Measurement of Adolescent Dating Violence in Sexual Minority Youth: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Effectively addressing adolescent dating violence rests on the quality of its measurement, as that has substantial implications for our understanding of prevalence, correlates, outcomes. Although dating violence is highly prevalent among sexual minority youth, the state of measurement in this population has scarcely been explored. This scoping review presents information on the measurement of adolescent dating violence in exiting studies conducted with sexual minority youth. Three databases were searched, and the ancestry approach was used to identify relevant literature published in the United States between 1992-2022 that included sexual minority adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Twenty-one articles were identified. Five enrolled entirely sexual minority samples. Sexual minority distribution ranged from 2.1%-100%. All studies operationalized sexual identity as an orientation (not sexual behavior, attraction). Nineteen studies focused on measuring dating violence behavior. Twelve reported on female and male victimization, 4 on female and male perpetration and victimization, 2 on female perpetration and victimization, and 2 on female victimization-only. Most commonly used items were from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (11 studies) and the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (3 studies). Two studies assessed knowledge of and attitudes toward dating violence. Domains explored included rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, bystander opportunity, and dating abuse knowledge. Only two scales had undergone previous systematic psychometric evaluation. There was no evidence of cross-cultural validation in sexual minority populations. Rigorous research on adolescent dating violence measurement among sexual minority youth is greatly needed and should be given priority among researchers.

Introduction

Intimate partner violence in the United States is a preventable public health issue with significant consequences. Intimate partner violence describes patterns of abusive behavior used by one partner to gain or maintain control over the other, including physical and sexual violence, threats of violence, social isolation, psychological aggression, stalking, economic deprivation, neglect, and controlling a partner’s sexual or reproductive health (Roy, 2016). Survivors experience negative health impacts such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, suicide attempts, gastrointestinal disorders, substance abuse, sexually transmitted infections, and gynecological or pregnancy complications, all of which can lead to hospitalization, homelessness or death (Black et al., 2011; Jouriles et al., 2005; Rollè et al., 2019).

Dating violence, a form of intimate partner violence, is pervasive among adolescents (Ackerman & Field, 2011; Halpern et al., 2004; McLaughlin et al., 2012; Murray & Mobley, 2009). Three out of every 10 young people have experienced adolescent dating violence (ADV) (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2023). In addition to the risk of adult victimization (Breiding et al., 2014), ADV exposure also leads to youth engagement in behaviors that are unhealthy (e.g., transactional and/or condomless sex, substance abuse) or antisocial (e.g., bullying, theft) (CDC, 2020). Adolescent survivors are also at risk for poor mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicide ideation) (CDC, 2020).

Sexual minority youth (SMY) experience high rates of dating violence (prevalence is 17– 43% and 23% for physical and sexual victimization, respectively) yet ADV research targeting SMY is limited to 3% of total studies on the subject (Dank et al., 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2012; Zweig et al, 2013). Across physical, sexual and psychological domains, prevalence among SMY is significantly higher than among heterosexual peers (Dank et al., 2014; Freedner et al., 2002; Martin-Storey, 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2012; Reuter et al., 2015; Rhodes et al., 2009; Zweig et al, 2013). Sexual minority survivors of dating violence also face unique barriers to accessing services following victimization (e.g., heteronormative assumptions about lack of need for protection from abuse; overt discrimination and exclusion by service providers) (Halpern et al., 2001). This further enhances vulnerability to the debilitating psychosocial, mental and physical ADV sequalae.

