Interpersonal Victimization Among a National Sample of Latino Women

Abstract

This article presents results from the Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study, which obtained lifetime prevalence rates of interpersonal violence from a national sample of adult Latino women. Results show that more than half of the women in the study (53.6%) reported at least one victimization experience during their lifetime, with approximately two thirds of the victimized women (66.2%) experiencing more than one victimization incident, pointing to significant levels of polyvictimization and revictimization patterns across all victimization types. The results provide estimates of lifetime interpersonal violence and present a broader scope of the victimization experiences for this population.

Keywords

interpersonal violence Latinas victimization

Research on the interpersonal victimization of Latino women is still, in large part, a burgeoning field. Despite the rapid growth of the Latino population (Pew Research Center, 2005), studies focusing on the interpersonal victimization of Latino women have lagged. Given that this literature is not fully developed, the study of this specific group is an important step in understanding and documenting the rate of victimization among Latino women. Therefore, this study takes up the task of ascertaining the prevalence rates of victimization, both in childhood and adulthood, by a variety of perpetrators, within a national sample of Latino women. The study overcomes previous limitations and provides foundational information for understanding the extent of the problem, developing new lines of inquiry, and informing service providers.

The extent of victimization among this group remains unclear, especially when using a comprehensive definition of victimization. The extant body of work shows that estimates of the rates of victimization among Latino women vary greatly (Klevens, 2007), as do estimates of violence against women generally, with figures derived from convenience samples tending to be higher and more discrepant than estimates garnered from national probability samples. Work on victimization has focused on physical and sexual victimization, and to a smaller extent, stalking, threat, and witnessing victimization with some related foci in the literature, including revictimization and polyvictimization. With regard to Latino women, disparate victimization estimates in the literature exist as a result of differing samples, including national and community samples, and dissimilar definitions and measurement scales utilized by researchers to operationalize physical and sexual victimization as well as threat and stalking, and witnessing victimization. National victimization studies have included smaller proportions of Latino participants in the total sample, whereas community-based samples vary substantially in terms of sample sizes and the heterogeneity of the study participants. Some community-based studies have compared Latino women to their non-Latino counterparts (Arroyo, Simpson, & Aragon, 1997; Kalof, 2000; McFarlane & Malecha, 2005; Sorenson & Telles, 1991; Ullman & Filipas, 2005; Urquiza & Goodlin-Jones, 1994), and others have solely focused on Latino women (Dutton, Orloff, & Hass, 2000; Hazen & Soriano, 2007; Murdaugh, Hunt, Sowell, & Santana, 2004; Raj, Silverman, & Amaro, 2004).

Although some national and community-based studies have used versions of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Field, 2005; Caetano, Schafer, & Cunradi, 2001; Hazen & Soriano, 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), others have employed differing scales and definitions to measure victimization (Arroyo et al., 1997; Lipsky & Caetano, 2007; McFarlane & Malecha, 2005), which has contributed to the disparity of reported victimization rates among this group. In studies evaluating the childhood victimization of Latino women an additional methodological issue that contributes to the disparity of reported rates is the inconsistency of the “cutoff age” of childhood, with some studies defining it as being younger than 14 years of age (Ullman & Filipas, 2005), and others defining it as being younger than 17 (Clemmons, DiLillo, Martinez, DeGue, & Jeffcot, 2003) or 18 years of age (Kalof, 2000).

Beyond measurement issues, sampling strategy potentially plays a significant role in both the rate discrepancies and the generalizability of the estimates. Generally, national samples, with some exceptions (e.g., Briere & Elliott, 2003, n = 68), have had adequate numbers of Latinos with samples typically being greater than 500 participants (e.g., Hussey, Chang, & Kotch, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). However, the percentage of Latinos in these samples is typically not in proportion to size of the growing Latino population in the United States. Community-based samples have a greater limitation in that they are typically geographically restricted convenience samples with the number of Latino participants ranging from approximately 300 participants (Hass, Dutton, & Orloff, 2000; Hazen & Soriano, 2007; Murdaugh et al., 2004) down to 60 participants (McFarlane et al., 2005). This issue of sample size and representation limits the generalizability of the results and, in some cases, will compromise the stability of statistical models (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

In addition to methodological issues that contribute to discrepancies, the heterogeneity of the Latino population with regard to birthplace (Sorenson & Telles, 1991; Torres & Han, 2000), country of origin (Aldarondo, Kaufman Kantor, & Jasinski, 2002; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994), and acculturation (Jasinski, 1998) can also serve to affect the levels of reported violence and may account for some of the discrepancies in estimates. These characteristics may be difficult to capture in community-restricted samples, as they often tend to incorporate only one subgroup of Latinos (e.g., solely those of Mexican descent or exclusively immigrants). Furthermore, many studies do not provide the option of completing their survey in either English or Spanish (e.g., Briere & Elliott, 2003; Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005; Hussey et al., 2006), which likely underrepresents an important segment of the Latino population.

In reviewing the research, we will address the specific forms of victimization that are the focus of our analysis, presenting both the rates that have been found in previous studies and the differences between Latino women and other ethnic groups so as to contextualize the scope of victimization and highlight the importance of both within-group and between-group differences.

Physical Victimization

Physical victimization during childhood is a significant problem with 40% of women reporting physical assault before the age of 18 (Briere & Elliott, 2003; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) and approximately half of the youth from national samples reporting a physical assault within the past year (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009). However, race and ethnicity are not consistently associated with prevalence of child physical victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996) with the most recent National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) not finding a significant difference between Latino children and Caucasian or African American children on physical abuse (Sedlak et al., 2010). This finding is further supported by a recent study that used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which reported no significant racial and ethnic differences in physical victimization rates among Latino, White, African American, and Asian American adolescents (Hussey et al., 2006). A Latino-focused study among women living in urban areas in Puerto Rico found that 36% of the study participants had experienced this type of victimization (Vera, Alegria, Pattatucci-Aragon, & Pena, 2005). However, the study is limited in that it employs data from a geographically restricted nonprobability sample, which is not based on Latinos living on the U.S. mainland.

Comparisons of Latino and non-Latino adults in national representative samples generally yield similar levels of physical violence for Latinos and non-Latinos. The 2007 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data revealed the rate of 13.6 per 1,000 for assault among Latino females and 15.9 per 1,000 among non-Latinos (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). In the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), 53.2% of Latino women reported lifetime physical victimization by any perpetrator, compared to 51.8% of non-Latinos (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). National studies limited to intimate partner violence (IPV) reported higher victimization levels among Latinos than among non-Latinos. Seventeen percent of Latino couples who participated in Straus’s National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1989) reported any violence by the husband in the past year, compared to 10.8% of non-Latino couples. When comparisons are made more specifically among Latinos, African Americans, and Whites, prevalence rates for African Americans are generally the highest, followed by Latinos, and the lowest prevalence among Whites (Caetano et al., 2005; Lipsky & Caetano, 2007). For example, a national study found the prevalence of male-to-female IPV to be 17% in Latino couples, 23% in African American couples, and 11.5% in White couples (Caetano et al., 2001) with this pattern being maintained across most individual CTS items (Caetano et al., 2001).

