A Campus Climate/Violence Survey’s Psychometrics and Findings

Abstract

Data from a campus climate/violence survey (CCS) include psychometric information for survey items/scales plus findings from a large state university to promote its usefulness for assessment of interpersonal violence/harassment. This CCS can thus be evaluated for its measurement and documented findings, allowing for benchmarking purposes. An innovative measurement strategy is introduced to comprehensively capture incidence of victimization types through streamlined questioning. Tables provide detailed data for 6,995 undergraduate and graduate/professional students over a 1-year period. Adding to published literature on existing CCSs, this article provides the range of information needed for universities to determine the potential usefulness of a CCS.

Keywords

campus climate survey survey psychometrics

Introduction

With the relatively new introduction of campus sexual violence surveys and the possibility that campus climate surveys (CCSs) may be legislated (i.e., Campus Accountability and Safety Act [CASA], 2015), institutions of higher education (IHE) have begun to administer these surveys for policy and program planning at their individual campuses (Wood et al., 2017). The source of these CCSs has varied from research agencies (e.g., Cantor et al., 2015), national surveys (e.g., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014; Fisher et al., 2000; C. P. Krebs et al., 2007), coalitions of like-minded researchers across institutions (e.g., Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative [ARC3], 2015), as well as individual universities (e.g., McMahon et al., 2016; University of Oregon, 2015). It is important to note that universities conducting their own surveys have often used or adapted other surveys in existence (e.g., University of Oregon, 2015), which may limit the information obtained but which also allows for comparison across institutions. It is certainly expected that universities striving to obtain campus climate information may find it instructive to compare their campus findings with data from other sources and benchmark campuses (White House Toolkit, 2014). In addition, findings from a range of survey instruments may be informative regarding the impact of the specificity of questions, the definition of types of victimization, and the breadth of different surveys. For example, the uncertainty that has been raised over what is considered the most accurate percentage of college women experiencing sexual violence is often attributed to particular studies posting differing results that are likely a function of the way questions are asked or the samples are selected (e.g., Beaver, 2017; Gerstmann, 2019). Thus, the purpose of this article was to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible of information regarding a CCS administered at a large university along with prevalence data, such that the survey could be used by other entities with knowledge of the psychometric properties of scales and items and benchmark findings for comparison purposes. In addition, some features of the survey provide more streamlined, yet comprehensive data collection that may be considered useful for gathering sensitive information.

Purpose of CCSs

Social scientists responsible for developing CCSs have been hopeful that IHEs will consider the role of these surveys to be broader than merely responding to potential reporting requirements (White House Toolkit, 2014). At their most basic function, these surveys are expected to yield more accurate assessments of campus violence than data supplied from campus police or even anonymous counts from campus violence intervention and prevention units. However, these surveys can additionally supply data for potential institutional change regarding increased safety and decreased violence. Proactively, these surveys can provide data to support the need for changes, programs, and/or improvements that can be implemented to increase student safety. Following implementation of such programs or improvements, universities can use a CCS to conduct longitudinal assessments evaluating students’ changes in perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and responses to violence. While these compelling reasons are mostly focused on administrative concerns, students may also directly benefit simply by completing a CCS. These surveys have the potential to serve as an educational tool, for example, by alerting students to concepts for which they lack knowledge (e.g., which personnel at a university are mandated reporters), by raising their awareness (e.g., affirmative elements for sexual consent), or by alerting them to available resources (e.g., accommodations postassault). Institutionalization of a CCS measurement tool also serves as a message to students that their safety is important to the administration, which in turn can generally affect campus climate.

CCS Literature

Although extant literature was reviewed prior to the development and administration of the instrument presented in this article, it is important to determine whether information about this particular CCS provides a unique or useful purpose in the published campus climate literature. (Of note, campus climate, for this article, refers to assessment of interpersonal violence/harassment on college campuses and students’ perceptions of safety, resources, and college responses. Early literature using the term “campus climate” has also assessed student morale, and gender, racial, and sexual minority student perceptions of acceptance vs. hostility on campus.) A review of the literature determined that most studies have focused on what content was covered in CCSs administered at IHEs, especially whether the surveys adhered to the recommended content areas that the White House Toolkit (2014) considered important to include in a CCS (e.g., Krause et al., 2019; Moylan et al., 2018; Pritchard et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2017). For example, Krause and colleagues (2019) reviewed the gray (unpublished) literature and concluded that only one third of CCSs covered the six major areas recommended by the White House Toolkit (2014) and that “there needs to be a national mechanism to systematically identify survey reports and to standardize measures and reporting” (p. 611). Another focus of studies reviewing CCSs reflected concern regarding response rates to distributed surveys in that they focused on reviewing which methodologies (e.g., survey delivery mechanism, incentives) appeared most effective for producing larger and more representative samples (e.g., Berzofsky et al., 2019; C. Krebs et al., 2016; Rosenberg et al., 2019). However, these studies did not imply that the information collected would necessarily be the most comprehensive or reflective of campus interpersonal violence. Some of the research studies preferred to investigate relationships of factors in their collected data, especially related to examining victimization for marginalized groups compared with general student populations (e.g., de Heer & Jones, 2017). Even though Cantalupo (2014) believed that there were many disincentives for IHEs to conduct CCSs at the same time, she purported that benefits from such surveys were widespread. The issue more recently has not been whether institutions would conduct CCSs (Krause et al., 2019), but rather the difficulties of comparing findings across IHEs because of the variation among surveys as to how they are conducted, what content areas are covered, and how victimization is measured.

A few major CCSs deserve more detailed discussion. Early campus sexual assault studies looking at national samples of college women (C. P. Krebs et al., 2007, 2009) provided some of the earliest benchmark data on rates of sexual victimization, but specific items and psychometric data were not provided, nor were other forms of sexual misconduct or interpersonal violence included in these pioneering studies. The Association of American Universities (AAU) survey (Cantor et al., 2015) was an important model for multiple university assessment which provided an overall report for the 27 IHEs in their consortium (with an overall response rate of ~19%), but only one institution, University of Virginia, made their results public. While some psychometric information was provided on their items, this information was not comprehensive (i.e., missing means [M] and standard deviations [SDs], missing factor loadings, not listing psychometrics for all items). The survey was very long, often asking highly specific victimization behaviors and did not include some areas of content that could have been highly relevant (e.g., affirmative consent items, rape myth items). The ARC3 survey (Swartout et al., 2019), bringing together administrators and researchers to produce a comprehensive assessment of campus climate, demonstrated extensive coverage with suggestions for implementation of a CCS and provided data for IHEs for comparison purposes. However, they did not provide psychometric information to support the reliability of the scales and items or scale information (e.g., factor loadings) by which universities could judge the viability of the scales that they might wish to administer to their own students. The Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCVS; C. Krebs et al., 2016) provided some valuable information regarding survey methodology (e.g., US$25 incentive for participation produced a larger response than US$10, multiple reminders to potential participants increased participation) and provided important recommendations for researchers conducting CCSs; however, this survey only assessed sexual assault and sexual harassment with three additional items asking respondents about physical threats or violence in an intimate relationship. Forms of interpersonal violence/harassment that were not included in the CCVS were stalking, bullying, psychological abuse, and reproductive coercion. C. Krebs et al. (2016) also recommended that further research clarify items for students assessing sexual victimization to determine whether an incident qualified technically as sexual assault. And finally, Moylan et al. (2018) analyzed the quality of 105 publicly available CCSs regarding their methodology, topics included in the CCSs, and key findings. Due to much inconsistency across climate surveys, these researchers focused on the reason that most CCSs have been instituted and concluded that, “The variation in measurement of sexual victimization limits the ability of campuses, students, and researchers to make comparisons and raises concerns about unscientific measurement likely to produce inaccurate estimates of prevalence” (p. 447). They specifically cited the reason for this as the problematic use of measurement that was not shown to be valid or reliable.

Purpose of This Project

The goal of providing CCS items, psychometric data for the items and scales, and benchmark data from a major southern university was to provide a survey that could be evaluated for its measurement in light of documented findings useful for benchmarking purposes. In addition, the survey instrument provides some measurement strategies designed to comprehensively capture incidence of seven forms of interpersonal victimization through streamlined questioning. Regarding coverage, this survey is consistent with recommended topics of campus climate as well as prevalence of interpersonal violence/harassment suggested by the White House Toolkit (2014).

