Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study 

Final Technical Report

Christopher Krebs, Christine Lindquist, Marcus Berzofsky, Bonnie Shook-Sa, and Kimberly Peterson

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

Michael Planty, Lynn Langton, and Jessica Stroop

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh Street, NW

Washington, DC 20531

R&DP-2015:04, NCJ 249545, January 2016

Research papers have been reviewed by BJS to ensure the accuracy of information presented and 

adherence to confidentiality and disclosure standards. This paper is released to inform interested 

parties about research and methodologies sponsored by BJS. Any opinions and conclusions 

expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of BJS and 

the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report was prepared using federal funds provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Justice, under award number 2011-NV-CX-K068. The BJS project managers were 

Michael Planty, Victimization Unit Chief, and Lynn Langton, Senior Statistician.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ii

Abstract

Presents the results of a nine-school pilot test that was conducted to develop a campus 

climate survey that collects school-level data on sexual victimization of undergraduate students. 

The report describes the development of the survey instrument and procedures for data collection, 

nonresponse bias analysis, weighting, and validity assessment. It presents estimates for each school 

on the prevalence and incidence of sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery during the 2014–15 

academic year, as well as characteristics of the victims and incidents. It also provides estimates 

of the prevalence of sexual assault since entering college and during the student’s lifetime. In 

addition, the report examines the relationship between measures of campus climate and rates of 

sexual victimization.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

iii

Table of Contents

Section Page

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Instrument Development and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Cognitive Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2.1 Crowdsourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2.2 In-Person Cognitive Interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3 Final CCSVS Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.4 Instrument Programming and Testing................................................. 22

3. Pilot Test Sample Selection and Data Collection Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1 School Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1.1 Eligible Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1.2 Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Student Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1 Developing the Sampling Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.2 Determining CCSVS Pilot Test Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.3 Selection of Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.1 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.2 Recruitment Procedures and Data Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4. Pilot Test Data Assessment and Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.1 Completed Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.1.1 Sample Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.1.2 Completed Surveys by Time in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.1.3 Completed Surveys by Type of Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 Data Cleaning and Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.2.1 Assessment of Item Nonresponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.2.2 Missing Data for Key Derived Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.2.3 Breakoff Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.2.4 Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2.5 Nonresponse Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.2.6 Weighting Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.2.7 Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.3 Study Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

iv

5. Sexual Assault, Rape, and Sexual Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.2 Prevalence Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.2.1 Prevalence of Sexual Assault during the 2014–2015 Academic Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.2.2 Prevalence of Sexual Assault since Entering College and in Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.2.3 Prevalence of Female Sexual Assault during Academic Year 2014–2015, by Key 

Population Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.2.4 Impact of Weighting on Female Sexual Assault Prevalence Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.2.5 Alternative Methods for Estimating Sexual Assault Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.3 Victimization Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3.1 Number of Sexual Assault Incidents in the 2014–2015 Academic Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3.2 Sexual Assault Incidence Rates (Academic Year 2014–2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.4 Characteristics of Female Sexual Assault Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.4.1 Classification and Distribution of Sexual Assault Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.4.2 Distribution of Type of Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.4.3 Type of Tactic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.4.4 Month of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.4.5 Offender Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.4.6 Victim-Offender Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.4.7 Location and Offender School Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.4.8 Drug and Alcohol Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.4.9 Reporting of Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.4.10 Reasons for Not Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.4.11 Impact of Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.5 Methodological Assessments Related to Sexual Assault Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

5.5.1 Field Period Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

5.5.2 Assessment of Incident Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.5.3 Latent Class Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

6. Sexual Harassment and Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.2 Prevalence Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.2.1 Female Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.2.2 Male Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

6.3 Methodological Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6.3.1 Type of Tactic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6.3.2 Field Period Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

7. Intimate Partner Violence Victimization................................................... 145

7.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7.2 Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

v

7.2.1 Female Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7.2.2 Male Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

8. Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

8.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

8.2 Sexual Harassment Perpetration Prevalence Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

8.3 Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevalence Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

9. School Connectedness and Campus Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

9.1 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

9.2 Creation of Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

9.3 Association between Campus Climate and Sexual Assault Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

10. Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

10.1 Greeting Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

10.1.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

10.1.2 Results of Bivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

10.1.3 Results of Model-Based Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

10.2 Incentive Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

10.2.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

10.2.2 Results of Bivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

10.2.3 Results of Model-Based Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

11. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

11.1 What Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

11.2 Potential Modifications to Consider................................................. 190

11.2.1 Data Collection Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

11.2.2 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Appendices

Appendix A: Cognitive Interview Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: Pilot Test Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Pilot Test Data Collection Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Response Rates by School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E: Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Rape, and Sexual Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F: Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G: Data Tables for Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Appendix H: Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Appendix I: Data Tables for School Connectedness and Campus Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Appendix J: Data Tables for Experiment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

vi

List of Figures

Figure number Page

Figure ES-1. Response rates by school and sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6

Figure ES-2. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-7

Figure 1. Illustration of sample size requirements based on school size, by sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2. Percentage of targeted number of completed interviews by school and day of data collection 

for undergraduate female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3. Percentage of targeted number of completed interviews by school and day of data collection 

for undergraduate males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 4. Response rate, by school and sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 5. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 6. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 7. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, since entering college and in 

lifetime, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 8. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual assault, since entering college and in 

lifetime, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 9. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault by year of study and school, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 10. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by age and school, 2014–2015 

academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 11. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by race/ethnicity and school, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 12. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by sexual orientation and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 13. Eight alternative approaches to calculating sexual assault prevalence for undergraduate 

females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 14. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting 1, 2, and 3 or more incidents of sexual 

assault, 2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 15. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting 1, 2, and 3 or more incidents of sexual assault, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 16. Undergraduate female sexual assault rates for sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

vii

Figure 17. Undergraduate male victimization rates for sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 18. Distribution of sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females, by type of sexual 

contact specified, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 19. Percentage of rape incidents by type of penetration specified and type of penetration not 

specified for undergraduate females, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 20. Distribution of tactics used by offenders reported by undergraduate female sexual assault 

victims, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 21. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females involving various tactics, 2014–2015 

academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 22. Number of sexual assault incidents experienced by undergraduate females, by month and 

year of study, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 23. Number of rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females, by 

month and type of sexual assault, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 24. Distribution of undergraduate female victims who indicated that they were unsure in 

which month/year the incident occurred, by Survey Item LCA3 response and year of study, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 25. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females involving one offender and a male 

offender, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 26. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females involving various offender 

categories, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 27. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females that took place on campus and 

involved an offender affiliated with the school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 28. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females that were believed to involve 

offender and victim alcohol/drug use, 2014–2015 academic year...................... 106

Figure 29. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females that were disclosed to various 

sources, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 30. Reasons for not reporting rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate 

females to various officials, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

viii

Figure 31. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females that led to various problems, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 32. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual 

battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females that led to various victim actions, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 33. Unweighted estimated sexual assault rates for undergraduate females, by time in field and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Figure 34. Unweighted estimated sexual assault rates for undergraduate males, by time in field and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Figure 35. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females with two or three 

unwanted sexual contact incidents, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Figure 36. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females with two or three 

unwanted sexual contact incidents, by severity, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 37. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females with two or three 

unwanted sexual contact incidents, by when “unsure” was listed for month, 2014–2015 

academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Figure 38. False positive and false negative rates based on LCA among undergraduate females, by 

indicator, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure 39. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate females, 

2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 40. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate females, by year of 

study, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Figure 41. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate females, by sexual 

orientation, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Figure 42. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual harassment and coerced sexual 

contact, by school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure 43. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact, 

by school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 44. Distribution of tactics used by offenders reported by female sexual harassment victims, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Figure 45. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting intimate partner violence, by school, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure 46. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting intimate partner violence, by school, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ix

Figure 47. Percentage of undergraduate males and females reporting any sexual harassment 

perpetration, by school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Figure 48. Percentage of undergraduate males and females reporting various forms of sexual assault 

perpetration, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 49. Correlation between low school-level male and female climate ratings and female sexual 

harassment and sexual assault victimization rates, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Figure 50. Adjusted odds ratio of survey participation for the greeting experiment (generic vs.

personalized), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Figure 51. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for the greeting experiment (generic vs.

personalized), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Figure 52. Adjusted odds ratio of survey participation for Incentive Experiment 1 ($25 vs. $10), by sex 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year............................................. 182

Figure 53. Adjusted odds ratio of participation for Incentive Experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40), by sex and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Figure 54. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for Incentive Experiment 1 ($25 vs. $10), by sex 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year............................................. 184

Figure 55. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for Incentive Experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40), by sex 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year............................................. 185
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

x

List of Tables

Table number Page

Table 1. Crosswalk between original toolkit instrument and proposed revisions to instrument (with 

rationale) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2. Demographics of cognitive interview participants (number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3. Selection targets for CCSVS Pilot Test schools (number of schools) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4. Final number of sampled students, by sex and school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 5. Sampling metrics for undergraduate females, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 6. Sampling metrics for undergraduate males, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 7. Distribution of respondents by device type and school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 8. Item nonresponse summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 9. Item nonresponse by survey section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 10. Item nonresponse among derived variables, undergraduate females, by school . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 11. Item nonresponse among derived variables, undergraduate males, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 12. Distribution of CCSVS Pilot Test completes by sex and furthest section completed . . . . . . . 46

Table 13. Cohen’s effect sizes, by school and student characteristic among undergraduate females . . . 49

Table 14. Cohen’s effect sizes, by school and student characteristic among undergraduate males . . . . 50

Table 15. Characteristics present in the nonresponse adjustment model for undergraduate females, by 

school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 16. Characteristics present in the nonresponse adjustment model for undergraduate males, by 

school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 17. Design effects due to unequal weighting, by school and sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 18. Mean time to complete CCSVS Pilot Test (in minutes) and percent distribution for 

undergraduate females, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 19. Mean time to complete CCSVS Pilot Test (in minutes) and percent distribution for 

undergraduate males, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 20. Mean time (in minutes) to complete CCSVS Pilot Test survey by sex, victimization status, 

and school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 21. Distribution of undergraduate female and male samples, unweighted data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 22. Unweighted and weighted undergraduate female prevalence estimates of sexual assault, 

rape, and sexual battery, 2014–2015 academic year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 23. Comparison of approaches to sexual assault prevalence measurement, 2014–2015 academic 

year, by school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

xi

Table 24. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual assault prevalence rates among 

undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . 120

Table 25. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for rape prevalence rates among 

undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . 122

Table 26. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual battery prevalence rates among 

undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . 122

Table 27. Distribution of incidents removed by undergraduate females, by month, type of victimization 

and tactic, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Table 28. Distribution of incidents removed by undergraduate males, by month, type of victimization 

and tactic, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 29. Comparisons of LCA variable consistency for complete undergraduate female cases, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 30. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual harassment prevalence among 

undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . 143

Table 31. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for coerced sexual contact prevalence among 

undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 2014–2015 academic year . . . . 144

Table 32. Reliability of campus climate scales (scales with no items dropped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Table 33. Reliability of campus climate scales (scales in which some items were dropped) . . . . . . . . . 160

Table 34. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate females, by school, 2014–2015 

academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Table 35. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate males, by school, 2014–2015 academic 

year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table 36. Percentage of undergraduate females with low climate scores, by school, 2014–2015 

academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Table 37. Percentage of undergraduate males with low climate scores, by school, 2014–2015 academic 

year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 38. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting low climate scores for “perceptions of school 

leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” by student characteristics 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year............................................. 171

Table 39. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting low climate scores for “perceptions of school 

leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” by student characteristics 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year............................................. 172

Table 40. Minimum detectable differences in participation and sexual assault rates for the greeting 

experiment, by sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Table 41. Comparison of participation and sexual assault rates, by greeting assignment and sex, 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

xii

Table 42. Minimum detectable differences in survey participation and sexual assault rates for the 

incentive experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Table 43. Comparison of participation and sexual assault rates, by incentive amount ($25 vs $10), 

2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Table 44. Comparison of survey participation and sexual assault rates, by incentive amount ($25 vs 

$40), 2014–2015 academic year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-1

Executive Summary

The White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault was established in January 

2014. One of its primary goals is to provide institutions of higher education with tools that they can use 

to more effectively respond to and prevent rape and sexual assault. As noted in the first report of the Task 

Force (Not Alone), one such tool is a climate survey designed to help schools understand the magnitude 

and nature of sexual victimization experienced by students. The Task Force specifically encouraged all 

schools to conduct a climate survey and included a draft survey in its toolkit (https://www.notalone.gov/

assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf).

In response to increasing recognition of the role of campus climate surveys, in August 2014 the 

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) funded the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), within the U.S.

Department of Justice, to develop and test a pilot campus climate survey that could be implemented by 

schools or researchers, and used to address key Task Force goals and issues related to the measurement of 

rape and sexual assault in self-report surveys. BJS contracted with RTI International, a nonprofit research 

organization, to collaborate on the design and implementation of the Campus Climate Survey Validation 

Study (CCSVS). The purpose of the CCSVS was to develop and test a survey instrument and methodology 

for efficiently collecting valid school-level data on campus climate and sexual victimization. This Executive 

Summary provides an overview of the methodology used in the CCSVS and key substantive findings, with 

more comprehensive information presented in the full CCSVS Research Report.

CCSVS Research Goals

The CCSVS was designed and implemented around a number of research goals:

1. Develop a survey instrument that uses a collection of techniques to efficiently and 

confidentially collect valid data from undergraduate students about their sexual victimization 

experiences and their perceptions of the campus climate related to sexual harassment and 

sexual assault.

2. Design and implement a survey methodology that collects data from a sample of students, 

achieves response rate and survey completion targets, minimizes nonresponse bias, and 

ensures that the resulting estimates are precise and representative of the undergraduate 

student populations at participating schools.

3. Collect data from students at multiple schools using a standardized methodology (e.g., 

within a standardized time period and using a standardized instrument and process) to 

produce school-specific results that can be compared across schools and are useful to 

participating schools.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-2

The project was to also generate estimates of sexual victimization that can potentially be 

compared to estimates generated by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for identifying 

promising methods to inform NCVS redesign activities and other data collections that measure rape and 

sexual assault.

CCSVS Methodology

Developing the CCSVS Instrument

In August 2014, the CCSVS instrument development process began with an in-depth review 

of the survey included in the toolkit prepared by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From 

Sexual Assault (https://www.notalone.gov/assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf). Modifications to the draft 

toolkit instrument were made to comply with best practices in survey research. Other climate surveys, 

existing scales, and individual measures used in prior campus sexual assault work were reviewed during 

this phase. In addition, a series of listening sessions were held with academic experts in campus sexual 

assault research, federal partners, and school administrators to obtain feedback on the survey’s content 

and data collection methodology. A web-based instrument to be used in the CCSVS Pilot Test was drafted 

and reviewed by representatives from several federal agencies. A key feature of the survey was the use of 

behaviorally specific screening questions to identify sexual assault victims and to use detailed incidentlevel follow-up questions to capture information on up to three individual incidents of sexual assault. To 

maximize the survey’s validity by focusing on recent events that would be easier for respondents to recall, 

the survey focused primarily on sexual assault victimization during the 2014–2015 academic year. A 

limited set of victimization questions were also asked about the broader reference periods of sexual assault 

experienced since beginning college and over the students’ lifetimes. In addition, the survey included 

items for capturing experiences with sexual harassment; coerced sexual contact; intimate partner violence; 

and perpetration of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Other questions assessed several dimensions of 

campus climate, including students’ school connectedness, perceptions of campus leadership efforts related 

to sexual misconduct, and student norms related to sexual misconduct.

Cognitive Testing of CCSVS Instrument

In January and February of 2015, the draft CCSVS instrument was cognitively tested with male 

and female college students, including victims of sexual assault. Two approaches to cognitive testing were 

employed: (1) crowdsourcing and (2) in-person. Crowdsourcing, which entailed administration of key 

sections of the instrument to 240 college students pre-registered with an online opinion hub to complete 

short web surveys for nominal compensation, allowed the study team to efficiently identify as many obvious 

problems with the survey instrument as possible. In-person cognitive testing, which entailed in-depth 

personal interviews covering the entire draft instrument with 36 male and female college students in three 

cities, generated a more nuanced understanding of how a smaller number of respondents—including victims 

of sexual assault—conceptualized and answered each question. The cognitive testing process was extremely 

helpful in identifying several issues with question framing and ordering, and a number of revisions were 

made to the instrument based on the knowledge gained during the cognitive testing process.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-3

Sampling, Recruiting, and Working with Schools

From January to early March 2015, institutions of higher education were recruited to participate 

in the CCSVS Pilot Test. Data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were 

used to identify eligible schools,1 which were stratified by size, public vs. private status, and 2- vs. 4-year 

status. Schools were also selected to obtain some regional variation. Selected schools in each stratum were 

invited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test; out of 24 schools ultimately invited to participate, 9 agreed.

The participating schools offer variation in terms of size, public vs. private status, 2- vs. 4-year status, and 

region of the country. Importantly, neither this sample of nine schools nor the data collected from the 

students attending them are intended to be nationally representative of all college students or institutions 

of higher education. The results can be compared to those of other campus climate surveys and from 

other federal surveys, however, in an effort to improve understanding of the impact that methodological 

decisions have on the magnitude and validity of victimization estimates. Memorandums of Understanding 

(MOUs) and Data Transfer Agreements (DTAs) were established with all participating schools. Where 

required, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the school.

2

Pilot Test Data Collection

The CCSVS Pilot Test was fielded in March 2015. From rosters provided by each school, stratified 

random samples of undergraduate, degree-seeking male and female students who were at least 18 years 

of age were drawn, with sample sizes designed to yield school-specific estimates of campus climate (for 

males) and sexual assault victimization within the 2014–2015 academic year (for females). Sampled 

students were recruited via email to participate in the confidential, web-based survey, which was designed 

to be fully functional on smartphones, tablets, laptops, and desktop computers. On average, the survey 

took 15 minutes for males and 16 minutes for females to complete. For taking the survey, students 

received a $25 gift card; however, in four schools an incentive experiment was conducted to determine 

whether $25 was more effective than $10, and whether $40 was more effective than $25.

3 The survey was 

open for approximately 57 days, but this varied slightly based on each school’s academic calendar. Five 

reminder emails were sent to students who had not responded. Upon completing the survey, participants 

were able to access information on national, local, and school-specific resources and services related to 

sexual violence.

1For-profit schools, schools offering online classes only, and schools with fewer than 1,176 full-time undergraduate women were 

excluded. This resulted in 1,242 schools identified as eligible.

2 IRB approval was also obtained from RTI International, which has Federalwide Assurance (FWA #3331). Clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act was also received from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, approval #1121-0339).

3 In the remaining five schools, a greeting experiment was conducted, in which survey participation rates and sexual assault 

victimization rates were compared between students randomly assigned to receive a personalized greeting in their recruitment 

(and follow-up reminder) e-mail (e.g., “Dear Sarah”) and those randomly assigned to receive a generic greeting (e.g., “Dear [FILL 

SCHOOL NAME] student”).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-4

CCSVS Results

Research Goal #1: Development of Survey Instrument

The CCSVS achieved its goal of using a collection of techniques to efficiently and confidentially 

collect valid data from undergraduate students about their sexual victimization experiences and the 

campus climate related to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Refined based on an extensive cognitive 

testing process, the final web-based survey instrument that was fielded used behaviorally specific screening 

questions to identify sexual assault victims and employed detailed incident-level follow-up questions to 

capture information about up to three individual incidents of sexual assault. The survey focused primarily 

on measuring sexual assault victimization experienced by undergraduate males and females at each school 

during the 2014–2015 academic year.

For the CCSVS, three key types of sexual victimization were measured: sexual assault, rape, and 

sexual battery. Sexual battery was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved 

forced touching of a sexual nature, not involving penetration. This could include forced kissing, touching, 

grabbing, or fondling of sexual body parts. Rape was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual 

sexual contact that involved a penetrative act, including oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, or sexual 

penetration with a finger or object. Sexual battery and rape are mutually exclusive categories (e.g., a victim 

or a sexual victimization incident would be counted as one or the other, but not both). Sexual assault is the 

term used to describe any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved either sexual battery 

or rape. It does not include sexual harassment or coerced sexual contact, which were measured separately.

To understand the types of sexual victimization experienced and the characteristics and outcomes 

of those experiences, the project team developed an incident-based approach to collecting the CCSVS 

Pilot Test data. The incident-based approach asks respondents to identify separate occurrences of 

victimization, date them, and then answer questions about each specific incident, for up to a maximum of 

three. Using an incident-based approach allows for the presentation of prevalence estimates—the number 

of unique victims who experienced one or more victimizations during the reference period (expressed 

as a percentage)—and victimization estimates—the number of incidents experienced by persons in the 

population (expressed as a rate and representing the number of victimization incidents experienced per 

1,000 students). This makes it possible to present prevalence and victimization rates based on the type of 

victimization experienced, rather than looking only at the prevalence of any type of sexual victimization.

Additionally, the incident-based approach allows incidents to be dated and placed within the reference 

period and allows for the identification of the characteristics and outcomes of specific types of incidents.

Secondary outcomes also measured in the CCSVS Pilot Test included sexual assault experienced since 

beginning college and in students’ lifetimes.

In addition to measuring rape and sexual assault, the survey included items for capturing 

experiences with sexual harassment; coerced sexual contact; intimate partner violence; and perpetration 

of sexual harassment and sexual assault; and several dimensions of campus climate, including school 

connectedness, perceptions of campus leadership efforts related to sexual misconduct, and student norms 

related to sexual misconduct.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-5

Research Goal #2: Response Rates, Data Quality, and Precision of Sexual Victimization Estimates

The CCSVS achieved its goal of implementing a data collection methodology that yielded 

reasonable response rates and high data quality. Surveys were completed by more than 23,000 

undergraduate students (approximately 15,000 females and 8,000 males). The average4 response rate 

across all nine schools was 54% for females and 40% for males. Response rates for females ranged from 

43% (School 4) to 71% (School 5); in all schools, the expected response rate of 40% was exceeded. Male 

response rates ranged from 30% (School 4) to 60% (School 5), and expected response rates (35%) were 

achieved or exceeded in five of the nine schools (Figure ES-1).

Nonresponse bias analyses were conducted at the school level using detailed student roster data 

provided by the schools. The distributions of respondents and the sample population were compared 

for characteristics potentially correlated with nonresponse bias for the primary outcome of interest 

(sexual assault victimization during the 2014–2015 academic year). Minimal bias (i.e., differences in 

characteristics of respondents and the population of eligible students) was detected and the survey data 

were adjusted or weighted to compensate accordingly. In addition, a field-period analysis found that 

students who took the survey relatively early in the field period reported experiencing sexual assault 

victimization at the same rate as those who took the survey later in the field period.

4The average presented here is the arithmetic average. In other words, the estimate for each of the schools was added and divided 

by nine to get the average. This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-6

Figure ES-1. Response rates by school and sex

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

The survey data were thoroughly reviewed for quality and completeness. About 2% of respondents 

started but did not finish the survey. The level of missing data (i.e., the proportion of survey items not 

answered by survey respondents) was also relatively low for most items. The survey items that were most 

often not answered by students were the follow-up questions for the second and third incidents of sexual 

assault, which indicates respondent fatigue.

The CCSVS achieved its goal of obtaining prevalence estimates of sexual assaults experienced 

by females with the desired level of precision at eight of nine schools using a representative sample of 

students. The prevalence rate for completed sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females during 

the 2014–2015 academic year, averaged across the nine schools, was 10.3%, and ranged from 4.2% at 

School 2 to 20.0% at School 1 (Figure ES-2). The average prevalence rate for completed sexual battery 

during the 2014–2015 academic year was 5.6%, and ranged from 1.7% at School 2 to 13.2% at School 1.

The average prevalence rate for completed rape during the 2014–2015 academic year was 4.1%, and ranged 

from 2.2% at School 9 to 7.9% at School 5.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-7

Figure ES-2. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, rape, 

and sexual battery, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

The sexual assault victimization incidence rate for completed sexual assault, averaged across the 

nine participating schools, was 176 per 1,000 undergraduate females, and ranged from 85 at School 2 

to 325 at School 1. The average victimization incidence rate for sexual battery per 1,000 undergraduate 

females was 96, and ranged from 34 at School 2 to 221 at School 1. The average victimization incidence 

rate for rape per 1,000 undergraduate females was 54, and ranged from 28 at School 9 to 110 at School 5.

Across the nine participating schools, 4.3% of sexual battery incidents and 12.5% of rape incidents were 

reported by the victim to any official.

5

The full technical report presents victimization estimates by key student subgroups, including age, 

year of study, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Results showed that at most of the nine participating 

schools, students age 18–22 experienced sexual victimization at higher rates than those aged 23 or 

older, and that nonheterosexual students were more likely to be victimized than heterosexual students.

Additional incident characteristics are also included in the full technical report, including the tactics used 

by the offender to commit the sexual assault, the month and location in which the incident occurred, 

5 This includes 1) administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at the school; 2) a crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health 

care center at the school; 3) a crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care center not at the school; 4) campus police or 

security, or 5) local police not at the school, such as the county or city police department.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-8

the number and sex of the offender(s), the offender’s school affiliation and relationship to the victim, the 

victim’s and offender’s alcohol and drug use, impact(s) on the victim, the victim’s reporting experiences, 

and reasons for not reporting. Additionally, a number of other estimates were developed (and are included 

in the full technical report), including sexual assault victimization experienced since entering college and 

in students’ lifetimes; experiences with sexual harassment, coerced sexual contact, and intimate partner 

violence victimization; sexual harassment and sexual assault perpetration; and a variety of campus climate 

measures and their association with sexual victimization rates.

