Beyond the Numbers: Community Advocate Perspectives on National IPV Data Among AAPI Survivors

Abstract

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) remain underrepresented in research and service utilization. This study used a sequential mixed-methods design (quant→qual) to examine characteristics of IPV and help-seeking among AAPI women survivors. Quantitative analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (AAPI n = 53; total N = 2,447) was compared with qualitative insights from 24 domestic violence advocates. Both data indicated high rates of spousal abuse, repeat victimization, and physical symptoms among AAPI survivors. However, results diverged regarding specific sociodemographic characteristics. While quantitative findings indicated high educational attainment and household income among AAPI survivors, advocates reported financial hardship among survivors served. Findings suggest the need for improved representation of AAPI survivors in research and reaffirm the importance of providing culturally responsive services to prevent repeat victimization and address IPV-related physical symptoms.

Although the Asian population is currently the fastest-growing racial group in the United States and is projected to reach 46 million by 2060, they are often underrepresented in research on intimate partner violence (IPV; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Kim & Schmuhl, 2020). National surveys in the United States suggest that IPV is less prevalent among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women compared with other racial and ethnic groups (Cho, 2012a; Leemis et al., 2022). However, other research suggests that this estimate may be biased downward due to underreporting, potentially influenced by a lack of awareness, traditional family values, and the absence of language accessibility in national surveys (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021; Cho, 2012a; Kim & Schmuhl, 2020). Furthermore, research indicates that AAPI survivors are also underrepresented in service utilization, suggesting the importance of studying how IPV affects AAPI survivors and how these experiences influence their help-seeking behaviors and outcomes. Although existing research has demonstrated the vulnerability of this population, several gaps remain, including the extent to which experiences of IPV among AAPI survivors are consistently represented across national surveys and community settings. This information is important because data can substantially influence intervention strategies, resource allocation, and policy development. Grounded in a feminist empiricist perspective (Intemann, 2024), we situate women’s experiences of IPV and help-seeking within the broader structural context of AAPI populations’ positions in U.S. society, and examine how women’s lived experiences contrast with the picture presented in national data. This study employs a sequential mixed-methods design (quant→qual) to examine IPV experiences and help-seeking among AAPI women and compares national survey findings with community-based reports from domestic violence (DV)¹ advocates.

IPV Within AAPI Communities: An Underresearched Issue

IPV, encompassing physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression by an intimate partner, is a pervasive public health concern linked to multiple adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and gastrointestinal and neurological disorders (Leemis et al., 2022; Stubbs & Szoeke, 2022). It is estimated that almost one in two U.S. women (47.3%) have experienced some form of IPV in their lifetime, with prevalence varying across different racial and ethnic groups (Leemis et al., 2022). National-level surveys indicate that AAPI women experience the lowest rates of IPV (Cho, 2012a; Leemis et al., 2022). For instance, the 2016/2017 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reported that the lifetime prevalence of contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner among AAPI women was 27.2%, compared with 53.6% for Black women, 48.4% for White women, and 42.1% for Hispanic women (Leemis et al., 2022).

However, multiple studies suggest that this estimate is likely skewed by underreporting in AAPI communities, driven by the normalization of abuse, cultural values emphasizing family preservation and privacy, and fears of disclosure (Cho, 2012a; Kim & Schmuhl, 2020; Y.-S. Lee & Hadeed, 2009; Li et al., 2022). Another contributing factor is the lack of language accessibility in surveys—particularly affecting foreign-born Asian immigrants, 43% of whom have limited English proficiency (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). The model minority myth, which portrays Asians as uniformly successful and resilient, also creates pressures that discourage disclosure and obscure the realities of IPV in Asian communities (Takahashi, 2020). Moreover, nationwide epidemiological studies on IPV (e.g., the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey) generally do not include Pacific Island territories (e.g., Guam, American Samoa), other than Hawaii, limiting knowledge of IPV in Pacific Islander populations (Meno & Allen, 2021). As a result, IPV among AAPI women remains underrepresented and understudied in national surveys, as reflected in the consistently small sample sizes of AAPI populations. For example, AAPIs made up only 1.8% of the 1995/1996 National Violence Against Women Survey (vs. 3.6% in the U.S. population; see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000, p. 9) and 2.6% of the 2016/2017 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (U.S. population percentage not provided; see National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2024, p. 452 [Codebook]).

Barriers to Help-Seeking Among AAPI Survivors

AAPI IPV survivors often face intersecting forms of oppression, which exacerbate challenges in seeking help. Prior research has identified multiple barriers to help-seeking and service utilization among Asian populations. For example, traditional cultural norms that overemphasize family harmony and privacy, along with economic dependence, limited employment opportunities, and precarious immigration status, can trap Asian survivors in abusive relationships and make it difficult for them to leave when desired (Cheng et al., 2025; Murugan et al., 2023; Sripada, 2021). Language barriers, acculturation stress, shame and stigma attached to IPV, and a lack of culturally resonant services may isolate survivors and complicate their help-seeking (Cheng et al., 2025; Hulley et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022). As one example, an examination of case records of 100,020 individuals (996 Asian American survivors) who received services from DV programs in Illinois found that Asian survivors were less likely to be referred to a DV program by law enforcement and more likely to seek help through self-referral or recommendations from friends. However, they reported greater needs for financial support, legal assistance, and language-related services compared with survivors from other racial and ethnic groups (Grossman & Lundy, 2007). Relatedly, although research has consistently found associations between IPV and adverse mental health outcomes, mental health service utilization among Asian IPV survivors remains low (Cho, 2012b; Karunaratne, 2023). An analysis of the National Latino and Asian American Study found that Asian survivors were less likely to use mental health services compared with their Latino counterparts, even after controlling for factors such as education, English proficiency, and perceived mental health status (Cho, 2012b). Another qualitative study with South Asian IPV survivors identified barriers to accessing mental health services, including the stigma surrounding mental health issues and limited knowledge of available resources (Karunaratne, 2023).

Similar barriers to help-seeking have been observed in Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) populations as well. A qualitative study of Native Hawaiian women (Oneha et al., 2010) found that IPV is often normalized and treated as a private family matter, with women being expected to keep the family together. Another study comparing Native Hawaiian, Filipino, Samoan, and Chuukese women in Hawaii identified shared cultural themes that discouraged disclosure and help-seeking, including the central role of the collective (family, clan, and community) and norms requiring women to maintain harmony (Magnussen et al., 2011). Likewise, a study of Indigenous Chamoru women in Guam found that cultural rigidity constrained help-seeking: Influenced by Chamoru traditions and the Roman Catholic church’s emphasis on family preservation, Chamoru women felt compelled to “stick through” the marriage and “work it out,” despite experiencing IPV (Meno & Allen, 2021).

