Peer Reviewed Articles of Rape in College Campuses

• Loading metrics

Open up Admission

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sexual attack incidents amid college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

• Kate Walsh ,
• Aaron L. Sarvet ,
• Melanie Wall ,
• Louisa Gilbert ,
• John S. Santelli ,
• Martie Thompson ,
• Patrick A. Wilson ,
• Shamus Khan ,
• Stephanie Benson ,
• Karimata Bah ,
• Kathy A. Kaufman ,
• Leigh Reardon ,
• Jennifer Due south. Hirsch

Sexual assault incidents amid college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

• Claude A. Mellins,
• Kate Walsh,
• Aaron L. Sarvet,
• Melanie Wall,
• Louisa Gilbert,
• John S. Santelli,
• Martie Thompson,
• Patrick A. Wilson,
• Shamus Khan,
• Stephanie Benson

10

• Published: November 8, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471

Figures

Abstract

Sexual assault on higher campuses is a public health issue. However varying research methodologies (e.yard., unlike sexual assail definitions, measures, assessment timeframes) and low response rates hamper efforts to define the scope of the problem. To illuminate the complexity of campus sexual set on, nosotros collected survey data from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate students from Columbia University and Barnard College in New York City, using show based methods to maximize response rates and sample representativeness, and behaviorally specific measures of sexual attack to accurately capture victimization rates. This paper focuses on student experiences of different types of sexual assault victimization, also as sociodemographic, social, and take a chance environment correlates. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to estimate prevalences and examination associations. Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (defined as sexualized touching, attempted penetration [oral, anal, vaginal, other], or completed penetration). Women and gender nonconforming students reported the highest rates (28% and 38%, respectively), although men as well reported sexual attack (12.five%). Beyond types of assault and gender groups, incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use and/or other factors was the perpetration method reported nigh oftentimes (> 50%); physical forcefulness (particularly for completed penetration in women) and exact coercion were too commonly reported. Factors associated with increased risk for sexual assail included not-heterosexual identity, difficulty paying for bones necessities, fraternity/sorority membership, participation in more casual sexual encounters ("claw ups") vs. exclusive/monogamous or no sexual relationships, rampage drinking, and experiencing sexual assail before college. High rates of re-victimization during higher were reported across gender groups. Our study is consistent with prevalence findings previously reported. Variation in types of attack and methods of perpetration experienced across gender groups highlight the need to develop prevention strategies tailored to specific chance groups.

Commendation: Mellins CA, Walsh Yard, Sarvet AL, Wall M, Gilbert L, Santelli JS, et al. (2017) Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with take a chance. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0186471. https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pone.0186471

Editor: Hafiz T. A. Khan, University of W London, Uk

Received: July 28, 2017; Accepted: Oct 2, 2017; Published: November 8, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Mellins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the study cannot exist made available, beyond the aggregated data that are included in the paper, because of concerns related to participant confidentiality. Sharing the private-level survey data would violate the terms of our agreement with research participants, and the Columbia Academy Medical Center IRB has confirmed that the potential for deductive identification and the risk of loss of confidentiality is too great to share the data, even if de-identified.

Funding: This research was funded by Columbia University through a donation from the Levine Family unit. The funder (Levine Family) had no function in study design, information collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Recent estimates of sexual assault victimization amid higher students in the United States (US) are as loftier as 20–25% [1–3], prompting universities to enhance or develop policies and programs to foreclose sexual assault. However, a 2016 review [4] highlights the variation in sexual assault prevalence estimates (1.8% to 34%) which likely tin be attributed to methodological differences across studies, including varying sexual assault definitions, sampling methods, assessment timeframes, and target populations [four]. Such differences tin can hamper efforts to understand the scope of the problem. Moreover, while accurate estimates of prevalence are crucial for calling attention to the population-health burden of sexual assail, knowing more almost hazard factors is critical for determining resource allocation and developing effective programs and policies for prevention.

Reasons for the variation in prevalence estimates include different definitions of sexual attack and assessment methods. Under the rubric of sexual assault, researchers have investigated experiences ranging from sexual harassment at schoolhouse or work, to unwanted touching, including fondling on the street or trip the light fantastic toe floor, to either unwanted/non-consensual attempts at oral, anal or vaginal sexual intercourse (attempted penetrative sex), or completed penetrative sexual activity [iii,5–vii]. Some studies take focused on a composite variable of multiple forms of unwanted/non-consensual sexual contact [eight,9] while others focus on a single behavior, such equally completed rape [ten]. Some studies focus on acts perpetrated by a single method (due east.g. incapacitation due to alcohol and drug employ or other factors) [11], while others include a range of methods (e.g., physical strength, verbal coercion, and incapacitation) [12–15]. In general, studies that inquire nearly a wide range of acts and use behaviorally specific questions virtually types of sexual attack and methods of perpetration take yielded more than accurate estimates [xvi]. Behavioral specificity avoids the pitfall of participants using their own sexual assault definitions and does not require the respondent to identify equally a victim or survivor, which may pb to underreporting [ten,17–19].

Although an increasing number of studies have used behaviorally specific methods and examined prevalence and predictors of sexual attack [20,21], they typically take used convenience samples. Only a few published studies have used population-based surveys and achieved response rates sufficient to mitigate some of the concerns of sample response bias [4]. United states federal agencies take urged universities to implement standardized "campus climate surveys" to assess the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence [22]. Although these surveys have emphasized behavioral specificity, many have yielded low response rates (e.g., 25%) [23], especially among men [24], creating potential for response bias in the obtained data. Population-based probability samples with behavioral specificity, good response rates, sufficiently large samples to examine risk for specific subgroups (e.g., sexual minority students), and detailed information on personal, social, or contextual risk factors (e.g., booze use) [22,23] are needed to more accurately define prevalence and inform evidence-based sexual assault prevention programs.

Existing prove suggests that near sexual assault incidents are perpetrated against women [25]; nonetheless, few studies have examined college men as survivors of assault [26–28]. Furthermore, our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identity chronicle to gamble for sexual assail is limited, despite indications that lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and gender not-conforming (GNC) students are at high risk [29–31]. It is unclear if these groups are at college risk for all types of sexual assault or if prevention programming should be tailored to address particular types of assail within these groups. Also, although women appear to exist at highest take a chance for attack during freshman year [32,33], the dearth of studies with men or GNC students accept limited conclusions about whether freshman year is also a risky menses for them.

Additional factors associated with experiencing sexual assail in college students include being a racial/indigenous minority student (although there are mixed findings on race/ethnicity) [34,35], low financial status, and prior history of sexual assault [3,33,36]. Other risk factors include variables related to student social life, including being a freshman [24], participating in fraternities and sororities [19,37,38], binge drinking [i,39] and participating in "hook-up" culture [40–42]. Whether sexual assault is happening in the context of more than casual, typically not-committal sexual relationships ("hook-ups") [40] vs. steady intimate or monogamous relationships has important implications for prevention efforts.

