Psychopathology in Women Arrested for Domestic Violence

10.1177/0886260505282888Journal of Interpersonal V iolenceStuart et al. / Psychopathology in Aggressive W omen

Psychopathology inWomen Arrested forDomestic ViolenceGregory L. StuartBrown Medical School and Butler Hospital

Todd M. MooreBrown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies

Kristina Coop GordonUniversity of Tennessee–Knoxville

Susan E. RamseyBrown Medical School and Rhode Island Hospital

Christopher W. KahlerBrown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies

This study examined the prevalence of psychopathology among women ar-rested for violence and whether the experience of intimate partner violence(IPV) was associated with Axis I psychopathology. Women who were arrestedfor domestic violence perpetration and court referred to violence interventionprograms (N = 103) completed measures of IPV victimization, perpetration,and psychopathology. Results revealed high rates of posttraumatic stress disor-der (PTSD), depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder,substance use disorders, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial per-sonality disorder. Violence victimization was significantly associated withsymptoms of psychopathology. Logistic regression analyses showed that sex-ual and psychological abuse by partners were associated with the presence ofPTSD, depression, and GAD diagnoses. Results highlight the potential impor-tance of the role of violence victimization in psychopathology. Results suggestthat Axis I and Axis II psychopathology should routinely be assessed as partof violence intervention programs for women and that intervention programscould be improved by offering adjunct or integrated mental health treatment.

Keywords: psychopathology; intimate partner violence; women

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an enormous problem in the UnitedStates. Schafer, Caetano, and Clark (1998) surveyed U.S. couples and

found that more than 20% reported experiencing one or more episodes of

376

Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceVolume 21 Number 3March 2006 376-389

© 2006 Sage Publications10.1177/0886260505282888

http://jiv.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

partner violence within the past year. Research has shown that men andwomen commit high rates of partner aggression. A recent meta-analysis ofIPV demonstrated that while women are slightly more likely to engage in atleast one act of physical aggression than men, male-to-female violence hasmore detrimental effects than female-to-male violence (see Archer, 2000, forreview). For example, female victims of IPV are more likely than male vic-tims to suffer physical injuries (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992;Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), to require medical attention for their injuries(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), to take time off from work (Stets & Straus,1990; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and to use mental health and justice sys-tem services (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In addition to physical injury, con-sequences of male-to-female violence include, but are not limited to, depres-sive symptomatology (Cascardi, O’Leary, & Schlee, 1999; Coker et al.,2002; Zlotnick, Kohn, Peterson, & Pearlstein, 1998), anxiety and posttrau-matic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology (Arias & Pape, 1999;Cascardi et al., 1999), substance abuse (e.g., Coker et al., 2002; Collins,Kroutil, Roland, & Moore-Gurrera, 1997; Lown & Vega, 2001), sui-cide (e.g., Vitanza, Vogel, & Marshall, 1995), and even spousal homi-cide (Sharps, Campbell, Campbell, Gary, & Webster, 2001; see review bySchumacher, Feldbau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001).

While men’s use of violence is clearly damaging to women, the negativeeffects of partner violence perpetrated by women should not be minimized.Women’s use of violence carries negative consequences for men, includingphysical injury, fear, anger, sadness, shame, depression, humiliation, stress,and even death (see Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001, for review). In addi-tion, the frequency of arrests for female perpetrators of partner violence isdramatically increasing, particularly in light of recent mandatory arrest laws(Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Martin, 1997; Miller, 2001). However, there isa paucity of empirical data available regarding the characteristics of womenwho are arrested for IPV and court referred to batterer intervention pro-grams; these women are “grossly understudied” (Hien & Hien, 1998).

Some theorists and researchers have suggested that women arrested forIPV perpetration and court referred to violence intervention programs arebetter conceptualized as women who are battered and who are victims of vio-lence than as perpetrators of violence (Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger &Potente, 1994; Leisring, Dowd, & Rosenbaum, 2003). Thus, it is importantto examine the potential impact of IPV victimization on mental health status,even in women who are arrested.

Stuart et al. / Psychopathology in Aggressive Women 377

Authors’Note: This research was supported, in part, by Grant 1K23AA13231 from the NationalInstitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism awarded to Gregory L. Stuart.