Current Study

Taken together, previous research has shown that AAPI survivors face significant barriers to help-seeking and are often underrepresented in national surveys. This underrepresentation can lead to an incomplete or distorted understanding of AAPI survivors’ needs, limiting the effectiveness of policies and interventions designed to support them. Furthermore, national surveys may not capture the culturally specific dynamics of IPV in AAPI communities, such as immigration- and colonization-related challenges, language barriers, and cultural stigma surrounding disclosure, highlighting the need to assess whether AAPI survivors’ experiences of IPV are consistently represented across national surveys and community settings. This study aimed to address some of these gaps by comparing quantitative findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with qualitative insights from DV advocates who work with AAPI IPV survivors. We used the NCVS data because the survey collects information on personal crimes, including both reported and unreported incidents. Also, since 2008, it has included a series of questions on the impacts of crime victimization and respondents’ help-seeking actions, information not available in datasets that focus only on the prevalence and consequences of IPV. This study examined (a) the characteristics, impacts, and help-seeking associated with IPV among AAPI women survivors and (b) how representations of IPV among AAPI survivors align or diverge between national surveys and community-based experiences reported by DV advocates.

Method

The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design: quantitative data analysis was conducted to identify differences in IPV characteristics and help-seeking behaviors among AAPI survivors compared with other major racial and ethnic groups, followed by qualitative interviews with DV advocates to examine how their observations aligned with the quantitative findings. During the qualitative sessions, the NCVS analysis findings were presented, and advocates were invited to share their perspectives, particularly on how the findings aligned with their experiences working with AAPI women survivors. A similar approach was used by Holliday and colleagues (2020) in examining racial and ethnic differences in self-reporting IPV to police. Our methodological approach is informed by the feminist empiricist perspective, which values empirical evidence while critically examining how social power dynamics shape what counts as evidence and whose experiences are recognized in the production of knowledge (Intemann, 2024). For several reasons, this study used the AAPI label, which combines Asian American and Pacific Islander data into a single category. First, the small sample sizes of AAPI IPV survivors in the NCVS (Asian n = 48; Pacific Islander n = 5) necessitated aggregation for more robust analysis. Second, classification ambiguities exist for certain countries within the Asian and Pacific Islander categories (e.g., some classify the Philippines as part of Asia, while others consider it a Pacific Island nation). In addition, because the AAPI category is commonly used in national surveys, its use in the current study may help inform the interpretation of other data using the same classification.

Quantitative Methods: NCVS

Quantitative Data.

Quantitative data were drawn from the NCVS, which is administered annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics to a nationally representative sample of U.S. households through in-person or telephone interviews, with survey instruments available in English and Spanish (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022). This study analyzed pooled data from 2008 to 2022 on women aged 18 to 70 who reported IPV, comparing victimization among AAPI women with that of White women, as well as with two other major racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States: Black and Latina women. IPV victimization responses in the NCVS included sexual violence, physical violence, verbal threats, and stalking. A total of 124,310 individuals participated in the NCVS between 2008 and 2022. Among them, 2,447 AAPI, White, Black, and Latina women aged 18 to 70 reported experiencing IPV.

Variables.

The analysis examines how AAPI women survivors of IPV differ from White, Black, and Latina women across sociodemographic characteristics, IPV incidents, adverse impacts, types of professional help sought, and police reporting.

Sociodemographics.

Respondents reported their race and ethnicity, age (30 and below, 31–50, 51 and older), marital status (married; divorced, separated, widowed; never married), educational attainment (some high school or below; high school diploma/GED and some college; college degree or above), employment status (employed; housekeeping; unemployed; or unable to work), and household income (less than $10,000; $10,000–$19,999; $20,000–$34,999; $35,000–$49,999; $50,000 or higher).

IPV Incidents.

IPV characteristics included repeat victimization (Y/N), the respondent’s relationship to the offender (spouse; ex-spouse; boyfriend/girlfriend or ex-boyfriend/girlfriend), IPV type (verbal threat or stalking; physical violence; sexual violence), presence of a weapon (Y/N), and whether the respondent was injured (Y/N). Repeat victimization was assessed by asking whether the offender had previously committed a crime or made threats against the respondent or their household. IPV type was determined based on responses to a series of questions on violence in the most recent IPV incident: (a) sexual violence included attempted and completed rape, sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact with or without force; (b) physical violence included attempted and completed physical assault (e.g., being hit, slapped, knocked down, or attacked with a weapon); and (c) verbal threats and stalking included verbal threats of rape, verbal threats of killing, and being followed. The presence of a weapon was assessed by asking whether the offender used a weapon (e.g., a gun or knife) or an object as a weapon (e.g., a bottle or wrench) in the most recent IPV incident. Injury was coded as “yes” if the respondent reported any injuries from the incident.

Adverse Impact and Type of Professional Help.

The adverse impact of IPV victimization was assessed by asking respondents whether the crime caused a significant problem with their job or schoolwork, issues with family or friends (e.g., feeling less close than before), or emotional distress. Respondents who reported any of these impacts—problems with work or school, problems with family or friends, or moderate to severe emotional distress—were asked follow-up questions about (a) emotional toll (e.g., feeling “worried or anxious,” “sad or depressed,” or “unsafe”) and (b) physical problems (e.g., experiencing “headaches,” “trouble sleeping,” “upset stomach,” or “muscle tension or back pain”). For those reporting an emotional or physical impact, further questions assessed whether they sought professional help and the type of assistance they sought: (a) counseling or therapy, (b) medication, and (c) medical visits (e.g., doctor/nurse, emergency room, hospital, or clinic).

Police Reporting.

Police reporting was assessed through a series of questions, beginning with: “Were the police informed, or did they find out about this incident in any way?” Respondents who reported that the police were informed were then asked who reported the incident and why the incident was or was not reported. Followed the guidance of Ackerman and Love (2014), reasons for reporting were classified into: (a) prevention of future victimization (e.g., to stop or prevent the incident from happening again, to prevent further crimes, or to stop the offender from committing other crimes) and (b) other reasons (e.g., needing help, collecting insurance, punishing or catching the offender, or improving police surveillance). Reasons for not reporting were classified into: (a) too trivial (e.g., the crime was minor); (b) fear of reprisal (e.g., fear of retaliation from the offender or others); (c) protecting the offender (e.g., not wanting to get the offender in trouble); (d) distrust in police (e.g., police won’t help, police wouldn’t consider it important, police won’t be effective); and (e) other reasons (e.g., the incident was reported to another official, lack of proof, or reporting was too inconvenient).

