Comparing sexual assault prevalence estimates obtained with direct and indirect questioning techniques

Violence Against Women

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 219-235

  Krebs, Christopher P ^a   Lindquist, Christine H ^a   Warner, Tara D ^b   Fisher, Bonnie S ^c   Martin, Sandra L ^d   Childers, James M ^e  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^e TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

indirect questioning; item count; sexual assault; sexual victimization

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RAPE; SELF REPORT; STATISTICS; VALIDATION STUDY; VICTIM;

CRIME VICTIMS; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RAPE; SELF REPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79751490556     PISSN: 10778012     EISSN: 15528448     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077801210397743     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ahart, A.M., & Sackett, P.R. (2004). A new method of examining relationships between individual difference measures and sensitive behavior criteria: Evaluating the unmatched count technique. Organizational Research Method, 7, 101-114.
2. Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims' experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 63, 702-717.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
5. Dalton, D.R., Wimbush, J.C., & Daily, C.M. (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 47, 817-828.
6. Droitcour, J., Caspar, R.A., Hubbard, M.L., Parsley, T.L., Visscher, W., & Ezzati, T.M. (1991). The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: A review of its development and a case study application. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowitz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 185-210). New York: John Wiley.
7. Fisher, B.S., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies, and future research (NCJ 185543). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
8. Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (NCJ 182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
9. Folsom, R.E., & Singh, A.C. (2000, August). The generalized exponential model for sampling weight calibration for extreme values, non-response, and post-stratification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, Indianapolis, IN.
10. Jones, E.F., & Forrest, J.D. (1992). Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976 to 1988. Demography, 29, 113-126.
11. Koss, M.P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.
12. Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., & White, J. (2007). The Revised Sexual Experiences Survey. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.
13. Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization among a national sample of students in higher education. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
14. Koss, M.P., & Oros, C.J. (1982). The Sexual Experiences Survey: An empirical instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.
15. Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2009). College women's experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-649.
16. LaBrie, J.W., & Earleywine, M. (2000). Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: Higher base rates revealed using the unmatched count technique. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 321-326.
17. McCabe, S.E. (2004). Comparison of web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: A randomized experiment. Journal of Drug Education, 34, 61-72.
18. McCabe, S.E., Boyd, C.J., Couper, M.P., Crawford, S., & D'Arcy, H. (2002). Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U.S. mail. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 755-61.
19. Naus, M.J., Phillip, L.M., & Samsi, M. (2009). From paper to pixels: A comparison of paper and computer formats in psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1-7.
20. Rand, M., & Rennison, C.M. (2005). Bigger is not necessarily better: An analysis of violence against women estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 267-291.
21. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859-883.
23. Turner, C.F., Lessler, J.T., & Devore, J. (1992). Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler, & J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological studies (pp. 177-220). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
24. Uriell, Z.A., & Dudley, C.M. (2009). Sensitive topics: Are there modal differences? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 76-87.