To fill up some of these knowledge gaps, we examined survey data nerveless from a big population-based random sample of undergraduate women, men, and GNC students at Columbia Academy (CU) and Barnard College (BC). The aims of this paper are to:

1. Judge the prevalence of types of sexual assault incidents involving a) sexualized touching, b) attempted penetrative (oral, anal or vaginal) sex, and c) completed penetrative sexual practice since starting at CU/BC;
2. Describe the methods of perpetration (e.chiliad., incapacitation, concrete force, verbal compulsion) used; and
3. Examine associations between central sociodemographic, social and romantic/sexual relationship factors and different types of sexual set on victimization, and how these associations differ by gender.

Materials and methods

This report used data from a population-representative survey that formed ane component of the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT) study. SHIFT used mixed methods to examine gamble and protective factors affecting sexual health and sexual violence among college undergraduates from ii inter-related institutions, CU'southward undergraduate schools (co-educational) and BC (women but), both located in New York City. SHIFT featured ethnographic research, the survey, and a daily diary study. Additionally, SHIFT focused on internal policy-translation work to inform institutionally-appropriate, multi-level approaches to prevention.

Participants

Survey participants were selected via stratified random sampling from the March 2016 population of ix,616 CU/BC undergraduate students ages 18–29 years. We utilized bear witness-based methods to raise response rates and sample representativeness [22,43]. Using administrative records of enrolled students, 2,500 students (2,000 from CU and 500 from BC) were invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Of these 2,500 students, ane,671 (67%) consented to participate (see Procedures). Among those who consented to participate, fourscore.five% were from CU and nineteen.5% were from BC (come across Tabular array 1 below for demographic data on the CU/BC student population, the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample).

Procedures

SHIFT employed multiple procedures to assure protection of students involved in our study; these procedures also ameliorate scientific rigor. The study was canonical by the Columbia University Medical Heart Institutional Review Board and we obtained a federal Certificate of Confidentiality to legally protect our information from subpoena. SHIFT likewise obtained a University waiver from reporting on individual sexual assaults, as reporting would obviate pupil privacy and willingness to participate. Students were offered information about referrals to health and mental health resource during the consent process and at the end of the survey, and such information was available from SHIFT via other communication channels. Finally, in reporting data nosotros suppressed data from tables where at that place were less than iii subjects in any jail cell to avoid the possibility of deductive identification of an individual student [44].

SHIFT used principles of Community Based Participatory Research regarding ongoing dialogue with Academy stakeholders on study development and implementation to maximize the quality of information and impact of enquiry findings [45]. This included weekly meetings between SHIFT investigators and an Undergraduate Advisory Board, consisting of xiii–18 students, reflecting the undergraduate pupil body'due south diversity in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, twelvemonth in school, and activities (eastward.one thousand., fraternity/sorority membership). It also included regular meetings with an Institutional Advisory Board comprised of senior administrators, including CU'southward Role of General Counsel, facilities, sexual violence response, student acquit, officials involved in gender-based misconduct concerns, athletics, a chaplain, mental health and counseling, residential life, student health, and student life.

Following both the Undergraduate Advisory Board's recommendations and Dillman'south Tailored Blueprint Method for maximizing survey response rates [43], multiple methods were used to annunciate and recruit students. These included: a) email messages, both to generate interest and remind students who had been selected to participate, crafted to resonate with various educatee motives for participation (e.g., involvement in sexual assail, compensation, customs spirit, and achieving college response rates than surveys at peer institutions), b) posting flyers, c) holding "study breaks," in which students were given snacks and drinks, and d) tabling in public areas on campus.

Participants used a unique link to admission the survey either at our on-campus research role where computers and snacks were provided (xvi% of participants) or at a location of their choosing (84% of participants) from March-May, 2016. Before beginning the survey, participants were asked to provide informed consent on an electronic grade describing the study, confidentiality, bounty for time and effort, data handling procedures, and the correct to refuse to answer whatsoever question. Students who completed the survey received $forty in compensation, given in cash to those who completed the survey in our on-campus research office or every bit an electronic gift bill of fare if completed elsewhere. Students were also entered into a lottery to win additional $200 electronic gift cards. This compensation was established based on feedback from student and institutional advisors and reviewed past our Institutional Review Board. It was judged to be sufficient to promote participation, and help ensure that we captured a representative sample, including students who might otherwise have to choose between paid opportunities and participating in our survey, but not great enough to feel coercive for low resource students. This amount of bounty is in line with other similar studies [46]. On boilerplate, the survey took 35–forty minutes to complete.

Measures

The SHIFT survey included behaviorally-specific measures of different types of sexual assault, perpetrated by different methods, as well as measures of key sociodemographic, social and sexual relationship factors, and risk environment characteristics. The bulk of instruments had been validated previously with college- age students. The survey was administered in English language using Qualtrics (world wide web.qualtrics.com), providing a secure platform for online data collection.

Sexual attack.

Sexual assault was assessed with a slightly modified version of the revised Sexual Experiences Survey [16], the most widely used mensurate of sexual assault victimization with very skilful psychometric properties including internal consistency and validity previously published [17,47]. The Sexual Experiences Survey employs behaviorally specific questions to meliorate accuracy [eighteen]. The scale includes questions on blazon of set on, including sexualized touching without penetration (touching, kissing, fondling, grabbing in a sexual way), attempted but not completed penetrative assail (oral, vaginal, anal or other blazon of penetration; herein referred to as attempted penetrative assail) and completed penetrative assault (herein referred to as penetrative assault). We used most of the Sexual Experiences Survey every bit is. Withal, with strong urging from our Undergraduate Informational Board, nosotros made a modification, combining the questions about different types of penetration (oral, vaginal, etc.) rather than asking about each kind separately. In the Sexual Experiences Survey, for each type of assail there are six methods of perpetration. Two of the types reverberate exact coercion: one) "Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors most me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me later on I said I didn't want to" (herein referred to every bit "lying/threats"), and 2) "Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to" (herein referred to as "criticism"). The remaining types included utilize of physical strength, threats of physical harm, or incapacitation ("Taking reward when I couldn't say no because I was either too drunk, passed out, comatose or otherwise incapacitated"), and other. For each incident of sexual assault, participants could endorse multiple methods of perpetration. Participants were as well asked to study whether these experiences occurred: a) during the electric current academic yr (this was a second modification to the Sexual Experiences Survey) and/or b) since enrollment merely prior to the current academic year. For this paper, data for the two time periods were combined, reflecting the entire flow since starting CU/BC. See Fig 1 for a replica of the questionnaire.

