Cited by 352Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceChild Abuse and TraumaSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students

Coker, Ann L, McKeown, Robert E, Sanderson, Maureen, Davis, Keith E, Valois, Robert F, Huebner, E.Scott·2000·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background Little research has addressed the impact of dating violence and forced-sex victimization and perpetration on adolescent well-being. In this cross-sectional study, we provide (1) estimates of severe dating violence (SDV) by victimization and perpetration status, (2) estimates of lifetime forced-sex victimization and perpetration, (3) demographic and health behaviors correlated with SDV, and (4) associations between SDV and forced sex and well-being as assessed by (1) health-related quality of life (H-R QOL) and (2) life satisfaction measures. Methods We used a stratified cluster sample of 5414 public high school students, grades 9 through 12, who responded to the 1997 self-administered South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Results Nearly 12% of adolescents self-reported SDV as a victim (7.6%) or a perpetrator (7.7%), and SDV rates (victimization/perpetration combined) are higher in girls (14.4%) than boys (9.1%). Race, aggressive behaviors, substance use, and sexual risk-taking are correlates of SDV. Among young women, SDV victimization, not perpetration, was associated with recent poor H-R QOL and suicide ideation or attempts, but not lower life-satisfaction scores. Among young men, SDV perpetration, not victimization, was strongly associated with poor H-R QOL and suicide attempts, and lower scores for all domains of life satisfaction. Conclusions This research provides evidence that SDV and forced sex are associated with poor H-R QOL, low life-satisfaction scores, and adverse health behaviors in adolescent female victims and male perpetrators. Screening for dating violence is needed to identify and intervene early to reduce the impact of dating violence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00227-0

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Coker, Ann L
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-11
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
220-227
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043940648
Cited by
352
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (63/CCU802750-03)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
dating violence, forced sex, sexual victimization, sexual offending, health-related quality of life, life satisfaction, youth welfare, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, adolescent girls, adolescent boys, aggression, substance use, sexual risk behavior, high school students, South Carolina
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, North Carolina, Quality of Life, Rape, Risk-Taking, Schools, Violence, Incidence, Confidence Intervals, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review