Research Goal #3: Implement Methodology in a Standardized Manner that Allows for CrossSchool Comparisons and Produces Procedures for Conducting Climate Surveys 

and Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault

The CCSVS Pilot Test achieved its goal of implementing a standardized methodology across 

all nine participating schools. The standardized methodology allowed prevalence and incident rates for 

key outcomes to be compared across schools. The school-level estimates presented in Figure ES-2 are 

comparable because the same sampling, instrument, data collection, and estimation procedures were 

used at each school. Evident from Figure ES-2 is the variability or range of these estimates across schools 

and that the estimates for several schools can be differentiated from one another statistically. The schoolspecific results are, in themselves, useful to the participating schools as they provide information about 

the magnitude and nature of sexual victimization experienced by their students; however, being able to 

compare the results from one school to another has additional value in that it enables a school to assess 

whether its estimates are similar to those of other schools. Using a standardized approach to climate 

surveys across schools can allow researchers and other interested stakeholders to learn more about why 

estimates vary across schools and how estimates relate to student demographics, student activities, school 

policies and procedures, and other factors. Using a standardized approach to climate surveys within a 

given school over time allows for a better understanding of how estimates change over time and the factors 

potentially associated with change.

Schools and other stakeholders have reasons to be confident in the CCSVS Pilot Test procedures 

used for conducting climate surveys and measuring rape and sexual assault. Numerous methodological 

assessments were conducted in an effort to assess the quality and validity of the data collected for the 

CCSVS Pilot Test and to provide guidance on how best to conduct future climate surveys similar in scope.

For instance, a technique called latent class analysis was used to assess the validity of key sexual assault 

victimization estimates.

6 Based on the latent class analysis assessment, estimates did not appear to be 

impacted by false positive or false negative bias. The conclusions provided at the end of the full technical 

report provide commentary on a number of methodological considerations. For instance, it is suggested in 

the report that:

6 Latent class analysis uses embedded replication (i.e., multiple survey items asking about a concept or a latent construct) to 

measure the accuracy of the key estimates and produce unbiased estimates of the latent construct of interest (e.g., experiencing 

unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

ES-9

■	 The survey instrument be brief (less than 20 minutes) and function on a variety of electronic 

devices (e.g., computers, tablets, and smartphones).

■	 The survey instrument use behaviorally specific language and a self-administered survey 

mode when asking questions about sexual victimization.

■	 Recruitment materials be personalized for potential respondents (e.g., address students by 

their first names) and that messages be customized for males to increase participation.

■	 The survey be administered towards the end of the academic year and remain in the field for 

at least one month, but preferably about two months.

■	 The methodology should include multiple follow-up reminders for nonrespondents.

■	 Incentives in the $20-30 range be given to survey respondents.

The CCSVS Pilot Test also addressed a variety of methodological issues that have implications 

for the measurement of rape and sexual assault within the general population in addition to a student 

population. In particular, the findings regarding the use of behaviorally specific questions, the selfadministered mode of administration, and the two-stage screening approach could potentially be used 

to inform decisions related to ongoing NCVS redesign efforts, as well as efforts to improve other large 

federal surveys focused on sexual victimization. By analyzing data collected from NCVS respondents who 

are similar demographically to the CCSVS Pilot Test respondents (e.g., college students who are mostly 

18 to 24 years of age), differences in the level and nature of sexual victimization captured by each survey 

can be attributed, at least in part, to the different approaches used to measure rape and sexual assault. For 

example, if CCSVS Pilot Test rates are considerably higher, that difference can potentially be attributed to 

the fact that the CCSVS employed a self-administered data collection mode and/or behaviorally specific 

survey questions to screen for sexual victimization. This finding, in turn, could inform assessments of 

the potential impact that changing how the NCVS measures rape and sexual assault may have on NCVS 

estimates going forward.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

1

1. Background

In January of 2014, the White House established the Task Force to Protect Students From 

Sexual Assault. The Task Force was established with the goals of identifying promising practices for 

reducing rape and sexual assault among college students and bringing improvements, consistency, and 

evidence-based practices to campus responses to victimization. A major component of the Task Force’s 

plan was to encourage the administration of campus climate surveys to capture self-reported data on 

students’ experiences with sexual assault and perceptions of the climate related to sexual misconduct.

Campus climate surveys provide one vehicle for measuring the problem of rape and sexual assault 

among college students, and have the potential to collect information that is needed to understand which 

policies and programs are most effective at reducing the prevalence of rape and sexual assault, providing 

effective and necessary services to victims, investigating sexual victimization incidents, and holding 

perpetrators accountable.

Self-reported data on rape and sexual assault provide an understanding of the extent and nature of 

crimes that often go unreported to police and are thus undercounted in official law enforcement statistics.

The low reporting rate of rape and sexual assault is due to the sensitive and personal nature of these 

crimes, the fact that victims may not define or think about what happened to them as crimes, or victims’ 

lack of confidence that reporting the crimes will result in satisfactory outcomes. Although the nature 

and definitional ambiguity of rape and sexual assault incidents can make measuring them accurately 

challenging for survey researchers, because these crimes can have severe impacts on and consequences for 

victims, the importance of understanding the prevalence, incidence, and nature of rape and sexual assault 

is widely recognized.

The Task Force developed a core set of items for a student climate survey to capture key aspects 

of the problem of sexual assault for campuses (https://www.notalone.gov/assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf).

The initial instrument was informed by prior research efforts and guided by the notion that for climate 

surveys to be effective, they must generate valid and reliable estimates of the prevalence of rape and sexual 

assault victimization; capture sufficient information about the victims, the incidents, the perpetrators, and 

the campus environment/culture to identify correlates of sexual victimization; and identify school policies 

or practices that might be associated with increases or decreases in the prevalence of sexual assault. The 

instrument developed by the Task Force covered the following topics: (1) general climate of the school, 

(2) perceptions of leadership, policies, and reporting, (3) the prevalence of sexual violence, (4) the context 

around the incidents of sexual violence, (5) bystander confidence and readiness to help, (6) perceptions of 

sexual assault, (7) rape myth acceptance, and (8) the prevalence of interpersonal violence.

Given the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS’) interest in and experience with the measurement of 

rape and sexual assault, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) funded BJS to develop and test 

a pilot campus climate survey that could be implemented by schools or researchers and used to address 

key Task Force goals and key issues related to the measurement of rape and sexual assault in self-report 

surveys. Because of the short turnaround time allotted for designing and administering the pilot test, BJS 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

2

contracted with RTI International, an independent, nonprofit research organization, as a partner in the 

effort to design and implement the tasks associated with this Campus Climate Survey Validation Study 

(CCSVS). Researchers at RTI have extensive experience measuring and studying rape and sexual assault 

and are responsible for several influential studies focused on college students (specifically, Krebs et al., 

2009; Krebs et al., 2011).

1.1 Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS)

Since 1992, BJS has collected self-report data on rape and sexual assault victimization through 

the household-based National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS has respondents recall, 

enumerate, and date each incident of property and violent crime they experienced to produce annual 

victimization estimates. It uses a two-stage screening process to identity victims of a broad range of 

crimes, reported and not reported to police, and asks respondents directly if they experienced rape or 

sexual assault during the prior six-month period. NCVS data has been used to estimate the prevalence 

and incidence of these crimes, as well as the characteristics of victims, the circumstances surrounding the 

offense, reporting to the police, and the effects of the victimization.

Over the past few decades, a number of surveys employing a wide range of methodologies have 

measured rape and sexual assault, resulting in different estimates of the magnitude of the problem. Varying 

schools of thought have emerged on whether to approach the measurement of these crimes from the 

criminal justice perspective as the NCVS does or from a public health perspective, which encompasses 

experiences of a sexual nature that may be harmful but do not, in all cases, rise to the level of being 

criminal. Other methodological debates center on whether to ask questions about victimizations that 

occurred during a relatively recent (e.g., past 12 months) versus a lengthier (e.g., since turning 14 or 

lifetime) reference period; the impact of interviewer presence versus using a self-administered survey 

mode; whether to use a one-stage versus two-stage measurement strategy;7 and whether to use terms like 

“rape” or “sexual assault” versus using only behaviorally specific language (that conveys the behaviors or 

events that transpire when rape or sexual assault occur) in the survey questions.

Given the importance of the topic and range of methodological issues for consideration, additional 

research is needed to fully understand the impact of context, survey mode, question wording, and length 

of the reference period on estimated rates of rape and sexual assault. The purpose of the Campus Climate 

Survey Validation Study (CCSVS) was to develop and test a survey instrument and methodology for 

efficiently collecting valid school-level data on campus climate and sexual victimization. Towards that 

purpose, the CCSVS was designed and implemented around the following research goals.

7 The one-stage approach entails using behaviorally specific questions that include and convey all of the elements needed to 

establish that sexual victimization occurred (i.e., that consent was not provided or intended, the nature of the unwanted sexual 

contact, and the types of tactics used by the offender). The two stage-approach entails using behaviorally specific questions to 

establish that sexual victimization occurred (stage 1) along with follow-up questions (stage 2) to collect data on characteristics of 

the victimization (e.g., the nature of the unwanted sexual contact, the types of tactics used by the offender). Researchers sometimes 

reclassify respondents identified as victims in stage 1 based on data collected in stage 2.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

3

1. Develop a survey instrument that uses a collection of techniques to efficiently and 

confidentially collect valid data from undergraduate students about their sexual victimization 

experiences and perceptions of campus climate related to sexual harassment and 

sexual assault.

4. Design and implement a methodology that collects data from a sample of students, achieves 

response rate and survey completion targets, minimizes nonresponse bias, and ensures that 

resulting estimates are precise and representative of the undergraduate student populations at 

participating schools.

5. Collect data from students at multiple schools using a standardized methodology (e.g., 

within a standardized time period and using a standardized instrument and process) to 

produce school-specific results that can be compared across schools and are useful to 

participating schools.

To achieve these goals, the research team used the survey instrument initially produced by the 

Task Force as a starting point for developing an instrument that was relatively short, used behaviorally 

specific cues to identify victims, and employed an incident-based approach to obtain details about the 

nature and consequences of specific rape and sexual assault incidents. Other important components of 

the revised instrument were a two-stage screening process, the dating of incidents to ensure they occurred 

within the reference period, and the use of questions to be used in latent class analysis, a statistical 

procedure used to assess the validity of responses.

In January and February 2015, RTI cognitively tested the preliminary CCSVS instrument with 

male and female college students, including victims of sexual assault, using both crowdsourcing and 

in-person methods. The cognitive testing process helped to identify issues with question framing and 

ordering, and a number of additional revisions were made to the instrument based on the knowledge 

gained during the cognitive testing process. The instrument was also reviewed by representatives from 

several federal agencies and their comments were incorporated.

From January to March 2015, nine schools were recruited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test.

The participating schools offered diversity in terms of size, regions of the country, public vs. private status, 

and 2- vs. 4-year status. From March through May 2015, data collection for the Pilot Test was conducted, 

and completed surveys were collected from more than 23,000 undergraduate students at the nine schools.

This report provides a detailed presentation of all activities undertaken for the CCSVS, the 

school-specific estimates of sexual victimization and campus climate, and the results of numerous 

assessments of the CCSVS methodology and the validity and reliability of the resulting data. The 

information contained in this report will inform future efforts to measure rape and sexual assault in a 

way that maximizes the likelihood of generating valid data that can be used to understand how to prevent 

sexual victimization, provide effective and necessary services to victims, investigate sexual victimization 

incidents, and hold perpetrators accountable.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

4

Although the CCSVS Pilot Test findings are not nationally representative of all college students 

or institutions of higher education, the results can be compared to those of other campus climate surveys 

and from other federal surveys in an effort to improve understanding of the impact that methodological 

decisions have on the magnitude and validity of victimization estimates. Ultimately, the methodological 

aspects of the CCSVS Pilot Test have implications for the design and administration of campus climate 

surveys and for the measurement of rape and sexual assault in general. The information presented in this 

report provides guidance and insights that reflect state-of-the-art methodology, as well as the most current 

knowledge and the best practices for measuring sexual victimization.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

5

2. Instrument Development and Testing

The CCSVS Pilot Test survey instrument and methodology were designed to accomplish two 

primary objectives, one related to content and one related to quality.

First, in terms of content, the intention of the CCSVS Pilot Test was to develop valid measures of 

sexual assault victimization and aspects of campus climate related to sexual assault. For the CCSVS, three 

key types of sexual victimization were measured: sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery. Sexual battery 

was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved forced touching of a sexual 

nature, not involving penetration. This could include forced kissing, touching, grabbing, or fondling of 

sexual body parts. Rape was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved 

a penetrative act, including oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, or sexual penetration with a finger or 

object. Sexual battery and rape are mutually exclusive categories (e.g., a victim or a sexual victimization 

incident would be counted as one or the other, not both). Sexual assault is the term used to describe any 

unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved either sexual battery or rape. Sexual assault, 

rape, and sexual battery were priorities, but other types of victimization (e.g., sexual harassment, intimate 

partner violence) were also measured, as was sexual assault perpetration. In terms of the reference period, 

the objective was to develop questions that could be used to produce valid estimates of the incidence and 

prevalence of sexual victimization since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year. Estimates based 

on broader reference periods (since beginning college and lifetime) were of secondary interest.

In addition to producing estimates of sexual victimization, a priority of the CCSVS was to evaluate 

the effectiveness of using a two-stage approach to identify sexual assault victims and to capture additional 

details about individual sexual assault incidents. The two-stage method entailed using a screener with 

behaviorally specific questions to first determine if an incident occurred and how many incidents occurred, 

and then, after placing each incident in time (the specific month since the beginning of the 2014–2015 

academic year), to capture incident-level information through detailed follow-up questions about each 

specific incident. The content collected in the second stage enabled a detailed description of sexual assault 

incidents experienced by undergraduate students.

In addition to enumerating and describing victimization incidents, the survey also needed to 

measure various aspects of campus climate defined as student perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes 

about the campus culture and environment that might be relevant to the prevalence and nature of sexual 

assault; issues related to disclosure and reporting of victimization incidents to authorities; knowledge of 

policies, procedures, and available resources related to sexual harassment and sexual assault; and bystander 

intervention attitudes and behaviors related to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Including these 

measures necessitated consideration about item placement and ordering, as well as the types and number 

of items needed to fully capture these concepts.

Second, in terms of data quality, efforts were made to maximize the methodological rigor of the 

survey and increase the reliability and validity of estimates. For example, given that the survey included 

questions about sensitive topics, a private, self-administered, web-based mode of survey data collection 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

was employed. Because elevated respondent burden can reduce participation rates and data quality, and 

increase breakoff rates (Cape, 2010; Couper, 2008, p. 298; Macer & Wilson, 2014; McMahon & Stamp, 

2009; Galesic, 2006; Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009), the goal was to ensure that the CCSVS instrument took 

an average of 15 minutes to complete. To cover all of the concepts of interest, this meant that each survey 

item had to have a specific purpose, and be as clear and efficient as possible. Taking the incident-based 

approach to capturing details about sexual assault incidents and having respondents place incidents in 

time minimized the likelihood of telescoping, which is when respondents recall events that happened 

outside of, but report them within, the specified reference period. However, this needs to be balanced with 

the concerns about the respondent’s ability to accurately recall incident-specific information and to date 

the event in time. Many factors can affect a person’s ability to recall information accurately.

Finally, a number of validity checks or quality measures were built into the survey instrument 

to facilitate validity assessments. For example, to assess face and predictive validity, internal consistency 

checks were embedded in the instrument to check whether responses to particular items were patterning 

in a consistent manner. In addition, latent class analysis, which is a technique for validating sensitive items 

such as questions related to sexual victimization without knowing the true prevalence of the outcome 

among the sample (i.e., it does not require a gold standard), was used. By embedding multiple survey 

questions that assess the same underlying concept, in this case sexual assault victimization, the number of 

potential false positive cases (i.e., situations in which the data indicate a sexual assault occurred when it 

truly did not) and the number of potential false negative cases (i.e., situations in which the data indicate a 

sexual assault did not occur when it truly did) can be estimated.

The process involved in developing and testing the CCSVS Pilot Test survey instrument and 

methodology was iterative and involved multiple mechanisms, including subject matter consultation, 

cognitive testing, and pilot testing.

2.1 Instrument Development

The first step in developing the CCSVS Pilot Test instrument entailed a review of the draft toolkit 

instrument, developed by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault, which 

was based on or adapted from numerous existing scales and measures. The draft toolkit instrument 

included modules on a range of topics, including prevalence of rape and sexual assault; the context and 

characteristics of incidents; perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to sexual assault; issues related 

to disclosure and reporting to authorities; knowledge of policies, procedures, and available resources; 

bystander intervention attitudes and behaviors; and intimate partner violence/dating violence.

The CCSVS project team made modifications to the draft toolkit instrument in adherence to best 

practices in survey research that were designed, in part, to maximize response accuracy, reduce respondent 

and interviewer burden, and control costs (see Table 1). Many of the modifications were intended to 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

7

streamline the survey so that it could be administered in approximately 15 minutes.

8 Other modifications 

pertained to question ordering and wording.

The project team sought input on the final set of constructs to be included in the CCSVS 

instrument from numerous academic researchers, sexual assault survivor advocates, and federal scientific 

staff with expertise in the measurement of sexual assault. During these discussions, the decision was made 

to cover several additional constructs that were not included in the draft toolkit instrument, including 

sexual assault perpetration, sexual harassment victimization, and sexual harassment perpetration. For the 

measurement of the additional constructs and wording changes to existing toolkit instrument items, the 

study team reviewed several existing scales and survey instruments, with final survey items modified from 

among the following sources:

■	 The Sexual Experiences Survey Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al., 2006a; Koss et al., 

2007) and Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP; Koss et al., 2006b; Koss et al., 2007)

■	 The American Association of University Women sexual harassment survey (Hill & Kearl, 2011)

■	 The Campus Sexual Assault Study (Krebs et al., 2007)

■	 National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000)

■	 The National Crime Victimization Survey (Truman & Langton, 2014)

■	 The Partner Victimization Scale (Hamby, 2014)

8 Several studies have determined that response quality starts to deteriorate after about the 20-minute mark in web surveys (e.g.

Cape, 2010; Couper, 2008, p. 298; Macer & Wilson, 2014; McMahon & Stamp, 2009). In addition, Galesic (2006) compared 10-, 

20-, and 30-minute questionnaires to look at breakoff rates, which went from 32% to 43% to 53%, respectively. Galesic & Bosnjak 

(2009) found that announcing to potential survey respondents that the length of the survey was going to be about 10, 20, or 

30 minutes resulted in response rates of 75%, 65%, and 62%, respectively. Considering these and other studies, the authors of 

Web Survey Methodology (Callegaro, Manfreda, & Vehovar, 2015) conclude that “A very general and rough benchmark for the 

maximum length is around 20 minutes, after which the quality of responses often deteriorates rapidly.”
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

8

Table 1. Crosswalk between original toolkit instrument and proposed revisions to 

instrument (with rationale)

Module Original Approach Proposed Revisions and Rationalea

Demographics Covered race, ethnicity, gender 

assignment at birth, gender 

identity, sexual orientation, 

year of study.

	 Add age, which is an important covariate to explore (independent 

of year of study).

	 Streamline gender identity categories (but keep ability to specify 

“other”) because rare categories (transgender male, transgender 

female, gender queer/gender-nonconforming, and other) will 

likely need to be collapsed for analytic purposes.

	 Remove gender assignment at birth, which is less relevant than 

current gender identity. Revise the approach to measuring race/

ethnicity to be consistent with OMB data collection standards.

General 

Campus Climate

Covered school 

connectedness; perceptions 

about faculty, staff, and 

administrators (respect 

for students, concern 

about students’ welfare, 

fair treatment of students, 

demonstrate leadership 

during a crisis, protect and 

support students); perceptions 

of university response to 

reporting of sexual assault; 

participation in sexual assault 

prevention training; knowledge 

of university procedures and 

resources.

	 Move questions about universityb response to sexual assault 

reporting to follow the sexual assault prevalence questions 

because covering the respondent’s own sexual assault 

experiences before asking generally about the campus response 

to reporting is likely to generate more accurate answers and 

minimize the loss of missing prevalence data due to early 

“break-offs.” In addition, using terms like “sexual assault” before 

asking the prevalence-related questions can prime respondents 

to think about their own experiences differently and inaccurately.

	 Move questions about training and knowledge of university 

procedures/resources to follow the sexual assault prevalence 

questions for the same reasons described above. Additional 

recommendations for these questions include—

– Ask a follow-up question about the topics covered in the 

training attended by the respondent

– Add a few questions about the respondent’s perception of the 

university’s leadership efforts with regard to prevention (e.g., 

the school’s commitment to prevention of sexual assault, 

whether current prevention efforts are effective).

	 Ask separately about attitudes toward faculty and staff, 

administrators, and police/security because students may have 

very different attitudes about or views of each of these groups.

	 Streamline/revise questions to focus on whether each group 

treats students fairly, is concerned about student welfare, cares 

about the students as opposed to the school’s reputation, and 

whether students are comfortable seeking help from each 

group. Questions about handling crises or handling incidents, in 

general, are less likely to be associated with student’s likelihood 

of reporting sexual assault than their comfort level with seeking 

help from the specific group of staff and their perceptions about 

whether each group is genuinely concerned with helping them.

(continued)
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

9

Table 1. Crosswalk between original toolkit instrument and proposed revisions to 

instrument (with rationale) (continued

Module Original Approach Proposed Revisions and Rationale

Sexual Assault 

Prevalence

Initial gate or screener questions 

covered both completed and 

attempted physically forced 

sexual assault and incapacitated 

sexual assault; timeframe not 

specified.

	 Provide a detailed explanation of what students will be asked 

about (unwanted sexual contact), how it is defined, how it can 

occur, and who the perpetrators can be.

	 Use a single screener or gate question to cover the different 

types of unwanted sexual contact (after providing examples 

of physically forced, threatened, and incapacitated) to prevent 

respondents from double counting a single incident as both 

physically forced and incapacitated.

	 Use follow-up questions to determine whether incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact should be categorized as physically 

forced, threatened, and/or incapacitated.

	 Focus on unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the 

2014–2015 academic year to avoid recall bias associated with 

lengthy reference periods, but also include a question that can 

be used to derive a “within the past 12 months” estimate to 

facilitate comparisons across schools.

	 Do not ask about attempted sexual assault because attempts 

are very difficult to define and categorizing an event as an 

attempted sexual assault requires a high level of speculation 

about the perpetrator’s intent. Also, incidents of attempted 

rape that entail forced touching will be captured as sexual 

battery in the overall sexual assault gate question and followups.

	 Add additional “confirmation” questions to allow for latent class 

analyses designed to detect false positive and false negative 

bias.

	 Add an optional open-ended question to allow respondents 

the opportunity to describe each incident in their own words 

to provide additional context and possibly allow for additional 

classification of incidents.

Incident-Level 

Detail

Covered the type of sexual 

assault (e.g., oral sex, 

intercourse) for “most serious 

incident”; covered alcohol 

and drug consumption by 

respondent and perpetrator; 

relationship between perpetrator 

and respondent; perpetrator’s 

affiliation with university; gender 

of perpetrator; how frightened 

respondent was; location of 

incident, categories of individuals 

the respondent disclosed the 

incident to; whether respondent 

used the “formal” reporting 

procedures; (if yes) whether 

the formal procedures helped 

respondent deal with the 

problem; and for respondents 

who did not disclose to anyone, 

why they did not.

	 Do not ask about the “most serious” incident, which is 

problematic because it does not yield information that is 

necessarily representative of a “typical” incident (in that it 

underestimates minor events, which potentially distorts the 

picture of violence on campus) and requires a subjective 

determination about what is “most serious” from the 

respondent’s perspective (e.g., extent of injuries, consequences 

to offender). Instead, ask the respondent how many incidents 

he/she experienced (within the 2014–2015 academic year) 

and then ask incident-level detail for up to 3 incidents selected 

by the respondent. This will allow for the documentation and 

description of many more incidents, and enable the analysis 

of relationships between incident-level characteristics/factors. 

Existing data suggest that most victims experience fewer than 

3 incidents and 98% experienced 5 or fewer incidents during a 

12-month reference period (Krebs et al., 2007).

(continued)
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

10

Table 1. Crosswalk between original toolkit instrument and proposed revisions to 

instrument (with rationale) (continued

Module Original Approach Proposed Revisions and Rationale

IncidentLevel Detail 

(continued)

	 Add a few additional details about each incident, including the 

month it happened (which can be used by schools to guide 

prevention efforts, as well as help the respondent keep up with 

various incidents during the incident follow-up questions), and 

the number of perpetrators (relevant for thoroughly describing 

incidents and for customizing the wording of incident-level followup questions about the perpetrator[s]).