Demographics.

Demographics included gender identity (male person, female person, trans-male/trans-female person, gender queer/gender-not-conforming, other) [48], year in school (e.one thousand., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), age, U.s.a. born (yes/no), lived in US less than five years (yeah/no; proxy for recent international pupil status), transfer student (yes/no), low socioeconomic condition (receipt of Pell grant-yes/no [need-based grants for depression-income students, with eligibility dependent on family income]); how often participant has problem paying for bones necessities (never, rarely, sometimes, oft, all of the time), and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, not-Hispanic-Asian, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latin-ten, other [other included: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, More one Race/Ethnicity, Other]). Gender was categorized as follows: female, male and GNC (students who responded to gender identity question as anything other than male or female).

Fraternity/Sorority.

Fraternity/sorority membership (ever participated) was assessed with one question from a school activities checklist (yes/no). We report on Greek life participation here to engage with the substantial attention this has received equally a run a risk cistron.

Problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking during the final year was assessed with the Alcohol Employ Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [49], a widely used, well-validated standardized x-item screening tool developed by the World Wellness Organization. Psychometrics have been established in numerous studies [fifty–52]. The AUDIT assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behaviors, and alcohol-related problems. Participants rate each question on a 5-point calibration from 0 (never) to four (daily or almost daily) for possible scores ranging from 0 to forty. The range of Audit scores represents varying levels of risk: 0–7 (depression), 8–15 (risky or hazardous), xvi–nineteen (high-adventure or harmful), and 20 or greater (high-chance). We also examined one AUDIT item on binge drinking, divers every bit having 6+ drinks on one occasion at least monthly [49].

Sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation was assessed with one question with the following response options (students could select all that practical): asexual, pansexual, bisexual, queer, heterosexual and homosexual, likewise equally other [53,54]. Students were categorized into four mutually sectional groups for analyses: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and other which included asexual, pansexual, queer, or another identity non listed. Non-heterosexual students who indicated more than ane orientation were assigned hierarchically to bisexual, homosexual, then other.

Romantic/sexual relationships.

Romantic/sexual relationships since enrollment at CU/BC were assessed with one question. Response choices included: none, steady or serious relationship, sectional or monogamous relationship, hook-upwardly-in one case, and ongoing hook-up or friends with benefits. Students divers "hookup" for themselves. Students could bank check all that applied. This variable was trichotomized: at least one hook-up, only steady or exclusive/monogamous relationships, and no romantic/sexual relationships.

Pre-college sexual assault.

Students also were asked one yep/no question on whether they had experienced any unwanted sexual contact prior to enrolling at CU/BC.

Data assay

To assess the representativeness of the sample, the distribution of demographic variables based on authoritative records from CU and BC for the full University undergraduate population were compared to the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample, which consists of students that responded to the questions nearly sexual assail. Demographics for survey responders are based on self-report from the survey. Cramer'southward Five effect size was used to assess the magnitude of the differences in demographic distributions between the CU/BC population and respondent sample where smaller values (i.due east. Cramer's Five <0.ten) betoken strong similarity [55].

Analyses were performed on each type of sexual assail likewise as a combined "Any type of sexual assail" variable: aye/no experienced sexualized touching, attempted penetrative set on, and/or penetrative assault since CU/BC. Prevalence of each blazon of sexual assault was calculated past gender and year in schoolhouse, with chi-square tests of difference used to compare prevalence between genders across each year in school versus freshman year. The total number of incidents of assault and the mean, median and standard deviation for number of incidents of assault per person reporting at to the lowest degree one assault were summarized. Among individuals who experienced whatsoever type of sexual assault, the proportions that experienced a item method of perpetration (e.one thousand. incapacitation, concrete strength) were calculated by type of sexual assault. Chi-square tests compared proportions between males and females for each perpetration method. The associations of each key correlate with the odds of experiencing whatever sexual attack were calculated and tested using logistic regression stratified by male/female gender. In improver, a multinomial regression with hierarchical categories (no attack, sexualized touching only, attempted penetrative assault [not completed], and penetrative set on [completed]) as the outcome was performed to examine if associations differed by type of sexual attack. To adjust for the fact that the sample comes from a finite population (i.eastward. CU/BC N = 5,765 women; N = 3,851 men), a standard finite population correction was implemented for standard error estimation using SAS Proc Surveylogistic. Given the low sample size of GNC students, they were excluded from some analyses. All analyses were conducted using SAS (v. 9.four).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table one presents demographic data on the full University, the randomly selected sample, the respondents and the analytic sample for this newspaper. Among students who consented to the survey (n = 1,671), 46 stopped the survey before the sexual assault questions and 33 refused to answer them resulting in an analytic sample of n = 1,592 (95% completion among responders). Demographic characteristics (i.east. gender [male person, female], age, race/ethnicity, year in school, international status, and economic need [Pell grant condition]) of the respondent sample were very similar (Cramer's V consequence size differences all <0.10 [55]) to the full CU/BC population (Table 1) indicating that the responder and final analytic samples were representative of the pupil body population.

The analytic sample included 58% women, forty% men, and 2% GNC students (4 students refused to identify their gender) and was distributed evenly by twelvemonth in school with virtually (92%) between18-23 years of historic period. Cocky-reported race/ethnicity was 43% white non-Hispanic, 23% Asian, 15% Hispanic/Latino, and viii% black non-Hispanic; 13% were transfer students, and the majority of the sample was built-in in the Us (76%). Xx-three percent of participants received Pell grants and 51% of students best-selling at least sometimes having difficulty paying for basic necessities.

The majority of women (79%) and men (85%) identified as heterosexual. In terms of romantic/sexual relationships since starting CU/BC, 30.0% of women and 21.6% of men reported no relationships, 21.0% of women and 22.half dozen% of men reported only steady/exclusive relationships with no hookups, and 49.0% of women and 55.seven% of men reported at least ane claw-up. Finally, 25.5% of women, 9.four% of men, and 47.0% of GNC students reported pre-college sexual assault.

Aim 1: Prevalence of sexual assault victimization at CU/BC

Overall rates by gender and school year.

Since starting CU/BC, 22.0% (350/ane,592) of students reported experiencing at least i incident of whatever sexual assault beyond the three types (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and penetrative assault). Tabular array two presents data on types of assault by gender and yr in school. Women were over twice as probable equally men to report any sexual assail (28.1% vs 12.5%). There was evidence of cumulative chance for experiencing sexual assault among women over four years of higher, so that past junior and senior year, respectively, 29.7% and 36.4% of women reported experiencing any sexual assault, compared to 21.0% of freshman women who had simply one yr of possible exposure (p < .05). However, one-fifth (21.0%) of women who took the survey as freshman had experienced unwanted sexual contact, compared to 36.four% over 3+ years (seniors), suggesting that every bit others have constitute, the risk of assail is highest in freshman year.

