Help-Seeking for Severe Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescents and Young Adults Assigned Female at birth: A Latent Class Analysis

Abstract

Sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth (SGM-AFAB) report high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. Despite adverse health outcomes of IPV, many survivors, particularly SGM-AFAB, do not seek help. This study (1) examined the proportion of SGM-AFAB who reported severe IPV victimization who sought help; (2) elucidated patterns of help-seeking facilitators and barriers; and (3) identified associations between sociodemographic characteristics, IPV victimization types, and minority stressors and latent classes of help-seeking facilitators and barriers. Participants included 193 SGM-AFAB (Mage = 20.6, SD = 3.4; 65.8% non-monosexual; 73.1% cisgender; 72.5% racial/ethnic minority; 16.6% annual household income $20,000 or less). Most participants who experienced severe IPV did not seek help (62.2%). Having a person or provider who was aware of the participant's abusive relationship was the most common reason for seeking help (50; 68.5%). Minimizing IPV was the most common reason for not seeking help (103; 87.3%). Fewer than 5% of SGM-AFAB who experienced severe IPV and who did not seek help reported SGM-specific help-seeking barriers, including not wanting to contribute to negative perceptions of the LGBTQ community, not disclosing their SGM status, and perceiving a lack of tailored services. Help-seeking facilitators and barriers varied by sociodemographic characteristics. Three classes of help-seeking facilitators and two classes of help-seeking barriers emerged. SGM-AFAB subgroups based on sexual and gender identity, recent coercive control, and identity as IPV victims differed in latent classes. This study's findings confirm SGM-AFAB IPV survivors' low likelihood of seeking help. Our results also underscore the importance of continuing to bolster SGM-AFAB survivors' access to trauma-informed, culturally sensitive, and affirming support. Further, multilevel prevention and intervention efforts are needed to reduce minimization of abuse and anticipatory judgment and blame among SGM-AFAB who hold multiple marginalized identities, experience coercive control, and identify as IPV victims.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221137711
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1 –28
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08862605221137711
journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv
Original Research
Help-Seeking for Severe
Intimate Partner
Violence Among Sexual
and Gender Minority
Adolescents and Young
Adults Assigned Female
at birth: A Latent Class
Analysis
Jillian R. Scheer1, Margaret Lawlace2,
Cory J. Cascalheira1,3, Michael E. Newcomb4,
and Sarah W. Whitton2
Abstract
Sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female
at birth (SGM-AFAB) report high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV)
victimization. Despite adverse health outcomes of IPV, many survivors,
particularly SGM-AFAB, do not seek help. This study (1) examined the
proportion of SGM-AFAB who reported severe IPV victimization who
sought help; (2) elucidated patterns of help-seeking facilitators and barriers;
and (3) identified associations between sociodemographic characteristics,
IPV victimization types, and minority stressors and latent classes of help-
seeking facilitators and barriers. Participants included 193 SGM-AFAB
1Syracuse University, USA
2University of Cincinnati, USA
3New Mexico State University, USA
4Northwestern University, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarah W. Whitton, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Mail Center 376,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0376, USA.
Email: sarah.whitton@uc.edu
1137711JIVXXX10.1177/08862605221137711Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceScheer et al.
research-article2022

2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
(Mage = 20.6, SD = 3.4; 65.8% non-monosexual; 73.1% cisgender; 72.5%
racial/ethnic minority; 16.6% annual household income $20,000 or less). Most
participants who experienced severe IPV did not seek help (62.2%). Having a
person or provider who was aware of the participant’s abusive relationship
was the most common reason for seeking help (50; 68.5%). Minimizing IPV
was the most common reason for not seeking help (103; 87.3%). Fewer
than 5% of SGM-AFAB who experienced severe IPV and who did not seek
help reported SGM-specific help-seeking barriers, including not wanting to
contribute to negative perceptions of the LGBTQ community, not disclosing
their SGM status, and perceiving a lack of tailored services. Help-seeking
facilitators and barriers varied by sociodemographic characteristics. Three
classes of help-seeking facilitators and two classes of help-seeking barriers
emerged. SGM-AFAB subgroups based on sexual and gender identity, recent
coercive control, and identity as IPV victims differed in latent classes. This
study’s findings confirm SGM-AFAB IPV survivors’ low likelihood of seeking
help. Our results also underscore the importance of continuing to bolster
SGM-AFAB survivors’ access to trauma-informed, culturally sensitive, and
affirming support. Further, multilevel prevention and intervention efforts
are needed to reduce minimization of abuse and anticipatory judgment
and blame among SGM-AFAB who hold multiple marginalized identities,
experience coercive control, and identify as IPV victims.
Keywords
youth violence, violence exposure, sexuality, domestic violence, LGBTQ,
disclosure of domestic violence, domestic violence
Sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at
birth (SGM-AFAB), including those who identify as cisgender women, trans-
gender men, non-binary, or genderqueer (Dyar et al., 2020), are at increased
risk for intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to cisgender heterosexual
adolescents and young adults across sex assigned at birth (for a review, see
Whitton et al., 2019). For instance, nationally representative studies found
that IPV rates were higher among cisgender sexual minority female youth
compared to cisgender heterosexual female youth (Scheer et al., 2021;
Schwab-Reese et al., 2021). A recent meta-analysis highlighted that trans-
gender and nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) were
more likely than cisgender men and women to experience IPV (Peitzmeier
et al., 2020). Compared to sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth
assigned male at birth, SGM-AFAB are at heightened risk of IPV (Scheer,

Scheer et al. 3
Edwards, et al., 2021; Schwab-Reese et al., 2021; Whitton et al., 2016). From
an intersectionality framework (Crenshaw, 1989), multiple forms of stigma
(e.g., heterosexism, sexism, cissexism) might synergistically drive IPV risk
among SGM-AFAB (Whitton et al., 2019).
Consistent evidence demonstrates health consequences of IPV among
SGM-AFAB (Decker et al., 2018; Scheer et al., 2021; Whitton et al., 2016).
However, seeking help for IPV can improve health and even reduce risk of
revictimization (Ameral et al., 2020). Further, most IPV research has focused
on cisgender (heterosexual and sexual minority) women (Goldenberg et al.,
2018) and most SGM research has focused on those assigned male at birth
or treated SGM people monolithically (Calton et al., 2016; Dyar et al., 2020;
Smalley et al., 2016). Given that SGM people face group-specific health
risks and barriers to care (Smalley et al., 2016), research has called for more
attention to disaggregated help-seeking patterns by SGM subpopulations
(e.g., sexual minority women AFAB, transgender people AFAB, nonbinary
people AFAB; Scheer et al., 2020). This study aims to address these limita-
tions by examining help-seeking behavior, facilitators, and barriers among
SGM-AFAB.
While social support networks and formal services are critical to improv-
ing the mental health and safety of those experiencing IPV, most IPV-
exposed SGM youth, including SGM-AFAB, do not seek help. For instance,
one study showed that while almost a third of SGM youth experienced IPV,
most did not seek services (Scheer & Baams, 2021). Other findings suggest
that only 18% to 35% of IPV-exposed SGM youth seek help (Sylaska &
Edwards, 2015).
In the general population, IPV severity, including physical violence with a
high probability of injuries, forced sexual intercourse, and coercive control,
predicts help-seeking (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Lysova & Dim, 2022). IPV
severity also confers risk for domestic homicide (Sabri et al., 2014). Recent
research has called for studies to examine IPV severity among vulnerable
populations (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Stark & Hester, 2019). Yet, no stud-
ies have examined help-seeking rates among SGM-AFAB who report severe
IPV. Further, most help-seeking research has focused on sources of help (e.g.,
formal vs. informal support) without assessing reasons that individuals
exposed to severe IPV seek help from a particular source (i.e., facilitators) or
do not seek help (i.e., barriers).
Help-Seeking Facilitators and Barriers
According to the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974), help-seeking
behavior is driven in part by individuals’ perceived benefits of seeking

