Sexual Harassment Survey (AAUW, 1993)
- 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