Community-based samples focusing solely on Latino women report a wide range of prevalence estimates for physical victimization from 19.5% to 70% (Denham et al., 2007; Hass et al., 2000; Murdaugh et al., 2004; Raj et al., 2004). The highest of these estimates was reported in a largely immigrant sample of Latino women involved in a Latino-geared outreach project to increase awareness of domestic violence (Murdaugh et al., 2004). Latino women in one health care sample reported a lower rate of assault and threat victimization than among African American and White women in the study (McFarlane et al., 2005). Data from a sample of Latina community health care users show 33.9% of the women reported physical violence by an intimate in their lifetime, with 32.9% reporting at least one severe episode (Hazen & Soriano, 2007). Clearly, the limited data and conflicting results regarding physical violence among Latino women and girls underscore the importance of further research using adequately large samples that focus on Latino women.

Sexual Victimization

National data on childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among Latino girls from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicate that there are no significant differences in reported CSA rates between Latino and non-Latino White children (Elliott & Urquiza, 2006; Sedlak et al., 2010). National data concerning CSA rates among Latino women, using adult retrospective studies, present rates that range between 15.4% and 32.1% depending on the criteria that are used to define CSA (Vogeltanz et al., 1999). In some college sample studies that have focused specifically on Latino women (Clemmons et al., 2003) or compared them to their non-Latino counterparts (Arroyo et al., 1997; Clemmons et al., 2003; Kalof, 2000; Romero, Wyatt, Loeb, Carmona, & Solis, 1999; Ullman & Filipas, 2005; Urquiza & Goodlin-Jones, 1994; Vera et al., 2005) reported rates of CSA ranged between 26% and 38%, which is consistent with CSA rates from community samples (Ulibarri, Ulloa, & Camacho, 2009). Due to methodological variation and definitional discrepancies, CSA rates among Latino women are very disparate.

National representative samples of adults point to a diminished risk of adult sexual victimization among Latino women compared to non-Latinos. The NCVS reports the rate of rape/sexual assault as 0.6 per 1,000 compared to 2.0 for non-Latinos (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010), with the NVAWS prevalence rates being in the same direction and finding a 14.6% prevalence for sexual assault among Latino women and 18.4% prevalence for non-Latinos (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). A national probability sample of couples reveals that Latino women were sexually victimized by their partners at a rate in-between White and African American women (Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & McGrath, 2007). Study results showed the African American rate to be 23.3%, followed by Latinos (13.1%) and Whites (11.2%) for items included in the CTS sexual coercion subscale. These three national samples show that sexual victimization rates are generally lower among Latinos than for non-Latinos.

Community samples, on the other hand, have reported higher rates of adult sexual victimization among Latino women. Locally bound samples of Latino women reported estimates of 17.9% among a college sample (Urquiza & Goodlin-Jones, 1994), 21% among a community health care sample (Hazen & Soriano, 2007), and 42% among an outreach sample (Murdaugh et al., 2004). The exception was an area probability sample from Los Angeles that reported a 16.2% rate of sexual assault for non-Latino Whites and 6.7% for Latino women (Sorenson & Telles, 1991). Of note, both the Hazen and Soriano and Sorenson and Telles studies reported lower sexual victimization rates for immigrants than native-born Latinos.

Witnessing Violence

Data from the National Survey of Adolescents reveal that witnessing violence, which consisted of having seen a shooting, stabbing, sexual assault, mugging, threats with a weapon, or physical assault, is the most common form of victimization among Whites (34.3%), African Americans (57.2%), and Latinos (50%; Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000). In a national study, Finkelhor and colleagues (2005) estimate that 383 per 1,000 Latino children witness some form of violence. Other studies in this area have relied on retrospective reports of Latino and non-Latino adults about their exposure to violence in the home during childhood. Such is the case with Ingram’s (2007) study, which utilized data from a random-digit dial national survey and found significant differences with about 36% of Latino respondents and 29% of non-Latino respondents having reported witnessing domestic violence in the home as a child. Another study, which collected data from a college-based sample of Latino women, found that 34% of respondents had seen one parent hit another parent during childhood (Clemmons et al., 2003). Nonetheless, witnessing violence is not limited to the home and also includes exposure to community violence that may be as high as 60% among children in community-based service-seeking samples (Suglia, Ryan, & Wright, 2008). A Miami-based sample found a significant level of witnessing violence among female Latino adolescents, 7.9% to 20.6%, with watching someone getting shot or attacked with a weapon as the most commonly reported form of witnessed violence (Biafora & Warheit, 2007). However, there is a limited amount of research in this area and additional work is needed to provide a clearer understanding of the prevalence of witnessed violence among Latino girls and women.

Threats and Stalking

The most understudied topics of interpersonal victimization among Latino women are those of threats and stalking. The NVAWS indicated that stalking rates were similar for Latino (7.6%) and non-Latino women (8.2%) (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In convenience sample studies focusing solely on Latino women, threat and stalking rates varied widely with 8.5% of Latino women having experienced threats of victimization in the past 6 months (Denham et al., 2007), whereas a study of Mexican American college women found that almost 20% reported stalking experiences in the past year (Coker, Sanderson, Cantu, Huerta, & Fadden, 2008). However, a consistent finding in convenience sample studies of Latino women is the association of threat and stalking rates with physical and/or sexual victimization rates. Hass and colleagues (2000) reported that 34% of Latino women, who had experienced threats, had also reported physical and/or sexual victimization. In another study, 60% of Mexican American college women who experienced physical or sexual violence were also stalked in the past year (Coker et al., 2008). However, in the victimization literature focusing on Latino women, these forms of victimization have been largely ignored, resulting in a crucial need to evaluate the rate of stalking and threat victimization among this population.

Revictimization

Research suggests that there is a strong relationship between victimization in childhood and victimization in adulthood (Arata, 2002; Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005; Irwin, 1999; Rich, Combs-Lane, Resnick, & Kilpatrick, 2004). According to a review of the literature, two out of three sexually victimized individuals are sexually revictimized (Classen et al., 2005) with CSA, adolescent sexual abuse, and childhood physical abuse being three of the main indicators of adult sexual abuse. The risk of revictimization is about threefold compared to those not sexually victimized in childhood (Arata, 2002; Desai, Arias, Thomson, & Basile, 2002), which is consistent with the revictimization rates for Latino women (Urquiza & Goodlin-Jones, 1994). A comparative study of White, African American, Latino, and Asian college students showed that although CSA was associated with rape in adulthood, the association differed by racial and ethnic group. In the study, 61.5% of the African American women who experienced CSA reported rape as an adult compared to 44.2% of White women, 40% of Latino women, and 25% of Asian women (Urquiza & Goodlin-Jones, 1994). Historically, most of the revictimization research has focused on sexual violence, leaving a void of information on other forms of revictimization and little data on revictimization risk among Latino women.

Polyvictimization

A mounting body of studies point attention to the increased risk of the multiple forms of victimization that women may experience. These multiple forms of concurrent victimization, typically referred to as polyvictimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007) or multitype maltreatment (Higgins & McCabe, 2000), may best explain the psychological sequelae of victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007; Higgins & McCabe, 2001; Sabina & Straus, 2008; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2010). Both of these terms refer to experiencing more than one different type of victimization (e.g., physical assault and sexual assault) within a particular time period (e.g., childhood or past year). No previous research has formally studied polyvictimization among Latino women, but a few convenience sample studies that report multiple types of victimization illustrate the importance of expanding this line of research. For instance, a community sample study of Latino women (Hass et al., 2000) reported that 97.8% of the women who experienced physical and/or sexual abuse also reported psychological abuse in the form of dominance and isolation. Another study on college Mexican American women found a significant amount of overlap of violent experiences (Coker et al., 2008). The study reported that among those who experienced sexual or physical victimization, 60% reported being stalked and 90% reported psychological abuse in the last year. Similar results from another study on Latino female college students revealed that 18% reported two types of abuse, 7% reported three types, and 4% reported all four types that were measured—physical, sexual, emotional, and witnessing (Clemmons et al., 2003). Van Hightower, Gorton, and DeMoss (2000) found one of the highest rates of polyvictimization where 100% of sexually victimized women were also physically victimized in a sample of predominately Latino female farm workers. Finally, Finkelhor’s (2007) national study of children shows that although Latino children made up 9% of the sample, they comprised 17% of low polyvictims and 22% of high polyvictims. Given the limited research, more work needs to be done to understand the full scope of multiple victimization experiences among Latino women and children.