4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
support (Skinner et al., 2015). In addition, the network-episode model
(Pescosolido & Boyer, 2010) conceptualizes help-seeking facilitators as
involving social networks, including social context and support systems. For
instance, studies among IPV-exposed individuals in the general population
have demonstrated that social network characteristics (e.g., being affirmed,
trusting others not to take legal action) can facilitate help-seeking (Mapes &
Cavell, 2021; Ravi et al., 2021). Knowing about SGM-specific forms of IPV
(e.g., identity abuse; Dyar et al., 2021; Woulfe & Goodman, 2021) and pro-
viding affirmative support can promote help-seeking among SGM people
(Ollen et al., 2017; Ravi et al., 2021).
The health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974) also hypothesizes that per-
ceived barriers to seeking help impact people’s help-seeking behaviors
(Henshaw & Freedman-Doan, 2009). Help-seeking barriers exist across indi-
vidual (e.g., concerns about confidentiality), interpersonal (e.g., fears of
retaliation), and structural levels (e.g., negative cultural beliefs about IPV
victims) (Bundock et al., 2020; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). Among SGM-
AFAB, stigma-based minority stressors can create additional help-seeking
barriers (Calton et al., 2016). For example, SGM survivors may anticipate
rejection based on prior help-seeking experiences, or they may conceal their
SGM status or IPV incident due to fears of being “outed” or perpetuating
negative SGM stereotypes (Edwards et al., 2015; Ollen et al., 2017). Enacted
stigma, including external sources of stress (e.g., providers’ biases, discrimi-
natory shelter policies), also reduces SGM people’s likelihood of seeking
help for IPV (Calton et al., 2016; Guadalupe-Diaz & Jasinski, 2016).
Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches to Modeling
Help-Seeking
Prior studies examining help-seeking facilitators and barriers among IPV-
exposed individuals have primarily relied on variable-centered approaches
to examine the presence of each facilitator and barrier separately (Ameral
et al., 2020; Ravi et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2021). Other studies have
dichotomized and grouped sources of help as either informal or formal (for
a review, see Cheng et al., 2020). Compared to these variable-centered
approaches, person-centered approaches, including latent class analysis
(LCA), assume heterogeneity exists in help-seeking facilitators and barriers
(Lanza & Rhoades, 2013). LCA can thus provide a broader understanding of
how help-seeking facilitators and barriers cluster together among SGM-
AFAB. LCA has been used in past research to understand help-seeking pat-
terns across formal and informal supports and levels of service utilization
(e.g., minimal use vs. substantial use) among IPV-exposed women in the

Scheer et al. 5
general population (Ben-Porat, 2017; Cheng et al., 2020). Despite this prom-
ising line of inquiry, no studies have examined how help-seeking facilitators
and barriers intersect to create typologies among SGM-AFAB who report
severe IPV victimization.
Scholars have called for an intersectional understanding of IPV and related
help-seeking among SGM populations, including SGM-AFAB (Decker et al.,
2018; Edwards et al., 2015; Scheer et al., 2020; Whitton et al., 2019). Yet,
there lacks information about whether SGM-AFAB’s probability of endors-
ing distinct combinations of help-seeking facilitators and barriers versus oth-
ers varies across sociodemographic characteristics, IPV victimization type,
and minority stressors (Ben-Porat, 2017; Cheng et al., 2020). Prior studies
using variable-centered approaches have documented differences in help-
seeking facilitators and barriers based on sociodemographic characteristics
(e.g., race/ethnicity, immigration status) and IPV severity among women in
general (Ben-Porat, 2017; Cheng et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2021) and among
SGM populations broadly (Calton et al., 2016; Ravi et al., 2021; Robinson
et al., 2021). No studies have examined whether latent classes of help-seek-
ing barriers and facilitators vary based on identity as an IPV victim and expo-
sure to minority stressors (e.g., internalized stigma, microaggressions,
LGBTQ victimization) among SGM-AFAB who experienced severe IPV.
Aims of this study were to: (1) examine the proportion of SGM-AFAB
with severe IPV victimization histories who sought help for IPV; (2) eluci-
date patterns of help-seeking facilitators and barriers; and (3) identify asso-
ciations between sociodemographic characteristics, IPV victimization types,
and minority stressors and latent classes of help-seeking facilitators and bar-
riers. Findings may have important implications for improving access to
high-quality support and reducing help-seeking barriers among SGM-AFAB
who report severe IPV victimization.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Data are from FAB400, a study of 488 SGM-AFAB consisting of two cohorts:
(1) a late adolescent cohort recruited in 2016 to 2017 (N = 400; 16–20 years
old at baseline), and (2) a young adult cohort comprised of AFAB participants
from a study of SGM youth that began in 2007 (N = 88; 23–32 years old at
baseline in 2016–17). Participants were recruited using an incentivized snow-
ball sampling approach. Eligibility criteria included being assigned female
sex at birth; speaking English; and reporting same-gender sexual behavior,
same-gender attractions, or sexual or gender minority identity (Swann et al.,

6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
2022). Potential participants were recruited via social media advertisements
and directly through venues (e.g., SGM community organizations, health
fairs). Advertisements contained information about the study’s purpose (e.g.,
to understand young LGBTQ people and their relationships) and specified
that this study was recruiting those who were AFAB, an SGM person, and 16
to 20 years of age. From 2016 to 2017, all participants completed the baseline
assessment and completed subsequent assessments every 6 months, totaling
seven assessments across 3.5 years. Data were collected using computer-
assisted self-interviews. The Institutional Review Board at Northwestern
University approved study procedures, including a waiver of parental per-
mission for those younger than 18 under 45 CFR 46, 408(c).
We used data from participants who endorsed any severe physical IPV,
severe sexual IPV, severe coercive control, or physical injury by a partner
across all assessments and who were asked whether they sought help for IPV
(N = 193). Only participants who reported any severe physical IPV, severe
sexual IPV, severe coercive control, or injury by a partner, including being
physically injured, were asked whether they sought help (from any source)
for IPV victimization. Data from the first timepoint were used if a participant
both reported any severe IPV and answered help-seeking questions across
multiple time points. Participants also indicated which partner was their
“most significant partner.” Data from the most significant partner were used
if more than one partner perpetrated IPV in a given assessment period.
Measures
Intimate partner violence. Coercive control was assessed with five items from
the Coercive Behaviors Scale (CBS; Frankland & Brown, 2014) and three
items from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NIPSVS; Black et al., 2011), adapted for SGM (Dyar et al., 2021). For all
analyses, we created a binary variable indicating the presence of past-6-
months coercive control (0 = no, 1 = yes). Participants who were considered to
have experienced severe coercive control endorsed the presence of any two
items from the coercive control scale from the NIPSVS (e.g., “[Partner name]
threatened to hurt themselves or commit suicide when they were upset with
me”) or who endorsed a frequency of at least three to five times in the past
6 months for any of the other six items on the coercive control victimization
subscale of the CBS. LGBTQ-specific IPV was assessed with the five-item
SGM-Specific IPV Tactics Scale (Dyar et al., 2021). A binary variable was
created to indicate the presence of past-6-months LGBTQ-specific IPV
(0 = no, 1 = yes). Physical, psychological, and sexual IPV were assessed with
the Sexual and Gender Minority Conflict Tactics Scale (SGM-CTS2; Dyar