Quantitative Data Analysis.

Bivariate analysis was used to examine how AAPI women differed from White, Black, and Latina women in IPV experiences, with frequencies and conditional probabilities presented through contingency tables. Chi-square tests were used to assess whether there were statistically significant overall racial and ethnic differences. Adjusted residuals (i.e., Pearson residuals scaled by an estimate of their standard error) were calculated using the tabchi command with the adjust option in Stata to identify which cells in a contingency table contributed significantly to the overall chi-square statistic (Sharpe, 2019). Because adjusted residuals follow a normal distribution, cells with an absolute value greater than 1.96 (highlighted in bold in Tables 2 and 3 for ease of interpretation) were considered statistically significant at the p < .05 level under the null hypothesis of independence (i.e., no racial or ethnic differences; Naioti & Mudrak, 2022). Due to the small sample size of the AAPI population in the dataset, several cell counts were below five. For example, among 53 AAPI participants, only one reported not having a high school diploma. We chose not to collapse these categories because of their substantial difference (e.g., some high school or below vs. high school diploma/GED). However, because the reliability of adjusted residuals may be compromised when cell counts are small, adjusted residuals with an absolute value greater than 1.96 were underlined (rather than bolded) for cells with counts less than five, and these findings were not reported in the narrative of the current paper. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata v.18.

Table 2.

NCVS Findings: Sample Demographics and IPV Characteristics (N = 2,447).

Variable	AAPI n = 53 (2%)		White n = 1,626 (67%)		Black n = 386 (16%)		Latina n = 382 (16%)
	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual
Marital status (n = 2,443; χ2 = 101.21, p < .001)
Married	11 (20.8)	1.64	234 (14.4)	2.44	27 (7.0)	−3.91	51 (13.4)	0.08
Divorced, separated, or widowed	18 (34.0)	−1.87	838 (51.6)	6.89	125 (32.6)	−6.04	159 (41.6)	−2.15
Never married	24 (45.3)	0.78	552 (34.0)	−8.70	232 (60.4)	8.84	172 (45.0)	2.13
Education (n = 2,427; χ2 = 59.86, p < .001)
Some high school or below	1 (1.90)	-2.50	181 (11.2)	−4.52	58 (15.1)	1.00	87 (23.0)	5.89
High school diploma/GED	28 (52.8)	−0.61	909 (56.5)	−0.68	238 (61.8)	2.11	207 (54.6)	−1.00
College degree or above	24 (45.3)	2.53	520 (32.3)	4.11	89 (23.1)	−3.03	85 (22.4)	−3.32
Employment status (n = 2,425; χ2 = 16.14, p < .05)
Employed	28 (52.8)	−0.73	938 (58.3)	0.79	197 (51.3)	−2.78	237 (62.5)	2.06
Housekeeping	11 (20.8)	−0.01	321 (20.0)	−1.42	89 (23.2)	1.26	83 (21.9)	0.58
Unemployed or unable to work	14 (26.4)	−0.88	350 (21.8)	0.45	98 (25.5)	2.10	59 (15.6)	−3.05
Household income (n = 1,895; χ2 = 54.48, p < .000)
Less than $ 10,000	2 (5.4)	-2.17	225 (17.6)	−2.89	74 (26.9)	3.42	66 (21.9)	1.23
$10,000-$ 19,999	7 (18.9)	−0.17	242 (18.9)	−1.85	68 (24.7)	2.09	63 (20.9)	0.42
$20,000-$34,999	8 (21.6)	−0.28	293 (22.9)	−1.01	73 (26.6)	1.27	72 (23.9)	0.17
$35,000-$49,999	4 (10.8)	−0.52	184 (14.4)	1.16	26 (9.5)	−2.22	46 (15.3)	0.86
$50,000 or higher	16 (43.2)	2.89	338 (26.4)	4.53	34 (12.4)	−4.65	54 (17.9)	−2.41
Repeat victimization (n = 2,335; χ2 = 8.25, p < .05)	40 (85.1)	1.99	1,127 (72.7)	0.70	248 (67.6)	−2.18	272 (73.3)	0.50
Relationship to the offender (n = 2,447; χ2 = 53.38, p < .001)
Spouse	25 (47.2)	2.55	534 (32.8)	2.56	73 (18.9)	−5.65	130 (34.0)	1.33
Ex-spouse	2 (3.8)	−1.71	199 (12.2)	2.58	30 (7.8)	−2.25	40 (10.5)	−0.41
Boy/girlfriend or ex-boy/girlfriend	26 (49.1)	−1.30	893 (54.9)	−4.04	283 (73.3)	6.73	212 (55.5)	−0.99
IPV type (n = 2,447; χ2 = 41.91, p < .001)
Verbal threat or stalking	12 (22.6)	−0.14	410 (25.2)	2.89	92 (23.8)	0.19	60 (15.7)	−3.89
Physical violence	31 (58.5)	−0.90	1,025 (63.0)	−1.87	269 (69.7)	2.40	249 (65.2)	0.38
Sexual violence	10 (18.9)	1.49	191 (11.8)	−1.00	25 (6.5)	−3.75	73 (19.1)	4.48
Presence of a weapon (n = 2,369; χ2 = 9.26, p < .05)	11 (20.8)	0.68	261 (16.5)	−1.40	82 (22.4)	2.83	55 (15.0)	−1.28
Injured (n = 2,447; χ2 = 5.14, p = .162)	30 (56.6)	0.92	796 (49.0)	−2.00	198 (51.3)	0.39	209 (54.7)	1.84

Note. Adjusted residuals with an absolute value greater than 1.96 were highlighted in bold. Cells with counts less than five that had adjusted residuals greater than 1.96 in absolute value were underlined. Some missing values were observed, with percentages varying across variables: 0.2% (marital status), 0.8% (education), 0.9% (employment status), 3.2% (presence of weapon), 4.6% (repeat victimization), and 22.6% (household income).

Table 3.

NCVS Findings: Help-Seeking for Adverse Impact and Police Reporting (N = 2,447).

