Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2
=0.01, but significant main effects for abuse status,
F(3,482)=29.52, p<0.001, partial
2
=0.16, and gender,
F(1,482)=22.43, p<0.001, partial
2
=0.04 (see Table 5).
The gender main effect indicated that the girls tended to have
greater internalized symptoms than the boys.
Table 4 Correlations among child physical abuse and interparental
violence
Types of violence 1 2 3 4
Child physical abuse
Mother to child 0.78* 0.93* 0.62*
Father to child 0.96* 0.56*
Mother and father to child 0.62*
Interparental violence
*p<0.01
Table 3 Child physical abuse
by the aggressors gender and
youths gender: mean and
standard deviations
Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
M SD M SD
Mother to child 5.20 20.17 2.91 12.48
Father to child 5.48 24.70 3.90 16.35
Mother and father to child 10.68 41.77 6.81 28.29
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 695
Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status,
consisting of all pairwise comparisons among the three
types of groups, was examined. The Tukey HSD procedure
was used to control for Type I error across the pairwise
comparisons. The results of this analysis indicate that there
was a significant difference between the three groups: the
youth who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited internalized symptoms significantly
more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter-
parental violence. Moreover, those who had only been
exposed to interparental violence reported internalized
symptoms significantly more frequently than those who
reported neither parental nor interparental violence.
The same analyses were conducted but with the external-
ized symptoms as the dependant variable. The ANOVA indi-
cated no significant interaction between gender and abuse
status, F(3,482)=0.16, ns, partial
2
=0.00 (see Table 6). Also
there was no significant main effect for gender, F(1,482)=
0.97, ns, partial
2
=0.00; girls and boys exhibited similar
externalized symptoms. However, there was a significant
main effect for abuse status, F(3,482)=42.59, p<0.001,
partial
2
=0.21.
Follow-up analyses of the main effect for abuse status,
using the Tukey HSD procedure, indicated that the youth
who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited externalized symptoms significantly
more frequently than those exposed exclusively to inter-
parental violence, and those who had only been exposed to
interparental violence reported externalized symptoms
significantly more frequently than those who reported
neither parental nor interparental violence (Table 7).
Problems Falling within Clinical Range by the Experience
of Violence
An analysis was carried out to determine the percentage of
respondents whose scores concerning any problems fell
within the clinical range. The scores were subjected to
differentiated analysis after grouping the respondents into
the same categories as for the preceding analyses (see
Table 8). The chi-square tests indicated that the participants
who were both abused and exposed to interparental
violence exhibited significantly more problems falling
within the clinical range most frequently. Moreover, a higher
proportion of respondents who had only been exposed to
interparental violence exhibited internalized and externalized
symptoms falling within the clinical range than those who
reported neither parental nor interparental violence.
Discussion
According to the findings, half of all the teens who
responded to the questionnaire had been exposed at least
once to interparental violence within the past five years,
while nearly a third had been subjected to physical abuse
from a parent. Also, a quarter of the respondents had been
both exposed to domestic violence and were victims of
Table 5 Internalized and ex-
ternalized symptoms by youths
gender: mean and standard
deviations
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
Variables Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
M SD M SD
Internalized symptoms
Withdrawn 4.13 2.87 3.40* 2.56
Somatic complaints 4.23 3.13 2.72** 2.45
Anxiety/depression 8.71 6.72 5.63** 5.35
Total internalized symptoms 16.47 10.80 11.36** 8.64
Externalized symptoms
Delinquent behavior 3.47 3.18 3.99 3.08
Aggressive behavior 7.30 5.59 6.62 5.28
Total externalized symptoms 10.78 8.05 10.61 7.71
Table 6 Abuse status and youths gender: mean and standard deviations for internalized symptoms
Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
n M SD n M SD
Comparison 98 10.96 7.42 107 8.49 7.14
Exposed 79 17.38 10.73 52 13.15 8.28
Exposed and victim 74 22.68 11.33 48 16.06 9.89
696 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
child abuse. Moreover, many youths who had been exposed
to interparental violence were also victims of physical
violence at the hands of their parents.
