Improving the Quality of Survey Data on College Campus Woman Abuse: The Contribution of a Supplementary Open-Ended Question

Abstract

Obtaining accurate survey data on the prevalence of woman abuse in institutions of higher education continues to be a major methodological challenge. Underreporting is difficult to overcome; yet, there may be effective ways of minimizing this problem. One is adding a supplementary open-ended question to a primarily quantitative questionnaire. Using data derived from the Campus Quality of Life Survey (CQLS), this article examines whether asking respondents to complete such a question increases the prevalence rates of four types of woman abuse and provides information on behaviors that are not included in widely used and validated measures of these harms.

Keywords

campus climate surveys woman abuse supplementary open-ended questions

Introduction

Few fields have moved as far and fast as contemporary social scientific research on woman abuse in North American institutions of higher learning. Be that as it may, despite major empirical advances made since the mid-1980s, what Smith (1987) stated more than 30 years ago still holds true: “Obtaining accurate estimates of the extent of woman abuse . . . remains perhaps the biggest methodological challenge in survey research on this topic” (p. 185). Indeed, the problem of underreporting is difficult to overcome and is not likely to be eliminated soon, if ever. Many female survivors do not disclose their current or former partners’ abusive behaviors because of fear of reprisal, reluctance to recall traumatic events, memory error, embarrassment, “forward and backward telescoping,” deception, and the belief that some assaults are too trivial or inconsequential to mention (DeKeseredy, 2019; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013; Smith, 1994). Still, there may be effective ways to minimize underreporting and one is adding supplementary open-ended questions to mainly quantitative survey instruments. To the best of our knowledge, at the time of writing this article, there were no published campus climate studies that have done this. Note, too, that none of the 10 major climate surveys examined by Wood et al. (2017) include qualitative questions, nor does the Association of American Universities’ (AAU) survey of 181,752 students enrolled at 33 institutions of higher learning (see Cantor et al., 2019).

Smith’s (1987) Toronto woman abuse survey, albeit dated, demonstrates the value of his three open-ended questions. His measure of woman abuse was a slightly modified version of Straus and Gelles’s (1986) Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS), which was, at the time he conducted his study, the most common method of gathering quantitative data on the extent of physical violence in intimate relationships. Smith’s rendition of the CTS consists of 19 items and measures three different ways of handling interpersonal conflict: reasoning, verbal aggression, and physical violence. The items are categorized on a continuum from least to most severe with the first 10 describing nonviolent tactics (e.g., discuss the issue calmly) and the last nine describing violent ones. The last six items, from “kicked” to “used a knife or a gun,” constitute the Severe Violence Subscale.

Smith found that some silent or forgetful survivors (n = 60) in his total sample of 604 currently or formerly married or cohabiting Toronto women between the ages of 18 and 50 changed their responses when asked again in different words by a telephone interviewer. Belated responses to his three supplementary open-ended questions increased the overall physical violence prevalence rate from 25% to 36.4%, and 21 belated disclosures increased the severe prevalence rate from 7.1% to 11.3%. Smith defined prevalence as the percentage of women who reported ever having been physically abused by a man.

It seems, at least in North America, that Smith’s pathbreaking efforts to improve the quality of woman abuse survey data are forgotten or dismissed (DeKeseredy & Rennison, 2013). Even so, we would be remiss not to state that the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) includes incident narratives. Although not widely known, used, or discussed in scholarly publications (DeKeseredy, 2017), they are open-ended responses to a final question at the end of the survey that asks participants to report what happened to them. The narratives are not actual victims’ verbatim accounts, but rather statements transcribed by NCVS interviewers (Jaquier et al., 2011). What is more, the narratives lack rich contextual detail about events leading up to or following an assault, and it is hard to discern from reading them why incidents were not reported to the police. Nevertheless, Weiss’ (2009, 2011) analyses of NCVS narratives generated some fruitful information on sexual assault, including survivors’ excuses and justifications for unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion.

Would results similar to Smith’s (1987) be obtained from a large sample of female college students in this current era? To the best of our knowledge, this empirical question has yet to be answered by researchers. Thus, using quantitative and qualitative data from the Campus Quality of Life Survey (CQLS), the main objective of this article is to examine whether asking female college students to complete a modified version of one of Smith’s (1987) three supplementary open-ended questions increases the prevalence rates of four types of woman abuse and provides information on behaviors that are not included in widely used and validated measures of these harms. In other words, can belated qualitative responses increase prevalence rates and provide additional data that were not captured by quantitative questions?