	AAPI n = 53 (2%)		White n = 1,626 (67%)		Black n = 386 (16%)		Latina n = 382 (16%)
Variable	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual	n (%)	Adjusted residual
Adverse impact (n = 2, 447; χ2 = 1.36, p = .716)	43 (81.1)	0.52	1,278 (78.6)	0.64	294 (76.2)	−1.06	299 (78.3)	0.03
Emotional tolla (n = 1,908; χ2 = 3.15, p = .369)	41 (97.6)	−0.18	1,245 (97.7)	−1.26	292 (99.3)	1.75	292 (98.0)	−0.03
Professional help for emotional tollb (n = 1,865; χ2 = 15.81, p < .005)	22 (53.7)	2.02	500 (40.3)	2.24	86 (29.5)	−3.46	110 (37.8)	−0.27
Counseling or therapyc (n = 716; χ2 = 3.37, p = .338)	17 (81.0)	−1.30	452 (90.6)	1.40	74 (86.1)	−1.12	98 (89.1)	−0.16
Medicationc (n = 716; χ2 = 8.75, p < .05)	8 (38.1)	2.43	80 (16.0)	−2.10	20 (23.3)	1.35	21 (19.1)	0.32
Medical visitc (n = 716; χ2 = 4.18, p = .243)	7 (33.3)	1.28	108 (21.6)	−0.28	23 (26.7)	1.15	19 (17.3)	−1.28
Physical problemsa (n = 1,900; χ2 = 11.04, p = .012)	40 (95.2)	2.21	1,058 (83.4)	1.65	238 (81.2)	−0.58	230 (77.4)	−2.46
Police were informed (n = 2, 417; χ2 = 3.63, p = .305)	28 (58.3)	0.48	863 (53.7)	−1.78	224 (58.6)	1.58	213 (56.2)	0.54
Respondent reported to policed (n = 1,325; χ2 = 4.13, p = .247)	24 (85.7)	0.57	694 (80.6)	−1.26	192 (86.1)	1.91	171 (80.3)	−0.54
Prevention of future victimizatione (n = 1,081; χ2 = 4.43, p = .219)	20 (83.3)	0.89	520 (74.9)	−0.67	139 (72.4)	−1.13	138 (80.7)	1.70
Other reasonse (n = 1,081; χ2 = 4.68, p = .197)	7 (29.2)	−1.40	314 (45.2)	1.90	77 (40.1)	−0.93	68 (39.8)	−0.96
Police were not informed (n = 2, 417; χ2 = 3.63, p = .305)	20 (41.7)	−0.48	745 (46.3)	1.78	158 (41.4)	−1.58	166 (43.8)	−0.54
Too trivialf (n = 1,089; χ2 = 15.20, p < .002)	8 (40.0)	0.76	257 (34.5)	2.45	53 (33.5)	0.41	32 (19.3)	−3.85
Fear of reprisalf (n = 1,089; χ2 = 2.37, p = .498)	6 (30.0)	1.24	141 (18.9)	−0.33	27 (17.1)	−0.73	35 (21.1)	0.67
Protecting the offenderf (n = 1,089; χ2 = 1.84, p = .606)	3 (15.0)	−1.01	179 (24.0)	−0.66	41 (26.0)	0.42	45 (27.1)	0.81
Distrust in policef (n = 1,089; χ2 = 3.21, p = .361)	5 (25.0)	1.06	114 (15.3)	−1.37	26 (16.5)	0.04	33 (19.9)	1.34
Other reasonsf (n = 1,089; χ2 = 7.44, p = .059)	2 (10.0)	−0.93	136 (18.3)	0.44	19 (12.0)	−2.09	38 (22.9)	1.82

Note. Adjusted residuals with an absolute value greater than 1.96 were highlighted in bold. Some missing values were observed, with percentages varying across variables: 0.2% (respondent reported to police), 0.3% (emotional toll, professional help for emotional toll, type of professional help for emotional toll), 0.7% (physical problems), and 1.2% (police were informed, police were not informed).

^aAsked only of respondents who reported any adverse impact.

^bAsked only of respondents who reported experiencing any emotional toll.

^cAsked only of respondents who reported seeking professional help.

^dAsked only of respondents who indicated that the police had been informed.

^eAsked only of respondents who reported the incident to the police.

^fAsked only of respondents who indicated that the police had not been informed.

Qualitative Methods: Interviews and Focus Groups

Qualitative Study Participants.

Qualitative data were collected between June and August 2024 through individual and group interviews with DV advocates who work with AAPI survivors. Participants were recruited through collaboration networks and email outreach using purposive sampling, which targeted DV organizations serving AAPI communities. A total of 19 agencies across the state were identified through internet searches, and each received an email invitation (sent to the official mailbox and/or director) outlining the study’s purpose, interview process, and eligibility criteria. Those interested in participating were directed to a Qualtrics survey link, where they reviewed the informed consent document and completed a screening survey. The survey collected demographic and work experience information for eligibility assessment and scheduling purposes.

To be eligible for the interviews, service providers had to: (a) be 18 years or older, (b) currently engage in IPV prevention (e.g., community-based advocacy) or intervention (e.g., casework) efforts within AAPI communities, and (c) have at least 6 months of experience working in this field. In total, 28 individuals completed the survey. Of those who completed the screening, four were ineligible: Two worked exclusively with Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) communities, and the other two had less than 6 months of experience in this field. This resulted in a final sample of 24 DV advocates from two DV organizations with prior collaborative relationships with the first author, which may have been due to trusting relationships, enthusiastic internal invitations, and assistance with interview arrangements. Individuals who completed the interviews received a $50 e-gift card as a token of appreciation.

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participating DV advocates. Most were women (87.5%), with the largest age group being 25 to 34 (41.7%). The majority identified as East Asian (62.5%), followed by Southeast Asian (25.0%), South Asian (8.3%), and East Asian and Pacific Islander (4.2%). Nearly half (45.8%) served East Asian populations exclusively, while 33.4% served a mix of East Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander, and South Asian groups. Regarding professional experience in AAPI communities, half of the advocates (50.0%) had 1 to 2 years, while others reported 3 to 5 years (20.8%), 6 to 10 years (16.7%), or more than 10 years (8.3%). The majority (75.0%) practiced in Chicago, Illinois, and others (25.0%) were based in Boston, Massachusetts.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Focus Group Participants (N = 24).

Characteristics	n	%
Age
18–24	4	16.7
25–34	10	41.7
35–44	4	16.7
45–54	4	16.7
55–64	2	8.3
Gender
Woman	21	87.5
Genderqueer, nonbinary, or gender fluid	3	12.5
Race and ethnicity
East Asian	15	62.5
Southeast Asian	6	25.0
South Asian	2	8.3
East Asian and Pacific Islander	1	4.2
Primary serving population
East Asian	11	45.8
East Asian, Southeast Asian	3	12.5
East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian	2	8.3
East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, NHPI, MENA	2	8.3
East Asian, Pacific Islander	1	4.2
East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, Pacific Islander	1	4.2
East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, MENA	1	4.2
Southeast Asian	1	4.2
Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander	1	4.2
Southeast Asian, South Asian	1	4.2
Professional experience in AAPI communities
6 months-1 year	1	4.2
1–2 years	12	50.0
3–5 years	5	20.8
6–10 years	4	16.7
More than 10 years	2	8.3
Agency location
Chicago, Illinois	18	75.0
Boston, Massachusetts	6	25.0

Note. NHPI = Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander; MENA = Middle Eastern and North African.

Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis.

Qualitative data were collected through in-person or virtual/Zoom discussion sessions. Each session included a review of informed consent, an introduction to the research project, and a presentation and discussion of the NCVS findings. The presentation and subsequent discussion were organized thematically. For example, after presenting the demographic characteristics of AAPI survivors in the NCVS, we asked the participating DV advocates whether these characteristics aligned with their experiences working with AAPI women survivors. In total, 14 sessions were conducted, with the format (individual or group) arranged based on advocates’ availability. We conducted eight individual (six via Zoom and two in person) and six group sessions (one via Zoom and five in person, with two to four participants per group), involving a total of 24 participants (16 attended in-person sessions and eight attended Zoom sessions). All discussions were recorded and audio transcribed. The recordings ranged from 48 to 114 min, with an average duration of 79 minutes. De-identified transcripts, labeled with an interviewee identifier and interview method (e.g., 12_Focus Group [hereinafter FG], 1_Individual Interview [hereinafter I]), were sent to each participant for accuracy review, followed by a draft of this paper. No participant expressed disagreement with the study’s findings.

Qualitative thematic analysis was guided by the presentation framework of the quantitative data, that is, survivor demographics, IPV characteristics, impact of IPV, and police reporting. To assess the level of agreement between qualitative responses and quantitative findings, participant responses were categorized within a range from “strongly disagreed” to “strongly agreed” by the first and second authors. These categories were based on the number of advocates who expressed similar views and the degree to which the content of their responses aligned with the quantitative results. For instance, if participants shared views that partially supported the quantitative findings or conveyed mixed perspectives, they were labeled “partially agreed.” Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using Dedoose. The study was reviewed and approved by the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at the University of Illinois Chicago.

Findings

In this section, we present quantitative and qualitative findings using a weaving approach, structured by key themes: survivor demographics, IPV characteristics, help-seeking for psychological and physical impact, and police reporting.

Survivor Demographics and IPV Characteristics

Quantitative Findings.

Table 2 presents quantitative findings on sample demographics and IPV characteristics from the NCVS data analysis. Among this group of women, the majority identified as White (67%), followed by Black (16%), Latina (16%), and AAPI (2%; Asian n = 48, Pacific Islander n = 5). The majority of AAPI participants were aged 31 to 50 (43.4%), followed by those aged 30 and below (41.5%) and 50 and above (15.1%). Over half of AAPI women reported physical violence (58.5%), followed by verbal threats or stalking (22.6%) and sexual violence (18.9%) in the most recent IPV incident. Over one-fifth of AAPI women reported the presence of a weapon (20.8%), and more than half reported being injured (56.6%) in the most recent IPV incident. Results of the adjusted residuals analysis showed that AAPI women were significantly more likely than expected to have a college degree (45.3%) and to live in a household with an annual income of $50,000 or more (43.2%). Significantly higher portions of AAPI participants experienced repeat victimization by the same offender (85.1%) and reported their spouse (vs. ex-spouse or boyfriend) as the offender (47.2%) than expected.

Qualitative Findings

Survivor Demographics.

When the analysis results were presented to the participating DV advocates, they indicated a misalignment with the findings regarding AAPI women survivors’ higher educational attainment and household income levels (see Table 4). Advocates frequently observed financial struggles among the AAPI survivors they served. For example, one advocate shared: “The income is completely opposite … a lot of them [our clients] have financial burdens and financial struggles [12_FG].” Advocates pointed out nuances in the calculation of household income, noting that it likely includes the abusive partner’s income, which may not be accessible to survivors: “Their household income will be higher because the other person’s income is also being accounted for. However, we also know that … [because of] financial abuse … they [survivors] don’t see the money nor get to access it [5_FG].” Several advocates mentioned that many immigrant survivors work multiple low-paying jobs to support their current families and families of origin, leaving them far from a high-income lifestyle, as illustrated by one advocate: “A lot of immigrants … work really hard to not only make ends meet for themselves here, but also for their family back home … helping them economically back home [5_FG].”

Table 4.

Service Providers’ Discussion of NCVS Findings (N = 24).

NCVS findings	Alignment with frontline observations
Survivor demographics
Education and income: AAPI survivors had significantly higher education attainment and household income levels.	Strongly disagreed Many survivors have significant financial struggles. Access to economic resources varies greatly based on education, English proficiency, and financial autonomy.
Characteristics of IPV
Repeat victimization: The proportion of AAPI survivors who reported repeat victimization by the same offender was significantly higher.	Strongly agreed Factors influencing repeat victimization included relationship dynamics (e.g., the presence of children, desire to keep the family intact, returning to the harm-doer) and sociocultural influences (e.g., isolation, lack of an external support system, tenuous immigration status, the virtue of endurance).
Victim-offender relationship: A significantly higher proportion of AAPI survivors reported their current spouse (versus ex-spouse or boyfriend) as the offender.	Agreed Cultural norms, the desire for family integrity, and economic dependence discourage divorce or separation.
Impact of IPV
Physical impact: A significantly higher proportion of AAPI survivors reported physical problems (e.g., headaches, trouble sleeping) due to IPV.	Partially agreed Many clients express physical problems, including headaches, upset stomach, heart pounding, nightmares, etc. However, most survivors do not associate physical symptoms with IPV.
Professional help to address emotional tolls: A significantly higher proportion of AAPI women survivors reported seeking professional help to address emotional tolls due to IPV, with medication use being the primary difference.	Disagreed and surprised Professional help-seeking for emotional problems is generally low due to the stigma around mental health, fear of leaving a record, and the lack of financial resources. However, over-the-counter medications (e.g., Advil, Pepto-Bismol, sleeping pills) are commonly used by survivors to address somatic symptoms.
Police reporting
Reasons for not reporting to the police: Relatively high proportions of AAPI women endorsed the reasons “the crime was too trivial” and “distrust in police” as their reasons for not reporting IPV to law enforcement.	Strongly agreed Many survivors are unaware that IPV is a reportable crime, especially for nonphysical abuse. Survivors are often reluctant to report IPV to the police unless they are in imminent danger. Other reasons for not reporting IPV include limited understanding of the legal system and its potential consequences, language difficulties in expressing themselves, prior negative experiences with law enforcement, concerns about immigration, and cultural norms within AAPI communities.

