Valid and reliable cross-national estimates of rape are needed to more fully understand the extent and nature of these victimizations. Methodological issues that compromise the integrity of cross-national comparisons of self-report survey data have been identified. These issues have neither been systematically addressed, nor is there a consensus as to how to correct them. This article examines the effects that the definition and operationalization of rape have on completed and attempted rape estimates from the National Violence Against Women Survey in the United States and the Swiss component of the International Violence Against Women Survey. Survey design issues related to operationalizing the victim-offender relationship and its effect on rape estimates are discussed. Cross-national rape estimates with and without addressing the comparability issues are presented. The implications for engaging in comparative rape research are also discussed.
Aebi, M. F., Killias, M., & Tavares, C. (2002). Comparing crime rates through police or survey data? The International Crime (Victim) Survey, the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice and Interpol statistics compared. International Journal of Comparative Criminology, 2(1), 22-37.
2.
Bachman, R. (2000). A comparison of annual incidence rates and contextual characteristics of intimate partner violence against women from the NCVS and the NVAWS. Violence Against Women, 6(8), 839-867.
3.
Cantor, D., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000. Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 85-138). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
4.
Cousineau, M.-M., & Rondeau, G. (2004). Toward a transnational and cross-cultural analysis of family violence: Issues and recommendations. Violence Against Women, 10(8), 935-949.
5.
European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs. (2004). Summary of the 2003 findings. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from http://www.espad.org
6.
Finkelhor, D., & Yllo, K. (1985). License to rape. Sexual abuse of wives. New York: Holt, Rinehard, & Winston.
7.
Fisher, B. S. (2004). Violence against women and family violence: Developments in research, practice, and policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
8.
Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. J. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women. Evolution, current controversies, and future research. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000. Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 317-390). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
9.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. J., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
10.
Fisher, B. S., & Wilkes, A. R. P. (2003). A tale of two ivory towers. A comparative analysis of victimization rates and risks between university students in the United States and England. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 526-545.
11.
Gifford, S. L., & Planty, M. (2002). Comparing the International Crime Victims Survey with crime victimization surveys in the United States. In P. Nieuwbeerta (Ed.), Crime victimization in comparative perspective. Results from the International Crime Victims Survey, 1989-2000 (pp. 414-429). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Boom Juridische.
12.
Gillioz, L., DePuy, J., & Ducret, V. (1997). Domination et violence envers la femme dans le couple [Domination and violence toward the woman in the couple]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Payot.
13.
Hagemann-White, C. (2001). European research on the prevalence of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 7(7), 732-759.
14.
Heiskanen, M. (2002). Violence against women and victimization situations according to the ICVS. In P. Nieuwbeerta (Ed.), Crime victimization in comparative perspective. Results from the International Crime Victims Survey, 1989-2000 (pp. 229-244). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Boom Juridische.
15.
Jaquier, V. (2004). Le silence des femmes victimes de violences sexuelles: Entre une médiatisation très américaine et un silence très helvétique [The silence of women victims of sexual violence. Between American mass media and Swiss silence]. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
16.
Killias, M., Simonin, M., & DePuy, J. (2005). Violence experienced by women in Switzerland over their lifespan. Results from the International Violence against Women Survey (IVAWS). Bern, Switzerland: Staempfli.
17.
Kilpatrick, D. G. (2004). What is violence against women? Defining and measuring the problem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(11), 1209-1234.
18.
Kury, H., Obergfell-Fuchs, J., & Woessner, G. (2004). The extent of family violence in Europe. A comparison of national surveys. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 749-769.
19.
Langan, P. A., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Crime and justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
20.
Lynch, J. P. (2002). Effects of design differences on rate comparisons in the ICVS. In P. Nieuwbeerta (Ed.), Crime victimization in comparative perspective. Results from the International Crime Victims Survey, 1989-2000 (pp. 431-457). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Boom Juridische.
21.
Medina-Ariza, J., & Barberet, R. (2003). Intimate partner violence in Spain. Findings from a national survey. Violence Against Women, 9(3), 302-322.
22.
Nieuwbeerta, P. (Ed.). (2002). Crime victimization in comparative perspective. Results from the International Crime Victims Survey, 1989-2000. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Boom Juridische.
23.
Russell, D. E. H., & Bolen, R. M. (2000). The epidemic of rape and child sexual abuse in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Saltzman, L. E. (2004). Definitional and methodological issues related to transnational research on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 812-830.
25.
Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6(8), 815-838.
26.
Straus, M. A. (2004).Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790-811.
27.
Thompson, M. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Johnson, H. (2003). A comparison of risk factors for intimate partner violence-related injury across two national surveys on violence against women. Violence Against Women, 9(4), 438-457.
28.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
29.
Tourangeau, R., & McNeeley, M. E. (2002). Measuring crime and crime victimization: Methodological Issues. In J. V. Pepper & C. V. Petrie (Eds.), Measurement problems in criminal justice research—Workshop summary (pp. 10-42). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30.
Van Dijk, J., Mayhew, P., & Killias, M. (1990). Experiences of crime across the world: Key findings from the 1989 International Crime Survey. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
31.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Gledhill-Hoyt, G., & Hang, J. L. (1998). Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997. Journal of American College Health, 47(2), 57-68.
32.
World Health Organization. (2004). Global status report on Alcohol 2004. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse.