Method

Sample and Data Collection

Administered in the spring of 2016 using Qualtrics software, the CQLS is a web-based survey of 30,470 students who attended a large residential university in the South Atlantic part of the United States. Unlike many other North American campus climate surveys, this one gleaned data from undergraduate, professional, and graduate students. A total of 5,718 students answered the questionnaire, which is nearly 20% of the entire student body. Furthermore, this self-selected sample is, for the most part, representative of the total campus population. Some scholars and journalists (e.g., Johnson & Taylor, 2017; Yoffe, 2014), though, assert that women who are victimized are more likely to complete climate surveys and their voices are not representative of the entire student population. Contrary to what these critics of campus climate surveys claim, women targeted by the abusive behaviors measured of the CQLS were not more likely to participate in this study than nonsurvivors (see Pritchard et al., 2018). For the purpose of the analyses presented here, only women’s responses are reported and the total number of females who participated in the CQLS is 3,271. It should be noted that a total of 410 women (13%) answered this question, but only 26 of them provided belated reports of victimization that were not gleaned by the quantitative measures. None of them identified themselves as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community.

Four weekly waves of email invitations (three were reminders) to participate in the survey were sent to students starting in late March 2016. After confirming that they were 18 or older and currently enrolled at the research site, participants were then informed that all data they provide are anonymous, that their answers could not be tracked, and that they could skip questions and stop at any time. On top of using email invitations, the sample was recruited using a variety of campus-wide publicity strategies, including an email message from the university president, advertisements on university websites, posters, and other techniques described elsewhere (see Pritchard et al., 2018). Each form of publicity made explicit the chance to be randomly selected to receive one of 20 US$50.00 VISA gift cards (also stated in the instrument). Lotteries are now widely used in web surveys and are repeatedly found to be more effective than other types of incentives (Couper & Bosnjak, 2010; Pedersen & Nielsen, 2016).

Whether or not they chose to continue, all participants were given information on free professional support from counseling services and this was repeated on every survey page with sensitive questions, including links to on- and off-campus resources at the end of the instrument. Situated under these links was the option for students to enter their email addresses in a draw for a VISA gift card. To preserve respondents’ confidentiality, spreadsheets containing their answers are securely stored by Qualtrics and are only accessed by the research team.

Measures

All the items included in the measures described in this section are provided in Table 1. Table 1 also includes prevalence rates generated by these measures, as well as those elicited by the supplemental open-ended question.

Table 1.

CQLS Measures and Victimization Rates.

	Original sample victimization rates (n = 3,271)	Supplemental response victimization rates (n = 26)
Intimate partner violence (IPV) items	18.2%	+0.54%
Shoved, shook, pinched, or scratched you, or pulled your hair?
Slapped you?
Threw something at you that could hurt you?
Bent your fingers or twisted your arm?
Hit, punched, kicked, or bit you?
Dragged you by your hair, threw you down stairs or out of a car, or threw you around?
Burned you, choked you, or tried to strangle or suffocate you?
Used, or threatened to use, a weapon against you?
Sexual assault items	34%	+0.60%
Someone fondled, kissed, rubbed up against the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch, or butt), or removed some of my clothes without my consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration).
Someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them without my consent.
Someone put their penis, fingers, or other objects into my vagina without my consent.
Someone put their penis, finger, or other objects into my butt without my consent.
Even though it did not happen, someone tried to have oral, anal, or vaginal sex without my consent.
Stalking items	45%	+0.22%
Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera, or global positioning system (GPS)?
Approached you or showed up in places such as your home, workplace, or school when you did not want them to be there?
Left strange or potentially threatening times for you to find?
Left strange or potentially threatening times for you to find?
Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had been there?
Sent you unwanted electronic messages such as texts, voice messages, emails, or through social media apps?
Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you did not want them to?
Made rude or mean comments to you online?
Spread rumors about you online, whether they were true or not?
Stranger sexual harassment items	61%	+0.32%
Said sexual things that you did not want to hear?
Sent sexual messages or pictures that you did not want (including porn)?
Asked or pressured you for a date, hook up, or sexual favors even though you had already said no?
Made unwanted sexual gestures, imitated sexual motions, or touched you sexually when you did not want them to?
Exposed genitals or sexual organs to you?