Clearly, review of the work relevant to Latino women shows discrepant victimization rates and sampling methodologies and points to the need to establish comprehensive prevalence victimization estimates as well as gaining an understanding of the multiple forms of victimization that Latino women may experience. Our project, the Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study, includes a thorough assessment of lifetime victimization and addresses some of these methodological gaps. By querying a national sample of Latino women on a variety of victimization experiences, we obtained data on prevalence, help-seeking behaviors, cultural factors, and psychosocial ramifications. Specifically, the key aims of this analysis will be to present prevalence rates across various forms of victimization, including physical violence, sexual victimization, witness violence, threat victimization, and stalking victimization. This analysis will also include prevalence rates by perpetrator. Also, given the scant research on multiple victimization experiences among Latino women, the analysis will present risk estimates for experiencing multiple different forms of victimization, termed polyvictimization and revictimization, which refers to victimization experienced in childhood and adulthood. In presenting our results, we will also be overcoming some of the limitations that have plagued the body of research in the past by having obtained a large national sample focusing solely on Latino women and having conducted the survey in the preferred language for the participants.

Methods

Participants

The SALAS study, which collected data between May and September 2008, assessed the victimization experiences of a national sample of 2,000 Latino women living in the United States. Trained professionals from an experienced survey research firm conducted the interviews over the phone in either English or Spanish.

The study entrance criteria were that participants needed to be women over the age of 18 who self-identified as Latino (either foreign or U.S. born), and whose primary language was either English or Spanish. The majority of participants (90%) lived in high-density Latino areas (80% or higher) based on U.S. Census data. The minimum response rate (i.e., ratio of completed and screen-out interviews to complete, screen-outs, partial interviews, refusals, break-offs, and no contact) for the sample was 30.7%, and the minimum cooperation rate (i.e., ratio of completed and screen-out interviews to complete, screen-outs, partial interviews, refusals, and break-offs) was 53.7%. Detailed description of the response rates calculations can be obtained from the authors’ technical report to the National Institute of Justice (Cuevas & Sabina, 2010), which follows the standard definitions for response rates established by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009).

The average age of the participants was 47.76 years. Approximately 62% of the sample had a high school education or beyond. The majority of participants (61%) were U.S. citizens (either U.S.-born or naturalized), with a small proportion of the sample not reporting any legal status category (we refer to this group as undocumented; 4.7%). Approximately 56% of the participants were married, with smaller percentages for cohabitating (7.6%), divorced (10.1%), and widowed (10.1%) categories. Detailed sample demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Descriptives

	M	SD	Range

Age	47.76	16.24	18-95

	N	%

Education level
Less that high school	760	38.3
High school grad/GED	495	24.9
Some college/trade school	278	14.0
Two-year college graduate	137	6.9
Four-year college graduate	205	10.3
Some graduate school	25	1.3
Graduate degree	84	4.2
Immigration status
U.S.-born citizen	549	28.5
Naturalized citizen	628	32.6
Permanent resident	533	27.7
Current visa	80	4.2
Refugee/asylum	2	0.1
Awaiting status	44	2.3
None of the above/undocumented	91	4.7
Preferred language
English	379	19.1
Spanish	1,518	76.4
Both Spanish and English	87	4.4
Other	3	0.2
Relationship status
Single (never married)	261	13.2
Married	1,115	56.3
Cohabitating/committed relationship	151	7.6
Divorced	199	10.1
Widowed	200	10.1
Other	54	2.7
Employment status
Employed full-time	548	27.7
Employed part-time	217	11.0
Unemployed	197	9.9
Retired	250	12.6
Homemaker	585	29.6
Other (students, public assistance, etc.)	181	9.1
Household income
Below US$9,999	367	26.1
US$10,000-US$19,999	366	26.0
US$20,000-US$29,999	229	16.3
US$30,000-US$39,999	133	9.4
US$40,000-US$49,999	95	6.7
US$50,000-US$59,999	57	4.0
US$60,000-US$69,999	39	2.8
US$70,000-US$79,999	30	2.1
US$80,000 or more	92	6.5
Sexual orientation
Straight/heterosexual	1,926	98.7
Lesbian	13	0.7
Bisexual	13	0.7

Note: N = 2,000.

The participants in the sample were predominantly immigrants from Mexico or of Mexican descent (67.1% and 89.5%, respectively), with the second most common immigrant group being from Cuba (18%). Detailed ethnicity data are presented in Table 2. The regional distribution shows that 50% of the sample was from Texas, with 25.2% from California, 20.4% from Florida, and the remaining 4.6% from 12 other states.

Table 2.

Ethnicity and Country of Origin Descriptives

	U.S. born (n = 533)		Immigrant (n = 1,439)
Ethnicity background/country of origin	N	%	N	%
Mexico	477	89.5	966	67.1
Cuba	16	3.0	259	18.0
Puerto Rico	14	2.6	16	1.1
Dominican Republic	1	0.0	15	1.0
Other	25	4.7	183	12.7

In comparing our sample to available U.S. Census figures on Latinos, we have a notably higher median age (median age for U.S. Latino women is 26.3 years vs. 47.0 median age for the SALAS sample). However, this difference is likely inflated by our screening procedures, which did not allow for participants below the age of 18 years. Our sample has a higher rate of a high school education and beyond, a similar proportion of being married, and a smaller proportion of being born in the U.S. or being U.S. citizens (Guzman, 2001; Ramirez, 2004; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000). In evaluating ethnic background, the SALAS sample has a larger proportion of individuals of Mexican and Cuban descent (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000). Poststratification weights accounted for age cohorts, household income, and number of eligible respondents in each household (Cuevas & Sabina, 2010).

Measures

Demographic information

Participant background information was asked on personal characteristics, including age, country of origin, immigration status, preferred language, sexual orientation, educational level, employment status, household income, housing status, and relationship status. Regional information was obtained from the census tract information linked to the random digit dialing (RDD) blocks.

