The psychometric properties of the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) and characteristics of sexual victimization experiences in college men.

Abstract

Estimates of the rate of sexual victimization in college men vary wildly-likely due to the lack of validated measures. This study provides psychometric data on the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) and basic descriptive characteristics of sexual victimization of college men via the SES-SFV. Participants (n = 405) completed a web survey containing the study measures; a subset of 69 participants completed the SES-SFV again 1-3 weeks later. Convergent validity correlations were consistent but modest in size. Two-week test retest reliability estimates varied widely by the type of sexual victimization assessed and scoring format used; dichotomous scores were the most reliable and category scores the worst. Over one in four participants (28%) reported experiencing sexual victimization at Time 1; most reported victimization frequencies greater than one (22.8% of sample). Using behaviorally specific items, one in seven reported experiencing rape (14.1%). The most common type of sexual victimization experienced was unwanted sexual contact. Rape acknowledgement among men who experienced rape (12.2%) was much lower than has been observed in women. Our results indicate mixed evidence for the reliability and validity of the SES-SFV in college men, highlight important characteristics of sexual victimization in college men, and demonstrate the need for further research on the best strategies for the assessment of sexual victimization in college men.

Discrepant Responding across Measures of College Students’ Sexual Victimization Experiences: Conceptual Replication and Extension

“…Further, the difference in prevalence rates for men was fairly large; a difference of 32.6 vs. 21.8% (10.8 percentage points). This is consistent with prior research documenting lower validity correlations for measures of sexual victimization in men (French et al, 2017;Anderson et al, 2018a) than when the same measures are administered to women. It is possible that most sexual victimization questionnaires, developed and validated with women but subsequently adapted for other genders, are less applicable to men.…”

“…The SES-SFV has demonstrated evidence of good convergent validity and test-retest reliability in past research with college women (Johnson, Murphy, & Gidycz, 2017). It has also demonstrated good evidence of convergent validity with college men and adequate evidence of test-retest reliability when scored dichotomously but poorer evidence of test-retest reliability when scored categorically/ordinally (Anderson et al, 2018a). Following, for this study, we utilized a dichotomous response format (yes or no) to assess whether each experience had ever occurred since age 14.…”

“…Rape affects approximately 1 in 5 college women (Post, Biroscak, & Barboza, 2011;Muehlenhard, Peterson, Humphreys, & Jozkowski, 2017) and 1 in 6 college men (Anderson, Cahill, & Delahanty, 2018a). However, the exact scope of sexual violence (including rape), is uncertain among less studied populations due, in part, to measurement issues.…”

“…Since 2007, the SES-SFV has become widely used (cited over 700 times in Google Scholar as of June 2019). Research has provided good evidence for the validity of the SES-SFV with young community and college women (Davis et al, 2014;Johnson, Murphy & Gidycz, 2017), adequate evidence of validity with college men (Anderson et al, 2018a), but poor to adequate evidence of reliability with college men (Anderson et al, 2018a;Johnson et al, 2017). Research on other sexual victimization questionnaires in men has also documented poorer evidence of validity when comparing correlation values to those obtained with samples of women (French, Suh, & Arterberry, 2017).…”

Differences in Rape Acknowledgement and Mental Health Outcomes across Transgender, Non-binary, and Cisgender Bisexual Youth

“…Participants who respond affirmatively to the behaviorally specific items of rape and affirmatively to the acknowledgment item are then coded as acknowledged survivors whereas participants who respond affirmatively to the behaviorally specific items but deny the acknowledgment item are coded as unacknowledged survivors. The SES-SFV has demonstrated validity and test-retest reliability in prior research with young adults (Anderson, Cahill, & Delahanty, 2018a;Johnson, Murphy, & Gidycz, 2017).…”