The campus climate/violence data set used for these analyses consisted of anonymous data from students who consented to their information being included in aggregate analyses that could be disseminated to external audiences. Psychometric data presented for this CCS’s scales and items assessed campus climate regarding perception of safety, knowledge of resources, perception of the university’s response to reports of sexual assault, risk factors, and participation in programs to prevent sexual violence. In addition, prevalence and frequency data were collected for seven forms of interpersonal violence/harassment for the prior school year from the students, and survey findings are presented in several formats (e.g., M, percentages). Basic demographics of the students were also collected. This project is expected to add to the CCS literature by providing a survey (with improvements based on concerns raised by prior literature) that can potentially be used for assessment of campus interpersonal violence/harassment knowing relevant psychometric information of items and scales used, and benchmark data for a large state university.

Method

Participants

The data for these analyses came from a CCS conducted in 2017 at a large southern university which examined campus climate and interpersonal violence/harassment victimization. Of those eligible to complete the survey (N = 21,836), 6,995 participants (26%) consented to share their survey responses for external dissemination. Of these students, 31 responded “choose not to answer” for every question resulting in a negligible nonresponse rate of 0.4%; these were removed due to providing no data. The final data set consisted of 6,964 participants.

The participants constituted a sample of 63% (n = 4,342) female and 37% (n = 2,573) male students. The racial distribution was 78.0% White, 6.5% Black, 6.2% Asian, and 9.3% Other. The majority (93.5%) of participants were domestic students; 6.5% were international students. A breakdown by class status indicated that 24.9% were in their first year on campus, 49.3% were non-first-year undergraduates, and 23.2% were graduate/professional students. Compared with campus statistics for that academic year, this sample is quite similar, with the few significant differences for these demographics being negligible (<0.20 criterion signifying a small effect size).

Content and Description of the Survey

The CCS was designed by senior faculty at a center of the university with expertise in conducting research on violence against women. In line with the White House Toolkit (2014) recommendations, survey items analyzed in this project (see Table 1) assessed both what has been termed “campus climate” as well as a range of interpersonal victimization experiences. Campus climate is the general term under which many attitudes, behaviors, risk factors, behavioral intentions, and perceptions (which are hypothesized to relate to experiencing sexual assault and other forms of interpersonal victimization) are assessed as well as students’ perceptions of whether their campus is seen to be proactive and/or responsive to such victimization. Such survey items are expected to inform university administrations regarding students’ perceptions and knowledge regarding safety/violence that, in turn, could influence policy or program changes. This CCS included items that covered all the White House Toolkit’s (2014) recommended climate assessments of students’ perceptions: university response to reports of sexual assault; university orientation toward protection of students; training for intervention and prevention; knowledge of how to report and get help; bystanding confidence; and view of sexual violence on campus.

Table 1.

Item Content, Means, Loadings, and Percentage of Endorsement of the Scales Used to Measure Campus Climate Factors (Perception of Safety, Perception of University Response to Report of Sexual Assault, Knowledge of Resources), Social Risk Factors (Attitudes toward Affirmative Elements of Consensual Sex, Alcohol Use, Peer Support for Violence), Bystanding Factors (Attitudes, Observed or Suspected Risky Behaviors, Participation in Prevention Programs), and Interpersonal Victimization (Bullying, Sexual Harassment, Stalking, Psychological Abuse, Physical Violence, Reproductive Coercion, and Sexual Assault).

Item number in a scale Item content		M	Ɩ	% of endorsement
Item number in a scale Item content		M	Ɩ	Total (N = 6,964)	Female (n = 4,342)	Male (n = 2,573)
Campus climate factors/scales
Perceptions and knowledge
Perception of safety (α = .70) Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items were assessed as “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement . . .”
1 My university cares about my personal safety.		3.25	0.82	93	93	94
2 I generally feel safe when I am on campus during the day.		3.56	0.80	99	99	98
3 I generally feel safe when I am on campus at night.		2.91	0.74	78	71	90
4 Sexual violence is not a problem at my university.		2.24	0.60	36	28	49
Safety as one’s own or others’ responsibility Adaption of White House Toolkit item (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
1. A person’s safety is their own responsibility and not others’ responsibility.		2.24		34	29	44
Perception of university response to a report of sexual assault (α = .91)Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014)/Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items were assessed as “If someone were to report a sexual assault to my university, I think: . . .”
1 The police at my university would be helpful to the person making the report.		3.21	0.82	92	90	94
2 University administrators would handle the report fairly.		3.06	0.92	84	82	88
3 Steps would be taken to prevent retaliation and make sure the reporting person felt safe on campus.		3.09	0.89	85	82	90
Accused person or associates would retaliate against reporter of sexual assaultAdaption of White House Toolkit item (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree).
1 The accused person or their friends would retaliate against the person reporting, by starting rumors or a negative campaign on social media.		2.44		47	47	49
Personal knowledge of reporting sexual assault (α = .91)Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items were assessed as “Please answer the following to the best of your knowledge . . .”
1 I know what my university’s procedures are for handling complaints of sexual assault.		2.61	0.95	58	54	63
2 I know how to report a sexual assault at my university.		2.71	0.91	64	60	71
3 I know where to go to get help at my university if a friend or I were sexually assaulted.		2.83	0.91	71	69	74
Accuracy of knowledge regarding reporting sexual assault (KR-20 = .71)Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014). Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Items were assessed as “Please answer the following to the best of your knowledge . . .”
1 Reports of sexual assault to faculty, coaches, teaching or research assistants, or resident advisors at my university must be reported to officials at the university.		0.76	0.63	75	75	74
2 All sexual assault cases reported to officials at my university will lead to an investigation.		0.64	0.62	54	50	60
3 Reports of sexual assault to staff at my university’s Violence, Intervention and Prevention (VIP) Center, the Counseling Center or Student Health Services must be kept confidential.		0.77	0.64	78	78	77
4 My university can make accommodations (housing, transportation, academic, and financial) for victims of sexual assault.		0.61	0.58	65	65	66
Risk factors
Attitudes toward affirmative elements of consensual sex (α = .80)Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Items were assessed as “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about sex between adults . . .”
1 If someone seems interested in you sexually, it is okay to have sex with them without asking.		3.65	0.88	4	3	7
2 If you had sex with someone before, you can assume they have agreed to have sex with you now.		3.68	0.55	5	3	7
3 Even if some sexual activity has started, either person has the right to change their mind and stop. (Reverse worded)		3.69	0.88	6	5	8
4 Agreeing to have one type of sex (e.g., oral sex) doesn’t mean the person has agreed to other types (e.g., intercourse). (Reverse worded)		3.64	0.56	6	5	8
5 If someone agrees to have sex, but then becomes so drunk that they can’t talk to you, it is okay to still have sex with them.		3.68	0.83	5	4	7
Alcohol
1 Social life exposure to substances monthlyResponse options: 0 (never), 1 (hardly ever), 2 (some days), 3 (most days), 4 (almost every day)(% most or almost every day)		1.37		8	7	10
2 Binge drinkingResponse options: 0 (never), 1 (not in the last 2 weeks, but in the past), 2 (yes), 3 (I don’t know)(% yes)		0.69		17	15	22
3 Number of days drinking in a typical 2-week periodResponse options: 0 = never (0 days), 1 = hardly ever (1 day), 2 = some days (2–5 days), 3 = most days (6+ days)(% drinking 6+ days)		1.14		4	3	7
4 Number of drinks per drinking sessionResponse options: 1 (one), 2 (2–4), 3 (5 or more)(% drinking 5+ drinks)		1.98		20	16	29
5 Frequency of getting drunkResponse options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (2–4), 3 (5 or more)(% getting drunk 5 or more times)		0.84		6	4	8
6 Pre-event drinkingResponse options: 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (most of the time), 4 (every time)(% pre-event drinking most or every time)		1.99		39	40	35
Risky friends for sexual misconduct or physical abuse (KR-20 = .80)Adapted from peer support for violence (DeKeseredy, 1990). Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Items were assessed as “Do you think any of your friends or acquaintances at your university . . .”
1 Have used physical force (like shoving, slapping, or punching) that is not playful against their partners?		0.06	0.91	6	6	5
2 Forced or pressured someone into having sex?		0.06	0.91	6	7	4
Sexually victimized friendsAdaptation of White House Toolkit item (2014). Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes).
1 Do you think any of your friends or acquaintances at your university were forced or pressured into having sex? (% know someone)		0.20		20	25	11
Safety planning for problematic situationsAdapted from Coker et al. (2011). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (not likely), 2 (likely), 3 (very likely).
1 How likely were you to make safety plans with friends before going out to parties, bars, or other places?		1.92		69	76	56
Violence prevention
Attitudes toward intervening in potentially violent/harassing situations (α = .85)Adaptation of White House Toolkit items (2014). Response options: 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items were assessed as “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? If a student is hurting another student, I would . . .”
1	Not get involved if I might lose friends	3.36	0.87	7	6	8
2 Only get involved if I knew them personally		2.37	0.82	23	24	21
3 Not report it because I do not want to get someone in trouble		3.04	0.82	7	6	9
4 Not report it if I might get into trouble (underage drinking, drug use, or having a fake ID)		3.16	0.81	17	16	18
Participation in university’s violence prevention programsAdaption of White House Toolkit (2014) but specifying programs offered by the university. Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Items were assessed as “Were you involved in any of the following programs in the past year at the university . . .”
1	Green Dot speeches			11	12	9
2	Green Dot Bystander Intervention (2-hr training)			6	6	5
3	Haven (online sexual violence awareness and bystander training)			42	44	39
4	Step up! (program to encourage proactive behavior and bystander intervention by students to help others)			4	4	4
5	ConnectED (a short survey and a 3-hr training)			13	15	11
	Average % participating across programs			15	16	13
Bystanding observation of opportunities for intervention in risky situations (α = .66)Adapted from White House Toolkit (2014). Response options: 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = sometimes (2–5 times), 3 = often (6+ times). Items were assessed as “During the past 12 months . . .”
1	How often did you suspect that someone was being led away for sex while they were too high on drugs or alcohol to realize what was really happening?	0.28	0.71	18	21	13
2	How often did you suspect or know that someone was being hit, shoved, or otherwise physically hurt by someone they were dating or a spouse/partner?	0.13	0.69	9	10	8
3	How often did you suspect or know that drugs or extra alcohol were slipped into someone’s drink?	0.11	0.67	8	10	5
4	How often did you hear someone bragging, joking about, or giving excuses for making someone have sex with them?	0.17	0.62	10	12	8
5	How often did you see or hear someone sexually harass or bully someone else?	0.28	0.62	17	20	11
Rape myth acceptance (α = .82)Adapted from Payne et al. (1999). Response options: 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Items were assessed as “How do you feel about the following statements . . .”
1	If someone is sexually assaulted while they are drunk, that person is at least somewhat responsible for what happened.	3.31	0.86	16	12	23
2	People who go to parties or bars wearing suggestive clothes are at least somewhat responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted.	3.51	0.83	8	6	13
3	If a person is drunk, that person might sexually assault someone without intending to.	2.70	0.82	48	44	55
4	A person who goes willingly to another person’s bedroom is agreeing to have sex with them.	3.55	0.77	5	4	7
5	If someone is sexually assaulted, it is often because the way the person said “no” was unclear.	3.35	0.56	12	10	15
Violence, harassment, and abuse factors
Bullying (α = .63)Adapted from Hamburger et al. (2011). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “How many times has another student at your university (NOT someone you are dating or a spouse/partner) . . .”
1	Verbal bullying. . . spread rumors about you, tried to ruin your reputation, called you names, or told jokes to your face or near where you could hear it? (Average % experiencing victimization)	0.24	0.63	15	17	12
2	Social media bullying. . . spread rumors about you, tried to ruin your reputation, called you names, or told mean jokes on social media (Yik Yak, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, or Twitter)? (Average % experiencing victimization)	0.09	0.39	5	6	5
3	Physical bullying. . . tripped, shoved, or hit you; took or broke something of yours; or threatened to do something physical to you?(Average % experiencing victimization)	0.06	0.32	5	4	5
Sexual harassment (α = .87)Adapted from Fitzgerald et al. (1995), Decker and Hudson (1994), and Campbell (2014). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “(During the past 12 months), how often has someone (NOT someone you are dating or a spouse/partner) done any of the following to you?”
1	Said sexual things to you that you did not want to hear?	0.38	0.85	20	27	7
2	Sent sexual messages or pictures that you did not want (including porn)?	0.18	0.84	9	12	5
3	Asked or pressured you for a date, hook up, or sexual favors even though you had already said no?	0.23	0.80	12	17	5
4	Made unwanted sexual gestures or imitated sexual motions when you did not want them to?	0.20	0.80	11	15	5
5	Touched you sexually (breasts, buttocks, or genitals) when you did not want them to?	0.08	0.78	9	12	4
6	Exposed themselves to you (breasts, buttocks, or genitals) when you did not want them to?	0.15	0.70	4	5	3
	Overall sexual harassment experienced			28	36	13
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 1,740)
1	Perpetrator was university student			60	59	65
2	Perpetrator was university employee			2	2	5
3	Other			37	39	30
Sexual harassment from authority figureResponse options: 0 (no), 1 (yes).
1	(During the past 12 months), did someone at your university with some authority or power over you offer you a reward or special treatment or make you feel that you would be retaliated against if you did not agree to have sex?	0.01	0.08	1	1	1
Stalking (α = .89)Adapted from Coleman (1997), Cupach & Spitzberg (2000), Davis et al. (2000), Dye and Davis (2003), Langhinrichsen-Rohlin et al., (2000), Sinclair and Frieze (2000), and Tjaden and Thoennes (1998). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “(During the past 12 months), how often has someone (NOT someone you are dating or a spouse/partner) done the following?”
1	Followed or spied on you and made you afraid?	0.07	0.86	4	6	2
2	Repeatedly tried to communicate with you in ways that made you afraid?	0.09	0.86	5	7	3
3	Repeatedly showed up where you did not want them to and made you afraid?	0.06	0.84	3	4	2
4	Invaded your privacy in ways that made you fearful?	0.06	0.82	4	5	2
5	Did other threatening or damaging things in ways that made you afraid?	0.04	0.79	3	3	2
	Overall stalking experienced			9	12	4
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 570)
1	Perpetrator was university student			53	52	61
2	Perpetrator was university employee			7	6	11
3	Other			40	43	29
Intimate partner violence—psychological abuse (α = .84)Adapted from Follingstad (2011). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “(During the past 12 months), how many times has someone you were dating or a spouse/partner done the following (not in a playful or joking manner)?”
1	Checked up on you by following you, invading your privacy by reading private messages, or listening in on calls?	0.13	0.82	4	4	4
2	Threatened or intimidated you by destroying something, or threatened to harm you or others?	0.06	0.81	2	2	1
3	Made you do what they wanted by threatening to end the relationship or commit suicide?	0.09	0.79	3	3	2
4	Tried to make your personal decisions for you—like what you could eat or wear, or with whom you could be friends?	0.16	0.77	5	5	4
5	In front of others, insulted you, acted like they hated you, flirted with others?	0.14	0.77	4	5	3
	Overall psychological abuse experienced			15	16	14
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 573)
1	Perpetrator was university student			46	42	57
2	Perpetrator was university employee			3	2	4
3	Other			51	56	39
Intimate partner violence—physical abuse (α = .93)Adapted from Banyard et al. (2013), Foshee et al. (1996), Hegarty et al. (1999), Hudson (1997), Rodenburg and Fantuzzo (1993), Shepard and Campbell (1992), and Straus et al. (1996). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “(During the past 12 months), how many times has someone you were dating or a spouse/partner done the following physical things to you that were not done in a joking or playful manner?”
1	Shoved, shook, pinched, or scratched you, or pulled your hair?	0.06	0.86	2	2	2
2	Slapped you?	0.04	0.86	1	1	2
3	Threw something at you that could hurt you?	0.04	0.85	1	1	1
4	Bent your fingers or twisted your arm?	0.03	0.84	1	1	1
5	Hit, punched, kicked, or bit you?	0.04	0.84	1	1	2
6	Dragged you by your hair, threw you downstairs or out of a car, or threw you around?	0.02	0.82	1	1	1
7	Beat you up?	0.02	0.81	1	1	1
8	Burned you, choked you, or tried to strangle or suffocate you?	0.03	0.78	1	1	1
9	Used, or threatened to use, a weapon against you?	0.02	0.74	1	0	1
	Overall physical abuse experienced			6	5	6
Impact of physical abuse (α = .88)Adapted from the White House Toolkit (2014). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “How often did any physical incidents result in . . .”
1	Minor injuries (bruises, small cuts)?	0.85	0.86	1.5	1.8	1.3
2	Moderate injuries (black eyes, cut lips, lost hair)?	0.31	0.81	0.6	0.5	0.6
3	Serious injuries (broken bones, loss of consciousness, head injury, burn)?	0.22	0.79	0.4	0.3	0.5
4	Medical treatment?	0.21	0.78	0.3	0.3	0.4
5	Problems with school responsibilities?	0.06	0.78	0.9	1.0	0.6
6	Serious emotional difficulties (e.g., anxiety or depression)?	1.06	0.72	1.6	2.0	1.1
7	Fear of that partner?	0.82	0.71	1.2	1.7	0.6
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 210)
1	Perpetrator was university student			50	44	60
2	Perpetrator was university employee			4	2	7
3	Other			46	53	33
Intimate partner violence—reproductive coercion (α = .79)Adapted from Miller and McCauley (2013). Response options: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often). Items were assessed as “(During the past 12 months), how often has any sex partner . . .”
1	Refused to use or kept you from using birth control or condoms when you wanted to prevent pregnancy?	0.07	0.91	2.4	2.7	1.9
2	Refused to use or kept you from using condoms when you wanted to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?	0.06	0.91	2.0	2.7	0.8
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 212)
1	Perpetrator was university student			54	50	64
2	Perpetrator was university employee			3	3	2
3	Other			43	46	34
Sexual assaultAdapted from Banyard et al. (2013), Campbell (2014), and Koss et al. (2007). Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Items were assessed as “During the past 12 months, did someone have sex with you (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration with an object) against your will when you were . . .”n = 233. Of note, percentages add to more than 100% because victims could report that more than one characteristic of the sexual assault occurred.
1	Physically forced			43.8	43.3	46.2
2	Threatened with physical harm			2.6	2.1	5.1
3	Incapacitation due to substances slipped to victim			15.9	17.5	7.7
4	Incapacitation due to voluntary use of substances			19.3	18.0	25.6
5	Escaped penetration			18.5	19.1	15.4
	Overall sexual assault of the student body			3.6	4.7	1.7
Impact of sexual assault (KR-20 = .68)Adapted from Campbell (2014). Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Items were assessed as “Please answer about any incident of unwanted sex that occurred because you were physically unable to say no, threatened with physical harm or physically forced. After the unwanted sex, did you have . . .”
1	Physical injuries?	0.20	0.81	20	20	23
2	Medical treatment?	0.13	0.75	13	13	13
3	Problems with school responsibilities	0.31	0.67	31	34	13
4	Serious emotional difficulties (e.g., anxiety or depression)	0.53	0.61	53	58	21
Sexual assault on campus versus off campus (location)Response options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Students reporting a sexual assault were asked “Where did the incident occur?” Of note, percentages calculated from the number of students reporting a sexual assault (n = 233).
1	On campus in a dorm or student housing			21.4	22.6	13.8
2	On campus at a fraternity house			2.3	2.25	3.4
3	On campus other: in a university building, study abroad trip, and other campus location			9.3	5.9	31.0
4	Off campus in a dorm or student housing			35.3	36.6	27.6
5	Off campus at a fraternity house			8.8	10.2	—
6	Off campus other: off campus at a bar/party, off campus outside, off campus on a university trip, other off campus location			22.8	22.6	24.1
Relationship of person who was the perpetrator of sexual assaultResponse options: 0 (no), 1 (yes). Students reporting a sexual assault were asked “Who was the person who had sex with you against your will . . .”
1	Spouse, partner, or serious relationship			12.4	11.6	17.2
2	Someone I was dating			10.1	9.0	17.2
3	Someone who was a “friend with benefits” or I was “hooking up” with			16.1	14.3	27.6
4	Friend or acquaintance			36.2	40.2	10.3
5	Stranger/don’t know			25.2	24.9	27.5
Perpetrator’s relationship to your university (n = 214)
1	Perpetrator was university student			59	61	43
2	Perpetrator was university employee			7	5	25
3	Other			34	34	22
Reporting sexual assault(n = 157 students who were assaulted on campus or assailant was affiliated with university)
	Source reported to:
1	Sexual assault was reported to a peer			92	97	65
2	Sexual assault was reported to a parent, guardian, or family member			27	29	13
3	Sexual assault was reported to spouse, partner, boyfriend, or girlfriend			19	21	9
4	Sexual assault was reported to faculty, staff, or other university employee			10	10	9
5	Sexual assault was reported to university’s VIP center			12	13	4
6	Sexual assault was reported to police			8	9	4
7	Sexual assault was reported to a health care or medical professional			13	13	9
Barriers for not reporting sexual assault to university personnel(n = 177; individuals who did report to the university were not included)
1	Not reported because student sought help from outside sources			8	8	4
2	Not reported because student felt the incident wasn’t serious enough			39	39	38
3	Not reported because student was embarrassed or ashamed			18	19	8
4	Not reported because student felt it was private			34	35	29
5	Not reported because student worried to be partially responsible for what happened			15	16	13
6	Not reported because student did not want other person to get into trouble			18	17	21
7	Not reported because student feared retribution			8	9	0
8	Not reported because student feared of not being believed or being blamed			12	14	0
9	Not reported because student did not think others would understand and/or would not think it was important/serious			12	14	4
10	Not reported because student wanted to forget what happened			30	33	8
11	Not reported because student did not want to go to formal procedure			21	22	13
12	Not reported because student wasn’t sure which persons at his/her university would keep it confidential and which have to report it			5	6	0
13	Not reported because student thought they would get into trouble for illegal activity			8	9	0