Note. CQLS = Campus Quality of Life Survey.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

This harm was operationalized using eight items derived from the University of Kentucky’s 2014 Campus Attitudes Toward Safety (C.A.T.S.) Survey conducted by the university’s Center for Research on Violence Against Women (2014; Cronbach’s α = .83). The center used a revised version of Straus et al.’s (1996) Revised CTS. The items below were introduced with the following preamble and the response categories are never (0 times), once (1 time), sometimes (2–5 times), often (6+ times), and choose not to answer:

We are particularly interested in learning about your intimate or romantic relationships. Since you started at this university, how many times has someone you were dating or a spouse/partner done the following things to you that were NOT done in a joking or playful manner?

Sexual assault

Modified versions of five items included in Koss et al.’s (2007) Revised Sexual Experiences Survey were used to operationalize sexual assault (Cronbach’s α = .80). They were introduced with this preamble and the response categories are “yes” and “no”:

The following questions concern unwanted sexual experiences that you may have had since you enrolled at this university. We know that these are personal questions and we do not want your name or other identifying information. Your answers are completely confidential. We hope this helps you feel comfortable answering each question honestly.

Since you enrolled at this university, did any of the following happen to you?

Stalking

Stalking refers to “the willful, repeated, and malicious following, harassing, or threatening of another person” (Melton, 2007, p. 4). It was measured using eight items listed in Table 1 that are derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011; Cronbach’s α = .74). They were introduced with this question: “How many times have one or more people done the following things to you since you enrolled at this university?” The response categories are none, 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, and more than 8.

Stranger sexual harassment

Stranger sexual harassment is “unwanted offensive sexual attention” (Morgan, 2008, p. 661), and prime examples of such behavior are the five items listed below (Cronbach’s α = .85). They are derived from the C.A.T.S. Survey, and the response categories are never (0 times), once (1 time), sometimes (2–5 times), often (6+ times), and choose not to answer. The items were introduced as follows: “Since you started at this university, how often has someone (NOT someone you are dating or a spouse/partner) done any of the following to you?”

Supplementary Open-Ended Question

In addition to giving respondents more opportunities to disclose abusive events, including those not listed in the above measures, supplementary open-ended questions such as ours situated at the end the CQLS help build researcher–respondent rapport (DeKeseredy, Burnham, et al., 2019; Pritchard et al., 2018; Smith, 1994). Again, this question is a revised version of one of three crafted by Smith (1987), and 13% (n = 410) of all female respondents answered it:

We really appreciate the time you have taken to complete this survey. And, we’d like to assure you that everything you told us will remain strictly anonymous.

We realize the topics covered in this survey are sensitive and that many students are reluctant to talk about their own campus experiences. But we’re also a bit worried that we haven’t asked the right questions.

So now that you have had a chance to think about the topics covered in this survey, would you like to provide us with any additional information about the quality of life on this campus? If so, please use the box below.

Like the rest of your response to this survey, any information you provide is anonymous and will only be reported grouped with other comments.

Data Analysis

Before generating descriptive statistics on the prevalence of victimization, dichotomous composite variables for IPV, sexual assault, stalking, and stranger sexual harassment were constructed. A “1” was recorded for respondents who indicated that they had been the victim of any type of behavior in each respective category, and a “0” was recorded for those who reported no victimization.

Research team members started the qualitative work by first carefully and independently reading all 410 female responses to the supplementary open-ended question. They then compared these answers with each of the quantitative ones to determine whether participants revealed victimizations they had not previously reported in the quantitative section of the instrument and to discern whether abusive experiences that were not originally measured were later disclosed. During several meetings, all team members presented evidence of victimization not previously captured in the form of direct quotes from respondents. Similarities and differences were discussed before the team reached a consensus about how to categorize the responses. Following Smith’s (1987) approach to categorizing data gleaned from his third supplementary open-ended question, behaviors were coded as additional victimization (not originally measured) or as IPV, sexual assault, stalking, and sexual harassment if they matched, or were at least equivalent to, items in the above four measures.

