为什么不同研究的强奸受害率不同?一项检验调节变量的荟萃分析

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Aggression and Violent Behavior Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2023.101839
Rachael Goodman-Williams , Emily Dworkin , MacKenzie Hetfield
{"title":"为什么不同研究的强奸受害率不同?一项检验调节变量的荟萃分析","authors":"Rachael Goodman-Williams ,&nbsp;Emily Dworkin ,&nbsp;MacKenzie Hetfield","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2023.101839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research studies have identified multiple study- and sample-related factors that predict variation in the proportion of participants who report experiences of rape (non-consensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration obtained by force, threat of force, and/or victim incapacitation). The magnitude of variation introduced by these methodological variables is often unclear, which can complicate attempts to compare findings across research studies. With the goal of identifying and quantifying sources of variation, we conducted a meta-analysis that compared rates of rape experienced by women in the United States during adolescence or adulthood. 6391 research articles were evaluated for inclusion and 84 studies (89 independent samples) met inclusion criteria. Results of a random-effects meta-analysis found that an average of 17.0 % (95 % CI [15.7 %, 18.3 %]) of participants across samples reported experiences of rape in adolescence or adulthood. The mean participant age, source of the sample, perpetration tactics included in the measure, and interaction between sample source and perpetration tactics each predicted significant variation in the proportion of victims identified. Participant recruitment method, publication year, and the earliest age included in the reference period did not predict significant variation. These findings clarify the impact of methodological variables on observed victimization rates and provide context that can inform comparisons across sexual victimization studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do rape victimization rates vary across studies? A meta-analysis examining moderating variables\",\"authors\":\"Rachael Goodman-Williams ,&nbsp;Emily Dworkin ,&nbsp;MacKenzie Hetfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.avb.2023.101839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research studies have identified multiple study- and sample-related factors that predict variation in the proportion of participants who report experiences of rape (non-consensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration obtained by force, threat of force, and/or victim incapacitation). The magnitude of variation introduced by these methodological variables is often unclear, which can complicate attempts to compare findings across research studies. With the goal of identifying and quantifying sources of variation, we conducted a meta-analysis that compared rates of rape experienced by women in the United States during adolescence or adulthood. 6391 research articles were evaluated for inclusion and 84 studies (89 independent samples) met inclusion criteria. Results of a random-effects meta-analysis found that an average of 17.0 % (95 % CI [15.7 %, 18.3 %]) of participants across samples reported experiences of rape in adolescence or adulthood. The mean participant age, source of the sample, perpetration tactics included in the measure, and interaction between sample source and perpetration tactics each predicted significant variation in the proportion of victims identified. Participant recruitment method, publication year, and the earliest age included in the reference period did not predict significant variation. These findings clarify the impact of methodological variables on observed victimization rates and provide context that can inform comparisons across sexual victimization studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aggression and Violent Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aggression and Violent Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178923000265\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178923000265","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究已经确定了多种与研究和样本相关的因素,这些因素预测了报告强奸经历的参与者比例的变化(通过武力、武力威胁和/或受害者丧失行为能力获得的非自愿口腔、肛门或阴道穿刺)。这些方法变量引入的变化幅度通常不清楚,这可能会使比较研究结果的尝试变得复杂。为了识别和量化变异的来源,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了美国女性在青春期或成年期遭受强奸的比率。对6391篇研究文章进行了纳入评估,84项研究(89个独立样本)符合纳入标准。一项随机效应荟萃分析的结果发现,样本中平均17.0%(95%CI[15.7%,18.3%])的参与者报告了青春期或成年期的强奸经历。参与者的平均年龄、样本来源、测量中包括的实施策略,以及样本来源和实施策略之间的相互作用,都预测了确定的受害者比例的显著变化。参与者招募方法、出版年份和参考期内的最早年龄均未预测出显著差异。这些发现阐明了方法变量对观察到的受害率的影响,并提供了可以为性受害研究之间的比较提供信息的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why do rape victimization rates vary across studies? A meta-analysis examining moderating variables

Research studies have identified multiple study- and sample-related factors that predict variation in the proportion of participants who report experiences of rape (non-consensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration obtained by force, threat of force, and/or victim incapacitation). The magnitude of variation introduced by these methodological variables is often unclear, which can complicate attempts to compare findings across research studies. With the goal of identifying and quantifying sources of variation, we conducted a meta-analysis that compared rates of rape experienced by women in the United States during adolescence or adulthood. 6391 research articles were evaluated for inclusion and 84 studies (89 independent samples) met inclusion criteria. Results of a random-effects meta-analysis found that an average of 17.0 % (95 % CI [15.7 %, 18.3 %]) of participants across samples reported experiences of rape in adolescence or adulthood. The mean participant age, source of the sample, perpetration tactics included in the measure, and interaction between sample source and perpetration tactics each predicted significant variation in the proportion of victims identified. Participant recruitment method, publication year, and the earliest age included in the reference period did not predict significant variation. These findings clarify the impact of methodological variables on observed victimization rates and provide context that can inform comparisons across sexual victimization studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.
期刊最新文献
The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis The management of aggression in third wave behavioral therapies: A systematic review Experiences of forensic mental health patients and professionals with shared violence risk assessment and management: A scoping review of qualitative studies School bullying perpetration and victimization as predictors of youth delinquency: A meta-analysis of prospective studies and data Neuro-cognitive systems that, when dysfunctional, increase aggression risk and the potential for translation into clinical tools
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1