554424 research-article2014
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514554424Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceElsaesser and Voisin
Article
Correlates of Polyvictimization Among African American Youth: An Exploratory Study
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2015, Vol. 30(17) 3022–3042 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514554424 jiv.sagepub.com
Caitlin M. Elsaesser, AM1 and Dexter R. Voisin, PhD1,2
Abstract African American adolescents are exposed to high rates of community violence, and recent evidence indicates that these youth may also be at high risk of polyvictimization. Guided by an ecological approach, this study explored individual, familial, and extra-familial correlates of single and multiple forms of violence exposures (i.e., witnessing verbal parental aggression, witnessing or being a victim of community violence exposures) among a sample of 563 urban African American adolescents. Findings indicated that boys reported higher levels of polyvictimization than girls. In addition, the correlates of violence exposures varied by typology and gender. These findings support the development and use of gender-oriented approaches for identifying youth at risk of various types of violence exposures. Keywords polyvictimization, interparental violence, community violence exposures, African American youth, correlates, profiles, gender
1University 2STI/HIV
of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Intervention Network, 969 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL, USA
Corresponding Author: Caitlin M. Elsaesser, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 969 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3023
In the United States, adolescence is a developmental period marked by significant exposure to violence in the home and community. For instance, adolescents report high rates of witnessing interparental violence (IPV) and experiencing community violence both as witnesses and victims (Lambert, Nylund-Gibson, Copeland-Linder, & Ialongo, 2010; Romano, Bell, & Billette, 2011). Recent national surveys report that youth aged 15 to 18 years report an average of 2.7 victimizations in the past year (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2009). In addition, African American adolescents are at heightened risk of such exposures (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001), given that a disproportionate number of them reside in poorly resourced communities with high stressors (Osofsky, 1999). Exposure to violence within the family and community domains are associated with a number of youth problem behaviors. For example, both community violence exposure and exposure to IPV have been connected to increased youth aggression (Bradshaw, Rodgers, Ghandour, & Garbarino, 2009; Voisin & Hong, 2012), lower academic performance (Huth-Bocks, Levendosky, & Semel, 2001; Mathews, Dempsey, & Overstreet, 2009), and post-traumatic stress disorder (McCart et al., 2007; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006). In addition, an increasing number of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have provided evidence that exposures to witnessing verbal parental aggression (VPA; Voisin, Hotton, & Schneider, 2014) and exposure to community violence are associated with increased sexual risk behaviors (Albus, Weist, & Perez-Smith, 2004; Brady, Tschann, Pasch, Flores, & Ozer, 2008; Voisin, 2003) and sexually transmitted infections (Brady et al., 2008). Exposure to multiple forms of violence, known as polyvictimization, commonly occurs. Of youth exposed to one form of victimization in the last year, the majority are exposed to another type of victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005). The effects of polyvictimization may be even more detrimental than exposure to single forms of violence. For instance, a recent study indicated that youth exposed to high levels of IPV, child abuse, and community violence were twice as likely to meet clinical criteria for depression, anxiety, and delinquency when compared with peers exposed to moderate levels of violence (Margolin, Vickerman, Oliver, & Gordis, 2010). Although polyvictimization has severe negative sequelae, few studies have examined the correlates of polyvictimization. With one exception, Romano and colleagues (2011) documented in a cross-sectional study that parental rejection and lower friendship quality were associated with polyvictimization (i.e., verbal harassment, threat of and actual physical assault, school social exclusion, and discrimination). In addition, this study indicated that participation in out-of-school activity was a risk factor for polyvictimization. Taken
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3024
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
together, these findings document that home and school factors are correlated with risk for polyvictimization. However, although Romano and colleagues drew on a nationally representative Canadian sample, the study included no data on the racial/ethnic characteristics of the sample. Understanding the correlates of polyvictimization among African American youth may be especially important. These youth are at higher risk of exposure to violence compared with their other ethnic counterparts (Buka et al., 2001). In addition, within cities, African American youth are twice as likely to witness violence as their Caucasian peers (Schwab-Stone et al., 1995), and many may live in ecological niches and household structures that may be potential correlates of such exposures. Consequently, additional research is warranted to understand the correlates of single and multiple forms of violence exposures among African American youth.
