870-001. Accessed January 15, 2015.Google ScholarCrossref
Silverman  JG, Raj  A, Mucci  LA, Hathaway  JE.  Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality.  JAMA. 2001;286(5):572-579.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lormand  DK, Markham  CM, Peskin  MF,  et al.  Dating violence among urban, minority, middle school youth and associated sexual risk behaviors and substance use.  J Sch Health. 2013;83(6):415-421.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA, Reyes  HLM, Gottfredson  NC, Chang  LY, Ennett  ST.  A longitudinal examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents.  J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(6):723-729.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Exner-Cortens  D, Eckenrode  J, Rothman  E.  Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2013;131(1):71-78.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Roberts  TA, Klein  JD, Fisher  S.  Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(9):875-881.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Smith  PH, White  JW, Holland  LJ.  A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women.  Am J Public Health. 2003;93(7):1104-1109.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Eaton  DK, Kann  L, Kinchen  S,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2011.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012;61(4):1-162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bonomi  AE, Anderson  ML, Nemeth  J, Bartle-Haring  S, Buettner  C, Schipper  D.  Dating violence victimization across the teen years: abuse frequency, number of abusive partners, and age at first occurrence.  BMC Public Health. 2012;12:637.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA, Linder  GF, Bauman  KE,  et al.  The Safe Dates Project: theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings.  Am J Prev Med. 1996;12(5 suppl):39-47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Swahn  MH, Simon  TR, Arias  I, Bossarte  RM.  Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships.  J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(8):1120-1138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA, Bauman  KE, Arriaga  XB, Helms  RW, Koch  GG, Linder  GF.  An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program.  Am J Public Health. 1998;88(1):45-50.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gonzalez-Mendez  R, Hernandez-Cabrera  JA.  Play context, commitment, and dating violence: a structural equation model.  J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(9):1518-1535.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Capaldi  DM, Crosby  L.  Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples.  Soc Dev. 1997;6(2):184-206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00101.x.Google ScholarCrossref
Jouriles  EN, Garrido  E, Rosenfield  D, McDonald  R.  Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: links to psychological distress.  Child Abuse Negl. 2009;33(7):451-460.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Maccoby  EE.  The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1998.
O’Leary  KD, Slep  AMS.  Prevention of partner violence by focusing on behaviors of both young males and females.  Prev Sci. 2012;13(4):329-339.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA.  Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries.  Health Educ Res. 1996;11(3):275-286. doi:10.1093/her/11.3.275-a.Google ScholarCrossref
Wolfe  DA, Scott  K, Reitzel-Jaffe  D, Wekerle  C, Grasley  C, Straatman  AL.  Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory.  Psychol Assess. 2001;13(2):277-293.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Vagi  KJ, Rothman  EF, Latzman  NE, Tharp  AT, Hall  DM, Breiding  MJ.  Beyond correlates: a review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration.  J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(4):633-649.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brener  ND, Kann  L, McManus  T, Kinchen  SA, Sundberg  EC, Ross  JG.  Reliability of the 1999 youth risk behavior survey questionnaire.  J Adolesc Health. 2002;31(4):336-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brener  ND, Kann  L, Shanklin  S,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—2013.  MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62(RR-1):1-20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kann  L, Kinchen  S, Shanklin  SL,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(suppl 4):1-168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Coker  AL, McKeown  RE, Sanderson  M, Davis  KE, Valois  RF, Huebner  ES.  Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students.  Am J Prev Med. 2000;19(4):220-227.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bieler  GS, Brown  GG, Williams  RL, Brogan  DJ.  Estimating model-adjusted risks, risk differences, and risk ratios from complex survey data.  Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(5):618-623.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Molidor  C, Tolman  RM.  Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence.  Violence Against Women. 1998;4(2):180-194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Archer  J.  Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review.  Psychol Bull. 2000;126(5):651-680.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Halpern  CT, Oslak  SG, Young  ML, Martin  SL, Kupper  LL.  Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.  Am J Public Health. 2001;91(10):1679-1685.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA, Bauman  KE, Linder  F, Rice  J, Wilcher  R.  Typologies of adolescent dating violence: identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration.  J Interpers Violence. 2007;22(5):498-519.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foshee  VA, Reyes  HLM, Gottfredson  NC, Chang  LY, Ennett  ST.  A longitudinal examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents.  J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(6):723-729.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Cook  SL, Gidycz  CA, Koss  MP, Murphy  M.  Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization.  Violence Against Women. 2011;17(2):201-218.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chapman  C, Laird  J, Ifill  N, KewalRamani  A; US Dept of Education.  Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972-2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2013.
Original Investigation
May 2015

Teen Dating Violence (Physical and Sexual) Among US High School Students: Findings From the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(5):474-482. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577

Importance  National estimates of teen dating violence (TDV) reveal high rates of victimization among high school populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national Youth Risk Behavior Survey has provided often-cited estimates of physical TDV since 1999. In 2013, revisions were made to the physical TDV question to capture more serious forms of physical TDV and to screen out students who did not date. An additional question was added to assess sexual TDV.

Objectives  To describe the content of new physical and sexual TDV victimization questions first administered in the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, to share data on the prevalence and frequency of TDV (including the first-ever published overall “both physical and sexual TDV” and “any TDV” national estimates using these new questions), and to assess associations of TDV experience with health-risk behaviors.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 9900 students who dated, from a nationally representative sample of US high school students, using the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Two survey questions separately assessed physical and sexual TDV; this analysis combined them to create a 4-level TDV measure and a 2-level TDV measure. The 4-level TDV measure includes “physical TDV only,” “sexual TDV only,” “both physical and sexual TDV,” and “none.” The 2-level TDV measure includes “any TDV” (either or both physical and sexual TDV) and “none.” Sex-stratified bivariate and multivariable analyses assessed associations between TDV and health-risk behaviors.

Results  In 2013, among students who dated, 20.9% of female students (95% CI, 19.0%-23.0%) and 10.4% of male students (95% CI, 9.0%-11.7%) experienced some form of TDV during the 12 months before the survey. Female students had a higher prevalence than male students of physical TDV only, sexual TDV only, both physical and sexual TDV, and any TDV. All health-risk behaviors were most prevalent among students who experienced both forms of TDV and were least prevalent among students who experienced none (all P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  The 2013 TDV questions allowed for new prevalence estimates of TDV to be established that represent a more complete measure of TDV and are useful in determining associations with health-risk behaviors among youth exposed to these different forms of TDV.