In one of the few studies of women arrested and court referred to treat-ment for domestic violence, Abel (2001) found that women who are violentwere less likely than women who were abused from shelters to experiencetrauma symptomatology; nonetheless, the arrested women reported elevatedtrauma scores and a history of victimization. Leisring et al. (2003) reportedthat approximately 45% of women entering their anger management pro-gram experienced clinically significant levels of PTSD symptoms.

Golding (1999) conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of IPV victim-ization on women’s mental health in a wide range of samples (but not includ-ing arrested women who were violent). She found that IPV victimization in-creased the risk for psychopathology. Specifically, she reported that 48% ofwomen who were battered had depression (weighted across 18 studies), 64%of women who were battered had PTSD (weighted across 11 studies), 19%of women who were battered abused or were dependent on alcohol(weighted across 10 studies), and 9% of women abused or were dependenton drugs (weighted across 4 studies). In addition, Golding calculatedweighted odds ratios regarding the increased risk of psychopathology as aresult of IPV victimization relative to control groups. She found that, relativeto control groups, the odds of depression, PTSD, alcohol abuse or de-pendence, and drug abuse or dependence, were 3.80, 3.74, 5.56, and 5.62times higher, respectively, in women victims of IPV. These findings are par-ticularly striking given that, in many studies, women who were psychologi-cally abused or maritally distressed often constituted the comparison condi-tion. Golding concluded that IPV victimization is likely to be causally relatedto psychopathology.

To our knowledge, only one previous study examined Axis I and Axis IIpsychopathology among women arrested for domestic violence. Henning,Jones, and Holdford (2003) administered the Millon Clinical MultiaxialInventory-III (MCMI-III; Millon, 1994) to 112 female domestic violenceoffenders. A cut score of 75 or higher is indicative of a probable diagnosis onthe MCMI-III. Henning et al. found that 33% of the sample had clinicallysignificant elevations on one or more Axis I scales. In particular, 21% of thesample showed elevations on the Anxiety scale, 11% showed elevation onthe Major Depression scale, 10% showed elevation on the Bipolar scale, 10%showed elevation on the Dysthymia scale, 5% showed elevation on the PTSDscale, 5% showed elevation on the Alcohol scale, and 3% showed elevationon the Drug scale. Henning et al. reported even higher prevalence rates forAxis II psychopathology, with 95% of their sample scoring 75 or higher onone or more of the MCMI-III Axis II subscales. Of their sample, 50%showed elevation on the Compulsive scale, 37% showed elevation on the

378 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Histrionic scale, 33% showed elevation on the Narcissistic scale, 18%showed elevation on the Paranoid scale, 13% showed elevation on the Mas-ochistic and Depressive scales, 12% showed elevation on the Borderline andAvoidant scales, 10% showed elevation on the Negativistic scale, 9% showedelevation on the Dependent scale, and 4% showed elevation on the Antisocialscale.

Given that Henning et al. (2003) conducted the only published study onthe psychopathology of women arrested for domestic violence, additionalresearch in this area is clearly needed. One purpose of the current study wasto replicate the findings of Henning et al. by examining the prevalence ofAxis I and Axis II psychopathology in a sample of women arrested fordomestic violence and court-referred to violence intervention. In addi-tion, because previous research has shown that women arrested for domesticviolence experience very high rates of IPV victimization (Stuart, Moore,Ramsey, & Kahler, 2004), and research on women who are battered showsthat IPV victimization predicts psychopathology (e.g., Golding, 1999), wesought to extend this line of research by examining whether IPV victimiza-tion in the year prior to entering a violence intervention program was asso-ciated with Axis I psychopathology after controlling for demographic char-acteristics. We hypothesized that IPV victimization would be associatedwith each Axis I diagnosis, consistent with the literature on women who arebattered.

Method

Participants

Participants were 103 women, age 18 years or older, arrested for violenceand court referred to batterer intervention programs in Rhode Island. Thesewomen participated in a larger study that examined the drinking patterns ofwomen who were arrested (Stuart et al., 2004). There was no overlapbetween this sample and Stuart, Moore, Ramsey, and Kahler (2003). Sixwomen refused to participate in the study (5.5%, 6/109). Study participantsreported a mean age of 31.5 years (SD = 9.6), education of 12.0 years (SD =2.3), annual income of U.S. $19,553 (SD = $16,327), and 1.7 children (SD =1.6). The sample comprised individuals from the following ethnic back-grounds: 78% White, 8% African American, 8% Hispanic, 4% Native Amer-ican, 1% Asian and/or Pacific Islander, and 1% Other. Of the sample, 83%reportedly lived with their partner; on average, the sample had lived with apartner for 5.0 years (SD = 6.7).