Factors Associated With Violence Exposures The theoretical underpinning for this study is informed by Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1999), which suggests that individual, familial, and extra-familial domains may be related to various forms of violence exposures. Similar approaches have been applied to examining the correlates of youth problems such as sexual risk behaviors (Kotchick, Shaffer, Miller, & Forehand, 2001) and health promotion behaviors (Glass & McAtee, 2006; Hovell, Wahlgren, & Gehrman, 2009). In this framework, individual factors are considered personal dimensions that may contribute to violence exposures such as age, gender, internalizing, and externalizing behaviors. Typically, exposures to violence increase with age. For instance, studies have documented that some forms of violence exposures such as those occurring within the community increase as youth get older (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Gender is also an important consideration, given that both exposures to and consequences of violence exposures often differ by gender (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009). For example, on average, girls compared with boys are exposed to lower rates of community violence both as witnesses and victims (Voisin, Neilands, & Hunnicutt, 2011). In addition, although findings have been mixed (Voisin & Neilands, 2010), some research suggests that coping responses to violence vary by gender; with more girls than boys coping with such exposures through withdrawal (Voisin, Bird, Hardestry, & Shiu, 2011). Psychological symptoms such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors may also impact violence exposures (Mrug & Windle, 2009). While internalizing behaviors such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal may be sequelae associated with violence exposures (Evans et al., 2008; Fowler et al., 2009),
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3025
it may also be true that internalizing and externalizing behaviors contribute to the likelihood of youth violence exposures. For instance, evidence suggests that delinquent behavior and aggression put youth at subsequent risk of both witnessing IPV (O’Donnell et al., 2006) and community violence exposure (Farrell & Sullivan, 2004). Fewer studies have examined internalizing factors as risks for violence exposure, but some evidence indicates that these factors may also put youth at risk of exposure (Lambert, Ialongo, Boyd, & Cooley, 2005). Family is a central influence on adolescent development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986), and there are a number of factors in the family that may influence the likelihood of victimization. Variables such as parenting structure (e.g., single- vs. two-parent households) and the number of children living in the household have been connected to violence exposures (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Romano et al., 2011). Family stress and violence may increase in households with a high number of members (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). In addition, in single-parent households, parents may have less time to monitor their youth, which may contribute to higher rates of exposures to violence outside the home (Voisin et al., 2008). Domains beyond the family may also be implicated with violence exposures (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). During adolescence, the influence of peers is especially salient (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). Although some evidence has been mixed (Lambert et al., 2010), youth associating with peers endorsing risky norms such as those in gangs may be at heightened risk of exposure to community violence (Lambert et al., 2005). In addition, schools are likely to influence the likelihood of violence exposures. Positive school engagement (e.g., high grade attainment, involvement in afterschool activities, and positive relationships with teachers) may prevent youth from frequenting dangerous situations where violence may occur (Voisin, Jenkins, & Takahashi, 2011). School engagement has been linked to lower levels of both victimization and witnessing community violence (Mrug & Windle, 2009). While these studies suggest a number of correlates of violence exposure, most research examining correlates of violence have focused on single forms of exposures, preventing comparisons of correlates among IPV, community violence exposure, and polyvictimization. Building on studies examining correlates of singular forms of victimization, this study examined whether individual factors (i.e., age, gender anxiety, depression, and aggression), familial variables (i.e., household structure and number of household members), and extra-familial dynamics (i.e., afterschool participation, grade point average, student–teacher connectedness, gang membership, and risky peer norms) were related to single and multiple forms of violence exposure.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3026
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
Contributions of the Present Study This study extends the extant literature in several important ways. Little is known about the correlates of polyvictimization among African American youth, although preliminary evidence suggests that African American urban youth are at especially high risk of polyvictimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). This study examines three common types of violence exposures (i.e., witnessing VPA and community violence exposures both as witnesses and victims) in addition to polyvictimization, allowing for a direct comparison of correlates across victimization types. Furthermore, this study examines the role of gender with regard to the correlates of violence exposures. Few studies have explored these multiple forms of violence exposures and the role of gender across a single sample.