Lifetime Trauma and Victimization History (LTVH)

The LTVH evaluates lifetime trauma and victimization history in reference to 30 various traumatic experiences (Widom, Dutton, Czaja, & DuMont, 2005). The full version of the LTVH includes behaviorally specific questions about natural disasters, combat experience, property loss, interpersonal violence, and witnessed victimization with definitions of ambiguous terms included within the questions (e.g., defining “unwanted sexual activity”). As the focus of this study was on interpersonal victimization, we limited LTVH questions to stalking, physical assaults, weapon assaults, physical assaults in childhood, threats, threats with weapons, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, sexual fondling, and witnessed victimization. For example, physical assaults included questions about direct physical assaults (“Have you ever been shot at, stabbed, struck, kicked, beaten, punched, slapped around, or otherwise physically harmed?”) and assaults with weapons (“Have you ever been actually assaulted with any kind of a weapon, like a knife, gun, baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, stick, rock, or bottle?”) as was also the case with questions about threats (“Have you ever been threatened with any kind of a weapon, like a knife, gun, baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, stick, rock or bottle?” and “Has anyone ever threatened you in a face-to-face confrontation?”). Sexual assault questions included completed sexual assaults (“Has anyone—male or female—ever forced or coerced you to engage in unwanted sexual activity? By unwanted sexual activity, I mean vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse, or has anyone inserted an object or their fingers in your anus or vagina?”), attempted sexual assault (“Other than what we just talked about, did anyone, male or female, ever attempt to—but not actually—force you to engage in unwanted sexual activity?”), and fondling (“Other than what we just talked about, has anyone ever actually touched private parts of your body or made you touch theirs against your wishes?”). The complete list of questions and their categorization is available in the full study technical report (Cuevas & Sabina, 2010). Each affirmative incident on the LTVH was followed up with questions regarding the age of occurrence, duration, frequency, perpetrator, injury, and posttraumatic reaction (i.e., being in danger of death or serious injury and experiencing intense fear, helplessness, or horror). Furthermore, due to the ethnic background of the study participants, they were asked whether each incident took place while in the United States. For each affirmative incident type, respondents were asked whether anyone else ever did that to them. If so, respondents completed a second loop with regard to the incident type. Due to time constraints in the survey, only the follow-up questions of age of occurrence and number of times were asked for witnessed violence questions with no second loops being asked. The questions for each victimization incident were then consolidated into five categories: physical assaults, sexual assaults, stalking, threat victimization, and witnessed victimization. When calculating victimization experiences and risk models, we used the collapsed categories in each particular developmental period (i.e., either childhood or adulthood). The original LTVH found adequate predictive, criterion, and convergent validity (Widom et al., 2005).

Procedures

Probability samples of households with telephones were generated using an RDD method. In this methodology, a random sample is drawn from all 100-block telephone numbers. For SALAS, the sample was arranged based on the Latino density for the 100 blocks. Next, two random digits were added to each 100-block prefix, thus producing a population-based, RDD sample of telephone numbers stratified by Hispanic household density per 100 block. Eligible households within the total sample were then selected. Telephone interviewing has been found to be comparable to in-person interviews in its reliability and validity (Bajos, Spira, Ducot, & Messiah, 1992; Bermack, 1989; Czaja, 1987; Martin, Duncan, Powers, & Sawyer, 1989).

An adult respondent at each number was asked questions about the composition of the household (i.e., whether the number belonged to a residential household). Nonresidential contacts were screened out (e.g., business, churches). If a residential household was reached, then the interviewer asked about the total number of age-eligible Latino females in the household. If there was only one eligible individual, that individual was asked to participate; if there was more than one eligible participant, then the “most recent/next birthday” method was used to decide which individual to interview. In this method, interviewers asked the Latino women residents whose birthday was the most recent or the next closest to the date of the phone interview. This is a widely used procedure because it permits unbiased systematic selection of respondents (Salmon & Nichols, 1983).

Once a respondent was selected, they were read the informed consent and asked whether they were willing to participate in the study. If they agreed to participate, they were interviewed at that time or asked whether they wished to be called back at a more convenient time. Participants were then asked the various study instruments that included questions about the state of social issues, demographic information, acculturation, lifetime victimization, help-seeking behaviors, religiosity, gender role ideology, psychological symptoms, and posttraumatic symptoms. Only victimization and demographic data were used in this analysis. All instruments were translated into Spanish for the study, with the exception of those that already had established versions in Spanish. The translation was conducted by the survey firm, which was then reviewed by one of the bilingual investigators and an outside bilingual consultant with experience in cross-cultural interviewing. Upon completing the survey, participants were asked whether they felt distressed and were offered a support hotline or callback to follow-up with them. If the participant requested a callback or the interviewer felt a follow-up was needed, the case was screened for follow-up. The study’s principal investigator, who is a bilingual licensed clinical psychologist, called the follow-up cases. On follow-up calls it was ensured that the individual was no longer distressed and they were provided with additional support information if needed (e.g., local social service agencies). Approximately 1% of the sample required follow-up. After completing the survey, participants were paid US$10 for their participation.

An experienced survey research firm with specialization in doing surveys that ask about sensitive subjects (e.g., interpersonal violence) conducted the interviews using a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system. The interviewers were specifically trained on the SALAS survey and closely supervised during the data collection process. Only female interviewers were used since previous surveys using this methodology (e.g., NVAWS; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) showed that potential respondents were more likely to participate in the study if the interviewer is a woman. An initial attempt and four callbacks were made to reach a specific household, and then an additional three calls were made once a case was reached until final disposition was obtained (e.g., a completed survey or refusal). On average, the interviews lasted 28 min. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northeastern University authorized all study procedures, with subsequent analyses also being approved by the IRB of the Pennsylvania State University.

Analysis Strategy

Before calculating rates we consolidated the LTVH questions into five victimization categories: physical assaults, sexual assaults, stalking, threat victimization, and witnessed victimization. Each victimization “incident” is a victimization experience in one of the collapsed categories in a particular age period, with 17 years or less signifying childhood victimization (e.g., sexual abuse in childhood, physical assault in adulthood). Frequencies were conducted to calculate the rates for the various forms of victimization and number of different victimization experiences for the participants. These calculations were done using both weighted and unweighted data. The weighted calculations used poststratification weights based on Census population projections that accounted for number of eligible respondents in the household, age cohorts, and household income (Cuevas & Sabina, 2010). Unweighted frequencies were also calculated within each age category for each victimization type to better present the perpetrator proportions for the various forms of victimization. Cross-tabulations were then conducted with weighted data to calculate the bivariate risk ratios (also known as the relative risk) of co-occurring victimization (i.e., polyvictimization) and childhood to adulthood revictimization. Risk ratios provide the probability of an event occurring to an “exposed” group. In other words, for revictimization, what is the risk of being victimized in adulthood (the event) if you have been victimized in childhood (the exposure)? For polyvictimization, the risk ratio would provide the risk of experiencing sexual assault in childhood if they had experienced physical assault in childhood. For risk ratios, values greater than 1 indicate an increased risk and values below 1 indicate a decreased risk. N values throughout the article are unweighted figures.

Results

The presented rates are calculations for any of the various forms of victimization and perpetrators. This results in the percentages within the age category to add up to more than 100% due to the categories not being mutually exclusive. Also, the category “Multiple” under the perpetrator type is for single incidents where there was more than one perpetrator (e.g., a group assault). Of the full sample, 53.6% of the women reported at least one lifetime victimization incident. In childhood, 40.3% reported at least one victimization experience, and 36.3% reported at least one victimization experience in adulthood. For the victimized women, 66.2% experienced more than one victimization incident.