Assessment of “victimization” has expanded beyond the initial determination of the extent of sexual assault on campuses, spurred by the Clery Act (1998) and VAWA (1994; 2013) as major pieces of legislation mandating reporting of crime statistics to include sexual assault, stalking, dating violence, and domestic violence. The White House Toolkit (2014) sample survey, however, only included assessment of sexual assault (with follow-up questions for victims regarding contextual aspects of this victimization) and physical intimate partner violence. Because Title IX has conceptualized sex discrimination to include sexual assault, stalking, and sexual harassment, over time sexual harassment has typically been assessed in CCSs as well. As an expansion of the terms “dating violence” and “domestic violence,” assessment of severe psychological abuse and reproductive coercion as well as physical abuse within intimate relationships is considered a more comprehensive measurement of ways in which intimate partners can abuse or harass. Although “bullying” is not typically included as a potentially gendered form of violence, this interpersonal harassment has been assessed through CCSs as well.

Campus Climate Assessment

As seen in Table 1, this CCS addressed the concepts and knowledge recommended by the White House Toolkit (2014) and the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (2014), but also included known associations and/or risk factors of sexual misconduct on college campuses identified in research literature (e.g., DeKeseredy, 1990; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Payne et al., 1999). Faculty also reviewed all early versions of CCSs that were in the public purview at the time (e.g., Banyard et al., 2013; Campbell, 2014; McMahon et al., 2016). As a result, items and scales for the “campus climate” section of the survey included (a) students’ perceptions of safety (both general and specific to sexual violence; four items); (b) students’ perceptions of safety as one’s own or others’ responsibility (one item); (c) students’ perceptions of the university’s response to a report of sexual assault (three items); (d) students’ perceptions of the likelihood of retaliation by peers for a reported sexual assault (one item); (e) students’ personal knowledge for reporting sexual assault (three items); and (f) students’ accuracy of knowledge regarding administrative and reporting aspects of sexual assault (four items). The research team determined the need to include risk factors for victimization identified or hypothesized in the literature as potentially useful data for university violence prevention through planning and policy. These risk factors, which can be targeted for violence prevention, (see Table 1 for individual items and sources) included (a) attitudes toward affirmative elements of consensual sexual activity (five items); (b) alcohol use and exposure to substances (six items); (c) friends involved in violent behavior (three items); (d) safety planning for potentially problematic situations (one item); (e) attitudes toward intervening in potentially violent/harassing situations (four items); (f) involvement in the university’s violence prevention programming (five items); (g) opportunities for intervening in risky situations (five items); and (h) endorsement of rape myths (five items). (Of note, the White House Toolkit (2014) had also recommended assessment of bystander confidence and rape myth acceptance.)

Victimization scales

Several concepts guided decision-making for assessment of victimization. Expanding on the White House Toolkit (2014), covering a wide range of violence/harassment was considered important to understand the scope and range of victimization experiences of students. For university purposes, determining “victims” likely in need of services influenced employing legal definitions where appropriate (e.g., for stalking to be endorsed, the actions of the stalker had to result in fear for the recipient rather than being viewed as humorous or annoying) or more serious behaviors would be assessed (e.g., psychological abuse items did not include nonharmful couple conflict). Because a CCS survey is not a research study to provide highly detailed concepts and specificity about forms of victimization, the faculty opted against collecting victimization information for every conceivable behavioral way that a type of violence/harassment could be manifested. For example, the university likely would be best served by knowing, on a yearly basis, the prevalence and incidence of students experiencing general forms of bullying (i.e., verbal face-to-face; social media; physical) rather than knowing how many students experienced each of many specific types of bullying behaviors. In addition, covering a wide range of victimization required a streamlined approach to produce information useful to a university’s administration without producing survey fatigue for participants. Endorsement of victimization experiences on the survey was not limited to incidents occurring specifically on campus or only involving people at the university; rather, victimization of students from any source was expected to be problematic for the recipients and thus could affect their performance or require university services. To aid universities in understanding the extent to which perpetration was a function of its students and employees, however, for each form of victimization (except bullying, which specifically asked for incidents from other students), the CCS determined whether the perpetrator was affiliated with the university.