Scheer et al. 7
et al., 2021). Response options ranged from 0 (never) to 7 (not in the past
6 months, but it did happen). We created three binary variables indicating the
presence of past-6-months physical, psychological, and sexual IPV, respec-
tively (0 = no, 1 = yes). Participants were considered to have experienced
severe physical or sexual IPV (and thus were asked whether they sought
help) if they endorsed at least one item from any severe physical IPV or
sexual IPV subscales of the SGM-CTS2. Presence of injury by a partner was
measured via any endorsement from the five-item injury subscale from the
SGM-CTS2 (Dyar et al., 2021). IPV victim identity was assessed by asking
participants, “Did you consider yourself a victim of intimate partner vio-
lence/dating violence/domestic violence or to have been abused in this rela-
tionship?” (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Help-seeking. Help-seeking was assessed by asking participants who reported
severe IPV, “Did you try to get anyone to help you handle what your partner
had done, keep them from doing it again, or get you away from your part-
ner?” (0 = no, 1 = yes). Participants who sought help were asked, “Who did
you go to for help first?” and “Who else did you go to for help?” Response
options include therapist or counselor; police; hotline, school officials, or
staff; doctor or health care provider; domestic violence assistance service or
shelter; parents, LGBTQ friends, heterosexual/straight friends, or other fam-
ily members or relatives. Participants who sought help were also asked,
“What led you to select this person/service to help you?” and provided with
nine help-seeking facilitators: “Person/service knew about my relationship,”
“I am emotionally close to person/service/go to them for all my problems,” “I
knew person/service would keep it confidential,” “Person/service was knowl-
edgeable about relationship violence,” “Person/service knew I am LGBTQ,”
“I could trust person/service not to judge me for my sexual orientation,” “I
could trust person/service not to judge me for my gender identity,” “I knew I
wouldn’t run into anyone I know,” and “other reasons” (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Participants who reported not seeking help were asked, “If you did not
seek help, why not?” and could select all that applied from a list of 16 help-
seeking barriers: “It wasn’t really ‘abuse’ so I didn’t need help,” “Because
they might have judged me or blamed me for it,” “Because I didn’t think they
could/would help,” “Because they might not have believed me or taken me
seriously,” “If my partner found out, they would have been angry, hurt me, or
hurt someone I love,” “I was worried they would not keep it confidential,” “I
didn’t know who I could go to,” “I fought back so I might have gotten in
trouble,” “I was worried I might lose housing,” “I didn’t want to contribute to
negative perceptions of the LGBTQ community,” “Because I was not out,”
“Because they may have disapproved of my sexuality,” “Those services were

8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
not for people my age,” “Those services were not meant for same-sex rela-
tionships,” “I was worried I might lose my child(ren),” and “other reasons”
(0 = no, 1 = yes).
Minority stressors. Sexual orientation-related internalized stigma was assessed
with the eight-item Desire to Be Heterosexual subscale (Puckett et al., 2017).
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Items were averaged to create a mean score of past-6-months internalized
stigma (Cronbach’s α = .88). Frequency of past-month sexual orientation-
based microaggressions were assessed with 19 items from the Sexual Orien-
tation Microaggression Inventory (Swann et al., 2016), along with four items
that assessed AFAB-specific microaggressions. Response options ranged
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (21–30 times [almost every day]). Items were aver-
aged (Cronbach’s α = .92). Frequency of past-6-months LGBTQ victimiza-
tion was assessed with the 10-item measure developed by Pilkington and
D’Augelli (1995). Response options ranged from 0 (never) to 5 (more than
ten times). Items were averaged (Cronbach’s α = .76). Higher scores indicated
greater internalized stigma, a greater frequency of microaggressions, and a
greater frequency of LGBTQ victimization, respectively.
Sociodemographic characteristics. Participants reported their age, sexual iden-
tity (gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, unsure/questioning, straight/heterosexual,
pansexual, asexual, not listed [please specify]), gender identity (male, female,
transgender, gender non-conforming, genderqueer, non-binary, not listed
[please specify]), race/ethnicity (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian,
Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,
White, other [please specify]), education (high school/equivalent degree or
lower vs. greater than high school/equivalent degree), and income (annual
income < $20,000 to > $80,000). Participants also reported if they identified
as Hispanic or Latinx, regardless of race. Those who selected a Latinx ethnic-
ity were classified as Latinx (National Institutes of Health, 2001).
Economic distress was assessed with the “Can’t make ends meet” sub-
scale of the Economic Pressure Scale (Conger et al., 1999). Participants
responded to three items (e.g., “I had difficulty paying my monthly bills”).
Response options were 4- and 5-point Likert-type scales (e.g., 1 [Strongly
disagree] to 5 [Strongly agree]. Responses were standardized and summed; a
higher score indicates greater economic distress (Cronbach’s α = .78).
We recoded sexual identity as “monosexual (gay or lesbian)” (0), “non-
monosexual (bisexual/pansexual)” (1), or “other” (2). SGM-AFAB who chose
“female” were recoded as cisgender (0). SGM-AFAB who chose “male,”
“transgender,” “gender non-conforming,” “genderqueer,” “non-binary,” or

Scheer et al. 9
“not listed” were recoded as gender minority (1). We recoded participants as
either White (0) or racial/ethnic minority (1).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the analytic sample’s sociode-
mographic characteristics, presence of past-6-months IPV, and help-seeking.
Bivariate analyses were used to examine associations between sociodemo-
graphic characteristics and help-seeking indicators.
Using the three-step latent class analytic approach (Bakk et al., 2013), we fit
models for facilitators with 1 to 9 classes with our nine indicators of help-
seeking facilitators and then fit models for barriers with 1 to 9 classes with our
16 indicators of help-seeking barriers. We specified a priori the following cri-
teria to identify the most optimally fitting LCA models: relative fit, including
low Log Likelihood, Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information
Criteria (BIC), and sample-size-adjusted BIC (aBIC); entropy > .80; class
size; and interpretability (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013). Average posterior probabil-
ities of class membership were used to examine class homogeneity (Nylund
et al., 2007). Local independence assumption was assessed by examining
bivariate residuals; direct effects were included to allow for dependent pairs of
indicators with the highest residuals (Vermunt & Magidson, 2016).
We employed separate multinomial logistic regressions to model associa-
tions between sociodemographic characteristics with latent classes identified
by the best-fitting LCA model, accounting for classification error (Bakk
et al., 2013). Then, we used multinomial logistic regression to model asso-
ciations between past-6-months IPV victimization type with latent classes and
associations between minority stressors and latent classes.
Missing data ranged from 0 for age to 14 (7.3%) for economic distress.
Missing data were handled using pairwise deletion. Descriptive statistics
were conducted in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). LCA and the bias-
adjusted three-step LCA approach (Bakk et al., 2013) were implemented in
Latent GOLD 5.1 (Vermunt & Magidson, 2016). We performed a post-hoc
adjustment of p values using Benjamini–Hochberg procedures (Benjamini &
Hochberg, 1995).
Results
Sample Description
Participants in the analytic sample (N = 193) were, on average, 20.62 years of
age (SD = 3.42; range = 16.02–32.29; see Table 1). The entire analytic sample

10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Table 1. Frequencies of Study Variables of Analytic Sample (N = 193).
M (SD)
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Age (Range: 16.02–32.29) 20.62 (3.42)
n%
Sexual identity
Gay or lesbian 37 19.2
Non-monosexuala127 65.8
Otherb15 7.8
Gender identity
Cisgender women 141 73.1
Gender minority 38 19.7
Race/ethnicity
White 39 20.2
Racial/ethnic minority 140 72.5
Highest education
High school/equivalent degree or lower 100 51.8
Greater than high school/equivalent degree 79 40.9
Household income
<$20,000 32 16.6
$20,000–$39,999 44 22.8
$40,000–$49,000 25 13.0
$50,000–$59,999 19 9.8
$60,000–$69,999 14 7.3
$70,000–$79,999 9 4.7
>$80,000 34 17.6
Partner gender identity
Cisgender men 106 54.9
Cisgender women 57 29.5
Gender minority 27 14.0
Presence of past-6-months IPV victimization
Coercive control 115 59.6
LGBTQ-specific IPV 49 25.4
Physical IPV 75 38.9
Psychological IPV 132 68.4
Sexual IPV 83 43.0
Help-seeking for IPV victimization
No help-seeking for IPV victimization 120 62.2
Help-seeking for IPV victimization 73 37.8
(continued)