Method Participants and Procedure In 2006, prospective participants from a high school in a large Midwestern city were recruited by 20 trained master’s-level student research assistants. Participants were eligible for study enrollment if they self-identified as African American, were between the ages of 13 and 19 years, and were attending regular high-school classes (i.e., non-special-education classes). Research assistants first distributed parental consent forms to all students in their homeroom classes. Next, during a 2-week period, questionnaires were administered to all eligible students who brought in signed consent forms and self-identified as African American. Students who brought signed permission forms provided assent before taking the self-administered survey. The questionnaire was developed for a fifth-grade (10 years old) or elementary school education level to facilitate comprehension. Prior research has indicated that this reading level is appropriate for this youth cohort (Woolley, Bowen, & Bowen, 2004). Participants were given US$10 for finishing the survey that lasted up to 40 min. The survey was administered to eligible students in a small school auditorium during non-instructional moments during lunch and after school. The final sample consisted of 563 urban youth, achieving an 83% participation rate. The university, local school council, and regional school office Institutional Review Boards approved the study. As a condition for securing study approval from the Institutional Review Board, the study was permitted to only assess questions on witnessing VPA, and not any other form of IPV or experiencing abuse within the home.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3027
Measures Separate but similar surveys were administered to boys and girls using gender-specific language. The psychometric properties for all scales were computed separately for boys and girls. Individual factors. Gender was assessed by one item: “What is your gender?” Age was assessed by one question: “What is your age?” The Youth Self-Report (YSR) Survey was used to assess aggression, and withdrawal/ depression and anxiety/depression. This 113-item survey assessing a wide range of behavioral and emotional problems, including aggression and anxiety/depression, is a self-administered version of the widely implemented Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). Youth described present or recent behaviors on a 3-point scale varying from not true to very true. Seventeen items on the survey assessed externalizing aggressive behaviors. Anxiety/depression was assessed with 13 items, while 7 items measured withdrawal and depression. Each of these three factors was summed on a continuous scale. Sample items included “I cry a lot,” “I would rather be alone than with others,” and “I get in many fights” for anxiety, withdrawal, and aggression, respectively. The alpha coefficients for anxiety were .78 for boys and .76 for girls; for withdrawal, .62 for boys and .69 for girls; and for externalizing behaviors, .80 for both boys and girls. Family factors. Socioeconomic status was assessed by one item: “Do you or would you qualify for free lunch at school?” Household structure was measured by a single item: “The following best describes my household.” The following were response categories: “I live with both my (step) mother and (step) father,” “I live with only my mother,” “I live with only my father,” and “I live with someone other than my parents.” This item was recoded to a dichotomous measure such that 0 = youth living with both parents and 1 = all other responses. Number of persons living in the home was assessed by a single question: “The following best describes the number of persons who live in my home (including me).” Response options were as follows: “1-3 persons,” “4-6 persons,” “7-9 persons,” and “10 or more persons.” Extra-familial factors. Gang involvement was assessed by one item: “Have you ever been a member of a gang?” Risky peer norms were measured by the Peer Network Scale (Voisin, 2003), which included three items assessing peer norms promoting unsafe sex and drug use. For instance, “How many of
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3028
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
your friends believe that condoms reduce pleasure?” Responses were summed on a 7-point scale from 0 (none) to 6 (more than 6). The alpha coefficients were .72 and .65 for boys and girls, respectively. Students’ combined GPAs were obtained in their core courses, including math, English, social science, and science from their school records. Student–teacher connectedness was assessed by the Student Assessment of Teachers Scale (Klem & Connell, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004). Adolescents responded to 7 items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For instance, “Teachers at my school care about me.” Higher scores on the scale indicated higher student–teacher connectedness. The alpha coefficients were .86 and .87 for boys and girls, respectively. Afterschool activities were assessed through two items: “Have you ever belonged to a sports team?” and “Have you ever belonged to a school club?” Items were combined to a single scale such that 0 represented no participation in afterschool clubs or sports and 1 represented participation in both sports and clubs. Witnessing VPA. VPA was assessed by the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). Participants were asked the number of times they witnessed their mother argue or heard her yelling or screaming with her partner. The correlation between the