For all seven forms of interpersonal violence/harassment (see Table 1 for items), the literature was reviewed to identify all existing published scales for each form. Because existing scales for most forms of victimization typically consisted of long lists of specific behaviors, faculty engaged in an innovative approach to synthesize these lists into categories to streamline assessment of victimization without losing incidents of violence/harassment. Specifically, faculty first plotted these behaviors across scales to determine overlap among them. Then, for most of the victimization scales, faculty devised general concepts under which the specific behaviors could be classified to distill long lists of specific behaviors into general category items that would capture all individual forms of that type of victimization. For example, five items assessing stalking categories covered the range of methods by which a person could be stalked without listing all possible behavioral instances (e.g., the categorical item, “Repeatedly tried to communicate with you in ways that made you afraid,” was used rather than listing individual behaviors such as “sent you flowers you did not want,” or “kept calling you after you said you did not want to speak with that person”). Exceptions to this mode of distilling specific behaviors for developing the victimization scale were the intimate partner physical violence scale (which required specification of physical acts although some items were listed as one item if they represented similar level actions, for example, shoved, shook, pinched) and the reproductive coercion scale, which asked two items about interference with birth control and protection from sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

To keep definitions as distinct as possible, sexual assault was defined in this CCS using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) criteria for forms of “rape” as “being forced to have sex (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration with an object) against your will” (U.S Department of Justice, 2014), which includes physical force, threatened force, or incapacitation. Unsuccessful attempts at forced sex were also recorded as incidents. Thus, this survey required some form of penetration forced on a person (or the unsuccessful attempt to do so) to be recorded as sexual assault. [The survey included an item in the sexual harassment scale to measure incidence of sexual assault that did not involve penetration which assessed incidence of unwanted sexual touching. Specifically, students were asked “How often, in the past year [has] someone touched you sexually (breast, buttocks, or genitals) when you did not want them to?”] Sexual assault incidence was collected through the filter of the conditions under which it occurred. Specifically, students reported forced sex occurring against their will due to (a) physical force; (b) being threatened with physical harm; (c) incapacitation due to substances slipped to them; (d) incapacitation due to voluntary use of substances; or (e) an attempted sexual assault from which they escaped. Thus, a total of sexual assault victims could be identified, but specific data were also obtained regarding assault-specific details.

Because the original intent for the resurgence of CCSs was to collect more contextual information regarding sexual assault, and because potential legislation (e.g., CASA, 2015) would have additionally required assessment of postassault responses of victims, the CCS included items which assessed whether victims reported the sexual violence, impact of the sexual assault, and situation-specific details of sexual assaults (e.g., location, relationship to the perpetrator, perpetrator’s affiliation to the university, to whom the sexual assault was reported, and barriers for not reporting to university personnel).

Methodological Considerations of the CCS

Survey administration

This CCS was administered in accordance with recommendations by the White House Toolkit (2014) as well as other pioneering CCSs (e.g., C. Krebs et al., 2016). Specifically, all full-time students who participated in classes on campus and were above the age of 18 years were eligible for inclusion, students were given a unique link to complete the survey preventing them from completing it multiple times, the representativeness of the respondents was reviewed, and students with disabilities were accommodated. The survey remained open for 10 weeks during the spring semester and was advertised through email, yard signs placed throughout the campus, and the university’s newspaper. In addition, incentives (e.g., drawing for a US$250 gift card) were offered weekly. The survey itself used evidence-informed measures when applicable, limited the reporting time frame, insured confidentiality of responses, and provided resources for students should any experience distress while completing the questionnaire. Students in these analyses consented for their information to be included in analyses for external dissemination.

Survey design

The survey was designed with two key points: (a) to ensure that victimization was measured during the students’ enrollment at the institution, and (b) to streamline the questions to require less time for survey completion for students who did not have any, or very limited, exposure to violence or harassment. The survey was completed on the Qualtrics survey platform, which formatted the survey to be computer- and mobile-friendly. Qualtrics survey design allows for text to be “piped” or inserted based on designated criteria. This function allowed questions to be asked for the prior year if students indicated they were a sophomore or above or a transfer student returning for their second year on campus; for first-year students and first-year transfers, questions were asked using the time frame since the beginning of the academic school year. Varying the time period being assessed based on the student’s classification ensured that interpersonal forms of violence were measured during the student’s academic career on campus. In addition, the survey employed branching questions to direct follow-up items only to individuals for whom they were relevant (e.g., questions about postassault experience were only given to individuals reporting a sexual assault), thereby streamlining the survey for students with minimal exposure to victimization. Question wording and response options were inclusive of all genders and intimate relationships, and all items included the response option “Choose not to answer.”

Regarding assessment of sexual assault, most sexual assault scales currently being used require detailed reporting on specific sexual acts that occurred for specific reasons. To make this section easier for responding and more palatable to the average student, we chose a format that defined “sex” as intercourse, oral sex, or anal sex (including penetration with an object) and which asked students to report if sex had occurred against their will due to conditions that constitute legal definitions of sexual assault/rape (e.g., physically forced, threatened with harm if they did not comply, physically unable to consent to sex due to alcohol or drugs). This approach not only shortened the number of items to which they had to respond but also alleviated respondents from having to specify the type of sex that occurred.

Statistical analyses

All analyses for this article were conducted using SPSS 25. Percentages of endorsement of items and scales were also calculated by gender as well as for the overall sample. Factor analyses were conducted for multi-item factors to determine whether items loaded on the primary factor for that scale at .40 or above. Items not meeting that criterion were removed from the scale, and the alpha was recalculated. In this way, we identified some items that needed to be analyzed individually rather than as part of the scale for which they were originally expected to contribute. Scale reliabilities were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. KR-20, a special case of Cronbach’s alpha, was calculated if the data were binary. Descriptive data (M, SDs, and range of response options) were computed for items, scales, overall sample, and by male and female gender. The numbers of transgender and gender-nonconforming students were too small to include in analyses.

Results

Table 1 presents scale-level data (i.e., reliability coefficients and response options) as well as item-level data, specifically the content, item M and factor loadings, and the percentage of endorsement for each item by the overall sample and by gender. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the items and scales in the survey consisting of overall sample M and SDs, numerical response range, and M and SDs by gender.

Table 2.

Mean, Standard Deviation (SD), and Range of Items and Scales in the Survey.

