J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

DOI 10.1007/s10896-011-9377-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Perceptions of Safety in Intimate Relationships: Group

Differences Based on Gender and Setting
David Servino & Douglas B. Smith & Robert D. Porter &
Matthew D. Brown

Published online: 17 May 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Intimate partner violence continues to be

prevalent, resulting in negative consequences for the
individuals involved and for society as a whole.
Perceptions of safety in relationships where intimate
partner violence is present is an understudied topic in the
literature. The Safety Assessment of Future Events Scale
(SAFE) was developed to assess respondents perceptions of safety in their intimate relationship. The purpose
of this study was to examine whether group differences
existed on respondents SAFE scores. 428 participants
from community and clinic samples completed the SAFE
and other measures contained in a southwest universitys
marriage and family therapy clinic intake packet.
ANCOVA was used to control for gender and setting in
determining if group differences existed on the SAFE
based on measures assessing interpersonal violence,
relational adjustment, intrapersonal symptoms, and PTSD
symptoms. Results indicated group differences based on
gender, interpersonal violence victimization, and relational
adjustment.
Keywords Perceptions of safety . Intimate partner
violence . Safety assessment of future events scale .
Relationships
D. Servino (*) : R. D. Porter : M. D. Brown
Texas Tech University,
5430 47th Street,
Lubbock, TX 79414, USA
e-mail: david.servino@ttu.edu
D. B. Smith
Applied and Professional Studies, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX, USA

Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be a major
problem in the US (Schafer et al. 1998). Approximately 1.3
million women and 834,732 men were physically assaulted
by an intimate partner in 1998 according to survey data
(Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). More recently, Black and
Breiding (2008) found that women experience two million
injuries from intimate partner violence each year. Research
focused on IPV has found various prevalence and severity
rates as well as types of IPV. For example, IPV can range from
mild, bidirectional violence (i.e., both partners perpetrating
violence) or situational couple violence, to severe, unidirectional violence, often referred to as intimate terrorism (Johnson
and Leone 2005).Settings from which samples are collected have also been shown to impact research findings
(Johnson 2006; Straus 1979, 1990), with samples collected from clinical settings generally reporting higher rates of
IPV than community settings.
Each year many individuals, couples, and families seek
counseling/therapy for issues related to intimate partner
violence (Stith et al. 2004).In clinical work with couples,
identifying types of abuse can be a difficult task. Understanding the relationships between safety in intimate
relationships and violence in intimate relationships is
critical for the assessment and treatment of IPV (Ehrensaft
and Vivian 1999; Tyson et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2010).
However, very little research on perceptions of safety exists.
Because safety is of paramount importance in clinical work
with couples and individuals (Schacht et al. 2009), paucity of
empirical literature regarding perceptions of safety creates a
dilemma for clinicians attempting to adhere to recommendations to conduct routine assessments of safety. More

432

research is needed in order to better understand important

safety factors, how people assess for safety, and perceptions
of safety in intimate relationships.
Safety in relationships tends to be taken for granted. This
is due to the fact that safety is only mentioned when a lack
of safety exists. When individuals feel safe in relationships
they feel free to be themselves without fear of repercussion
(Cordova et al. 2002, 2005). Understanding peoples
perceptions of safety is an important step in advancing
clinical work with people experiencing IPV and in future
IPV research. Understanding perceptions of safety is
valuable because it could improve clinicians/researchers
ability to predict violence in intimate relationships, and
improve their ability to evaluate the success of treatment.
The purpose of this study was to examine whether
interpersonal violence, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) symptoms, intrapersonal symptoms and relational
adjustment predicted perceptions of safety in intimate
relationships.