	 Remove items about how frightened respondent was (fear is 

potentially a less common and subjective construct and thus 

could result in data that are misconstrued); and whether the 

respondent used “formal procedures” (which most respondents 

are unlikely to be able to answer with confidence since it might 

not be clear what constitutes a procedure that is “formal”), 

replacing the items with more concrete measures of victim 

impact, such as whether the victim changed their schedule, 

dropped classes, grades suffered, dropped out of school, etc.

	 Break out help-seeking and reporting behaviors by the following 

categories: (a) informal—roommates, friends, or family members, 

(b) crisis center/helpline/hospital/health care center at the 

school, (c) crisis center/helpline/hospital/health care center not 

at the school, (d) campus police/security, e) local (county, city) 

police, and (f) administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at 

the school. Students experiencing sexual assault can notify/seek 

help from many different types of agencies and it is critical to 

learn about their experiences with each category (and reasons for 

not notifying each category).

	 For categories b-f above, ask whether the agency or group was 

notified. For each group notified, ask whether the respondent or 

someone else notified the group (other students may notify or 

report on the behalf of the victim) and whether the group was 

helpful. For each group not notified, ask why the respondent 

did not notify that particular group (using a streamlined set 

of response options most relevant to that particular group). 

These additional details can be used to guide efforts to educate 

students about resources available to them and target needed 

improvements in responding to victims.

(continued)
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 1. Crosswalk between original toolkit instrument and proposed revisions to 

instrument (with rationale) (continued

Module Original Approach Proposed Revisions and Rationale

Optional Module 

1: Bystander 

Attitudes and 

Behaviors

Covered the respondent’s 

stage of readiness in 

getting involved in campus 

sexual violence efforts; the 

respondent’s confidence 

in their ability to engage in 

specific bystander behaviors; 

the respondent’s perception 

of how likely other students 

on campus are to engage in 

specific bystander behaviors; 

the respondent’s perception 

of how likely they are to 

engage in specific bystander 

behaviors; the respondent’s 

experience having someone 

disclose sexual assault to 

them; the respondent’s 

specific responses to 

observing a sexual assault 

situation.

	 For measurement of bystander attitudes/behaviors,

– Streamline scales to reduce administration length/burden. 

Focus on a small number of items that are most likely to 

discriminate among respondents and that reflect the scenarios 

most likely to be encountered among college students.

– Edit wording of scales to avoid double-barreled or highly 

unlikely scenarios, question wording that assumes that a 

student feels a certain way (e.g., “express my discomfort if 

someone makes a joke about a woman’s body”), and genderspecific scenarios.

– Make response options consistent with other response options 

used throughout the survey to reduce respondent burden and 

improve accuracy of responses (e.g., use a simpler Likert scale 

to measure the likely use of bystander behaviors, such as a 

4-option scale reflecting how likely they are to do certain things 

rather than using both a percent estimate of how confident/

certain they are that they could do them and a 0–5 estimate of 

how likely they are to engage in certain behaviors).

	 Delete scale measuring student’s stage of readiness in getting 

involved in campus sexual violence prevention efforts in favor 

of scales that focus more directly on student’s likely use of 

bystander behaviors and less on attitudes reflecting their 

tolerance for sexual assault (described below).

	 Delete questions about the respondent’s experiences of having 

others disclose sexual assault to them (and having observed a 

possible sexual assault situation), as such reports are somewhat 

distal to the respondent’s own experiences and/or are not 

particularly relevant to the climate at a given campus.

Optional 

Module 2: 

Perceptions of 

Sexual Assault

Covered the respondent’s 

perceptions about two 

vignettes that reflect 

sexual assault, rape myth 

acceptance.

	 Develop streamlined scales that measure (a) the respondent’s 

perceptions of the tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual 

assault among the campus community (i.e., the “campus norms” 

surrounding sexual assault), and (b) the respondent’s own 

tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assault. For each 

construct, focus on a small number of items that are most likely 

to discriminate among respondents (i.e., exclude items that the 

vast majority of students are likely to agree or disagree with).

	 Use gender neutral wording throughout.

Optional Module 

3: Physical 

Intimate Partner 

Violence

Covered the frequency with 

which the respondent has 

experienced specific types 

of physical intimate partner 

violence; for the most serious 

incident, how frightened/

concerned the respondent 

was and whether the 

respondent was injured and 

sought services.

	 Use a streamlined version of the Partner Victimization Scale 

(Hamby, 2014) to minimize survey length/respondent burden.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

a The broad rationale for all proposed revisions was improvements to data quality and reductions in respondent 

burden by streamlining the instrument and using simple, clear wording.

b Throughout the survey, terms like “campus” and “school” were recommended in place of “university” to 

accommodate all types of institutions.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

12

The draft CCSVS instrument was reviewed by several scientific experts in academia and the 

federal government. As described subsequently, further revisions were made to the instrument based on 

the knowledge gained during the cognitive testing process.

2.2 Cognitive Testing

Cognitive testing involves having potential survey respondents assess a survey instrument in 

terms of general understanding, question and response wording, skip logic, and visual aids. The purpose of 

cognitive testing is to understand the cognitive process participants use to conceptualize what a question 

is asking, develop their answers, and convey them via a response. The goal is to gain an understanding 

of how well the questions perform when administered to a sample of the survey’s target population. The 

process usually follows a pre-developed protocol that guides the participant through the interview. The 

protocol can include scripted concurrent probes, to be asked while the participant is completing the 

survey, as well as scripted retrospective probes, to be asked once the participant has finished the survey.

The results of cognitive testing are used to assist researchers in revising survey instruments for better 

participant understanding, leading to increased validity and reliability.

The draft instrument was programmed for web-based administration prior to cognitive testing.

Two approaches to cognitive testing were employed: (1) crowdsourcing and (2) in-person, in-depth 

qualitative interviewing. The goal of crowdsourcing was to efficiently identify as many obvious problems 

with critical sections of the survey instrument as possible based on feedback from a large number of 

respondents. In-person cognitive testing was intended to yield a more nuanced understanding of how 

a smaller number of respondents—including victims of sexual assault—conceptualized and answered 

every question.

2.2.1 Crowdsourcing

Eligibility and Recruitment

To test the draft CCSVS instrument using crowdsourcing, RTI worked with Cint, an opinion hub 

that has access to a large number of pre-registered panel members who are interested in completing short, 

web-based surveys for minimal compensation. The panel allows researchers to gain insights by targeting 

specific panelist demographics (e.g., race, age, gender) and characteristics (e.g., occupation). This is 

important because cognitive testing is most useful when participants have similar characteristics to those 

who will be included in the eventual or expected sample. For the CCSVS cognitive testing, Cint panelists 

who resided within the United States, spoke English, were 18–25 years of age, and had self-reported 

occupations as students were selected. Eligible panelists were sent a recruitment email containing a link to 

an informed consent page. After indicating their consent, respondents who were interested in taking the 

survey then proceeded to the first survey question.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

13

Study Sample

A total of 284 individuals began the survey, but 14 were excluded because they self-reported 

being under 18 years of age and one was excluded due to implausible responses. Of the remaining 269 

respondents who were eligible, 89% (n=240) completed the survey. The vast majority of crowdsourced 

respondents (97%) were between the ages of 18 to 25.

9 Almost two-thirds of respondents (64%) were 

female, one-third (33%) were male, and 4% selected either transgender or “something else.”10 Slightly 

more than three-quarters (76%) of the sample described themselves as heterosexual, 12% as bisexual, 2% 

as lesbian or gay, and 9% as “something else.”11 The sample was racially and ethnically diverse. Seventeen 

percent classified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. Two-thirds of respondents described themselves as 

white, and similar proportions of respondents described themselves as black (19%) or Asian (18%).

Procedures

Respondents completed an abbreviated version of the draft CCSVS instrument (see Appendix 

A1), including the unwanted sexual contact gate or screening questions and a limited number of incidentspecific follow-up questions (number of incidents, tactic used during the incident, type of unwanted sexual 

contact, month in which the incident occurred); intimate partner violence victimization; and perceptions 

about campus norms related to sexual harassment and sexual assault. For several questions in the survey, 

respondents were also asked to answer open-ended probes asking for feedback about the question. Some of 

these probes asked respondents whether they had read certain descriptions in the instrument; others asked 

them to write in a definition of a term that was defined in the survey (e.g., “unwanted sexual contact”) 

to assess whether respondents were reading and understanding the descriptions provided as intended.

Finally, at the end of the survey, respondents were asked a series of questions asking for their feedback on 

the survey questions overall and how they were administered.

The median crowdsourced cognitive interview completion time was 14 minutes, with a range of 

0.6 to 114 minutes. Most respondents (66%) took the survey on a laptop, as opposed to a desktop (14%), 

smartphone (16%), or tablet (4%). Respondents received a nominal payment (approximately $6 each) 

through Cint’s payment system.

9 A few Cint panel members were identified as being 18–25 years of age but self-reported (in the survey) being over 25 years of 

age.

10The respondents who wrote in a thoughtful response after selecting “something else” for their gender identity used the terms 

“gender fluid” (n=2) or “agender” (n=1). Also, 30 respondents who began the survey did not answer the gender identity question 

at the end.

11The respondents who wrote in a thoughtful response after selecting “something else” for their sexual orientation used the terms 

“pansexual” (n=6); “asexual” (n=3); “bi-curious,” “demisexual,” or “hetero-romantic asexual” (n=2 for each term); or “between 

bisexual and straight” or “queer” (n=1 for each term).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

14

Findings

Fourteen percent of the Cint respondents reported having experienced one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact within the past 12 months.

12 In general, the gate questions seemed to perform 

well, with most students indicating that they read the definition of unwanted sexual contact, stating 

that they would not use an audio button for this definition if it were offered, and providing reasonable 

definitions of consent. These respondents then answered the incident-specific follow-up questions, which 

revealed the need for some modifications to the instrument (e.g., using drop-down boxes for number of 

incidents rather than write-in responses, determining whether another category for tactic used to achieve 

the unwanted sexual contact should be identified due to high numbers of “don’t know” responses).

All respondents were asked to answer the intimate partner violence victimization questions 

and attitudinal questions covering campus norms regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Respondents’ answers were fairly well distributed across the response options and, when probed, very 

few respondents believed that any of the attitudinal questions were difficult to answer. However, several 

respondents expressed a need for a neutral/don’t know/unsure option, citing their difficulty generalizing 

to the entire student body at their school (particularly when being asked to think about hypothetical 

situations) or unfamiliarity with the extent of the problem at their school.

Finally, all respondents were asked for general feedback about the survey. Overall, most 

respondents reported that the survey was “very easy” (71%) or “somewhat easy” (26%) to complete. Only 

3% reported it was “somewhat difficult” and no respondents indicated that it was “very difficult.” Most 

respondents also reported that it would be very easy for other students to respond to the survey, although 

over a quarter (28%) said that it depended on the situation. Respondents also reported that overall, it was 

“very easy” (87%) for them to navigate through the survey (given the format, font size, and amount of text) 

and that they were very comfortable answering the questions in a web environment.

 When asked about overall thoughts on the survey, relatively few respondents wrote in responses, 

but the most common themes referenced the survey being “OK/fine/good/fair” (n=46), “important/

helpful” (n=33), “straightforward/precise” (n=29), and “interesting” (n=19). When asked whether there 

were any terms or definitions that they did not understand, the vast majority of respondents answered 

“no.” Terms that were listed by one student each included “consent,” “incident,” and “gender identity.” 

When asked what they would do to improve the survey, the most common response written in (besides 

“nothing”) was to add a don’t know/neutral/no opinion response option (n=28). The only other feedback 

that reflected more than one or two respondents’ views was to change the question wording to make the 

items clearer (n=6), ask about scenarios (n=3), change the questions (n=3), and provide more or better 

response options (n=3).

12The past 12 months was used as the reference period in the crowdsourced cognitive testing instrument rather than the 2014–

2015 academic year because it was administered in January 2015 and would therefore provide a longer reference period in which 

to pick up victimizations and enable the testing of questions about victims’ experiences.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

15

Based on the crowdsourced cognitive interview process, the following changes were made to the 

CCSVS survey instrument.

■ The two gate questions that identify sexual assault victims (the yes/no question asking 

whether the respondent had experienced unwanted sexual contact, Survey Item P1, and the 

question asking about the number of incidents of unwanted sexual contact the respondent had 

experienced, Survey Item P2) were placed on the same screen, to increase the likelihood of 

consistent responses.

■ Drop-down boxes, rather than write-in responses, were used to ask about the number of 

incidents of unwanted sexual contact experienced by the respondent (Survey Item P2).

Additional changes were made based on the results of both the crowdsourced and in-person 

cognitive interviews (discussed below). For example, the high numbers of “don’t know” responses to 

the question about the tactic used to achieve unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3) among the 

crowdsourced respondents supported a suggestion made by in-person cognitive interview respondents 

to include grabbing and touching of sexual body parts as a tactic. In addition, in response to the difficulty 

that crowdsourced panelists had with the campus climate questions that require some generalization to the 

entire student body at their schools, more guidance was added to the beginning of each question series in 

this section asking students to think about the overall population of students at their school, and to answer 

the questions as best they can.

2.2.2 In-Person Cognitive Interviewing

In-person cognitive interviewing enables a more in-depth understanding of the process that 

respondents go through when answering survey questions and is used to assess a survey instrument 

for general understanding, question and response wording, skip logic, and visual aids. These interviews 

occur between a volunteer who fits the targeted sample population and a trained cognitive interviewer.

In addition to using scripted concurrent and retrospective probes, cognitive interviewers also use 

spontaneous probing to gain a better understanding of how potential respondents conceptualize questions.

Spontaneous probing occurs when the interviewer asks questions based on something the respondent 

says or does that was not anticipated or scripted ahead of time. Compared to crowdsourcing, which is 

much less interactive and primarily identifies obvious problems with survey questions (in an inexpensive 

and timely manner and with large numbers of respondents), in-person cognitive interviewing allows 

researchers to fully delve into technical and substantive issues, and to generate ideas for how to make 

significant changes and improvements to a survey instrument.

Recruitment

The in-person cognitive interviews were intended to capture the perspectives of a diverse group of 

college students similar to those who would be participating in the CCSVS Pilot Test, including students 

who had experienced sexual victimization while attending college as well as students who had not.

Although no specific sampling targets were created, based on the cities and schools in which recruitment 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

16

took place, recruitment efforts were designed to recruit a sample that reflected diversity (e.g., in terms 

of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status). This was important because respondents with different 

characteristics and backgrounds sometimes approach exercises like cognitive interviewing somewhat 

differently and view questions and terms from different perspectives. Incorporating diverse perspectives 

helps ensure that the final survey instrument accurately measures the key outcomes of interest for a wide 

variety of respondents in a somewhat standardized or universal manner.

College students were recruited from three different locations: Research Triangle Park, NC; 

Washington, DC; and Portland, OR. In each location, contact was made with multiple university victim 

advocacy groups for the purpose of recruiting victims of sexual assault. University contacts who agreed 

to help recruit victims either handed out fliers or discussed the interview with prospective participants.

If interested in participating, they were provided with a phone number to call to set up an interview.

An interviewer received the calls, screened potential respondents, and answered any questions prior 

to setting up an appointment. All aspects of this were voluntary, in that schools volunteered to help 

reach out to victims of sexual assault, and the victims themselves had to volunteer to participate in 

cognitive interviewing.

In addition, some victims were recruited through the same mechanism that was used to recruit 

non-victims: by placing recruitment advertisements on Craigslist.com. An ad was put on Craigslist.com, 

in the three cities, that included information about the study and a link to a website with a screening 

survey. Interested students completed the screening survey online and, if selected, were called by a 

recruiter to confirm the information they submitted. Again, these respondents volunteered to participate 

in cognitive interviewing.

Participants

The participants (n=36) in the in-person cognitive interviews were diverse in terms of 

demographic characteristics (Table 2). Both male and female victims were included.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

17

Table 2. Demographics of cognitive interview participants (number)

Characteristic Portland, OR Washington, DC RTP, NC Total

Victimization Status

Victims 7 5 7 19

Non-victims 10 3 4 17

Sex

Male 5 2 1 8

Female 12 6 10 28

Age

18–25 15 8 10 33

26–34 2 0 1 3

Race

White 13 4 6 23

Black 1 3 4 8

Other 3 1 1 5

Hispanic origin

Hispanic 1 1 0 2

Non-Hispanic 16 7 11 34

Educational Attainment

Some College 13 7 8 28

College Graduate 4 1 3 8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Procedures

The in-person cognitive interviews were conducted by staff who had experience interviewing 

victims of sexual assault and who had been trained on study protocols specific to the CCSVS. All 

interviews were held in person in private RTI offices or private locations on campus in the three cities. At 

the beginning of the in-person cognitive interview, respondents were handed a hard copy of the informed 

consent form, which was read aloud to them, and they indicated their consent to participate in the 

interview, have the interview audio-recorded, and, for some interviews, allow other members of the study 

team to observe the interview.

The interviewers adhered to the cognitive interview protocol (see Appendix A-2 for the final 

interview guide) to ensure consistency in interview administration across interviewers, as well as to ensure 

that all topics of interest were covered. However, the in-person cognitive testing process was iterative, with 

some changes to the draft instrument made after the first few interviews, and new modules tested as they 

were revised. During the interviews, respondents were handed a laptop and completed the web survey.

At key points as respondents were completing the survey, interviewers asked a series of open-ended 

concurrent and retrospective probes; each probe was purposefully designed to assess understanding and 

capture cognitive feedback from the respondents. Probes were both scripted and spontaneous depending 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

18

on the direction the interview took and level of understanding from the respondent. For example, 

following an existing question in the instrument, one scripted probe read, “In your own words, what 

do you think ‘forced touching of a sexual nature’ includes?” Responses enabled the study team to assess 

consistency of interpretation and understanding of this terminology across respondents. An example of 

a spontaneous probe came on the heels of several respondents’ confusion following a question regarding 

their “current student status” as a “first year student,” “second year student,” and so on; the spontaneous 

probe emerged as, “how easy or difficult was this question to answer, and why?”

The interviews lasted approximately 1 hour. They were audio-recorded, with hard copy notes also 

taken by the interviewer. At the conclusion of the interview, participants received $40 cash for their time.

At the end of the interview, all respondents were also provided with a list of national hotline/helpline 

telephone numbers and a list (customized for each of the three locations) of university and local resources.

As another safeguard, if the respondent was recruited from either a crisis center or victims’ group, he/

she was reminded about the services available for further assistance should he/she have any additional 

questions or needs at the conclusion of the interview. These centers were listed as resources in the list 

provided to respondents, and the centers were kept apprised of the general interview schedule so their staff 

were sure to be available to provide services, if needed.

At each interview’s conclusion, the interviewers typed up individual notes using their audiorecordings and any notes taken during the interview. These individual interview notes were then compiled 

into one central document per site, and combined into a single, final document spanning sites. The study 

team then summarized and analyzed emergent patterns and key findings within the final document.

Findings

The cognitive interviewing process revealed several fairly substantive issues with the instrument 

that required revisions, some of which were handled in an iterative fashion during the cognitive 

interviewing process. These issues pertained to question ordering, recommended deletions, and 

question framing.

First, several respondents suggested re-ordering the series of sexual assault and sexual 

harassment/coerced sexual contact questions. Some respondents who had experienced coerced sexual 

contact and/or sexual harassment endorsed the gate question about unwanted sexual contact, which 

originally appeared first, but their experiences did not meet the study’s criteria for unwanted sexual 

contact. When the respondents later arrived at the coerced sexual contact and/or sexual harassment items,

they indicated they would not have endorsed the gate question about unwanted sexual contact had they 

known they would later have the opportunity to report their coerced sexual contact/sexual harassment 

experiences. Based on this feedback, the survey was re-ordered so that sexual harassment victimization 

and coerced sexual contact appeared first (Survey Section 2), followed by unwanted sexual contact (i.e., 

victimization; Survey Section 3).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

19

Second, several victims of unwanted sexual contact indicated that the contact was achieved by 

someone randomly grabbing their sexual body parts. They expressed difficulty in answering the question 

about tactics (Survey Item ILF3) as it was originally worded because none of the existing tactics appeared 

to appropriately represent or reflect their experience. Therefore, one change to the instrument included 

adding a new tactic in the response options (and in the lead framing language) used to document how the 

unwanted sexual contact was achieved (“someone grabbing or touching your sexual body parts”).

Third, several respondents were concerned about the off-putting nature of the follow-up questions 

about perpetration of unwanted sexual contact. Although only a very small number of respondents who 

endorsed at least one of the perpetration gate questions felt this way, the study team was concerned about 

the potential level of breakoff from the survey that might occur or the risk of participants going back to 

this section to change their answers. Therefore, the gate question on perpetration was reworded and the 

perpetration-related incident-level follow-up questions were removed.

Fourth, several victims of unwanted sexual contact did not like the question that asked them 

to provide a description of the incident in their own words. They felt that it could be upsetting to other 

victims and felt that if they were taking the survey on their own, they would likely skip that question.

Several respondents recommended making that question optional and focusing on whether there was 

anything else that they would like to add. This feedback was incorporated into the final version of 

the instrument.

Additionally, several campus climate questions were deleted due to feedback from respondents 

noting that the questions were confusing or difficult to understand. As with the crowdsourced participants, 

several in-person participants expressed general difficulty answering the campus climate questions because 

the response options forced them to either agree or disagree and because the questions asked them to 

generalize about “most students” on campus. Because of the disadvantages of adding a neutral/neither 

agree nor disagree response option—mainly the limited analytic utility of these responses—no changes 

were made to the response options. However, more guidance was added to the beginning of each question 

series in this section asking students to think about the overall population of students at their school, and 

to answer the questions as best they can. In addition, in another section where respondents were asked 

to answer questions about specific groups of university staff (e.g., campus police, faculty), terms such as 

“overall” were added to make it easier for students to respond (e.g., “overall, campus police are doing a 

good job protecting students”).

Lastly, a variety of item-specific changes were made based on feedback from in-person 

respondents, including changes to a question’s wording, changes to the response options (e.g., adding 

additional categories, clarifying existing categories), and changes in formatting (e.g., emphasizing key 

words, using “yes/no” grids rather than “select all that apply,” and avoiding open-ended formats for items 

that could be handled otherwise).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

20

The cognitive interviewing process was important for informing decisions about how to modify 

the instrument to improve the quality of the data collected during the CCSVS Pilot Test. With the 

incorporation of feedback from cognitive interviewing, the research team was confident that the final 

version of the survey would perform considerably better and more accurately capture the experiences of a 

diverse group of respondents. The cognitive interviewing process helped improve the survey instrument to 

the point that it was believed to be as scientifically rigorous as possible, that respondents would understand 

the questions, and that it would be measuring what it was intended to measure.

2.3 Final CCSVS Instrument

Following cognitive testing, the content of the CCSVS instrument was finalized. The final 

instrument comprised the following seven sections that covered, in order—

1. demographics, school connectedness, and general campus climate;

2. experiences with sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact;

3. sexual assault victimization (with detailed follow-up questions asked about up to 

three incidents);

4. intimate partner violence victimization;

5. sexual harassment and sexual assault perpetration;

6. school climate related to sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention; and

7. final student demographics.

See Appendix B for the final instrument used in the CCSVS Pilot Test. The field name of the 

survey was the College Experiences Survey (CES). This neutral title was chosen over a more specific 

title focused on rape and/or sexual assault to avoid selection bias, or the possibility of students who have 

certain characteristics or experiences being more or less likely to participate in the survey. In addition, 

the term “climate” was avoided in the study name because it was learned during cognitive testing that 

this term made students think the survey might have something to do with weather or climate change.

To successfully recruit representative samples of undergraduate students at each participating school, all 

efforts were made to develop study materials that did not in any way encourage or discourage participation 

by students with certain characteristics or any specific groups of students. For example, recruitment 

emails encouraged all students to participate by stating things like, “Your views and experiences are very 

important and your participation will help inform positive change at [UNIVERSITY NAME], so we hope 

you will make your voice heard by taking the survey!” This point was reiterated on the survey start screen, 

“We want the study to represent all undergraduate men and women, so we need everyone who was 

selected to participate no matter what experiences they have had.” In these places, the communication also 

conveyed the confidential aspects of the study, by stating, “Students’ responses to the survey questions will 

remain completely confidential and no survey responses will ever be associated with students’ identities.

The participating schools will not know which students took the survey.”
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

21

Survey Section 1 captured some basic demographic information about the students, assessed how 

they felt about their school in general, and developed rapport before asking the more sensitive questions 

that were included in later sections. This section did not include any references to “sexual assault” or “rape” 

but rather focused on the general climate at school and perceptions of various categories of school staff.

Survey Section 2 assessed whether the student had experienced sexual harassment and/or coerced sexual 

contact during the 2014–2015 academic year, with the intention being to have the student report these 

experiences before answering the questions on sexual assault (Survey Section 3) and thus avoid having 

harassment and/or coerced sexual contact experiences included in the sexual assault question. In addition, 

Survey Section 2 included detailed, behaviorally specific definitions of each type of sexual contact (e.g., oral 

sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse) used in the remainder of the survey.