Among men, one in viii indicated that they had been sexually assaulted since starting CU. Similar to women, the risk for sexual assault among men accumulated over the four years of college, with fifteen.vi% of seniors vs 9.9% of freshman reporting a sexual assault since entering CU, although this departure was not statistically meaning.

Although the numbers were small, GNC students reported the highest prevalence of sexual assault since starting CU/BC (38.5%; 10/26). Numbers were besides minor (north<3) to present stratified past year in school (see Table two).

Types of sexual assault past gender (Table 2).

The nigh prevalent form of sexual set on was sexualized touching; rates for women (23.vi%) and GNC students (38.five%) were significantly college than rates for men (11.0%; p < .05). Prevalence of attempted penetrative assault and penetrative assault were nigh half that of sexualized touching. Compared to men, women were three times as likely to report attempted penetrative assault (eleven.1% vs iii.8%) and over twice every bit likely to feel penetrative assault (xiii.half dozen% vs 5.two%). Amongst GNC students, the majority reporting sexualized touching, with rates of the other 2 types also small to report.

Experiencing multiple sexual assaults (Fig 2; S1 Table).

Students could study multiple types of sexual assail incidents (i.eastward. sexualized touching, attempted penetrative, and penetrative assault) also equally multiple incidents experienced of each type. Overall, students reported a full of i,007 incidents of sexual assault experienced since starting CU/BC. For the 350 students who indicated any sexual attack, the median number of incidents experienced was 3.

Among the 350 students reporting whatever sexual assail, Fig 2 presents different combinations of sexual assault experienced by students since CU/BC. Most prevalent, 38.0% reported experiencing only sexualized touching; nineteen.0% reported both sexualized touching and penetrative assault incidents; 17.0% experienced all three types of assault; and 12.0% sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assail.

Aim 2: Methods of perpetration (lying/threats, criticism, incapacitation, physical force, threats of harm, and other) by gender (Table 3)

Across types of assault, incapacitation was the method of perpetration reported almost frequently (> l%) in both men and women. For both women and men, approximately 2-thirds of all penetrative assaults and nearly half of sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assaults involved incapacitation.

Physical force was reported significantly more oftentimes by women than men (34.6% vs 12.7%) for any sexual assault. More specifically, compared to men, women were three times more likely to experience sexualized touching via physical force (32.1% vs. 10.0%), and six times more than probable to experience penetrative assaults via concrete force (33.3% vs 6.1%).

Lastly, a sizeable number of respondents reported verbal coercion (ranging from 21.0% to over 40.0% depending on type of assail). Criticism was cited past women at rates similar to physical force for both sexualized touching and penetrative assaults. Among men, both verbal coercion methods were cited nigh frequently later on incapacitation for all three types of assault.

For GNC students, we examined rates of each perpetration method for only the blended variable any sexual assault (due to modest numbers in whatever specific type of assault). Amidst those who experienced an assault, incapacitation was the most oft mentioned method (fifty.0%), followed past criticism (40.0%).

Aim 3: Identify factors associated with sexual assault experiences

We examined the clan between sexual set on (both any sexual assault [Table 4] and each type of sexual assault [Table five]) and key demographic, sexual history and social activity factors. Results are stratified by gender (women/men).

Race/Ethnicity.

For both women and men, the prevalence of any sexual attack was similar for all race/ethnicity groups compared to non-Hispanic White students with one exception. Asian students (women and men) were less probable to feel any sexual attack than non-Hispanic White students. For women simply, differences emerged by blazon of set on. Asian women compared to non-Hispanic White women were less likely to experience penetrative assault (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.19–0.62), but not attempted penetrative set on (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.25–1.26), nor sexualized touching only (OR = i.00, CI: 0.59–1.69). Black women were found to take increased odds of touching only incidents compared to non-Hispanic White women (OR = 1.99, CI: 1.05–three.74). At that place were no other significant racial or ethnic differences.

Economic precarity.

Women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased odds of any sexual assault; for men the tendency was similar but it did not reach statistical significance. Considering penetrative assault specifically, both men and women who ofttimes or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased gamble (women OR = 2.24, CI: 1.23–4.09; men OR = 3.07, CI: 1.04–nine.07) compared to those who never had difficulty.

Transfer pupil.

Women transfer students were less likely to experience any sexual set on than non-transfer students. Closer inspection of blazon of set on revealed that this protective issue was seen for sexualized touching only (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15–0.80), but not for penetrative (OR = 0.60, CI: 0.34–ane.08), nor attempted penetrative (OR = one.03, CI: 0.48–2.21) assault. There were no significant differences betwixt men who were transfer students and those who were not.

Sexual orientation.

For women, those who identified as bisexual and those who identified as some other sexual identity besides heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (includes people endorsing exclusively one or a combination of: Asexual, Pansexual, Queer, or a sexual orientation not listed), were more likely to experience any sexual set on than heterosexual students. For penetrative assault specifically, this increased risk was only present for individuals with some other sexual identity (OR = two.xi, CI: ane.20–3.73). For men, those who identified as homosexual were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual male person students. For penetrative assault specifically, those who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or some other sexual identity all had substantially increased run a risk compared to those with a heterosexual identity (OR = 4.74, CI: ii.x–10.71; OR = 3.39, CI: 1.03–11.16; OR = four.74, CI:1.x–20.48, respectively).

Data about the gender of the perpetrator for different gender and sexual orientation groups was bachelor for a subset of incidents (336/997). Among these events, 98.4% (3/184) of the heterosexual women indicated the perpetrator was a human, while 97.1% (33/34) of the bisexual women, 75% (iii/4) of the homosexual women, and 88.9% (24/27) of the other sexual identity women indicated it was a human being. For men who were assaulted, 84.9% (45/53) of the heterosexual men reported the perpetrator was a woman, while 0 of the homosexual men said the perpetrator was a woman. Numbers for bisexual men and other sexual identity men were too pocket-size to report separately, but combined showed that 5/viii (63.0%) of bisexual and other sexual identity men said the perpetrator was a woman. Of the GNC students reporting on a near-significant event, 77.8% (7/9) reported that they were assaulted by a male perpetrator (the numbers are too small to further examine by sexual orientation).

Lived in US less than 5 years.

There was no association constitute betwixt living in the United states of america for less than 5 years and whatsoever sexual attack, nor any specific type of sexual assault.

Relationship status.

