Article Figures & Data
Tables
Model Aic Bic SA-BIC Smallest n 2-class 2713.02 2902.79 2678.46 20 3-class 2609.14 2895.13 2557.06 14 4-class 2600.68 2982.89 2531.08 14 5-class 2627.68 3106.12 2540.56 12 Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SA-BIC, sample-adjusted BIC; Smallest n, the number of participants in the smallest class.
Note: Boldfaced values indicate the preferred model.
- Table 2.
Prevalence of Abuse Experiences Among Data-Driven Latent Class Analysis Categories of Intimate Partner Violence
Item Description Class 1: Moderate Emotional IPV Class 2: Moderate Emotional IPV with High Hostile Withdrawal Class 3: Physical and Emotional IPV Class 4: Low IPV (n = 42) (n = 24) (n = 14) (n = 27) Emotional abuse Asked where they've been 10 (24%) 8 (33%) 11 (79%) 1 (3.7%) Secretly searched belongings 9 (21%) 2 (9%) 10 (71%) 0 (0%) Stopped from seeing friends and family 3 (7%) 1 (4%) 9 (64%) 2 (7%) Complained about time with friends 6 (14%) 0 (0%) 9 (64%) 2 (7%) Got angry because went somewhere 6 (14%) 6 (25%) 9 (64%) 2 (7%) Tried to make feel guilty 9 (21%) 9 (38%) 12 (86%) 0 (0%) Checked on partner with friends/family 1 (2%) 2 (8%) 6 (43%) 0 (0%) Said or implied partner is stupid 7 (17%) 8 (33%) 12 (86%) 1 (4%) Called partner worthless 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (57%) 0 (0%) Called partner ugly 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) Criticized partner's appearance 5 (12%) 4 (17%) 8 (57%) 1 (4%) Called partner a loser or failure 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (64%) 0 (0%) Belittled the other person 7 (17%) 7 (29%) 10 (71%) 2 (7%) Said other person would be better 1 (2%) 2 (8%) 7 (50%) 0 (0%) Became unable or unwilling to talk 20 (48%) 22 (92%) 12 (86%) 3 (11%) Acted cold or distance when angry 36 (86%) 24 (100%) 14 (100%) 0 (0%) Refused to discuss problem 11 (26%) 17 (71%) 12 (86%) 2 (7%) Changed subject 17 (40%) 13 (54%) 12 (86%) 0 (0%) Refused to acknowledge problem 13 (31%) 16 (67%) 14 (100%) 2 (7%) Sulked or refused to talk 8 (19%) 23 (96%) 11 (79%) 2 (7%) Intentionally avoided partner during conflict 17 (40%) 23 (96%) 11 (79%) 0 (0%) Became angry enough to frighten partner 1 (2%) 9 (38%) 11 (79%) 0 (0%) Put face in other person's face 0 (0%) 5 (21%) 10 (71%) 0 (0%) Threaten to hit partner 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 0 (0%) Threaten to throw something at partner 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 9 (64%) 0 (0%) Threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something in front of partner 1 (2%) 16 (67%) 12 (86%) 6 (22%) Drove recklessly to frighten partner 1 (2%) 2 (8%) 4 (29%) 0 (0%) Stood or hovered over partner 1 (2%) 3 (12%) 7 (50%) 0 (0%) Physical abuse Threw something at partner 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 8 (57%) 2 (7%) Pushed, grabbed, or shoved partner 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 8 (62%) 2 (7%) Slapped partner 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (15%) 0 (0%) Kicked, bit, or hit with a fist 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) Hit or tried to hit with something 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (15%) 0 (0%) Beat up partner 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) Threatened with a knife or gun – – – – Used a knife or gun – – – – Latent class probability 0.407 0.22 0.131 0.243 Note: IPV, Intimate partner violence.
- Table 3.