Physical Assault

The rate for any physical assault was 25.6%, with higher rates for childhood than for adulthood physical victimization (19.8% vs. 13.0%, respectively). For women victimized in adulthood, their partner or spouse was most often the perpetrator (60% unweighted). In childhood, 50% (unweighted) of the victimized women reported being physically assaulted by their parent, making this the most common perpetrator in childhood. The results show that women are more likely to experience physical victimization at the hands of a stranger in adulthood (34.2% unweighted) than in childhood (14.1% unweighted). Detailed physical assault victimization rates are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Physical Assault Victimization Rates

Victimization type and screener	Unweighted n	Unweighted rate	Weighted rate
Any physical assault	443	22.2	25.6
Assault	255	12.8	15.8
Assault in childhood	261	13.1	16.1
Assault with weapon	133	6.7	6.6

Age/perpetrator breakdown				Unweighted % within age category

Any adult physical assault	260	13.0	13.0	—
Parent	25	1.3	2.2	9.6
Other relative	18	0.9	0.6	6.9
Partner/spouse	156	7.8	7.2	60.0
Sibling	14	0.7	1.5	5.4
Other known	32	1.6	1.4	12.3
Stranger	89	4.5	3.6	34.2
Multiple	13	0.7	0.5	5.0
Any childhood physical assault	304	15.2	19.8	—
Parent	152	7.6	9.6	50.0
Other relative	24	1.2	1.2	7.9
Partner/spouse	31	1.6	1.9	10.2
Sibling	28	1.4	2.3	9.2
Other known	64	3.2	4.8	21.1
Stranger	43	2.2	2.5	14.1
Multiple	23	1.2	1.8	7.6

Sexual Assault

The rate for sexual assaults was 22.2%, which included completed sexual assault/rape, attempted sexual assault, and fondling/forced touch. Sexual assault was more often reported in childhood (17.0%) than in adulthood (8.6%). In adulthood, partners and other known individuals were the most common perpetrators (44.1% and 48.7%, respectively, unweighted). Childhood sexual victimization was most often perpetrated by a relative (42.6% unweighted) or other known individual (38.1% unweighted), whereas stranger sexual assault was relatively infrequent (15.2% unweighted). Detailed sexual assault victimization rates are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Sexual Assault Victimization Rates

Victimization type and screener	Unweighted n	Unweighted rate	Weighted rate
Any sexual assault	344	17.2	22.2
Sexual assault	176	8.8	11.2
Attempted sexual assault	178	8.9	12.3
Fondling/forced touch	228	11.4	15.1

Age/perpetrator breakdown				Unweighted % within age category

Any adult sexual assault	152	7.6	8.6	—
Parent	20	1.0	1.1	13.2
Other relative	28	1.4	1.5	18.4
Partner/spouse	67	3.4	4.2	44.1
Sibling	21	1.1	1.1	13.8
Other known	74	3.7	4.3	48.7
Stranger	46	2.3	2.0	30.3
Multiple	20	1.0	1.1	13.2
Any childhood sexual assault	244	12.2	17.0	—
Parent	27	1.4	2.3	11.1
Other relative	104	5.2	7.2	42.6
Partner/spouse	24	1.2	2.3	9.8
Sibling	18	0.9	1.2	7.4
Other known	93	4.7	7.1	38.1
Stranger	37	1.8	2.0	15.2
Multiple	8	0.4	0.7	3.3

Stalking Victimization

The overall rate for stalking victimization was 22.3%, with 14.1% of the women reporting being stalked in adulthood and 11.0% reporting stalking in childhood. In both adulthood and childhood there is a large proportion of stranger-perpetrated stalking (36.4% and 39.3%, respectively, unweighted). In adulthood, partner-perpetrated stalking was the second most common (31.4% unweighted), whereas other known individual was the second most common perpetrator in childhood (33.1% unweighted). Detailed stalking victimization rates are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Stalking Victimization Rates

Victimization type and screener	Unweighted n	Unweighted rate	Weighted rate
Any stalking	365	18.3	22.3

Age/perpetrator breakdown				Unweighted % within age category

Any adult stalking victimization	239	12.0	14.1
Parent	0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other relative	7	0.4	0.2	2.9
Partner/spouse	75	3.8	5.0	31.4
Sibling	2	0.1	0.2	0.8
Other known	73	3.7	4.6	30.5
Stranger	87	4.4	5.0	36.4
Multiple	1	0.0	0.1	0.4
Any childhood stalking victimization	163	8.2	11.0
Parent	7	0.4	0.2	4.3
Other relative	25	1.3	1.6	15.3
Partner/spouse	20	1.0	1.4	12.3
Sibling	0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other known	54	2.7	3.1	33.1
Stranger	64	3.2	5.2	39.3
Multiple	1	0.0	0.0	0.6

Threat Victimization

The overall threat victimization rates, which referred to face-to-face confrontations or threats with weapons, was 26.8%, with a notably higher rate occurring in adulthood (18.6%) than in childhood (12.0%). In adulthood, the most frequently reported perpetrator for those who were victims of threats was a partner or spouse (45.4% unweighted), whereas other known individual was the most common perpetrator in childhood (51.6% unweighted). In both adulthood and childhood, strangers were the second most common threat perpetrators (29.0% and 25.0%, respectively, unweighted). Detailed threat victimization results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Threat Victimization Rates

Victimization type and screener	Unweighted n	Unweighted rate	Weighted rate
Any threat victimization	421	21.1	26.8
Face-to-face threat	358	17.9	23.6
Threat with weapon	217	10.9	13.9

Age/perpetrator breakdown				Unweighted % within age category

Any adult threat victimization	328	16.4	18.6
Parent	3	0.2	1.1	0.9
Other relative	14	0.7	0.4	4.3
Partner/spouse	149	7.4	8.3	45.4
Sibling	3	0.2	0.2	0.9
Other known	89	4.5	4.7	27.1
Stranger	95	4.8	5.8	29.0
Multiple	3	0.2	0.3	0.9
Any childhood threat victimization	128	6.4	12.0
Parent	7	0.4	1.2	5.5
Other relative	7	0.4	0.3	5.5
Partner/spouse	18	0.9	0.8	14.0
Sibling	4	0.2	0.6	3.1
Other known	66	3.3	5.4	51.6
Stranger	32	1.6	3.8	25.0
Multiple	0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Witnessed Victimization

The rate of witnessed victimization for the sample was 28.3%. This included witnessing a murder or serious injury (13.6%), an assault (24.3%), or a sexual assault (1.5%). The witnessed victimization rates were slightly lower in adulthood versus childhood (13.0% vs. 16.3%, respectively). Detailed witnessed victimization results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Witnessed Victimization Rates

Victimization type and screener	Unweighted n	Unweighted rate	Weighted rate
Any witnessed victimization	401	20.1	28.3
Witnessed murder/serious injury	203	10.2	13.6
Witnessed assault	329	16.5	24.3
Witnessed sexual assault	28	1.4	1.5
Age breakdown
Any adult witnessed victimization	215	10.8	13.0
Any childhood witnessed victimization	197	9.9	16.3

Revictimization and Polyvictimization

Table 8 presents detailed results of the relative risk ratios for coexisting victimization in childhood and adulthood. Childhood risk ratios varied from 1.21, 95% CI [1.14, 1.29], p < .001, for child physical victimization predicting child stalking, to 1.58, 95% CI [1.42, 1.74], p < .001, for child witness predicting child physical victimization. In adulthood, the lowest risk ratio was adult sexual predicting adult witness (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [1.01, 1.17], p < .01), whereas the highest risk ratio was of adult physical victimization predicting adult threat (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.95, 4.52], p < .001).

Table 8.

