{"title":"Men's Sexual Violence Against Women: A Systematic Review of Self-Reported Measures of Perpetration.","authors":"Ngai Lam Mou","doi":"10.1177/15248380251316907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research has studied men's perpetration of sexual violence against women using various self-reported measures. A major difference among these measures is the types of perpetration tactics they assess. Measures having a broader range of tactics tend to detect higher perpetration rates. Yet, it is unclear whether these measures perform better on other aspects of reliability and validity as well. This review aimed to identify the available measures of men's sexual violence perpetration against women and to review the types of tactics and psychometric evidence of these measures. A systematic search was conducted in nine databases to identify articles that used a standardized self-report measure to assess men's sexual violence perpetration against women. The final sample included 85 articles, and 13 unique measures were identified from these articles. Results showed that three broad types of tactics were included in these measures: use of physical force, use of substances, and verbal coercion. Some measures also included a type of physical tactic that was manipulative or coercive but not necessarily forceful. Only one measure captured all types of tactics identified. Psychometric evidence was available for 12 measures, but the evidence regarding which measure provides the most accurate perpetration rates was inconclusive due to a lack of replications. This review highlighted the need for improving measures of sexual violence perpetration. Measures of perpetration should include a comprehensive range of tactics to increase validity, and more research is needed to examine test-retest reliability, false positives, and false negatives in responses to perpetration measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"15248380251316907"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251316907","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research has studied men's perpetration of sexual violence against women using various self-reported measures. A major difference among these measures is the types of perpetration tactics they assess. Measures having a broader range of tactics tend to detect higher perpetration rates. Yet, it is unclear whether these measures perform better on other aspects of reliability and validity as well. This review aimed to identify the available measures of men's sexual violence perpetration against women and to review the types of tactics and psychometric evidence of these measures. A systematic search was conducted in nine databases to identify articles that used a standardized self-report measure to assess men's sexual violence perpetration against women. The final sample included 85 articles, and 13 unique measures were identified from these articles. Results showed that three broad types of tactics were included in these measures: use of physical force, use of substances, and verbal coercion. Some measures also included a type of physical tactic that was manipulative or coercive but not necessarily forceful. Only one measure captured all types of tactics identified. Psychometric evidence was available for 12 measures, but the evidence regarding which measure provides the most accurate perpetration rates was inconclusive due to a lack of replications. This review highlighted the need for improving measures of sexual violence perpetration. Measures of perpetration should include a comprehensive range of tactics to increase validity, and more research is needed to examine test-retest reliability, false positives, and false negatives in responses to perpetration measures.
期刊介绍:
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.