two items was .92. Items were assessed on a 7-point scale (0 = never to 6 = 6 or more times) and summed to create the measure (range: 0-12). This item was then dichotomized along a median split, with 0 = low exposure and 1 = high exposure. This classification is consistent with the treatment of scales in prior investigations (Fullilove, Fullilove, Bowser, & Gross, 1990; Voisin, 2003, 2005). Exposure to community violence. Exposure to Violence Probe assessed both witnessing and victimization (M. B. Stein, Walker, Hazen, & Forde, 1997). Two items assessed direct victimization. For instance, “How many times has someone ever taken anything away from you by force or threat of force, such as a robbery, mugging or hold up?” Five items assessed witnessing community violence exposure. For instance, “How many times have you ever witnessed someone injured or violently killed in a non-gang related incident?” For both witnessing and direct exposure, items were assessed on a 7-point scale from 0 (never) to 6 (6 or more times). Each scale was summed to create a continuous measure, and then dichotomized along a median split, with 0 = low exposure and 1 = high exposure. Polyvictimization. The polyvictimization measure was created by combining reports of witnessing VPA, witnessing community violence, and
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3029
community violence victimization. We summed the median split bivariate measures of high witnessing VPA, witnessing community violence, and community violence victimization, resulting in a scale from 0 to 3. We then dichotomized the scale such that 1 = exposure to high levels of two or more forms of violence and 0 = exposure to high levels of one or fewer forms of violence.
Analytic Plan Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 19.0. Preliminary analysis described the characteristics of the sample using one-way frequency tables and measures of central tendency. Correlations were computed among all study variables using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients. Next, all study variables were compared by gender, employing t tests for continuous variables and chisquare tests for categorical variables. Finally, a series of individual models were built using binary logistic regressions. Bivariate correlates that were significant for each type of violence exposures were included in multivariate models. At each step, the predictor with the highest p value was eliminated until only predictors significant at the p < .10 level remained. Given the exploratory nature of the study, p was set at
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514554424Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceElsaesser and Voisin
Article
Correlates of Polyvictimization Among African American Youth: An Exploratory Study
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2015, Vol. 30(17) 3022–3042 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514554424 jiv.sagepub.com
Caitlin M. Elsaesser, AM1 and Dexter R. Voisin, PhD1,2
Abstract African American adolescents are exposed to high rates of community violence, and recent evidence indicates that these youth may also be at high risk of polyvictimization. Guided by an ecological approach, this study explored individual, familial, and extra-familial correlates of single and multiple forms of violence exposures (i.e., witnessing verbal parental aggression, witnessing or being a victim of community violence exposures) among a sample of 563 urban African American adolescents. Findings indicated that boys reported higher levels of polyvictimization than girls. In addition, the correlates of violence exposures varied by typology and gender. These findings support the development and use of gender-oriented approaches for identifying youth at risk of various types of violence exposures. Keywords polyvictimization, interparental violence, community violence exposures, African American youth, correlates, profiles, gender
1University 2STI/HIV
of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Intervention Network, 969 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL, USA
Corresponding Author: Caitlin M. Elsaesser, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 969 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3023
In the United States, adolescence is a developmental period marked by significant exposure to violence in the home and community. For instance, adolescents report high rates of witnessing interparental violence (IPV) and experiencing community violence both as witnesses and victims (Lambert, Nylund-Gibson, Copeland-Linder, & Ialongo, 2010; Romano, Bell, & Billette, 2011). Recent national surveys report that youth aged 15 to 18 years report an average of 2.7 victimizations in the past year (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2009). In addition, African American adolescents are at heightened risk of such exposures (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001), given that a disproportionate number of them reside in poorly resourced communities with high stressors (Osofsky, 1999). Exposure to violence within the family and community domains are associated with a number of youth problem behaviors. For example, both community violence exposure and exposure to IPV have been connected to increased youth aggression (Bradshaw, Rodgers, Ghandour, & Garbarino, 2009; Voisin & Hong, 2012), lower academic performance (Huth-Bocks, Levendosky, & Semel, 2001; Mathews, Dempsey, & Overstreet, 2009), and post-traumatic stress disorder (McCart et al., 2007; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006). In