Differences Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence on Demographic Covariates and Variables of Interest
Effect Size Estimatesa Overall Class 1: Moderate Emotional IPV (n = 42) Class 2: Moderate Emotional IPV with High Hostile Withdrawal (n = 24) Class 3: Physical and Emotional IPV (n = 14) Class 4: Low IPV (n = 27) p Class 1 versus Class 2 Class 1 versus Class 3 Class 1 versus Class 4 Class 2 versus Class 3 Class 2 versus Class 4 Class 3 versus Class 4 Female 84 (79%) 32 (76%) 21 (88%) 10 (71%) 21 (78%) 0.630 – – – – – – Age 43.80 (10.75) 42.31 (10.57) 44.58 (10.69) 46.64 (9.65) 43.96 (11.77) 0.504 – – – – – – College educated 91 (85%) 40 (95%) 20 (83%) 11 (79%) 20 (74%) 0.056 – – – – – – White 98 (92%) 38 (90%) 22 (92%) 13 (93%) 25 (93%) 1.000 – – – – – – Telemedicine utilization 48 (45%) 20 (48%) 14 (58%) 7 (50%) 7 (26%) 0.114 – – – – – – Satisfaction with telemedicine 8.54 (1.71) 8.00 (2.22) 8.79 (1.25) 8.57 (0.98) 9.57 (0.79) 0.131 0.44 0.33 0.94 0.19 0.75 1.13 Loneliness 54.25 (9.69) 54.77 (9.36) 55.55 (10.37) 57.39 (8.36) 50.65 (9.68) 0.131 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.20 0.49 0.75 Global health 0.44 (0.19) 0.44 (0.19) 0.43 (0.20) 0.39 (0.18) 0.49 (0.18) 0.373 0.08 0.30 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.55 Abbreviation: IPV, Intimate partner violence.
Note: Contingency analyses with associated χ2 tests were run for categorical variables. Fisher’s exact tests were run where expected counts were < 5. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were run for continuous variables. aEffect size estimates use the absolute value of Cohen's d and are assessed only for continuous outcomes of interest. Boldfaced effect sizes indicate medium to large effect sizes using a cutoff of d > .50.
- Table 4.
Post-Hoc Differences Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence on Social Functioning, Stress, and COVID-19 Concerns
Effect Size Estimatesa Overall Class 1: Moderate Emotional IPV (n = 42) Class 2: Moderate Emotional IPV with High Hostile Withdrawal (n = 24) Class 3: Physical and Emotional IPV (n = 14) Class 4: Low IPV (n = 27) p Class 1 versus Class 2 Class 1 versus Class 3 Class 1 versus Class 4 Class 2 versus Class 3 Class 2 versus Class 4 Class 3 versus Class 4 Perceived emotional support 55.65 (7.56) 56.73 (7.52) 55.46 (7.67) 50.92 (8.15) 56.58 (6.61) 0.078 0.17 0.74 0.02 0.57 0.16 0.76 Change in emotional support (T2 - T1) −1.45 (6.07) −1.14 (6.24) −2.68 (6.40) −1.03 (4.80) −1.07 (6.27) 0.545 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.25 0.01 Perceived ostracism 7.48 (3.15) 7.24 (2.85) 7.46 (3.28) 8.93 (3.75) 7.11 (3.11) 0.227 0.07 0.51 0.04 0.42 0.11 0.53 Perceived stress 15.44 (6.55) 16.45 (6.35) 16.00 (5.76) 16.64 (6.98) 12.74 (6.88) 0.104 0.07 0.03 0.56 0.10 0.51 0.56 Change in perceived stress (T2 - T1) −0.15 (5.52) −0.71 (5.35) −0.33 (5.26) 0.36 (5.87) 0.63 (5.98) 0.848 0.07 0.19 0.24 0.12 0.17 0.05 Concerns about social isolation 2.86 (1.25) 2.83 (1.23) 2.83 (1.27) 3.14 (1.23) 2.78 (1.31) 0.784 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.29 Concerns about loss of social support 2.18 (1.16) 2.00 (1.15) 2.63 (1.31) 2.57 (1.02) 1.85 (0.95) 0.042 0.51 0.53 0.14 0.05 0.68 0.73 Concerns about worsening of medical problems 2.04 (1.20) 1.95 (1.19) 2.21 (1.14) 2.50 (1.35) 1.78 (1.16) 0.155 0.22 0.43 0.15 0.23 0.38 0.58 Concerns about worsening of mental health 2.52 (1.14) 2.57 (1.13) 2.83 (1.31) 2.43 (1.09) 2.22 (0.97) 0.334 0.21 0.13 0.33 0.34 0.53 0.20 Abbreviation: IPV, Intimate partner violence.
Note: Contingency analyses with associated χ2 tests were run for categorical variables. Fisher’s exact tests were run where expected counts were < 5. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were run for continuous variables. aEffect size estimates use the absolute value of Cohen's d. Boldfaced effect sizes indicate medium to large effect sizes using a cutoff of d > .50. For Change in Perceived Stress, one was added to each value before calculating effect size estimates.