Scale and item names	All students			Male		Female
Scale and item names	M	SD	Range	M	SD	M	SD
Campus climate factors
Perceived safety	11.96	2.01	4–16	11.65	1.95	12.53	1.98
Own or others’ responsibility^a	2.24	0.87	1–4	2.14	.83	2.41	0.90
Perception of school response	9.16	2.17	3–12	8.97	2.19	9.50	2.09
Accused person would retaliate^a	2.44	0.78	1–4	2.43	0.76	2.45	0.79
Knowledge of reporting procedures	8.15	2.27	3–12	7.98	2.27	8.45	2.23
Accuracy of knowledge regarding mandatory reporting, confidential sources, and accommodations	3.50	0.80	0–4	3.45	0.80	3.58	0.80
Attitudes toward affirmative elements of consensual sex	18.36	2.45	5–20	18.71	2.23	17.71	2.70
Social life exposure to substances monthly^a	1.37	0.98	0–4	1.38	.94	1.35	1.05
Binge drinking friends^a	1.10	1.05	0–3	1.09	1.04	1.12	1.06
Number of days drinking in a typical 2-week period^a	1.14	0.90	0–3	1.11	0.87	1.21	0.95
Number of drinks per drinking session^a	1.98	0.66	1–3	1.92	0.63	2.09	0.69
Get drunk^a	0.84	0.94	0–3	0.80	0.90	0.92	1.00
Pre-event drinking^a	1.99	1.35	0–4	2.04	1.35	1.88	1.34
Risky friends for sexual misconduct or physical abuse	0.10	0.40	0–2	0.11	0.42	0.08	0.36
Sexually victimized friends^a	0.20	0.40	0–1	0.25	0.43	0.11	0.31
Safety planning for problematic situations^a	1.92	1.03	0–3	2.10	0.95	1.61	1.08
Violence prevention—attitudes toward bystanding intervention	12.97	2.33	4–16	13.02	2.27	12.87	2.44
Violence prevention—involvement in university programs	0.76	0.89	0–5	0.82	0.91	0.66	0.86
Violence prevention—observation of opportunities for intervention	0.94	1.78	0–15	1.08	1.79	0.67	1.71
Rape myth	16.47	2.86	5–20	16.89	2.76	15.65	2.87
Victimization experiences
Bullying—verbal^a	0.24	0.63	0–3	0.27	0.66	0.19	0.57
Bullying—social media^a	0.09	0.39	0–3	0.09	0.41	0.07	0.36
Bullying—physical^a	0.06	0.32	0–3	0.06	0.30	0.07	0.35
Sexual harassment	1.21	2.71	0–18	1.56	2.95	0.56	2.04
Sexual harassment by authority figure^a	0.01	0.08	0–1	0.01	0.07	0.01	1.00
Stalking	0.31	1.36	0–15	0.38	1.46	0.18	1.14
IPV—psychological abuse	0.58	1.87	0–15	0.60	1.90	0.53	1.77
IPV—physical abuse	0.03	1.88	0–27	0.26	1.70	0.39	2.22
IPV—impact of physical abuse	4.05	4.78	0–21	4.56	4.54	3.11	5.09
IPV—reproductive coercion	0.13	0.64	0–6	0.14	0.69	0.09	0.52
Sexual assault—impact of sexual assault	1.20	1.23	0–4	1.28	1.21	0.68	1.28

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

The factor is an item.

Scale and Item Psychometric Information

See scale and item psychometric information, which is included in Table 1.

Internal reliability

Internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha/KR-20) for the campus climate factors ranged from .66–.91. Most of the scales in this CCS, however, had acceptable alphas at .70 and above. Cronbach’s alphas for the violence and harassment forms of victimization were typically higher, ranging from .79–.93, except for bullying (α = .63). Because the three bullying items assessed victimization of this type experienced face-to-face, through social media, and by physical means, assessment of the individual forms of bullying may be more useful than combining them into a scale. Two scales designed to assess the impact of sexual and physical violence yielded internal consistency alphas of .68 and .88, respectively. Although both impact scales included physical/medical consequences along with emotional/functioning consequences, it appears that the degree or severity of physical violence from an intimate partner (implied by severity of injuries) may be more related to emotional/functioning factors than for rape/sexual assault where the emotional/functioning disruption may occur irrespective of physical or medical consequences. Thus, the impact of the sexual assault scale might be better assessed by separating the items measuring physical consequences from items measuring emotional/functioning aspects.

Factor loadings

For the campus climate scales, factor loadings of individual items in the scales measuring students’ perceptions and knowledge were high, typically loading at .58 or above. For example, the scale assessing students’ report of their knowledge for reporting and seeking help for a sexual assault yielded factor loadings of .91–.95. Factor loading on scales assessing risk factors was also high (affirmative sexual consent: .55–.88; risky friends: .91–.91) as well as for scales designed to assess violence prevention (bystanding attitudes: .81–.87; opportunities for intervening in risky situations: .62–.71; rape myth acceptance: .56–.86).

Factor loading of items on victimization scales also demonstrated strong relationships of items with the primary factor for each form of violence/harassment. Specifically, sexual harassment items loaded .70–.85, stalking items loaded .79–.86, intimate partner psychological abuse items loaded .77–.82, physical violence loaded .74–.86, and reproductive coercion items both loaded .91. The items on the scale measuring impact of intimate partner physical violence loaded .71–.86, and the items measuring impact of sexual assault loaded .61–.81 on that scale.

Descriptive Data

Means for individual items and scales are presented in Tables 1 and 2, but descriptive data for benchmarking purposes are found in Table 1. Specifically, Table 1 provides the percentage of endorsement for individual items for assessment of campus climate, risk factors, and prevention of violence. Percentage endorsement rates for different forms of victimization are given as ever/never summations, such that if a student experienced at least one incident of the behaviors within a type of victimization, they were categorized as “ever” experiencing that type of violence/harassment in the past year. In addition, the percentage of university-affiliated perpetrators for students experiencing a form of victimization was reported to allow universities to understand the level to which victimization appears related to campus culture. Because of the poorer internal reliability of the bullying scale, data for the three forms of bullying were reported separately, but endorsement still signified ever or never experiencing that form of bullying during the prior year. Sexual assault (rape) was reported as ever/never for the overall sample, but incidents were also separately reported as to the percentage of incidents resulting due to the type of sexual assault. In line with recommendations of the White House Toolkit (2014), contextual information of sexual assaults was reported in percentages regarding location (on campus vs. off campus), relationship of the perpetrator to the victim, perpetrator’s affiliation with the university, impact of the sexual assault, to whom the sexual assault was reported, and reasons for not reporting the sexual assault to someone at the university.

Campus climate descriptive findings

Very high percentages of the students reported feeling generally safe at the university, with 99% reporting feeling safe during the day and 78% at night and that they believe the university cares about their personal safety (93%). However, female students feel less safe at night than male students (71–90%). In contrast, only 36% of students thought that “sexual violence is not a problem at the university.” The vast majority of students perceive that university administration would be fair and helpful if they were to report a sexual assault (84–92%) and that the university would prevent retaliation by a perpetrator toward a victim reporting such an assault (85%). While a majority of students appear to know how to report a sexual assault (58–71%), this still leaves a significant proportion of students lacking basic knowledge in this regard. In addition, a significant portion of students are not accurate (22–46%) in their knowledge of mandatory reporting, investigation procedures, and accessing accommodations postassault.

Risky factors descriptive findings

Only a small portion of students disagreed with statements of affirmative sexual consent (4–6%). Regarding substance use, a portion of students report lifestyles that appear potentially problematic, that is, 4% report drinking 6 or more days in the past 2-week period, 17% report binge drinking when they drink, and 6% report frequently getting “drunk.” Thirty-nine percent of students report that most every time they are going to an event, that they practice “pre-gaming,” in which students drink in advance of an event. When assessing potential peer influence, 6% of the students believed they had a friend who forced or pressured someone into having sex with them, and 6% believe they have friends who engaged in physical force with an intimate partner. Twenty percent reported having a friend who had been sexually forced or pressured.

Violence prevention descriptive findings

Almost 70% of the respondents reported making safety plans before going to events, and most students (77–93%) thought they would actively intervene in situations where a student was hurting another student even if particular barriers to intervening might arise. Of the situations presented to the students, they thought they would be least likely to intervene in such a situation if they did not know the individuals personally. Between 8 and 18% of students reported having observed the five described situations of potential violence/harassment that students are likely to experience in their social lives, such as suspecting someone was being led away for sex while too incapacitated from substances to know what was happening, or suspecting that drugs or extra alcohol was being slipped into someone’s drink. Small numbers of students (5–16%) endorsed different rape myths, except for the item where almost half of the students (48%) agreed “If a person is drunk, that person might sexually assault someone without intending to.”

Victimization descriptive findings

Percentages of student who “ever” versus “never” experienced different forms of victimization varied by type of violence/harassment. Face-to-face verbal bullying was the most common type of bullying (15%), but students also reported social media bullying (5%) and physical bullying (5%). Verbal bullying was reported more often by female students, although the other forms of bullying were reported by the genders at similar rates. Sexual harassment was the most highly endorsed form of victimization (28%) with almost three times as many female students as males reporting this experience in the prior year. Of those reporting ever experiencing sexual harassment, 62% reported the perpetrator was either another university student or an employee of the university. Stalking was experienced by 9% of the students with the majority (60%) of the perpetrators having some affiliation with the university as a student or employee. Serious psychological abuse was reported by 15% of the students and 6% of them reported physical violence (with negligible differences in reporting between genders for these forms). Respectively, 49 and 54% reported that psychological and physical abuse in relationships was instigated by a partner with an affiliation to the university as a student or employee. Other forms of intimate partner abuse measures indicated that students experienced reproductive coercion in the form of interference with birth control (2.4%) or condom use to prevent STIs (2.0%), with female students reporting interference with condom use to prevent STIs (2.7%) at a higher rate than male students (0.8%). (Percentages for psychological abuse, physical violence, and reproductive coercion were derived from questions asked only of students reporting a significant relationship during the prior year.)