Understanding IPV and Safety

There are typically three main types of intimate partner
violence discussed in the literature. These include physical
violence, verbal/psychological violence, and sexual violence. In addition to studying the prevalence and effects of
these types of violence, researchers have focused on
typologies of violence that are based on specific defining
characteristics such as whether control is present, the
directionality of the violence, and the level of violence
(Johnson 1995; Johnson and Ferraro 2000; Johnson and
Leone 2005;Straus 1979).
When intimate partner violence is present the primary
concern of clinicians is establishing and maintaining
safety. Clinicians are directed to assess the past and
present levels of safety in relationships, help clients
develop safety plans, and encourage the eradication of
violent behaviors (Pressman 1989; Whalen 2005).
Addressing issues of safety is of paramount importance
when working with high conflict couples or clients
reporting the presence of IPV (Stith et al. 2004). Based
on the high prevalence of IPV, clinicians are encouraged to
make assessment for safety a routine component of
therapy, including conjoint therapy (Schacht et al. 2009).
There is evidence that experience of traumatic stressors
over time, like IPV, is associated with the victims
evaluation of risk (Ehrensaft and Vivian 1999; Krause et
al. 2006; Tyson et al. 2007). This may be problematic for
clinicians if clients are either desensitized or hypersensitive
to indicators for potentially unsafe situations within
intimate relationships based on previous traumatic stressors.
In a recent study by Harding and Helweg-Larsen (2009) the

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

researchers examined the relationship between risk perceptions of future violence and intentions to engage in
protective behaviors among women in a domestic violence
shelter. They found that women who experienced a severe
abuse episode with their partner perceived continuing the
relationship to be riskier than women without these
experiences. Additionally, women who reported a greater
risk for relationship continuation also reported greater
intention to terminate the relationship.

Relationship Between Safety, PTSD, and IPV

Safety, defined as the need to feel secure from harm,is
an important factor in intimate relationships. Disrupted
beliefs about safety are an inevitable consequence of
trauma (Pearlman and Saakvitne 1995). PTSD symptoms
are highly correlated with experiencing traumatic stressors and are often present in persons experiencing
moderate to severe IPV. According to a study by Perez
and Johnson (2008), PTSD symptom severity was both a
result of intimate partner violence as well as a contributor
to future violence. This finding is consistent with
previous research that has linked IPV with negative
mental and physical health outcomes (OCampo et al.
2006; Taft et al. 2007; Woods 2005).
IPV can be a traumatic experience that results in trauma
related symptoms. PTSD can result from exposure to
natural or human traumatic events from the past. In a meta
analysis, Golding (1999) reported that studies found rates
of PTSD among victims of IPV ranging from 31% to 84%
and that women with a history of IPV were three to five
times more likely to develop PTSD than non-victims.
Several studies have shown that a positive correlation exists
between intensity of PTSD symptomatology and severity of
abuse (Astin 1993; Houskamp and Foy 1991; Vitanza et al.
1995; Woods 2000). PTSD symptoms can emerge from all
forms of IPV (physical, psychological, and sexual).
However, psychological abuse potentially represents the
strongest predictor of developing PTSD related symptoms (Dutton et al. 2001; Street and Arias 2001).

Safety, Relational Adjustment, and IPV Interactions

The need to feel safe is an important component of any
intimate relationship. If fear of emotional or physical safety
is present, the likelihood of negative verbal and physical
behaviors is increased (Ehrensaft and Vivian 1999). An
individuals perception of safety in their intimate relationship is central for their relationships stability and satisfaction (Gottman 1999). It follows then that when safety is
jeopardized, such as with the occurrence of IPV, there is