The significant and moderately high correlation between
interparental violence and child physical abuse revealed in
this study is consistent with other studies (Chnard 1994;
Davis and Carlson 1987; Echlin and Marshall 1995;
Edleson 1999; Hughes 1988; Hughes et al. 1989; Jouriles
et al. 1987; McCloskey et al. 1995; Muller et al. 2000;
OKeefe 1996). As indicated by Holden et al. (1998: 291),
...a negative marital interaction may spill over into child
rearing and result in harsh and possibly aggressive behavior
directed toward the child. Interparental violence creates a
dysfunctional domestic environment resulting in phenome-
na such as reduced parental capacity (Jaffe et al. 1990).
Violence within the parental couple may make parents
anxious, depressed, or irritable (Anderson and Cramer-
Benjamin 1999; Brody et al. 1996; Cummings and Davies
1994; Holden and Ritchie 1991; Jaffe et al. 1985). A parent
may consequently be more likely to resort to disciplinary
acts including acts of physical violence (Jaffe et al. 1990).
This abusive domestic environment has definite con-
sequences in terms of compromising the behavioral
development of the victim. Results of the present investi-
gation are supportive of the hypotheses that the co-
occurrence of interparental violence and child physical
abuse had a significantly greater impact on the presence of
internalize and externalize symptoms than did exposure
exclusively to interparental violence, and that exposure to
interparental violence provoked more internalize and
externalize symptoms than living in a environment with
no domestic violence or child abuse. These findings support
previous research conducted among children (Davis and
Carlson 1987; Fortin et al. 2000; Hughes 1988) and
teenagers (Carlson 1991; OKeefe 1996).
Based on social learning theory, parents are highly
influential models for their children, who are consequently
likely to reproduce the behaviors they observe in their
parents. Children who live in a domestic environment
affected by violence come to believe that violence is
acceptable for resolving conflicts and are, consequently,
likely to use violence in dealing with the people around
them, whether brothers and sisters, friends, peers, or,
eventually, their own romantic partners. They absorb many
dysfunctional messages about the acceptability of violence
as a way to resolve conflict, about rationalizing the use of
Table 7 Abuse status and youths gender: mean and standard deviations for externalized symptoms
Abuse status Girls (n=269) Boys (n=221)
n M SD n M SD
Comparison 98 6.91 4.97 107 7.63 5.05
Exposed 79 10.32 6.52 52 10.81 6.90
Exposed and victim 74 16.46 9.83 48 16.52 8.79
Table 8 Percentage of adolescents with clinical internalized and externalized symptoms
Gender and abuse status Behavioral symptoms
Internalized symptoms Externalized symptoms
n %
2
%
2
Girls
No violence 98 4.08 27.94* 1.02 52.57*
Expose 79 22.78 7.59
Expose and victim 74 33.78 35.14
Boys
No violence 107 6.54 22.75* 0.93 25.57*
Expose 52 19.23 3.85
Expose and victim 48 33.33 18.75
Total
No violence 205 5.36 29.20* 1.46 43.38*
Expose 131 21.37 6.11
Expose and victim 122 36.61 30.33
*p<0.001
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 697
violence as essential under stressful conditions (Margolin
and Gordis 2003, p.88). Our study indicated that in the
opinion of most of the teen respondents, violence was
mutual within the parental couple. As a result, both girls
and boys were exposed to models belonging to the same
gender who acted as both victim and aggressor. Moreover,
exposure to the co-occurrence of abuse and interparental
violence reinforces the learning of the behaviors of
aggressor and victim.
Also, the presence of internalized and externalized symp-
toms may be explained by the presence of post-traumatic
stress. Witnessing or hearing the violence may be troubling
for the youth. The presence of violence creates an unhealthy,
unstable and concerning family climate. Therefore, the youth
will possibly have feelings of fear and helplessness. He can
even fear for his own life ant the life of the parent who is a
victim. In addition, the youth may feel responsible for the
violence between his parents (Osofsky 1995). Consequently,
he may display behaviors that are related to trauma
symptoms, including internalized disorders (anxiety, social
withdrawal) and externalized disorders (aggression et delin-
quency; Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin 1999; Graham-
Bermann 1998; Osofsky 1995).
Also, according to Rutters (1981) cumulative risk
hypotheses, a childs adjustment problems may become
more significant in the presence of interaction of multiple
stress factors; therefore, being both abused and exposed to
interparental violence taxes the youth resources beyond
their ability to cope (Hughes et al. 1989).
