Paige Hall Smith, et.
al’s article, “A Longitudinal Perspective on Dating Violence Among Adolescent and College-Age Women” discusses a study about the connection between adolescent and college-age relationship violence. The need for the study originates from the fact that almost a third of women experience violent relationship between their teen and college years. The problem is important because women who are victimized early are likely to be victimized again, and it can be answered with the empirical evidence that shows the likelihood of a woman being victimized. The purpose of the study is clearly stated on the first page: “Objectives.We investigated physical assault in dating relationships and its co-occurrence with sexual assault from high school through college.
” The description does not give the reader the exact correlations to be made; but it does identify the problem to be solved, therefore the purpose is congruent with the problem. The theoretical basis for this study was a sample of 7000 high school students, which found that 10% of the young women reported having been pushed by a romantic partner in the 18 months before the survey, and 3% reported having something thrown at them by a partner.The theory is supported by the age range of the victims (twelve to twenty-four years old), which is congruent to the problem and purpose of the study, as it centers around young women who are subject to abuse and later abused again. There is significant review of the background material, which starts with a South Carolina study which found that nearly ten percent of high school girls had been attacked by a boyfriend.
This is followed by the results of two longitudinal studies which track subsequent abuse through the fourth year of college.At this point, the article makes a logical connection between the results of previous studies to the study’s problem: whether girls who are victimized early are likely to continue to be victimized. The background information is directly related to the study and provides a foundation for the current study. The background information provides a need for the current study, in order to target those women who are likely to be the victim of domestic violence in the future.
Unfortunately, a literature review is missing from this article.The methodology included the results of previous studies, as well as primary sources – girls who were surveyed on the topic of relationship abuse. The hypothesis and research question are clearly stated and broken down into the following four topics: (1) physical violence in dating relationships over time, (2) whether childhood victimization affects the probability of physical victimization later, (3) how high school victimization can lead to college victimization, and (4) whether women who are physically assaulted are likely to be assaulted again soon.This, of course, is directly related to the theory base and congruent with the problem and purpose of the study.
The hypotheses are testable but cannot be relied on for accuracy due to the fact that many abused girls and women do not report the abuse. The variables of the study were clearly defined by the type of abuse that each woman experienced (childhood, adolescent, physical only, both physical and sexual, etc. ) and represent the conceptual definition as well as the operational definition. The population is clearly defined on the second page.
Childhood victims can be up to the age of fourteen, and this type of abuse includes witnessing abuse, being abused, or the use of “coercive tactics” by an adult. The adolescent and collegiate abuse studies include more categories of sexual abuse as well. The sampling methods are clearly stated: women aged eighteen or nineteen and attending the University of North Carolina were given five different surveys which asked questions about violence they had experienced from childhood to the present. These students were paid $15 per survey.There were more than enough subjects for the study, and a mixture of ages and races, which demonstrated the representativeness of the sample, though the sample itself was limited to the students at one university. The time frame was limited to students entering the university in 1990 and 1991.
The study used a longitudinal design, and the main threat to external validity is the respondents themselves – there is no foolproof way to guard against false or incomplete answers. In addition, the study leaves out one significant group: those who were abused in childhood, adolescence, and did not survive collegiate abuse.The procedure of the study was clearly defined and described for the reader. First, participants were given five different surveys covering different periods of time up to one year before the study date.
From there, the surveys were tallied according to the type of violence experienced, when it occurred, and the length of time it occurred. These results were then synthesized into hazard rates (the likelihood of repeated abuse) and survival functions. The method is appropriate given the range of potential answers and the different types of abuse, none of which should be overlooked due to perceived harmlessness.The study could be easily replicated at any college or university. The reliability of instrument is entirely acceptable as the surveys were anonymous and did not require the participant to admit anything publicly.
The validity of the study is established first by the background information. These studies demonstrated a clear need for further study in order to prevent future incidents of violence. The results of the study, which survey eighteen and nineteen year old girls equally and without regard to social class, race, or financial position, clearly demonstrate a relationship between girls who are re-victimized.The instrument of a survey is clearly the most appropriate way to gather data for the study, because there was no indication ahead of time that the women on the Greensboro campus were abused in childhood or adolescence. It must be longitudinal in order to track abuse over time.