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

greater likelihood for increased tension and decreased

satisfaction. Cordova et al. (2002) developed the Intimate
Safety Questionnaire (ISQ), which is used to assess safety
in intimate relationships across broad domains of relationship functioning, unrelated to IPV. The authors found
significant correlations between scores on the ISQ and
relational adjustment scores. Decreased safety was significantly correlated with decreased relationship adjustment
for husbands and wives.
Despite most research indicating a clear negative
impact of IPV on relationship adjustment, some research
has found the opposite. Williams and Frieze (2005)
found a small number of participants who were satisfied
in spite of their violent relationships. They hypothesized
that these individuals may have thrill-seeking personalities or highly passionate relationships where violence is
only one aspect of their relationship. However, based on
the small numbers of people reporting satisfaction in
violent relationships, the general agreement is relationship satisfaction is negatively impacted by violence and
low relationship satisfaction is potentially a risk marker
for IPV.
Many people seek individual, couple, and family therapy
for reasons associated with IPV. Research has shown that
safety is of primary importance in therapy, especially with
couples, because couples therapy can do more harm than
good in certain violent relationships if safety is not
accounted for and properly dealt with by clinicians (Stith
et al. 2004).Research has shown that the more intimate
partner violence exists in relationships, the less satisfied
people are in those relationships (Cordova et al. 2002;
Dutton et al. 2006; Kaura and Lohman 2007).PTSD, a
common product of trauma experienced in intimate relationships, can be debilitating and is a serious diagnosis
affecting peoples ability to feel in control of their lives. By
having a better understanding of perceptions of safety in
intimate relationships, clinicians/researchers can help improve the ability to predict violence and evaluate the
success of treatment.

433
Table 1 Sample characteristics for both community and clinical
samples (N=428)
Variable X (SD) / %
Age
Gender
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian/White
Mexican-American/Hispanic
Biracial
African-American/Black
Other
Education
High School
College
Post Bachelors
Income
Less than $10,000
$10 k$29,999
$30 k$59,999
$60,000 or more
Relationship Status
Single, Divorced, or Separated
Dating, Cohabiting, Engaged
Married
Length of Current Relationship

27 (9.20)
174
254
67.9%
17.3%
7.0%
2.9%
4.9%
14.8%
72.8%
12.3%
51.5%
33.1%
11.9%
3.5%
2.9%
63.5%
33.4%
4.5 yrs. (6.39)

review of the inclusion criteria were conducted by phone

and respondents meeting the inclusion criteria scheduled
an appointment to complete the study measure at the
research site. To participate in the study respondents
needed to be at least 18 years old, currently be in an
intimate relationship, and a U.S. citizen. Participants
from the community sample were paid 20 dollars to
complete the assessment packet.
Measures

Methods
Data were collected from both clinical and community
samples (N=428). Sample characteristics can be found in
Table 1. Community and clinical samples were used in
order to insure the inclusion of responses from participants
in distressed and non-distressed relationships. The clinical data were collected as part of the intake assessment
at a southwest training clinic by way of the clinical
intake packet. The community data were collected from
participants that responded to an announcement on an email based university bulletin board. Initial screening and

Demographics A demographic questionnaire used as part

of the clinical intake packet was used to obtain demographic data from the collection site. The demographic
information collected from respondents included: age,
gender sexual orientation, current relationship status, and
current relationship length.
Safety Safety was measured using the Safety Assessment of Future Events Scale (Smith et al. 2010). The
SAFE is a 15-item self-report measure that asks respondents to indicate the likelihood that their partner will
perpetrate violent or controlling behaviors in the near