Although previous research has contributed to an understanding of the epidemiology of ADV and demonstrated its significance as a public health problem, a question that has received less attention in the ADV literature is how dating violence is measured among SMY, and what implications measurement might have for knowledge about prevalence, correlates and outcomes. Focus on ADV measurement is an opportunity for innovative research that will help to advance the field (Exner-Cortens, Gill & Eckenrode, 2016a). Without proper development or validation in sexual minority populations, however, studies that use these measures with SMY may produce inaccurate findings, further limiting understanding of the interpersonal relationships of these adolescents. For example, underestimating the prevalence of ADV among SMY perpetuates health disparities in this population and limits reliable evidence that can characterize normative, diverse, and evolving aspects of ADV and inform public health priorities. ADV data can contribute to the development of effective policy, age-appropriate and culturally sensitive services and prevention programs, and resource allocation, therefore its accuracy is imperative. Hence, the purpose of this scoping review was to gain an understanding of the current state of ADV measurement in SMY populations. To understand the full scope, information on behavior measures (i.e., measures that assess victimization and perpetration), and information on attitudes and knowledge measures were summarized.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted using the framework and principles reported by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), with further recommendations provided by Levac, et al., (2010). This methodology is effective for offering a synthesis of the current evidence and articulating key concepts and knowledge gaps in an emergent and specialized topic, such as ADV measurement among SMY. This review included five key phases: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data (collating, summarizing data); and (5) reporting the findings.

Identifying the research question

The current scoping review was guided by the research question: ‘how has ADV behavior (victimization and perpetration), attitudes and knowledge been measured in samples of sexual minority youth?’.

Identifying relevant studies

Several preliminary scoping searches were first conducted to gain familiarity with the literature and aid with the identification of key words. Following these preliminary searches, three health bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched for relevant literature published between January 1992 and January 2022. The lower bound for this search was set to include studies published in the earliest years of ADV research. Search terms used were dating violence or dating abuse or dating aggression or date fight* or digital dating or partner violence or gendered adolescent interpersonal aggression AND teen* or adolescen* or youth* AND sexual minority or LGB* or GLBT or queer* or non-heterosexual AND measure* or scale* or assess*. The ancestry approach (i.e., identifying studies from the reference lists of existing review articles) (Boland, Cherry & Dickson, 2017) was also used.

Study selection

Articles were included if they were published in the United States, included a measure of ADV (any aspect: victimization, perpetration, attitudes/knowledge and/or beliefs) and sampled SMY aged 19 or younger, or students enrolled in middle school and/or high school. Searches were not restricted to publication format. To keep the search focused, the study needed to assess violence between adolescent dating partners and not non-partnered experiences of and/or attitudes toward aggression (e.g., sexual harassment, general sexual violence). Articles that used college or adult samples were excluded. Article screening and extraction was conducted using Covidence^®.

A search of the databases revealed 80 non-duplicated records. These articles were screened by two authors (CM and JR) independently. Thirty-one were irrelevant based on a review of the titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 49 relevant records, 12 included only heterosexual participants or did not report sexual identity, 8 included adult populations, 6 were focused on topics other than ADV (e.g., impact of general romantic involvement on mental health), one study was conducted in Australia, and one was an implementation evaluation of a teen assessment project. A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A full description of the search results including excluded and included articles is described in the PRISMA diagram (figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Diagram of Articles Selected for Adolescent Dating Violence among Sexual Minority Youth Scoping Review

Data charting

Data extracted from the selected studies were summarized and charted into Table 1. The charted information included: author information, journal and publication year, study setting, participant characteristics and sample size, ADV measure(s) used, ADV domain measured, and study aim(s).

Table 1.

Matrix of Articles: Measurement of Adolescent Dating Violence among Sexual Minority Youth