Survey Section 3 assessed whether students had experienced sexual assault during the 2014–2015 

academic year (as well as since entering college and in their lifetime), when it occurred, and collected 

details about up to three incidents. Asking the student to place the incident on a calendar aids in recall and 

reduces telescoping (i.e., respondents mistakenly reporting events that occurred outside of the school year 

reference period). Respondents were asked detailed follow-up questions about each incident of unwanted 

sexual contact they reported experiencing during the 2014–2015 academic year; respondents who 

reported experiencing more than three incidents were asked detailed questions about, or looped through, 

only three incidents. The incident follow-up loops covered the nature of the sexual contact, the tactics 

used to achieve the sexual assault, the month and location in which the incident occurred, the number 

and sex of the offenders, offender school affiliation and relationship to victim, victim and offender alcohol 

and drug use, impacts on the victim, and reasons for not reporting. The detailed follow-up questions were 

limited to three incidents to avoid imposing excessive burden on respondents who had experienced many 

victimizations and to minimize the amount of missing data and the likelihood of survey breakoffs. In 

addition, the results of existing data indicate that, of those students who have experienced sexual assault, 

most experienced three or fewer incidents within a school year (Krebs et al., 2007).

Beyond asking respondents to provide a date for each incident they experienced, no instructions 

were provided about which incident they should label as “incident #1,” “#2,” “#3,” or which of the three 

incidents they should answer questions about. No guidance was given on these fronts because it was not 

known a priori what would be easiest for respondents. It was also thought that asking respondents to 

select either the first three incidents, the last three incidents, or the three “most serious” incidents could 

introduce bias into the selection process. Instead, respondents were able to decide which incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact to answer questions about and the order in which they organized and were 

looped through questions about their chosen incidents, with post-hoc assessments of how respondents 

ordered incidents planned (see Section 5.5.2 for the results of these analyses). It was believed that by 

letting respondents make decisions about which incidents they would answer detailed questions about, it 

was more likely that data would be collected on a “snapshot” of incidents of unwanted sexual contact that 

took place throughout the reference period. The decision to limit the number of incidents of unwanted 

sexual contact about which respondents would be asked detailed follow-up questions was validated by the 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

22

fact that the large majority of victims reported experiencing three or fewer incidents. It was also observed 

that missing data became more of a problem when respondents were being asked about the second and 

third incidents (see Section 4.2.3).

In a few places in Survey Section 3, respondents were given the opportunity to write in openended responses. For example, when asked how a person had unwanted sexual contact with them during a 

specific incident (Survey Item ILF3), in addition to being able to select response options that correspond to 

being threatened, physically forced, and/or incapacitated and unable to provide consent, respondents could 

select “Other” and write in a description. After answering detailed follow-up questions about each incident 

of unwanted sexual contact, respondents were invited to write in anything else they wanted to say about 

the incident (Survey Item VQ). This qualitative information was reviewed and, as part of a methodological 

exercise (see Section 5.2.5), used to generate alternative estimates of sexual assault prevalence that reflect 

reclassifying some incidents based on the open-ended information provided by respondents.

Survey Section 4 asked about experiences with intimate partner violence victimization during the 

2014–2015 academic year. Survey Section 5 covered whether students had perpetrated sexual harassment 

and/or sexual assault during the 2014–2015 academic year. The wording of these items generally paralleled 

the wording of the victimization questions, in an effort to capture the same types of behaviors. Survey 

Section 6 included questions on a number of dimensions of campus climate specific to sexual harassment 

and sexual assault. The items covered students’ perceptions of the school’s leadership efforts related to 

sexual misconduct, students’ perceptions of the campus culture or climate among students (e.g., student 

norms), and students’ own attitudes toward sexual misconduct and the use of bystander intervention 

behaviors. Finally, Survey Section 7 captured data on additional demographic characteristics including 

race/ethnicity and sexual orientation.

2.4 Instrument Programming and Testing

The survey was programmed for web-based administration using Voxco’s Acuity4 Survey, a Secure 

Socket Layers (SSL) encrypted online survey platform used to build and manage web surveys. Voxco’s 

data security approaches were reviewed by RTI’s information technology specialists and deemed to be 

sufficiently secure for use.

The versions of the instruments that were cognitively tested were programmed and tested to 

ensure that they functioned as designed (e.g., skip logic, fills) and were capturing data in the desired 

formats. The programming of the pilot survey was an iterative, working process, with programming 

changes occurring as needed in conjunction with multiple rounds of review and testing. Once the 

cognitive testing was complete and results were evaluated, final changes to the instrument were 

programmed in Acuity.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

23

To ensure that the instrument was tested from every possible approach, different test scenarios 

were created prior to testing that included variations on age, gender, and victimization (number of 

incidents). The following aspects of the web instrument were tested to ensure it functioned and displayed 

as designed:

■	 Text: Each screen was tested to ensure that the text displayed properly and was void of typos and 

errors in spelling and grammar.

■	 Logic and recalls/fills: The survey was tested to ensure that all skips and hide logic worked 

correctly. Fills/recalls were also tested to confirm that the appropriate text displayed based on 

previously answered questions and/or preloaded variables.

■	 Movement: The instrument was tested to ensure that respondents could go backward and forward 

without issue and to ensure that skip logic and recalls still functioned properly when respondents 

backed up and changed their answers. It was also tested to ensure that respondents could leave 

items unanswered (given that the survey was voluntary).

■	 Look and feel: The display was tested to ensure that questions, grids, logos, and other visual items 

appeared as designed and also displayed correctly across various types of devices and operating 

systems (e.g., mobile, desktop, iOS, Android).

To ensure that the survey would function across a range of devices, the survey’s performance 

was also tested using Acuity’s device simulation feature, which simulates varied device sizes (i.e., desktop, 

laptop, smartphone, and tablet). Beyond simulated testing, testing was also done with various actual 

devices (i.e., desktop, laptop, iPhone- and Android-based smartphones) and Internet browsers (i.e., 

Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari) to ensure that the survey functioned and displayed 

properly across all devices and browsers.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

24

3. Pilot Test Sample Selection and Data Collection Methodology

The CCSVS Pilot Test methodology included a process by which schools were selected and 

recruited, undergraduate students were sampled, and all data collection materials and procedures were 

developed and implemented.

3.1 School Recruitment

3.1.1 Eligible Schools

From the outset, the CCSVS Pilot Test was designed to include a diverse set of schools. Some of 

the school dimensions on which diversity was desired include school size, 2-year vs. 4-year status, public 

vs. private status, and geography. Although it was not possible to include enough schools to create national 

victimization estimates or estimates for schools of a certain type, having a diverse set of schools enabled 

the study to represent a wider range of experiences when recruiting and working with schools, which 

facilitated a more diverse sample of students and allowed for the exploration of variability across a broad 

range of school characteristics. At the same time, it was necessary to ensure that all participating schools 

met some basic criteria, such as enrolling undergraduate students and having an actual physical campus as 

opposed to being entirely online.

Data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were obtained to 

identify schools that would be potentially eligible to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test. IPEDS is a system 

of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics. It collects information from every college, university, and technical and vocational 

institution that participates in federal student financial aid programs. Because the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 requires institutions that participate in federal student aid programs to report data on 

enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty and staff, finances, institutional prices, and 

student financial aid, using IPEDS helped ensure that all potentially eligible schools were included in the 

selection pool.

IPEDS includes data on approximately 7,600 schools in the United States; however, many of these 

schools were deemed ineligible for the CCSVS. Specifically, schools that met any of the following criteria 

were excluded from consideration:

■ For-profit schools

■ Nondegree granting schools

■ Schools with less than 2-year programs (below the associate’s degree)

■ Schools offering classes online only

■ Service academies
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

25

■ Schools that did not have a sufficient number of eligible undergraduate students to yield the 

desired level of precision.

13

This last factor was used in the CCSVS Pilot Test to ensure that statistically stable school-level 

estimates could be created for all participating schools. Smaller schools can certainly administer or 

participate in climate surveys, but achieving sufficient precision might require a census rather than a 

sampling approach. For the CCSVS Pilot Test, a conservative standard was employed to ensure sufficient 

statistical power and thereby increase the likelihood of achieving study goals with the desired level of 

precision (given the assumed response and prevalence rates).

Excluding schools that met any of these criteria resulted in 1,242 potentially eligible schools. The 

schools were them stratified by size, public vs. private status, and 2-year vs. 4-year status. Initial selection 

targets for the number of schools to be recruited within each stratum were created (Table 3).

Table 3. Selection targets for CCSVS Pilot Test schools (number of schools) 

School Size

Public 

4-Year

Private 

4-Year 2-Year

< 5,000 1 2 0

5,000–9,999 2 1 1

10,000–19,999 2 1 1

20,000+ 2 1 0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Eligible schools were then ordered randomly within each stratum. Based on the selection 

targets, a pre-specified number of schools in each stratum was invited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot 

Test, beginning with the first school in the randomly ordered list. For example, the first school in the 

< 5,000, Public 4-Year stratum, and the first two schools in the < 5,000, Private 4-Year stratum were 

invited to participate. Some changes were made to this plan, however, to introduce additional diversity.

For example, a school on the list in a stratum was skipped over if the school was in the same state as a 

school in another stratum in an effort to introduce additional geographic variability. These deviations 

from the random design did not detract from the ability to meet study goals because the intent was not 

to produce a nationally representative sample of schools, or to make representative estimates for schools 

within particular strata, but to recognize and select key areas of institutional diversity that could inform 

future collections.

13Based on initial assumptions about response rates and precision goals, it was determined that schools had to have at least 1,176 

degree-seeking undergraduate women enrolled to be eligible to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

26

3.1.2 Recruitment

Initially, 14 schools were selected using the process outlined above. Each selected school was 

approached and offered an opportunity to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test. In early January 2015, the 

presidents/chancellors of selected schools were sent an invitation letter from the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS) via overnight mail. The content of the letter appears in Appendix C-1.

After about 10 days, the letters were followed by telephone calls and emails to the presidents/

chancellors of the selected schools. Some schools immediately agreed to be in the CCSVS Pilot Test, 

whereas some schools were nonresponsive and others quickly declined the invitation. A number of 

reasons for declining were provided. For example, some schools reported they were already participating 

in or planning a survey of this kind either individually or in conjunction with another research effort, 

and others indicated they were not yet ready to participate in a survey of this kind. Some schools simply 

thought the schedule was too time sensitive and did not think they could get the necessary approvals in 

time to facilitate participation. When a school declined or, after multiple attempts (e.g., several emails 

and telephone calls) did not provide any sort of decision or response, the next school on the list for that 

stratum was invited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test. In addition, a handful of schools heard about 

the study and expressed interest in participating; a couple of schools joined the sample as a result of such 

informal recruitment. A total of 24 schools were ultimately invited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test, 

and 9 schools agreed to participate.

Recruiting the schools typically entailed communicating with multiple staff members at the 

school about what participation would entail, that students’ survey data would remain anonymous, how 

data would be collected and protected, that school identities would not be disclosed, and which results 

would be shared with the schools, among other factors. Appendix C-1 shows the list of Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQs) and answers that were shared with schools along with the initial invitation letter. As 

noted previously, the field name of the CCSVS Pilot Test was the College Experiences Survey (CES).

Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at RTI 

International, which has Federalwide Assurance (FWA #3331), and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB, approval #1121-0339). In addition, the study complied with IRB requirements at each of the nine 

participating schools, most of which considered the school to not be actively engaged in the research.

One participating school required full IRB review prior to approving the research. Memorandums 

of Understanding (MOUs) and Data Transfer Agreements (DTAs) were signed with all participating 

schools so that all parties had a complete understanding of the respective responsibilities of RTI and the 

participating schools, as well as the data security protocols and the disposition of roster data provided 

to RTI.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

27

3.2 Student Sampling

3.2.1 Developing the Sampling Frames

As described in Section 1, one of the goals of the CCSVS Pilot Test was to determine whether a 

representative sample of students (rather than surveying the entire student population) could be used to 

obtain school-level sexual assault incidence and prevalence estimates with acceptable levels of precision 

(a percent relative standard error (RSE)14 of 9%). Many schools face constraints related to costs and the 

logistical challenges of data collection, data processing, and data analysis. For a large school, conducting 

a census and collecting and processing thousands of surveys, in some cases more than 30,000, would be 

an intensive effort that would not be expected to result in a more representative estimate of the prevalence 

of sexual victimization than an estimate based on a randomly selected sample of a much smaller size. If 

incentives are being offered—which is critical for increasing response rates and minimizing nonresponse 

bias—the cost of using a census approach could quickly become prohibitive for large schools. Sampling 

smaller but representative groups of students enables the researcher to offer survey incentives in an effort 

to increase response rates and also minimizes the burden placed on the student population. A sampling 

approach, with incentives, can produce estimates with very reasonable levels of precision for many key 

student subgroups and is thus a more cost-effective approach to conducting surveys like the CCSVS Pilot 

Test. However, for small schools a census is likely the necessary approach to achieve sufficiently precise 

estimates. For example, as discussed below, in the CCSVS Pilot Test, censuses were required at schools 

with approximately 1,400 or fewer males and 2,800 or fewer females in order to meet the desired levels 

of precision.

Once schools were recruited to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test, they were asked to prepare 

a roster of all undergraduate students who were at least 18 years of age to facilitate sampling, data 

collection, and analysis. The rosters prepared by schools were password-protected and uploaded onto an 

FTP site, which encrypted the files during transmission. The following information was requested as core 

data elements:

■ Unique Student Identification Number

■ First name

■ Last name

■ Sex/gender

■ Birth date (or current age in years)

■ Race/ethnicity

14 The percent RSE, the square root of the variance of an estimate [Var(Y)] divided by the estimate (Y) is expressed as a percentage 

(100 × √Var(Y)/Y). The RSE is a measure of the precision of the survey estimates.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

28

■ Year of study (1st year undergraduate, 2nd year undergraduate, 3rd year undergraduate, 4th 

year undergraduate, or 5th or more year undergraduate)

■ Part-time/full-time status

■ Degree-seeking status

■ Email addresses

■ Campus/local mailing address

■ Distance learning status

In addition, some universities provided some additional data elements:

■ Transfer status (yes/no)

■ Major

■ Highest SAT score

■ Highest ACT score

■ GPA

■ Educational Testing Service (ETS) code or CEEB code

■ Whether living on or off campus

■ Dorm (if living on campus)

■ Whether studying abroad

The roster data were used as the sampling frame for the selection of the student sample, to recruit 

sampled students for the study, to send follow-up reminders, to conduct a nonresponse bias analysis, 

and to perform weight calibrations. It was important to have as much information as possible for the full 

sampling frame (i.e., respondents, nonrespondents, and students not selected for the study) to facilitate all 

data collection and post-data collection activities.

3.2.2 Determining CCSVS Pilot Test Sample Sizes

Full-time and part-time degree-seeking undergraduate students from participating schools age 

18 and older who did not complete coursework solely via distance learning were eligible to participate in 

the CCSVS Pilot Test. Once the roster was received from a school, the number of eligible students on the 

roster was used to determine the number of male and female respondents needed to achieve the desired 

level of precision for key estimates. For females, the primary sampling goal was to achieve a 9% RSE

for sexual assault prevalence estimates. For males, sample sizes were selected to achieve a 12% RSE for 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

29

key climate measures. Sample size calculations accounted for these precision goals as well as anticipated 

prevalence rates, design effects, and use of the finite population correction (FPC) factor15 in estimation 

(Figure 1). Because these calculations take into account the FPC factor, required sample sizes vary by 

school size, with larger schools requiring larger samples than smaller schools. For example, for a school 

with 10,000 degree-seeking undergraduates, completed surveys from approximately 1,350 females and 660 

males are needed to produce valid estimates of sexual assault prevalence (for females) and campus climate 

attitudinal measures (for males). For schools with 20,000 eligible students, approximately 1,560 female and 

700 male respondents would be needed to achieve equivalent precision.

Target sample sizes were then inflated to account for anticipated nonresponse. Response rates 

were estimated at approximately 40% for females and 35% for males, but it was not known how accurate 

these estimates would be. Therefore, in addition to the primary sample that was released at the start of 

data collection, “hold” or “reserve” samples of males and females were drawn for the larger schools (in 

which a surplus of non-sampled students was available). If response rates were lower than anticipated after 

approximately 2 weeks of fielding the survey, the survey could be fielded to the hold sample of additional 

students to achieve the desired number of completed interviews at the school.

16

15 When developing precision estimates, it is appropriate to use the FPC factor when samples are selected without replacement 

from a relatively small, finite population. In this case, students were sampled within schools and were not replaced for any 

reason(s). Using the FPC factor appropriately reduces standard errors and thus the width of the confidence intervals of the 

estimates.

16Another nuance related to the release of cases is that one school requested that RTI withhold the release of the survey to a 

specific subgroup of sampled students who had been selected to participate in another survey. It was only possible to recruit these 

students after giving them sufficient time to complete the other survey. Therefore, in this school, some students in the sample were 

not recruited until a few weeks after the original release of cases.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

30

Figure 1. Illustration of sample size requirements based on school size, by sex

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: These sample sizes are powered to produce 9% relative standard errors (RSEs) for a female prevalence 

rate of 7.4% and 12% RSEs for a male proportion of 9.9% (sexual assault and campus climate estimates from 

Krebs et al., 2007). They take into account the FPC factor, account for the anticipated design effect due to 

sampling and weighting, and assume that females and males each represent 50% of each school’s eligible 

population.

3.2.3 Selection of Student Samples

After the male and female sample sizes were determined for each school, a gender-stratified, 

simple random sample of eligible students for the CCSVS Pilot Test was selected. Selected students were 

randomly assigned to the primary or hold samples and to experimental treatment groups (as further 

discussed in Section 10).

A total of 28,839 females and 21,293 males were sampled for the CCSVS Pilot Test (Table 4).

This includes those released through the “hold” samples, which happened for the female sample in two 

schools and the male sample in five schools. As previously discussed, to achieve CCSVS precision targets, 

censuses of students were required for smaller schools. Ultimately, in four schools, all undergraduate, 

degree-seeking females were sampled and in three schools, all undergraduate, degree-seeking males 

were sampled.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

31

Table 4. Final number of sampled students, by sex and school

School Females Males

Total 28,839 21,293

1 3,296 2,096

2 1,353 1,266

3 3,995 2,951

4 4,821 3,608

5 1,526 1,143

6 2,585 1,443

7 3,063 2,531

8 5,077 3,671

9 3,123 2,584

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

3.3 Data Collection

Supplementary materials were developed for administering the CCSVS Pilot Test, including 

marketing and recruitment materials, informed consent materials, student support resources, and an 

incentive system, which are described in this section of the report.

3.3.1 Materials

Marketing and Recruitment

Because not all students were sampled at most participating schools, campus-wide marketing 

was generally not attempted. However, several schools posted advance notices about the survey in their 

student newspapers and/or on a school-sponsored Facebook page. These marketing materials informed 

the students about the upcoming “College Experiences Survey (CES)” to be conducted by an independent, 

nonprofit research organization, and encouraged them to participate in the survey if given the opportunity 

to do so. In addition, immediately prior to fielding the survey, staff at the participating schools sent all 

undergraduate students an email describing the study and encouraging them to participate in the CES 

if they were contacted by RTI and invited to take the survey. The text contained in this email is included 

in Appendix C-2. Pre-notifications such as this email tend to increase response rates by confirming the 

legitimacy of the survey and emphasizing how participation will potentially benefit sample members 

(Dillman et al., 2014). For the CCSVS Pilot Test, the pre-notification was an important step in developing 

trust with sample members because it conveyed the school’s support of the survey and emphasized that 

results would be used to inform positive change at the school. Potential respondents were informed that 

the CES was being conducted by an independent, nonprofit research organization so students did not 

develop concerns about providing answers to sensitive questions that might be seen by staff at their school.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

32

Sampled undergraduate students at each school were sent a brief recruitment email from the 

CES email address, collegeexperiences@rti.org. The email, which is included in Appendix C-3, informed 

the student that he/she had been randomly selected from among all undergraduate students at his/her 

school to participate in a voluntary, confidential, 15 minute web-based survey about sexual experiences 

and attitudes. The email included the student’s Survey Access Code17 and a link to a generic survey 

website (described below). The email also informed the student that for completing the survey, he/she 

would receive a gift card for a store of his/her choice from among nine online and in-store options. In five 

schools, the incentive was $25 and in the remaining four schools, in which an incentive experiment was 

conducted (see Section 10), the amount listed in the email was customized for each student ($10, $25, 

or $40).

The recruitment and reminder emails were sent to sample members using Voxco’s Acuity4 Survey.

A total of 12 different email templates were created in Acuity to facilitate recruitment and nonresponse 

follow-up. The templates contained merge codes to fill in language that differed across respondents, such as 

school name, greeting, and incentive value. Because data collection periods and contact schedules varied 

slightly across schools, sample filtering was used to specify exactly which groups of sample members 

should receive which emails. A master file was created that contained the appropriate filtering expression 

for each school and group (i.e., primary or hold sample) at each contact point (e.g., invitation, reminder 1) 

prior to the start of data collection to ensure the distribution process was as streamlined as possible.

18

Informed Consent Materials

Survey administration procedures were designed to guide students from the recruitment email to 

a generic (i.e., not customized for each student), publicly available survey website hosted by RTI (http://

collegeexperiencessurvey.org), which provided additional details about the survey along with an email 

address students could use to ask questions about the survey and the phone number for RTI’s Office of 

Research Protection. Appendix C-4 includes the full content of the generic website.

At the bottom of the generic survey website, students were asked to click a box to start the survey 

or learn more about it. Upon clicking the box, students were taken to a survey access site (hosted by 

Voxco) where they were asked to enter the Survey Access Code they had been emailed. After entering their 

access code, students were presented with the additional informed consent information, specific to their 

17Each sampled student was assigned a unique Survey Access Code (i.e., password) consisting of eight digits, including a 

combination of letters and numbers.

18Given the complex nature of email distributions, extensive distribution testing was done to ensure that all messages and fills 

displayed and worked as designed. A total of 1,410 emails were sent to a test email account accessible only by project staff to test 

the various fills and to ensure Acuity’s email distribution system functioned smoothly with large scale distributions. The email 

distribution testing also facilitated the assignment of test cases to staff testing the survey instrument. An inbox folder was created 

for each tester that contained approximately 50 test case emails that included different fills (incentive value and school name) and 

greeting (generic, personalized) variations. This approach streamlined testing as testers were able to (1) review email content for 

accuracy and (2) access and test the web survey using test cases emailed during distribution testing.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

33

school.

19 This screen is shown in Appendix C-5. After entering their Survey Access Codes, students also 

had the opportunity to view a letter of support from their school leadership. This was done to convey the 

legitimacy of the survey to potential respondents.

The survey was designed to be confidential, in that only sampled students could participate 

(through the Survey Access Code validation process) but that no identifying information about the 

students was stored with or linked to their survey data. The use of Survey Access Codes also allowed 

students to exit the survey and reenter where they left off, and ensured that each student completed the 

survey only once.

Student Support Resources

To connect students with national, local, and school-specific resources related to sexual violence 

in the event that taking the survey caused them any distress, resource pages that were customized for 

students at each participating school were shared. After the respondents completed the last survey 

question, the survey displayed text informing them that there were many support services in their area 

for people who would like help dealing with sexual violence and asking whether they would like to view 

a list of local and national support services. Respondents who answered affirmatively were presented with 

a description and contact information for local support services, including student counseling services, 

women’s centers, campus police, student health services, community crisis centers, and national resources 

(listed in Appendix C-6). Approximately 15% of survey respondents clicked on the links provided and 

viewed information about these various resources.

Incentive System

To maximize response rates and reduce the risk of nonresponse bias affecting key estimates 

(i.e., bias caused when respondents with certain characteristics or experiences directly related to the key 

estimates or outcomes of interest are more likely to participate in a particular survey), many surveys offer 

financial incentives to sample members to encourage participation. Theories suggest that incentives are 

effective due to their interpretation as either a token of appreciation (social exchange theory—see Dillman, 

Smyth, & Christian, 2014), compensation for one’s time and effort (economic exchange theory—see 

Biner & Kidd, 1994), or the subjective weight a sample member puts on various factors when a survey 

request is made (leverage-salience theory—see Groves, Singer, & Corning, 2000; Groves, Presser, & Dipko, 

2004). For these reasons, most CCSVS sample members were offered a $25 gift card as an incentive for 

completing the CES, though this incentive amount varied at four of the nine schools (see Section 10 for 

more information on the incentive experiment).

