Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Initial Test of the Tactic-First and Item-Order Hypotheses: Accounting for Response Discrepancies in Sexual Victimization Questionnaires

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reported prevalence rates of sexual violence range widely in the literature, even in the same sample when using two different questionnaires of the same construct. These discrepancies are concerning as they indicate we may be underestimating the rate of sexual violence and, therefore, resources and treatment for victims. Thus, the current study aimed to investigate two mechanisms that may contribute to differences in reported prevalence rates across the literature and discrepancies within studies: the tactic-first and item-order hypotheses. Participants were 265 MTurk workers whom all completed the Post-Refusal Sexual Persistence Scale (PRSPS), then were randomly assigned to one of two versions of a tactic-first Sexual Experiences Survey (T-SES). Experimental conditions varied in the item order of the T-SES, one condition received the traditional hierarchical item order (n = 130) while the other received a randomized item order (n = 135). Our results suggest strong support for the tactic-first hypothesis; victimization prevalence rates on the T-SES were double compared to the traditional SES (54.1 vs. 19.8%) in prior research. Further, in both conditions, victimization prevalence rates were statistically equivalent between the PRSPS (62.6%) and the tactic-first SESs (56.2 and 54.1%), χ2(1) < 2.5, p ≈ .1–.7, contrary to prior research. We did not find support for the item-order hypothesis; there were few differences between item-order conditions. Our findings indicate that unintentional underreporting remains a threat to validity in sexual violence assessment, and continued research into the mechanisms of measurement is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

by request given the sensitive nature of the data and policy of the IRB.

Notes

  1. Although we use the phrase “victims” for clarity in this specific context, we do NOT wish to label any individual’s experience for them. Individuals may want to use the term victim, survivor, neither, or both and we affirm their choice and autonomy to do so.

  2. It is also reasonable to call PRSPS items tactic-focused rather than tactic-first given the structure of the PRSPS. We use tactic-first for rhetorical emphasis.

References

  • Abbey, A., Helmers, B. R., Jilani, Z., McDaniel, M. C., & Benbouriche, M. (2019). Measuring men’s sexual aggression against women: Evaluating robustness of findings. In Sarah L. Cook (Chair), Evaluating the Sexual Experiences Survey-Validity and Uses [Symposia]. Chicago, IL, Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/a5ea5d51/files/uploaded/APA2019_Program_190708.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2020.

  • Abbey, A., Parkhill, M. R., & Koss, M. P. (2005). The effects of frame of reference on responses to questions about sexual assault victimization and perpetration. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00236.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. E., Cahill, S. P., & Delahanty, D. L. (2018a). Discordance between the sexual experiences surveys-short forms and the revised conflict tactics scales in college men. Psychology of Violence, 9, 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. E., Cahill, S. P., & Delahanty, D. L. (2018b). The psychometric properties of the sexual experiences survey-short form victimization (SES-SFV) and characteristics of sexual victimization experiences in college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. A. E., & Delahanty, D. L. (2020). Discrepant responding across measures of college students’ sexual victimization experiences: conceptual replication and extension. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(5), 585–596.

  • Anderson, R. A. E., Silver, K. E., Ciampaglia, A. M., Vitale, A. M., & Delahanty, D. L. (2019). The frequency of sexual perpetration in college men: a systematic review of reported prevalence rates from 2000 to 2017. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 152483801986061.

  • Anthony, E. R., & Cook, S. L. (2012). Assessing the impact of gender-neutral language on disclosure of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 2(3), 297–307.

  • Artime, T. M., McCallum, E. B., & Peterson, Z. D. (2014). Men’s acknowledgment of their sexual victimization experiences. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basile, K. C., Smith, S., Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. (2014). Sexual Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv_surveillance_definitionsl-2009-a.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2017.

  • Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascardi, M., & Muzyczyn, B. (2016). Concordant responding on the physical assault/abuse subscales of the revised conflict tactics scales 2 and conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. A., & Bekerian, D. A. (1987). Organization in autobiographical memory. Memory & Cognition, 15(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. L. (2016). Self-reports of sexual, physical, and nonphysical abuse perpetration. Violence Against Women, 8(5), 541–565.