Author, year, journal	Setting	Sampling	% SMY	SM measure response options	% female	% racial/ethnic minority	Measure name	Violence dimension assessed	Study Aim
Adams et al., 2021 Prevention Science	Arkansas, Delaware, Florida Kentucky Maine, Michigan Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming	33,619 high school students, aged 14+ years	9.76%	Heterosexual (straight); Gay or lesbian; Bisexual; Not sure	51.2	40.9	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Examine sexual orientation disparities in INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE and associations between LGBTQ-inclusive school climates and INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE victimization among school age adolescents
Dank et al., 2014 Journal of Youth and Adolescence	Rural New York, suburban New Jersey, Pennsylvania small cities	3,745 grade 7-12 youth aged 12-19	6%	Heterosexual/straight, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Questioning, Queer, Other	52.3	26.3	Cyberbullying scale by Picard 2007 Cyberbullying scale by Griezel 2007 Victimization and Dating Relationships Survey physical, psychological abuse scales (Foshee 1996) Michigan Department of Community Health’s control and fear scale items (MCH 1997) Sexual abuse items by Zweig 1997, 2002	CP CV PP PV PsP PsV SP SV	Compare physical, psychological, sexual, and cyber dating violence experiences between LGB youth and heterosexual youth as well as transgender youth and male and female youth. Examine variations in the likelihood of help-seeking behavior and the presence of risk factors between LGB youth and heterosexual youth.
Elze, 2002 Journal of Lesbian Studies	Northern New England	112 self-identified lesbian and bisexual female adolescents aged 13-18 years	100%	Not reported (gay or lesbian, bisexual reported in table)	100	6	Author created items	PV PsV SV	Assess (a) What are the characteristics of lesbian and bisexual female adolescents’ recent dating relationships? (b) To what extent do lesbian and bisexual female adolescents report dating-related stress (including suicidality) and violence? (c) What individual and social factors are associated with same-sex dating or involvement in a primary same-sex relationship for adolescent lesbians and bisexual women?
Freedner & Austin, 2002 Journal of Adolescent Health	Northeast United States, urban setting	521 youth attending a community-based adolescent and young adult rally	100%	Not reported (gay or lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual reported in table; questioning responses removed from analysis)	67.2	20.4	Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS-MA) Victimization and Dating Relationships Survey (Foshee 1996)	PV PsV SV	Examine the prevalence of dating violence among GLB and heterosexual adolescents
Herbitter et al., 2021 Journal of Interpersonal Violence	27 schools in Northeastern United States	1276 cisgender girls in grade 10, aged 14-17 years	27.84%	Heterosexual, gay/lesbian, queer, bisexual, prefer not to answer	100	Not reported	Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI Wolfe et al. 2001)	SP SV PP PV	Explore whether exposure to violent pornography is associated with teen dating violence among female sexual minority adolescents
Hipwell et al., 2014 Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology	Pittsburgh PA	1,647 adolescent girls	9.2%	Heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, bisexual	100	62.1	Physical assault items of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)	PP PV	Compare association between DV perpetration and victimization and sexually risky behaviors among SMY and heterosexual adolescent girls, specifically (1) whether sexual minority status was associated with sexual risk behaviors after sociodemographic correlates of sexual risk were controlled; and (2) whether dating violence context accounted for elevated risk
Johns et al., 2020 MMWR Suppl.	United States	44,066 public and private school students grades 9-12	Not reported*	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	Not reported	Not reported	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Analyze national trends in violence victimization and suicide risk among high school students by self-reported sexual identity and evaluates differences in these trends among LGB students by sex and race/ethnicity
Luo, Stone & Tharp, 2014 American Journal of Public Health	Boston, MA Chicago, IL Houston, TX Los Angeles, CA Milwaukee, WI New York City, NY San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA and Seattle, WA	70,793 public school students grades 9-12	10.8%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	51.5	88	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV	Examine (1) whether SMYs are at increased risk for physical dating violence victimization compared with non-SMYs, (2) whether bisexual youths have greater risk of physical dating violence than lesbian or gay youths, (3) whether youths who have had sexual contact with both sexes are more susceptible to physical dating violence than youths with same sex-only sexual contact, and (4) patterns of physical dating violence among SMYs across demographic groups
Martin-Storey, 2015 Journal of Youth and Adolescence	Massachusetts	10,493 students grades 9-12	4.4%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	51.2	31.2	Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS-MA)	PV SV	Assess variations in the prevalence of dating violence across different measures of sexual minority status and assess whether this association was mediated by bullying, the number of sexual partners, binge drinking or aggressive behaviors
Nydegger et al., 2020 PLoS ONE	United States	14,765 public and private school students aged 12+ in grades 9-12	10.7%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	50.7	46.5	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Examine whether SM identity enhanced the relationship between experiences of INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE and suicidal ideation/attempts
Olsen, Vivolo-Kantor & Kann, 2020 Journal of Interpersonal Violence	United States	9917 public and private students grades 9-12	5.7%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	49	44.7	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Describe the prevalence of physical and sexual teen dating violence victimization by sexual identity and quantify the increased risk for teen dating violence victimization among LGB youth compared with heterosexual youth
Pearlman & Dunn, 2016 Rhode Island Medical Journal	High schools in Rhode Island	6390 students grades 9-12	Not reported*	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	46.4	16.0	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Examine co-occurrence of bullying, homophobic teasing, and dating violence by gender
Reuter, Sharp & Temple, 2015 Partner Abuse	Houston, TX	782 students with dating history	24.3%	Completely heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, completely homosexual	47.7	62.9	Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al. 2001)	PP PV PsP PsV SP SV	Examine teen dating violence perpetration, victimization, and risk factors among SMY over a period of 2 years
Rostad et al., 2020 Prevention Science	United States	18,575 students grades 9-12	2.1%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	51.3	44.2	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Explore the relationship between substance use and disparities in teen dating violence and victimization and examine if these relationships vary by sexual minority subgroups
Rothman et al., 2011 Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs	Boston University Medical Center	456 pediatric emergency department patients at the Boston University Medical Center aged 14-21 years	16%	Not reported (gay or bisexual reported in table)	50	85	Safe Dates Physical Violence Scale (Foshee 1998, 2009)	PP PV PsP PsV SP SV	Assess whether (a) alcohol use–related beliefs and behaviors (“drinking style”) would be associated with DV perpetration and victimization, (b) drinking style would mediate the relationship between childhood abuse and DV, and (c) the drinking style–DV relationship would be attributable to propensity for problem behavior
Scheer, Antebi-Gruszka & Sullivan, 2021 Psychology of Violence	United States	7,185 female public and private school students grades 9-12	15.1%	Not reported (heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual reported in table)	100	46.8	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Examine sexual orientation disparities in victimization and alcohol misuse and consequences and use physical and sexual victimization latent class membership to predict female youths’ engagement in alcohol misuse and related consequences
Scheer et al., 2021 LGBT Health	United States	17,112 students grades 9-12	98.4%	Gay or lesbian; bisexual; straight, that is, not gay; or “some- thing else,” with a write-in response	77.0	36.7	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Identify victimization typologies among SGM youth, examine whether demographic factors and SGM-specific risk and protective factors are associated with victimization class membership; and assess whether various combinations of victimization experiences differentially relate to depressive symptoms, self-perceived stress, and alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among SGM youth
Shorey et al., 2018 Journal of Adolescent Health	Southeast Texas	135 high school students	100%	Not reported (“not exclusively heterosexual” reported in-text)	71.1	73.3	Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al. 2001)	PP SP	Examine the stability/persistence of physical and sexual INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE perpetration in SMY.
Turpin, Rosario & Wang, 2020 Journal of Mental Health	United States	3357 students grades 9-12	100%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, not sure	47.8	50.5	Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)	PV SV	Examine if victimization and depression were associated with suicidality among SMY
Waterman et al., 2020 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships	Maine Massachusetts and New Hampshire	1322 adolescents from 13 high schools in participating in a randomized control trial	14.1%	Heterosexual (straight), gay or lesbian, bisexual, I don’t know, other	49.96	11.1	Author created items Bystander detection (Cook-Craig et al. 2014) Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMAS -Short Form Payne et al. 1999) Victim Empathy Scale (Ahrens & Campbell 2000; C. A. Smith & Frieze 2003)	K A	Examine prospective association between demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and subsequent detection of bystander opportunities.
Wesche, 2021 Journal of Adolescence	Wisconsin	156 adolescents	35%	Heterosexual gay or lesbian, bisexual, queer, not sure self-identify	56**	79	Safe Dates Physical Violence Scale (Foshee & Langwick 2010)	K	Adapt the Safe Dates dating violence prevention program to be inclusive of SGM adolescents.

