Effects of Identity: Intimate Partner Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning College Students

Background and Purpose:  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) college students experience disproportionate rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Some studies report rates of IPV among LGBTQ college students double that of heterosexual and cisgender college students. Unfortunately, these studies have yet to distinguish IPV by types and analyze the impact of intersectional identities (sexual orientation and gender identity) on the experience of IPV among LGBTQ college students.

Methods:  This study involves secondary data analysisusing the National College Health Assessment-II from 2011-2013 (n=88,975) to examine the differences in types of IPV among college students based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and the intersection of these two identities. The survey is administered by the American College Health Association. Member higher education institutions volunteered to participate in the survey administration. A total of 120 higher education institutions were included in the final sample. Key exposure variables (gender identity, sexual orientation) and IPV outcomes using Rao-Scott chi-square tests to account for the clustering of students within schools. To examine multivariable associations of sexual orientation, gender identity, the intersection of these identities on multiple types of IPV we used multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts, allowing IPV outcomes to vary by school.

Results:  Adjusting for covariates and school clustering, LGBT college students had higher odds of reporting emotional IPV (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.34-1.99), physical IPV (AOR = 1.58-2.93), and sexual IPV (AOR = 1.41-6.18). Bisexual and transgender college students demonstrated the highest odds of reporting IPV based on sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively. Intersectional identity of gender and sexual orientation were not significant predictors of emotional or physical IPV. However, sexual IPV was significant in gay/lesbian-heterosexual identities. Sexual IPV was smaller for cisgender females than cisgender males (AOR = .35; 95% CI = .18-.68).  Similarly, unsure-heterosexual differences in sexual IPV was smaller for cisgender females than cisgender males (AOR = .44; 95% CI = .24-.81).

Conclusion and Implications:  These findings demonstrate a need for clinicians working with college students to be aware of the disproportionate prevalence of IPV among LGBT individuals, particularly for those clients those who identify as bisexual and/or transgender and participate in continuing education related to these populations. Furthermore, these findings illustrate the need for additional intersectional research with LGBT college students.