434

future. Instructions also state that respondents are not to

indicate whether an event has happened in the past.
Responses for each item are indicated on a six point
Likert scale (1 = Extremely Unlikely, 2 = Very Unlikely,
3 = Somewhat Unlikely, 4 = Somewhat Likely, 5 = Very
Likely, 6 = Extremely Likely). The SAFE produces a
total score and three subscale scores (Physical Safety,
Psychological Safety, Control). The SAFE is intended for
use in clinical and research settings in conjunction with
other assessments for IPV in order to help clinicians
develop a comprehensive picture of the risk for IPV.The
authors report good internal reliability (full scale = .88,
physical safety subscale = .85, verbal/psychological
safety subscale = .89, control subscale = .76).
Relational Adjustment The Revised Dyadic Adjustment
Scale RDAS consists of 14 items evaluating a couples
agreement on decisions and appropriate behavior, marital
satisfaction, and marital cohesion. 13 Questions are
answered on a 6-point Likert scale, with one question
answered on a 5-point Likert scale. It is appropriate for use
with distressed and non-distressed couples. The RDAS
scores range from zero to 69, with distressed relationships having a score at or below 48. The measure
provides a total marital adjustment score, and subscale
scores for marital consensus, marital satisfaction, and
marital cohesion.Busby et al. (1995), reported acceptable
internal validity for the RDAS withCrohnbacks alpha and
Guttman split-half reliability coefficients at .90 and .94
respectively.
Symptoms of PTSD PTSD symptoms were assessed
using the Modified PTSD Symptom ScaleSelf Report
(MPSSSR; Falsetti et al. 1993). The scale consists of 17
items that correspond to PTSD symptom criteria in the
DSMIII(AmericanPsychiatric Association 1980).Frequency of PTSD symptoms is assessed on a 4-point
scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (5 or more times per
week/verymuch/almost always). Severity of PTSD symptoms
is assessed on a 5-point scale of distress ranging from not at
all distressing to extremely distressing.The measure is
recommended for use in clinical or research settings with
respondents with a history of multiple traumas or when
trauma history is unknown. Falsetti (1997) reported
Cronbachs alphas for the clinical sample (frequency scale
=.93; severity scale =.94) and the community sample
(frequency scale =.92; severity scale =.95).
Interpersonal Violence Interpersonal violence was measured
using the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 Short Form (CTS2S) (Straus
and Douglas 2004). The CTS2S is a short version of the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) (Straus et al. 1996), a
widely used measure for assessing interpersonal violence.

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

The scale includes 20 questionswith five subscales. The

subscales are physical (four items), sexual (four items), and
psychological (four items) aggression, as well as injury
(four items), and negotiation (four items). Each subscale
(minus the negotiation subscale) contains two items
measuring severe forms of aggression and two items
measuring mild forms of aggression, for a total of eight
items measuring severe aggression and eight items
measuring mild forms of aggression. The negotiation
subscale contains two items measuring cognitive aggression and two items measuring emotional aggression.
Respondents report frequency of behaviors over the past
year. Composite scoreswere created from violence subscales based on the recommendations found in Conflict
Tactics Scales Handbook (Straus et al. 2003). Numerical
severity levelswere assigned for scales with minor and
severe distinctions. The numerical values assigned were 0
for no violence, 1 for minor but not severe violence, and 2
if any severe items have been endorsed.Archer (1999)
found the CTS to have adequate reliability and Straus and
Douglas (2004) reported good construct validity and
concurrent validity with the CTS2.
Intrapersonal Symptoms The BSI (Derogatis 1993) is a 53item self-report inventorydesigned to identify clinically
relevant psychological symptoms in adolescents and adults.
Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
not at all to extremely. The BSI is a shortened version of
the SCL-90-R (Derogatis 1983) and takes 810 minutes to
complete. Both the BSI and the SCL-90-R have been
subjected to extensive reliability and validity analyses in
non-intellectually disabled adult populations. (Derogatis
1983, 1993). The BSI psychometric profile produces nine
primary symptom dimensions and three global indices of
psychopathology. The nine primary symptom dimensions
include: Somatization, Obsessive-compulsive, Interpersonal
Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety,
Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism. The three global
indicators include: the Global Severity Index, Positive
Symptom Distress Index, and Positive Symptom Total.
The three global indicators provide an estimate of the range
and depth of psychopathology present. The Global Severity
Index (GSI) combines data on the number of symptoms and
the intensity of distress andrepresents an effective single
summary indicator of psychopathology. The Positive
Symptom Distress Index (PSDI) is a measure of symptom
intensity corrected for the number of symptoms. The
Positive Symptom Total (PST) is a count of the number
of positive symptoms endorsed by the participant. Research
evaluating the reliability and validity of the BSI suggests
that the measure demonstrates good internal consistency
and test-retest reliability as well as good convergent and
construct validity (Derogatis 1993; DeVet 1997).