Scheer et al. 11
reported severe IPV. Most participants reported recent psychological IPV
(68.4%). Most participants who experienced severe IPV did not seek help
(62.2%); fewer sought help (37.8%). Of those who sought help, most accessed
support from informal sources (84.1%); fewer accessed formal support (15.9%).
Frequencies of Help-Seeking Facilitators and Sociodemographic
Correlates
Among those who sought help, having support of people who were aware of
participants’ relationships (50; 68.5%) was the most frequently endorsed
help-seeking facilitator (see Table 2). Fewer participants endorsed seeking
help because they knew that they would not see familiar people (9; 12.3%)
and other reasons (write-ins, such as “She had also been in a relationship with
this person and would understand” and “His knowledge of relationships,
[and] specifically BDSM [bondage, discipline, dominance and submission,
sadomasochism]”; 3; 4.1%). Write-in responses were categorized as “other
reasons” and not qualitatively analyzed in this study.
Frequencies of Help-Seeking Barriers and Sociodemographic
Correlates
Among those who did not seek help, minimizing IPV (i.e., believing that
their experiences were not abuse; 103; 87.3%) was the most frequently
n%
Source of support
Formal support sourcesc23 15.9
Informal support sourcesd122 84.1
Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer. Percentages may not equal 100 due to missing data. Those who identified as straight/
heterosexual also identified as gender minority and so were retained in the analyses. Range,
mean, and standard deviation for age are reported.
aNon-monosexual includes sexual and gender minority individuals assigned female at birth
who identified as bisexual, queer, or pansexual.
bOther includes sexual and gender minority individuals assigned female at birth who identified
as asexual, questioning, straight/heterosexual, or an unlisted identity.
cFormal support sources include therapist or counselor; police; hotline, school officials or staff
(teachers or school psychologist, etc.); doctor or health care provider; or domestic violence
assistance service or shelter.
dInformal support sources include parents; LGBTQ friends; heterosexual/straight friends;
other family members or relatives; other partners; Facebook; or co-workers.
Table 1. (continued)

12
Table 2. Frequencies of Help-Seeking Facilitators and Barriers.
Help-Seeking Facilitators
Total Sample
n = 73a
Help-Seeking Barriers
Total Sample
n = 118b
n%n%
Person/service knew about my relationship 50 68.5 It wasn’t really “abuse” so I didn’t need help 103 87.3
I am emotionally close to person/service/go
to them for all my problems
49 67.1 Other reasons 20 16.9
I knew person/service would keep it
confidential
46 63.0 Because they might have judged me or blamed me for it 16 13.6
Person/service knew I am LGBTQ 31 42.5 Because I didn’t think they could/would help 12 10.2
I could trust person/service not to judge
me for my sexual orientation
29 39.7 Because they might not have believed me or taken me
seriously
11 9.3
Person/service was knowledgeable about
relationship violence
21 28.8 If my partner found out, they would have been angry, hurt
me, or hurt someone I love
5 4.2
I could trust person/service not to judge
me for my gender identity
19 26.0 I was worried they would not keep it confidential 9 4.7
I knew I wouldn’t run into anyone I know 9 12.3 I didn’t know who I could go to 7 5.9
Other reasons 3 4.1 I fought back so I might have gotten in trouble 2 1.7
I was worried I might lose housing 3 2.5
I didn’t want to contribute to negative perceptions of the
LGBTQ community
2 1.7
Because I was not out 2 1.7
Because they may have disapproved of my sexuality 1 0.8
Those services were not for people my age 2 1.7
Those services were not meant for same-sex relationships 1 0.8
I was worried I might lose my child(ren) 0 0.0
Note. aParticipants who sought help and who endorsed one or more help-seeking facilitators (i.e., reasons that led participants to seek help from a particular source).
bParticipants who did not report seeking help and who endorsed one or more help-seeking barriers.

Scheer et al. 13
endorsed help-seeking barrier (see Table 2). Fewer participants endorsed not
seeking help because specific services were not meant for same-sex relation-
ships (1; 0.8%) and because they feared losing their children (0; 0%).
Model Fit Assessment and Model Comparisons of Help-Seeking
Facilitators Classes
For SGM-AFAB who sought help, the two-class model of help-seeking facil-
itators allowing for local dependencies had the lowest AIC and BIC while the
seven-class solution had the lowest aBIC (see Table 3). Overall, the AIC and
aBIC decreased in the one- through two-class solutions, increased in the two-
through three-class solutions, and decreased again in the three-class solution
allowing for local dependencies. Entropy was relatively high in the three-
class model of help-seeking facilitators allowing for local dependencies
(0.86; Bakk et al., 2013). Based on these criteria and class interpretability, the
three-class model of help-seeking facilitators allowing for local dependencies
was deemed optimal (Nylund et al., 2007).
For the help-seeking facilitators LCA, Class 1 was characterized by low
probabilities across help-seeking facilitators (“No Specified Facilitator
Class”; n = 26; 35.6%). Class 2 was characterized by high probabilities of
SGM-AFAB seeking help because the person or service provider was aware
of their abusive relationship, had pre-existing supportive relationships with
participants, and would keep confidentiality (“Interpersonal Closeness and
Confidentiality Class”; n = 25; 34.2%). Finally, Class 3 was characterized by
high probabilities of SGM-AFAB seeking help because the person or service
provider was aware of their abusive relationship, had pre-existing supportive
relationships with participants, would keep confidentiality, and was aware
and affirming of participants’ sexual identity or gender identity (“Interpersonal
Closeness, Confidentiality, and LGBTQ-Affirmative Class”; n = 22; 30.1%).
Predictors of Help-Seeking Facilitators Classes
Multinomial regression models revealed that compared to SGM-AFAB who
identified as gay or lesbian, SGM-AFAB who reported another sexual iden-
tity (e.g., questioning) were four to five times more likely to be in the
“Interpersonal Closeness and Confidentiality Class” and the “Interpersonal
Closeness, Confidentiality, and LGBTQ-Affirmative Class” relative to the
“No Specified Facilitator Class” (see Table 4). Gender minority AFAB were
15 times more likely than cisgender SGM-AFAB to be in the “Interpersonal
Closeness, Confidentiality, and LGBTQ-Affirmative Class” relative to the
“No Specified Facilitator Class.”

14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
SGM-AFAB who reported past-6-months coercive control were 19 times
more likely than those who did not report recent coercive control past-6-
months coercive control to be in the “Interpersonal Closeness and
Confidentiality Class” relative to the “No Specified Facilitator Class” (see
Table 5). SGM-AFAB who identified as victims of IPV were less likely than
those who did not identify as victims of IPV to be in the “Interpersonal
Table 3. Model Fit Indices and Model Comparison Statistics for Mixture Modeling
of Help-Seeking Facilitators and Barriers.
Log
Likelihood
Akaike
Information
Criterion
Bayesian
Information
Criterion
Sample-Size Adjusted
Bayesian Information
Criterion Entropy
Number
of Free
Parameters
Number of facilitators classesa
1 −364.06 746.12 766.73 738.37 N/A 9
2 −319.15 676.30 719.82 659.95 0.90 19
2DE −308.74 661.48 711.87 642.55 0.89 22
3 −306.52 671.05 737.47 646.09 0.85 29
3DEc−302.24 664.48 733.20 638.67 0.86 30
4 −298.64 675.28 764.61 641.72 0.85 39
5 −290.82 679.65 791.88 637.48 0.87 49
6 −284.51 687.02 822.16 636.24 0.89 59
7 −278.75 695.51 853.55 636.13 0.91 69
8 −273.81 705.62 886.57 637.64 0.91 79
9 −270.95 719.90 923.75 643.31 0.91 89
Number of barriers classesb
1 −365.97 763.94 808.28 757.70 N/A 16
2c−323.71 713.43 804.86 700.54 0.83 33
2DE −293.08 662.16 767.44 647.32 0.83 38
3 −300.37 700.75 839.28 681.22 0.83 50
3DE −282.93 677.87 833.03 656.00 0.86 56
4 −289.89 713.79 899.42 687.62 0.91 67
5 −283.89 735.78 968.52 702.98 0.91 84
6 −275.54 753.08 1032.92 713.63 0.79 101
7 −269.94 775.89 1102.83 729.80 0.91 118
8 −261.89 793.78 1167.82 741.05 0.94 135
9 −266.45 836.90 1258.04 777.53 0.71 152
Note. DE = direct effects (i.e., addition of residual associations). Each criterion is based upon the Log-
Likelihood.
aSexual and gender minorities assigned female at birth who reported severe intimate partner violence and
who sought help.
bSexual and gender minorities assigned female at birth who reported severe intimate partner violence and
who did not report seeking help.
cModel selected as providing the best fit, as demonstrated by the relatively small Akaike Information
Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion, relatively high entropy, relatively few numbers of free
parameters, and interpretability.