Among both women and men, students who had at least i hook-up were more probable to have experienced any sexual set on than students who were in simply steady/exclusive relationships since starting higher. Amidst women who had engaged in at least one claw-upward, this increased risk held for each type of sexual assail (penetrative: OR = five.03, CI = 2.91–viii.68, attempted penetrative: OR = 4.43, CI = 1.83–10.eight, sexualized touching only: OR = three.26, CI = 1.74–half-dozen.09), while amidst men the increased gamble was establish for sexualized touching only (OR = 13.33, CI = 2.09–85.08), but could not be estimated (due to pocket-sized numbers) for completed penetrative assail. Women who did not have any romantic or sexual human relationship since CU/BC were plant to be less likely to feel penetrative assault than women who had a steady/exclusive relationships only (OR = 0.05, CI: 0.01–0.31).

Fraternity/Sorority membership.

Although a relative minority of students participated in fraternities (24.1%) or sororities (18.ii%), for both men and women, those who participated were more likely to feel any sexual assault than those who did non. Exam of type of set on revealed that the result is driven primarily past sexualized touching only which is significant in both women (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.00–2.67) and men (OR = 2.40, CI: one.25–four.63) and not significantly increased for penetrative nor attempted penetrative assail.

Risky or hazardous drinking.

For both men and women, individuals who met criteria on the AUDIT for risky or hazardous drinking were more likely to experience any sexual set on than those who did non. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased adventure was but pregnant for penetrative assault (OR = iv.07, CI: two.01–8.21). For women, the increased risk of attack held for each blazon of assault—penetrative (OR = 6.04, CI: iv.10–8.xc), attempted (OR = 3.38, CI: 1.84–6.19) and touching (OR = 2.33, CI: 1.42–3.81). We also looked at one AUDIT item specifically on rampage drinking (6 or more drinks on a single occasion). Individuals who reported binge drinking at to the lowest degree monthly were more likely to feel whatever sexual assail than those who did not. When examining each type of set on separately, for men this increased chance was merely significant for penetrative assault (OR = 2.15, CI: 1.12–4.15). For women, this increased risk was significant for penetrative assault (OR = iii.12, CI: 2.09–4.65), attempted assault (OR = 2.28, CI: 1.20–4.33), and touching (OR = 2.42, CI:1.50–3.91).

Pre-higher attack (Table 5).

Amidst both women and men, those who experienced pre-college set on were more likely to experience any sexual set on while at CU/BC. The increased risk held for penetrative assault in both women (OR = 3.01, CI: two.07–4.37) and men (OR = 2.44, CI: 1.03–5.76). In women, the increased risk too held for attempted penetrative, but not touching only, whereas in men, the increased risk held for touching only, only not attempted penetrative sex.

Discussion

The SHIFT survey, with a population-representative sample, good response rate and behaviorally-specific questions, found that 22.0% of students reported a sexual assail since starting higher, which confirms previous studies of ane in 4 or 1 in 5 prevalence estimates with national samples and a range of types of schools [23,24]. However, a cardinal finding is that focusing only on the "one in 4/ 1 in v" charge per unit of any sexual attack obscures much of the dash concerning types of sexual set on too as the differential group risk, as prevalence rates were unevenly distributed across gender and several other social and demographic factors.

Similar to other studies [4,24], women had much higher rates of experiencing whatever type of sexual set on compared to men (28.0% vs 12.0%). Moreover, our data propose a cumulative hazard for sexual assault experiences over four years of higher with over one in three women experiencing an set on past senior yr. However, our data also suggest that freshman yr, specially for women, is when the greatest percentage experience an attack. This supports other work on freshman yr as a particularly critical time for prevention efforts, otherwise known equally the "blood-red zone" effect for women [32].

Importantly, our study confirms that GNC students are at heightened chance for sexual assault [23]. They had the highest proportion of sexual assaults, with 38.0% reporting at least one incident, the bulk of which involved unwanted/not-consensual sexualized touching. These information should be interpreted very cautiously given the small number of GNC students. However, increasingly studies suggest that transgender and other GNC students have sexual wellness needs that may not be targeted by traditional programming [57]; thus, a better understanding of pathways to vulnerability among these students is of high importance.

Similarly, students who identified as a sexual orientation other than heterosexual were at increased run a risk for experiencing whatever sexual assault, with bisexual women or women who identified every bit "other" and men who identified every bit any not-heterosexual category at increased gamble. Similar to GNC students, agreement the specific social and sexual health needs of LGB students, particularly every bit information technology relates to reducing sexual attack risk is critical to prevention efforts [58]. Factors such equally stigma and bigotry, lack of communication, substance use, equally well as a potential lack of tailored prevention programs may play a function. To our knowledge, there are no testify-based higher sexual assault prevention programs targeting LGB and GNC students. Our information propose that the LGB and GNC experiences are not compatible; more research should be done inside each of these groups to understand the mechanisms backside their potentially unique adventure factors.

Our data also suggest that the 20–25% charge per unit of any sexual assault obscures variation in set on experiences. Sexualized touching accounted for the highest percentage of acts across gender groups, with over one-3rd of participants reporting just sexualized touching incidents. Rates of attempted and completed penetrative sexual assail were nearly half the rate of sexualized touching. This finding does non minimize the importance of addressing unacceptably loftier rates of attempted penetrative and penetrative set on (14%-15%), but information technology does suggest the importance of specificity in prevention efforts. For GNC students, for example, the risk of assault was primarily for sexualized touching with very few reporting attempted penetrative assault or penetrative assault during their fourth dimension at CU/BC. These elevated rates of unwanted sexual touching may exist a combination of GNC students' focus on their gendered sexual boundaries–and thus potentially greater awareness of when advances are unwanted–at a developmental moment when they are building not-traditional gender identities, as well as these students' social vulnerability. Farther investigation is warranted.

Moreover, in that location was variation in methods of perpetration reported past survivors of sexual assault. Incapacitation was the most common method reported across all gender groups for each blazon of assault, and female person and male students who reported risky or hazardous drinking were at increased gamble for experiencing whatever sexual assault, particularly penetrative assault. Across campuses in the Usa, hazardous drinking is a national trouble with substantive negative health outcomes, risk for sexual assail being one of them [ii,39,59]. Our data underline the potential of programs and policies to reduce substance employ and limit its harms as one element of comprehensive sexual assault prevention; we plant few evidence-based interventions that address both binge drinking and sexual assault prevention. Of course, whatsoever work addressing substance use as a commuter of vulnerability must do so in a way that does non replicate victim-blaming.