addition, an increasing number of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have provided evidence that exposures to witnessing verbal parental aggression (VPA; Voisin, Hotton, & Schneider, 2014) and exposure to community violence are associated with increased sexual risk behaviors (Albus, Weist, & Perez-Smith, 2004; Brady, Tschann, Pasch, Flores, & Ozer, 2008; Voisin, 2003) and sexually transmitted infections (Brady et al., 2008). Exposure to multiple forms of violence, known as polyvictimization, commonly occurs. Of youth exposed to one form of victimization in the last year, the majority are exposed to another type of victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005). The effects of polyvictimization may be even more detrimental than exposure to single forms of violence. For instance, a recent study indicated that youth exposed to high levels of IPV, child abuse, and community violence were twice as likely to meet clinical criteria for depression, anxiety, and delinquency when compared with peers exposed to moderate levels of violence (Margolin, Vickerman, Oliver, & Gordis, 2010). Although polyvictimization has severe negative sequelae, few studies have examined the correlates of polyvictimization. With one exception, Romano and colleagues (2011) documented in a cross-sectional study that parental rejection and lower friendship quality were associated with polyvictimization (i.e., verbal harassment, threat of and actual physical assault, school social exclusion, and discrimination). In addition, this study indicated that participation in out-of-school activity was a risk factor for polyvictimization. Taken
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3024
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
together, these findings document that home and school factors are correlated with risk for polyvictimization. However, although Romano and colleagues drew on a nationally representative Canadian sample, the study included no data on the racial/ethnic characteristics of the sample. Understanding the correlates of polyvictimization among African American youth may be especially important. These youth are at higher risk of exposure to violence compared with their other ethnic counterparts (Buka et al., 2001). In addition, within cities, African American youth are twice as likely to witness violence as their Caucasian peers (Schwab-Stone et al., 1995), and many may live in ecological niches and household structures that may be potential correlates of such exposures. Consequently, additional research is warranted to understand the correlates of single and multiple forms of violence exposures among African American youth.
Factors Associated With Violence Exposures The theoretical underpinning for this study is informed by Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1999), which suggests that individual, familial, and extra-familial domains may be related to various forms of violence exposures. Similar approaches have been applied to examining the correlates of youth problems such as sexual risk behaviors (Kotchick, Shaffer, Miller, & Forehand, 2001) and health promotion behaviors (Glass & McAtee, 2006; Hovell, Wahlgren, & Gehrman, 2009). In this framework, individual factors are considered personal dimensions that may contribute to violence exposures such as age, gender, internalizing, and externalizing behaviors. Typically, exposures to violence increase with age. For instance, studies have documented that some forms of violence exposures such as those occurring within the community increase as youth get older (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). Gender is also an important consideration, given that both exposures to and consequences of violence exposures often differ by gender (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009). For example, on average, girls compared with boys are exposed to lower rates of community violence both as witnesses and victims (Voisin, Neilands, & Hunnicutt, 2011). In addition, although findings have been mixed (Voisin & Neilands, 2010), some research suggests that coping responses to violence vary by gender; with more girls than boys coping with such exposures through withdrawal (Voisin, Bird, Hardestry, & Shiu, 2011). Psychological symptoms such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors may also impact violence exposures (Mrug & Windle, 2009). While internalizing behaviors such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal may be sequelae associated with violence exposures (Evans et al., 2008; Fowler et al., 2009),
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3025
it may also be true that internalizing and externalizing behaviors contribute to the likelihood of youth violence exposures. For instance, evidence suggests that delinquent behavior and aggression put youth at subsequent risk of both witnessing IPV (O’Donnell et al., 2006) and community violence exposure (Farrell & Sullivan, 2004). Fewer studies have examined internalizing factors as risks for violence exposure, but some evidence indicates that these factors may also put youth at risk of exposure (Lambert, Ialongo, Boyd, & Cooley, 2005). Family is a central influence on adolescent development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986), and there are a number of factors in the family that may influence the likelihood of victimization. Variables such as parenting structure (e.g., single- vs. two-parent households) and the number of children living in the household have been connected to violence exposures (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Romano