15
Table 4. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Sociodemographic Correlates of Help-Seeking Latent Classes Among Sexual
and Gender Minority Individuals Assigned Female at Birth.
Help-Seeking Facilitators Latent Classes (n = 71) Help-Seeking Barriers Latent Classes (n = 108)
Class 2 (“Interpersonal Closeness
and Confidentiality Class”;
n = 25; 34.2%)
Class 3 (“Interpersonal Closeness,
Confidentiality, and LGBTQ-Affirmative
Class”; n = 22; 30.1%)
Class 2 (“Minimization of Abuse and Anticipatory
Judgment or Blame Class”;
n = 17; 14.4%)
aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age 0.84 (0.63, 1.12) 0.220 0.15 0.86 (0.65, 1.14) 0.175 0.14 0.99 (0.82, 1.20) 0.467 0.09
Sexual identity
Gay or lesbian ref ref ref
Non-monosexual 1.48 (0.31, 6.97) 0.374 0.79 2.21 (0.41, 11.81) 0.176 0.85 2.22 (0.39, 12.75) 0.151 0.89
Other 4.25 (1.56, 6.94) 0.006 1.37 5.21 (1.59, 8.82) 0.033 1.72 1.37 (0.11, 17.06) 0.467 1.29
Gender identity
Cisgender women ref ref ref
Gender minority 2.04 (0.16, 26.38) 0.374 1.31 15.75 (2.01, 123.59) 0.024 1.05 0.58 (0.15, 2.31) 0.351 0.70
Race/ethnicity
White ref ref ref
Racial/ethnic minority 0.99 (0.18, 5.54) 0.499 0.87 0.43 (0.09, 2.06) 0.175 0.80 0.53 (0.13, 2.21) 0.351 0.72
Economic distress 0.55 (0.23, 1.30) 0.220 0.44 0.48 (0.21, 1.11) 0.082 0.43 1.25 (0.69, 2.26) 0.351 0.38
Note. aOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; ref = reference group, SE = standard error. All models controlled for cohort and used pairwise deletion.
FDR-adjusted refers to the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure used to correct for the false discovery rate. Boldface type indicates a significant aOR. Omitted (reference)
category is Class 1 (“No Specified Facilitator Class”) for latent classes of help-seeking facilitators (n = 26; 35.6%) and Class 1 (“Minimization of Abuse Class”) for latent
classes of help-seeking barriers (n = 101; 85.6%).

16
Table 5. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Intimate Partner Violence and Minority Stressors Correlates of Help-Seeking
Latent Classes Among Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals Assigned Female at Birth.
Help-Seeking Facilitators Latent Classes Help-Seeking Barriers Latent Classes
Class 2 (“Interpersonal Closeness
and Confidentiality Class”; n = 25; 34.2%)
Class 3 (“Interpersonal Closeness, Confidentiality,
and LGBTQ-Affirmative Class”; n = 22; 30.1%)
Class 2 (“Minimization of Abuse and Anticipatory
Judgment or Blame Class”; n = 17; 14.4%)
aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE aOR (95% CI)
FDR-adjusted
p-value SE
Model 1: Past-6-months IPV victimization
Sample size n = 71 n = 108
Psychological IPV
No psychological IPV ref ref ref
Psychological IPV 0.27 (0.03, 2.11) .159 1.04 0.48 (0.06, 3.76) .244 1.05 0.01 (0.01, 1.27) .058 1.22
Physical IPV
No physical IPV ref ref ref
Physical IPV 0.09 (0.01, 2.08) .132 1.62 0.29 (0.05, 1.77) .171 0.92 1.29 (0.23, 7.13) .387 0.87
Sexual IPV
No sexual IPV ref ref ref
Sexual IPV 1.92 (0.23, 15.74) .272 1.07 0.15 (0.02, 1.45) .171 1.16 5.91 (0.84, 41.31) .058 0.99
Coercive control
No coercive control ref ref ref
Coercive control 19.55 (1.18, 325.10) .030 1.43 0.39 (0.04, 3.92) .244 1.18 8.64 (1.19, 62.57) .048 1.01
LGBTQ-specific IPV
No LGBTQ-specific IPV ref ref ref
LGBTQ-specific IPV 2.48 (0.29, 21.38) .244 1.09 4.12 (0.41, 41.45) .171 1.18 0.22 (0.02, 2.04) .116 1.13
IPV victim identity
Does not identify as an IPV victim ref ref ref
Identifies as an IPV victim 0.11 (0.02, 0.84) .030 1.02 3.49 (0.53, 23.03) .171 0.96 12.51 (2.03, 76.87) .018 0.93
Model 2: Minority stressors
Sample size n = 70 n = 107
Internalized stigma 0.97 (0.23, 4.14) .481 0.74 0.68 (0.17, 2.68) .293 0.70 1.11 (0.43, 2.88) .441 0.48
Microaggressions 0.31 (0.09, 1.15) .120 0.68 0.67 (0.21, 2.13) .249 0.59 0.19 (0.02, 2.55) .161 1.31
LGBTQ victimization 2.39 (0.45, 4.18) .211 1.43 2.10 (0.15, 30.41) .293 0.74 3.75 (0.75, 6.74) .021 1.53
Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; aOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; ref = reference group. All models controlled for sexual identity, gender identity,
and cohort, and used pairwise deletion. FDR-adjusted refers to the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure used to correct for the false discovery rate. Boldface type indicates
a significant aOR. Omitted (reference) category is Class 1 (“No Specified Facilitator Class”) for latent classes of help-seeking facilitators (n = 26; 35.6%) and Class 1
(“Minimization of Abuse Class”) for latent classes of help-seeking barriers (n = 101; 85.6%).