Withal, similar to other studies with broad foci, incapacitation was not the simply method of perpetration reported. For women, physical force, specially for penetrative sex activity, was the second virtually frequently endorsed method. Verbal coercion, including criticism, lying and threats to finish the relationship or spread rumors, was also employed at rates similar to physical force for women, and was the second most oft endorsed category for men and GNC students. Prevention programs, such as the bystander interventions which are the focus of efforts on many campuses [threescore], ofttimes focus on incapacitation or physical force. These interventions tend to highlight situations where survivors (typically women) are vulnerable because they are under the influence of substances. In SHIFT, verbal coercion is also shown to be a powerful driver of attack; however, information technology typically does not receive as much attending every bit rape, which is legally defined as penetration due to physical forcefulness or incapacitation. If a survivor is verbally coerced into providing affirmative consent, the incident could exist considered inside consent guidelines of "yes means yes" but information technology may have been unwanted by the survivor [61,62]. Assertiveness interventions and those that focus on verbal consent practices may be useful for addressing this form of attack.

We also found high rates of re-victimization. As others take found, pre-college sexual assault was a key predictor for experiencing assault at CU/BC [33,36]. Nonetheless, nosotros besides found loftier rates of repeat victimization since starting at CU/BC with a median of three incidents per person reporting any sexual assail since starting CU/BC, and the highest hazard of repeat victimization in women and GNC students. These data underline the importance of prevention efforts that include care for survivors to reduce the enhanced vulnerability that has been shown in other populations of assail survivors [36]. Hereafter studies should also seek to disaggregate the relationship betwixt blazon of victimization (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative attack, penetrative set on) and echo victimization.

This study also identified a number of variables associated with sexual assault, some similar to previous studies and others different. As noted, gender was a key correlate. While prevention efforts should respond to the population-level burden by focusing on the needs of women and GNC students, it is important to note that men were also at run a risk of sexual assault. In our study, nearly 1 in viii men reported a sexual attack feel, a rate also establish in the Online College Social Life survey [56], but college than other studies [63,64]. Few programs target men, and issues around masculinity and gender roles may make it difficult for men to consider or study what has happened to them as sexual attack. Importantly, this report plant that men who were members of fraternities were at college risk for experiencing assail (specifically unwanted/nonconsensual sexualized touching) than those who were not members. This is consistent with previous findings, including the Online College Social Life survey [56], but is of item notation considering enquiry has identified men in fraternities every bit more likely to be perpetrators [64], simply few, if any, studies have looked at fraternity members' vulnerability to sexual assault. Our information advise a need for further test of the cultural and organizational dimensions of Greek life that produce this heightened risk of being assaulted for both men and women. However, it is important to annotation that nosotros did not examine a range of other social and extracurricular groups which may take produced risk every bit well and thus a more full test of student undergraduate life is needed.

One other key factor associated with attack was participation in "hook ups". Both male and female students who reported hooking upwards were more than likely to report experiencing sexual assault, compared to students who only had exclusive or monogamous relationships and those who had no sexual relationships. The role of hooking up on college campuses has received much attending in the popular printing and in a number of books [65,66], only footling has been written almost its connection to sexual assault, although several recent studies are in line with ours about its part every bit a risk factor for experiencing sexual assault on college campuses [xl,41]. Multiple mechanisms may be at piece of work: students who participate in hookups may be having sex with more than people, and thus face up greater risk of set on due to greater exposure to sex with a potential perpetrator, only students who participate in hookups may also face increased vulnerability because many hookups involve "drunk" sex, or considering hookups by definition involve sexual interactions betwixt people who are non in a long-term intimate human relationship, and thus whose bodies and social cues maybe unfamiliar to each other. Alternatively some aspects of hook-ups may exist more than or less risky than others and therefore continued report of different dimensions of these more casual relationships that can refer to a broad-range of behaviors is necessary.

Several demographic characteristics were not for the nigh part associated with sexual set on. Nosotros did non find racial or indigenous differences in sexual assault take chances with primarily one exception, Asian male and female person students were at less risk overall compared to white students. We besides did not find transfer students to be at greater risk; female transfer students were actually at lower take a chance, potentially due to less exposure fourth dimension, specially during freshman year. International student status as indicated by having been in the U.s.a.<5 years was besides not associated with increased run a risk. However, this report highlights the part of economic factors that have received limited attention in the literature. Little is known about how economic insecurity may bulldoze vulnerability, simply issues of power, privilege, and command of alcohol and space all crave farther examination.

There are several limitations to this study. Participants came from only two private schools that are interconnected in ane city, and thus findings may not generalize to the rest of the US. There is a continued demand for more than national studies with different types of colleges and universities in urban and rural environments with more varied economic backgrounds in order to fully understand institutional and contextual differences. Although we had a response charge per unit that was college than many prior studies and our rates of sexual set on are consequent with prior studies [4], we cannot appraise the extent to which selection bias may have occurred and therefore, our rates could exist an underrepresentation or overrepresentation depending on who chose to participate. Although this business organisation is somewhat mitigated by findings that basic demographic data betwixt respondents and the full population of students at two colleges suggest no significant differences, there may be some bias in factors we did not consider. Our present analysis has focused but on bivariate associations between gamble factors and attack. While this analysis provides a valuable description of which groups are at elevated chance or not, future work will consider how combinations of risk factors at different levels may interact to increase risk. Critically, the assay presented here reflects a focus on those who experience existence assaulted, but in other work we wait at the characteristics of perpetrators, both from those who reported perpetrating and from a subset of incidents that survey respondents described in depth, which provided more data about the perpetrator. A greater understanding of the characteristics and contexts of perpetration is without question vital for effective prevention. Finally, our information are cross sectional. Longitudinal studies with a comprehensive range of predictors are disquisitional for identifying pathways of causality and targets for interventions.

Despite these limitations, this study confirms the unacceptably loftier rates of sexual assail and suggests diverseness in experiences and methods of perpetration. A key determination is that a"one size fits all" arroyo that characterizes the extant literature on evidence-based prevention programs [67] may demand to exist altered to more effectively prevent sexual set on in college. Clearly different groups had differential risk for assault and may require much more targeted prevention efforts. Bystander interventions accept shown promise in addressing risk in social situations, including fraternity parties and other settings with high alcohol use [68,69]. However, bystander interventions may non be sufficient for incidents occurring in non-party contexts where verbal coercion methods or physical force may be used without others effectually.

Creating effective and sustainable changes to campus culture requires engaging with a wide range of institutional stakeholders. SHIFT investigators are in the procedure of sharing selected findings with both student and institutional advisory boards, and an intensive collaborative process allows us to explore the implications of our results for a wide range of policies and programs, including both elements usually considered every bit sexual assault prevention (consent teaching, bystander trainings), more general topics related to sexual orientation and verbal discussions of sex, and aspects of the institutional context across various domains including booze policy, mental health services, residential life policies, orientation planning, and the allotment of space across campus.