Results

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the 26 female survivors who answered our supplementary open-ended question and disclosed victimization not previously captured. As noted in Table 1, the prevalence rates obtained by the above four measures parallel those uncovered at other colleges across the United States (DeKeseredy, Schwartz, et al., 2019; Kaukinen et al., 2017). For example, nearly one in five (18.2%, n = 551) female respondents reported experiencing one or more types of IPV victimization. Three women belatedly revealed their experiences in the open-ended question, which only increased the prevalence rate by 0.54%. Very small increases in the rates of the three other types of victimization were also uncovered. Consider that 34% (n = 995) of the women in the sample reported being survivors of one or more of the sexual assaults listed above, but only six revealed such incidents at the end of the instrument (0.6% increase). Forty-five percent (n = 1,375) initially reported having been stalked, but there were only three belated disclosures (0.22% increase). Sixty-one percent (n = 1,862) revealed at least one sexual harassment experience and there were six belated responses (0.32% increase).

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Women Who Provided Belated Victimization Responses.

	Sample (N = 26)
Status
Undergraduate	18
Professional	2
Graduate	6
Race/ethnicity
Black/African American	0
White	24
Asian	1
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0
Native American	0
Hispanic	1
Other (including mixed race)	0
Average age	21

This respondent provides examples of behaviors reported in the qualitative section of the instrument that increased the rates of sexual assault and sexual harassment:

Freshman year I was at a bar downtown and a guy was trying to talk to me and I was clearly ignoring him. Then he forcefully grabbed me by the back of the neck and forced me to kiss him. Some other males intervened and got him kicked out. After they came up to me and said they had been watching him because he raped a girl the weekend before. It was well known what he had done, yet he was still downtown hunting for his next victim. I feel a HUGE issue with males on this campus is their sense of entitlement to the females’ bodies. I have lost count of the number of times I have had my butt grabbed by males I have never even spoken to. Catcalling is huge downtown—I have had a man whisper in my ear he was going to rape me and had countless comments telling me to smile, that I looked good or about my boobs bouncing as I walked. I have had strangers make jokes to me saying that they knew me and when I said I didn’t recall they said it was because they drugged me.

This woman had similar experiences:

I interned with Athletics which put me in the middle of the football facility a lot. I was groped, harassed with texts when I would leave, calling me “mama.” I was also watched during football games while I was on the field. This man was considered one of the school’s football legends and has since left to coach at another school, but I know a lot of other women who were treated the same way.

Sexual assault was the most prominent theme that emerged from our analysis of qualitative responses and Table 1 shows that reports of such victimization resulted in a prevalence rate higher than those of the other three types of abuse. This survivor provided the following belated account:

I was raped and physically abused a bit last semester by some stranger on main street. I was crying badly and I don’t usually cry. I haven’t spoken up yet would like to somehow. I’m afraid of him very much. He keeps trying to contact me and his brother, too, from time to time. I’ve blocked them off.

Another reported:

My junior year, my, at the time, long-term boyfriend and I were being intimate, and he was pleasuring me. I had decided after orgasming once that I was done. Long story short, he didn’t take no for an answer and did it thirteen times. I was scared to go to the authorities because I was afraid that I was going to be treated like two of my previous roommates. There are very few times I feel safe on campus and I think various attitudes in the culture here need a massive overhaul.

Eight women (0.24% of the 3,271 female respondents) disclosed harms not originally measured, such as child abuse and attempted kidnapping. Consider this female CQLS respondent’s child sexual abuse revelation:

I feel as though our campus is definitely making strides in raising awareness about sexual assault. Being sexually assaulted as a child and just finishing my trial for the occurrence, I know far more than most about the topic. That being said, I feel as though the campus is doing a great job recently in opening up discussion about the matter and letting individuals know how to confidentially get help.

In sum, a total of 26 of the respondents (0.79%) in the female sample (n = 3,271) provided belated responses because, in the words of Smith (1987), “they either had second thoughts about their prior decision not to disclose their experience or remembered a previously forgotten incident” (p. 182). Another possibility raised by Smith is that some abuse measures do not describe some people’s particular events. As well, of the 410 women who answered the supplementary question, 321 (78.2%) did not reveal any experiences with the four types of woman abuse examined in this study, but rather focused heavily on problematic campus responses to woman abuse, racism, and homophobia. This woman, for instance, stated,

The university condones significant drinking behavior and the drug scene is escalating. Punishments are not harsh enough for sexual offenders and there is still a huge stigma against women. I taught a student who was assaulted and I was appalled that someone asked me, “Well what was she wearing? Why was she alone?” The campus could be much safer but it needs to be a major culture shift. I have also heard many (mainly white) students make inappropriate comments about sexism, and homophobia appears to have become worse in the last several years.

