Multidimensional Online Grooming Questionnaire (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2021)
- Populations: Children, Adolescents
- Age ranges: 12-15
- Countries: Spain
Items
Subscales:
- Use of Deception
- Gift Giving
- Interest in the Victim’s Environment
- Sexualization
- Aggression
Items by Subscale:
Use of Deception
- Lied to make me believe that he/she was a person closer to my age [by appearance, language, etc.]
- Told me that he/she was younger than he/she really was
- Lied to make me believe that we had things in common or that we liked the same things
- Pretended to be other people to convince me of things or scare me
Gift Giving
- Offered me free photo sessions
- Offered me work because of my physical appearance (as a model, public relations, etc.)
- Offered me money or other things in exchange for sex
- Offered me money or other things in exchange for photos or videos of me
Interest in the Victim’s Environment
- Showed interest in my school hours, family, etc.
- Asked me about my family and friends
- Was interested in my family problems
- Was interested in how I feel, if I was happy
Sexualization
- In the beginning, he/she didn’t talk to me about sex, but then he/she did
- Made sexual jokes or comments about me
- Asked me about my sexual experiences
- From the beginning, showed me his/her interest in sex
Aggression
- Sent me threatening or insulting messages
- Threatened to spread or post intimate or sexual photos or videos of me on the Internet
- Spread jokes, rumors, gossip, or comments that humiliated me
- Made me look bad with my family, friends or people I know
Responses:
0 (never), 1 (once or twice), 2 (3–4 times), and 3 (5 or more times).
Scoring
Not Reported
Citations
Gámez-Guadix, M., De Santisteban, P., Wachs, S., & Wright, M. (2021). Unraveling cyber sexual abuse of minors: Psychometrics properties of the Multidimensional Online Grooming Questionnaire and prevalence by sex and age. Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105250
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Green: Face validity
- Green: Convergent validity
- Green: Construct validity
Reliability
- Green: Internal consistency
- Unknown: Test-retest
Ease of use
- Unknown: Readability
Definitions
Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.
Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.
Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.
Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.
Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).
Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.
Key
- Green: Meets validation criteria
- Red: Does not meet validation criteria
- Unknown: Evidence not available