Overall, our findings debate for the potential of a systems-based [lxx] public health approach–one that recognizes the multiple interrelated factors that produce adverse outcomes, and perhaps especially emphasizes gender and economical disparities and resulting power dynamics, widespread use of booze, attitudes about sexuality, and conversations almost sexual activity–to brand inroads on an issue that stubbornly persists.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our research participants; the Undergraduate Advisory Board; Columbia University'south Part of the President and Office of University Life, and the entire SHIFT team who contributed to the evolution and implementation of this ambitious endeavor.

References

1. 1. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Research Report. 2000; Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712
2. 2. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD. The Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA) Final Report: Operation Catamenia: January 2005 Through December 2007. 2007.
3. 3. Kilpatrick D, Resnick H, Ruggiero KJ, Conoscenti LM, McCauley J. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study [Internet]. 2007 Jul. Report No.: 219181. Available: http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Kilpatrick_drug_forcible_rape_2007.pdf
4. 4. Fedina L, Holmes JL, Backes BL. Campus Sexual Attack: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Research From 2000 to 2015. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;Epub ahead of print: 1–xviii.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary written report. 2011 November.
6. 6. Catalano S, Harmon M, Beck A, Cantor D. BJS Activities on Measuring Rape and Sexual Attack [Internet]. Affiche presented at; 2005. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bjs_amrsa_poster.pdf
7. seven. Calhoun 1000, Mouilso E, Edwards K. Sexual assault among college students. Sexual activity in College. Richard D. McAnulty. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2012. pp. 263–288.
8. viii. Banyard VL, Ward Due south, Cohn ES, Plante EG, Moorhead C, Walsh Westward. Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women's and men's experiences. Violence Vict. 2007;22: 52–seventy. pmid:17390563
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Baum K, Klaus P. National Crime Victimization Survey: Fierce Victimization of College Students, 1995–2002 [Internet]. 2005 pp. 1–7. Written report No.: NCJ 206836. Bachelor: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf
10. 10. Swartout K, Koss M, White J, Thompson MP, Abbey A, Bellis AL. Trajectory Analysis of the Campus Series Rapist Assumption. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169: 1148–1154. pmid:26168230
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Kaysen D, Neighbors C, Martell J, Fossos Due north, Larimer ME. Incapacitated rape and booze employ: A prospective assay. Aficionado Behav. 2006;31: 1820–1832. pmid:16446044
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Humphrey JA, White JW. Women'south vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2000;27: 419–424. pmid:11090744
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. xiii. Thompson M, Kingree JB. Sexual victimization, negative cognitions, and adjustment in higher women. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34: 55–59.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Swartout K, Swartout A, White J. A person-centered, longitudinal arroyo to sexual victimization. 2011;1: 29–40.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Testa M, Hoffman JH, Livingston JA. Alcohol and sexual risk behaviors as mediators of the sexual victimization—revictimization relationship. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78: 249–259. pmid:20350035
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Koss M, Abbey A, Campbell R, Cook Due south, Norris J, Testa G, et al. Revising the SES: A Collaborative Procedure to Better Assessment of Sexual Assailment and Victimization. Psychol Women Q. 2007;31: 357–370.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Koss MP, Gidycz CA, Wisniewski N. The scope of rape: incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of college didactics students. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987;55: 162–170. pmid:3494755
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Fisher BS. The Effects of Survey Question Wording on Rape Estimates Testify From a Quasi-Experimental Design. Violence Women. 2009;15: 133–147.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Franklin CA. Sorority Amalgamation and Sexual Set on Victimization: Assessing Vulnerability Using Path Analysis. Violence Against Women. Violence Women. 2015;22: 895–922.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Messman-Moore TL, Coates AA, Gaffey KJ, Johnson CF. Sexuality, Substance Use, and Susceptibility to Victimization: Take a chance for Rape and Sexual Coercion in a Prospective Study of College Women. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23: 1730–1746. pmid:18349349
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Orchowski LM, Creech SK, Reddy MK, Capezza NM, Ratcliff T. College women's perceived risk to feel sexual victimization: a prospective analysis. Violence Vict. 2012;27: 194–214. pmid:22594216
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Wood 50, Sulley C, Kammer-Kerwick M, Follingstad D, Busch-Armendariz N. Climate Surveys: An Inventory of Understanding Sexual Assail and Other Crimes of Interpersonal Violence at Institutions of Higher Educational activity. Violence Women. 2016;23:1249–1267.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall Southward, Bruce C, Townsend R, Thomas G, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Attack and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2015 Sep.
24. 24. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Berzofsky M, Shook-Sa B, Peterson M. Campus Climate Survey Validation Report Final Technical Report [Net]. Agency of Justice Statistics Research and Development Serial; 2016. Report No.: NCJ 249545. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf
25. 25. Breiding M, Smith South. Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ Wash DC 2002. 2014;63: i–18.
26. 26. Krahé B, Berger A. Men and Women as Perpetrators and Victims of SexualAggression in Heterosexual and Same‐Sex Encounters: A Report of First‐Twelvemonth College Students in Germany. Aggress Behav. 2013;39: 391–404. pmid:23629691
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Anderson R, Cahill Southward, Delahanty DL. The Psychometric Properties of the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) and Characteristics of Sexual Victimization Experiences in College Men. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2016; Advance online publication.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Turchik J. Sexual Victimization Amidst Male College Students: Assail Severity, Sexual Performance, and Wellness Hazard Behaviors. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2012;13: 243–255.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Townsend R, Lee H, Bruce C, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Attack and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, Md: Westat; 2015 Sep.
30. 30. Hines D, Armstrong J, Reed G, Cameron A. Gender Differences in Sexual Assault Victimization Among College Students. Violence Vict. 2012;27: 922–940. pmid:23393954
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Rothman Due east, Exner D, Baughman A. The prevalence of sexual assault confronting people who identify as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2011;12: 55–66. pmid:21247983
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Flack WF Jr. "The Red Zone" Temporal Risk for Unwanted Sexual practice Among College Students. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23: 1177–1196. pmid:18319370
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Carey K, Durney S, Shepardson R, Carey Chiliad. Precollege Predictors of Incapacitated Rape Among Female Students in Their First Year of Higher. J Stud Booze Drugs. 2015;76: 829–837. pmid:26562590