et al., 2011). Family stress and violence may increase in households with a high number of members (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). In addition, in single-parent households, parents may have less time to monitor their youth, which may contribute to higher rates of exposures to violence outside the home (Voisin et al., 2008). Domains beyond the family may also be implicated with violence exposures (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). During adolescence, the influence of peers is especially salient (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). Although some evidence has been mixed (Lambert et al., 2010), youth associating with peers endorsing risky norms such as those in gangs may be at heightened risk of exposure to community violence (Lambert et al., 2005). In addition, schools are likely to influence the likelihood of violence exposures. Positive school engagement (e.g., high grade attainment, involvement in afterschool activities, and positive relationships with teachers) may prevent youth from frequenting dangerous situations where violence may occur (Voisin, Jenkins, & Takahashi, 2011). School engagement has been linked to lower levels of both victimization and witnessing community violence (Mrug & Windle, 2009). While these studies suggest a number of correlates of violence exposure, most research examining correlates of violence have focused on single forms of exposures, preventing comparisons of correlates among IPV, community violence exposure, and polyvictimization. Building on studies examining correlates of singular forms of victimization, this study examined whether individual factors (i.e., age, gender anxiety, depression, and aggression), familial variables (i.e., household structure and number of household members), and extra-familial dynamics (i.e., afterschool participation, grade point average, student–teacher connectedness, gang membership, and risky peer norms) were related to single and multiple forms of violence exposure.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3026
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
Contributions of the Present Study This study extends the extant literature in several important ways. Little is known about the correlates of polyvictimization among African American youth, although preliminary evidence suggests that African American urban youth are at especially high risk of polyvictimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). This study examines three common types of violence exposures (i.e., witnessing VPA and community violence exposures both as witnesses and victims) in addition to polyvictimization, allowing for a direct comparison of correlates across victimization types. Furthermore, this study examines the role of gender with regard to the correlates of violence exposures. Few studies have explored these multiple forms of violence exposures and the role of gender across a single sample.
Method Participants and Procedure In 2006, prospective participants from a high school in a large Midwestern city were recruited by 20 trained master’s-level student research assistants. Participants were eligible for study enrollment if they self-identified as African American, were between the ages of 13 and 19 years, and were attending regular high-school classes (i.e., non-special-education classes). Research assistants first distributed parental consent forms to all students in their homeroom classes. Next, during a 2-week period, questionnaires were administered to all eligible students who brought in signed consent forms and self-identified as African American. Students who brought signed permission forms provided assent before taking the self-administered survey. The questionnaire was developed for a fifth-grade (10 years old) or elementary school education level to facilitate comprehension. Prior research has indicated that this reading level is appropriate for this youth cohort (Woolley, Bowen, & Bowen, 2004). Participants were given US$10 for finishing the survey that lasted up to 40 min. The survey was administered to eligible students in a small school auditorium during non-instructional moments during lunch and after school. The final sample consisted of 563 urban youth, achieving an 83% participation rate. The university, local school council, and regional school office Institutional Review Boards approved the study. As a condition for securing study approval from the Institutional Review Board, the study was permitted to only assess questions on witnessing VPA, and not any other form of IPV or experiencing abuse within the home.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3027
Measures Separate but similar surveys were administered to boys and girls using gender-specific language. The psychometric properties for all scales were computed separately for boys and girls. Individual factors. Gender was assessed by one item: “What is your gender?” Age was assessed by one question: “What is your age?” The Youth Self-Report (YSR) Survey was used to assess aggression, and withdrawal/ depression and anxiety/depression. This 113-item survey assessing a wide range of behavioral and emotional problems, including aggression and anxiety/depression, is a self-administered version of the widely implemented Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). Youth described present or recent behaviors on a 3-point scale varying from not true to very true. Seventeen items on the survey assessed externalizing aggressive behaviors. Anxiety/depression was assessed with 13 items, while 7 items