Sexual assault, defined above as forced penetration against one’s will, was reported by 4% of the students, although an additional 8% reported, on the sexual harassment item assessing sexual touching against their will, that this had happened to them in the past year. Of the 4% reporting forced penetration, impacts of sexual assault were reported from 13–53%, with the most prominent impact being emotional problems (53%), followed by school problems (31%). Medical treatment was needed by 13% of sexually assaulted students and 20% reported physical injuries. Other contextual items revealed that the vast majority of the perpetrators were other university students (59%), that the sexual assault was more likely to have occurred off campus (67%; this percentages includes student residences off campus as well as other off-campus locations), and that assault victims were most likely to report the assault to a peer (92%) rather than a university official or employee (i.e., faculty, staff, or other employee—10%; university violence intervention and prevention center—12%). Eight percent reported the assault to police, although this included city police as well as university police. Thirteen percent reported the assault to a health care professional, although again this included both university health services as well as private medical personnel. If sexually assaulted students did not report the rape/assault to a university source, the reasons for not doing so varied widely. Students could choose more than one barrier for nonreporting. The most commonly reported reasons were that the student felt the incident was not serious enough (39%); the student felt it was private (34%); the student wanted to forget what happened (21%); the student did not want the other person to get into trouble (18%); and the student was embarrassed or ashamed (18%). Only 12% of the victims of sexual assault chose not to report the assault to the university because they thought that they would not be believed, that they would be blamed, or that others would not understand or think it was serious.

Discussion

A major aim of this article was to provide more comprehensive information about a CCS that not only presented its survey items, but could demonstrate psychometric data for its items and scales that would support its reliability and usefulness for future use as a CCS. In addition to providing information that would promote confidence in the use of the survey, providing benchmark data from a large university for which the sample was deemed representative was considered necessary for another university administration to consider using it.

Support for Survey Items and Scales

Because one of the advantages of this survey was promoted as collecting sensitive victimization information in a streamlined yet comprehensive manner, the excellent internal reliability and strong factor loadings of items on those scales supported our goal of producing useful scales. Thus, for assessment designed to determine the extent of student interpersonal violence/harassment, these scales are promising. The one exception may be bullying items which may function better for individually assessing face-to-face bullying versus social media bullying versus physical bullying. The internal consistency for these items assessed as a scale was not within an acceptable range (i.e., α < .70), and although they appear useful as categorical items for comprehensively capturing ranges of bullying behaviors, the three types of bullying may be distinct enough to warrant assessing the three categorical forms of bullying individually rather than as a scale.

The scale assessing the impact of intimate partner physical violence demonstrated excellent internal consistency and factor loadings using responses from the subset of students experiencing physical violence in a relationship. While the scale assessing impact of sexual assault did not demonstrate similarly strong internal consistency as the scale measuring the impact of partner physical abuse, the factor loadings were strong. Because a smaller percentage (13%) of sexually assaulted students reported physical injury as a result, assessing physical impacts from sexual assault separately from emotional/functioning consequences may be warranted.

Although other CCSs have devised items assessing campus climate (e.g., Banyard et al., 2013; Campbell, 2014; Cantor et al., 2015; C. Krebs et al., 2016; C. P. Krebs et al., 2007; Swartout et al., 2019), the psychometric data for this survey’s scales indicated that internal consistency for the campus climate factors was good to excellent, including the risk factor and violence prevention scales. Potentially useful are the shortened and adapted scales assessing acceptance of rape myths, the scale assessing barriers to intervening in risky situations, and attitudes toward affirmative consent scale, which all showed strong internal consistency as well as excellent factor loadings for the items used. The only scale indicating below acceptable internal reliability was the one for which students reported observation of risky behaviors for which they might have had the opportunity to intervene. Although the factor loadings for the items on this scale were high, the reliability of reporting having seen these different situations is likely influenced in large part by fate—that is, a person would have had to happen upon such an occurrence. However, researchers in the area of bystanding (e.g., Coker et al., 2011) have postulated that rates of observation of risky situations may increase when individuals trained in bystanding are both more aware of what situations might present opportunities for intervention and also feel as if they have an idea how to respond, thus reducing a need to avoid processing situations around them.

Descriptive Data

Benchmark data were provided for items and scales that included M and SDs (overall and by gender) as well as percentages of endorsement. Medians for victimization scales were all close to 0, which is not unexpected in a sample of 6,964 students where the likely data point reflects the fact that most students did not experience a particular form of victimization. However, the percentages of endorsement of the forms of victimization (i.e., a student was included if they experienced at least one behavior from the categories representing a type of victimization at least one time in the last year) demonstrate more clearly the proportion of students in this university sample who experienced the different forms of victimization.

Attempting to compare campus climate scales from this CCS with other surveys that have devised their own assessment scales does not appear possible. Even victimization data, which are defined and measured differently across CCSs (Moylan et al., 2018), are difficult for comparing instances of interpersonal victimization. For example, five different surveys that we were able to locate that collect data on sexual assault over a 12-month period from female college students reported a range of percentages of “unwanted sex” from 0.7–16.7% (Koss et al., 1987; Mohler-Kuo et al., 2007; National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, 2000; National Crime Victimization Survey, 2014; University of Michigan, 2015). These sources, which we hoped to use for comparison purposes, all included different types of “unwanted sex” in their data collection, rendering comparison impossible. Because this CCS assessed sexual assault/rape using the definition of completed or attempted penetration (typically considered first-degree sexual assault) and separately included an item regarding unwanted sexual touching (typically viewed as a lower degree of sexual assault or sexual battery), this distinction could potentially be used in the future for greater clarification of sexual misconduct rates.

Data are included that reflect students’ responses to some individual items that appear to constitute unique indicators rather than exist as part of a scale. For example, the item assessing perceptions as to whether persons accused of sexual assault or their friends would retaliate against the person reporting a sexual assault did not load on the primary factor of the scale, “Perceptions of University Response to a Report of Sexual Assault.” Rather, it appeared to exist as an independent factor. Survey items of interest which did not load on proposed scales are still included in the reported results with the suggestion that they can be used as independent factors for analyses.

Limitations

Because these data were collected at a large southern university, we recognize that it is impossible to know whether they potentially represent regional differences currently. In addition, the greater majority of this university’s student population is Caucasian, which also potentially limits generalizability of the findings. Further collection of data using this survey in other regions of the United States, in large urban universities with more diverse student populations, in smaller colleges, and in 2-year institutions would be important for comparison to determine the viability of the survey factors across a range of IHEs.

This CCS chose to use items that reflect more of the model of criminal sexual assault of the most severe degree. CCSs originated by other researchers have used, at times, broader definitions that include unwanted touching (e.g., kissing, fondling) in their counts of sexual assault, for which reported rates would be expected to be higher (Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015). To make comparisons of rates with other surveys, the data from this survey’s item assessing nonpenetration sexual assault in a separate item could be used in conjunction with the survey’s sexual assault data. Because this CCS collected incidence data from students for the prior year in college rather than determining rates of sexual violence since entering college, this survey’s rates are of course lower than those of surveys collecting data from the time students began their college career. Thus, any comparison with surveys using a different time frame must take that into consideration.

Implications

Like most CCSs, data on campus climate factors are presented mostly as percentages of students agreeing with scales or items, and violence/harassment data are typically represented as a student either experiencing such victimization or not. However, the function of these surveys is not to conduct in-depth research on a particular type of victimization but rather to help universities determine the extent of interpersonal violence on their campuses to potentially plan for services for students negatively impacted by victimization. Hopefully, IHEs reviewing the extent of these experiences for their students are also impelled to consider instituting prevention programs to reduce the need for intervention/treatment programs while taking a proactive approach to campus interpersonal violence/harassment.

The data from this CCS also provide a university with a greater awareness of whether perpetrators of violence toward university students themselves are affiliated with the university. While the focus of CCSs is typically on the extent of victimization, it can be quite enlightening to determine what proportion of perpetrators for each form of violence/harassment are either students or employees of one’s university, even for intimate partner forms. This has implications for intervention/educational programs aimed to enlighten and influence students’ actions and possibly also policy changes regarding employees. Data on the percentage of students for whom their victimization was perpetrated by either a student or employee (e.g., faculty, coach, staff, RA, TA) affiliated with the university allow for a better assessment of the campus climate, although administrations still need to plan for services for students experiencing victimization away from campus or from a person not affiliated with the university.