Results indicating a more frequent presence of internal-
izing symptoms for girls are in line with other research that
indicates that adolescent girls are more susceptible to show
internalized symptoms when they experience stressful
incidents (Leadbeater et al. 1999; Petersen et al. 1991).
Girls are socially considered to be passive and submissive
while boys are socialized as being aggressive, controlling
and somewhat in power. Thus, in the general society,
children and teenagers observe and copy the social models
given to women and men. It is also possible that, because of
those prescribed roles, girls are more susceptible to admit
the presence of internalized symptoms than boys.
However, in our study, even though girls demonstrate
internalized disorders that could be explained by the
socialization they received in the general society, they are
nevertheless susceptible to demonstrate externalized disor-
ders. This can be explained by the socialization received at
home: in our research, women are generally as violent as
men. Therefore, the girls are exposed to a model where the
same sex uses violence. They are, in turn, susceptible to
demonstrating violent behaviors.
Another result of the current study is disquieting in that a
higher proportion of youths who live in families where
there is interparental violence and/or child abuse exhibited
problems at clinical levels than youths with no violence at
home. The situation is even more urgent for adolescents
who are both abused and exposed to interparental violence.
For example, 36.6% of youths who are both abused and
exposed to interparental violence exhibit internalized prob-
lems that fall within the clinical range, in comparison to
21.4% who are only exposed to interparental violence.
Meanwhile, analyses reveal that 33.0% of teens who are
both abused and exposed to interparental violence exhibit
externalized problems requiring clinical intervention, com-
pared to 6.11% of participants who are only exposed to
interparental violence.
According to the majority of the written materials,
between 35 and 45% of children who are witnesses to
spousal abuse will demonstrate clinical behavior problems
(Christopoulos et al. 1987; mond 2000; Graham-Bermann
1998; Wolfe et al. 1985). In a study conducted by Fortin et
al. (2000), 74.8% of the kids (aged 6 to 12 years old)
exposed to domestic violence and victim of child abuse and
65.7% of those exposed only had scores falling in the
clinical range for internalized symptoms. For the external-
ized symptoms, 73.7% of the persons who are witnesses of
spousal abuse and victims of parental abuse and 41.4% of
those who are witnesses of spousal abuse demonstrate
clinical problems.
These higher percentages shown in those research may
be attributable to the fact that researchers interviewed the
mothers with regard to the behavioral difficulties of their
children (via the CBCL). Some researchers (Fortin et al.
2000; Hughes and Barad 1983; Hughes et al. 1989; Wolfe
et al. 1985) have suggested that some mothers who are
victims of interparental violence overestimate the problems
of their children. This overestimation on the part of a
mother may be attributable to the anxiety she has
experienced in relation to her own abuse and subsequent
admission to a womens shelter (Hughes 1986) or to her
determination to reach out for help (Fortin et al. 2000).
This study indicates that, although girls show more
internalized symptoms than boys, the proportion of boys
and girls who are exposed to domestic violence, and who
are both exposed and victim, that fall in the clinical range
for internalized symptoms is similar (see Table 8). Probably
that boys and girls who are severely traumatized by the
violence at home will show similar internalized symptoms.
However, the proportion of girls exposed to domestic
violence and exposed and victim who fall in the clinical
range for externalized symptoms is higher than boys who live
the same kind of violence at home. Relying on Rutterss notion
of cumulative stressors, this may be explained by particular
vulnerabilities or certain stressors experienced by the girls in
the study. In fact, the findings show that girls report being
more exposed to violence than boys. Also, the adolescence
period is particularly stressful for girls (Leadbeater et al. 1999).
698 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
However, it is interesting to note that an important
proportion of the youth from violent homes were not
evidencing problems at clinical levels. The present findings
are consistent with research which indicates that reactions
to violence in the home may vary among children (Grych et
al. 2000; Hughes and Luke 1998; Jaffe et al. 1985). Those
variations may be explained by the presence of risk (e.g., an
alcoholic parent) and protective factors (e.g., presence of a
warm and supportive relationship with the mother).