  • Cuccolo, K., & Anderson, R. E. (2020). Impact of varying item response format on prevalence rates for sexual violence victimiation and perpetration [poster]. University of North Dakota Graduate Resaerch Achivement day, Grand Forks, ND, UND. https://und.edu/academics/graduate-school/_files/docs/grad-abstract-2020.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2020.

  • Dietz, T. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2007). The effect of item order on partner violence reporting: An examination of four versions of the revised conflict tactics scales. Social Science Research, 36, 353–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLillo, D., Fortier, M. A., Hayes, S. A., Trask, E., Perry, A. R., Messman-Moore, T., Fauchier, A., & Nash, C. (2006). Retrospective assessment of childhood sexual and physical abuse: A comparison of scaled and behaviorally specific approaches. Assessment, 13(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106288391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, E. R., Menon, S. V., Bystrynski, J., & Allen, N. E. (2017). Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. S. (2008). The effects of survey question wording on rape estimates. Violence Against Women, 15(2), 133–147.

  • Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Daigle, L. E. (2016). The discovery of acquaintance rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 493–500.

  • Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 535–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014520723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kensinger, E. A., & Ford, J. H. (2020). Retrieval of emotional events from memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 455–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C. (2014). Measuring sexual victimization: On what fronts is the jury still out and do we need it to come in? Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiak, S. P., Nnawulezi, N., Karim, N., Sullivan, C. M., & Beeble, M. L. (2012). Examining disclosure of physical and sexual victimization by method in samples of women involved in the criminal justice system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(3), 161–175.

  • Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z.

  • McHugh, M. L. (2013). Examining Disclosure of Physical and Sexual. Biochemia Medica, 143–149.

  • Moreau, C., Boucher, S., Hébert, M., & Lemelin, J. (2014). Capturing sexual violence experiences among battered women using the revised sexual experiences survey and the revised conflict tactics scales. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0345-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2014). Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault: Panel on Measuring Rape and sexual Assault in Bureau of Justice Statistics Household Surveys (C. Kruttschnitt, W. D. Kalsbeek, C. C. House, & Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Eds.). https://doi.org/10.17226/18605

  • Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2010). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, I. L., & Straus, M. A. (2006). The effect of question order on disclosure of intimate partner violence: An experimental test using the conflict tactics scales. Journal of Family Violence, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-9000-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H., Weinstein, Y., & Agarwal, P. (2010). Forgetting: Preliminary considerations. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Forgetting (pp. 15–36). Psychology Press.

  • Strang, E., Peterson, Z. D., Hill, Y. N., & Heiman, J. R. (2013). Discrepant responding across self-report measures of men’s coercive and aggressive sexual strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.646393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Anderson, P. B., Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008). Assessing three sources of Misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, M., Hoffman, J. H., Lucke, J. F., & Pagnan, C. E. (2015). Measuring sexual aggression perpetration in college men: A comparison of two measures. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. C., & Miller, K. E. (2015). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 149–159.

Download references

Funding

Dr. Anderson’s work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (5K01AA026643–02). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency. Participant compensation was supported by a small grant awarded to Dr. Anderson from the Kent State University Applied Psychology Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, 58201, USA

    RaeAnn E. Anderson & Erica L. Goodman

  2. Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    RaeAnn E. Anderson

  3. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Erica L. Goodman

  4. Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Alyssa M. Ciampaglia

Authors
  1. RaeAnn E. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica L. Goodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alyssa M. Ciampaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: RaeAnn Anderson (RA). Methodology: RA. Data analysis and investigation: Erica Goodman (EG), Alyssa Ciampaglia (AC). Writing – original draft perpetration: RA, EG, AC. Writing – reviewing and editing: RA, EG, AC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to RaeAnn E. Anderson.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

none.

Ethics Approval

Kent State University IRB.

Consent to Participation

participants themselves.

Consent for Publication

not applicable.

Code Availability

on osf.io.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, R.E., Goodman, E.L. & Ciampaglia, A.M. An Initial Test of the Tactic-First and Item-Order Hypotheses: Accounting for Response Discrepancies in Sexual Victimization Questionnaires. Am J Crim Just 46, 149–167 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09584-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09584-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation