The measurement of rape is among the leading methodological issues in the violence against women field. Methodological discussion continues to focus on decreasing measurement errors and improving the accuracy of rape estimates. The current study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the effect of survey question wording on estimates of completed and attempted rape and verbal threats of rape. Specifically, the study statistically compares self-reported rape estimates from two nationally representative studies of college women's sexual victimization experiences, the National College Women Sexual Victimization study and the National Violence Against College Women study. Results show significant differences between the two sets of rape estimates, with National Violence Against College Women study rape estimates ranging from 4.4% to 10.4% lower than the National College Women Sexual Victimization study rape estimates. Implications for future methodological research are discussed.
Bachman, R. (2000). A comparison of annual incidence rates and contextual characteristics of intimate partner violence against women from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS). Violence Against Women, 6, 839-867.
2.
Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Changes in the adjudication of rape: 1970-1991. A contemporary look at the effects of rape law reform: How far have we really come?Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 84, 554-574.
3.
Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L.E. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates form the redesigned survey. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Bachman, R., & Taylor, B.M. (1994). The measurement of family violence and rape by the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey. Justice Quarterly, 11, 499-512.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal victimization in the United States, 1995: A National Crime Victimization Survey report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Cantor, D., & Lynch, J.P. (2005). Exploring the effects of changes in design on the analytical uses of the NCVS data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 293-319.
7.
Eigenberg, H.M. (1990). The National Crime Survey and rape: The case of the missing question. Criminology, 7, 655-671.
8.
Fisher, B.S., & Cullen, F.T. (1998, August). The sexual victimization of college women: Findings from a national-level study. Draft of final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
9.
Fisher, B.S., & Cullen, F.T. (1999, March). The victimization of college women: Findings from a national-level study. Draft of final report submitted to theBureau of Justice Statistics.
10.
Fisher, B.S., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies, and future research, In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice: Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 317-390). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
Gilbert, N. (1992, May/June). Realities and mythologies of rape. Society, pp. 4-10.
12.
Gilbert, N. (1994, March/April). Miscounting social ills. Society, pp. 18-26.
13.
Gilbert, N. (1995). Was it rape? An examination of sexual assault statistics. Menlo, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
14.
Gilbert, N. (1997). Advocacy research and social policy. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22, pp. 101-148). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Hamby, S.L., & Koss, M.P. (2003). Shades of gray: A qualitative study of terms used in the measurement of sexual victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 243-255.
16.
Jaquier, V., Fisher, B.S., & Killias, M. (2006). Cross-national survey designs: Equating the National Violence Against Women Survey and the Swiss International Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 90-112.
17.
Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008). Violence against women: An international perspective . New York: Springer.
18.
Kilpatrick, D.G. (2004). What is violence against women? Defining and measuring the problem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1209-1234.
19.
Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour, A.K. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center.
20.
Koss, M.P. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.
21.
Koss, M.P. (1993a). Detecting the scope of rape: A review of prevalence research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 198-222.
22.
Koss, M.P. (1993b). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions, and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48, 1062-1069.
23.
Koss, M.P. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 55-69.
24.
Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.
25.
Koss, M.P., & Gidycz, C.A. (1985). The Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 442-443.
26.
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162170.
27.
Koss, M.P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.
28.
Lauritsen, J.L. (2005). Social and scientific influences on the measurement of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 21, 245-266.
29.
Lynch, J.P. (1996a). Clarifying divergent estimates of rape from two national surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 410-430.
30.
Lynch, J.P. (1996b). Understanding differences in the estimates of rape from self-report surveys. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), From data to public policy: Affirmative action, sexual harassment, domestic violence and social welfare (pp. 121-142). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
31.
Saltzman, L.E. (2000a). Building data systems for monitoring and responding to violence against women, part 1. Violence Against Women , 6, 699-704.
32.
Saltzman, L.E. (2000b). Building data systems for monitoring and responding to violence against women, part 2. Violence Against Women , 6, 811-814.
33.
Saltzman, L.E. (2004). Issues related to defining and measuring violence against women: Response to Kilpatrick. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1235-1243.
34.
Schwartz, M.D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815-838.
35.
Smith, M.D. (1987). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Toronto. Violence and Victims, 2, 173-187.
36.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
37.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal victimization in the United States, 1995 . Washington, DC: Author.
38.
Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 502-522.