62
111
112
143

35.61
33.68
30.29
26.57

12.27
13.57
9.04
10.00

Community

.43c
.50c
.67c
.42c
.41c
.31c
.50c
.40c
.53c
.33c
.25c
.23c
.30c
.25c
.84c
.38c
.24c
.26c
.34c
.29c
.43c
.34c
.48c
.27c
.29c
.23c
.25c
.34c
.70c
.72c
.40c
.19c
.26c
.25c
.27c
.34c
.35c
.42c
.34c
.27c
.19c
.16c
.26c
.25c

PCTSPhysSevV
CTSPhysSevP
SAFE
BSI
OQ
RDAS
MPSS
Setting

.07
.13b
.07
.16c
.17c
.10a
.08
.09
.00
.01

Significant at P.001

Male
Female
Male
Female

Significant at P.01

Clinical

Standard deviation

Significant at P.05

Mean

Gender

Gender
Setting
MPSS
RDAS
OQ
BSI
SAFE
CTSPhysSevPerp
CTSPhysSevVic
CTSPsychSevPerp
CTSPsychSevVic

Setting

Gender

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of gender and setting by

SAFE total scores

Table 3 Correlations between main variables

Means and standard deviations from participants for

gender and setting on total SAFE scores are listed in
Table 2. Basic demographic information for the participants is found in Table 2. Of the total sample, most
respondents were in distressed relationships (N = 244,
55%) versus non-distressed relationships (N=198, 45%)
as assessed by the RDAS (Busby et al. 1995). The CTS2S
(Straus and Douglas 2004) yielded results for both
physical and psychological violence. Respondents indicated:
perpetrating physical violence not at all (N=330, 75%), minor
physical violence (N=80, 18%), and severe physical violence
(N=31, 7%); perpetrating psychological violence not at all
(N=104, 24%), minor psychological violence (N=271,
62%), and severe psychological violence (N=64, 14%); being
the victim of physical violence not at all (N=326, 74%),
minor physical victimization (N=79, 18%), and severe
physical victimization (N = 37, 8%); and being the
victim of psychological violence not at all (N = 111,
25%), minor psychological victimization (N = 271, 62%),
and severe psychological victimization (N = 58, 13%).
Twenty-three percent of the sample (N = 59) met the scale
criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD based on the MPSS-SR
(Falsetti et al. 1993). Correlations between the primary
study variables are presented in Table 3.
ANCOVA was used to test the significance of the
main and interactive effects of physical and psychological violence on perceptions of safety with gender and
setting as covariates. The dependent variable was SAFE
total scores. Analyses were performed using SPSS
(version 17.0) General Linear Model.The covariate,
gender, remained significant in the model whereas
setting was not significant. The interaction between
gender and setting was also non-significant. Significant
main effects included gender, F(1, 428)=10.36, p=.001,
RDAS total scores, F(1, 428)=45.73, p<.001, PTSD total
scores, F(1, 428)=10.92, p=.001, psychological severity
victim scores, F(1, 428)=33.96, p=.001, and physical
severity victim scores, F(1,428)=29.94, p<.001. Physical
severity perpetrator scores, psychological severity perpetrator
scores, Outcome Questionnaire total scores, and Brief
Symptom Inventory total scores were non-significant.