Participants also noted that survivors’ income and education levels varied widely and were often interconnected in complex ways. For example, one advocate shared,

We have folks who have received education but are from their home country … Or they may have come here during K through 12 and not gone to college here. Or there might be some people who have PhDs … it is all over the place

[1_I].

Furthermore, despite some having higher education, immigrant survivors may still face economic instability, as their qualifications, particularly degrees earned outside the United States, do not always translate into stable employment, similar occupational roles, or financial security. An advocate shared: “I will say 90% [of my clients are] low income … It’s hard to say because they all have bachelor’s degrees from back in their country…[Nevertheless,] they cannot really use their degree here [17_FG].” These findings suggest that, while education is often seen as a pathway to financial security, this is not always true for immigrants.

Relatedly, multiple advocates pointed out that surveys with limited language options could exclude large parts of their client base; as one advocate stated: “Those who do partake in that survey … are somehow proficient in English … that makes me think those folks might already have a higher level of education [13_I].” Another explained: “They [my clients] don’t have … a level of English where they will probably be compelled to complete a survey, so they probably wouldn’t be captured [9_FG].” These comments highlight how the lack of language options in national surveys can create linguistic exclusion, which in turn skews the demographic picture of AAPI populations toward higher-income, more educated respondents. One advocate described this misrepresentation as “dangerous”:

This data feels really dangerous to me, because I think that, like, the type of person who can fill out this survey is probably an educated English-speaking Asian immigrant or Asian-American, so of course, that’s what the data is going to look like. And, I think it also is incredibly damaging to … Asian immigrants … because it feeds into the assumption … [that they] don’t need social services

[20_FG].

IPV Characteristics.

As to the characteristics of IPV incidents, DV advocates supported the quantitative finding that a high proportion of AAPI women survivors experienced repeat IPV by the same offender. They observed a significant number of AAPI women survivors experiencing repeat victimization among their clientele. DV advocates discussed potential reasons for the higher revictimization rate in this group, including women’s desire to keep the family intact due to traditional cultural norms, the presence of children that necessitates continued communication with the harm-doer, and their tendency to endure the abuse. For instance, one advocate shared: “Women are like getting used to it … they usually tolerate the abuse [18_I].” Another advocate linked repeat victimization to relationship decisions and social isolation:

AAPI survivors most likely not divorcing or leaving their harm-doer, whether that be because they don’t want to, or because it is incredibly difficult to get the support or safety network to be able to do so … many of them are so isolated and so alone that the only people who can support them are [the organization’s] staff. So, they feel … it would be too difficult … to live their life safely on their own

[20_FG].

DV advocates also discussed how financial dependence and precarious immigration status may influence women’s decisions to stay in or return to an abusive relationship. An advocate shared: “Women … went back or stayed because of the financial … they don’t know how to drive a car, they don’t really have a good education yet, and so it’s just hard for them [23_I].” Another advocate offered: “Also, being an immigrant as well, it’s worried if their offender was … sponsoring their immigration status [5_FG].” Advocates also discussed how traditional gender norms and the stigma associated with divorce may help explain why a higher proportion of AAPI women identified their spouse—rather than an ex-spouse or boyfriend—as the offender. For example, one advocate shared: “They don’t feel as comfortable with the idea of filing [for] divorce or pressing charges against their harm-doer … I often hear their fear of how others will perceive them [16_FG].” Other advocates linked this tendency to gender norms or traditions. One explained: “The gender norm for a woman … is very strong—that they need to be a mother, that they need to hold the family together, they need to be the glue, they need to constantly be mending [6_ FG].” Another shared: “For clients I work with, they’re told that divorces…is frowned upon, especially back home, for some of them, it’s like almost illegal to do divorce, like in the Philippines [5_FG].” Consequently, advocates observed that AAPI women tend to stay in marriages despite the violence, as illustrated by an advocate: “Even if there’s a lot of … struggles and violence … there’s an aspect of wanting to save face. In the culture … you don’t want to be divorced [13_I].”

Help-Seeking for Psychological and Physical Impact

Quantitative Findings.

Table 3 presents findings on the impact of IPV and women’s help-seeking for emotional toll and physical problems. As shown, similar proportions of women across racial and ethnic groups (76.2%–81.1%) reported that IPV victimization adversely affected their lives, causing significant problems with their job or schoolwork, issues with family or friends, and/or moderate-to-severe emotional distress. Among those who reported an adverse impact, nearly all women (97.6%–99.3%) reported experiencing an emotional toll as a result of IPV victimization. In contrast, there was greater variation in women’s reports of physical problems (e.g., headaches, trouble sleeping), with AAPI women reporting a physical problem significantly more often (95.2%) than expected. Results also showed a significantly higher proportion of AAPI women reporting seeking professional help to address the emotional toll (53.7%), with medication use being the primary difference across racial and ethnic groups. Specifically, a significantly higher proportion of AAPI women reported seeking medication (38.1%), whereas the proportions of AAPI women seeking counseling or therapy (81.0%) and medical visits (33.3%) were similar across groups.

Qualitative Findings.

Qualitative and quantitative findings were partially congruent regarding the impact of IPV and help-seeking (see Table 4). Consistent with the quantitative findings on the high prevalence of physical symptoms, DV advocates reported physical problems expressed by the women they work with, including headaches, muscle tension, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep problems. For example, an advocate shared: “The physical problems … we observe a lot, not only because of the injury, and also because of the stress, they report a lot of the headaches or … muscle tensions and other somatic symptoms … [12_FG].” However, DV advocates questioned the NCVS findings that showed higher proportions of AAPI survivors seeking professional help to address the emotional toll of IPV. They explained that, due to a lack of financial resources and the fear of leaving a record, the survivors they serve typically do not seek professional help. An advocate described her client’s worries: “I don’t want to leave any records. I’m fearful that if I go to a psychiatrist, and if I have a record, that it may backfire on me down the road [16_FG].” Another advocate linked the cultural practice of endurance to the avoidance of formal help-seeking:

There’s a very strong culture, especially around women of endurance … if you are experiencing pain—emotional or physical—avoid … going to the doctor or getting your needs addressed … is seen as very honorable, like, it’s the right thing to do … which is very annoying, because … the medical condition could get worse, but that is the culture

[10_FG].

Relatedly, some advocates commented on AAPI women survivors’ physical symptoms and use of medication. They shared that their clients do not necessarily connect the physical problems they experience to IPV or stress, and often address these symptoms on their own using over-the-counter remedies:

If we are only talking about the medications … we observed a lot, because this … makes sense, because a lot of our clients are low-income, and they don’t have health insurance. So, … the professional counseling service or the doctor is not really their option. So, medication is relatively easy for them to access.

[12_FG].