Another survivor of sexual harassment said,

Fix the professors. I can’t even begin to describe how inappropriate some of the things that have been said to me over the years while I was a student at this school. This includes professors sending weird texts in the middle of the night. If this school really wants to change the culture at this institution, overhaul the system. Make professors accountable. I shouldn’t be in a position where professors discuss dick sizes, or cheating on their wives, or propositioning me, telling me I look like a prostitute, telling me how hot I am, telling me I should use my looks to get ahead. . . . I heard all of this during my time here. And, as a graduate student, you are at the mercy of professors.

Discussion

This study attempts to determine whether the addition of a supplementary qualitative question to a survey instrument increases the prevalence rates of various types of woman abuse on the college campus. At first glance, the estimates yielded by the CQLS question strongly suggest that this technique is not useful, at least in the context of conducting campus climate surveys. Yet, though our question did little to increase belated disclosures, it provided rich contextual data that could not be gleaned quantitatively. As stated before, supplementary questions supply information on behaviors that an instrument was not specifically designed to measure.

Previous analyses of the CQLS supplementary open-ended question show that it can also yield some information from men about their sexist and racist attitudes and beliefs. For instance, DeKeseredy, Burnham, et al. (2019) found male narratives that (a) deny high rates of female sexual victimization and make claims of false accusations, and (b) that reflect anger at, or disdain for, women, ethnic and sexual minorities, and campus diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

Still, an important question remains unanswered: Why did Smith’s (1987) supplementary questions elicit more disclosures? First, he used three, which gave respondents more opportunities to respond than did the CQLS. Second, his only quantitative measure was Straus and Gelles’s (1986) CTS. This approach was common at that time. Similarly, during the same era, most campus sexual assault studies only used a version of Koss et al.’s (1987) Sexual Experiences Survey (DeKeseredy, 1995). These were reliable and valid measures, but they ignored many injurious acts, such as stalking, sexual harassment, suffocating, and scratching. Thus, supplementary open-ended questions were much needed at that time and, at least in Smith’s (1987) case, generated higher prevalence rates.

Today, however, campus climate studies use multiple measures to enhance the reliability and validity of social variables and to yield data on a broader range of abusive behaviors (Wood et al., 2017), an approach long advocated by highly experienced survey researchers in the field (e.g., DeKeseredy, 1995; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Smith, 1994). In addition, campus surveys, as well as those of the general population, now measure electronic means of victimization that did not exist until recently.

Supplementary open-ended questions may now only be useful for capturing qualitative contextual data or for discovering new topics of inquiry, but further research using these questions is needed before making strong conclusions. Furthermore, caution is necessary when comparing answers with supplementary questions used in different surveys. Certainly, there are some salient differences between Smith’s (1987) survey and the CQLS, including the wording of supplementary questions (Smith’s focused more heavily on abusive events), the number of supplementary questions (three vs. one), different target populations (e.g., city vs. campus, Canadian vs. American), different modes of administering the survey (telephone interview vs. internet), and different sources of data (females only vs. males and females; Smith, 1989). There are probably factors other than the use of multiple measures that could have affected responses to the CQLS supplementary question, such as the length of the survey. Even so, what is clear from the quantitative data reported here and elsewhere is that a sizable portion of U.S. female college students continues to experience a broad range of abusive behaviors, ranging from nonphysical acts to physical ones such as rape.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank William J. Flack Jr., Adam J. Pritchard, and Callie M. Rennison for their assistance.

Authors’ Note

This is a revised version of an article presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Walter S. DeKeseredy

Author Biographies

Walter S. DeKeseredy is the Anna Deane Carlson Endowed Chair of Social Sciences, director of the Research Center on Violence, and professor of sociology at West Virginia University. He has published 25 books, more than 100 refereed journal articles, and 85 scholarly book chapters on issues such as woman abuse, rural criminology, and criminological theory.