19This information was accessible only to sample members after entering a valid Survey Access Code. The use of two websites was 

necessary for the CCSVS Pilot Test because (1) no identifying information about the participating schools (e.g., letters of support) 

could be accessible from a public website, and (2) the Voxco survey platform requires participants to log in on a standardized 

screen before viewing any study-specific information. It was important that students were able to learn some things about the 

survey before having to enter their Survey Access Code, so the generic website approach provided students with some basic 

information that would enable them to decide whether they wanted to proceed further. Then, once students entered their Survey 

Access Code and saw the full consent information customized to their school, they could make an informed decision about 

whether to actually start the survey.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

34

An incentive system was developed for the CCSVS Pilot Test. After completing the survey and 

viewing (or declining to view) student support resources, respondents were informed that they would 

be redirected to a separate website—one that was not linked to any of their survey responses—and 

asked to enter an email address at which they would like to be contacted by the company responsible for 

distributing the gift cards. The separate website was programmed as a survey and could only be accessed 

with a sample member’s Survey Access Code. Redirecting respondents to a separate website was done to 

demonstrate to students that the email address they provided was completely separate from their survey 

responses. Upon being redirected to the website and entering their Survey Access Code, respondents 

were asked to provide the email address to which they would like their incentive sent. Respondents were 

informed that The Virtual Reward Center would email them within 2 business days with instructions 

on how to obtain their gift card. Respondents then received an email from The Virtual Reward Center20

thanking them for their participation in the CES and including a link through which they could select 

and claim their gift card. Respondents had the choice of nine in-store and online vendors: Amazon.com, 

Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, Domino’s Pizza, Staples, Dunkin’ Donuts, Panera Bread, and CVS.

3.3.2 Recruitment Procedures and Data Collection Schedule

Because the CCSVS Pilot Test was designed to document unwanted sexual contact taking place 

since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year, the goal was to administer the survey during the 

spring academic semester, fielding the survey shortly after spring break and ending prior to finals week.

This allowed the team to maximize the reference period, capture most of the school year, and have enough 

time to properly administer the survey and collect the adequate number of responses. Fielding too early 

would limit the student’s experience to only the fall semester but waiting too long would compete with 

final exams and students leaving campus for the summer break. A data collection schedule was thus 

developed based on each school’s calendar. The survey was fielded in mid-March, beginning with two 

schools on the first day and then being rolled out to the remaining schools shortly afterward. The survey 

was kept open until mid-May, with a total data collection period of 57 days (with some schools having a 

slightly shorter window due to a later roll-out).

Sampled students were sent an initial email invitation and up to five reminders encouraging their 

participation in the CES. Reminders were sent only to sample members who had not yet responded21 to 

the survey. Each reminder (see Appendix C-7) was worded slightly differently in an attempt to appeal to a 

broader range of respondents, with the exception of one reminder sent to some respondents twice (several 

days apart) late in the field period. The email wording was based on recommendations by Dillman, Smyth, 

& Christian (2014). Follow-up reminders typically generate spikes in responses, which is what was found 

20During data collection, RTI staff uploaded encrypted files to the incentive distribution company on a daily basis containing the 

e-mail address and incentive amount for each student who had completed the survey related to the incentive.

21For purposes of the follow-up e-mail reminders, students were considered survey completers once they reached the end of the 

sexual assault victimization questions (Survey Item LCA3).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

35

in the CCSVS Pilot Test (described Section 4.1.2). However, following up too frequently can be annoying 

to respondents. Therefore, only five reminders were sent over the course of the 57-day field period to avoid 

overly frequent contact with nonrespondents.

Different studies have found that emailing sample members on different days of the week or at 

different times of the day are most likely to result in completed surveys (Callegaro, Manfreda, & Vehovar, 

2015). Not knowing which contact schedule would work best with this sample, emails were sent at various 

times of day and days of the week, including on weekends. The earliest emails were sent at 7:00 a.m. and 

the latest at 6:37 p.m. The email contact schedule differed across schools to account for differences in 

their academic schedules and time zones. In addition to varying across schools, the contact schedule also 

varied within several of the schools due to the later release of the hold samples and a staggered sample for 

one group of students as requested by that school. Because these groups had a shorter field period, most 

received fewer email contacts than the remainder of the sample.

In addition to the reminders sent by RTI (from the CES email address), most participating schools 

agreed to send an additional email to all undergraduate students22 encouraging their participation. This 

message was sent several weeks after initial student recruitment began. This email was used to further 

emphasize the school’s support of the survey, its legitimacy, and its potential positive impact.

22The email from the school could not be sent only to sampled students because the participating schools did not know which 

students had been sampled.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

36

4. Pilot Test Data Assessment and Weighting

Throughout the CCSVS Pilot Test administration, measures were taken to monitor the data and 

ensure that the respondents were not attempting to complete the survey multiple times. Following the 

data collection period, it was necessary to clean the data, assess nonresponse bias, and develop survey 

weights to adjust for potential nonresponse and coverage error (i.e., to make the data representative of the 

population of male and female undergraduates at each school).

4.1 Completed Surveys

At the conclusion of the data collection window, the targeted number of completed interviews 

was obtained in all participating schools except one (School 2). For analysis purposes, an interview was 

“complete” if the respondent provided her/his age (Survey Item D1), gender identity (Survey Item D3), and 

the number of separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact she/he had experienced during the 2014–

2015 academic year (Survey Item P2). (For a more detailed discussion of missing data and breakoffs, see 

Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.3.)

4.1.1 Sample Yield

Completed surveys were obtained from 14,989 undergraduate females and 8,034 undergraduate 

males across the nine CCSVS Pilot Test schools. On average, 140% of the targeted number of completed 

interviews were obtained for female undergraduate students and 152% of the targeted number of 

completed interviews were obtained for male undergraduate students (Table 5 and Table 6). Among 

female students, the highest percentage of completed interviews relative to the original targeted number 

was 158% (School 1) and the lowest was 88% (School 2). Among male students, the highest percentage of 

completed interviews was 190% (School 7) and the lowest was 92% (School 2).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

37

Table 5. Sampling metrics for undergraduate females, by school

School

Number 

Sampled

Hold Sample 

Released 

(Y/N)

Number of 

Respondents

Targeted 

Number of 

Interviews

Percentage 

of Completes 

Relative to 

Targeted (%)

Total 28,839 14,989 10,704 140.0 %

1 3,296 N 1,685 1,069 157.6

2 1,353 N 688 783 87.9

3 3,995 N 1,837 1,598 115.0

4 4,821 Y 2,086 1,339 155.8

5 1,526 N 1,081 838 129.0

6 2,585 N 1,691 1,080 156.6

7 3,063 N 1,826 1,225 149.1

8 5,077 Y 2,309 1,523 151.6

9 3,123 N 1,786 1,249 143.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Targeted number of completed interviews are based on a target RSE of 9% for a sexual assault 

prevalence rate of 7.4% (estimate from Krebs et al., 2007).

Table 6. Sampling metrics for undergraduate males, by school 

School

Number 

Sampled

Hold Sample 

Released 

(Y/N)

Number of 

Respondents

Targeted 

Number of 

Completed 

Interviews

Percentage of 

Completes Relative to 

Target

Total 21,293 8,034 5,281 152.1 %

1 2,096 N 793 584 135.8

2 1,266 N 438 475 92.2

3 2,951 Y 1,028 715 143.8

4 3,608 Y 1,063 627 169.5

5 1,143 N 681 456 149.3

6 1,443 N 754 505 149.3

7 2,531 Y 1,162 613 189.6

8 3,671 Y 1,113 680 163.7

9 2,584 Y 1,002 626 160.1

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Targeted number of completed interviews are based on a target RSE of 12% for a male climate estimate 

of 9.9% (estimate from Krebs et al., 2007).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

38

4.1.2 Completed Surveys by Time in the Field

An area of uncertainty going into the CCSVS Pilot Test was the response rates and the extent to 

which these rates would vary across schools and between males and females. To minimize the number 

of students sampled at each school (given that an incentive was offered to all sampled students), a hold or 

reserve sample (i.e., a randomly selected portion of the sample that is not released initially) was selected 

for each school. Hold samples for males and females were selected at each school and released only if 

response rates were below a certain threshold after 2 weeks of data collection. To assess whether the hold 

sample needed to be released, the number of completed surveys was tracked daily during data collection to 

monitor the percentage of targeted surveys completed by school and sex. In response to this monitoring, 

the release of the female hold sample was required at two schools and, for the male hold sample, for five 

schools after 2 weeks of data collection. Ultimately, in all schools except one (School 2), the percentage 

of targeted completed interviews for females and males was achieved within the first 28 days of data 

collection (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Figure 2. Percentage of targeted number of completed interviews by school and day 

of data collection for undergraduate females

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bold horizontal line represents 100% of targeted interviews completed.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

39

Figure 3. Percentage of targeted number of completed interviews by school and day 

of data collection for undergraduate males

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bold horizontal line represents 100% of targeted interviews completed.

Several methodological lessons were learned regarding the sampling strategy and field period used 

in the CCSVS Pilot Test:

■ Incorporating a hold sample into the design to account for uncertainty in the response rate 

and minimize the number of students sampled can be effective in meeting sample size targets.

■ For school-level prevalence estimates of sexual assault, approximately 28 days appears to be a 

sufficient field period to achieve the desired precision, provided that targeted sample sizes are 

achieved within this period.

■ To improve precision for estimates among subpopulations of interest (e.g., freshmen) it 

might be preferable to use a longer field period beyond 28 days and obtain more completed 

interviews. An analysis comparing early responders to late responders is necessary to 

determine if nonresponse bias exists after an abbreviated field period (see Section 5.5.1 for 

this analysis).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

40

In addition, the effectiveness of reminder emails sent to nonrespondents—up to five reminders 

were sent over the 57-day data collection period—is suggested by the appearance of bumps in the number 

of completed interviews corresponding to the days that reminder emails were sent.

4.1.3 Completed Surveys by Type of Device

The CCSVS Pilot Test survey was designed to be self-administered on a variety of device 

types, including desktop/laptop computers, tablets, and smartphones. Across all of the schools, 70% of 

respondents used a desktop or laptop computer, 27% used a smartphone, and 3.2% used a tablet (Table 7).

However, there was variation in the distributions across schools. At School 1, for example, 86% of students 

used a desktop or laptop computer, and 14% used either a smartphone or tablet; whereas 44% of students 

at School 4 used a computer, and 56% used a smartphone or tablet (8% on a tablet).

The variation in device types used by the CCSVS respondents across schools suggests that 

college students do take advantage of the ability to complete a web-based survey on a variety of devices.

Therefore, one methodological lesson for future studies similar in scope is that response rates will likely be 

maximized by using a survey format that can be self-administered on as many device types as possible.

Table 7. Distribution of respondents by device type and school

Percentage of Respondents by Device Type

School Desktop/Laptop Smartphone Tablet

Cross-School Average 70.0 % 26.8 % 3.2 %

1 85.8 13.3 0.9

2 62.6 34.1 3.3

3 62.0 34.8 3.0

4 44.0 47.8 8.0

5 72.0 25.7 2.3

6 74.8 22.5 2.6

7 77.8 19.2 3.0

8 76.1 21.1 2.8

9 74.8 23.4 1.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 within a school because a small number of devices could not be 

classified.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

41

4.2 Data Cleaning and Adjustments

CCSVS Pilot Test data were monitored daily during data collection to examine patterns in 

response, estimated time to complete the survey, and potential fraudulent or duplicate emails used in an 

effort to obtain multiple incentives. Once data collection was complete, all interviews deemed complete 

were identified and fully reviewed for quality. Under the quality review, several checks were performed, 

including—

■ Identifying the number of survey respondents who broke off. This breakoff analysis 

identified 442 respondents (2% of total interviews) who were classified as completers23 but 

did not get through the full survey (i.e., were not presented with the final survey question). In 

addition, 405 students started the survey but their participation did not meet the criteria to be 

considered completed interviews.

■ Reviewing data inconsistencies within the victimization section. The review of data 

inconsistencies found that 152 respondents had begun answering the sexual assault 

victimization follow-up questions (i.e., they indicated experiencing at least one incident of 

unwanted sexual contact during the 2014–2015 academic year and started to answer the 

detailed incident-level follow-up questions), but then backed out of the module and changed 

the number of victimizations to zero. This accounted for 8% of the respondents who entered 

the victimization set of items. For analysis purposes, these cases were treated as non-victims 

(see Section 5.5.2 for additional assessments of these cases).

■ Final review of potential fraudulent emails was conducted. The final review of potentially 

fraudulent emails resulted in the removal of 25 cases from the final dataset because a duplicate 

email address or clearly bogus email account was used when trying to obtain the survey 

incentive, as this indicated that the survey record was a duplicate and/or not valid.

4.2.1 Assessment of Item Nonresponse

For item nonresponse, each individual survey item and each derived variable was reviewed.

For each survey item, the number of eligible persons was identified24 and compared to the number who 

provided a non-missing response. These item nonresponse levels were then categorized into ranges. For 

most survey items, item nonresponse was not a major problem (Table 8). For example, for nearly 60% 

of the survey items, the item nonresponse level was less than 5%, meaning that fewer than 5% of the 

respondents who were provided with such items did not provide a valid response. However, for 20 out 

of the 347 questions included in the survey (6%), the item nonresponse level was 15% or higher. When 

looking at the nature of the items that were most likely to be missing, it appears that the vast majority 

23 As noted previously, an interview was considered to be “complete” if the respondent provided her/his age (Survey Item D1), 

gender identity (Survey Item D3), and the number of separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact she/he had experienced during 

the 2014–2015 academic year (Survey Item P2).

24 Eligible persons for an item took into account skip patterns. In other words, persons who did not receive an item due to a logical 

skip were not considered eligible to receive the item, either when taking the survey or in the analysis.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

42

(i.e., 90%) of the 20 items with at least 15% of the data missing were in the detail loop for the second 

or third incident of sexual assault victimization. In other words, respondents who experienced two or 

more victimizations skipped over several of the detailed incident follow-up questions when reporting 

on the second and third incidents. This pattern may be indicative of respondent fatigue. This is further 

demonstrated by the average item nonresponse level by survey section (prior to the incident detail loop, 

for each detail loop, and for items following the detail loop) (Table 9). Item nonresponse increased for 

each of the incident detail loops, from an average nonresponse of 4% in incident detail loop 1 to an average 

of 13% in incident detail loop 3. Within the incident detail loop questions, the item with the highest rate 

of missingness is the open-ended question asking respondents if they would like to provide any additional 

details about the incident (Survey Item VQ); for this item, the rate of missingness ranges from 85% missing 

(loop 1) to 90% missing (loop 2). Item nonresponse is quite low outside of the incident detail loops.

Table 8. Item nonresponse summary

Item Nonresponse Level Number of Items Percent of Total

Less than 2.0% 133 38.3 %

2.0% up to 5.0% 72 20.7

5.0% up to 10.0% 60 17.3

10.0% up to 15.0% 62 17.9

15.0% up to 20.0% 4 1.2

20.0% or more 16 4.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Table 9. Item nonresponse by survey section

Survey Section Number of Items Average Item Nonresponse Level

Prior to Incident Detail Loop 38 0.2

Incident Detail Loop 1 79 4.3

Incident Detail Loop 2 79 10.1

Incident Detail Loop 3 79 13.4

Following Incident Detail Loop 72 1.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

4.2.2 Missing Data for Key Derived Variables

For derived variables, a missing value was assigned if any component of the derived variable 

was missing. For females, the percentage of missing data for derived variables was highest at School 2, 

for which two key variables (rape and tactic used—someone touched/grabbed your body parts25) had a 

missing rate of more than 10% (Table 10). However, for males, all schools had at least one derived variable 

with a missing rate of more than 10% (Table 11). For males, the largest proportion of missing data was for 

derived variables related to the types of tactics used (e.g., touched or grabbed sexual body parts).

25 For more discussion of how these derived variables were measured, see Section 5.1.
43

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 10. Item nonresponse among derived variables, undergraduate females, by school

Variable School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Estimates

Rape 6.5 % 13.5 % 6.7 % 8.0 % 4.9 % 6.3 % 7.9 % 6.7 % 5.3 %

Sexual battery 2.0 7.7 3.2 4.7 1.3 2.6 2.4 3.1 1.4

Sexual harassment 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0

Coerced sexual contact 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.8

Sexual assault since 

entering any college 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3

Sexual assault in lifetime 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7

IPV (physical abuse/

violence only) 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.7

IPV (physical and/or sexual) 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.7

Perpetration Estimates

Sexual harassment 1.1 % 1.0 % 0.6 % 1.6 % 0.7 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 1.7 % 2.8 %

Sexual assault 1.2 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.5

Sexual Assault Incident 

Follow-up

Tactic Used—Touched or 

grabbed 4.3 % 13.5 % 9.9 % 8.5 % 3.6 % 4.8 % 5.2 % 7.0 % 5.8 %

Tactic Used—Threat or force 6.3 7.7 6.7 6.1 4.9 5.3 8.4 6.5 3.4

Tactic Used—Incapacitated 

during incident 5.5 7.7 5.6 6.1 3.6 5.3 8.2 5.2 2.9

Location of incident 1.4 5.8 2.4 5.2 0.3 2.6 3.5 3.4 0.0

Victim drug/alcohol use 2.2 5.8 2.0 5.7 1.0 3.2 4.1 3.4 0.5

Offender drug/alcohol use 2.0 5.8 4.0 6.6 0.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 2.4

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bolded numbers indicate an item nonresponse rate of 10% or greater.
44

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 11. Item nonresponse among derived variables, undergraduate males, by school

Variable School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Victimization Estimates

Rape 13.6 % 0.0 % 21.4 % 18.2 % 5.7 % 13.6 % 16.2 % 8.7 % 2.6 %

Sexual battery 9.1 0.0 11.9 20.5 3.8 0.0 10.8 4.3 0.0

Sexual harassment 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.8

Coerced sexual contact 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9

Sexual assault since 

entering any college 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6

Sexual assault in lifetime 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.5

IPV (physical abuse/

violence only) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.1 3.2

IPV (physical and/or sexual) 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.1 3.2

Perpetration Estimates

Sexual harassment 0.6 % 0.9 % 1.8 % 1.2 % 1.2 % 1.1 % 0.8 % 1.3 % 4.4 %

Sexual assault 1.1 0.9 1.9 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.6

Sexual Assault Incident 

Follow-up

Tactic—Touched or grabbed 13.6 % 27.3 % 21.4 % 34.1 % 15.1 % 31.8 % 20.3 % 13.0 % 15.4 %

Tactic—Threat or force 13.6 18.2 19.0 18.2 5.7 9.1 13.5 6.5 2.6

Tactic—Incapacitated during 

incident 15.9 9.1 16.7 18.2 5.7 9.1 13.5 8.7 2.6

Location of incident 9.1 0.0 14.3 20.5 5.7 0.0 10.8 4.3 0.0

Victim drug/alcohol use 11.4 0.0 14.3 20.5 5.7 0.0 13.5 6.5 2.6

Offender drug/alcohol use 11.4 0.0 14.3 25.0 5.7 0.0 10.8 6.5 0.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bolded numbers indicate an item nonresponse rate of 10% or greater.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

45

4.2.3 Breakoff Rates

Some of the “completed” surveys included in the CCSVS analyses were breakoffs, or partially 

completed interviews, where the respondent answered key questions but did not complete the full survey.

In addition, some students who started the CCSVS did not meet the criteria for being considered a 

completed case and were thus excluded from analyses. These students are also considered breakoffs. Across 

the board, breakoff rates were relatively low for males and females (Table 12). The majority of respondents 

who broke off the survey did so in the Demographics and General Climate Section, with descending 

rates of breakoffs observed in the remaining sections. Overall, 97% of respondents who started the survey 

finished all six sections. More than 98% of females and males who were deemed to be survey completers 

finished all six sections of the survey.
46

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 12. Distribution of CCSVS Pilot Test completes by sex and furthest section completed

Broke off

in general 

demographics/

climate section

Broke off

in sexual 

harassment 

and coercion 

section

Broke off

in sexual 

assault 

section

Broke off

in IPV section

Broke off

in perpetration 

section

Broke off

in campus 

climate 

section

Finished

all six sections

Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent

Female

Completea 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 86 0.6 % 13 0.1 % 16 0.1 % 192 1.3 % 14,682 98.0 %

Incompleteb 156 60.9 51 19.9 11 4.3 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 0.8 35 13.7

Total 156 1.0 51 0.3 97 0.6 13 0.1 17 0.1 194 1.3 14,717 96.5

Male

Completea 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 41 0.5 % 3 0.0 % 13 0.2 % 78 1.0 % 7,899 98.3 %

Incompleteb 89 59.7 37 24.8 3 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7 19 12.8

Total 89 1.1 37 0.5 44 0.5 3 0.0 13 0.2 79 1.0 7,918 96.8

Overall

Completea 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 127 0.6 % 16 0.1 % 29 0.1 % 270 1.2 % 22,581 98.1 %

Incompleteb 245 60.5 88 21.7 14 3.5 0 0.0 1 0.2 3 0.7 54 13.3

Total 245 1.0 88 0.4 141 0.6 16 0.1 30 0.1 273 1.2 22,635 96.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

a An interview was considered to be “complete” if the respondent provided her/his age, gender identity, and the number of separate incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact she/he had experienced during the current academic year.

b An interview was considered to be “incomplete” if the respondent started the interview but did not provide her/his age, gender identity, or the number of 

separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact she/he had experienced during the current academic year
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

47

4.2.4 Response Rates

Response rates were calculated separately for female and male undergraduate students at each 

school. For each school, the response rate was calculated as follows.

Cg

Sg ‒ Ig

Where Cg is the number of completed interviews for sex g, Sg is the total sample released including 

any hold sample for sex g, and Ig is the number of ineligible students for sex g. Ineligible students were 

those who self-reported in the survey that they were less than 18 years old.

As discussed previously, the target response rate per school was 40% for females and 35% for 

males. This target was exceeded for females in all schools, with female response rates ranging from 43% 

(School 4) to 71% (School 5) (Figure 4). For males, response rate targets were achieved in five out of 

the nine schools, with male response rates ranging from 30% (School 4) to 60% (School 5). The average 

response rate across all nine schools was 54% for females and 40% for males.

 26 (See Appendix D-1 for the 

estimates shown in Figure 4). Although female response rates were consistently higher than male response 

rates within a given school, schools with high female response rates also tended to have higher male 

response rates. In other words, school characteristics appeared to drive response rates, as male and female 

response rates within schools tended to track with one another (even though response rates for males were 

consistently about 12% lower than those for females).

26The average is the arithmetic average. In other words, the estimate for each of the schools was added and divided by nine to get 

the average. This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

48

Figure 4. Response rate, by school and sex

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

4.2.5 Nonresponse Bias

Although relatively modest response rates like the ones achieved in the CCSVS Pilot Test are not 

necessarily an indication that bias exists (i.e., that respondents who participated in the survey are different 

from those who were recruited but did not participate in ways that could affect the key estimates of 

interest), a low response rate can increase the potential that bias exists and it can exacerbate any bias that is 

present. Therefore, it is critical to assess the likelihood of nonresponse bias in the estimates. Nonresponse 

bias is defined as follows:

BNR = (1 – ρr) × (XR–XNR)

where ρr is the response propensity, XR is the value among respondents for an outcome of interest, and XNR is the 

value among nonrespondents for the outcome of interest.

As the formula demonstrates, the only way to truly measure nonresponse bias is to have an 

estimate for the measure of interest (e.g., sexual assault victimization) from nonrespondents. For many 

surveys, including the CCSVS Pilot Test, this information may not be available. Therefore, a proxy measure 

for nonresponse bias needs to be used to assess the likelihood that bias exists in the estimates.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

49

One approach is to compare the distributions of respondents and the sample population using 

auxiliary information that is potentially correlated with nonresponse bias for the outcome of interest. This 

auxiliary information needs to be available for both respondents and nonrespondents. The nonresponse 

bias analysis was conducted using the student roster information provided by each school for all degreeseeking undergraduate students (Table 13 and Table 14). For each characteristic provided by the school, 

and separately for males and females, the distributions of respondents and the sample population were 

compared using a Cohen’s Effect Size statistic (Cohen, 1988; sometimes referred to as Cohen’s d). An effect 

size measures the strength of association for a phenomenon—in this case, the association between the 

distribution of characteristics between respondents and the population. An effect size is considered “small” 

if it is around 0.2, “medium” if it is around 0.5, and “large” if it is around 0.8.

Table 13. Cohen’s effect sizes, by school and student characteristic among 

undergraduate females

School

Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.16

Year of Study 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 -- 0.06 0.14

Race/Ethnicity* 0.09 0.08 -- 0.05 0.05 0.07 -- 0.05 0.06

Transfer Status 0.02 0.02 -- 0.04 0.02 0.10 -- -- 0.05

Living on Campus 0.11 -- -- -- 0.04 0.16 0.12 -- 0.13

SAT/ACT Score 0.08 0.11 -- 0.13 0.09 0.11 -- -- 0.10

GPA 0.02 0.20 -- 0.11 0.10 0.07 -- -- 0.12

Part Time/Full Time 0.03 0.12 -- 0.17 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.07

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

*Race/ethnicity categories were standardized across each school. The categories were white non-Hispanic, 

black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Other Pacific Islander, Other, multiple 

races, and missing/unknown.

-- School did not provide characteristic on the roster of students.

Note: Cohen’s effect sizes that are 0.15 or larger appear in bold type.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

50

Table 14. Cohen’s effect sizes, by school and student characteristic among 

undergraduate males

School

Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.18 0.25

Year of Study 0.17 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.09 -- 0.08 0.17

Race/Ethnicity* 0.09 0.10 -- 0.11 0.07 0.07 -- 0.10 0.08

Transfer Status 0.02 0.12 -- 0.01 0.03 0.16 -- -- 0.12

Living on Campus 0.13 -- -- -- 0.05 0.22 0.14 -- 0.24

SAT/ACT Score 0.11 0.07 -- 0.19 0.06 0.13 -- -- 0.23

GPA 0.09 0.27 -- 0.23 0.16 0.15 -- -- 0.21

Part Time/Full Time 0.01 0.17 -- 0.11 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.09

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

*Race/ethnicity categories were standardized across each school. The categories were white non-Hispanic, 

black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Other Pacific Islander, Other, multiple 

races, and missing/unknown.