Measures

A Demographics Questionnaire gathered information including age, edu-cation, ethnicity, income, duration of relationship, number of children, andnumber of batterer intervention sessions attended.

Relationship aggression was assessed with the Revised Conflict Tac-tics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). TheCTS2, based on the original Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), isthe most widely used scale for assessing partner violence (Straus et al.,1996). The 78-item CTS2, which measures the behavior of the respondentand the respondent’s partner, contains five subscales: Negotiation, Psycho-logical Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury. Theauthors demonstrated adequate reliability and validity of the CTS2. TheCTS2 is scored by summing the frequency of the behaviors in the past yearreported on each subscale. The CTS2 Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, andInjury perpetration and victimization scales were skewed (range = 2.5 to 4.1)and were log transformed to reduce skewness (range = 0.1 to 1.8) prior toconducting statistical analyses.

We administered the PTSD, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder(GAD), Panic Disorder, Alcohol, and Drug subscales of the Psychiatric Di-agnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ; Zimmerman, 2002; Zimmerman& Mattia, 2001) to assess Axis I psychopathology. The PDSQ is a screeninginstrument with cut scores of 5, 9, 7, 4, 1, and 1 for PTSD, Depression, GAD,Panic Disorder, Alcohol, and Drug diagnoses, respectively. The sensitivityand specificity, respectively, of the PDSQ subscales administered are PTSD.92, .62; Depression .90, .67; GAD .90, .50; Panic Disorder .91, .69; Alcohol.85, .80; and Drug .85, .87. The Alcohol and Drug subscales of the PDSQdo not distinguish “abuse” diagnoses from “dependence” diagnoses. Theauthors demonstrated very high internal consistency, test-retest reliability,and convergent and discriminant validity across multiple samples for thePDSQ.

We administered the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASPD) subscales of the Personality Diagnos-tic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ4; Hyler et al., 1988) to assess Axis II psycho-pathology. The PDQ4 has good test-retest reliability (Trull, 1993) and highinternal consistency (Hyler et al., 1989). The range of sensitivity and speci-ficity, respectively, of the PDQ4 subscales is BPD .95 to .98, .41 to .68 andASPD .62 to .75, .89 to .91 (Hyler, Skodol, Kellman, Oldham, & Rosnick,1990). The PDQ4 is a screening instrument with a cut score of 5 for BPD and3 for ASPD.


Procedures

The women completed the assessment during their regularly scheduledintervention sessions. Participation was voluntary. None of the informationprovided by the women was shared with the intervention facilitators or any-one within the criminal justice system. No compensation was given to partic-ipants. After giving informed consent, participants were asked to completethe CTS2 based on the 1-year period prior to the start of the violence inter-vention. Participants completed the PDSQ and PDQ4 based on their experi-ence at the time they started the violence intervention program. The womenhad attended an average of 8.4 intervention sessions (SD = 7.0) at the time ofthe assessment. We examined the correlation between number of interven-tion sessions attended and violence victimization, perpetration, and Axis Ipsychopathology. None of the correlations were significant (all p values >.10). Thus, we assume that number of sessions attended did not affect thestudy findings.

Results

Overall, the women engaged in very high rates of aggression toward theirpartners and were frequently victimized by their partners. Based on theirCTS2 reports, in the year prior to entering the violence program, the womenreportedly perpetrated a mean of 21.0 (SD = 34.1) acts of physical violence,47.8 (SD = 37.7) acts of psychological abuse, and 1.1 (SD = 3.3) acts of sex-ual coercion; their aggression reportedly caused 3.1 (SD = 11.9) injuries totheir relationship partners. In the year prior to the violence intervention, thewomen reportedly were victims of a mean of 30.2 (SD = 51.0) acts of physi-cal violence, 54.1 (SD = 44.3) acts of psychological abuse, and 9.5 (SD =25.7) acts of sexual coercion; their partners’ aggression reportedly caused3.4 (SD = 12.9) injuries to the women.

