• I need help determining the following...I am struggling alot and need help. I have linked the article
• The specific research question(s)
• The sample
• The variables (i.e., independent variable(s), dependent variable(s), control variable(s))
• The type of analysis that was conducted (e.g., chi-square test, paired t-test, ANOVA, simple logistic regression, multiple regression)
• The main findings
• A thorough critique of the study's research methods, theoretical components (or lack thereof), interpretation of findings, etc.
• https://journals-sagepub-com.liblink.uncw.edu/doi/epub/10.1177/0886260513479033

Method

Participants

A total of 302 women between the ages of 18 and 23 (M = 19; SD = 1.23) were recruited from a public university in the eastern United States. Volunteers from the psychology department subject pool participated in exchange for course credit. Because the majority of sexual assault victims are female, and we sought to maximize the number of participants with a sexual assault history, we included only female students (Basile, Chen, Black, & Saltzman, 2007). After recruitment, we divided participants into three groups based on their responses to the sexual experience survey (SES) and sexual experiences inventory (SEI), described below: (a) acknowledged victims: experienced a sexual assault as described in the SES and labeled

Cleere and Lynn 2597

their experience as a sexual assault or rape, (b) unacknowledged victims: endorsed experiencing a sexual assault but did not label it as such, instead choosing some other descriptor (i.e., a "serious miscommunication," "not victimized," or a victim of a crime other than sexual assault); and (c) nonvic- tims: did not report a sexual assault.

The majority of the women were Caucasian (64.2%). The remainders were Asian American (14.8%), African American (4.5%), Hispanic (7.7%), or unknown (8.8%). Participants' mean age was 19.3 (range 18-23). Preliminary analyses revealed that whereas women in the three groups did not differ significantly in terms of ethnicity, there was a significant difference in age between nonvictims and acknowledged victims, F (2, 118.21) = p < .05: acknowledged victims (M = 19.6, SE = 0.209) were older than nonvic- tims (M = 19.06, SE = 0.10). However, given the limited age range of this sample, the difference was quite small.

Measures

Sexual Experience Survey (SES; Koss et al., 2007, 2008). This recently revised measure identifies various types of sexual victimization, with items worded in behavioral terms. Therefore, words such as rape do not appear on the mea- sure, with the exception of follow-up items that asked participants how they subjectively classified/labeled their endorsed experiences. Labeling options included "I do not feel I was victimized," "I believe I was the victim of a seri- ous miscommunication," "I believe I was the victim of a sexual assault," "I believe I was the victim of a rape," and "I believe I was the victim of a crime other than sexual assault or rape." The SES categorizes the experiences into sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape. If participants endorse any of the items on the SES, they are considered to have undergone an unwanted sexual experience. For this study participants were categorized on the basis of the most severe form of victimization they experienced after the age of 14. The original version of the measure demonstrates acceptable levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's = 0. 74) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.93) (Koss & Gidycz, 1985). No psychometric data are yet published for the most recent revision of the SES (Probst, Turchik, Zimak, & Huckins, 2011); however, the recent changes aimed largely to increase gender inclu- sivity, item validity (i.e., do the items still reflect experiences that meet legal definitions of sexual assault?), and item clarity.

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). We used the global severity index (GSI) of the brief symptom inventory (BSI), a 53-item,

2598 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(12)

self-report scale designed to identify clinically relevant psychological symp- toms in adults and adolescents. The BSI measures the experience of symp- toms in the past 7 days, including the day the BSI was completed. The BSI includes items related to nine symptom dimensions: somatization, obsessive- compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The GSI measures the level of symptomatology, intensity of symptoms, and number of reported symptoms. Of the scales, the GSI is described as the most sensitive measure of overall psychological distress, boasting a test-retest reliability of 0.90. The for the nine symptoms dimensions ranged from 0.71 to 0.85 (Derogatis & Melisara- tos, 1983).

Sexual Experiences Inventory (SEI; Koss, 1985). This widely used measure con- sists of self-report questions regarding the most severe unwanted sexual experience endorsed on the SES. Although it is possible that a person may have experienced several instances of sexual victimization during adoles- cence and adulthood, only the most severe were inquired about for this study. The measure clarifies the details of the experience, including the relationship between the victim and assailant, whether intoxicants were involved, and whether the incident was reported.

Procedure

Participants completed the study in groups of 15 to 20. Participants were informed that the study involved completing questionnaires exploring their opinions regarding their life and sexual experiences, as well as their recent thoughts or feelings. They were also advised that their responses were confi- dential, and they were free to end their participation at any time. Participants were then given a packet of measures, including the SES and the BSI. However, only those who endorsed an unwanted sexual experience on the SES were instructed to fill out the SEI.