Danielle M. Stoneberg is a PhD student in sociology at West Virginia University. Her publications include articles in International Criminal Justice Review and Crime Prevention and Community Safety on topics such as drug use and policing in rural U.S. communities and violence against women.

James Nolan is professor of sociology at West Virginia University. His research focuses on violence against women on campus, neighborhood dynamics, police procedures, crime measurement, hate crimes, and equity and inclusion in higher education.

Gabrielle L. Lory is a third-year PhD student at West Virginia University, specializing in criminology. Her research focuses on rural crime, violence against women, and restorative justice. She currently works as a graduate assistant in the Division of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion and serves as coeditor of The Rural Criminologist newsletter.

References

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Hyunshik

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2019). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat.

Center for Research on Violence Against Women. (2014). Campus attitudes toward safety (C.A.T.S.) survey. University of Kentucky.

Couper

M. P.

Bosnjak

(2010). Internet surveys. In Marsden

P. V.

Wright

J. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 527–550). Emerald.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1995). Enhancing the quality of survey data on woman abuse: Examples from a national Canadian study. Violence Against Women, 1(2), 158–173.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(2017). Using crime surveys as tools of critical insight and progressive change. In Jacobson

M. H.

Walklate

(Eds.), Liquid criminology: Doing imaginative criminological research (pp. 31–48). Routledge.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(2019). Innovative methods of gathering survey data on violence against women. In Deflem

Silva

(Eds.), Methods of criminology and criminal justice research (pp. 69–84). Emerald.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Burnham

Nicewarner

Nolan

Hall-Sanchez

(2019). Aggrieved entitlement in the ivory tower: Qualitative results from a large-scale campus climate survey. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 8(1), 3–20.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Rennison

C. M.

(2013). New directions in the social scientific study of separation/divorce assault. In Richards

Tauri

(Eds.), Crime, justice and social democracy: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference, 2013 (Vol. 1, pp. 47–57). Crime and Justice Research Center, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology.

10.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(1998). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian national survey. Sage.

11.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2013). Male peer support & violence against women: The history & verification of a theory. Northeastern University Press.

12.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

Nolan

Mastron

Hall-Sanchez

(2019). Polyvictimization and the continuum of sexual abuse at a college campus: Does negative peer support increase the likelihood of multiple victimizations? British Journal of Criminology, 59(2), 276–295.

13.

Jaquier

Johnson

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Research methods, measures, and ethics. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Kennedy Bergen

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 23–45). Sage.

14.

Johnson

K. C.

Taylor

J. S.

(2017). The campus rape frenzy: The attack on due process at America’s universities. Encounter.

15.

Kaukinen

Hughes Miller

Powers

R. A.

(Eds.). (2017). Addressing violence against women on college campuses. Temple University Press.

16.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

, et al. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370.

17.

Koss

M. P.

Gidyz

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170.

18.

Melton

(2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(1), 13–25.

19.

Morgan

(2008). Sexual harassment. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence (pp. 661–662). Sage.

20.

Pedersen

M. J.

Nielsen

C. V.

(2016). Improving survey response rates in online panels: Effects of low-cost incentives and cost-free text appeal interventions. Social Science Computer Review, 34(2), 229–243.

21.

Pritchard

A. J.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Nolan

Hall-Sanchez

(2018). Who speaks first? Analyzing response waves in a large-scale campus climate survey. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28, 888–901. http://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1468374

22.

Smith

M. D.

(1987). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Toronto. Violence and Victims, 2(3), 173–187.

23.

Smith

M. D.

(1989). Woman abuse: The case for surveys by telephone. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(3), 308–324.

24.

Smith

M. D.

(1994). Enhancing the quality of survey data on violence against women: A feminist approach. Gender & Society, 18(1), 109–127.

25.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(3), 465–479.

26.

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.

27.

Weiss

K. G.

(2009). “Boys will be boys” and other gendered accounts: An exploration of victims’ excuses and justifications for unwanted sexual contact and coercion. Violence Against Women, 15(7), 810–834.

28.

Weiss

K. G.

(2011). Neutralizing sexual victimization: A typology of victims’ non-reporting accounts. Theoretical Criminology, 15(4), 445–467.

29.

Wood

Sulley

Kammer-Kerwick

Follingstad

Busch-Armendariz

(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.

30.

Yoffe

(2014, December 7). The college rape overcorrection. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html