ADV: adolescent dating violence; SMY = sexual minority youth; SGM = sexual/gender minority A = Attitudes; C = Cyber; K = Knowledge; P = Physical; P = Perpetration; Ps = Psychological; S = Sexual; V = Victimization

^*value not reported, however results section denotes sexual minority participants

^**includes MtF transgender respondents

Results

Twenty-one articles were included in this scoping review (Table 1). Publication year ranged from 2002-2021, with more than half (n=12) published between 2018-2021. Study samples included adolescents between 12-19 years. Distribution of female participants ranged from 46.4% to 100%, including one study reporting male-to-female (MtF) transgender respondents. Distribution of racial and ethnic minority participants ranged from 6% to 88%. SMY distribution ranged from 2.1%-100%. Five (23.8%) enrolled entirely SMY samples. To identify SMY participants, all studies operationalized sexual identity as an orientation (as opposed to sexual behavior and/or sexual attraction). Most (n=16; 86.2%) measured sexual identity using one item with five response options: heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, not/unsure.

There was variability in how “dating” was characterized across studies. Most studies used language such as “dating partner”, “romantic partner”, “date or partner”, “steady dating partner” with no explanation of how these terms were defined or what behavior, thoughts or feelings constituted these relationships. In the rare exception, a few studies offered an inclusive and detailed definition of the type of dating relationship assessed [e.g., having a “boyfriend or girlfriend, someone you have dated or are currently dating (e.g., going out or socializing without being supervised), someone who you like or love and spend time with, or a relationship that might involve sex” (Dank et al., 2014).

Measures of Behavior

Nineteen articles included a behavior measure (Table 1). Of these, over half (n=12) reported on female and male victimization, while a smaller number reported on female and male perpetration and victimization (n=4; 19%), female perpetration and victimization (n=2; 9.5%) and female victimization alone (n=2; 9.5%). In total, 9 questionnaires were used to measure ADV across the 19 articles assessing behavior (Table 1). This count does not include author-created items.

Sixteen studies utilized one measure of ADV behavior. The three one-measure studies that assessed victimization and/or perpetration used one of two questionnaires (Table 1). Physical, psychological and sexual domains were evaluated by Rothman et al. (2011) who used a Safe Dates violence scale (Foshee et al., 1998; Foshee et al., 2009). Reuter, Sharp & Temple (2015) instead relied upon the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) developed by Wolfe et al. (2001) for their assessment. Subscales of the CARDI were used by Herbitter et al., (2021) to measure physical and sexual victimization and perpetration among a sample of girls. Shorey et al., (2018) executed the one study focused entirely on perpetration using the CARDI physical and sexual perpetration subscales with an SMY sample.

Among the 13 one-measure studies assessing victimization-only, three questionnaires were used (Table 1). Elze (2002) deployed a measure of physical, psychological and sexual victimization developed by Dean, Wu & Martin (1992) with SMY girls. Approximately 50% (n=11) of studies used measures from either the national-or a state-level (Massachusetts) Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) to assess victimization. Most using the YRBS assessed both physical and sexual victimization while one focused on physical victimization only. Hipwell et al., (2013) administered the physical assault (minor) subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) to a sample of adolescent girls (9.2% SMY).

Two studies used multiple measures to assess ADV behavior. Dank et al., (2014) explored ADV victimization and perpetration (6% SMY). This was the only included study that assessed online dating abuse, which was accomplished using scales developed by Griezel (2007) and Picard (2007). The authors also used the physical and psychological abuse subscales of the Victimization and Dating Relationships Survey (Foshee et al., 1996); the control and fear psychological scales from the Michigan Department of Community Health survey (1997); and sexual abuse items created by Zweig (1997, 2002). Freedner et al. (2002) focused on victimization only using the CTS, MA-YRBS, and the Victimization and Dating Relationships Survey to explore physical, psychological and sexual abuse. Of note, of the two studies that assessed psychological abuse with entirely SMY participant samples, only Freedner explored threats of “outing” by a dating partner as a form of dating violence.

Upon review of the existing measures of ADV behavior, the subscales of the reported measures differed from one another. For example, among the physical subscales, some structure questions by severity (e.g., mild, moderate, severe) of behavior while others do not. Some include separate response options to assess different types of physical violence (e.g., (a) thrown something that could hurt; (b) pushed or shoved in anger; (c) punched, hit, or slapped; (d) choked or kicked in anger; (e) verbally threatened to hurt the other) while others collapse these into one item [(e.g., “How many times did someone you were dating or going out with physically hurt you on purpose? (Count such things as being hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon)”]. Sexual dating violence was often collapsed into the physical domain (e.g., “Have you ever been hurt physically or sexually by a date or someone you were going out with? This might include being hurt by being shoved, slapped, hit or forced into any sexual activity”). Additionally, the recall period assessed varied between the past 6 months, past 12 months, or lifetime.