CTSPsycSevP

Results

.75c

435
CTSPsychSevV

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

436

Discussion
Current findings highlight the importance of perceptions of
safety in violent intimate partner relationships. Results
indicated that higher relationship adjustment was associated
with greater perceived safety in intimate relationships. This
finding adds to findings from previous research about
violence and relationships satisfaction (Gottman 1999;
Sackett and Saunders 1999; Tjaden and Thoennes 2002;
Woods 2005). Relationship satisfaction generally refers to
the extent to which an individual feels content about their
relationship and/or partner. Though studies have shown that
relationship violence alone is not entirely predictive of
relationship satisfaction (Kaura and Lohman 2007), most
research shows that when violence is present, relationship
satisfaction decreases. In a study on dating violence by
Kaura and Lohman (2007), womens acceptability of
violence moderated the relationship between dating violence
victimization and relationship satisfaction. This finding
suggests that women who were victims of violenceand were
more accepting of male-to-female violence did not report
significantly lower relationship satisfaction. This finding was
not true for men in their study.
Finding from this study also indicate that the lower the
reported perceived safety in intimate relationships the more
PTSD symptomotology reported by participants. This
finding is consistent with previous research that has found
a positive correlation between PTSD symptoms and the
frequency and severity of IPV (Bradley et al. 2005; Coker
et al. 2000; Dutton et al. 2006).Additionally, research has
shown a direct link between safety and PTSD symptoms. In
a study by Cascardi et al. (1996), women assaulted in
locations rated as safe had significantly more severe overall
PTSD symptoms than women assaulted in dangerous
locations, but found the opposite was true based on
assailant identity. The more frequent and severe the IPV
the less the perceived safety exists in relationships.
Similarly, as PTSD symptomotology increased, there was
less perceived safety by respondents in the current study.
Findings also demonstrated increased psychological and
physical abuse was associated with lower perceived safety
in intimate relationships. These findings are consistent with
previous research on violence/abuse and safety (Bacchus et
al. 2003; Campbell 2005; Campbell and Lewandowski
1997; Coker et al. 2000). Current or past psychological
battering may result in the same types of mental and
physical health outcomes and severity continuum as
physical battering (Coker et al. 2000). Pico-Alfonso et al.
(2006), found psychological IPV to be as detrimental to
women as physical IPV, with the exception of effects on
suicidality.
Another important finding was that men perceived less
safety in intimate relationships than women. Existing

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

research indicates that women are more likely to be

physically abused in intimate relationships than men.
Twenty-two percent of women and 7% of men report
experiencing intimate IPV during their adult lives
(Tjaden and Thoennes 2002). Other research has found
comparable rates of abuse between men and women
(Straus and Ramirez 2007). With existing research pointing to at best equal levels of abuse, it is surprising that the
men in this study perceive less safety than women. This
may be a result of the type of violence found in the
sample. Low-level bidirectional violence was the most
common type of IPV reported, which means there was less
intimate terrorism and other forms of more severe IPV.
High levels of psychological violence also existed and
may contribute to why men felt less safety than women.
Research has shown that violence tends to be more
acceptable to men than it is to women, and while men
perceived less safety in the current study, social expectations for men may be a confounding variable complicating this relationship.
Gender and setting were used as covariates in our
analysis in order to determine whethergroup differences
existed and to account for possible confounding effects on
perceptions of safety. Gender has been shown to be an
important factor in IPV research, often with significant
differences existing between male and female respondents
reports. Some research indicates men tend to underreport
violence and be more accepting of violence when compared
to women (Anderson 1997; Johnson 2006). Though not
significant in the current study, setting is also an important
factor with significant differences existing between community and clinical samples in IPV research. Samples
drawn from clinical settings tend score higher on measures
used to assess for relational and mental problems when
compared to community samples (Coker et al. 2000).
Limitations
The sample in this study was collected at a large university
and from the surrounding community in the southwestern
United States and was not representative of the population
at large. As such, the results of this study cannot be
generalized or be made to represent people in other
geographic locations. The study sample was not diverse
with respect to age, ethnicity, income, and education,
consisting primarily of low-income, Caucasian persons in
intimate relationships.
The topic of this paper was perceptions of safety and not
the construct of actual safety. This is an important
distinction, as the SAFE is not intended to be a predictor
of actual physical, psychological, or sexual safety, but
rather an accurate measure of perceptions of safety. The
SAFE should be used in clinical settings for the purpose of

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

identifying clients perceptions of safety in their relationships. For example, knowing that clients perceive feeling
unsafe in their intimate relationships can help clinicians
identify and focus on safety early on in therapy.
As research has shown, there are varying forms of
violence based on frequency, severity, and directionality
(Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart 1994; Johnson 2006;
Johnson and Leone 2005). The most common form of
violence in general is mild bidirectional violence, which
is the type of violence most common in this study.
Findings related to violence cannot be applied to other
types of violence, such as intimate terrorism. Additionally, the current study utilized cross-sectional data.
Therefore, predictions cannot be made regarding the
direction of the relationship between violence and
perceptions of safety.