Scheer et al. 17
Closeness and Confidentiality Class” relative to the “No Specified Facilitator
Class.” Latent classes of help-seeking facilitators did not vary by past-6-
months psychological, physical, sexual, or LGBTQ-specific IPV, or minor-
ity stressors.
Model Fit Assessment and Model Comparisons of Help-Seeking
Barriers Classes
For SGM-AFAB who did not report seeking help, the two-class solution
allowing for local dependencies had the lowest AIC, BIC, and aBIC (see
Table 3). Further, the AIC and aBIC decreased in the one- through two-class
solutions. Entropy was relatively high in the two-class solution (0.83; Bakk
et al., 2013). As such, the two-class model of help-seeking barriers was
deemed optimal based on these criteria and class interpretability.
For the help-seeking barriers LCA, Class 1 was characterized by a high
probability of SGM-AFAB not seeking help because they minimized IPV
(“Minimization of Abuse Class”; n = 101; 85.6%). Class 2 was characterized
by a high probability of SGM-AFAB not seeking help because they mini-
mized IPV and anticipated being judged or blamed for their IPV victimiza-
tion (“Minimization of Abuse and Anticipatory Judgment or Blame Class”;
n = 17; 14.4%).
Predictors of Help-Seeking Barriers Classes
In multinomial regression models, sociodemographic characteristics did not
predict latent classes of help-seeking barriers (see Table 4). SGM-AFAB who
reported recent coercive control were eight times more likely than those who
did not report to be in the “Minimization of Abuse and Anticipatory Judgment
or Blame Class” relative to the “Minimization of Abuse Class” (see Table 5).
SGM-AFAB who identified as victims of IPV were 12 times more likely
than those who did not identify as victims of IPV to be in the “Minimization
of Abuse and Anticipatory Judgment or Blame Class” relative to the
“Minimization of Abuse Class.” Latent classes of help-seeking barriers did
not vary by other IPV forms (e.g., physical IPV) or minority stressors.
Discussion
Extending previous research (Calton et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2021;
Scheer et al., 2020), the current study documented that the majority of SGM-
AFAB who experienced severe IPV victimization did not seek help. Having
a person or provider who was aware of the participant’s abusive relationship

18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
was the most common reason for seeking help while minimizing IPV was the
most common reason for not seeking help among SGM-AFAB. Findings also
revealed three distinct combinations of help-seeking facilitators and barriers
among SGM-AFAB, indicating a novel contribution to the literature. SGM-
AFAB differed in their likelihood of being in classes characterized by help-
seeking facilitators and barriers based on sociodemographic characteristics
and IPV victimization type but not minority stressors.
Our findings build on extant research by showing that more than half of
SGM-AFAB who reported seeking help did so because they could identify
specific people—mostly informal support sources—with whom participants
were close, who were aware of participants’ abusive relationship, and who
would keep IPV disclosure confidential. Indeed, IPV interventions involving
people with whom SGM-AFAB have a close relationship (i.e., a “network
oriented” approach) can promote help-seeking behavior (Goodman & Smyth,
2011; Ogbe et al., 2020).
Notably, among SGM-AFAB who sought help, only 30% of participants
reported awareness and affirmation of their sexual or gender identity as help-
seeking facilitators. Some SGM-AFAB survivors who experience severe IPV
might prioritize seeking help from people who could provide participants
with crisis management support or help to create a safety plan as opposed to
those who are SGM-affirmative. Still, awareness and affirmation of SGM
identities are critical to engaging SGM people in care (Klein & Golub, 2020;
Robinson et al., 2021). Thus, it is critical that support sources affirm SGM-
AFAB participants’ SGM status while also addressing immediate safety con-
cerns to effectively meet the needs of SGM-AFAB survivors.
Findings also suggest some demographic differences in factors that facili-
tate IPV help-seeking among SGM-AFAB. Specifically, SGM-AFAB with
nontraditional sexual identities (e.g., questioning, an unlisted identity) were
more likely than gay or lesbian AFAB to seek help from a source with whom
they had a pre-existing relationship, who was aware of their abusive relation-
ship, and who would keep confidentiality. SGM-AFAB who are uncertain
about or who question their identities may face unique stereotypes (e.g., that
their identities are not legitimate or stable) and discrimination from both het-
erosexual and SGM youth, which may increase identity concealment and
overall health burden in this population (Borders et al., 2014). As such, con-
fidentiality and interpersonal closeness might be important when considering
seeking help following instances of IPV particularly among SGM-AFAB
with nontraditional sexual identities.
Similarly, interpersonal closeness, confidentiality, and affirmation/aware-
ness of their SGM identity were salient facilitators for gender minority but
not for cisgender SGM-AFAB. Identity affirmation/awareness might be

Scheer et al. 19
especially important facilitators of help-seeking among gender minority
AFAB given their increased risk of IPV and stigma-based stressors compared
to cisgender sexual minority AFAB (Scheer, Edwards, et al., 2021). Further,
our study is the first to show that interpersonal closeness and confidentiality
were particularly important help-seeking facilitators among SGM-AFAB
who reported recent coercive control and who identified as IPV victims.
Strikingly, among SGM-AFAB who experienced severe IPV victimization
and who did not seek help, over 87% reported not seeking help because they
minimized their experiences of abuse. Minimizing IPV deters survivors from
attaining effective help (Kennedy et al., 2018) and is a common coping strat-
egy employed in response to IPV and reinforced by disclosure recipients who
discredit survivors (Overstreet et al., 2019). Among SGM people, minimiz-
ing IPV is largely shaped by heteronormative depictions of IPV (e.g., “bat-
tered women”; Donovan & Barnes, 2019; Kurdyla et al., 2019). Such
messages may be internalized by SGM-AFAB, contributing to SGM-AFAB
idealizing abusive relationships, making it difficult to recognize their experi-
ences as abuse, and hindering help-seeking (Calton et al., 2016; Kurdyla
et al., 2019). Formal and informal support sources might help SGM-AFAB to
adapt more empowering self-schemas and reduce self-invalidation (Pachankis
et al., 2022). Tailored violence prevention programming (e.g., campaigns) is
needed to raise awareness about public health burdens of SGM IPV and to
change norms condoning violence against SGM-AFAB (McCauley et al.,
2018).
Conversely, fewer than 5% of SGM-AFAB who experienced severe IPV
victimization but who did not seek help reported SGM-specific help-seeking
barriers, including not wanting to contribute to negative perceptions of the
LGBTQ community, not disclosing their SGM status, fearing support sources
disapproving their sexuality, and perceiving a lack of tailored and affirming
services. Studies have shown that IPV-exposed SGM individuals do not seek
help because of experiences of stigma, anticipation of rejection, and fears of
perpetuating negative stereotypes about SGM people (Calton et al., 2016;
Edwards et al., 2015; Ollen et al., 2017). Moreover, the low endorsement
across SGM-specific barriers in this study could be because nearly two-thirds
of the sample who sought help were in classes demarcated by interpersonal
closeness, suggesting that SGM-AFAB are likely to seek help from affirming
informal supports.
In addition to minimizing abuse, SGM-AFAB who experienced coercive
control and who identified as IPV victims did not seek help because of antici-
pated judgment/blame. Less visible IPV forms, such as coercive control,
compared to those that may be more visible, may influence perceived sever-
ity of IPV and thus lower help-seeking behavior (Frankland & Brown, 2014).

20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Moreover, studies have demonstrated that individual and social attitudes
toward IPV survivors (e.g., victim-blaming, deservingness beliefs) influ-
ences help-seeking (Overstreet et al., 2019).
Help-seeking facilitators and barriers classes did not vary across minority
stressors measured in this study (i.e., internalized stigma, microaggressions,
LGBTQ victimization). That is, regardless of levels of proximal or distal
minority stressors, SGM-AFAB report similar reasons for deciding whether
to seek help. Future research should consider investigating potential mod-
erators of the association between minority stressors and help-seeking facili-
tators and barriers classes, including stigma-related stress reactions (e.g.,
social isolation, emotion dysregulation, avoidance) to help clarify for whom
this association might be present. In addition, it is possible that structural
minority stressors (e.g., anti-SGM structural stigma, gender-based structural
stigma) could distinguish between latent classes of facilitators in this
population.
Limitations and Future Directions
Limitations should be noted. Data were cross-sectional and measures used
inconsistent timeframes, limiting our ability to detect temporal sequencing
among variables. Data from the first timepoint assessing help-seeking behav-
ior were used given that not all participants provided answers to the help-
seeking question across time points. In addition, potential misclassification
and under-reporting of IPV victimization and help-seeking might have biased
results. The study used retrospective self-report measures and did not include
measures of access to or satisfaction with help-seeking. This study did not
distinguish latent classes by support source, which could have masked differ-
ences in facilitators and barriers by source of support. Whether these findings
generalize to older SGM-AFAB, less significant relationships, and SGM
assigned male at birth is unknown. Also, our measures did not include trans-
gender-specific or intersectional stressors, or animal cruelty perpetrated by
partners. Given that 19.7% of our sample identified as gender minority, we
did not have enough power to test transgender-specific stress effects on
classes. Our small sample size may have contributed to large standard errors
and confidence intervals.
We also note future research directions. First, research should examine
whether different mechanisms (e.g., endorsement of gender role norms,
ambivalence in identifying as an IPV victim) influence help-seeking facilita-
tors and barriers. Future studies could respond to calls for research to exam-
ine help-seeking patterns among SGM-AFAB among those who had
witnessed animal cruelty (Riggs et al., 2021). Research should also assess