Finally, the findings indicating that in the opinion of
most of the respondents the violence is mutual within the
parental couple, is in keeping with previous research. Other
research revealed a high and significant correlation between
the use of violence by a male on his wife and by the female
on her husband (Jouriles et al. 1996). Results of the current
study must nevertheless be interpreted with care, since
context of the violence was not considered; it is impossible
to determine if the violence perpetrated by the women was
used for a different goal than men. It is possible that the
mothers used violence as the mean to protect themselves.
There are several implication of these results. First, a
significant percentage of youth attending certain French
schools in New Brunswick live in a domestic environment
characterized by violence. This outcome supports the
importance of raising awareness among all educators
concerning the phenomena of interparental violence and
child physical abuse and their negative impact on behavior.
Teachers, principals, and school counselors need access to
information on screening for abuse, approaches to use with
teens, etc. This could include information on how to
recognize warning signs, develop nonjudgmental listening
skills, know when to report to authorities, develop safety
plan with the child, etc. (Anderson and Cramer-Benjamin
1999). Also, as noted by Fontes (2000), when school
counselors are referred students for bad behavior, its
important that they evaluate the presence of violence at
home before engaging in a punitive response. Children who
are initially approached accusatorially are unlikely to reveal
embarrassing problems at home (Fontes 2000, p.233).
Second, the result in terms of the co-occurrence of
interparental violence and child physical abuse supports the
importance of checking for the simultaneous presence of
multiple forms of interparental violence in the teens
environment. Intervention may prove ineffective in situa-
tions involving the co-occurrence of interparental violence
and child physical abuse where only one of these two
variables is detected (OKeefe 1996). It essential for child
protective service workers, clinicians, researchers, and
others who identify abused and neglected children to assess
the presence or absence of other types of violence in the
home (Hughes et al. 1989, p.206). The findings that a
higher proportion of youths living violence in the home
showed problems falling within the clinical range support
the importance for them to receive appropriate help.
Concerted, innovative measures need to be implemented
to assist children who are traumatized by violence at home.
Third, gender is also important to consider. The findings
show that girls and boys may be affected differently by the
violence at home. Girls may exhibit more internalized
symptoms and show more clinical externalized symptoms.
Therefore, intervention must consider how violence impacts
differently on youths according to their gender and the
different stressors present in their lives.
Finally, children living in an abusive domestic environ-
ment need exposure to patterns of behavior and interaction
that assist them in modifying their behaviors and attitudes
toward violence. They need to learn prosocial ways of
interacting with other people. In this regard, it would be
useful to implement or continue offering programs in the
schools covering healthy relationships, respect, conflict
resolution, and cooperation. Early intervention may also
assist children in developing an inventory of non-violent
means of expressing their emotions and resolving conflicts.
Several limitations must be noted in interpreting the
findings presented. One such limitation has to do with the
fact that the sample population consisted only of teens aged
between 16 and 19; younger teens were not included.
Another limitation is related to the proportion of partic-
ipants contacted who agreed to participate in the final
sample; 30.1% of participants who were approached
refused to respond to the questionnaire, and 20.1% of
questionnaires were rejected due to an excessive number of
missing and/or incoherent responses. The study results may
therefore be biased. A third limitation is related to the
information source. In the present study, the participants
responded directly to the questionnaire, and self-reported
data may be biased for various reasons, such as memory
problems or social desirability. A fourth limitation has to do
with the fact that the socioeconomic status of the
respondents was not taken into account. A final limitation
is that physical abuse from a parent was the only form of
abuse evaluated.
Future research should take the following issues into
account with a view to advancing the body of knowledge.
First, many studies have not assessed all forms of violence
witnessed or experienced by children exposed to interpar-
ental violence. As a result, future efforts need to focus more
on the co-occurrence of interparental violence and the
various possible forms of abuse directed toward young and
teenage children (sexual abuse, negligence, etc.). In adition,
other studies need to analyze the impact of interparental
violence on various aspects of childrens lives (social
functioning, attitudes toward women, etc.). Research to
date has focused primarily on behavioral problems; how-
ever, young and teenage children who live in abusive
domestic environments may exhibit few to no behavioral
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 699
problems, yet demonstrate other types of problems (Davis
and Carlson 1987; Jaffe et al. 1985, 1990). Finally, future
studies need to focus on identifying protective and risk
factors that may account for the variation in adaptation of
children in violent homes.