Of the nine questionnaires used to measure ADV behavior, two of the more frequently employed (CADRI, CTS) were developed for use in adult populations. Both have been psychometrically assessed in adolescent populations (Exner-Cortens, Gill & Eckenrode, 2016a). To our knowledge, only the CADRI has been formally assessed for validity in samples of SMY (Rivas-Koehl, Merrin & Espelage, 2023).

Measures of Attitudes and Knowledge

Two articles included a measure of knowledge and/or attitudes (Table 1). Both examined these domains across genders and in primarily heterosexual populations. Wesche (2021) assessed knowledge of what constitutes dating abuse and how to prevent and/or intervene in dating abuse using the Safe Dates Scale (Foshee & Langwick, 2010). On the other hand, Waterman et al., (2020) used multiple scales to assess knowledge and attitudes. Authors created two items to assess participant knowledge about sexual assault and relationship abuse. The Illinois rape myth acceptance scale short form (IRMAS-Short Form) (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used to assess agreement with rape myths. A measure of victim empathy was derived from existing scales (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Smith & Frieze, 2003). An inventory (Cook-Craig et al., 2014) was adapted to measure knowledge of bystander opportunity detection.

The domains assessed by each measure varied: rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, bystander opportunity, and knowledge of what constitutes dating abuse and how to prevent/intervene in dating abuse. Waterman et al., (2020) reported on scale reliability in their study. No measure employed to assess attitudes and knowledge were developed specifically for use with SM populations. To our knowledge, validity of scale properties has not been formally assessed in SM populations.

Discussion

The information on ADV measurement in SMY populations presented in this scoping review further advances this emerging area of inquiry. Although the study protocol included a 30-year eligibility period, 2002 was the earliest publication year for articles that met inclusion criteria. Of the articles included, more than half were published in the last five years, which aligns with secular trends in dating violence research (Laskey, Bates & Taylor, 2019). SMY samples were minimally represented in identified studies, which may be unsurprising as we know that obtaining a representative sample may be one of the most difficult methodological obstacles in studying sexual minority dating violence, even among studies based on large samples that have used nonrandom sampling methods (Burke & Follingstad, 1999).

Because dating violence attitudes and knowledge are associated with dating violence behaviors (O’Keefe, 1997; Price et al., 1999), these domains are commonly targeted of dating violence prevention programs (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). We identified very few studies assessing knowledge and attitudes, however, which is likely a reflection of the current state of psychological aggression measurement (Exner-Cortens, Gill & Eckenrode, 2016b). Apart from the Safe Dates measure, no knowledge or attitudes measures used in included studies have been previously identified in other reviews of ADV measurement in general adolescent populations (Exner-Cortens, Gill & Eckenrode, 2016b; Smith et al., 2015).

Critical to the validity of ADV measurement for SMY populations is: 1) how sexual identity is measured; and 2) assessment in representative samples. Estimates of ADV among SMY may vary according to how sexual identity is defined (Halpern et al., 2014). Sexual identity is a core aspect that shapes opportunities and experiences of discrimination that influence health, therefore accurate conceptualization and measurement is crucial (Ricks et al., 2022). A majority of studies, including some of those with entirely SMY samples, included only four or fewer options for self-reported SM identity: “gay”, “lesbian”, “bisexual” or “not/unsure”. This omits the experiences of those with identities such as questioning and queer, potentially leaving their needs unaccounted for. For example, youth who identify as questioning have greater odds of experiencing sexual intimate partner violence than those who identify as gay or lesbian (Whitton et al., 2016). The trigger for this victimization may be multi-faceted. Victimization may be result of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination. It may also be that dating partners feel psychologically threatened by someone who is questioning their sexuality and these feelings, in turn, evoke victimizing behaviors (Williams et al., 2003). We cannot improve our understanding of these patterns without exploring the experiences of these adolescents.