Another advocate shared,

Oftentimes I would hear my clients … Oh, I took like this many Advil today. I also took … Pepto Bismol. They would tell me that they’re taking that because they would often tell me “ 체한 것 같아요” like “I’m having some indigestion issue” and they don’t necessarily connect that with their stress level per se or … connect with a counselor … I don’t necessarily think that they connect their body and their emotional distress together all the time

[10_FG].

Reporting IPV to Police

Quantitative Findings.

Our quantitative analysis (see Table 3) showed that slightly over half of the women across racial and ethnic groups (53.7%–58.6%) indicated that the police were informed of the IPV incident. Among those who reported the incident to the police, the majority did so to prevent future victimization (72.4%–83.3%), with smaller proportions indicating other reasons for reporting (e.g., to punish the offender, to improve police surveillance; 29.2%–45.2%). Among those who indicated that the police were not informed of the IPV incident, about one-fifth to two-fifths of women across racial and ethnic groups indicated that they did not report IPV to the police because the crime was “too trivial” (19.3%–40.0%). Other reasons for not reporting included women’s fears of reprisal (17.1%–30%), desires to protect the offender (15.0%–27.1%), distrust in police (e.g., believing that police won’t help; 15.3%–25.0%), and other reasons (e.g., lack of proof, reporting was too inconvenient; 10.0%–22.9%). The results showed that a greater proportion of AAPI women endorsed crime being trivial (40.0%), fear of reprisal (30.0%), and distrust in police (25.0%) as reasons for not reporting to the police; however, the differences were not statistically significant at the level of .05.

Qualitative Findings.

As shown in Table 4, DV advocates strongly agreed with the quantitative findings regarding AAPI women survivors’ reasons for not reporting IPV to the police (i.e., distrust in police, “too trivial” to report). Advocates shared that the survivors they work with are often unaware that IPV, especially nonphysical IPV, is a reportable crime and are reluctant to involve the legal system by reporting their husbands or the fathers of their children unless they are in imminent danger. For example, one advocate shared: “Many of them might not know that domestic violence can be a crime … what is domestic violence, or how to identify it [1_I].” Similarly, another advocate shared: “A lot of the clients would say: But I never got physically hurt. It was all about verbal … I’m not hurt physically. That’s when you call the cops [2_FG].” Advocates offered additional reasons why survivors may not report abuse: limited understanding of the legal system and its potential consequences, difficulties in expressing themselves due to language barriers, prior negative experiences with law enforcement, concerns about immigration status, and cultural norms within AAPI communities. For example, one advocate shared her observations of police responses and common client concerns:

What if I call the police? If the police don’t understand? Like, I cannot speak English … it is also not rare, like, even though they call the police, the police come, but the abuser speaks so much better English, and they explain the situation in a completely different way. So, it ended up that they were arrested by the police, so that is also combined with language barriers

[12_FG].

Cultural expectations around protecting family honor and privacy also shape survivors’ willingness to disclose IPV. One advocate shared: “…the cultural issues and then the feelings … the client thinking we are family and [if] I call police against my husband … no, it’s not acceptable for them [15_FG].” Another noted: “…even seeking counseling is not an easy step … because they’re then having to talk about their family, their partner, and oftentimes … shame is a big thing.… they don’t want to shame their family [16_ FG].” The shame and stigma surrounding IPV, along with fear of disapproval, can delay help-seeking, as one advocate explained: “… they don’t report because they … don’t want to be embarrassed … by both sides of the family or friends … so they keep it for as long as possible until they’re totally done [18_I].” Accordingly, several advocates raised concerns about national surveys’ ability to fully capture the lived experiences of AAPI survivors, considering their lack of attention to how cultural stigma may lead survivors to minimize or underreport abuse.

Discussion

Using a sequential mixed-methods design, this study extends prior research by triangulating quantitative findings from NCVS with qualitative data collected from DV advocates working with AAPI communities. Some NCVS findings aligned with advocates’ observations, while others did not. Below, we discuss key findings. First, both data sources indicated that a high proportion of AAPI IPV survivors experienced repeat victimization and identified their spouse (rather than an ex-spouse or boyfriend) as the offender. These findings are likely connected; the elevated rate of repeat victimization may be explained by the high prevalence of spouses as offenders. Prior research has shown that immigrant survivors often face systemic barriers to leaving abusive relationships, including financial dependence, limited social support, precarious immigration status, and cultural expectations around family harmony and preservation, all of which may contribute to prolonged exposure to abuse and thus repeated victimization (Y.-S. Lee & Hadeed, 2009; Magnussen et al., 2011; Meno & Allen, 2021; Satyen et al., 2019). Another possible explanation for the high repeat victimization rate is that existing intervention strategies either do not work for, or are not accessible to, AAPI women survivors, and thus, are ineffective in preventing repeat victimization (Cheng et al., 2025; Cho, 2012b; Grossman & Lundy, 2007; Hulley et al., 2023; Sripada, 2021).

Second, while NCVS data indicated that AAPI survivors had higher levels of education and household income, DV advocates frequently reported financial struggles among AAPI survivors they worked with. This discrepancy may be due to methodological issues. The NCVS survey surveyed households using instruments with limited language options (i.e., English and Spanish; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022). Therefore, AAPI individuals who are not fluent in English or who have concerns about participating in crime-related or governmental surveys are unlikely to participate (L. Lee et al., 2022). Furthermore, the survey collects information on household income, which may not be accessible to IPV survivors because of abuse and control, as indicated both in the qualitative findings and in prior literature (Postmus et al., 2012). There may have also been observational biases in the qualitative data. The participating advocates’ observations were limited to AAPI survivors who became their clients, many of whom were not proficient in English and had complex needs, including financial difficulties.

Third, both data sources indicated that a substantial proportion of AAPI survivors experienced physical symptoms, although qualitative data from DV advocates revealed that many survivors did not necessarily associate their physical symptoms with IPV. These findings are consistent with prior research indicating frequent occurrences of physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep disturbances) among Asian women IPV survivors (Masih et al., 2024; Wong et al., 2021). They also echo research that finds somatization—the manifestation of physical symptoms related to mental health concerns. A review of research studies on IPV in Asian immigrant communities pointed out that somatization is prominent in Asian cultures, likely due to the pressures to repress negative feelings, such as anger, for social harmony (Y.-S. Lee & Hadeed, 2009). Another review of general Asian American populations indicated a cultural tendency to express psychological distress through somatic symptoms, such as tinnitus (buzzing sounds in the ears, likely associated with traumatic stress) in Cambodian refugees and neurasthenia (chronic fatigue, likely associated with depression) in Chinese Americans (Sue et al., 2012).