References
Achenback, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self report and 1991
profile. Burlington, Vermont: University of Vermont, Department
of Psychiatry.
Anderson, S. A., & Cramer-Benjamin, D. B. (1999). The impact of
couple violence on parenting and children: An overview and
clinical implications. The American Journal of Family Therapy,
27, 113.
Angold, A., Costello, E. J., & Erkanli, A. (1999). Pubertal changes in
hormone levels and depression in girls. Psychological Medicine,
29, 10431053.
Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse
and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of
Family Psychology, 12, 578599.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning approach. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bourassa, C. (1998). Le point de vue des enfants exposs la violence
conjugale [Childrens perspective on interparental violence].
Masters thesis. Qubec, Canada: Universit Laval.
Bourassa, C. (2002). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les
troubles de comportement ladolescence : les effets mdiateurs
des relations parentsadolescent et du soutien des amis, Thse
de doctorat, cole de service social. Qubec, Canada: Universit
Laval.
Brody, G. H., Arias I., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Linking marital and
child attributions to family processes and parentchild relation-
ships. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 408421.
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistic (2000). Family violence in
Canada: A statistical profile (No. 85-224-XPE). Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Statistics Canada.
Carlson, B. E. (1984). Childrens observation of interparental
violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their
families (pp. 147167). New York: Springher.
Carlson, B. E. (1991). Outcomes of physical abuse and observation of
marital violence among adolescents in placement. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 6, 526534.
Chamberland, C., Laporte, L., Lavergne, C., Tourigny, M., Mayer, M.,
& Wright, J. (2007). Psychological maltreatment: A social
problem captured in the Quebec incidence study of child
protection services. Journal of Emotional Abusefs, in press.
Chnard, L. (1994). ...et les enfants. In M. Rinfret-Raynor &S. Cantin (Eds.),
Violence conjugale: Recherches sur la violence faite aux femmes en
milieu conjugal (pp. 113130). Boucherville: Gatan morin.
Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D. A., Shaw, D. S., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J.,
Karft, S. P., et al. (1987). Children of abused women: Adjustment at
time of shelter residence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,
611619.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and
child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
35, 73112.
Davis, L., & Carlson, B. (1987). Observation of Spouse Abuse: What
Happens to the Children. Journal of Interpersonnal Violence, 2,
278291.
Dumas, S., & Beauchesne, C. (1993). tudier et travailler? Enqute
auprs des lves du secondaire sur le travail rmunr durant
lanne scolaire [Study or work? Study with secondary students
pertaining to paid work during school year]. Qubec, Qubec,
Canada: Ministre de lducation, Gouvernement du Qubec.
Echlin, C., & Marshall, L. (1995). Child protection services for
children of battered women. Practice and controversy. In E.
Peled, P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of
violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 170185). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and
woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134154.
Edleson, J. L. (2001). Studying the co-occurrence of child maltreat-
ment and domestic violence in families. In S. A. Graham-
Bermann & E. R. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives
of children (pp. 91110). Washington: American Psychological
Association.
mond, I. (2000). La relation entre la violence conjugale et les
troubles extrioriss et intrioriss des enfants, Thse de doctorat,
Facult dducation, Universit de Sherbrooke, Qubec, Canada.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Depaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G.,
& Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the
psychological adjustment and competencies of young children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258265.
Fontes, L. A. (2000). Children exposed to marital violence: How
school counselors can help. Professional School Counseling, 3,
231237.
Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Chnier, N. (1996). Questionnaire sur la
rsolution de conflits : stratgies utilises par les parents envers
les enfants [Resolution of conflicts Questionnaire: strategies used
by parents toward their childrens]. Unpublished manuscript,
Universit de Montral at Montreal. Canada.
Fortin, A., Cyr, M., & Lachance, L. (2000). Les enfants tmoins de
violence conjugale: Analyse des variables de protection [Chil-
dren witnesses of domestic violence: Analysis of protection
variables]. Collection tudes et analyses, 13, Qubec, Qubec,
Canada: Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la violence
familiale et la violence faite aux femmes.