Scheer et al. 21
associations between IPV victim identity centrality (i.e., perceiving identity
as IPV victims as important to self-concept) or salience (i.e., perceiving iden-
tity as IPV victims as relevant; Overstreet et al., 2019) and help-seeking bar-
riers classes among SGM-AFAB. Research is also needed to understand
IPV-exposed SGM-AFAB participants’ goals for help-seeking (e.g., to reduce
symptoms vs. leave abusive relationships) to develop tailored prevention and
intervention efforts for this population. Time-series studies might consider
assessing help-seeking facilitators and barriers over time and examining the
timing of SGM-AFAB participants’ IPV exposure and help-seeking.
Conclusion
This study highlights the large proportion of SGM-AFAB who experience
severe IPV but do not seek help; elucidates heterogeneity in factors that facil-
itate and represent barriers to IPV help-seeking among SGM-AFAB; and
identifies sexual and gender identity, coercive control, and identity as an IPV
victim as correlates of latent classes of help-seeking facilitators and barriers.
Our findings underscore the need to improve IPV-related care engagement
and access to affirming and nonjudgmental support among SGM-AFAB, par-
ticularly those who hold multiple marginalized identities, who experience
coercive control, and who identify as IPV victims. Results also highlight
research, clinical, and public health priorities, including promoting cam-
paigns that raise awareness of SGM IPV rates and patterns, fostering a “net-
work oriented” approach to providing services for SGM-AFAB, and reducing
self-blame among SGM-AFAB.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/
or authorship of this article: This study was supported by a grant from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant No. R01HD086170; PI:
Whitton). Dr. Jillian R. Scheer acknowledges support from the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant under K01AA028239. Cory J. Cascalheira is
supported as a RISE Fellow by the National Institutes of Health (R25GM061222).
The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not nec-
essarily reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health or the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development. We thank Christina Dyar, Parks Dunlap,
Jazz Stephens, Arielle Zimmerman, Kitty Beuhler, Greg Swann, Shariell Crosby, Kai

22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Korpeck, Deborah Capaldi, and Brian Mustanski for their assistance with the larger
study. We also thank the FAB400 participants for their invaluable contributions to
understanding the health of the sexual and gender minority community.
ORCID iD
Jillian R. Scheer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7311-5904
References
Ameral, V., Palm Reed, K. M., & Hines, D. A. (2017). An analysis of help-seeking
patterns among college student victims of sexual assault, dating violence, and
stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5311–5335. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260517721169
Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2010). Formal and informal help-seeking associated
with women’s and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada.
Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2009.12.009
Bakk, Z., Tekle, F. B., & Vermunt, J. K. (2013). Estimating the association
between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted
three-step approaches. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 272–311. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0081175012470644
Ben-Porat, A. (2017). Patterns of service utilization among women who are victims
of domestic violence: The contribution of cultural background, characteristics
of violence, and psychological distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35
(17–18), 3167–3187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517707308
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A
practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick,
M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). National intimate partner and sexual
violence survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://doi.
org/10.1037/e621642012-003
Borders, A., Guillén, L. A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Rumination, sexual orienta-
tion uncertainty, and psychological distress in sexual minority university stu-
dents. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(4), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0011000014527002
Bundock, K., Chan, C., & Hewitt, O. (2020). Adolescents’ help-seeking behavior and
intentions following adolescent dating violence: A systematic review. Trauma,
Violence & Abuse, 21(2), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018770412
Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to help seeking
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner
violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1524838015585318

Scheer et al. 23
Cheng, S.-Y., Wachter, K., Kappas, A., Brown, M. L., Messing, J. T., Bagwell-Gray,
M., & Jiwatram-Negron, T. (2020). Patterns of help-seeking strategies in response
to intimate partner violence: A latent class analysis. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520966671
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic
pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 54–71. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.54
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist
politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167. https://chicagoun-
bound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Decker, M., Littleton, H. L., & Edwards, K. M. (2018). An updated review of the lit-
erature on LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence. Current Sexual Health Reports,
10(4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0173-2
Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2019). Help-seeking among lesbian, gay, bisexual and/
or transgender victims/survivors of domestic violence and abuse: The impacts
of cisgendered heteronormativity and invisibility. Journal of Sociology, 56(4),
554–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319882088
Dyar, C., Messinger, A. M., Newcomb, M. E., Byck, G. R., Dunlap, P., & Whitton,
S. W. (2021). Development and initial validation of three culturally sensi-
tive measures of intimate partner violence for sexual and gender minority
populations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16). https://doi.org/10
.1177/0886260519846856
Dyar, C., Sarno, E. L., Newcomb, M. E., & Whitton, S. W. (2020). Longitudinal
associations between minority stress, internalizing symptoms, and substance use
among sexual and gender minority individuals assigned female at birth. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(5), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ccp0000487
Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence
among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and
agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0038656
Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner vio-
lence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
013-9558-1
Goldenberg, T., Jadwin-Cakmak, L., & Harper, G. W. (2018). Intimate partner vio-
lence among transgender youth: Associations with intrapersonal and structural
factors. Violence and Gender, 5(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0041
Goodman, L. A., & Smyth, K. F. (2011). A call for a social network-oriented approach
to services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence,
1(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022977
Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L., & Jasinski, J. (2016). “I wasn’t a priority, I wasn’t a victim”:
Challenges in help seeking in transgender survivors of intimate partner
violence. Violence Against Women, 23(6), 772–792. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1077801216650288

24 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Hardesty, J. L., & Ogolsky, B. G. (2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate
partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family,
82(1), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12652
Henshaw, E. J., & Freedman-Doan, C. R. (2009). Conceptualizing mental health
care utilization using the health belief model. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 16(4), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01181.x
Kennedy, A. C., & Prock, K. A. (2018). “I still feel like I am not normal”: A review
of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual
abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,
19(5), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016673601
Klein, A., & Golub, S. A. (2020). Enhancing gender-affirming provider communica-
tion to increase health care access and utilization among transgender men and
trans-masculine non-binary individuals. LGBT Health, 7(6), 292–304. https://doi.
org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0294
Kurdyla, V., Messinger, A. M., & Ramirez, M. (2019). Transgender intimate part-
ner violence and help-seeking patterns. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36
(19–20). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519880171
Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2013). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspec-
tive on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14(2),
157–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1
Lysova, A., & Dim, E. E. (2022). Severity of victimization and formal help seek-
ing among men who experienced intimate partner violence in their ongoing rela-
tionships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1404–1429. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260520922352
Mapes, A. R., & Cavell, T. A. (2021). Perceived barriers, relationship quality, and
informal mentors: Adolescents’ preference for disclosing about dating violence.
Journal of Community Psychology, 49(7), 2719–2737. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcop.22666
McCauley, H. L., Bonomi, A. E., Maas, M. K., Bogen, K. W., & O’Malley, T. L.
(2018). #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou: Social media underscore the realities of inti-
mate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 27(7), 885–891. https://doi.
org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6560
National Institutes of Health. (2001, August 8). NOT-OD-01-053: NIH Policy on
Reporting Race and Ethnicity Data: Subjects in Clinical Research. Author.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-01-053.html.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number
of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo
simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Ogbe, E., Harmon, S., Van den Bergh, R., & Degomme, O. (2020). A systematic
review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social
support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors. PLoS One, 15(6). https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