The lack of assessment of digital dating violence observed is inadequate given the elevated risk of exposure for SMY. Digital dating violence comprises the use of digital media to harass, pressure, threaten, coerce, or monitor a dating partner (Reed, Tolman & Ward, 2016). Given the near-ubiquitous use of social media and mobile technology among adolescents, digital dating violence has become a concern for SMY. Exposure to digital dating violence carries the same negative health consequences as in-person dating violence (Reed, Tolman & Ward, 2016). Digital dating violence behaviors have also been associated with off-line forms of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, suggesting that they may often occur concurrently with other abusive and unhealthy relationship behaviors. (Epstein-Ngo , 2014; Reed, Tolman & Ward, 2016; Zweig et al., 2013) One in four teens (13-18 years) report exposure to digital dating violence (Reed, Tolman & Ward, 2016); exposure may be even higher among SMY due to unique differences in internet-using behavior and motivations. For example, due to a common lack of support in settings that traditionally promote positive youth development (e.g., home, school), SMY are more likely to use mobile applications and online technology for partner seeking, sexual health information gathering, and community building. The internet affords anonymity during identity exploration, connections to other SM communities not accessible in person, and information on same-sex relationships (Garofalo et al., 2007). SM adolescents are more likely to meet their first intimate partner online (Bolding et al., 2007). These unique patterns of usage significantly increase vulnerability to digital dating violence exposure.

Threatening a dating partner with “outing” them (telling others about their sexual minority status) is a serious form of dating violence unique to those with a sexual minority identity (Duke & Davidson, 2009), however it is vastly understudied in these populations (Blais et al., 2015). Indeed, in our sample, only one study with an entirely SMY sample accounted for threats of outing in the constellation of dating violence behavior. The limited evidence available indicates that exposure to this type of abuse varies among sexual minority identities. Outing is one category of a form of intimate partner violence unique to sexual and gender minorities, “identity abuse” (Woulfe & Goodman, 2021). Identity abuse describes the set of tactics of intimate partner violence that leverage heterosexism and cissexism against sexual and gender minority survivors. Other categories include undermining and belittling identity, using homophobic/transphobic language, and isolating survivors from the sexual and gender minority community. Awareness of this identity abuse is an emergent area of intimate partner violence research, explored by relatively few quantitative studies, all of which have been conducted with primarily adult participants (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Rogers, 2021; Scheer & Baams, 2021; Woulfe & Goodman, 2021). This indicates a critical gap to be addressed in future SMY research.

Although there is evidence of reliability and validity for two of the behavior scales (CTS, CADRI) and two behavior studies reported scale reliability with their own study populations, across measures, including those with primarily SMY samples, we found limited evidence of formal assessment of cross-cultural validity in samples of SMY. This issue has been noted in previous reviews of measurement of ADV (Exner-Cortens, Gill & Eckenrode, 2016b). To address this gap, a 2023 study by Rivas-Koehl, Merrin, and Espelage assessed the measurement invariance of the CADRI for sexual minority high school students across three waves. The authors determined that this popular dating violence measure is in fact suitable for use among SMY. This is a promising start, yet more work of this nature is needed. As ADV research increasingly focuses on SMY experiences, so increases the necessity of reliable and valid instruments or measures cross-validated among SMY segments of adolescent populations, to enhance generalizability. Arguably, this work is rife with challenges. The nature of dating violence, generally, may make it difficult to conceptualize and establish reliability (Ryan, 2013). For example, perpetrators of intimate partner violence do not necessarily use multiple acts (internal consistency reliability) or repeat specific acts (test-retest reliability). Additionally, measures of intimate partner violence data are positively skewed, with high levels of violence rarely being reported. This could impact the calculation of of reliability when normality is assumed (Ryan, 2013). These challenges notwithstanding, dating violence researchers have an opportunity to learn more about the nature of intimate partner violence through the accurate reflection of reliability statistics (Nunnally, 1959).

