Dating violence history
Our study was diverse with regard to sex (56% female), ethnicity and race (31% Hispanic; 29% African American; 28% white), and socioeconomic status (eg, 48% had a caregiver who graduated college).
Retention rates from wave 1 were the following: wave 2: 92.5%; wave 3: 85.8%; wave 4: 74.5%; wave 5: 67.0%; and wave 6: 72.7%.
However, area under the curve (AUC) statistics may not adequately capture the incremental impact of additional indicators.
Instead, reclassification analyses may be a more sensitive approach for determining whether a novel indicator should be included within a multi-indicator screening approach.
These models adequately discriminated between future perpetrators and nonoffenders (area under the curve statistic CONCLUSIONS: Our study represents one of the first applications of reclassification analyses to psychosocial research in a pediatric population.
Therefore, early childhood adversities may represent a more homogeneous vulnerability for TDV perpetration and function as the best indicators for violent dating behaviors.
Complicating the picture further is the fact that answers to these questions may vary on the basis of demographics (eg, sex, race), perpetration history, and TDV perpetration subtype (eg, physical or sexual forms of violence) because there are few longitudinal studies in which researchers have adequately tested these potential moderating variables.
Although these studies reveal domains of risk associated with TDV perpetration, it is challenging to translate these findings into a preventive framework.
It may be that more proximal risk factors attenuate the longitudinal effect of more distal risk factors), making it difficult to know which proximal risk factors to target in screening initiatives for TDV perpetration.