-- School did not provide characteristic on the roster of students.

Note: Cohen’s effect sizes that are 0.15 or larger appear in bold type.

For females across all schools, all characteristics had effect sizes of around 0.2 or less. Most effect 

sizes for males were also below this threshold. Based on general guidelines, these effect sizes are considered 

small. As an additional check, the relative differences among the effect sizes were compared. In general, the 

effect sizes for males are larger than the effect sizes for females. This can be attributed to the lower response 

rates among males which exacerbate any observed differences in the distributions between respondents 

and nonrespondents. Among females, four of the nine schools have their largest effect size for age. In these 

cases, younger students are more likely to have participated in the survey than older students. Among 

males, GPA has the largest effect size. At schools where GPA has a large effect size, it is due to students 

with higher GPAs responding to the survey at a higher rate than students with lower GPAs.

In general, as the effect sizes indicate, for auxiliary student characteristics available for both 

respondents and nonrespondents, there is little evidence of nonresponse bias. However, to further 

reduce the potential for bias, as many characteristics as possible were included in a nonresponse 

weight adjustment model for each school (as detailed below). For future studies similar in scope, a key 

methodological lesson learned from the CCSVS is that a nonresponse bias analysis (at the school level) 

is critical to understanding any ways in which students who participate in a survey of this nature differ 

from those who were eligible to participate and that the rigor of the nonresponse bias analysis is greatly 

improved by having as many auxiliary variables as possible for the entire sampling frame.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

51

4.2.6 Weighting Approach

Weights are statistical adjustments made to estimates to account for the sample design, unit 

nonresponse, and coverage error. These adjustments are made to ensure that estimates meet known 

population totals and are representative of the population of interest. A total of three weights were 

produced for the CCSVS Pilot Test data: design-based person weight, final person weight, and incident 

weight. The final person weight and the incident weight were used during analysis, with these weights 

based on the design-based weight and adjusted for nonresponse and coverage error. Below is a description 

of how each weight was created and the population it is designed to represent.

Design-based person weight (W

DES

ikg ). The design-based person weight for student i in school k

and sex g is the inverse probability of selection for student i in sex g where the numerator for weight is the 

total eligible population in sex g in school k (Nkg) and the denominator is the number of students recruited 

(including the primary sample plus any released hold samples) (n ́kg). That is,

Without any nonresponse or coverage error, the sum of the design-based weights would represent the target 

population (i.e., all degree-seeking undergraduate female and male students).

Nonresponse adjustment. The nonresponse adjustment is designed to correct for any potential 

bias due to disproportionate participation by sampled respondents with certain characteristics (see 

section above on nonresponse bias for further details). The nonresponse adjustment reallocates the 

design-based weight of nonrespondents in school k and sex g to respondents in school k and sex g based 

on similar known characteristics (e.g., information available on the frame) that are likely to be correlated 

with the outcome of interest. For each school k and sex g combination, an initial calibration model using 

SUDAAN’s WTADJUST procedure was conducted to adjust the weights of respondents to account for 

the weights of nonrespondents based on the characteristics in the model. The characteristics used for 

the nonresponse adjustment, which used some of the roster data provided by the participating schools, 

include (1) age of student, (2) incentive amount offered,27 (3) greeting type used,28 (4) race of student, 

(5) part-time/full-time status, (6) whether student lives on campus, (7) entrance exam scores of student, 

(8) current GPA of student, and (9) transfer status of student, as well as all possible interactions with age 

and race/ethnicity of student. All possible main effect and lower-level interaction characteristics were 

included within the nonresponse adjustment model for each school k and sex g, where a checkmark 

indicates that the characteristic was present in the model (Table 15 and Table 16). Due to small sample 

sizes, the removal of a minimal number of characteristics was required in some schools. Some additional 

characteristics were excluded when they were not provided by the school.

27 If the incentive experiment was conducted at the school. As described in Section 10, each school participated in either the 

incentive experiment or the greeting experiment.

28 If the greeting experiment was conducted at the school.

Nkg

n ́kg

WDES= ikg
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

52

Table 15. Characteristics present in the nonresponse adjustment model for 

undergraduate females, by school 

School 

1

School 

2

School 

3

School 

4

School 

5

School 

6

School 

7

School 

8

School 

9

Age         

Experiment Group         

Race       

Part time/Full 

time

      

Living on Campus  X    

ACT/SAT Score  X    

GPA      

Transfer Status      

Age*Race       

Age*Experiment 

Group         

Age*Living on 

Campus      

Age*Part time/

Full time

      

Age*GPA      

Race*Experiment 

Group      

Race*Living on 

Campus     

Race*Part time/

Full time

     

Race*GPA     X X

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note:  indicates that the characteristic was included in the model, X indicates that the characteristic was not 

included in the model due to small sample sizes, and blank cells indicate that the school did not provide the 

data element in the roster file.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

53

Table 16. Characteristics present in the nonresponse adjustment model for 

undergraduate males, by school 

School 

1

School 

2

School 

3

School 

4

School 

5

School 

6

School 

7

School 

8

School 

9

Age         

Experiment Group         

Race       

Part Time/Full Time       

Living on Campus  X    

ACT/SAT Score  X    

GPA      

Transfer Status      

Age*Race       

Age*Experiment 

Group         

Age*Living on 

Campus      

Age*Part Time/Full 

Time

   X   X

Age*GPA      X

Race*Experiment 

Group      X

Race*Living on 

Campus     X

Race*Part Time/

Full Time

   X X X

Race*GPA   X  X X

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note:  indicates that the characteristic was included in the model, X indicates that the characteristic was not 

included in the model due to small sample sizes, and blank cells indicate that the school did not provide the 

data element in the roster file.

Coverage adjustment. The coverage adjustment further calibrates the design-based weights 

to account for any differences between the set of sampled students29 and the target population. This 

post-stratification adjustment ensures that weight totals equal the eligible population for known frame 

characteristics (i.e., the student characteristics used in the nonresponse adjustment models, except 

incentive amount and greeting type). The coverage adjustment is conducted for each student i in school 

k and sex g and includes the same main effects and lower level interactions that were used for the 

nonresponse adjustment for school k and sex g (Table 15 and Table 16).

29 The initial set of sampled students including nonrespondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

54

Final person weight (wPER

okg ). The final person weight for student i in school k and sex g is the 

adjusted design-based person weight for student i in school k and sex g taking into account adjustments 

for nonresponse and post-stratification (i.e., coverage error adjustment). If I(complete) is a dichotomous 

indicator that equals one if the student completed the survey and zero otherwise, then the final personlevel weight for student i in school k and sex g is the product of the person design-based weight, the 

adjustment for nonresponse, the adjustment for post-stratification, and I(complete), as follows:

wPER 

ikg = wDES ikg × ADJNR ikg × ADJ PS ikg × I(complete)

and ∑iεk,g wPER 

ikg = Nkg is the total number of eligible students in school k and sex g.

The final person weight was used for all person-level outcomes (e.g., victimization status, campus 

climate scores).

Although nonresponse and coverage error adjustments reduce the potential for bias in the 

estimates, they can increase the variance in estimates due to the increase in unequal weights across 

students. To measure the impact of the weights on the precision of survey estimates, design effects due 

to unequal weighting were calculated by school and gender. The unequal weighting effect measures the 

increase in the estimate variance due to variation in the survey weights (Kish, 1992). Schools that did not 

provide many characteristics on their frame have the lowest design effects (e.g., School 3 provided only 

sex and age on their frame and had the lowest design effects); however, their estimates have the greatest 

potential for bias because of the smaller number of characteristics that could be taken into account during 

the adjustment process (Table 17). In general, higher design effects were evident for males than females.

This is due to the larger amount of nonresponse among male undergraduate students. However, all design 

effects due to unequal weighting are relatively low (the maximum is 1.19 for females and 1.28 for males), 

so the increase in the variance of estimates due to the weighting process is quite minimal.

Incident-level weight (wINC 

ikg ). Incident weights are used to calculate estimates of the number 

or characteristics of sexual assault incidents on campus (e.g., the number of rapes experienced in the 

2014–2015 academic year at a particular school; the percentage of sexual battery incidents reported 

to campus authorities). The incident-level weight for student i in school k and sex g is the weight for a 

particular sexual assault incident (i.e., sexual battery or rape) reported in the survey by a victim. The 

survey allowed for a victim to indicate that he/she experienced either exactly 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 or more 

incidents since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year. In other words, the number of incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact was truncated at 5, as shown in the following formula.

nINC 

ikg = min(nNC ́ ikg ,5)

where nNC ́ 

ikg is the actual number of incidents since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year for student i in 

school k and sex g.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

55

Table 17. Design effects due to unequal weighting, by school and sex

School Females Males

1 1.11 1.25

2 1.19 1.27

3 1.01 1.02

4 1.14 1.23

5 1.09 1.14

6 1.14 1.28

7 1.05 1.08

8 1.06 1.14

9 1.12 1.26

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

In addition, incident-level detail was collected on up to three of the incidents (i.e., if one incident 

was indicated then there was one incident report, if two incidents were indicated then two incident reports 

were completed, if three or more incidents were indicated then three incident reports were completed).

The incident-level weight is associated with each incident report completed by a victim and represents all 

incidents of type t that occurred at school k in sex g. If I(victim) is a dichotomous indicator for whether a 

student reported at least one victimization, then the incident-level file for school k and sex g is a 

nVIC

ikg × nkg × I (victim) record file. In other words, the incident-level file contains a record for the fourth or 

fifth incident, when applicable, even though no incident report was completed for these incidents.

The incident-level weight for incident t for victim i in school k and sex g is the student’s final 

person weight. In other words, the person weight is repeated for each of the nVIC

ikg victimization incidents 

reported by student i in school k and sex g. Thus, for each type of victimization, the sum of the incidentlevel weights represents the number of incidents for that type of victimization. More specifically,

■	 If I(rape) is a dichotomous indicator that equals one if incident t is a rape and zero otherwise 

then ∑iεk,g wINC

itkg × I(rape) is the total number of rapes that occurred since the beginning of the 

2014–2015 academic year in school k and sex g,

■	 If I(battery) is a dichotomous indicator that equals one if incident t is a sexual battery and zero 

otherwise then ∑iεk,g wINC

itkg × I(battery) is the total number of sexual batteries that occurred since 

the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year in school k and sex g, and

■	 if I(unknown) is a dichotomous indicator that equals one if the student was either unsure of the 

type of victimization or the incident was the fourth or fifth or more reported by the student, then 

∑iεk,g wINC

itkg × I(unknown) is the total number of sexual victimizations where the student was unsure 

of the type of victimization or the incident was the fourth or fifth or more incident.

Therefore, ∑iεk,g wINC

itkg = NINCkg is the total number of incidents (capped at 5) that occurred at school 

k in sex g since the beginning of the academic year (i.e., NINC

kg is the numerator for the incident rate at 

school k and sex g).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

56

Weights were applied, as appropriate, to obtain all school-level estimates. Estimates that combine 

data across schools were calculated in one of two ways.

1. Arithmetic Average: Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing 

the estimate for each of the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of 

participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal 

size. This is the preferred method of calculating cross-school estimates because the nine 

schools are not nationally representative and thus estimates cannot be generalized beyond the 

nine schools included in the study. However, the arithmetic average is not appropriate when 

school-level estimates are unstable (i.e., demonstrate low levels of precision or are based on 

few sample cases). This method is used to calculate cross-school averages for all estimate types 

excluding incident characteristics and estimates of perpetration.

6. Weighted Average: The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives 

greater influence to larger schools, and is more appropriate for estimate types for which 

many of the school-level estimates are unstable because it is based on all responding students 

combined rather than nine point estimates. However, these estimates cannot be generalized 

beyond the nine schools. This method is used to calculate cross-school averages for incident 

characteristics and estimates of perpetration.

4.2.7 Timing

The CCSVS was designed to average around 15 minutes in terms of administration length, and 

respondents’ time was monitored throughout the field period. Across the nine schools, the average survey 

length was 16 minutes for females and 15 minutes for males (Table 18 and Table 19). For both females and 

males, the average time at each school was very similar to the overall average. Across all schools, the range 

of the average lengths for females was 14 minutes (School 1) to 19 minutes (School 3). For males, the range 

of the average lengths was 13 minutes (School 1) to 18 minutes (School 2).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

57

Table 18. Mean time to complete CCSVS Pilot Test (in minutes) and percent 

distribution for undergraduate females, by school

School

Number of Completed 

Interviews Mean

Percentiles

Min 10th 25th Median 75th 90th Max

Total 14,989 16.2 1.2 8.9 11.1 14.5 19.2 25.7 86.1

1 1,685 14.2 3.5 7.6 9.6 12.5 16.8 22.9 68.3

2 688 17.5 4.5 10.0 12.1 15.8 20.6 27.6 75.5

3 1,837 18.7 3.3 10.0 12.6 16.5 22.0 30.0 84.7

4 2,086 16.0 4.2 9.0 11.3 14.4 18.7 24.8 61.1

5 1,081 16.4 3.8 8.9 11.5 14.7 19.5 26.2 63.6

6 1,691 16.1 2.1 9.4 11.6 14.6 19.0 24.3 83.0

7 1,826 17.1 3.6 9.8 11.9 15.1 20.4 27.0 82.1

8 2,309 15.5 1.8 8.9 11.0 13.9 18.2 24.1 71.0

9 1,786 15.3 1.2 7.5 10.1 13.2 18.8 25.5 86.1

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Data are shown only for students classified as completers.

Table 19. Mean time to complete CCSVS Pilot Test (in minutes) and percent 

distribution for undergraduate males, by school

School

Number of Completed 

Interviews Mean

Percentiles

Min 10th 25th Median 75th 90th Max

Total 8,034 15.2 1.0 8.0 10.5 13.7 18.2 24.0 81.2

1 793 12.9 3.0 7.0 8.9 11.5 15.3 20.4 54.5

2 438 17.6 3.4 9.3 12.1 15.9 21.0 27.5 80.9

3 1,028 16.2 3.7 8.3 10.8 14.7 19.4 26.6 68.3

4 1,063 15.5 2.6 8.3 11.0 14.2 18.3 23.8 50.3

5 681 15.0 2.4 8.1 10.6 13.5 17.8 23.9 55.2

6 754 15.6 4.2 9.1 11.4 14.3 18.4 23.5 59.8

7 1,162 16.1 4.0 9.2 11.2 14.7 19.4 24.7 63.7

8 1,113 15.2 2.9 8.5 10.7 13.6 17.9 24.1 81.2

9 1,002 13.5 1.0 5.2 8.5 12.0 16.4 23.5 62.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Data are shown only for students classified as completers.

In terms of the range of time it took students to complete the survey, the minimum time was 

1.2 and 1.0 minutes for females and males, respectively, and the maximum time was 86 minutes and 

81 minutes for females and males, respectively. Although some of the extreme values (minimum and 

maximum lengths) varied across schools, the tenth and ninetieth percentiles were fairly consistent across 

all nine schools (i.e., on average 8.9 and 8.0 minutes for the tenth percentile and 26 and 24 minutes for 

the ninetieth percentile for females and males, respectively). After examining all of the extreme survey 

lengths across all respondents, there did not appear to be a pattern or clustering at one or two schools.

Furthermore, in regard to the long survey lengths, it appeared that these students may have simply let 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

58

the survey time out after 15 minutes several times and logged back in prior to completing it. For the 

short survey lengths, the surveys that took less time than was thought to be “reasonable” were examined 

closely. However, because there were no clear outliers, all surveys that met the criteria of being considered 

complete (i.e., valid response to the questions on age, gender identity, and the number of sexual assault 

incidents experienced during the 2014–2015 academic year) were retained in the analyses.

30

In general, sexual assault victims,31 regardless of sex, took longer than non-victims to complete 

the survey (Table 20). This was expected because the instrument included questions designed to collect 

detailed information about up to three victimization incidents if a respondent indicated that she/he was a 

victim of sexual assault. Across all nine schools, female victims took, on average, 23 minutes to complete 

the survey compared to 15 minutes for non-victims. Similarly, male victims took, on average, 20 minutes 

compared to 15 minutes for non-victims, to complete the survey.

Table 20. Mean time (in minutes) to complete CCSVS Pilot Test survey by sex, 

victimization status, and school

Survey Length (in minutes)

Females Males

School Non-victims Victims Non-victims Victims

Cross-School Average 15.4 23.3 15.0 20.2

1 12.9 19.6 12.7 17.0

2 17.0 27.9 17.4 29.7

3 18.0 25.7 16.1 23.2

4 15.5 24.0 15.4 20.2

5 15.0 23.3 14.8 18.6

6 15.6 23.1 15.6 19.1

7 15.9 25.6 15.9 20.1

8 14.6 23.4 15.1 20.1

9 14.6 24.0 13.3 21.7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

4.3 Study Sample

The distribution of demographic characteristics among the CCSVS Pilot Test respondents 

is shown in Table 21. The data in the table are unweighted, such that equal weight is given to each 

respondent; however, all estimates in the remainder of the report are weighted to adjust for potential 

nonresponse and coverage bias.

30Respondents who skipped a lot of questions, which is likely responsible for extremely short survey times, were treated as missing 

in the analyses of the questions they skipped.

31“Victim” refers to students who reported one or more incidents of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact in the 2014–2015 

academic year. See Section 5.1 for additional details about the calculation of this estimate.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

59

An extensive disclosure risk analysis was conducted to prevent the identities of participating 

schools from being discerned, the results of which guided decisions about whether certain student or 

victimization characteristics could be reported at the school level. The primary concerns pertained to 

students’ demographic characteristics, which could not be shown at the individual-school level without 

risking potential identification of the school. Most of the estimates included in this report are shown for 

each participating school as well as at the aggregate level. For particularly rare estimates at smaller schools 

or those with lower response rates, some estimates did not meet acceptable levels of precision (noted in the 

graphics and appendix tables).

Throughout this report, all data are shown separately for undergraduate females and males, 

a categorization based on the sex indicated on the student rosters that were provided by the schools.

The self-reported data on gender identity indicates that while the vast majority of students considered 

themselves to be male or female, 64 respondents (0.4% of the female sample) who were reported to be 

female by their school identified as male and 58 students (0.7% of the male sample) who were reported to 

be male by their school identified as female (Table 21). The decision to present estimates by the students’ 

school-provided sex rather than student-reported gender was made for two reasons.

First, because the power calculations for determining the number of respondents needed in each 

school (i.e., the sample size) were based on the school-provided sex (because of differing goals for males 

and females), a student’s probability of selection was based on school-provided data on sex. As a result, 

the selection weights and weights for nonresponse (based on the nonresponse bias analysis comparing 

responders to nonresponders, by sex, using roster data available for the whole sampling frame) depend on 

the school-provided sex.

Second, reporting based on student-reported gender identity would require reporting results for 

self-reported (1) females, (2), males, and (3) transgender persons. At both the aggregate and school level, 

the precision to report estimates for transgender persons was lacking. While the number of self-reported 

transgender persons is small (0.2% of the female sample and 0.2% of the male sample), it was important 

to include them in the analytic results (i.e., the results of transgender persons would always need to be 

suppressed due to disclosure and reliability concerns). Presenting results by school-provided sex allowed 

for their inclusion.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

60

Table 21. Distribution of undergraduate female and male samples, unweighted data 

Female Sample Male Sample

Characteristic Number Percent Number Percent

Year of study

1 3,826 25.5 % 2,118 26.4 %

2 3,375 22.5 1,775 22.1

3 3,599 24.0 1,909 23.8

4 4,092 27.3 2,181 27.1

Other 85 0.6 47 0.6

Missing 12 0.1 4 0.0

Age

18 1,769 11.8 % 787 9.8 %

19 3,240 21.6 1,676 20.9

20 2,806 18.7 1,406 17.5

21 2,529 16.9 1,315 16.4

22 1,715 11.4 980 12.2

23+ 2,930 19.5 1,870 23.3

Race/ethnicity

White 9,309 62.1 % 5,085 63.3 %

Black 1,031 6.9 447 5.6

Hispanic (any race) 1,599 10.7 847 10.5

Asian 1,939 12.9 1,068 13.3

Other 741 4.9 392 4.9

Missing 370 2.5 195 2.4

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non-Hispanic White 9,309 62.1 % 5,085 63.3 %

Other 5,310 35.4 2,754 34.3

Missing 370 2.5 195 2.4

Gender identity

Female 14,856 99.1 % 58 0.7 %

Male 64 0.4 7,939 98.8

Transgender 37 0.2 19 0.2

Something else 32 0.2 18 0.2

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 13,456 89.8 % 7,306 90.9 %

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other 1,191 7.9 552 6.9

Missing 342 2.3 176 2.2

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

61

The male and female samples contained fairly even distributions of students by year of study and 

age. Any overrepresentation of a particular subgroup (based on comparing respondents to nonrespondents 

using student-roster data) was addressed through weighting so that the weighted data that are used in 

the remainder of the report reflect the full population of degree-seeking undergraduate students at each 

school. To simplify the presentation of victimization estimates for age subgroups, age was collapsed into 

two categories (18–22 and 23 and older) when creating subgroup estimates.

The samples are fairly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity when examining the overall male 

and female samples. However, there was substantial variation in the distribution of race/ethnicity across 

schools and, due to the very small numbers of specific racial/ethnic subgroups in the student population at 

several participating schools, the respondent sample had similarly low representation of these subgroups.

Among the female samples, the proportion of non-Hispanic white students at the participating schools 

ranged from 22.8% to 86.5%, the proportion of non-Hispanic black students ranged from 0.6% to 18.8%, 

the proportion of non-Hispanic Asian students ranged from 1.8% to 38.2%, the proportion of Hispanic 

students ranged from 2.4% to 27.9%, and the proportion of students who were either American Indian 

or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiracial ranged from 3.4% to 6.6%. In 

addition, because the race and ethnicity questions were asked at the very end of the survey, and were not 

required to be answered, race/ethnicity could not be classified for 370 students in the female sample and 

195 students in the male sample who left the questions blank. Because of the low representation of several 

racial/ethnic subgroups in some schools—and the pilot study’s commitment to minimizing the risk of 

school disclosure—school-specific victimization estimates for subgroups based on race/ethnicity could be 

created with acceptable precision only for non-Hispanic white students and non-white students (which 

included non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial).

Overall, about 90% of the female sample and 91% of the male sample considered their sexual 

orientation to be heterosexual, and these proportions did not vary substantially across schools. For 

example, among the female sample, the proportion who reported that they were heterosexual ranged 

from 84% to 91%. Two categories were used to generate school-level subgroup estimates for sexual 

victimization based on sexual orientation: heterosexual and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other. This decision 

was made because acceptable precision when using four categories for sexual orientation was lacking, 

particularly given that this variable was missing for 344 students in the female sample and 176 students in 

the male sample.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

62

5. Sexual Assault, Rape, and Sexual Battery

The CCSVS Pilot Test focused on measuring three key types of sexual victimization: sexual 

assault, rape, and sexual battery. Sexual battery was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual 

contact that involved forced touching of a sexual nature, not involving penetration. This could include 

forced kissing, touching, grabbing, or fondling of sexual body parts. Rape was defined as any unwanted 

and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved a penetrative act, including oral sex, anal sex, sexual 

intercourse, or sexual penetration with a finger or object. Sexual battery and rape are mutually exclusive 

categories (e.g., a victim or a sexual victimization incident would be counted as one or the other, not both). 

Sexual assault is the term used to describe any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved 

either sexual battery or rape. It does not include sexual harassment or coerced sexual contact, which were 

measured separately (see Section 6).

In order to gather information about the types of sexual victimization experienced and the 

characteristics and outcomes of those experiences, the research team designed the CCSVS Pilot Test 

with an incident-based approach to collecting data. The incident-based approach asks respondents 

to identify separate occurrences of victimization, date them, and then answer questions about each 

specific incident, up to a maximum of three incidents. Using this approach allows for the presentation of 

prevalence estimates—the number of unique victims who experienced one or more victimizations during 

the reference period—and victimization estimates—the number of incidents experienced by persons in 

the population. Therefore, throughout this section, prevalence and victimization estimates are presented 

for sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery. The incident-based approach also makes it possible to present 

victimization and prevalence rates based on the type of victimization experienced, rather than looking 

only at the prevalence of any type of sexual victimization. Additionally, it allows incidents to be dated and 

placed within the reference period and allows for the identification of the characteristics and outcomes of 

specific types of incidents.

Because the nine schools included in the CCSVS Pilot Test were not randomly selected, the 

conclusions and comparisons made regarding the estimates are specific to these nine schools and cannot 

be generalized to all postsecondary institutions or to the national population of college students. However, 

the results from these schools do provide insight into the best methods for collecting sexual victimization 

and campus climate data from college students. In addition, the results demonstrate the potential of crossschool comparisons and the utility of a cross-school average for many estimates.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

63

5.1 Measurement

Several key survey items were used to identify victims of sexual assault. First, before any questions 

about unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact were covered, respondents were asked about sexual 

harassment victimization and experiences with coerced sexual contact (see Section 6.1).