Relative Risk Ratios for Polyvictimization in Childhood and Adulthood

	Childhood victimization
	CP	CS	CSt	CT	CW
Child physical (CP)	—	1.44 [1.33, 1.57]	1.21 [1.14, 1.29]	1.44 [1.34, 1.55]	1.43 [1.32, 1.54]
Child sexual (CS)	1.56 [1.41, 1.72]	—	1.32 [1.23, 1.42]	1.32 [1.23, 1.41]	1.30 [1.20, 1.40]
Child stalking (CSt)	1.45 [1.39, 1.63]	1.61 [1.42, 1.82]	—	1.38 [1.25, 1.52]	1.47 [1.31, 1.64]
Child threat (CT)	2.01 [1.73, 2.33]	1.52 [1.36, 1.69]	1.34 [1.23, 1.46]	—	1.47 [1.32, 1.64]
Child witness (CW)	1.58 [1.42, 1.74]	1.31 [1.21, 1.42]	1.27 [1.19, 1.36]	1.31 [1.22, 1.41]	—

	Adulthood victimization
	AP	AS	ASt	AT	AW

Adult physical (AP)	—	1.27 [1.18, 1.37]	1.65 [1.47, 1.84]	3.65 [2.95, 4.52]	1.13 [1.05, 1.20]
Adult sexual (AS)	1.48 [1.31, 1.67]	—	1.72 [1.48, 1.99]	2.23 [1.84, 2.69]	1.08 [1.01, 1.17]
Adult stalking (ASt)	1.57 [1.42, 1.73]	1.34 [1.25, 1.45]	—	2.49 [2.13, 2.92]	1.18 [1.11, 1.27]
Adult threat (AT)	2.03 [1.82, 2.86]	1.34 [1.26, 1.43]	1.83 [1.66, 2.03]	—	1.14 [1.08, 1.20]
Adult witness (AW)	1.13 [1.06, 1.20]	1.25 [1.06, 1.41]	1.43 [1.30, 1.53]	1.36 [1.24, 1.47]	—

Note: All risk ratios are significant at the p < .01 level. Numbers in brackets are the 95% confidence intervals.

The relative risk that someone who experienced childhood victimization will also experience victimization in adulthood is 1.80, 95% CI [1.65, 1.96], p < .001. Revictimization figures presented in Table 9 show that the highest revictimization risk was from physical victimization in childhood to threat victimization in adulthood, 1.56, 95% CI [1.43, 1.71], p < .001. Otherwise, same victimization type risk ratios varied from 1.47, 95% CI [1.36, 1.58], p < .001, for physical victimization, to 0.91, 95% CI [0.88, 0.94], p < .001, for witness victimization, which was the only risk ratio that was less than 1.

Table 9.

Relative Risk Ratios for Revictimization From Childhood to Adulthood

	Adult physical	Adult sexual	Adult stalking	Adult threat	Adult witness
Child physical	1.47 [1.36, 1.58]	1.21 [1.15, 1.28]	1.23 [1.16, 1.31]	1.56 [1.43, 1.71]	1.08 [1.03, 1.14]
Child sexual	1.22 [1.14, 1.30]	1.17 [1.11, 1.24]	1.19 [1.11, 1.27]	1.41 [1.29, 1.54]	1.12 [1.06, 1.18]
Child stalking	1.23 [1.13, 1.34]	1.23 [1.14, 1.33]	1.21 [1.11, 1.31]	1.44 [1.28, 1.61]	1.09 [1.02, 1.17]
Child threat	1.15 [1.07, 1.23]	1.13 [1.06, 1.20]	1.05^b [.99, 1.12]	1.23 [1.13, 1.35]	1.10 [1.03, 1.18]
Child witness	1.05^a [1.00, 1.11]	1.16 [1.10, 1.23]	1.08 [1.02, 1.14]	1.15 [1.07, 1.24]	0.91 [0.88, 0.94]

Note: Numbers in brackets are the 95% confidence intervals.

Significant at p < .05.

Not significant, all other risk ratios are significant at the p < .01 level.

Discussion

Our results show that slightly more than half of Latino women are victims of one form of interpersonal victimization in their lifetime and that all forms of victimization were significantly related to other forms of victimization during the same time period and for almost all reexperiencing victimization later in life. For specific forms of victimization, the most commonly occurring type in our sample is witnessed violence, whereas the least frequent form of victimization is sexual violence, with rates ranging between 28.3% and 22.2%. All forms of childhood victimization put women at increased risk for other forms of child maltreatment (1.21 to 2.01 risk ratios). This pattern held in adulthood such that victimized women were 1.13 to 3.65 times more likely to experience another form of victimization in adulthood. In general, these numbers indicate that interpersonal violence is a significant problem for Latino women. This study adds to the growing body of work pointing attention to this population (see Klevens, 2007, for a review) and allowed for a thorough examination of lifetime victimization across various types and perpetrators. The use of a national sample overcomes an important limitation of the body of research with this population to date.

Physical victimization was a commonly reported form of victimization in this study as with the NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). However, the NVAWS reported a lifetime prevalence percentage of 53.2 for Latino women, whereas SALAS found a lower rate of 25.6%. The NVAWS employed the CTS items, which includes 12 items, two of which ask about threats. We present physical and threat victimization separately, which accounts for some of the discrepancy. In addition, specific behaviors included in the minor physical assault subscale of the CTS physical assault subscale are not represented in the LTVH physical victimization screeners, also potentially contributing to the discrepancy. In line with prior research (e.g., Finkelhor, 1990; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), perpetrators of adult physical assault were largely intimate partners, and perpetrators of child physical assault were largely parents or other family, pointing to the vulnerability of girls and women in their homes.

The level of sexual victimization reported in this study is comparable to the NVAWS. While the NVAWS and SALAS include sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, the LTVH as employed in SALAS also asks about touching of private parts or sexual fondling. Thus SALAS included a wider range of unwanted sexual activity than that specified in the NVAWS. In turn, we find a higher lifetime sexual victimization rate (22.2%) than that reported in the NVAWS (14.6%).

Stalking, threat, and witnessed victimization each were reported by a substantial percent of the sample; rates are 22.3%, 26.8%, and 28.3%, respectively. Stalking rates reported in the SALAS sample are noteworthy as they are notably higher than in the NVAWS, the only large-scale study to examine stalking. Stalking was reported by 7.6% of the Latino women in the NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) in response to eight stalking screeners, including being followed, spied on, and communicated with against respondents’ will. The LTVH does not include behavioral screeners and asks respondents directly whether they were stalked, giving being followed or spied upon as examples, leaving interpretation of behaviors open to the respondents.

Although this analysis did not allow for comparisons across different ethnic groups and various methodological issues limit direct comparisons to the previous research, we can put our results in the context of victimization rates research in general. One key point is that in comparison to much of the research, our victimization rates are generally lower. Sampling methodology is likely a primary reason for this difference. Many of the previous studies used convenience and/or help-seeking samples, which are likely to produce higher rates of victimization. An erroneous conclusion that comes from this is that Latinos as a whole may culturally condone interpersonal violence. The fact that our national-level data provide more moderate figures counters some of these stereotypes while at the same time showing that a majority of Latino women experience interpersonal violence, with those who are victimized being very likely to experience different forms of violence and/or reexperiencing victimization throughout their lifetime. In comparison to other national-level data, stalking rates were notably higher for our sample. Although a direct comparison cannot be made due to our study being different from other studies in terms of how victimization was measured, the results suggest that Latino women may be at a particular risk for stalking victimization. It is possible that since these women may be immigrants (or assumed to be immigrants), they may have limitations in their ability to communicate in English, or may not be knowledgeable of the legal system in the United States, that there may be the perception that they are less likely to seek help or report this form of victimization, potentially making them more vulnerable targets to perpetrators.