Future research using this CCS is welcomed for further replication of its elements, its psychometric properties, and resulting benchmark data. Additional analyses of the survey data are being conducted to go beyond basic descriptive data, but the information from this project is provided to produce a useable CCS with accompanying support for its scales, some survey strategies expected to enhance data collection, and benchmark data for future comparisons.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Office of the President at the University of Kentucky for institutional support. The authors also wish to acknowledge the technical support of Zhengyan Huang, Adam Lindstrom, and Adam Recktenwald, and manuscript assistance of Hayley Cole, Eric Haak, and Kellie Lynch.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support of the project was provided by the Office of the President at the University of Kentucky.

ORCID iDs

Jaspreet K. Chahal

Ann L. Coker

Author Biographies

Diane R. Follingstad, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry in the College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky. She serves as the Executive Director and Women’s Circle Endowed Chair in the Center for Research on Violence Against Women. Her research has focused on battered women, dating violence, measurement of psychological maltreatment, campus climate violence/harassment, and factors impacting jury verdicts in battered women’s cases.

Jaspreet K. Chahal, MS, is the Research Program Manager at the Center for Research on Violence Against Women. Her research interests include violence and victimization on college campuses, cultural factors and vulnerability to sexual violence, as well as the adverse health outcomes of violence and victimization.

Heather M. Bush, PhD, is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Biostatistics in the College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky. Her current research focuses on utilizing statistical methodology and data visualization to better understand complex relationships.

Ann L. Coker, PhD, MPH, is a Professor of epidemiology in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky. She is an endowed chair in the Center for Research on Violence Against Women. Her current research focuses on prevention interventions to reduce the frequency and impact of violence against women.

Caihong R. Li, PhD, is the statistician for the Center for Research on Violence Against Women, University of Kentucky. Her major research interests include quantitative methods and psychometrics. Her research focuses on the application of latent variable modeling, structural equation modeling, and multilevel models to complex data sets. She is also interested in the development and validation of measurement scales in the field of violence against women.

Xian Wu has a PhD in quantitative and psychometric methods from the College of Education at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests include data analysis and advanced statistical methods.

Candace Brancato, MS, is a senior statistician in the Applied Statistics Lab, Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Charles R. Carlson, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Robert H. and Anna B. Culton Endowed Professor at the Center for Violence Against Research. His research focuses on how religiosity affects alcohol use in underage college students in relation to sexual assault or intimate partner violence (IPV) and how self-regulation skills training can alter the physiological outcomes often set in motion by exposure to violence.

References

Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative. (2015). ARC3 survey of campus climate regarding sexual misconduct. Georgia State University.

Banyard

Cohn

Edwards

K. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

Ward

(2013). Unwanted sexual experiences at UNH: 2012 study and changes over time. University of New Hampshire.

Beaver

W. R.

(2017). Campus sexual assault: What we know and what we don’t. The Independent Review, 22(2), 257–268.

Berzofsky

M. E.

Langton

Krebs

Lindquist

Planty

(2019). Methods for improving representativeness in a web survey on sexual assault among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(23–24), 4838–4859.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—Special report: Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. U.S. Department of Justice.

Campbell

(2014). Johns Hopkins University campus sexual assault project. Johns Hopkins University.

Campus Accountability and Safety Act of 2015, S.590, 114th Cong. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/590

Cantalupo

N.C.

(2014). Institution-specific victimization surveys: Addressing legal and practical disincentives to gender-based violence reporting on college campuses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 227–241.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

, & Westat, Inc. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Westat.

10.

Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. Â§1092(f). (1998). Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. Department of Representatives. http://uscode.house.gov/

11.

Coker

A. L.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Williams

C. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Clear

E. R.

Garcia

L. S.

Hegge

L. M.

(2011). Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796.

12.

Coleman

F. L.

(1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012003007

13.

Cupach

Spitzberg

(2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 357–372.

14.

Davis

K. E.

Ace

Andra

(2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15, 407–425.

15.

Decker

A. L.

Hudson

W. W.

(1994). The index of sexual harassment: A partial validation [The WALMYR Monograph Series]. WALMYR.

16.

Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey. (2014). U.S. Department of defense. http://deocs.net/docdownloads/sampledeocs_2014jan.pdf

17.

de Heer

Jones

(2017). Measuring sexual violence on campus: Climate surveys and vulnerable groups. Journal of School Violence, 16(2), 207–221.

18.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1990). Male peer support and woman abuse: The current state of knowledge. Sociological Focus, 23(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1992.10570559

19.

Dye

M. L.

Davis

K. E.

(2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: Common factors and relationship-specific characteristics. Violence and Victims, 18, 163–180.

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. U.S. Department of Justice.

21.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Gelfand

M. J.

Drasgow

(1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425–445.

22.

Follingstad

D. R.

(2011). A measure of severe psychological abuse normed on a nationally representative sample of adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1194–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510368157

23.

Foshee

V. A.

Linder

G. F.

Bauman

K. E.

Langwick

S. A.

Arriaga

X. B.

Heath

J. L.

, et al. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 39–47.

24.

Gerstmann

(2019, January 27). The stat that 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted doesn’t mean what you think it means. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/01/27/the-stat-that-1-in-5-college-women-are-sexually-assaulted-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/#217065b52217

25.

Hamburger

M. E.

Basile

K. C.

Vivolo

A. M.

(2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

26.

Hegarty

Sheehan

Schonfeld

(1999). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 399–415.

27.

Hudson

W. W.

(1997). The WALMYR Assessment Scales scoring manual. WALMYR.

28.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170. https://doi.org/org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

29.

Krause

K. H.

Woofter

Haardorfer

Windle

Sales

J. M.

Yount

K. M.

(2019). Measuring campus sexual assault and culture: A systematic review of campus climate survey. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 611–622.

30.

Krebs

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

Peterson

Planty

Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study: Final technical report. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

31.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study, final report. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

32.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

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(6), 639–649.

33.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Palarea

R. E.

Cohen

Rohling

M. L.

(2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 73–90.

34.

McMahon

Stepleton

Cusano

(2016). Understanding and responding to campus sexual assault: A guide to climate assessment for colleges and universities: Chapter 1: Introduction. Center on Violence Against Women and Children, School of Social Work, Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey.

35.

Miller

McCauley

H. L.

(2013). Adolescent relationship abuse and reproductive and sexual coercion among teens. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 25(5), 364–369.

36.

Mohler-Kuo

Dowdall

G. W.

Koss

M. P.

Wechsler

(2007). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women . Harvard School of Public Health.

37.

Moylan

C. A.

Hatfield

Randall

(2018). Campus sexual assault climate surveys: A brief exploration of publicly available reports. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 445–449.

38.

National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV). (2000). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

39.

National Crime Victimization Survey. (2014). Special report: Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

40.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape Myth Acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

41.

Pritchard

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Nolan

Hall-Sanchez

(2019). Who speaks first? Analyzing response waves in a large-scale campus climate survey. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(7), 888–901.

42.

Rodenburg

F. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique. Journal of Family Violence, 8(3), 203–228.

43.

Rosenberg

Townes

Taylor

Luetke

Herbenick

(2019). Quantifying the magnitude and potential influence of missing data in campus sexual assault surveys: A systematic review of surveys, 2010–2016. Journal of American College Health, 67(1), 42–50.

44.

Shepard

M. F.

Campbell

J. A.

(1992). The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007003001

45.

Sinclair

H. C.

Frieze

I. H.

(2000). Initial courtship behavior and stalking: How should we draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15, 23–40.

46.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

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

47.

Swartout

K. M.

Flack

W. F.

Cook

S. L.

Olson

L. N.

Smith

P. H.

White

J. W.

(2019). Measuring campus sexual misconduct and its context: The Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Consortium (ARC3) survey. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, & Policy, 11(5), 495–504.

48.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). National violence against women survey. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

49.

University of Michigan. (2015). Campus climate survey on sexual misconduct.

50.

University of Oregon. (2015). ARC3 survey of campus climate regarding sexual misconduct. http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/scientists/ARC3info.pdf

51.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Crime in the United States, 2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

52.

VAWA—Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law No: 113-4 (1994; 2013). U.S. Government Printing Office http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/

53.

The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Survey Project. (2015). The survey of current and recent college students on sexual assault. https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/survey-of-current-and-recent-college-students-on-sexual-assault/

54.

White House Toolkit. (2014). Climate surveys: Useful tools to help colleges and universities in their efforts to reduce and prevent sexual assault. https://www.notalone.gov/assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf

55.

Wood

L. G.

Sulley

Kammer-Kerwick

M. F.

Follingstad

D. R.

Busch-Armendariz

N. B.

(2017). Climate surveys: An inventory of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at institutions of higher education. Violence Against Women, 23(10), 1249–1267.