The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is the most widely used instrument for measuring intimate partner violence. This article presents a short form to enable the CTS2 to be used when testing time is very limited. It also presents procedures that can be used with either the full test or the short form to classify individuals on the basis of severity of behavior toward a partner or by a partner, and to classify couples on the basis of mutuality or symmetry in the behaviors measured by the CTS2. The results indicate that the short form is comparable in validity to the full CTS2. Although the short form does not identify as many cases of partner violence as the full scale, it does identify a large number of cases and if there is insufficient time for the full scale, can be a useful screening instrument.

For over 30 years, research has shown that men can and do sustain intimate partner violence (IPV) from their female partners. This is the first large-scale, nationally-based, quantitative study to systematically detail the helpseeking experiences of men who have sustained IPV from their female partners. The sample is composed of 302 men who were recruited from resources specializing in men’s issues. Results indicate that men who seek help for IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and medical providers. They have the least positive experiences with members of the DV service system. Cumulative positive helpseeking experiences were associated with lower levels of abusing alcohol; cumulative negative experiences were associated with higher rates of exceeding a clinical cut-off for post-traumatic stress disorder. Results are discussed in terms of implications for the social service sector and for future research.

No abstract

Research showing that women commit high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against men has been controversial because IPV is typically framed as caused by the patriarchal construction of society and men’s domination over women. Johnson’s (1995) typology of common couple violence (CCV) and intimate terrorism (IT) attempted to resolve this controversy, but he maintained that IT was caused by patriarchy and committed almost exclusively by men. This study investigates Johnson’s theory as it applies to a sample of 302 men who sustained IPV from their female partners and sought help, and a comparison sample of community men. Results showed that the male helpseekers sample was comprised of victims of IT and that violence by the male victims was part of a pattern of what Johnson labels violent resistance. Men in the community sample who were involved in IPV conformed to Johnson’s description of CCV. Results are discussed in terms of research, policy, and practice implications of acknowledging women’s use of severe IPV and controlling behavior against their male partners.

Over 30 years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) by their opposite-sex partners, yet little research has examined men's experiences in such relationships. Some experts in the field have forwarded assumptions about men who sustain IPV–for example, that the abuse they experience is trivial or humorous and of no consequence and that, if their abuse was severe enough, they have the financial and psychological resources to easily leave the relationship–but these assumptions have little data to support them. The present study is an in-depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their women partners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, and the types and frequency of various forms of physical and psychological IPV they sustained. We also provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner's IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.

Evidence showing that women use intimate partner violence (IPV) against their male partners has existed since the 1970s when IPV was first systematically examined. This article discusses the various sources of prevalence rates of IPV by women against men, the dominant theoretical explanation for IPV in general, and its implications for female perpetrators and male victims in the social service and criminal justice systems, as well as the current evidence of the consequences of women's use of IPV to the men who sustain it. Finally, we discuss directions for future research, including our own study focusing on men who sustain IPV. KEYWORDS domestic violence, female perpetrators, male victims, mental healthIntimate partner violence (IPV) used by women against men is a phenomenon that has received little attention, both within the scholarly literature and the popular media. Despite this lack of attention, for nearly three decades research on IPV has shown that men are frequently the targets of IPV by their female partners. Estimates from national family violence surveys show that within a given year, at least 12% of men are the targets of some sort of physical aggression from their female partners, and 4% (or over 2.5 million men in the United States) sustain severe violence (Straus, 1995). Despite

This qualitative study explores internal and external barriers to help seeking among 41 men from four English-speaking countries who self-reported victimization from a female intimate partner. Twelve online focus groups were conducted and themes were identified inductively at a semantic level. Six identified themes represented four internal (blind to the abuse, maintaining relationships, male roles, and excuses) and two external barriers to help seeking (fear of seeking help and nowhere to go). Most participants who avoided seeking help did so due to their own lack of recognition of abuse and ability to assess their risk of harm, attempts to keep the family intact, masculine stereotypes, and excuses for their partner’s abuse. Some men who expressed an interest in seeking help were discouraged from it due to fear for their personal safety, a potential revictimization in the legal system, and the lack of support services available to men. This research suggests that the individuals who are abused in relationships, service providers, and the public at large could benefit from professional training about gender inclusive approaches to intimate partner abuse.

Extensive work has documented an association between sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among women, yet little research has documented the same association in men, even though men comprise 25–50% of all IPV victims in a given year. Previous studies also show that women who sustain intimate terrorism (IT), a form of IPV that is characterized by much violence and controlling behavior, are at even greater risk for PTSD than women who sustain common couple violence (CCV), a lower level of more minor, reciprocal IPV. However, no research has documented this trend in men who sustain IT versus CCV. The present study investigates the associations among sustaining IPV and PTSD among both a clinical and community sample of men. The clinical sample is comprised of 302 men who sustained IT from their female partners and sought help. The community sample is comprised of 520 men, 16% of whom sustained CCV. Analyses showed that in both samples, the associations between sustaining several types of IPV and PTSD were significant, and that men who sustained IT were at exponentially increased risk of exceeding the clinical cut-off on the PTSD measure than men who sustained CCV or no violence. The path models predicting PTSD symptoms differed for both samples, indicating that perhaps treatment implications differ by group as well.