Results

Group and Individual Factors

Out of an initial sample of 326 women, 24 were removed due to omitted items on one or more measures, leaving a final sample size of 302. Based on their responses to the SES and SEI, 118 (39.07%) women were classified as nonvictims, 138 (45.69%) as unacknowledged victims, and 46 (15.23%) as acknowledged victims. Out of the entire sample of women, 38 (12.58%)

Cleere and Lynn 2599

reported sexual contact as their most severe experience, 65 (21.52%) reported sexual coercion, 35 (11.58%) reported attempted rape, and 46 (15.23%) reported rape. Of the acknowledged sexual assault group, 23.91% labeled their experience as a rape, whereas 76.08% labeled it as a sexual assault. Of the unacknowledged group, 28.84% reported they were not victimized, 66.34% reported the event as a serious "miscommunication," and 4.81% labeled their experience as a crime other than rape or sexual assault.

Of the 184 women who endorsed an experience on the SES, 150 chose to fill out the SEI. The SEI asked participants to provide a label for their most severe unwanted sexual experience. Among women who endorsed unwanted sexual contact as their most severe experience, 22.2% labeled themselves as "not victimized," 33.3% labeled the experience as a "serious miscommunica- tion," 11.1% labeled the experience as a rape, 33.3% labeled the experience as a "sexual assault," and 0% labeled the experience as "some other crime." Among women who endorsed sexual coercion as their most severe experi- ence, 16.3% labeled themselves as "not victimized," 55.1% labeled the expe- rience as a "serious miscommunication," 2.0% labeled the experience as a rape, 22.4% labeled the experience as a "sexual assault," and 4.1% labeled the experience as "some other crime.". Among women who endorsed attempted rape as their most severe experience, 33.3% labeled themselves as "not victimized," 40% labeled the experience as a "serious miscommunica- tion," 0% labeled the experience as a rape, 26.7% labeled the experience as a "sexual assault," and 0% labeled the experience as "some other crime." Finally, among women who endorsed rape as their most severe experience, 13.6% labeled themselves as "not victimized," 47.7% labeled the experience as a "serious miscommunication," 15.9% labeled the experience as a rape, 15.9% labeled the experience as a "sexual assault," and 6.8% labeled the experience as "some other crime."

Differences in terms of the number of sexual assaults reported by the two victim groups were examined using a t-test. Those with an acknowledged sexual assault history endorsed having experienced significantly more unwanted sexual experiences in their lifetime (M = 2.44, SE = 0.24) than those with an unacknowledged history (M = 1.62, SE = 0.14), t (186) = 3.001, p = .003. This represented a small-medium sized effect r = 0.22.

Note that in some of the 2 analyses presented below, some of the cell frequencies were small. However, cell counts below five are normally accept- able so long as they comprise no more than 20% of the cells (Yates, Moore & McCabe, 1999). None of the analyses violated this rule. We conducted a 2 analysis to determine if the acknowledged and unacknowledged groups dif- fered in terms of the category of their most severe sexual assault experience.

2600 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(12)

No significant difference emerged in terms of the types of sexual abuse reported by the participants, 2 (3) = 3.17, p = .327, Cramer's V = 0.14.

We conducted an ANOVA comparing the three groups' GSI scores to ascertain potential group differences. The results of the analysis did not pass Levene's statistic, suggesting the variance of the groups were significantly different. Accordingly, Welch's F was used, revealing a significant group dif- ference, F (2, 124.5) = 7.8, p = .001. Planned contrasts indicated that nonvic- tims (M = 0.60, SE = 0.05) reported significantly lower levels of psychological distress than both acknowledged (M = 0.92, SE = 0.09) and unacknowledged (M = 0.85, SE = 0.05) victims of sexual assault, t (187.5) = 3.9, p = .001, r = 0.27. However, we found no significant difference between the GSI scores of the acknowledged and unacknowledged groups. An ANCOVA was run with only acknowledged and unacknowledged victims, with the "total number of unwanted sexual experiences in lifetime" included as a covariate, so as to rule out any effects occurring due to multiple victimizations. No significant dif- ference was found between the groups.

Again, of the 184 women who endorsed an experience on the SES, 150 chose to fill out the SEI. The significant results of a series of 2 analyses are listed below and the analyses are presented in Table 1. A modified Bonferroni correction was applied to the significance level to take into consideration the number of analyses conducted, with the resulting of 0.0299 (Keppel & Wickens, 2004). In addition, to determine if rape victims were driving the significance of these analyses, 2 tests were run on the sample after rape vic- tims were removed. The results of the 2 tests suggest that the rape victims were only driving the significance for a limited number of situational vari- ables, including percentage endorsing hitting and slapping, percentage endorsing pleading, and percentage endorsing running away. It should be noted that in both the acknowledged and unacknowledged groups, the vast majority reported being intoxicated with either drugs, alcohol, or both at the time of their assault (93.5% and 92.3%, respectively).

