Article citationsMore>>

McFarlane, J., Hughes, R. B., Nosek, M. A., Groff, J. Y., Swedland, N., & Mullen, P. D. (2001). Abuse Assessment Screen-Disability (AAS-D): Measuring Frequency, Type, and Perpetrator of Abuse toward Women with Physical Disabilities. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 861-866.
https://doi.org/10.1089/152460901753285750

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Intimate Partner Violence in a U.S. College Sample: Do Auditory Status and Gender Predict Victimization?

  AUTHORS: Mark Beaulieu, LaVerne McQuiller Williams, Judy L. Porter

  KEYWORDS: Auditory Status, Victimization, Feminist Disability Theory

  JOURNAL NAME: Psychology, Vol.8 No.3, February 20, 2017

  ABSTRACT: Our research examines the effect of auditory status and gender on self-reported psychological and physical abuse of college students from a northeastern university in the United States. A total of 816 college students were surveyed. Forty classes were randomly selected and surveys were administered to students in those classes. Predictions from disability theory, feminist theory, and feminist disability theory were tested using binary logistic regression analysis. Gender specific binary logistic regressions were run to examine the possibility that predictors of abuse differ by gender. Disability theory predicted that Deaf and hard of hearing students were at a higher risk for reporting victimization. The results from the analyses support disability theory and show that Deaf and hard of hearing students were more likely to report victimization. Feminist theory predicted that women would be more likely to be abused than men. Feminist theory received mixed support. Women regardless of auditory status were more likely to report psychological abuse, but were not more likely to report physical abuse. Feminist disability theory hypothesized that the risk of abuse would be higher for Deaf and hard of hearing women than for either hearing women and men, and Deaf and hard of hearing men. Feminist disability theory was tested by including an interaction effect (auditory status by gender). Feminist disability theory received no support. The interaction effect between auditory status and gender was negative, indicating that Deaf and hard of hearing women college students were less likely to report victimization than one would expect when the interaction effect is not included in the model.