Measuring Victimization

Measuring Sexual Identity, Gender Identity, and Biological Sex in Large Social Surveys: Implications for Victimization Research

“…Participants that identify as cisgender or heterosexual could be screened out after reaching the threshold, allowing more data collection for SGM individuals expending fewer resources. It may also be possible to “pool” estimates across years in surveys (Daigle et al, 2016), as long as the measurement has stayed the same, to obtain larger samples sizes as utilized in Griner and colleagues (2020). Finally, Kalton (2009) suggested sharing costs across surveys, something the CDC could easily do among the numerous surveys it conducts each year.…”

Reducing the Methodological Heterogeneity (“Noise”) in the Literature Predicting In-Prison Interpersonal Harm in Male Populations

“…There is very little uniformity in the definition of physical and sexual victimization used to measure interpersonal harm across prison-based prevalence studies. Some studies defined victimization by crime labels of harm (e.g., rape, sexual assault, physical assault, assault with a deadly weapon), others have identified specific actions of harm (e.g., hit, kicked, touched in a sexually offensive way, pressured or forced to have sexual contact), and a few have blended crime labels with specific actions (e.g., sexually assaulted or touched in a sexually threatening manner) (Cook et al, 2011; Daigle et al, 2016). Within these definitions, the perpetrator may or may not have been identified (e.g., resident, staff, resident or staff) and the recall period may have been limited to a specific time period (i.e., past 3, 6, 12 months) or elastic (e.g., time since incarcerated, time in particular facility).…”