Table 1 shows that the women reported high levels of Axis I psycho-pathology on the PDSQ. Of the women, 44% met or exceeded the PTSD cutscore, 35% met or exceeded the Depression cut score, 34% met or exceededthe GAD cut score, 28% met or exceeded the Panic Disorder cut score, 43%met or exceeded the Alcohol diagnosis cut score, and 24% met or exceededthe Drug diagnosis cut score. Overall, 76.7% of the women (79/103) met thePDSQ cut score for one or more Axis I diagnoses. Axis II psychopathologywas elevated in the women as well, with 27% of the sample meeting PDQ4criteria for BPD and 7% meeting PDQ4 criteria for ASPD.

We conducted Pearson correlations to examine the bivariate associationbetween the CTS2 violence victimization scales and symptoms of Axis I


psychopathology on the PDSQ. As shown in Table 2, the CTS2 IPV victim-ization scales were significantly correlated with PTSD, depression, GAD,and panic symptoms; however, there were no significant correlations be-tween CTS2 victimization scales and alcohol and drug symptoms. For ex-ploratory purposes, we also examined the Pearson correlations between IPVperpetration and PDSQ scores; none of these correlations reached signifi-cance (ps > .05).

The Association Between IPV Victimization andAxis I Psychopathology Diagnoses

We conducted logistic regression analyses in two steps to examinewhether IPV victimization in the past year was significantly associated witheach Axis I psychopathology diagnosis after controlling for demographiccharacteristics. (We did not conduct these analyses for Axis II psychopath-ology, as such diagnoses were likely to exist prior to past year violence vic-


Table 1Axis I and Axis II Psychopathology

Among Women Arrested for Violence Perpetration

Variable Sample

PDSQ - PTSD 5.4 (5.0)PDSQ - % PTSD diagnosisa 44%PDSQ - Depression 6.8 (4.8)PDSQ -% Depression diagnosisa 35%PDSQ - GAD 4.5 (3.8)PDSQ - % GAD diagnosisa 34%PDSQ - Panic disorder 2.1 (2.6)PDSQ - % Panic diagnosisa 28%PDSQ - Alcohol 1.3 (1.9)PDSQ - % Alcohol diagnosisa 43%PDSQ - Drug 0.8 (1.7)PDSQ - % Drug diagnosisa 24%PDSQ-One or more Axis I diagnosesa 77%PDQ4-Borderline 3.2 (2.2)PDQ4-% Borderline diagnosisa 27%PDQ4-ASPD 1.3 (1.8)PDQ4-% ASPD diagnosisa 7%

Note: PDSQ = Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire; PTSD = posttraumatic stressdisorder; PDQ4 = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire; GAD = generalized anxiety disorder;ASPD = antisocial personality disorder. Values enclosed in parentheses are standard deviations.a. Refers to the percentage of the sample who met the cut score for a probable diagnosis.

timization.) Thus, in the first block of each regression, we entered age, edu-cation, length of relationship, and number of children. In the second block ofeach regression, we entered the four CTS2 victimization subscales (psycho-logical abuse, physical assault, sexual coercion, and injuries sustained). Forease of interpretation, we converted the CTS2 violence victimization sub-scales to z scores prior to conducting the logistic regression analyses so thateach victimization variable had the same metric.

The block of demographic variables was not significantly associated withAxis I psychopathology in the first step of any of the logistic regression anal-yses (all p values > .10). The block of IPV victimization variables in the sec-ond step of the logistic regression analysis was significantly associated withthe presence of a PTSD diagnosis, χ2(4, n = 97) = 11.17, p < .05. Specifically,higher sexual coercion victimization (b = .61, SE = .29, odds ratio [OR] =1.84, p < .05) was significantly associated with greater odds of a PTSD diag-nosis; the other IPV victimization scales were not significant (ps > .10).Thus, the odds of a PTSD diagnosis increased by 1.84 for every standarddeviation of increase in sexual coercion victimization. The block of IPV vic-timization variables in the second step of the logistic regression analysis wasalso significantly associated with the presence of a depression diagnosis,χ2(4, n = 98) = 16.13, p < .01. Higher sexual coercion victimization (b = .81,SE = .33, OR = 2.26, p < .05) and higher psychological abuse victimization(b = .76, SE = .38, OR = 2.14, p < .05) were significantly associated withgreater odds of a depression diagnosis; the other IPV victimization scaleswere not significant (ps > .10). The block of IPV victimization variables inthe second step of the logistic regression analysis was also significantly asso-ciated with the presence of a GAD diagnosis, χ2(4, n = 98) = 15.95, p < .01.Higher psychological abuse victimization (b = 1.05, SE = .39, OR = 2.86, p <


