Sexual Victimization of College Women

Abstract

The Sexual Victimization of College Women scale, developed by Belknap, Fisher, and Cullen, is a specialized psychological instrument designed to comprehensively assess the scope and severity of sexual victimization experienced by female university students. The measure defines victimization broadly, extending beyond traditional legal definitions of sexual assault to include incidents involving physical force, threat of harm, attempted assaults, unwanted sexual touching, and various forms of non-physical sexual coercion, such as leveraging academic standing or promising rewards.

The instrument utilizes a rigorous, two-tiered methodology involving initial screening questions followed by detailed, incident-specific reports to ensure accurate classification and documentation of events. Crucially, a hierarchical scoring system is implemented to classify each event based on the most severe act reported, ensuring the gravity of the victimization is accurately documented within the defined academic period (since the beginning of the Fall semester).

Keywords

Sexual victimization, college students, sexual assault, sexual coercion, forced sexual intercourse, survey instrument, psychological assessment, campus violence, victimology, prevalence rates.

Authors

Belknap JB, Fisher BS, Cullen FT.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Sexual Victimization of College Women scale is to deliver a detailed and nuanced assessment of sexual violence encountered by female university students. Traditional measures often rely on legally restrictive definitions, failing to capture the full spectrum of unwanted sexual contact. This instrument specifically addresses this gap by assessing everything from completed acts involving physical force or threat to attempted acts and subtle instances of non-physical sexual coercion.

By encompassing a wide range of behaviors, the scale allows researchers and policy makers to obtain a significantly more accurate prevalence rate of sexual violence within the higher education environment. Furthermore, the scale is crucial in assessing violence perpetrated by both intimates and non-intimates, a distinction often overlooked in victimology research. The structured follow-up reports ensure that detailed contextual data—such as incident characteristics and victim reporting behaviors—are collected, thereby maximizing the utility of the findings for targeted prevention strategies and institutional policy development.

Construct

The scale is designed to measure the complex, multi-dimensional construct of Sexual Victimization. This construct is operationalized as any unwanted or uninvited sexual contact experienced by the respondent since the start of the academic term, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity or the victim’s level of incapacitation. The construct is conceptualized along a continuum of severity, ensuring that all forms of unwanted contact—from physical force and threat to unwanted physical touching and non-physical pressure tactics—are included.

Central to the measurement process is the hierarchical scoring system. This system is critical for data integrity, as it dictates that when multiple forms of victimization occur within a single incident, the incident is classified according to the most severe act reported. For instance, if a respondent reports both mild sexual coercion and forced sexual intercourse, the incident is coded solely under the category of forced sexual intercourse. This methodology ensures that the collected data accurately reflects the potential trauma and gravity associated with the most serious experience.

Validity

The foundational research conducted by Belknap, Fisher, and Cullen (1999, 2000) established the scale’s rigor. The instrument demonstrates strong content validity through the inclusion of highly specific and detailed definitions for various acts, including vaginal, oral, and anal sex, and penetration with foreign objects. This specificity ensures that the scale comprehensively covers the full domain of sexual victimization as defined within contemporary psychological and criminal justice frameworks.

The instrument also achieves high ecological validity by specifically targeting incidents involving force, threat, and coercion. This broad scope reflects the diverse real-world manifestations of sexual violence, allowing for a far more accurate assessment of prevalence among college women compared to scales constrained by narrower, purely legalistic definitions. The detailed item construction minimizes ambiguity and maximizes the probability that respondents accurately report their experiences.

Reliability

Although explicit quantitative reliability metrics, such as internal consistency coefficients, are not detailed in the provided source material, the scale’s structured methodology inherently promotes high data reliability. The instrument employs a standardized, two-part process: an initial “yes-no” screening phase followed by structured, detailed incident reports. This format enhances the consistency and objectivity of data collection.

The structured incident reports compel interviewers to systematically document the exact type, degree (completed, attempted, or threatened), and full context of the victimization. This systematic documentation process significantly reduces subjective interpretation during data coding and classification, thereby improving inter-rater reliability among researchers utilizing the scale. The emphasis on clear definitions and systematic reporting contributes substantially to the overall trustworthiness of the collected prevalence data.

Factor Analysis

Formal factor analysis results are not explicitly documented in the available materials. However, the conceptual structure of the 11 screening questions strongly suggests that the scale is designed to measure distinct, yet related, dimensions of sexual victimization. The items implicitly cluster into conceptually meaningful factors reflecting the severity and nature of the unwanted contact.

These conceptual factors likely include categories such as Forced Penetrative Acts, Attempted/Threatened Penetration, Unwanted Sexual Touching, and Non-Physical Sexual Coercion. This multi-faceted design ensures that researchers can differentiate between various types of sexual harm, reflecting the recognized complexity of the victimization construct.