The reported figures also suggest that the focus of victimization research directed at Latino women needs to expand beyond its historical emphasis on physical violence and sexual assault. Our data show that stalking, threat victimization, and witnessed violence are forms of victimization that Latino women experience at rates equal to or greater than the rates for physical and sexual assault. Prior research that has emphasized physical violence and sexual assault may be overlooking the larger scope of Latino women’s victimization experiences.

Furthermore, and perhaps of greater importance, is the fact that most women experience more than one form of victimization in their lifetime and that certain forms of victimization tend to commonly co-occur with other forms of victimization within the same developmental period (e.g., in childhood or in adulthood). The polyvictimization risk ratios clearly show that Latino women who experience one form of victimization are also experiencing other forms of victimization within childhood or adulthood. The results indicate that for all types of victimization Latino women are at 1.5 to 3.5 times the risk of experiencing one of the other forms of victimization. Of particular note is the overlap in both childhood and adulthood instances of physical, sexual, and threat victimization, which in combination with the perpetrator characteristics, suggests that victimization can be a series of discreet events as much as it may be indicative of an overall multifaceted victimization experience. In other words, victims of physical, sexual, and threat victimization may be under a more chronic level of victimization where the experience of violence is less about particular events, but rather a consistent experience in their lives, likely at the hands of intimates and family members. Focusing on adult victimization, which has the largest risk ratios, there is a strong overlap between physical victimization, sexual violence, and stalking with threat victimization. Although in some cases threat victimization may be a separate event, the results suggest that in many cases threat victimization may be a component of the other types of victimization that Latino women experience.

Revictimization patterns suggest that the connection between childhood and adulthood victimization should not solely emphasize same-type victimization (e.g., CSA leading to adult sexual assault), as our results indicate that revictimization risk can cross victimization types. For example, victims of CSA who are at an increased risk of experiencing sexual abuse in adulthood (17%) are also at an increased risk of experiencing a threat in adulthood (41%). This indicates that the risk of revictimization may be more general and not victimization specific. As others have argued (Finkelhor, 2008), the experience of polyvictimization and revictimization implies that for some Latino women, victimization is unlikely to be a single-event phenomenon, but rather a lifetime condition, where they go through varying periods of ongoing victimization. The presentation of revictimization and polyvictimization data adds to the literature examining Latino women’s victimization, given the limited amount of attention to these issues within this population, and points to the need to examine these issues in future research that analyzes interpersonal violence in the lives of Latinos.

In examining the rates for the different kinds of perpetrators, the data point to what may be some of the most common forms of interpersonal victimization that Latino women experience. For example, for victims of physical assaults in childhood the most common perpetrator was a parent, suggesting that most often physical victimization in childhood is intrafamilial abuse. In adulthood, physical victimization is most often perpetrated by a partner, suggesting that the most common form of physical violence is IPV. For victims of sexual violence, consistent with prior research (e.g., Finkelhor, 1990; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), most of the sexual violence experienced in childhood and adulthood is perpetrated by a known assailant, with a small percentage of child sexual victimization perpetrated by a stranger. Although a minority, the rate of sexual violence by strangers is notably higher for victims of sexual assault in adulthood. In contrast, strangers are more frequently the perpetrators of stalking victimization in both childhood and adulthood. Threat victimization in childhood is most commonly perpetrated by “other known” individuals, suggesting that much of this violence may be peer violence. In contrast, threat victimization in adulthood is most commonly perpetrated by a partner or spouse, which may be an indication of the coexistence of physical and threatening perpetration involved in IPV. Another notable point regarding perpetrators is the fact that relative to physical and sexual victimization, strangers more often perpetrate stalking and threatening violence. Although this may be a dynamic of these forms of victimization, there are characteristics of this sample that may contribute to these figures. The sample comprises participants coming from those areas of the country with high-density Latino population, which are likely more urban. Hence, threats and stalking may occur in part because of community violence that may happen disproportionately in urban areas.

There are a number of limitations in this study that merit note. As is the case with any retrospective report, there is a risk for memory deterioration and distortion in recall. In addition, there is a risk that memory deterioration might have been disproportionate in childhood events, perhaps biasing those rates in relation to adult events that would have occurred more recently. Also, although we obtained a national sample, it is not a nationally representative sample of Latino women. Our sample, for practical and methodological reasons, targeted high-density Latino areas. Hence, some caution should be used when generalizing these figures to the broader Latino population. To some degree, the poststratification weights aim to remedy this, but they are providing estimates and not exact figures. Also, in presenting demographic comparisons to U.S. Census figures we provide some context for how to view this sample in relation to the Latino population nationwide. Finally, using telephone survey methodology always carries the risk of systematically missing potentially high-risk groups, such as the homeless and transient populations that may be at greater risk for victimization.

In spite of the discussed limitations, our results clearly present the broad scope of interpersonal victimization that Latino women experience. In addition, they point to the importance of a more comprehensive evaluation of victimization experiences given the notable overlaps and a large proportion of victims who experienced more than one form of victimization. Future research should continue to expand the types of victimization that are evaluated among Latino women as well as begin to gain an understanding of cultural factors that are salient to this population and may be associated with victimization rates such as acculturation and immigration status.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-WG-BX-0051 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bios

Carlos A. Cuevas, PhD, is an associate professor at Northeastern University in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He earned his PhD in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University. His research is in the areas of family violence, victimization and trauma, juvenile delinquency, and sexual offending, with a particular focus on victimization among Latinos. As a licensed psychologist in private practice, he provides assessment and treatment to victims of violence, and risk assessment and treatment to sexual offenders.

Chiara Sabina, PhD, is an assistant professor at Penn State Harrisburg in the School of Behavioral Sciences and Education. She earned her PhD in applied social psychology at Loyola University, Chicago, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Her research interests include responses to partner violence, sociostructural factors affecting partner violence, and the experience of partner violence among diverse populations such as immigrants and ethnic minorities.

Riva Milloshi, MA, earned her BA in political science from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 2005 and her MA in sociology from Northeastern University in Boston in 2008. Her areas of scholarly interest revolve around topics of gender, class, ethnicity, and immigration.

References

Aldarondo

Kaufman Kantor

Jasinski

J. L.

(2002). A risk marker analysis of wife assault in Latino families. Violence Against Women, 8, 429-454.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (6th ed.). Deerfield, IL: Author.

Arata

C. M.

(2002). Child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 135-164.

Arroyo

J. A.

Simpson

T. L.

Aragon

A. S.

(1997). Childhood sexual abuse among Hispanic and non-Hispanic White college women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 57-68.

Bajos

Spira

Ducot

Messiah

(1992). Analysis of sexual behaviour in France (ACSF): A comparison between two modes of investigation: Telephone survey and face-to-face survey. AIDS, 6, 315-323.

Bermack

(1989). Effect of telephone and face-to-face communication on rated extent of self-disclosure by female college students. Psychological Reports, 65, 259-267.

Biafora

Warheit

(2007). Self-reported violent victimization among young adults in Miami, Florida: Immigration, race/ethnic and gender contrasts. International Review of Victimology, 14, 29-55.

Briere

Elliott

D. M.

(2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20, 393-406.

10.

Caetano

Schafer

Cunradi

C. B.

(2001). Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 58-65.

11.

Classen

C. C.

Palesh

O. G.

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103-129.

12.