Table 2Pearson Correlations Between CTS2 Intimate Partner

Violence Victimization Scales and PDSQ Axis I Psychopathology

Variable PTSD Depression GAD Panic Alcohol Drug

Physical assault .21* .24* .17 .25* .12 .06Psychological abuse .32** .36** .34** .37** .10 .13Sexual coercion .39** .36** .30** .38** .01 .09Injuries sustained .27** .35** .27** .37** .03 .07

Note: CTS2 = Revised Conflict Tactic Scales; PDSQ = Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Ques-tionnaire; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; GAD = generalized anxiety disorder. ns rangefrom 97 to 99.*p < .05. **p < .01.

.01) was significantly associated with greater odds of a GAD diagnosis; theother IPV victimization scales were not significant (ps > .10). None of theIPV victimization variables in the second step of the logistic regression anal-yses were significantly associated with the presence of a panic, alcohol, ordrug diagnosis (ps > .05).

Discussion

The data we collected from women who were arrested for violence andcourt referred to batterer intervention programs document high rates of IPVvictimization, perpetration, and Axis I and Axis II psychopathology. Theprevalence of possible PTSD (44%), depression (35%), GAD (34%), panicdisorder (28%), alcohol abuse and/or dependence (43%), and drug abuseand/or dependence (24%), was quite elevated in the sample. This is consis-tent with the literature regarding the impact of partner violence victimizationon women who are battered (e.g., Arias & Pape, 1999; Cascardi et al., 1992;Cascardi et al., 1999; Coker et al., 2002; Golding, 1999; Tjaden & Thoennes,2000; Zlotnick et al., 1998). In contrast, in women in the general population,the lifetime prevalence of PTSD and past-year prevalence of depression,GAD, panic disorder, alcohol abuse and/or dependence, and drug abuse and/or dependence are 10%, 7%, 4%, 3%, 5%, and 2%, respectively (AmericanPsychiatric Association, 1994; Kessler, 1994; Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet,Hughes, & Nelson, 1995). Thus, relative to women in the U.S. population,women court mandated to attend violence intervention programs may bemore likely to have a PTSD diagnosis (OR = 7.1), more likely to have adepression diagnosis (OR = 7.2), more likely to have a GAD diagnosis (OR =12.4), more likely to have a panic disorder diagnosis (OR = 12.6), more likelyto have an alcohol diagnosis (OR = 14.3), and more likely to have a drugdiagnosis (OR = 15.5).

These women also demonstrated high rates of Axis II symptomatology; inparticular, the prevalence of BPD (27%) and ASPD (7%) was elevated in thesample. In women in the general population, the lifetime prevalence of BPDand ASPD are 3% and 1%, respectively (American Psychiatric Association,1994; Kessler, 1994). Thus, relative to women in the U.S. population, womencourt mandated to attend violence intervention programs may be more likelyto have BPD (OR = 20.3), and more likely to have ASPD (OR = 7.5).

The current study was the first to examine the association between IPVvictimization and psychopathology among women arrested for domesticviolence. The logistic regression analyses revealed that sexual victimizationand psychological abuse victimization were most strongly related to the


presence of Axis I psychopathology, particularly PTSD, depression, andGAD. However, the correlational analyses suggested that all forms of vio-lence victimization are moderately associated with symptoms of PTSD, de-pression, GAD, and panic disorder, consistent with past research on theimpact of violence victimization on women (Schumacher et al., 2001). It isinteresting to note that in contrast to previous research (Coker et al., 2002;Collins et al., 1997; Lown & Vega, 2001), there was no association betweenIPV victimization and substance abuse in the current sample.

It is important to note that the current study was cross sectional. Thus, inthe absence of longitudinal studies, the direction of the relationship betweenIPV victimization and psychopathology cannot be determined. These dataare merely suggestive of a potential relation between IPV and the presence ofAxis I diagnoses. Longitudinal research is needed to determine causality.However, it is more compelling to hypothesize that experiencing partner vio-lence begets depression, PTSD, and anxiety than to assume that one’s de-pression and anxiety leads to partner violence, although this direction is pos-sible and, thus, should be ruled out in future studies.