32 This section of 

the survey described five types of sexual contact that would be relevant throughout the survey. Gray text 

was programming language not visible to respondents.

Next, after answering the questions about sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact, respondents 

started a new section of the survey. They were provided with the definition of “unwanted sexual contact” 

(sexual contact that the person did not consent to and did not want to happen) and descriptions of tactics 

that could be used to achieve unwanted sexual contact. Respondents were required to check a box next 

to each tactic description (shown one at a time) before advancing to the next screen. This strategy was 

informed by the in-person cognitive interview process and implemented to increase the likelihood that 

respondents would read the descriptions and lead language.

32 As described in Section 2, the strategy of covering sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact before sexual assault was 

informed by the in-person cognitive interviewing, in which it was evident that when these topics were covered in the reverse order 

(which was the original strategy), some victims of sexual harassment and/or coerced contact included these experiences in the 

sexual assault victimization question but noted that they would not have done so if they had known that the survey was going to 

later ask specifically about harassment and/or coerced sexual contact.

Sexual contact includes:

• touching of a sexual nature (kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up 

against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

• oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or 

tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

• anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus)

• sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in [IF D3=MALE, FILL “someone’s”, ELSE FILL 

“your” vagina)

• sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle 

or a candle in your [IF D3 NE MALE, FILL: “vagina or”] anus. 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

64

Respondents were then taken to a new page that asked whether they had experienced unwanted/

nonconsensual sexual contact since the beginning of the academic year, regardless of where it happened 

(Survey Item P1). This language was included in order to capture all incidents of unwanted sexual contact 

experienced by respondents, not only those that took place on school property or were perpetrated by 

individuals with an affiliation to the school.

33 Regardless of their response to the question, students were 

also asked how many times they had experienced unwanted sexual contact during the reference period.

The question about the number of times (Survey Item P2) was the key variable used in the sexual assault 

victimization estimates (both prevalence and incident rates). The first question (Survey Item P1) was used 

primarily in latent class analyses to assess the reliability and consistency of a respondent’s answers.

34

33 This decision was made because colleges and universities provide a number of support services to students who experience 

sexual violence, and these services are not limited to those who were victimized on school property or by school-affiliated 

offenders. For planning and policy purposes, school administrators need to have accurate information about the number of 

students who experience sexual victimization and the nature of these incidents.

34 Latent class analysis (LCA) involves embedding several similar questions that ask about an underlying construct (i.e., sexual 

assault). The analysis requires that all respondents answer the key question from which prevalence estimates are derived and each 

LCA question (i.e., they cannot be skipped based on the key question from which prevalence estimates are derived). Section 5.5.3

provides additional information about the LCA findings.

This section asks about times when you may have experienced unwanted sexual contact. In these 

questions, unwanted sexual contact is sexual contact that you did not consent to and that you did not 

want to happen. Remember that sexual contact includes touching of your sexual body parts, oral sex, 

anal sex, sexual intercourse, and penetration of your [IF D3=FEMALE OR TRANSGENDER OR SOMETHING 

ELSE OR MISSING, FILL “vagina or”] anus with a finger or object.

Please check off each point as you read through these descriptions.

Unwanted sexual contact could happen when: [EACH ITEM MUST BE CHECKED TO ADVANCE]

 someone touches or grabs your sexual body parts (e.g., butt, crotch, or breasts);

 someone uses force against you, such as holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning 

your arms, hitting or kicking you; 

 someone threatens to hurt you or someone close to you; or

 you are unable to provide consent because you are incapacitated, passed out, unconscious, 

blacked out, or asleep. This could happen after you voluntarily used alcohol or drugs, or after 

you were given a drug without your knowledge or consent.

Please keep in mind that anyone—regardless of gender—can experience unwanted sexual contact. Also, 

the person who does this could be a stranger or someone you know, such as a friend, family member, or 

person you were dating or hanging out with.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

65

Respondents who reported 1 or more incident in Survey Item P2 were then taken to a new page in 

which they were informed that they would be asked a series of follow-up questions about each incident (up 

to three incidents).

Respondents were asked to place each incident in time, with response options limited to the 

months of the 2014–2015 academic year (see Survey Item ILF1). If a respondent who had reported more 

than one incident in Survey Item P2 selected the same month for more than one incident, the survey was 

programmed to confirm that these were actually separate incidents (see Survey Item ILF1a below).

When you answer the questions in this section, please count any experience of unwanted sexual contact 

since the beginning of the current academic year, regardless of where it happened.

P1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o Yes

o No

P2. How many separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact have you experienced since the 

beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014? 

o 0 incidents [IF P2 = 0 IINCIDENTS, SKIP TO LCA2]

o 1 incident

o 2 incidents

o 3 incidents

o 4 incidents

o 5 or more incidents
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

66

After each incident was placed in time (calendar month), respondents were taken through a series 

of questions (approximately 25, depending on skip patterns) about each incident, up to the maximum of 

three incidents.

35 The first two questions documented the nature of the sexual contact (Survey Item ILF2) 

and the tactic used to engage in the sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3). The first item on the nature of 

sexual contact was used to define whether the incident was rape or sexual battery.

35 As described in Section 2.3, for respondents who reported more than one incident in Survey Item P2, no instructions were 

provided about which incident they should consider as “incident #1” and which they should consider as “incident #2” in Survey 

Item ILF1. Similarly, for respondents who reported three or more incidents in Survey Item P2, no instructions were provided 

about which three incidents they should date in Survey Item ILF1. These decisions were made because of concerns that asking 

respondents to select either the first three incidents, the last three incidents, or the three “most serious” incidents could introduce 

bias into the selection of incidents that were captured. Instead, the goal was to capture a “snapshot” of incidents that took place 

throughout the calendar year. The incident-level follow-up questions were limited to three incidents to avoid imposing excessive 

burden on respondents who had experienced multiple victimizations, to minimize the likelihood of missing data and survey 

breakoffs, and in anticipation that relatively few victims would report experiencing more than three incidents, which turned out to 

be the case.

ILF1. [IF P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: “Please think about incident #1.”] In what month did this incident of 

unwanted sexual contact occur?

o August 2014

o September 2014

o October 2014

o November 2014

o December 2014

o January 2015

o February 2015

o March 2015

o April 2015

o May 2015

o Unsure/Don’t know

[IF P2= 2 OR 3, AS THE RESPONDENT COMPLETES ILF1 FOR THE 2ND OR 3RD INCIDENT, THE 

INCIDENT(S) AND DATES ALREADY REPORTED WILL DISPLAY (E.G., “INCIDENT #1: December 

2015, INCIDENT #2, January 2015]

ILF1a. [ASK IF RESPONDENT SELECTS 2 INCIDENTS IN THE SAME MONTH IN ILF1] Just to confirm, you 

reported incident #1 in [FILL WITH MONTH, YEAR] and incident #2 in [FILL WITH MONTH YEAR]. 

Are these separate incidents?

o Yes, these are separate incidents

o No, this is the same incident [COMBINE THESE INTO 1 INCIDENT]
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

67

ILF2. During [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IF P2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH AND YEAR REPORTED IN #ILF1, e.g., “October, 2014.”], which of the following 

types of unwanted sexual contact happened? Please indicate whether each type of unwanted 

sexual contact happened during this incident. 

Yes No Unsure

a. Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of 

private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a 

sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

○ ○ ○

b. Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your 

genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone 

else’s genitals)

○ ○ ○

c. Anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus) ○ ○ ○

d. [RESPONSE WILL NOT DISPLAY IF D3=MALE] Sexual intercourse

someone putting their penis in your vagina)

○ ○ ○

e. Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their 

finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your [IF D3=FEMALE 

TRANSGENDER, SOMETHING ELSE, OR BLANK, FILL: “vagina or 

anus”; IF D3=MALE, FILL: “anus”])

○ ○ ○

ILF3. During [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IF P2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH REPORTED IN ILF1, e.g., “October, 2014”], how did the person(s) have 

unwanted sexual contact with you? Please indicate whether each of the following happened. 

Yes No Unsure

a. [THIS ITEM ONLY DISPLAYED IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED YES TO 

ILF2a AND DID NOT ANSWER YES TO ILF2b, ILF2c, ILF2d, OR ILF2e]

Touched or grabbed your sexual body parts (e.g., butt, crotch, or 

breasts)

○ ○ ○

b. Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about ○ ○ ○

c. Used physical force against you, such as holding you down with his 

or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you

○ ○ ○

d. You were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening 

because you were incapacitated, passed out, unconscious, blacked 

out, or asleep

○ ○ ○

e. Other. [TEXT FIELD IS ONLY ACTIVE IF ILF3E=YES OR UNSURE 

Please describe how the incident happened: ________________

○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

68

All respondents, both victims and non-victims, were given an additional set of questions for the 

latent class analysis (see Section 5.5.2) and for calculating estimates of sexual assault victimization since 

entering college and in the students’ lifetimes (see Section 5.2.2). These questions are shown below.

LCA2. Just to confirm, since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 

2014, has anyone had any of the following types of unwanted sexual contact with you (i.e., 

sexual contact without your consent and that you did not want to happen?

Yes No

a. Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private 

parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if 

it is over your clothes)

○ ○

b. Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals 

or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

○ ○

c. Anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus) ○ ○

d. [RESPONSE WILL NOT DISPLAY IF D3=MALE] Sexual intercourse

(someone putting their penis in your vagina)

○ ○

e. Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger 

or an object like a bottle or a candle in your [IF D3= FEMALE OR 

TRANSGENDER ORSOMETHING ELSE OR MISSING, FILL: “vagina or”] anus

○ ○

LCA3. Thinking about your whole life, when was the last time you experienced unwanted sexual 

contact?

Never Month Year 

 Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN 

LIST JAN-DEC]

Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN LIST 

2015-2005 OR EARLIER

LCA4. [SKIP IR P1=YES OR P2=1+ OR LCA2a=YES OR LCA2b=YES OR LCA2c=YES OR LCA2d=YES OR 

LCAe=YES OR LCA=NEVER] For the final question in this section, please think about the time 

since you entered college. If you have attended more than one school, please think about the 

time since you first entered any college or university. At any point since you entered college, 

has anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o Yes

o No
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

69

5.2 Prevalence Estimates

5.2.1 Prevalence of Sexual Assault during the 2014–2015 Academic Year

Calculation of Prevalence Estimates

Respondents who reported having experienced one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact 

since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year (based on Survey Item P2) were classified as victims 

of completed sexual assault. Victims who experienced forced touching of a sexual nature and did not 

experience a penetrative act (oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, or sexual penetration with a finger or 

object) during any incident that occurred during the academic year (based on Survey Item ILF2) were 

classified as victims of sexual battery. Victims who experienced a penetrative act during any incident 

within the reference period (based on Survey Item ILF2) were classified as victims of rape. Victims of 

sexual assault who did not report the type of sexual contact (based on Survey Item ILF2) could not be 

classified as having experienced rape or sexual battery but were still classified as sexual assault victims.

The prevalence rates for sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery were calculated by dividing 

the weighted number of victims by the total population (i.e., weighted number of survey respondents).

Prevalence rates were computed separately for females and males at each school, and a cross-school 

average was also created for females and males.

Female Estimates

The prevalence rate for completed sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females during the 

2014–2015 academic year, averaged across the nine schools, was 10.3%, and ranged from 4.2% at School 2 

to 20.0% at School 1 (Figure 5). Five of the nine schools had a sexual assault prevalence rate above 7.4%, 

which was the estimate used for the power calculations. Because sample-size targets were also exceeded 

in eight of the nine schools, percent relative standard errors (RSEs)36 for female sexual assault prevalence 

estimates were below the targeted 9% in all schools except School 2. Excluding School 2, the RSEs for 

sexual assault ranged from 3.7% to 6.9%. (See Appendix E-1 through 3 for all prevalence estimates, 

standard errors, and RSEs for female estimates.)

The average prevalence rate for completed sexual battery during the 2014–2015 academic year was 

5.6%, and ranged from 1.7% at School 2 to 13.2% at School 1. The average prevalence rate for completed 

rape during the 2014–2015 academic year was 4.1%, and ranged from 2.2% at School 9 to 7.9% at School 

5.

37 The RSEs (excluding School 2) ranged from 5.7% to 12.2% for rape and from 4.8% to 10.7% for 

sexual battery. The relative precision of these school-level estimates of sexual assault was in part due to 

two factors: (1) the better than anticipated response rates and resulting larger than expected number of 

completed interviews, and (2) a higher prevalence of sexual assault than expected in most schools.

36The percent RSE is the square root of the variance of an estimate divided by the estimate and expressed as a percentage. The RSA 

is a measure of the precision of the suvey estimate(s).

37The prevslence rates of sexual battery and rape do not sum exactly to the prevalence rate of sexual assault because the nature of 

hte sexual contact was covered in the incident-specific follow-up questions, and some students left this item blank (see Section 

5.2.1)
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

70

Given the relatively small standard errors and the range of these estimates across schools, the 

estimates for several schools were statistically different from one another. (By using the vertical error 

bars surrounding each estimate, which represent the 95% confidence intervals, it is possible to see which 

school-specific estimates are significantly different from either the cross-school average estimate or from 

other school estimates based on whether the error bars overlap.) For instance, the prevalence of sexual 

assault victimization at School 6 was significantly lower than at Schools 8, 7, 5, and 1.

Figure 5. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, rape, and 

sexual battery, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

71

Male Estimates

The prevalence of completed sexual assault among undergraduate males during the 2014–2015 

academic year ranged from 1.4% at Schools 2 and 6 to 5.7% at School 5, with a cross-school average rate 

of 3.1% (Figure 6). Across the nine schools, the average prevalence rate for completed sexual battery 

experienced by undergraduate males was 1.7% (ranging from 0.4% at School 2 to 3.3% at School 5). The 

average completed rape was 0.8% (ranging from 0.3% at School 6 to 1.4% at School 5). (See Appendix E-4 

through 6 for all prevalence estimates, standard errors, and RSEs for male estimates.) Based on significance 

tests conducted to compare prevalence rates between males and females, the prevalence of sexual assault, 

sexual battery, and rape were significantly lower for males than females at each of the nine participating 

schools (see Appendix E-7).

Even though the CCSVS Pilot Test was not powered to generate precise, school-specific estimates 

of sexual assault for males, sufficiently stable 38 estimates were generated at eight of the nine schools, with 

these estimates ranging from 1.4% to 5.7%. Six school-specific estimates for sexual battery victimization 

experienced by males during the 2014–2015 academic year were determined to be sufficiently stable, with 

these estimates ranging from 1.5% to 3.3%. Because of the relatively low prevalence of rape experienced 

by males, the school-specific estimate was stable only at one of the nine schools participating in the 

CCSVS Pilot Test. In general, because of the imprecision of the male estimates (as evidenced by the large 

confidence intervals), few were statistically distinguishable from one another.

38Estimates were considered stable if they were based on a sample size of more than 10 and if the RSE was less than or equal 

to 50%.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

72

Figure 6. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 3 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

5.2.2 Prevalence of Sexual Assault since Entering College and in Lifetime

Calculation of Prevalence Estimates

Respondents who experienced sexual assault victimization during the 2014–2015 academic year 

(Survey Item P2) or who answered yes to Survey Items P1, LCA2, or LCA4 (see Section 5.1) were classified 

as having experienced sexual assault since entering college. Respondents who were classified as victims 

of sexual assault during the 2014–2015 academic year or since entering college or who selected a year in 

Survey Item LCA3 were classified as having experienced sexual assault in their lifetime. Prevalence rates 

for sexual assault experienced since entering college and in lifetime were created by dividing the weighted 

number of victims by the total population (i.e., weighted number of survey respondents).

Because the primary focus of the CCSVS was on developing a valid methodology for estimating 

victimization within the 2014–2015 academic year, limited information was collected to assess the validity 

of the estimates for the since entering college and lifetime reference periods. No information was collected 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

73

about the number of such incidents, the type of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact that occurred, the 

tactics used, the month/year of the incident, or any other incident-level details for sexual victimizations 

experienced prior to the 2014–2015 academic year. Therefore, these estimates for both males and females 

should be interpreted with caution.

Female Estimates

The prevalence rate for completed sexual assault since entering college among the female sample 

ranged from 12% at School 4 to 38% at School 1, with a cross-school average rate of 21% (Figure 7). The 

percentage of undergraduate females who experienced sexual assault during their lifetime ranged from 

26% at Schools 4 and 9 to 46% at School 1, with a rate of 34% for all nine schools combined. Because the 

rates for sexual assault since beginning college and in lifetime are, by definition, higher than in the 2014–

2015 academic year, the RSEs for these estimates were smaller than the RSEs for sexual assault during the 

2014–2015 academic year (see Appendix E-3).

Figure 7. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, since entering college and in lifetime, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

74

Male Estimates

For undergraduate males, the overall prevalence rates for completed sexual assault since entering 

college ranged from 3.7% at School 2 to 11.8% at School 5, with an average rate of 7.0% across all 

participating schools (Figure 8). The percentage of undergraduate males who experienced completed 

sexual assault at some point in their lifetime ranged from 8.4% (School 6) to 16.3% (School 5), with an 

average prevalence rate of 11.2% across the nine schools. Both sets of estimates had larger relative standard 

errors than the estimates for females, and the apparent differences in the rates between schools were not 

statistically significant.

Figure 8. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual assault, since entering 

college and in lifetime, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

5.2.3 Prevalence of Female Sexual Assault during Academic Year 2014–2015, by Key 

Population Subgroups

This section presents sexual assault prevalence rates for population subgroups within the 

female sample. Specifically, sexual assault victimization prevalence during the 2014–2015 academic 

year is explored among the female sample by year of study, age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Subgroup estimates for other types of victimization (rape and sexual battery during the 2014–2015 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

75

academic year, sexual assault since entering college, sexual assault in lifetime, and sexual harassment) 

are included in Appendix E-9. This section presents subgroup estimates for the female sample overall 

and by school (where precision levels are acceptable). Because of the lack of precision in developing 

estimates for subgroups of male victims at the school level, the data in this section focus exclusively on the 

female sample.

Year of Study

During the 2014–2015 academic year, the prevalence of sexual assault for female undergraduates 

at the nine schools was significantly higher for first year students than 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year students 

at several schools (School 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9) (Figure 9). Similar patterns were evident when examining 

prevalence estimates for sexual battery and rape by year of study (see Appendix E-9 through 18).

Figure 9. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault by year of 

study and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 2 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

76

Age

At most schools participating in the CCSVS Pilot Test, the prevalence of sexual assault 

experienced during the 2014–2015 academic year was higher for younger female students (age 18–22) than 

older female students (ages 23+) (Figure 10). Similar patterns were observed in the prevalence of rape and 

sexual battery among younger and older students (Appendix E-9 through 18).

Additional Findings on Sexual Assault Victimization 

Since Entering College by Year of Study

The percentage of female undergraduates in the nine 

CCSVS Pilot Test schools who experienced sexual 

assault since entering college increased by year of 

study (see Appendix E-9).

Examining the prevalence of sexual assault 

experienced since entering college among 4th year 

female students facilitates an examination of females’ 

risk of experiencing a sexual assault during their entire 

college careers. The same estimate from a previous 

study (Krebs et al., 2009) has been used widely to 

suggest that 1 in 5 undergraduate females will be 

sexually assaulted while in college. The comparable 

CCSVS estimates, which are shown in Appendix E-9 

along with their standard errors, varied across schools. 

Across the four-year schools in the CCSVS, over a 

quarter of senior females (25.1%) reported that they 

had experienced unwanted/nonconsensual sexual 

contact since entering college.

This rate ranged from 1 in 8 (School 2) to 1 in 2 (School 1). However, several caveats about these estimates 

should be noted. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, no information about the number of such incidents, the 

type of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact that occurred, the tactic used, the month/year of the 

incident, or any other incident-level details were obtained about victimizations experienced prior to the 

2014–2015 academic year. In addition, the longer reference period for these estimates of approximately 

3.5 years for senior females might be more susceptible to measurement error in the form of recall bias or 

telescoping. Therefore, the “since entering college” estimates should be interpreted with caution. 

School Prevalence Rate

1 50.8% 1/2

5 31.9% 1/3

7 26.6% 1/4

8 23.7% 1/4

3 19.8% 1/5

6 18.1% 1/6

9 16.0% 1/6

4 13.7% 1/7

2 13.2% 1/8

Cross-School 

Averagea 25.1% 1/4

a For this estimate, only 4-year schools are 

included.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study 

(CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

77

Figure 10. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by age and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 2 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

Race/Ethnicity

Across most schools, rates of sexual assault for white and non-white students in the female 

sample were not statistically distinguishable (Figure 11). However, at two schools (Schools 1 and 5), the 

prevalence rates were higher for white students than non-white students.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

78

Figure 11. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by race/ethnicity and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 2 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Overall, the prevalence of sexual assault was significantly higher for nonheterosexual than 

heterosexual female students at the nine schools (Figure 12). School-specific estimates for sexual assault 

by sexual orientation subgroups met acceptable levels of precision in eight schools. At each of these eight 

schools, the observed prevalence of sexual assault victimization was higher for nonheterosexual students 

than heterosexual students in the female sample. A similar pattern is evident in the schools for which 

sufficiently precise estimates were created for sexual battery and rape (see Appendix E-10 through 18); 

with one exception (sexual battery rates in School 5), rates of sexual battery and rape were significantly 

higher for nonheterosexual students than heterosexual students.

Although it was not possible to generate school-specific estimates of the prevalence of sexual 

assault for transgendered persons, Appendix E-9 shows cross-school average estimates for sexual assault, 

rape, and sexual battery victimization for those who self-identified as transgender/other and female.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

79

Figure 12. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual assault, by sexual 

orientation and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 2 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

5.2.4 Impact of Weighting on Female Sexual Assault Prevalence Estimates

As discussed previously (see Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6), a nonresponse bias analysis was conducted 

to determine the extent to which survey respondents differed from the population of eligible students, with 

nonresponse adjustments (e.g., survey weights) employed to correct for this potential bias. As a statistical 

check, the weighted estimates were compared to unweighted estimates to assess the potential impact of 

nonresponse on the key prevalence estimates of sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery experienced in the 

2014–2015 academic year among the female sample. This analysis indicates that the weighted prevalence 

estimates were not substantially different from the unweighted estimates (Table 22, with additional 

detail in Appendix E-19). This suggests that, for the characteristics known for both respondents and 

nonrespondents, there was little nonresponse bias due to differential response propensities.

Even though the weighting did not alter the key estimates greatly, it is still recommended that 

the potential for bias be thoroughly assessed and that school-level weights be developed using as many 

student characteristics as possible. This ensures that potential bias is reduced for all estimate types and that 

estimated counts correctly sum to the population totals rather than the sample totals.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

80

Table 22. Unweighted and weighted undergraduate female prevalence estimates of 

sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery, 2014–2015 academic year, by 

school

Sexual Assault Rape Sexual Battery

School Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

Cross-School Average 10.3 % 10.3 % 4.2 % 4.1 % 5.6 % 5.6 %

1 19.5 20.0 6.1 6.2 12.8 13.2

2 4.1 4.2 2.2 2.4 1.7 1.7

3 8.9 8.7 3.0 3.0 4.8 4.7

4 6.1 5.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6

5 16.7 16.9 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.6

6 7.2 7.0 2.9 2.7 4.0 4.1

7 12.4 11.9 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.7

8 10.7 10.7 4.4 4.5 5.9 5.9

9 7.4 7.1 2.2 2.2 4.5 4.2

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

5.2.5 Alternative Methods for Estimating Sexual Assault Prevalence

The primary sexual assault prevalence measure presented in this report classifies respondents 

as sexual assault victims if they indicated they had experienced one or more incidents of unwanted/

nonconsensual sexual conduct during the 2014–2015 academic year, regardless of their responses to 

other items.

39 This question appeared in the survey after unwanted sexual contact had been clearly and 

thoroughly defined for the respondents using behaviorally specific terms.

To demonstrate the impact that different measurement strategies can have on sexual assault 

prevalence rates, the primary prevalence estimates presented for the female sample in this report (Section 

5.2.1) were compared to estimates resulting from eight alternative approaches to calculating the prevalence 

of sexual assault (and sexual misconduct conceptualized more broadly). The alternative approaches being 

compared have one or more of the following features.

1. Using a two-step approach that involves using screener questions to identify potential sexual 

victimizations, and additional information about the incident, to determine whether the 

incident classifies as a sexual assault and is within the survey reference period.

2. Using one or more behaviorally specific screener questions to identify sexual victimizations.

3. Including additional victimization types, such as coerced sexual contact or sexual harassment, 

in the sexual assault prevalence measure.

39 See Section 5.1 for additional details about how sexual assault was defined and measured for the CCSVS.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

81

Eight alternative approaches to calculating the prevalence of sexual assault (and sexual 

misconduct) were compared to the primary sexual assault prevalence estimate used in this report 

(Figure 13). Methods 1–5 are different two-step approaches that use various criteria to identify whether 

the incident meets the definition of a sexual assault. Method 6 is a single-step approach that identifies 

victims of sexual assault based on a single behavioral screener that asks respondents whether or not they 

experienced each type of unwanted sexual contact during the 2014–2015 academic year (a survey question 

that was primarily intended to facilitate the latent class analyses described in Section 5.5.3). Methods 

7–8 include additional types of victimization—coerced sexual contact and sexual harassment—in the 

calculation of the sexual misconduct prevalence rate. This exercise demonstrates the potential range of 

estimates when different approaches are utilized.

