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.