Participants in the acknowledged group were significantly more likely to report that the assailant was a relative, 2 (4) = 20.7, p = .00, and somebody they had no prior sexual intimacy with, 2 (4) = 12.9, p = .012. The effect size of these findings, as measured by Cramer's V, were 0.37 and 0.29, respec- tively. In addition, unacknowledged victims in general endorsed more recent sexual assault experiences 2 (3) = 17.9, p = .00, Cramer's V = 0.35.

Group differences were also seen in the forcefulness of the reported assault and the aggressiveness of the assaulter. Participants in the acknowledged vic- tim group were more likely to experience both twisting of the arms and being held down than their unacknowledged counterparts, 2 (1) = 16.5, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.33, as well as being more likely to experience being hit or

Cleere and Lynn

2601

Table 1. 2 analysis of selected sexual experiences inventory (SEI) variables.

Acknowledged Unacknowledged Variable (%) (%)

1. Relationship to assaulter

Stranger 8.7 9.7 Acquaintance 41.3 35 Date/romantic 19.6 32

acquaintance Relative 19.6 1 Significant other 10.9 22.3

2. Length of time since experience

2

20.7

17.9

6.9

d p

4 .00

3 .00

1 .009

1 .071 1 .00 1 .004 1 1

4 .012

1 .068 1 .02 1 .00 1 .00 1 .036 1 .054

3 .00

(continued)

<6 months 6 to 1 year 2 years>3 years

3. Press charges

Yes

No

15.3 30.8 10.9 26.9 26.1 25 47.8 17.3

6.5 0 93.5 100

4. Force of assault (% endorsing yes)

Threats 17.8 6.7 Twisting 37.8 9.1

Hitting/ slapping 11.1

Choking/beating 1

5. Prior sexual intimacy with assaulter

None Kissing only Fondling above

waist Fondling below

4.2 16.5 1 8.3

waist Intercourse 8.7 24

6. Victim resistance (% yes)

Turning cold Pleading Crying Screaming Running away Physically

struggling

7. Aggression of assaulter

None Somewhat

60 69.6 35.6 15.6 19.6 45.7

43.7 3.3 49 5.4 6.8 19.7

1 13

7.8 4.4 29.4 3.7

23.1 12.9 8.7 12.5

17.4 16.3

50 15.2 24

26.1 39.1 27.9

1 .44

63.5 23.7

2602 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(12) Table 1. (continued)

Acknowledged Unacknowledged Variable (%) (%)

2 d p

16.7 3 .001

28.9 3 .00

11.8 3 .008

Quite

Very

8. Clarity of refusing sex

Not clear Somewhat Quite Very

26.1 7.7 8.7 1

13 23.1 13 38.5 37 21.2 37 17.3

9. Responsibility of assaulter

Not 0 11.5 Somewhat 8.7 37.5 Quite 28.3 28 Very 63 23.1

10. Intensity of resistance

Not 10.9 30.8 Somewhat 34.8 41.3 Quite 37 20.2 Very 17.4 7.7

slapped, 2 (1) = 8.3, p = .004, Cramer's V = 0.24. Finally, acknowledged victims were more likely to describe their attackers as very aggressive and less likely to describe them as not aggressive than the unacknowledged vic- tims, 2 (3) 23.7, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.4. Although the majority of both groups reported they did not press charges (93.5% of acknowledged and 100% of unacknowledged), the acknowledged group was more likely to have pressed charges, 2 (1) = 6.9, p = . 009, Cramer's V = 0.22.

A number of differences between the victims' responses during their sex- ual assaults were revealed. Belonging to the acknowledged abuse group was associated with a greater likelihood one would report making it very clear that they did not want the assault to occur, whereas belonging to the unac- knowledged group was associated with a greater likelihood that the partici- pant characterized their refusal as only somewhat clear, 2 (3) = 16.7, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.33. Acknowledged victims were also more likely to report a higher intensity of resistance, 2 (3) = 11.82, p = .008, Cramer's V = 0.28, with an increased likelihood of reasoning/pleading, 2 (1) = 5.4, p = .02, Cramer's V = 0.19, crying/sobbing, 2 (1) = 19.7, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.37, and screaming for help, 2 (1) = 13, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.3. Finally,

Cleere and Lynn 2603

acknowledged victims were more likely to attribute more responsibility for the incident to their attacker than were unacknowledged victims, 2 (3) = 29, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.44.