Clemmons

J. C.

DiLillo

Martinez

I. G.

DeGue

Jeffcot

(2003). Co-occurring forms of child maltreatment in adult adjustment reported by Latina college students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 751-767.

13.

Coker

A. L.

Sanderson

Cantu

Huerta

Fadden

M. K.

(2008). Frequency and types of partner violence among Mexican American college women. Journal of American College Health, 56, 665-673.

14.

Crouch

J. L.

Hanson

R. F.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

(2000). Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 625-641.

15.

Cuevas

C. A.

Sabina

(2010). Final report: Sexual assault among Latinas (SALAS) study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

16.

Czaja

S. J.

(1987). Human factors in office automation. In Salvendy

(Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1587-1616). New York, NY: John Wiley.

17.

Denham

A. C.

Frasier

P. Y.

Hooten

E. G.

Belton

Newton

Gonzales

. (2007). Intimate partner violence among Latinas in eastern North Carolina. Violence Against Women, 13, 123-140.

18.

Desai

Arias

Thomson

M. P.

Basile

K. C.

(2002). Childhood victimization and subsequent adult revictimization assessed in a nationally representative sample of women and men. Violence and Victims, 17, 639-653.

19.

Dutton

M. A.

Orloff

L. E.

Hass

G. A.

(2000). Characteristics of help-seeking behaviors, resources and service needs of battered immigrant Latinas: Legal and policy implications. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 7, 1-77.

20.

Elliott

Urquiza

(2006). Ethnicity, culture, and child maltreatment. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 787-809.

21.

Finkelhor

(1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An update. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 21, 325-330.

22.

Finkelhor

(2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7-26.

24.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

Hamby

S. L.

(2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25.

25.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

S. L.

(2009). Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1411-1423.

26.

Guzman

(2001). The Hispanic population: Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

27.

Hass

G. A.

Dutton

M. A.

Orloff

L. E.

(2000). Lifetime prevalence of violence against Latina immigrants: Legal and policy implications. International Review of Victimology, 7, 93-113.

28.

Hazen

A. L.

Soriano

F. I.

(2007). Experiences with intimate partner violence among Latina women. Violence Against Women, 13, 562-582.

29.

Higgins

D. J.

McCabe

M. P.

(2000). Multi-type maltreatment and the long-term adjustment of adults. Child Abuse Review, 9, 6-18.

30.

Higgins

D. J.

McCabe

M. P.

(2001). The development of the Comprehensive Child Maltreatment Scale. Journal of Family Studies, 7, 7-28.

31.

Hussey

J. M.

Chang

J. J.

Kotch

J. B.

(2006). Child maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, risk factors, and adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics, 118, 933-942.

32.

Ingram

E. M.

(2007). A comparison of help seeking between Latino and non-Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 159-171.

33.

Irwin

H. J.

(1999). Violent and nonviolent victimization of women abused in childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1095-1110.

34.

Jasinski

J. L.

(1998). The role of acculturation in wife assault. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 175-191.

35.

Kalof

(2000). Ethnic differences in female sexual victimization. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 4, 75-97.

36.

Kaufman Kantor

Jasinski

J. L.

Aldarondo

(1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207-222.

37.

Klevens

(2007). An overview of intimate partner violence among Latinos. Violence Against Women, 13, 111-122.

38.

Lipsky

Caetano

(2007). The role of race/ethnicity in the relationship between emergency department use and intimate partner violence: Findings from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 2246-2252.

39.

Martin

W. S.

Duncan

W. J.

Powers

T. L.

Sawyer

J. C.

(1989). Costs and benefits of selected response inducement techniques in mail survey research. Journal of Business Research, 19, 67-79.

40.

McFarlane

Malecha

(2005). Sexual assault among intimates: Frequency, consequences, and treatments. Washington, DC: U.S. Depeartment of Justice, National Intitute of Justice.

41.

McFarlane

Malecha

Gist

Watson

Batten

Hall

. (2005). Intimate partner sexual assault against women and associated victim substance use, suicidality, and risk factors for femicide. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 26, 953-967.

42.

Murdaugh

Hunt

Sowell

Santana

(2004). Domestic violence in Hispanics in the southeastern United States: A survey and needs analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 107-115.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2005). Hispanics: A people in motion. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

44.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

Amaro

(2004). Abused women report greater male partner risk and gender-based risk for HIV: Findings from a community-based study with Hispanic women. AIDS Care, 16, 519-529.

45.

Ramirez

R. R.

(2004). We the people: Hispanics in the United States. Census 2000 Special Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

46.

Ramisetty-Mikler

Caetano

McGrath

(2007). Sexual aggression Among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S.: Alcohol use, physical assault and psychological aggression as its correlates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33, 31-43.

47.

Rich

C. L.

Combs-Lane

A. M.

Resnick

H. S.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2004). Child sexual abuse and adult sexual revictimization. In Koenig

L. J.

Doll

L. S.

O’Leary

Pequegnat

(Eds.), From child sexual abuse to adult sexual risk: Trauma, revictimization, and intervention (pp. 49-68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Romero

G. J.

Wyatt

G. E.

Loeb

T. B.

Carmona

J. V.

Solis

B. M.

(1999). The prevalence and circumstances of child sexual abuse among Latina women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 351-365.

49.

Sabina

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health among U.S. college students. Violence and Victims, 23, 667-682.

50.

Salmon

C. T.

Nichols

J. S.

(1983). The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 270-276.

51.

Sedlak

A. J.

Broadhurst

D. D.

(1996). Third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

52.

Sedlak

A. J.

Mettenburg

Basena

Petta

McPherson

Greene

(2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adminstration for Children and Families.

53.

Sorenson

S. B.

Telles

C. A.

(1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3-16.

54.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

(1989). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

55.

Suglia

S. F.

Ryan

Wright

R. J.

(2008). Creation of a community violence exposure scale: Accounting for what, who, where, and how often. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 479-486.

56.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

57.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

58.

Torres

Han

H.-R.

(2000). Psychological distress in non-Hispanic White and Hispanic abused women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 14, 19-29.

59.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

(2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 323-330.

60.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2000). American factfinder. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

61.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007 statistical tables: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 227669). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

62.

Ulibarri

M. D.

Ulloa

E. C.

Camacho

(2009). Prevalence of sexually abusive experiences in childhood and adolescence among a community sample of Latinas: A descriptive study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 405-421.

63.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

(2005). Ethnicity and child sexual abuse experiences of female college students. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14, 67-89.

64.

Urquiza

A. J.

Goodlin-Jones

B. L.

(1994). Child sexual abuse and adult revictimization with women of color. Violence and Victims, 9, 223-232.

65.

Van Hightower

N. R.

Gorton

DeMoss

C. L.

(2000). Predictive models of domestic violence and fear of intimate partners among migrant and seasonal farm worker women. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 137-154.

66.

Vera

Alegria

Pattatucci-Aragon

A. M.

Pena

(2005). Childhood sexual abuse and drug use among low-income urban Puerto Rican women. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 5, 45-68.

67.

Vogeltanz

N. D.

Wilsnack

S. C.

Harris

T. R.

Wilsnack

R. W.

Wonderlich

S. A.

Kristjanson

A. F.

(1999). Prevalence and risk factors for childhood sexual abuse in women: National survey findings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 579-592.

68.

Widom

C. S.

Dutton

M. A.

Czaja

S. J.

DuMont

K. A.

(2005). Development and validation of a new instrument to assess lifetime trauma and victimization history. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 519-531.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

14.55 MB