Conclusion
Results highlight the importance of the relationship between perceptions of safety and various intra- and interpersonal and relational factors in respondents in intimate
relationships. The more perceived safety in intimate
relationships, the more relationship satisfaction, the less
PTSD symptomotology, and the less physical and psychological violence existed in intimate relationships. Also,
men perceived less safety in intimate relationships than
did women in our study. Based on thesefindings,
perceptions of safety may bean important and understudied topic in the field. While most findings in this
study support the previous literature (PTSD, relational
adjustment, physical and psychological violence) on
IPV and safety, gender differences related to perceptions of safety was unexpected and should be
researched further. Future research should focus on
these gender differences exploring how they relate to
other types of violence (i.e., intimate terrorism, etc.).

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington: Author.
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: an
integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 655669.
Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics
scales: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14(12), 12631289.
Astin, M. C. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder among battered
women: risk and resiliency factors. Violence and Victims, 8, 17
28.
Bacchus, L., Mezey, G., & Bewley, S. (2003). Experiences of seeking
help from health Professionals in a sample of women who

437
experienced domestic violence. Health & Social Care in the
Community, 11, 1018.
Black, M. C., & Breiding, M. J. (2008).Adverse health conditions and
health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence
United States, 2005. Retrieved March 26th, 2010: http://www.
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5705a1.htm.
Bradley, R., Schwartz, A. C., & Kaslow, N. J. (2005). Posttraumatic
stress disorder symptoms among low-income, African American
women with a history of intimate partner violence and suicidal
behaviors: Self-esteem, social support, and religious coping.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(6), 685696.
Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., & Crane, D. R. (1995). A revision of
the Dyadic Adjustemnt Scale for use with distressed and
nondistressed couples: Construct Hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289308.
Campbell, J. C. (2005). Assessing dangerousness in domestic violence
cases: history, challenges, and opportunities. Vollmer Award
Address, 4, 653672.
Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical
health effects of intimate partner violence on women and
children. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 20, 353374.
Cascardi, M., Riggs, D. S., Hearst-Ikeda, D., & Foa, E. B. (1996).
Objective ratings of assault safety as predictors of PTSD. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 11(1), 6578.
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. J. (2000).
Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type:
physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal
of Public Health, 90, 553559.
Cordova, J. V., Warren, L. Z., Gee, C. B., & McDonald, R. P. (2002).
Intimate safety: Measuring the private experience of intimacy in
men and women. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional
skillfulness in marriage: intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 218235.
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R; Administration, scoring and
procedures: Manual II. Towson: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief symptom inventory: Administration
scoring and procedures manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis: National
Computer Systems.
DeVet, K. A. (1997). Parent-adolescent relationships, physical
disciplinary history, and adjustment in adolescents. Family
Process, 36, 311322.
Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., & Bennett, L. (2001). Court-involved
battered womens responses to violence: The role of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. In K. OLeary & R. D. Maiuro
(Eds.), Psychological abuse in violent domestic relations. New
York: Springer.
Dutton, M. A., Green, B. L., Kaltman, S. I., Roesch, D. M., Zeffiro, T.
A., & Krause, E. D. (2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and
adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21
(7), 955968.
Ehrensaft, M. K., & Vivian, D. (1999). Is partner aggression related to
appraisals of coercive control by a partner? Journal of Family
Violence, 14(3), 251266.
Falsetti, S. A. (1997). A review of the Modified PTSD Symptom Scale.
Paper presented at the International Society of Traumatic Stress
Studies, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Falsetti, S. A., Resnick, H. S., Resick, P. A., & Kilpatrick, D. (1993).
The Modified PTSD Symptom Scale: a brief self-report measure
of posttraumatic stress disorder. The Behavioral Therapist, 16,
161162.
Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for
mental disorders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Family violence, 14
(2), 99132.