Both data sources aligned in showing survivors’ hesitance to reporting IPV to the police, yet they diverged in findings related to professional help-seeking for emotional distress. Quantitative analysis of NCVS showed that AAPI women sought professional help for emotional distress more often than expected, with a higher proportion reporting the use of medication to address the emotional toll of IPV. This finding contrasts with DV advocates’ observations, as they reported low rates of professional help-seeking among AAPI survivors and noted that many were reluctant to seek psychiatric care due to fears of “leaving a record” that could harm them in the future. Some advocates did, however, report that survivors used over-the-counter medications to manage somatic symptoms. This inconsistency may reflect methodological limitations. NCVS did not distinguish between doctor-prescribed and over-the-counter medications. Both medications were categorized as forms of professional help, although they had very different implications: While prescribed medications indicate formal engagement with health professionals, over-the-counter use suggests a self-managed approach relying on accessible resources. This lack of differentiation may contribute, at least partly, to the discrepancies between quantitative and qualitative findings on survivors’ use of medication in addressing the emotional toll of IPV.

The quantitative and qualitative findings regarding survivors’ concerns about police reporting were aligned; both suggested that AAPI survivors may be unaware that IPV is a reportable crime and often distrust police involvement. These findings are consistent with prior research on AAPI women survivors’ hesitancy to engage with law enforcement (Hulley et al., 2023; Takahashi, 2020; Yoshihama et al., 2011). For example, a study of Filipina, Indian, and Pakistani women identified several concerns about engaging the legal system in response to IPV, including unfamiliarity with legal processes, fears about reputation and privacy, and worries about jeopardizing their own or their partner’s immigration status (Yoshihama et al., 2011).

Implications for Research and Practice

This study offers several important implications. First, the high rate of repeat victimization by a spouse suggests that AAPI women survivors may remain in abusive relationships for a variety of reasons, and that leaving through divorce or separation is not always a viable option. The finding implies the need to recognize the complexity of survivors’ lives and to implement survivor-defined advocacy, particularly given the field’s often overemphasis on leaving the abuser as the only solution. Practitioners working with AAPI survivors should explore clients’ hopes and desires for their families, identities as wives and mothers, and how these factors shape their perceptions of available safety strategies.

Relatedly, the finding on high repeat victimization suggests that existing interventions are either ineffective or not available for preventing repeat victimization in the AAPI population. This finding suggests the need to identify more effective, community-centered approaches. Some culturally specific bystander programs (Choi et al., 2023; Yoshihama & Tolman, 2015) have shown promise in increasing community readiness to support survivors in AAPI communities. Other beneficial strategies may include developing outreach efforts in partnership with community leaders; integrating culturally responsive services for both survivors and abusive partners; and employing bilingual professionals to address culturally relevant concerns (Satyen et al., 2022). Future research should examine how such approaches influence help-seeking and reduce repeat victimization among AAPI survivors.

The divergent findings regarding AAPI survivors’ income and education levels across quantitative and qualitative data highlight the importance of culturally competent research. The absence of diverse language options in national surveys likely leads to the exclusion of more marginalized AAPI individuals, which may consequently reinforce the model minority myth and misinform resource allocation. Future studies should strive to improve AAPI survivors’ participation in national surveys. For example, researchers could test strategies such as collaborating with community-based organizations, tailoring messages about the value of research, and offering diverse language options to facilitate participation (L. Lee et al., 2022). Emerging technologies, such as incorporating accessibility toolbars (e.g., Recite Me) into digital survey platforms to provide real-time translation, may offer cost-effective solutions for reaching linguistically diverse populations who may be otherwise excluded.

The findings that AAPI women survivors experience significant physical symptoms as a result of IPV and that they may not connect their physical symptoms with IPV highlight the need to assess psychosomatic symptoms alongside emotional well-being in both research and practice (Wong et al., 2021). This also suggests the potential value of mind-body practices (e.g., yoga, dance movement therapy) as tools for healing. Preliminary evidence suggests that body-based practices can enhance body awareness, self-compassion, and interpersonal and spiritual connections among survivors of sexual violence (Nixon, 2024). Future research should investigate how AAPI survivors understand and address emotional distress and somatic symptoms, and how they perceive and benefit from body-based interventions.

AAPI women’s hesitancy to engage law enforcement in IPV cases aligns with existing research on formal help-seeking among racially minoritized and immigrant women in the United States, who often face systemic barriers in these interactions (Cheng et al., 2022; Hulley et al., 2023). The finding suggests the need to consider community-based alternatives and improve the legal system’s responses. In addition, the qualitative findings reveal that cultural norms, such as the emphasis on endurance and family privacy, can inhibit IPV disclosure. Future research should continue examining how cultural values intersect with gender, acculturation, and economic dependence to shape help-seeking. Research and practice should also explore how traditions and cultures might serve as assets or protective factors in AAPI women’s responses to IPV.

Limitations

The findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. First, the self-report nature of the NCVS makes it prone to underreporting and social desirability biases. The sample size of AAPI IPV survivors in the NCVS is small; out of 2,447 women survivors, only 48 women identified as Asian, and five identified as Pacific Islander. The underrepresentation and small sample size of AAPI individuals limit the generalizability of the quantitative findings. The NCVS does not include information on immigration status or country of birth, which are important contextual factors that would help interpret the study’s findings. Relatedly, in the current study, data for Asian American and Pacific Islander participants were aggregated, partly due to the small sample size in the NCVS. Future research should employ culturally responsive survey methods to increase the sample size and provide disaggregated data within AAPI communities. Furthermore, the advocates who contributed to the qualitative findings were from two DV agencies serving AAPI communities, which limits the generalizability of these findings to survivors who engage with services provided by the agencies. Despite these limitations, the use of mixed methods enhances the understanding of the results. The AAPI population is not monolithic, yet richly diverse. While this paper begins to illustrate differences between national and community-level data, further research is needed to examine variations within and between AAPI subgroups, including cultural traits, experiences, and challenges among ethnic groups.

Conclusion

This study used a sequential mixed-methods design to examine IPV characteristics and help-seeking among AAPI survivors by comparing quantitative findings from the NCVS with qualitative insights from DV advocates working with AAPI communities. The findings reaffirm the critical role of cultural context in interpreting IPV data and designing effective interventions. Shame and stigma surrounding IPV, along with the desire to preserve family unity, can influence survivors’ willingness to disclose abuse, seek support, and their likelihood of experiencing revictimization. The results underscore the need for community-centered support to prevent IPV revictimization and address IPV-related somatic symptoms, as well as the importance of increasing research participation to more accurately capture IPV experiences in AAPI populations.