The rates of Axis I psychopathology and BPD and ASPD were higher inour sample of women who were arrested than they were in the sample re-cruited by Henning et al. (2003). There are several possible reasons for thisdifference. First, Henning et al. assessed psychopathology with the MCMI-III, whereas we employed the PDSQ and the PDQ4. Although no studieshave compared these measures, it is possible that the measures we usedtended to overdiagnose mental disorders. For example, the PDSQ has highsensitivity but relatively low specificity. Thus, the PDSQ, which is a screen-ing measure, may overdiagnose individuals, and the rates of psychopatho-logy and odds ratios for disorders may be inflated. A second possibility isthat these diagnostic differences reflect true differences in the rates of mentalhealth problems across different samples obtained in different states. Manda-tory arrest laws for domestic violence differ by state, and the police may usedifferent thresholds to determine which partner to arrest.

Several limitations of the study should be noted. We employed paper-and-pencil measures of psychopathology. Although suggestive of Axis I andAxis II psychopathology, one cannot firmly conclude the presence of a diag-nosis with the PDSQ and PDQ4 measures. Although more time-consuming,assessments would have been improved by the addition of interview mea-sures of Axis I and Axis II psychopathology (e.g., use of the Structured Clini-cal Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders [SCID], Structured Clinical In-terview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders [SCID-II]; First, Spitzer, Gibbon,& Williams, 1995, 1997). Another limitation is that we did not corroborateparticipants’ reports of violence. Individuals may underreport their own use


of violence (e.g., Dutton & Hemphill, 1992), and future studies would beimproved by gathering collateral information from relationship partners.

One of the strongest implications of the current study is that women courtreferred to violence intervention programs should not be viewed solely asperpetrators of IPV. These women often experience high rates of IPV victim-ization, and this victimization is associated with certain types of psycho-pathology. This suggests that the treatment needs of women arrested fordomestic violence may be different than the needs of men who are arrested.In some states, violence intervention programs offer identical curricula formale and female offenders. We concur with those who argue that whereassome overlap between men’s and women’s violence programs is necessary,women have unique issues that should also be addressed (Dowd, 2001;Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Henning et al.,2003; Leisring et al., 2003). The clinical picture of women who are arrestedmay require intervention in a variety of areas. Although it may not be feasi-ble for violence intervention programs to address all of their constituents’needs, at minimum the current study suggests that a thorough assessment ofAxis I and Axis II psychopathology is warranted, followed by referrals whenappropriate.

References

Abel, E. M. (2001). Comparing the social service utilization, exposure to violence, and traumasymptomatology of domestic violence female “victims” and female “batterers.” Journal ofFamily Violence, 4, 401-420.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-ders (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analyticreview. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.

Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implications for adjustment and commit-ment to leave violent partners. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 55-67.

Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, andhealth correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184.

Cascardi, M., O’Leary, K. D., & Schlee, K. A. (1999). Co-occurrence and correlates ofposttraumatic stress disorder and major depression in physically abused women. Journal ofFamily Violence, 14(3), 227-249.

Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., et al. (2002). Physi-cal and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. AmericanJournal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260-268.

Collins, J. J., Kroutil, L. A., Roland, E. J., & Moore-Gurrera, M. (1997). Issues in the linkage ofalcohol and domestic violence services. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alco-holism (Vol. 13, pp. 387-405). New York: Plenum.

Dowd, L. (2001). Female perpetrators of partner aggression: Relevant issues and treatment.Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 5, 73-104.


Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among perpe-trators and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victims, 7, 29-40.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. (1997). Structured Clinical Interviewfor DSM-IV personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured Clinical Inter-view for DSM-IV Axis I disorders—Patient edition (Ver. 2.0). New York: New York StatePsychiatric Institute.

Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132.

Hamberger, L. K. (1997). Female offenders in domestic violence: A look at actions in their con-text. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 1, 117-129.

Hamberger, L. K., & Guse, C. E. (2002). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence inclinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8, 1301-1331.

Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. P. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domes-tic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9, 125-137.

Henning, K., Jones, A., & Holdford, R. (2003). Treatment needs of women arrested for domesticviolence: A comparison with male offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 839-856.

Hien, D., & Hien, N. M. (1998). Women, violence with intimates, and substance abuse: Relevanttheory, empirical findings, and recommendations for future research. American Journal ofDrug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(3), 419-438.