Scheer et al. 25
Ollen, E. W., Ameral, V. E., Palm Reed, K., & Hines, D. A. (2017). Sexual minor-
ity college students’ perceptions on dating violence and sexual assault. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000180
Overstreet, N. M., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatiza-
tion model and barriers to help-seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
35(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746599
Overstreet, N. M., Willie, T. C., & Sullivan, T. P. (2019). Stigmatizing reactions
versus general negative reactions to partner violence disclosure as predictors
of avoidance coping and depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8),
1734–1752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516653753
Pachankis, J. E., Soulliard, Z. A., Morris, F., & Seager van Dyk, I. (2022). A model
for adapting evidence-based interventions to be LGBQ-affirmative: Putting
minority stress principles and case conceptualization into clinical research
and practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cbpra.2021.11.005
Peitzmeier, S. M., Malik, M., Kattari, S. K., Marrow, E., Stephenson, R., Agénor, M.,
& Reisner, S. L. (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. American
Journal of Public Health, 110(9), e1–e14.
Pescosolido, B. A., & Boyer, C. A. (2010). Understanding the context and dynamic
social processes of mental health treatment. In T. L. Scheid & T. N. Brown (Eds.),
A handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems
(2nd ed., pp. 420–438). Cambridge University Press.
Pilkington, N. W., & ’D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology,
23(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199501)23:
1<34::AID-JCOP2290230105>3.0.CO;2-N
Puckett, J. A., Newcomb, M. E., Ryan, D. T., Swann, G., Garofalo, R., & Mustanski,
B. (2017). Internalized homophobia and perceived stigma: A validation study of
stigma measures in a sample of young men who have sex with men. Sexuality
Research & Social Policy, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-
0258-5
Ravi, K. E., Robinson, S. R., & Schrag, R. V. (2021). Facilitators of formal
help-seeking for adult survivors of IPV in the United States: A systematic
review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838021995954
Riggs, D. W., Taylor, N., Fraser, H., Donovan, C., & Signal, T. (2021). The link
between domestic violence and abuse and animal cruelty in the intimate rela-
tionships of people of diverse genders and/or sexualities: A binational study.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), NP3169–NP3195. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260518771681
Robinson, S. R., Ravi, K., & Voth Schrag, R. J. (2021). A systematic review
of barriers to formal help seeking for adult survivors of IPV in the United

26 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
States, 2005-2019. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1279–1295. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838020916254
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). The health belief model and preventive health behav-
ior. Health Education & Behavior, 2(4), 354–386. https://doi.org/10.1177
/109019817400200405
Sabri, B., Renner, L. M., Stockman, J. K., Mittal, M., & Decker, M. R. (2014). Risk
factors for severe intimate partner violence and violence-related injuries among
women in India. Women & Health, 54(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/036
30242.2014.896445
Scheer, J. R., & Baams, L. (2021). Help-seeking patterns among LGBTQ young adults
exposed to intimate partner violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 36(17–18), 8050–8069. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519848785
Scheer, J. R., Edwards, K. M., Helminen, E. C., & Watson, R. J. (2021). Victimization
typologies among a large national sample of sexual and gender minority
adolescents. LGBT Health, 8(8), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021
.0024
Scheer, J. R., Martin-Storey, A., & Baams, L. (2020). Help-seeking barriers among
sexual and gender minority individuals who experience intimate partner violence
victimization. In B. Russell (Ed.), Intimate partner violence and the LGBT+
community: Understanding power dynamics (1st ed., pp. 139–158). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44762-5_8
Scheer, J. R., McConocha, E., Behari, K., & Pachankis, J. E. (2021). Sexual violence
as a mediator of sexual orientation disparities in alcohol use, suicidality, and
sexual-risk behaviour among female youth. Psychology and Sexuality, 12(1–2),
37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1690031
Schwab-Reese, L. M., Currie, D., Mishra, A. A., & Peek-Asa, C. (2021). A compari-
son of violence victimization and polyvictimization experiences among sexual
minority and heterosexual adolescents and young adults. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 36(11–12). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518808853
Skinner, C. S., Tiro, J., & Champion, V. L. (2015). The health belief model. In Glanz,
K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K, Health behavior: Theory, research, and prac-
tice (5th ed., pp. 75–94). Jossey-Bass.
Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against
Women, 25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191
Smalley, K. B., Warren, J. C., & Barefoot, K. N. (2016). Differences in health
risk behaviors across understudied LGBT subgroups. Health Psychology, 35(2),
103–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000231
Swann, G., Bettin, E., Ryan, D. T., Clifford, A., Newcomb, M. E., Whitton, S. W., &
Mustanski, B. (2022). The Sexual Orientation Microaggression Inventory Short
Form (SOMI-SF): Validation in Three Samples of Racially/Ethnically Diverse
Sexual Minority Youth. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13178-022-00695-x
Swann, G., Minshew, R., Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Validation of the
sexual orientation microaggression inventory in two diverse samples of LGBTQ

Scheer et al. 27
youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(6), 1289–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-016-0718-2
Sylaska, K. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2015). Disclosure experiences of sexual minor-
ity college student victims of intimate partner violence. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 55(3–4), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-
9717-z
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2016). (tech.). Technical guide for Latent GOLD 5.1:
Basic, advanced, and syntax. Statistical Innovations Inc. https://www.statistica-
linnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/LGtechnical.pdf
Whitton, S. W., Dyar, C., Mustanski, B., & Newcomb, M. E. (2019). Intimate part-
ner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young
adults assigned female at birth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 232–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319838972
Whitton, S. W., Newcomb, M. E., Messinger, A. M., Byck, G., & Mustanski, B.
(2016). A longitudinal study of IPV victimization among sexual minority
youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(5), 912–945. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0886260516646093
Woulfe, J. M., & Goodman, L. A. (2021). Identity abuse as a tactic of violence
in LGBTQ communities: Initial validation of the Identity Abuse Measure.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2656–2676. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0886260518760018
Wright, E. N., Anderson, J., Phillips, K., & Miyamoto, S. (2021). Help-seeking
and barriers to care in intimate partner sexual violence: A systematic review.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1524838021998305
Author Biographies
Jillian R. Scheer, PhD, is a licensed counseling psychologist, the Cobb-Jones
Professor of Clinical Psychology, and an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology
in the Department of Psychology at Syracuse University. Dr. Scheer’s research
focuses on understanding and addressing co-occurring epidemics (e.g., violence
exposure, minority stress, hazardous drinking, PTSD) surrounding sexual minority
women and gender minority people.
Margaret Lawlace, MA, is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University
of Cincinnati. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence in minoritized popu-
lations, its mental health consequences, and cultural sources of resilience
Cory J. Cascalheira, BA, is a doctoral student of counseling psychology at New
Mexico State University and a research project coordinator at Syracuse University.
Cascalheira’s research aims to (1) to examine stigma-based individual, interpersonal,
and structural mechanisms conferring risk for SGM health disparities (e.g., substance
misuse); and (2) to apply computational methods (i.e., artificial intelligence) to
expand the scientific understanding of theory-driven constructs (e.g., minority stress)
pertinent to SGM wellbeing.

28 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)
Michael E. Newcomb, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Medical
Social Sciences and the Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and
Wellbeing at Northwestern University. He is the Director of the THRIVE Center for
Translational Science in Sexual and Gender Minority Health. His research focuses on
health disparities impacting SGM youth, including HIV, substance use, and mental
health, with an emphasis on the role of romantic relationships in ameliorating or
exacerbating health problems.
Sarah W. Whitton, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Cincinnati and director of the Today’s Couples and Families Research
Program. Her research is primarily focused on the mental health and close relationships
of individuals in marginalized groups, particularly sexual and gender minorities.