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Coulter R, Mair C, Miller E, Blosnich J, Matthews D, McCauley H. Prevalence of Past-Year Sexual Assault Victimization Amidst Undergraduate Students: Exploring Differences by and Intersections of Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, and Race/Ethnicity. Prev Sci. 2017;Epub ahead of print.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Gross AM, Winslett A, Roberts M, Gohm CL. An examination of sexual violence confronting higher women. Violence Women. 2006;12: 288–300.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Walsh K, Danielson CK, McCauley JL, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, Resnick HS. National Prevalence of PTSD Among Sexually Revictimized Adolescent, College, and Adult Household-Residing Women. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69: 935–942. pmid:22566561
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Humphrey SE, Kahn Every bit. Fraternities, Athletic Teams, and Rape: Importance of Identification With a Risky Group. J Interpers Violence. 2000;15: 1313–1322.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Minow JC, Einolf CJ. Sorority participation and sexual attack risk. Violence Women. 2009;15: 835–851.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Abbey A. Alcohol-related sexual set on: A common problem amidst college students. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2002;14: 118–128.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Flack WF Jr, Hansen B, Hopper A, Bryant L, Lang Thousand, Massa A, et al. Some Types of Hookups May Be Riskier Than Others for Campus Sexual Assail. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2016;8: 413–420.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Flack WF Jr, Daubman KA, Caron ML, Asadorian JA, D'Aureli NR, Gigliotti SN, et al. Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: hooking upward, alcohol, and stress response. J Interpers Violence. 2007;22: 139–157. pmid:17202573
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Tomsich EA, Schaible LM, Rennison CM, Gover A. Violent victimization and hooking upward among strangers and acquaintances on an urban campus: an exploratory study. Crim Justice Stud. 2013;26: 433–454.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Dillman DA. Internet, Phone, Post, and Mixed-Way Surveys: The Tailored Blueprint Method. 4th ed. Wiley; 2014.
44. 44. Statistical Policy Working Paper 22 (2d version, 2005): Report on Statistical Disclosure Limitation Methodology. Federal Commission on Statistical Methodology, Statistical and Scientific discipline Policy; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Direction and Upkeep; 2005 Dec.
45. 45. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Customs-based participatory inquiry: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in wellness inquiry. Educ Wellness Abingdon Engl. 2001;14: 182–197. pmid:14742017
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Senn C, Eliasziw M, Barata P, Thurston W, Newby‑Clark I, Radtke 50, et al. Efficacy of a Sexual Assail Resistance Program for Academy Women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372: 2326–35. pmid:26061837
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Johnson SM, Tater MJ, Gidycz CA. Reliability and Validity of the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Forms Victimization and Perpetration. Violence Vict. 2017;32: 78–92. pmid:28234199
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. The GenIUSS Group. Best Practices for Request Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys. [Cyberspace]. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.; 2014. Bachelor: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/geniuss-report-sep-2014.pdf
49. 49. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant Thousand. Development of the Alcohol Utilise Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption—II. Addict Abingdon Engl. 1993;88: 791–804.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Reinert DF, Allen JP. The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31: 185–199. pmid:17250609
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Peng C-Z, Wilsnack R, Kristjanson A, Benson P, Wilsnack S. Gender Differences in the Gene Structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in Multinational Full general Population Surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124: 50–6. pmid:22236536
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Bergman H, Källmén H. Alcohol use amongst Swedes and a psychometric evaluation of the booze use disorders identification test. Alcohol Alcohol Oxf Oxfs. 2002;37: 245–251.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Redford J, Van Wagenen A. Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in a Self-Administered Survey: Results from Cerebral Research with Older Adults [Internet]. San Francisco, CA: American Institutes for Research; 2012. Available: http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122975
54. 54. Sell R. Measures. In: LGBTData.com [Internet]. Available: http://www.lgbtdata.com/measures.html
55. 55. Cohen J. Statistical power assay for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
56. 56. Ford J, Soto-Marquez J. Sexual Assault Victimization Amid Straight, Gay/Lesbian, and Bisexual Higher Students. Violence Gend. 2016;3: 107–115.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Rankin S, Weber G, Blumenfeld W, Frazer M. 2010 State of Higher Education For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender People [Internet]. Charlotte, NC; 2010. Written report No.: 978-0-9830176-0–8. Bachelor: https://www.campuspride.org/wp-content/uploads/campuspride2010lgbtreportssummary.pdf
58. 58. Mustanski B, Greene G, Ryan D, Whitton S. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Initial Efficacy of an Online Sexual Health Promotion Program for LGBT Youth: The Queer Sex activity Ed Intervention. J Sexual practice Res. 2015;52: 220–230. pmid:24588408
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Wahesh East, Lewis TF. Psychosocial Correlates of Audit-C Chancy Drinking Risk Status: Implications for Screening and Brief Intervention in College Settings. J Drug Educ Subst Abuse Res Prev. 2015;45: 17–36.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
60. lx. Coker AL, Melt-Craig PG, Williams CM, Fisher BS, Clear ER, Garcia LS, et al. Evaluation of Green Dot: An Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Violence on College Campuses. Violence Women. 2011;17: 777–796.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Jozkowski KN, Peterson ZD. College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. J Sexual practice Res. 2013;fifty: 517–523. pmid:23039912
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Jozkowski KN, Peterson ZD, Sanders SA, Dennis B, Reece M. Chiliad. Gender differences in heterosexual college students' conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. J Sex activity Res. 2014;51: 904–916 pmid:23919322
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Kingree JB, Thompson Thou. Fraternity Membership and Sexual Assailment: An Examination of Mediators of the Association. J Am Coll Health. 2013;61: 213–221. pmid:23663125
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Murnen SK, Kohlman MH. Athletic Participation, Fraternity Membership, and Sexual Aggression Among Higher Men: A Meta-analytic Review. Sex Roles. 2007;57: 145–157.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Wade Fifty. American Hookup: The new culture of sex activity on campus. 1st ed. Westward. Westward. Norton & Company; 2017.
66. 66. Cohen R, Klahr R, Vedantam S, Penman M, Boyle T, Schmidt J, et al. Hookup Culture: The Unspoken Rules Of Sex On College Campuses [Internet]. Available: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/fourteen/514578429/hookup-civilization-the-unspoken-rules-of-sexual practice-on-college-campuses
67. 67. DeGue S, Valle LA, Holt MK, Massetti GM, Matjasko JL, Tharp AT. A systematic review of master prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggress Tearing Behav. 2014;19: 346–362.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Crossman MT. Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of pupil leaders as empowered bystanders. J Coll Stud Dev. 2009;50: 446–457.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Coker A, Fisher B, Bush H, Swan S, Williams C, Clear E, et al. Evaluation of the Green Dot Bystander Intervention to Reduce Interpersonal Violence Among Higher Students Across 3 Campuses. Violence Women. 2014; ane–21.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
70. lxx. Silbaugh Grand. Reactive to proactive: Title IX'south unrealized capacity to prevent campus sexual attack. Boston Univ Law Rev. 2015;95: 1049–1075.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

fischerhoucter.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186471