The main threat to internal validity is the assumption that more than one incident of abuse automatically means that the incidents were related somehow. A human rights statement is made indirectly on page five with the unexpected statement that many of the women who were abused were from low-risk environments, which means that any woman is at risk for abuse.In addition, the researchers asked the question of whether reporting these incidents prevented revictimization. The findings were clearly stated in tables one and two, which show the results of the study, divided into categories by the type of abuse and when (high school, first year of college etc. ) it occurred. The tables and figures, for the most part, clearly explain and enhance the results.
However, there is little explanation of how the hazard and survival functions were calculated and what each function indicated about abuse. The method for calculating the prevalence ratio, however, was explained in detail.The findings and the discussion are congruent, as the discussion explains the results featured in tables one and two. The findings lead directly to the conclusions, as it is clear that those women who were abused in childhood and/or adolescence were usually abused again in college. The external validity is consistent with the data, though other generalizations (such as whether women who were not revictimized had reported earlier incidents and had gotten help) were a bit of a stretch and not based entirely on evidence from the current and previous studies.The discussion leads logically to the conclusion of whether or not women are at risk for further abuse.
Additional research is suggested in order to study covictimization, multiple types of aggression, as well as the factors that reconcile the relationships between “different types of childhood experiences and subsequent victimization in adolescence”. These statements are consistent with the results as the study did not look closely at how covictimization occurs and why, or why different methods of abuse (hitting with a fist, hitting with an object, different types of sexual abuse) are utilized.Limitations are described as well. The first, of course, is that the study only includes young women who attend college. In addition, some women dropped out of college and did not continue in the study.
Finally, many women did not categorize what happened to them as abuse. In general, the title is appropriate, though it does not hint at a connection between adolescent and college dating violence. The article was not repetitive, and the organization was logical. It began with the background, continued on to the study design, research and data analysis in order to draw conclusions later in the article.
In order to make assessments of patients or clients, the study clearly shows a need to delve into the past and discuss previous cases of abuse. Changes in assessments are clearly indicated in order to prevent future abuse. The study also shows a need to specifically define the different types of abuse and the factors that keep girls from reporting these incidents when they occur. The information changed the way I would diagnose problems, because I would now spend more time discussing past incidents of abuse in order to determine a pattern.
Because girls are likely to be victimized more than once, I will look for similarities in the type of men the victim is attracted to. Based on the article, I would be more likely to suspect dating violence among teenage girls who are having problems. For this reason, I might intervene by bringing in the abuser in order to find out how many girls he had abused and his method for breaking down these girls’ psyches in order to make them more susceptible to not reporting abuse. New interventions are suggested because if violence can be prevented in adolescence, it might be prevented in adulthood.Existing interventions are effective, but only for those girls and women who report abuse.
Too many victims fail to report it, which makes it impossible to stop the abuse. The theory I could use in my practice is that young girls, hormonal and infused with a need for acceptance, will often take abuse from a dating partner because they perceive it as being loved and accepted. I would incorporate it into my practice by counseling girls who have been abused and exploring the reasons why the abuse was allowed to occur.The article suggests that there is much more research to be conducted on the subject of dating violence.
It also suggests that research exploring why some women did not experience abuse after childhood is necessary as well. If we can pin down the reason that those women avoided revictimization, we can prevent it for other young women as well. Finally, the article reminds us not to discount the possibility that a young woman is being abused just because of her home life. A stable childhood does not necessarily mean an abuse-free childhood.There are changes in education that are desperately needed.
Because the article proves that there is a connection between abuse at different stages of a girl’s life, young girls should be educated about dating violence. They should be made aware that no boy has the right to hit them, to demand sex, or to make them feel bad about themselves. Girls should be given examples of what abuse looks like, from the most offhand remark to being forced to have sex. They should be encouraged to report this type of violence without fear of retribution.At the same time, boys need to be educated on how to treat their girlfriends.
They should be taught that it is never acceptable to hit a woman for any reason other than self-defense, and the inability to stop oneself from doing so requires intervention. Girls and boys should be encouraged to report any incidents that they have witnessed or experienced. In conclusion, abuse is more prevalent than it appears and education and counseling need to start early in order to prevent it.