Instrument

Test Type: Screening Inventory and Structured Incident Report

Format: Interviewer-administered survey utilizing a standardized “yes-no” response set for initial screening. If a positive response is given to any screening question, a detailed incident report is subsequently completed to gather comprehensive information regarding the incident’s characteristics, severity, and victim reporting behaviors.

Language Available: English (Original development language)

Population Group: Female students enrolled in higher education institutions.

Age Group: Typically 18-25 (Traditional college age group), though applicable to any female student enrolled.

Population Details: The scale is specifically tailored for college women, focusing on incidents occurring within a specific timeframe: since the start of the Fall academic term. The instrument captures incidents regardless of the location (on- or off-campus) or the victim’s condition (awake, asleep, intoxicated, or otherwise incapacitated), ensuring a comprehensive measure of prevalence.

Test Methodology: The methodology is two-tiered: a screening phase determines incidence, followed by a detailed documentation phase. The resulting data are scored using a hierarchical scoring system, which prioritizes the most severe form of sexual violence reported within any single incident for classification purposes.

The original PDF containing this instrument (pages 44-45 of Measuring Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration: A Compendium of Assessment Tools) can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/IPV_Compendium.pdf

Keywords

Sexual assault measurement, victimology, campus crime, psychological assessment tools, dating violence, college health, prevalence study.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Information not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Initial development and publication occurred around 1999–2000, with foundational research published in 1999 and 2000.

Permissions & Fees: The scale is notably documented in a public health compendium published by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). While this suggests broad accessibility for public health research, researchers should formally consult the original authors (Belknap, Fisher, and Cullen) or the publishing journal (Violence Against Women) for specific usage guidelines, licensing requirements, and potential fees, although academic use is generally common.

Reference’s

1. Belknap JB, Fisher BS, Cullen FT. The development of a comprehensive measure of the sexual victimization of college women. Violence Against Women 1999;5:185–214.
2. Fisher BS, Cullen FT. Measuring the sexual victimization of women: evolution, current controversies, and future research. Criminal Justice 2000;4:317–390.
3. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The sexual victimization of college women. Washington (DC): Dept. of Justice (US), National Institute of Justice; 2000. Report No.: NCJ 182369.

Items of the Sexual Victimization of College Women

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake‚ by intercourse I mean putting a penis in your vagina.
2. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made you have oral sex by force or threat of harm? By oral sex‚ I mean did someone’s mouth or tongue make contact with your vagina or anus or did your mouth or tongue make contact with someone else’s genitals or anus.
3. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made you have anal sex by force or threat of harm? By anal sex‚ I mean putting a penis in your anus or rectum.
4. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone ever used force or threat of harm to sexually penetrate you with a foreign object? By this‚ I mean for example‚ placing a bottle or finger in your vagina or anus?
5. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone attempted but not succeeded in making you take part in any of the unwanted sexual experiences that I have just asked you about? For example‚ did anyone threaten or try but not succeed to have vaginal‚ oral‚ or anal sex with you or try unsuccessfully to penetrate your vagina or anus with a foreign object or finger?
6. Not counting the types of sexual contact already mentioned‚ have you experienced any unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature since school began in the Fall? This includes forced kissing‚ touching of private parts‚ grapping‚ fondling‚ and rubbing up against you in a sexual way‚ even if it is over your clothes. Remember this could include anyone from strangers to people you know well. Have any incidents of unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature happened to you since school began in the Fall?
7. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone attempted or threatened but not succeeded in unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature?

I have been asking you about unwanted sexual contact that involved force or threats of force against you. Sometimes unwanted sexual contact may be attempted using threats of nonphysical punishment‚ promises of rewards if you complied sexually‚ or simply continual verbal pressure.

8. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making threats of nonphysical punishment such as lowering a grade‚ being demoted or fired from a job‚ damaging your reputation‚ or being excluded from a group for failure to comply with requests for any type of sexual activity?
9. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making promises of rewards such as raising a grade‚ being hired or promoted‚ being given a ride or class notes‚ or getting help with course work from a fellow student if you complied sexually?
10. Since school began in the Fall‚ has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by simply being overwhelmed by someone’s continual pestering and verbal pressure?
11. Not counting any incidents we have already discussed‚ have you experienced any other type of unwanted or uninvited sexual contact since school began in the Fall? Remember‚ this could include sexual experiences that may or may not have been reported to the police or other officials‚ which were the strangers or people you know‚ in a variety of locations both on- and off-campus‚ and while you were awake or when you were asleep‚ drunk‚ or otherwise incapacitated.