CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 209Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectChild Abuse and Trauma

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 1: Rates of Male and Female Victimization

Desmarais, Sarah L., Reeves, Kim A., Nicholls, Tonia L., Telford, Robin P., Fiebert, Martin S.·2012·Partner Abuse
DOI 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.140
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Physical violence in intimate relationships affects men, women, and families worldwide. Although the body of research examining the experiences of male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) has grown, there have been few attempts to synthesize, compare, and contrast findings regarding the prevalence of male and female victimization. We examined research published in the last 10 years to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of physical IPV victimization in heterosexual relationships. Our specific aims were to (a) describe the prevalence of physical IPV victimization in industrialized, English-speaking nations; and (b) explore study and sample characteristics that affect prevalence. Literature searches undertaken in three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) identified 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010. We included 249 articles that reported 543 rates of physical IPV victimization in our review: 158 articles reported 318 rates for women, 6 articles reported 8 rates for men, and 85 articles reported 217 rates for both men and women. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k= 213, 85.5%) and almost half (k= 118, 47.4%) measured IPV using a Conflict Tactics Scale-based approach. Unweighted, pooled prevalence estimates were calculated for female and male victimization overall and by sample type, country, measurement time frame, and measurement approach. Across studies, approximately 1 in 4 women (23.1%) and 1 in 5 men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%. Analyses revealed considerable variability in rates as a function of methodological issues, indicating the need for standardized measurement of IPV.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.140

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 118 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cowell N. A. & Burgess A. W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding violence against women (pp. 74–80). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  2. Hamel J. , & Nicholls T. L. (Eds.). (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer Publishing.
  3. Straus M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women. In X. Arriage & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 117–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–208 of 208

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • California State University, Long Beach (US)
ORCID
Venue
Partner Abuse
Publisher
Springer Publishing Company
Published
2012
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
140-169
ISSN
  • 1946-6560 (ISSN-L)
  • 1946-6579
DOI
10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.140
OpenAlex
W4230148578
Cited by
209
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
10.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Partner Abuse (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
intimate partner violence, physical violence, prevalence, male victims, women victims, heterosexual couples, Conflict Tactics Scale, pooled prevalence estimates, methodological variability

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