Hines, D. A., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men:A neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 75-85.

Hyler, S. E., Rieder, R. O., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Hendler, J., & Lyons, M. (1988).The Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire: Development and preliminary results. Journal ofPersonality Disorders, 2(3), 229-237.

Hyler, S. E., Rieder, R. O., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Lyons, M., & Hendler, J. (1989). Acomparison of clinical and self-report diagnoses of DSM-III personality disorders in 552patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 170-178.

Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Kellman, D., Oldham, J. M., & Rosnick, L. (1990). Validity of thePersonality Diagnostic Questionnaire–Revised: Comparison with two structured interviews.American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1043-1048.

Kessler, R. C. (1994). The national comorbidity survey of the United States. InternationalReview of Psychiatry, 6, 365-376.

Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumaticstress disorder in the national comorbidity study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060.

Leisring, P. A., Dowd, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Treatment of partner aggressive women. InD. Dutton & D. Sonkin (Eds.), Intimate violence: Contemporary treatment innovations (pp.257-277). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.

Lown, E. A., & Vega, W. A. (2001). Alcohol abuse or dependence among Mexican Americanwomen who report violence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 10, 1479-1486.

Martin, M. E. (1997). Double your trouble: Dual arrest in family violence. Journal of Family Vio-lence, 12, 139-157.

Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence AgainstWomen, 7, 1339-1376.

Millon, T. (1994). Manual for the MCMI-III. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United

States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704.Schumacher, J. A., Feldbau-Kohn, S. R., Slep, A. M., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors for

male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(2/3), 281-352.


Sharps, P. W., Campbell, J., Campbell, D., Gary, F., & Webster, D. (2001). The role of alcohol usein intimate partner femicide. American Journal on Addictions, 10, 122-135.

Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its med-ical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical vio-lence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families(pp. 227-244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised ConflictTactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17, 283-316.

Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2003). Relationship aggression andsubstance use among women court-referred to domestic violence intervention programs.Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1603-1610.

Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2004). Hazardous drinking and rela-tionship violence perpetration and victimization in women arrested for domestic violence.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 46-53.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against WomenSurvey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.

Trull, T. J. (1993). Temporal stability and validity of two personality disorder inventories. Psy-chological Assessments, 5, 11-18.

Vitanza, S., Vogel, L. C. M., & Marshall, L. L. (1995). Distress and symptoms of posttraumaticstress disorder in abused women. Violence and Victims, 10(1), 23-34.

Zimmerman, M. (2002). The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire manual. LosAngeles: Western Psychological Services.

Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire:Development, reliability and validity. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42, 175-189.

Zlotnick, C., Kohn, R., Peterson, J., & Pearlstein, T. (1998). Partner physical victimization in anational sample of American families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 156-166.

Gregory L. Stuart, Ph.D., is director of Family Violence Research at Butler Hospital and anassistant professor in the Brown Medical School Department of Psychiatry and Human Behav-ior. He is an adjunct faculty member at the Brown University Center for Alcohol and AddictionStudies. He currently serves as the adult track coordinator of the Brown University Clinical Psy-chology Training Consortium. His research focuses primarily on the comorbidity of intimatepartner violence and substance abuse. He is particularly interested in interventions that addressboth substance use and relationship aggression.

Todd M. Moore, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Brown University Center forAlcohol and Addiction Studies. His research interests include evaluating the relationshipbetween illicit substance use and marital violence, and examining how masculinity affects therelationship between substance use and violence.

Kristina Coop Gordon, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at theUniversity of Tennessee–Knoxville. Her research focuses on the resolution of interpersonallytraumatic events in marriage and their impact on family functioning.


Susan E. Ramsey, Ph.D., is an assistant professor (Research) at Rhode Island Hospital in theBrown University Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior. Her research focuses on thecomorbidity of psychiatric and substance use disorders and the development of interventions thataddress both issues.

Christopher W. Kahler, Ph.D., is an associate professor (Research) in the Department of Psy-chiatry and Human Behavior in the Brown Medical School and the director of Biostatistics atBrown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies. His research focuses of the roleof personality and psychopathology in the etiology and treatment of nicotine and alcohol de-pendence and on the application of item response models to the measurement of substance useproblems.


Documents

Psychopathology in Women Arrested for Domestic Violence