Gleason, W. J. (1995). Children of battered women: Developmental
delays and behavioral dysfunction. Violence and Victims, 10,
153160.
Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The impact of woman abuse on
childrens social development: Research and theoretical perspec-
tives. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.),
Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and
applied issues (pp. 2154). Washington, DC: American psycho-
logical Association.
Grych, J. H.; Jouriles, E. N., & Swank, P.R. (2000). Patterns of
adjustment among children of battered women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 8494.
Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital
discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence
from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311327.
Holden, G. W., Stein, J. D., Ritchie, K. L., Harris, S. D., & Jouriles, E. N.
(1998). Introduction. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles
(Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research,
and applied issues (pp. 289234). Washington, DC: American
psychological Association.
Hughes, H. M. (1986). Research with children in shelters: implications
for clinical services. Children Today, 15, 2125.
Hughes, H. M. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of
family violence in child witnesses and victims. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 7790.
Hughes, H. M., & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychological functioning of
children in a battered womens shelter: A preliminary investiga-
tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 525531.
700 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701
Hughes, H. M., & Luke, K. A. (1998). Heterogeneity in adjustment
among children of battered women. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner,
& E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence.
Theory, research and applied issues (pp. 185221). Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Hughes, H. M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing
spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A double
whammy? Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197209.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of
battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Critical
issues in the assessment of childrens adjustment to witnessing
family violence. Canadas Mental Health, 33, 1519.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1986). Family
violence and child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls
and boys behavioral symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry,
143, 7477.
Jouriles, E. N., Barling, J., & OLeary, K. D. (1987). Predicting child
behavior problems in maritally violent families. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 165173.
Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., &
Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical violence and other forms of
marital aggression: links with childrens behavior problems.
Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223234.
Kashani, J. H., Daniel, A. E., Dandoy, A. C., & Holcomb, W. R. (1991).
Family violence: impact on children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 181189.
Leadbeater, B. J., Kupeminc, G. P., Hertzok, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1999).
A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents
internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 12681282.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2003). Co-occurrence between marital
aggression and parents child abuse potential: the impact of
cumulative stress. Violence & Victims, 18, 243258.
Margolin, G., & John R. S. (1997). Childrens exposure to marital
aggression. Direct and mediated effects. In G. K. Kantor, & J. L.
Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness. Contemporary perspectives
on family violence (pp. 90104). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential consequences
provided by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters.
Developmental Psychology, 11, 537538.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects
of systemic family violence on childrens mental health. Child
Development, 66, 12391261.
McKay, M. M. (1994). The link between domestic violence and child
abuse: assessment and treatment considerations. Child Welfare,
13, 2939.
Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D.
(2000). Social support and the relationship between family and
community violence exposure and psychopathology among high
risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 449464.
OKeefe, M. (1994b). Adjustment of children from martially violent
homes. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 403415.
OKeefe, M. (1996). The differential effects of family violence on
adolescent adjustment. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 13, 5168.
Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The
invisible victims. Social Policy Report: The Society for Research
in Child Development, 9, 116.
Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family
interactions: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive
Behavior, 10, 253267.
Peled, E., Jaffe, P. G., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Introduction. In
E. Peled, P. Jaffe, & J. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of
violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 39). New York: Sage.
Petersen, A. C., Sirigiani, P. A., & Kennedy, R. E. (1991). Adolescent
depression: Why more girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
20, 247271.
Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping, and development: Some issues and
some questions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22,
323356.
Stagg, V., Wills, G. D., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in
early childhood witnesses of family violence. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 9, 7387.
Straus, M. (2000). Handbook for the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS).
New Hamphire: Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire.
Straus, M., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactic scales (CTS2). Journal of
Family Issues, 17, 283316.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D.
(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parentchild
conflict tactics scales: development and psychometric data for a
national sample of american parents. Child Abuse And Neglect, 22,
249270.
Sudermann, M., & Jaffe, P. (1999). A handbook for health and social
service provdiers and educators on children exposed to women
abuse/ family violence. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada,
Family Violence Prevention Unit.
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, K, & Zak, L. (1985). Children of
battered women: The relation of child behavior to family
violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical,
53, 657665.
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:691701 701