Sexual Harassment Survey (AAUW, 1993)

Sexual harassment behaviors among peer groups in adolescents; 52 Items / 13 Item Subscales, Ages 12-18
  • Populations: Children & Adolescents
  • Age ranges: 12-18
  • Languages: English, Spanish, Italian
  • Countries: Italy; Spain

Items

All Items

  • Made sexual comments, jokes, movements, or looks at you 
  • Brushed up against you in a sexual way on purpose 
  • Spread sexual rumours about you 
  • Called you “fag,” “dyke,” “lezzie,” or “queer” 
  • Flashed or “mooned” you 
  • Pulled at someone’s clothing in a sexual way 
  • Blocked someone’s way or cornered them in a sexual way 
  • Forced someone to do something sexual other than kissing 
  • Spied on someone as they dressed or showered at school 
  • Forced someone to kiss you 
  • Touched, grabbed, or pinched in a sexual way 
  • Showed, gave, or left someone sexual pictures, photographs, messages, or notes 
  • Wrote sexual messages or graffiti (e.g., on bathroom walls,  in locker rooms, in a note or book) about someone 
  • Pulled someone’s clothing off or down 

Items as presented by Ortega and colleagues (2010)

 

Responses

Items used a 5 point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 - (Never) to 4 (Daily)

Scoring

Not Reported

Citations

  • Bryant, A. L. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in america’s schools. american association of university women. The Journal of School Health, 63(8), 355-357.

 

Spanish 

  • Ortega, R., Sánchez, V., Ortega-Rivera, J., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2010). Peer sexual harassment in adolescent girls: A cross-national study (spain-italy). International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10(2), 245-264.
  • Vega-Gea, E., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Sánchez, V. (2016). Peer sexual harassment in adolescence: Dimensions of the sexual harassment survey in boys and girls. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.08.002

Team comments

A paper using a  Spanish version of this measure (Ortega et al, 2010) suggested support for two theoretical models,  a one-dimensional model for each subscale, and a two-dimensional model for each subscale, consting of visual-verbal and physical dimensions.  Please see the work by Vega-Gea, Ortega-Ruiz, and Sánchez (2016) for more information on these two models.

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

  • Significant design input from young people
  • Cognitive interviews with young people
  • Expert input

Validity

  • Unknown: Face validity
  • Unknown: 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

Categories

Start a new search

Loading