Measuring the Burden of Intimate Partner Violence by Sex and Sexual Identity: Results From a Random Sample in Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Debates on how sex, gender, and sexual identity relate to intimate partner violence (IPV) are longstanding. Yet the role that measurement plays in how we understand the distribution of IPV has been understudied. We investigated whether people respond differently to IPV items by sex and sexual identity and the implications this has for understanding differences in IPV burdens. Our sample was 2,412 randomly selected residents of Toronto, Canada, from the Neighborhood Effects on Health and Well-being (NEHW) study. IPV was measured using short forms of the Physical and Nonphysical Partner Abuse Scales (20 items). We evaluated the psychometric properties of this measure by sex and sexual identity. We examined whether experiences of IPV differed by sex and sexual identity (accounting for age and neighborhood clustering) and the impacts of accounting for latent structure and measurement variance. We identified differential item functioning by sex for six items, mostly related to nonphysical IPV (e.g., partner jealousy). Males had higher probabilities of reporting five of the six items compared to females with the same latent IPV scores. Being female and identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual were positively associated with experiencing IPV. However, the association between female sex and IPV was underestimated when response bias was not accounted for and outcomes were dichotomized as “any IPV.” Common practices of assuming measurement invariance and dichotomizing IPV can underestimate the association between sex or gender and IPV. Researchers should continue to attend to gender-based and intersectional differences in IPV but test for measurement invariance prior to comparing groups and analyze scale (as opposed to binary) measures to account for chronicity or intensity.

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

“…similarities between the two populations demographically (e.g., majority White, similar rates of foreign-born individuals), politically (e.g., multi-party democratic structure, protection of civil liberties, separation of powers), and rights afforded to LGBTQ+ individuals (e.g., marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, military service). Similar to U.S. studies, a large survey of randomly selected residents of Toronto, Canada (Yakubovich et al, 2022) found that LGB women were at the highest risk of experiencing IPV. Also similar to studies of the U.S. LGBTQ+ community, Barrett and Pierre (2013) found that bisexual Canadians were at higher risk of experiencing IPV compared to gay and lesbian Canadians.…”

“…Psychological and physical disabilities were also found to be associated with a greater risk of experiencing IPV in this sample. Like the Australian participants in Bourne et al's (2023) study, Yakubovich et al (2022) found that individuals were more likely to endorse specific experiences consistent with IPV than they were to acknowledge that they had experienced IPV.…”

“…Though the research on this subject appears to be predominated by American researchers, studies of LGBTQ+ IPV have been conducted in other countries, including Australia (Bourne et al, 2023); Canada (Barrett & Pierre, 2013;Yakubovich et al, 2022); China (Lin et al, 2022;Lo, 2023); Italy (Battista et al, 2021); Jamaica (Andrew, 2020); the Philippines (Reyes et al, 2023); and Turkey (Balik & Bilgin, 2021). While there have been variations in the research questions and methods across studies, some similarities among populations have been observed with regard to IPV experiences.…”

“…Also similar to studies of the U.S. LGBTQ+ community, Barrett and Pierre (2013) found that bisexual Canadians were at higher risk of experiencing IPV compared to gay and lesbian Canadians. Yakubovich et al (2022) found that bisexuals reported more instances of IPV and more severe injury. Psychological and physical disabilities were also found to be associated with a greater risk of experiencing IPV in this sample.…”

Categories of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Among Young Women and Men: Latent Class Analysis of Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Victimization and Perpetration in a UK Birth Cohort

“…We also did not explore gender identity, as this had not been asked about by age 21. Exploring IPVA patterns by sexual orientation and gender identity in-depth would be an important separate enquiry, given that previous research has highlighted different IPVA patterns and perceptions of IPVA among these groups ( Dickerson-Amaya & Coston, 2019 ; Yakubovich et al, 2021 ). In our qualitative work, we have captured the experiences of socio-economically deprived individuals and ethnic and sexual orientation minorities, which is being used to inform as to how different experiences of different types, severity and frequency of IPVA, and its impact might be for these groups, compared to those reported in the current study.…”