measured withdrawal and depression. Each of these three factors was summed on a continuous scale. Sample items included “I cry a lot,” “I would rather be alone than with others,” and “I get in many fights” for anxiety, withdrawal, and aggression, respectively. The alpha coefficients for anxiety were .78 for boys and .76 for girls; for withdrawal, .62 for boys and .69 for girls; and for externalizing behaviors, .80 for both boys and girls. Family factors. Socioeconomic status was assessed by one item: “Do you or would you qualify for free lunch at school?” Household structure was measured by a single item: “The following best describes my household.” The following were response categories: “I live with both my (step) mother and (step) father,” “I live with only my mother,” “I live with only my father,” and “I live with someone other than my parents.” This item was recoded to a dichotomous measure such that 0 = youth living with both parents and 1 = all other responses. Number of persons living in the home was assessed by a single question: “The following best describes the number of persons who live in my home (including me).” Response options were as follows: “1-3 persons,” “4-6 persons,” “7-9 persons,” and “10 or more persons.” Extra-familial factors. Gang involvement was assessed by one item: “Have you ever been a member of a gang?” Risky peer norms were measured by the Peer Network Scale (Voisin, 2003), which included three items assessing peer norms promoting unsafe sex and drug use. For instance, “How many of
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
3028
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(17)
your friends believe that condoms reduce pleasure?” Responses were summed on a 7-point scale from 0 (none) to 6 (more than 6). The alpha coefficients were .72 and .65 for boys and girls, respectively. Students’ combined GPAs were obtained in their core courses, including math, English, social science, and science from their school records. Student–teacher connectedness was assessed by the Student Assessment of Teachers Scale (Klem & Connell, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004). Adolescents responded to 7 items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For instance, “Teachers at my school care about me.” Higher scores on the scale indicated higher student–teacher connectedness. The alpha coefficients were .86 and .87 for boys and girls, respectively. Afterschool activities were assessed through two items: “Have you ever belonged to a sports team?” and “Have you ever belonged to a school club?” Items were combined to a single scale such that 0 represented no participation in afterschool clubs or sports and 1 represented participation in both sports and clubs. Witnessing VPA. VPA was assessed by the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). Participants were asked the number of times they witnessed their mother argue or heard her yelling or screaming with her partner. The correlation between the two items was .92. Items were assessed on a 7-point scale (0 = never to 6 = 6 or more times) and summed to create the measure (range: 0-12). This item was then dichotomized along a median split, with 0 = low exposure and 1 = high exposure. This classification is consistent with the treatment of scales in prior investigations (Fullilove, Fullilove, Bowser, & Gross, 1990; Voisin, 2003, 2005). Exposure to community violence. Exposure to Violence Probe assessed both witnessing and victimization (M. B. Stein, Walker, Hazen, & Forde, 1997). Two items assessed direct victimization. For instance, “How many times has someone ever taken anything away from you by force or threat of force, such as a robbery, mugging or hold up?” Five items assessed witnessing community violence exposure. For instance, “How many times have you ever witnessed someone injured or violently killed in a non-gang related incident?” For both witnessing and direct exposure, items were assessed on a 7-point scale from 0 (never) to 6 (6 or more times). Each scale was summed to create a continuous measure, and then dichotomized along a median split, with 0 = low exposure and 1 = high exposure. Polyvictimization. The polyvictimization measure was created by combining reports of witnessing VPA, witnessing community violence, and
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH on November 14, 2015
Elsaesser and Voisin
3029
community violence victimization. We summed the median split bivariate measures of high witnessing VPA, witnessing community violence, and community violence victimization, resulting in a scale from 0 to 3. We then dichotomized the scale such that 1 = exposure to high levels of two or more forms of violence and 0 = exposure to high levels of one or fewer forms of violence.
Analytic Plan Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 19.0. Preliminary analysis described the characteristics of the sample using one-way frequency tables and measures of central tendency. Correlations were computed among all study variables using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients. Next, all study variables were compared by gender, employing t tests for continuous variables and chisquare tests for categorical variables. Finally, a series of individual models were built using binary logistic regressions. Bivariate correlates that were significant for each type of violence exposures were included in multivariate models. At each step, the predictor with the highest p value was eliminated until only predictors significant at the p < .10 level remained. Given the exploratory nature of the study, p was set at
