A comparison of two strategies to assess sexual violence: general vs. specialised trauma screening strategies in two high-risk substance use health disparity samples.

Background/Objective: Using two different high-risk samples, the present study compared and contrasted two different strategies/questionnaire types for assessing a history of sexual violence: a general trauma screening vs. specialised behaviourally-specific questionnaires.Methods: Sample 1 included 91 men and women seeking detoxification treatment services in a publicly funded, urban clinic who completed a trauma and substance use questionnaire battery during treatment. Sample 2 included 310 women at a rural college who completed a trauma and religious coping questionnaire battery for course credit. All participants completed both types of questionnaires: One general trauma screening questionnaire (i.e. the Life Events Checklist [LEC]) and two behaviourally-specific specialised questionnaires (i.e. the 2007 Sexual Experiences Survey [SES] and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]).Results: There were large differences in the cases identified by the behaviourally-specific questionnaires (SES and CTQ) compared to the general trauma screening questionnaire (the LEC) in both samples but few differences in the prevalence rates of sexual violence detected by each questionnaire type. In the detoxification sample, the differences were especially notable for men. Follow-up analyses indicated that degree of traumatisation impacted results likely by increasing participant's willingness to endorse face-valid items on the LEC.Conclusions: For men, the behaviourally-specific questionnaires (SES/CTQ) were necessary to identify cases. For those with more severe trauma histories, the LEC was equivalent to the SES/CTQ in identifying a similar number of sexual violence cases. Thus, clinicians and researchers should consider the population when selecting assessments to identify sexual violence history.

For men and rural college women, general trauma questionnaires are not as accurate as specialised sexual violence measures in detecting cases.While prevalence rates were often similar, which cases were detected by general trauma and specialised questionnaires were different.Individuals with greater trauma exposure were more likely to endorse face-valid sexual violence items on the general trauma questionnaires.

Valid for who? A preliminary investigation of the validity of two sexual victimization questionnaires in men and sexual minorities.

The #MeToo movement illuminated vast numbers of people who experienced sexual violence, but the exact scope and impact, especially among under-studied populations (e.g., men and sexual minorities) is unclear, due in part to measurement issues. Our objective was to compare the validity of two measures of sexual violence victimization: The Sexual Experiences Survey - Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) and The Post-Refusal Sexual Persistence Scale - Victimization (PRSPS-V). Participants were 673 college students who first completed the Rape Empathy for Victims (REM-V) and then the SES-SFV and PRSPS-V (counter-balanced). We found strong evidence of convergent validity for the PRSPS-V with correlations ranging from r = .57 - 88. Convergent validity correlations were strongest for sexual minority women (r = .88) and weakest for heterosexual men (r = .57). We also found evidence of differential validity for the SES-SFV and PRSPS-V. For heterosexual women, rape empathy was correlated to victimization on both questionnaires (r = .25 - .29). However, for heterosexual men, only scores on the SES-SFV were correlated with rape empathy for victims (r = .19). For sexual minorities there appeared to be differences between PRSPS-V only victims and those who reported victimization on both questionnaires in rape empathy (F = 2.65, p = .053). These results provide researchers a starting point for improving these questionnaires to collect more accurate data that helps improve the ability to detect cases of sexual victimization and thus, prevent and heal sexual victimization, especially in understudied populations such as men and sexual minorities.

Young Bisexual People's Experiences of Sexual Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Bisexual people are at an increased vulnerability for sexual victimization in comparison to heterosexual people, as well as gay and lesbian people. As the majority of first sexual violence experiences happen prior to age 25 for bisexual women, young bisexual people are particularly vulnerable. Despite consistent evidence of this health disparity, little is known about what factors might increase young bisexual people's risk for sexual victimization, or how they access support post-victimization. The current study addresses this gap through a mixed-method investigation of young bisexual people's experiences of sexual violence with a sample of 245 bisexual people age 18-25. Quantitative results indicate that bisexual stigma significantly predicts a greater likelihood of reporting an experience of sexual violence. Qualitative findings support that while not all participants felt bisexual stigma related to their experience of sexual violence, some felt negative bisexual stereotypes were substantial factors. Interview participants found connecting with other survivors, particularly LGBTQ+ and bisexual survivors, to be beneficial. Some participants encountered barriers to accessing support, such as discrimination in schools. Sexual violence researchers should consider bisexual stigma as an important factor, and support services the potential positive impact of bisexual-specific survivor support.

The Assessment of Forced Penetration: A Necessary and Further Step Toward Understanding Men's Sexual Victimization and Women's Perpetration.

A unique form of sexual victimization that often goes undiscussed and, therefore, underassessed is that of being forced to penetrate another person (i.e., forced penetration). Due to forced penetration being a relatively novel addition to the definition of rape, there is a lack of assessment tools that identify forced penetration cases. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the utility and validity of new items designed to assess forced penetration. More than 1,000 participants were recruited across three different studies to assess forced penetration victimization and perpetration. The rate of forced penetration victimization ranged from 4.51% to 10.62%. Among men who reported victimization of any type, 33.8% to 58.7% of victimized men reported experiencing forced penetration across the samples, suggesting this experience is common. All new and unique cases of sexual victimization identified by the forced penetration items were those of heterosexual men. These findings suggest that assessing for forced penetration would increase the reported prevalence rates of sexual victimization, particularly in heterosexual men (and correspondingly, rates of perpetration in women).

Bisexual Stigma, Sexual Violence, and Sexual Health Among Bisexual and Other Plurisexual Women: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Bisexual women experience higher rates of sexual victimization relative to heterosexual and lesbian women, and worse sexual health outcomes. Though these health disparities are well documented in the literature, few empirical data have been published on what factors are driving these disparities. Further, research documenting sexual victimization and health of plurisexual (i.e., attracted to more than one gender) women group all participants as bisexual. We do not know whether these experiences are similar across subgroups of plurisexual women. The current study reports on data from a cross-sectional survey, analyzing the relationships between bisexual-specific stigma and sexual violence, as well as other sexual health outcomes, across a sexually diverse group of plurisexual participants. Findings indicate that bisexual stigma is a significant predictor of lifetime sexual violence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.99, p = .015) and verbal coercion (OR = 2.60, p = .004), but not other outcomes. There are differences across sexual identity categories, with bisexual participants being less likely to report sexual violence and verbal coercion, and less likely to access sexually transmitted infection/human immunodeficiency syndrome testing, compared to other plurisexual groups. Our findings support that bisexual stigma is an important factor to consider in understanding sexual violence disparities experienced by bisexual and other plurisexual women.