438
Gottman, J. M. (1999). Marriage clinic: A scientifically based
marriage therapy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Harding, H. G., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2009). Perceived risk for
future intimate partner violence among women in a domestic
violence shelter. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 7585.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male
batterers: three subtypes and the differences among them.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476497.
Houskamp, B. M., & Foy, D. W. (1991). The assessment of
posttraumatic stress disorder in battered women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 6, 367375.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple
violence: two forms of violence against women. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57, 283294.
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and
asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12,
10031018.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic
violence in the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 948963.
Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of
intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of
Family Issues, 26(3), 322349.
Kaura, S. A., & Lohman, B. J. (2007). Dating violence victimization,
relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: a comparison of men and women. Journal of
Family Violence, 22, 367381.
Krause, E. D., Kaltman, S., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (2006).
Role of distinct PTSD symptoms in intimate partner reabuse: a
prospective study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(4), 507516.
OCampo, P., Kub, J., Woods, A., Garza, M., Jones, A. S., Gielen, A.
C., et al. (2006). Depression, PTSD, and comorbidity related to
intimate partner violence in civilian and military women. Brief
Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 6(2), 99110.
Pearlman, L. A., & Saakvitne, K. W. (1995). Constructivist self
development theory and trauma therapy. In: Trauma and the
therapist: Countertransference and vicarious traumatization in
psychotherapy with incest survivors (pp. 5574). New York:
Norton.
Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2008). PTSD compromises battered
womens future safety. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5),
635651.
Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Garcia-Linares, M., Celda-Navarro, N., BlascoRos, C., Echeburua, E., & Martinez, M. (2006). The Impact of
physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner
violence on womens mental health: depressive symptoms,
posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal
of Womens Health, 15(5), 599611.
Pressman, B. (1989). Wife abused couples: the need for comprehensive theoretical perspective and integrate treatment models.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 1, 2343.
Sackett, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different
forms of psychological abuse on battered women. Violence and
Victims, 14, 105117.
Schacht, R. L., Dimidjian, S., George, W. H., & Berns, S. B. (2009).
Domestic violence assessment procedures among couple therapists.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(1), 4759.
Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate
partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public
Health, 88(11), 17021704.
Smith, D. B., Whiting, J. B., Servino, D., Oka, M., & Karakurt, G.
(2010). The Safety Assesement of Future Events Scale

J Fam Viol (2011) 26:431438

(SAFE). Assessing perceptions of risk for future violence in
intimate partner relationships. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thompson, C. J.
(2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple
relationships: outcomes of multi-couple versus individual
couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30
(3), 305318.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the
conflict tactics scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41,
7588.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Manual for the conflict tactics scales. Durham:
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the revised
conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality.
Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507520.
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in
prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression
against dating partners by university students in Mexico and
USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281290.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development
and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17
(3), 283316.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The conflict
tactics scales handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
Street, A. E., & Arias, I. (2001). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder in battered women: examining the roles of
shame and guilt. Violence and Victims, 16(1), 6578.
Taft, C. T., Vogt, D. S., Mechanic, M. B., & Resick, P. A. (2007).
Posttraumatic stress disorder and physical health symptoms
among women seeking help for relationship Aggression. Journal
of Family Psychology, 21(3), 354362.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence,
incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings
from the national violence against women survey. Washington:
National Institute of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2002). Extent, nature and consequences
of intimate partner violence. Available at www.ncjrs.org/
pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf.
Tyson, S. Y., Herting, J. R., & Randell, B. P. (2007). Beyond violence:
threat reappraisal in women recently separated from intimatepartner violent relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 24(5), 693706.
Vitanza, S., Vogel, L. C., & Marshall, L. L. (1995). Distress and
symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in abused women.
Violence and Victims, 10, 2334.
Whalen, M. (2005). Battery, control, and power in intimate relationships: Designing crisis interventions. In B. G. Collins & T. M.
Collins (Eds.), Crisis and trauma: Developmental-ecological
intervention. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a
national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52(1112),
771784.
Woods, S. J. (2000). Prevalence and patterns of posttraumatic stress
disorder in abused and postabused women. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 21, 309324.
Woods, S. J. (2005). Intimate partner violence and post-traumatic
stress disorder symptoms in women: what we know and need to
know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 394402.