Over half of studies included racially-diverse samples comprising a substantial percentage of participants who endorsed a minoritized racial identity. For SMY of color, who live at the intersection of marginalized race and sexual identities historically battered by discriminatory social conditions and abusive acts and attitudes, the risk of exposure to dating violence is compounded (IOM, 2011; Meyer, Schwartz & Frost, 2008). As an example, previous work has shown that both screening for physical intimate partner violence in clinical settings and addressing this exposure in prevention and intervention efforts may be particularly imperative to protect the health and well-being of female-identifying SMY of color (Whitton et al., 2016). Across included studies, it was not evident that authors accounted for how intersecting group memberships may shape measure responses, but this approach is certainly warranted for future measurement work.

Along similar lines are the issues that arise from the almost exclusive focus on dyadic gender identity. Only two studies reported transgender respondents, and none explicitly reported representation of nonbinary or indigenous third gender roles (i.e., two-spirit, fa’afafine, māhū). This omission is likely a result of study timing (i.e., reflective of conventions of the time the study was conducted), geographic region, and knowledge and preferences of research teams. Some dating violence tactics used against transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals take advantage of the vulnerabilities that this population already struggle with. For example, female-identifying transgender youth have increased vulnerability to intimate partner violence and sexual abuse because of harmful societal stereotypes that specifically position them as hypersexual and stigmatize their relationships with cisgender (same gender identity as that assigned to them at birth) men (Dank et al., 2014; Garthe et al., 2021). Cis male partners often use coercive control, violence, and perpetrate homicide against transgender partners to conceal these stigmatized relationships from others (Gamarel, 2022). Elevated social adversity (e.g., biological family rejection) experienced by transgender women also increase dependency on abusive partners for social support (James et al., 2015). Additional work is needed to corroborate similar dynamics in adolescent relationships, however SMY are similarly exposed to stigma and discrimination Erasure of these identities in dating violence research risks mischaracterizing experiences of power and relations. Continued effort is needed to account for identity diversity.

Future directions

In review of the current state of measurement of ADV among SMY, several opportunities present themselves for future work in this field. Generally, future efforts should focus on addressing inconsistences in study design as wide variation makes data harmonization difficult (Exner-Cortens , Gill & Eckenrode, 2016b; Hamby S, Turner, 2013). The reported prevalence of ADV can vary tremendously depending on how it is defined and measured, the time frame assessed, and the types of partners considered (Teten et al., 2009). Additionally, Follingstad and Rogers (2013) question if physical, sexual and psychological violence can be validly measured using the same method, which in part depends on how the construct of each is conceptualized. And as noted by Exner-Cortens (2016b), future work should also incorporate context (e.g., perceived intent, recipient’s reaction) to develop more realistic understanding of dating nuances.

Specific to SMY, measures used with this population should be cross-culturally validated to ensure relevance and accuracy of experiences. Unique dating violence exposures such as digital dating violence or threats of outing should also be accounted for in comprehensive measures targeting these adolescents. Measurement of sexual identity is a continued challenge across the health sciences (NASEM). Persistent efforts have been made to improve measurement, including the recent 2022 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report. This report is the most comprehensive to date on measurement-related research for this construct. Utilization of included recommendations will enhance future data collection and demonstrate respect to the SM participant. Finally, SMY populations are heterogeneous, and intersectionality must be considered. These youth differ markedly by not only sexual orientation but also in life experiences by racial/ethnic group. Intersectional disparities in ADV cannot be effectively addressed if they are not adequately measured.

Conclusion

Sound measurement is imperative to the accurate understanding of ADV, a pressing public health problem for which sexual minority youth are at great risk. Evidence from this review shows that the measures currently used to assess ADV in this population may not be adequate, thereby limiting our ability to effectively address this issue. Rigorous future work is needed to respond to the notable gaps and capitalize on the opportunities to improve measurement.

Highlights.

• Understanding how dating violence is measured in sexual minority youth is critical, as they are disproportionately exposed and proper development and validation of measures directly correlates with the ability to effectively intervene.

• Sound measurement is imperative to the accurate understanding of adolescent dating violence.

• Evidence from this review shows that the measures currently used to assess ADV in this population may not be adequate, thereby limiting our ability to effectively address this issue.

• Rigorous future work is needed to respond to the notable gaps and capitalize on the opportunities to improve measurement.