Cross-school average and school-level sexual assault prevalence rates for the primary sexual 

assault prevalence estimate and each of the eight alternative approaches were generated (Table 23, with 

additional details shown in Appendix E-20 and 21). Because the two-step approaches exclude some 

incidents, these rates are lower than the primary estimate. Exclusions based on open-ended responses and 

missing unwanted sexual contact types (Two-Step 1 and Two-Step 3) reduced the average prevalence rates 

by 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points, respectively. The exclusion of incidents that were not placed in a month 

(Two-Step 2) lead to an overall reduction of 1.4 percentage points, whereas the exclusion of incidents for 

which the respondent did not endorse a tactic (Two-Step 4) reduced the average prevalence rate by 0.5 

percentage points. When the first four measures are applied simultaneously (Two-Step 5), this translates 

to an average reduction of 2.0 percentage points, with school-level reductions ranging from 0.4 percentage 

points (School 2) to 3.8 percentage points (at School 5).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

82

Figure 13. Eight alternative approaches to calculating sexual assault prevalence for 

undergraduate females

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

a Every open-ended response to Survey Items ILF3E (which asked about the tactic used in the unwanted sexual 

contact) and VQ (which asked if there was anything else about the incident the respondent wanted to report) 

was carefully reviewed. Based on the information provided by respondents, incidents that did not appear 

to involve sexual assault because (1) consent was provided (often after coercion) or (2) no sexual contact 

appeared to have occurred were flagged for exclusion based on methods 1 and 5.

bSee Section 6.1 for the question wording for Survey Item EC1 and SH1.

1. Two-Step 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2, unless respondents provided 

information in open-ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual assault 

occurred.

a

2. Two-Step 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2 AND respondents identified the 

month in which the incident occurred (Survey Item ILF1).

3. Two-Step 3: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2 AND respondents identified the type 

of sexual contact that occurred during the incident (Survey Item ILF2).

4. Two-Step 4: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2 AND respondent identified one or 

more tactics used by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3).

5. Two-Step 5: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2 AND respondent (1) identified the 

month of the incident (Survey Item ILF1) AND (2) identified the type of sexual contact that 

occurred during the incident (Survey Item ILF2) AND (3) identified one or more tactics used 

by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3) AND (4) did not 

provide information in open-ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual 

assault occurred.

a

6. Behavioral Screener: classifies respondents who endorsed any of the sub-items in Survey Item 

LCA2, which presents behaviorally-specific questions about different types of unwanted 

sexual contact, as sexual assault victims

7. Sexual Misconduct 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents 

of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Survey Item P2 OR if respondents experienced

coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1b).

8. Sexual Misconduct 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if respondent (1) 

specified one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact in Survey Item P2, (2) experienced 

coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1b), or (3) experienced any type of sexual harassment

(Survey Item SHb).
83

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 23. Comparison of approaches to sexual assault prevalence measurement, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

School

Primary 

Measure Two-Step 1 Two-Step 2 Two-Step 3 Two-Step 4 Two-Step 5

Behavioral 

Screener

Sexual 

Misconduct 

1

Sexual 

Misconduct 

2

Cross-School 

Average

10.3 % 10.1 % 8.9 % 10.0 % 9.8 % 8.3 % 11.0 % 14.1 % 32.4 %

1 20.0 19.7 18.1 19.8 19.4 17.3 20.8 23.3 50.9

2 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.6 6.2 16.8

3 8.7 8.5 6.9 8.2 8.0 5.9 9.2 12.2 32.0

4 5.8 5.6 4.8 5.5 5.5 4.4 6.2 10.2 25.5

5 16.9 16.7 14.0 16.5 16.4 13.1 17.1 21.9 46.7

6 7.0 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.8 6.2 7.5 9.6 22.9

7 11.9 11.7 10.3 11.5 11.3 9.6 13.2 15.7 36.5

8 10.7 10.5 9.4 10.5 10.0 8.8 11.4 15.2 32.9

9 7.1 6.8 6.1 6.5 6.7 5.4 9.3 12.3 27.4

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Methods are defined in Figure 13.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

84

The behavioral screener and sexual misconduct approaches classify more respondents as sexual 

assault victims compared to the primary measure. Overall, the sexual assault prevalence rate under the 

Behavioral Screener approach (alternative approach #6) was 0.7 percentage points higher than the primary 

measure, ranging from 0.2 percentage points higher at School 5 to 2.2 percentage points higher at School 

9. Sexual Misconduct 1, which includes coerced sexual contact, increased the prevalence rate by 3.8 

percentage points on average, with school-level increases ranging from 2.0 percentage points at School 2 

to 4.4 percentage points at School 4. Inclusion of sexual harassment, along with coerced sexual contact, 

leads to the most dramatic increase in the prevalence rates, more than tripling the average prevalence rate 

and producing school-level changes ranging from 12.6 percentage points (at School 2) to 30.9 percentage 

points (at School 1).

When designing a study to measure sexual assault, differences in definitions and question 

wording, measurement strategies, and data collection modes can result in sexual assault prevalence rates 

that vary—sometimes dramatically. When studies use different approaches, it is virtually impossible 

to compare the resulting rates. A strength of the CCSVS Pilot Test is that the same measurement 

approach was used across the nine participating schools, making comparisons possible and 

appropriate methodologically.

5.3 Victimization Estimates

5.3.1 Number of Sexual Assault Incidents in the 2014–2015 Academic Year

Calculation of Estimates

In addition to prevalence estimates, the incident-based approach used in the CCSVS Pilot Test 

made it possible to create a number of victimization estimates, or the number of incidents experienced by 

persons in the population. Because respondents were asked to provide a count of the number of times they 

experienced unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the academic year (Survey Item P2), it was 

possible to generate estimates of the number of incidents experienced by male and female undergraduates at 

each school during the 2014–2015 academic year. These incidence counts were generated for sexual assault, 

rape, and sexual battery. The number of incidents of sexual assault was created by summing the number of 

incidents reported by each respondent in Survey Item P2 (with “5 or more incidents” counted as 5).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

85

Female Estimates

Female victims at each of the nine schools could have experienced one, two, or three or more 

incidents of completed sexual assault during the 2014–2015 academic year.

40 With the exception of victims 

at School 2 (for which precise estimates could not be developed at this level of detail), the majority of 

sexual assault victims experienced one completed sexual assault incident during the 2014–2015 academic 

year (Figure 14, with additional details shown in Appendix E-22 and 23). For example, at School 8, 6.0% 

of undergraduate females experienced one incident, whereas 4.8% (3.4% + 1.4%) experienced two or more 

incidents of completed sexual assault.

Figure 14. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting 1, 2, and 3 or more incidents of sexual assault, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number estimates out of 3 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

40Because few respondents indicated experiencing three, four, or five or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact, these 

categories were collapsed for Figure 14.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

86

Male Estimates

As with female sexual assault victimization, the majority of male sexual assault victims at each 

school, except at School 2, experienced one completed sexual assault incident during the 2014–2015 

academic year (Figure 15, with additional details shown in Appendix E-24 and 25).

Figure 15. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting 1, 2, and 3 or more incidents 

of sexual assault, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number estimates out of 3 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

5.3.2 Sexual Assault Incidence Rates (Academic Year 2014–2015)

Calculation of Estimates

Sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape victimization incidence rates, which represent the number 

of completed incidents experienced per 1,000 undergraduate females during the 2014–2015 academic year, 

were calculated for each participating school and averaged across the nine schools. Rates were created by 

summing the weighted number of incidents reported by each respondent in Survey Item P2 (with “5 or 

more incidents” counted as 5), dividing by the student population (or weighted number of respondents), 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

87

and multiplying the ratio by 1,000 to show the rate of sexual assault victimizations per 1,000 students.

Incidence rates for rape and sexual battery were computed similarly but using the incident-level responses 

about the type of unwanted contact experienced (Survey Item ILF2). Incidence rates for sexual assault, 

rape, and sexual battery were computed for each school with separate estimates for females and males.

Female Estimates

For undergraduate females, the rate of sexual assault victimization ranged from about 85 

incidents per 1,000 female students at School 2 to 325 per 1,000 at School 1 (Figure 16, with the estimates 

and standard errors shown in Appendix E-26 and 27). The cross-school average victimization rate for 

completed sexual assault was 176 per 1,000 undergraduate females. The average victimization incidence 

rate for sexual battery per 1,000 undergraduate females was 96, and ranged from 34 at School 2 to 221 at 

School 1. The average victimization incidence rate for rape per 1,000 undergraduate females was 54, and 

ranged from 28 at School 9 to 110 at School 5. As with the prevalence estimates, many of the victimization 

rates at particular schools were statistically distinguishable from one another, with the highest sexual 

assault victimization rate evident for Schools 1 and 5, and the lowest at Schools 2 and 4.

Figure 16. Undergraduate female sexual assault rates for sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

88

Male Estimates

For male students, the victimization rate ranged from 27 sexual assaults per 1,000 male 

undergraduates at School 6 to 96 per 1,000 at School 5 (Figure 17, with the estimates and standard errors 

shown in Appendix E-28 and 29). The cross-school average sexual assault victimization rate for males was 

53 victimizations per 1,000 undergraduate males. For sexual battery, the victimization rate ranged from 6.8 

per 1,000 male undergraduates at School 6 to 45.7 per 1,000 at School 5. The cross-school average sexual 

battery victimization rate for males was 23.1 per 1,000 undergraduate males. For rape, the victimization 

rate ranged from 3.8 rapes per 1,000 male undergraduates at School 6 to 19.9 per 1,000 at School 5. The 

cross-school average rape victimization rate for males was 10.1 per 1,000 undergraduate males. The relative 

standard errors were larger around the male victimization rates than the female rates. Thus, many of the 

apparent differences in rates across schools were not statistically significant.

Figure 17. Undergraduate male victimization rates for sexual assault, sexual battery, 

and rape, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the number of estimates out of 3 that have a relative standard error of 

greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

89

5.4 Characteristics of Female Sexual Assault Incidents

Because one of the goals of the CCSVS Pilot Test was to develop measures for collecting data 

that can be used to understand the characteristics and outcomes of sexual victimization experiences, the 

incident-based approach entailed having respondents identify separate occurrences of victimization, date 

them, and then answer questions about each specific incident, up to a maximum of three. Each incident 

loop collected information on the type of unwanted sexual contact that occurred, the tactic used by the 

offender, the location of the incident (on or off campus), offender characteristics (number of offenders, sex 

of offenders, offender affiliation with the school, and the relationship between the offender and victim), 

drug and/or alcohol use during the incident (for both the victim and offender), help-seeking behavior 

and disclosure experiences (e.g., reporting to on- and off-campus officials, satisfaction with the response 

elicited by reporting, reasons for not reporting), and the consequences of the incident for the victim (and 

any actions taken such as moving or dropping classes).

Respondents who reported more than one incident were taken through the incident followup questions for incident #2 and, if applicable, incident #3. The survey featured a display tool to help 

respondents keep track of the incident they were asked to focus on—a header that listed the incidents 

by number (e.g., incident #1, incident #2) and the month/year of each. In addition, the incident being 

discussed appeared in bold type throughout all of the follow-up questions. Using this approach, detailed 

follow-up information was obtained about the majority of victimizations.

The sections that follow describe incident-level characteristics for sexual assault incidents 

experienced by female undergraduates during the 2014–2015 academic year. Incident characteristics are 

presented only for females due to the lack of precision for victimizations experienced by males.

5.4.1 Classification and Distribution of Sexual Assault Type

Across all sexual assault incidents involving female victims at the nine schools, 90% could 

be classified as either rape or sexual battery based on responses to Survey Item ILF2 (Figure 18, with 

additional details shown in Appendix E-30 and 31). The remaining incidents were classified as “unsure” 

(3.6%), “no sexual contact type specified” (4.0%), or “missing” (3.0%). An “unsure” victimization type was 

assigned when a respondent indicated “unsure” for at least one of the types of unwanted sexual contact 

listed in Survey Item ILF2 (unwanted touching, oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, sexual penetration 

with finger or object) but did not endorse “yes” for any type. A “no victimization type specified” was 

assigned when the respondent answered “no” to all types of unwanted sexual contact (in Survey Item 

ILF2). A “missing” victimization type was assigned when the respondent did not indicate “yes,” or “unsure” 

to any of the types of unwanted sexual contact but also did not indicate “no” to all of the types of unwanted 

sexual contact. The incidents that could not be classified as rape or sexual battery were included in the 

rates of sexual assault but not in the more specific breakouts by type of victimization.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

90

Although the majority of sexual assault victims at the nine schools specified the type of unwanted 

sexual contact they experienced, one suggestion for future studies similar in scope would be to incorporate 

editorial checks into the instrument to prompt respondents to provide a response to this critical item 

if they initially leave it blank. However, human subjects’ protection considerations about voluntary 

participation typically mean that participants are explicitly told that they can skip any question in 

the survey.

Figure 18. Distribution of sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females, by 

type of sexual contact specified, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: For incidents in which multiple forms of sexual contact occurred, the incident was coded as the most 

serious type of contact. The hierarchy for the most serious type of contact was rape, sexual battery, unsure, no 

type of sexual contact endorsed, and missing.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

91

5.4.2 Distribution of Type of Penetration

For female undergraduates at the nine schools, 32% of all sexual victimization incidents were 

classified as rape. These incidents could be further disaggregated by the type of penetration experienced 

by the victim. The CCSVS Pilot Test captured data on four types of penetration for females, including 

oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sexual intercourse, and sexual penetration with a finger or object. Across all 

nine schools, the largest percentage of rape incidents involved vaginal sexual intercourse (59%), while the 

smallest percentage involved anal sex (10%) (Figure 19, with additional details shown in Appendix E-32

and 33).

41

Figure 19. Percentage of rape incidents by type of penetration specified and type of 

penetration not specified for undergraduate females, 2014–2015 academic 

year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

In some instances, data on the type of penetration were missing, either because the respondent 

reported being unsure of whether that type of unwanted sexual contact had occurred or left the question 

(Survey Item ILF2) blank. Examining the missing data on types of penetration provides additional 

information about the possible nature of sexual assault incidents. For example, although 10% of rape 

incidents involved anal sex, female victims were unsure or left the anal sex question blank in 6.6% of 

41 Victims could experience multiple types of penetration during an incident of rape.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

92

incidents. This may suggest that female victims did not want to disclose whether an incident involved anal 

sex and that the actual percentage of incidents in which anal sex occurred could be higher than 10%.

5.4.3 Type of Tactic

For each sexual assault incident, victims were asked to specify the types of tactics that the offender 

used to engage in the unwanted sexual contact. The five tactics presented in the CCSVS instrument were 

(1) touched/grabbed your sexual body parts; (2) threatened to hurt you or someone close to you; (3) used 

physical force against you; (4) you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because 

you were incapacitated; and (5) other (Survey Item ILF3, with question wording shown in Section 5.1).

The tactic of “touched/grabbed your sexual body parts” was offered as a response option only if the 

incident did not involve sexual penetration because it was assumed that all incidents involving penetration 

also involved the “touched/grabbed” tactic.

Among female undergraduates at the nine schools, being touched or grabbed by the offender was 

the most frequently specified tactic for sexual assault incidents (85%) (Figure 20, with additional details 

shown in Appendix E-34 and 35).

42 After touching or grabbing, 25% occurred when the victim was 

incapacitated and unable to provide consent and 24% of sexual assault incidents involved physical force 

against the victim. About 6% of sexual assault incidents involved an “other” type of tactic that could not be 

reclassified into one of the other four tactics, even after manually examining the information participants 

keyed in when they selected “other.” An additional 5% of sexual assault incidents involved the offender 

threatening to harm the victim or someone she cared about. Because victims could specify multiple tactics 

the offender used during the incident, there was a fair amount of overlap between some of the endorsed 

tactics. For example, of female victims who specified either physical force or incapacitation, 18% endorsed 

both tactics (see Appendix E-36).

42This estimate includes all students who reported a tactic associated with rape because, by definition, the student had a sexual 

body part touched or grabbed as well.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

93

Figure 20. Distribution of tactics used by offenders reported by undergraduate female 

sexual assault victims, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Each tactic did have some level of item nonresponse: touched or grabbed a sexual body part (11% 

missing); threatened to hurt you or someone you care about (6.7%); used physical force against you (6.2%); you 

were unable to provide consent to stop what was happening (5.5%); and other (26%). Distributions based on 

weighted average rather than cross-school average.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

94

The across-school variability of tactics used in rape and sexual battery incidents was also assessed 

(Figure 21, with additional details shown in Appendix E-37 through 40). In these analyses, threats of force 

were combined with the use of physical force, and touching/grabbing is shown only for sexual battery 

incidents because this tactic was a response option only if respondents did not indicate that penetration 

occurred during the incident. As with tactics shown in Figure 21, many of the other incident characteristic 

graphics in the remainder of Section 5.4 show the range of estimates (i.e., minimum and maximum) 

across schools,43 as well as the overall estimate (cross-school average). The lowest and highest proportions 

of rape and sexual battery incidents for which the victim indicated that each tactic was used, from among 

the eight schools (excluding School 2) are shown. The error bars indicate whether the minimum and 

maximum estimates are statistically distinguishable from one another.

There was variation across schools for certain tactics but not others. Specifically, the estimates 

for rape incidents involving the victim being incapacitated during the incident were statistically 

distinguishable between the minimum and maximum schools. In other words, in the school with the 

maximum estimate, it was more common for females to experience rape while incapacitated than in the 

school with the minimum estimate. For sexual battery incidents, the use of threat or force was also more 

common in the school with the maximum estimate than the school with the minimum estimate. The use 

of other tactics did not appear to differ across schools.

In addition to examining the school-level variability in tactics used, the number of schools 

for which the estimate was unreliable was also examined.

44 While estimates of the proportion of 

victimizations involving each tactic are reasonably precise at the school level (i.e., there are few unreliable 

estimates), only a few estimates were distinguishable across schools. For example, the maximum and 

minimum values for incapacitated during incident for rape victims and threat or use of force used during 

incident for sexual battery are statistically different, but in both cases, by a relatively small amount (i.e., 

the lower confidence limit for the maximum and upper confidence limit for the minimum are close to 

each other). This indicates that the estimates for the remaining schools are not distinguishable from the 

maximum school and/or the minimum school. The other tactics have maximum and minimum values 

that are not statistically distinguishable, implying that none of the schools can be distinguished from the 

maximum or the minimum school. The lack of statistical differentiation between schools could either be 

due to similar estimates across these schools or a lack of statistical power to detect differences in these 

incident-level estimates.

43 School 2 is excluded from all incident characteristic graphics because its target sample size was not achieved. Therefore, its 

estimates exhibited a low level of reliability for the majority of characteristics.

44 Unreliable estimates were those based on responses from 10 or fewer incidents or with a relative standard error (RSE) of greater 

than 50%.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

95

Figure 21. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females 

involving various tactics, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and 

low prevalence rates did not provide sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus 

it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, School 2 is included in the 

average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools 

out of 9 that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer 

respondents.

5.4.4 Month of Occurrence

For female undergraduates at the nine schools, a large portion of incidents occurred in September 

or October, the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year (Figure 22). This was particularly the case for 

first year students. A lower number of incidents were reported at the end of the academic year, in part 

because the survey was fielded in the spring and could not capture victimizations that occurred after 

respondents completed the survey. (For additional details, see Appendix E-41 and 42.)
96

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 22. Number of sexual assault incidents experienced by undergraduate females, by month and year of study, 

2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Figure only includes respondents at 4-year schools.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

97

Nearly 1,000 incidents out of the 6,854 that occurred at the nine schools could not be dated due 

to respondent uncertainty about the month in which the sexual assault incident occurred. The number 

of victimizations occurring during the 2014–2015 academic year that could not be dated was greater 

among upperclassmen females than first or second year students. This could be an indication of potential 

“telescoping,” that is, students who are further along in their college careers may have reported sexual 

assault incidents that actually occurred prior to the 2014–2015 academic year (even though the Survey 

Item P2 asked about incidents that occurred since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year). It could 

also be an indication that female upperclassmen tend to experience less severe forms of sexual assault, 

since most of the unsure responses were associated with less severe types of victimization, namely, sexual 

battery (Figure 23).

To further explore the potential that some respondents were reporting incidents that occurred 

outside of the reference period (i.e., telescoping), female respondents who did not provide a month for any 

of their reported incidents of sexual assault were identified. Of the 1,554 female respondents who indicated 

experiencing one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact, 200 (13%) did not provide a month for 

any reported incident (in Survey Item ILF1).

45 The number of respondents who did not provide a month 

for any of their reported sexual assault incidents was smallest for first year students and largest for fourth 

year students (Figure 24).

45When weighted, the 1,554 female survey respondents who reported one or more unwanted sexual contact represent 4,077 

females across the nine schools. The 200 respondents who did not provide a month for an incident represent approximately 598 

females in the population.
98

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 23. Number of rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females, by month and type of sexual assault, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

99

Figure 24. Distribution of undergraduate female victims who indicated that they were 

unsure in which month/year the incident occurred, by Survey Item LCA3 response and year of study, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Figure includes only respondents at 4-year schools.

After identifying respondents who did not place their sexual assault incidents in a month of the 

2014–2015 academic year, students’ responses to Survey Item LCA3 (“Thinking about your whole life, 

when was the last time you experienced unwanted sexual contact?”) were examined and respondents 

were classified into one of four categories: (1) indicated “never,” (2) provided a month/year within the 

reference period, (3) provided a month outside the reference period, and (4) left missing. Respondents 

classified in category 1 provided inconsistent responses, in that they reported unwanted sexual contact 

in Survey Item P2 but later indicated that they had never experienced unwanted sexual contact. It was 

unclear whether or not respondents in this category were telescoping. Respondents who were classified 

in category 2 were most likely not telescoping as they provided a valid response to Survey Item LCA3

(a date within the 2014–2015 academic year). Finally, respondents classified in categories 3 and 4 could 

potentially be telescoping their sexual assault incidents. They indicated they had experienced one or more 

sexual assault incidents in the 2014–2015 academic year in Survey Item P2, but later reported that the last 

time they experienced unwanted sexual contact was outside of the reference period, or they left it blank.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

100

This group of respondents represented 41.8% of fourth year undergraduate female students who did not 

place any of their incidents in a month within the 2014–2015 academic year. (See Appendix E-43 for 

additional details.)

This evaluation produced some potential evidence of telescoping for some female respondents 

who did not place their sexual assault incidents in a month within the 2014–2015 academic year. There 

are a few strategies to mitigate the impact of telescoping. A two-step approach to classifying victims can 

be employed, where respondents who do not indicate the month in which an incident occurred could 

be excluded from victimization estimates. An example of this approach was presented in Section 5.2.5

(measurement method Two-Step 2). This approach produces substantively lower sexual assault prevalence 

rates,46 but may remove not only respondents who are telescoping but also those respondents who are 

reporting sexual assault incidents that did occur within the 2014–2015 academic year but could not 

pinpoint the exact month in which it occurred (or chose to leave the item blank for other reasons). As 

noted in Groves et al. (2009), dates are the aspect of events that are the most challenging for respondents to 

remember with precision.

A second strategy to mitigate potential telescoping in future studies that use the CCSVS Pilot 

Test instrument might involve revising the response options for Survey Item ILF1 to allow respondents 

to provide information about an incident outside the reference period. These telescoped incidents can 

then be easily identified and excluded (e.g., “prior to August 2014”). Additionally, respondents who 

classify an incident as “unsure” could be further prompted to provide a more broad classification of when 

the victimization occurred with benchmark reference points (e.g., before Thanksgiving break, in the 

spring semester).

5.4.5 Offender Characteristics

When considering the number and sex of offenders involved in incidents of rape and sexual 

battery (Figure 25), the estimates across schools were not statistically distinguishable from one another.

Overall, for the vast majority of incidents of rape (91%) and sexual battery (94%), females reported that 

one offender was involved. Similarly, for the vast majority of incidents of rape (94%) and sexual battery 

(95%), the female reported that the offender was male. This pattern was consistent across schools, with a 

limited range evident for both rape (87% to 99%) and sexual battery (92% to 97%). Due to the unreliability 

of the estimates surrounding characteristics of the incidents for School 2, these estimates have been 

excluded from all ranges. Appendix E-44 through 47 contain school-specific estimates and standard errors 

for basic incident characteristics described in Sections 5.4.5 through 5.4.8.

46 Significance tests were not conducted because the students who make up each estimate are highly overlapping. Therefore, 

the correlation in the estimates will be very large, which will reduce the standard error for the test of differences (resulting in 

significant findings).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

101

Figure 25. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females 

involving one offender and a male offender, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and 

low prevalence rates did not provide sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus 

it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, School 2 is included in the 

average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools 

out of 9 that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer 

respondents.

5.4.6 Victim-Offender Relationship

The incident follow-up loops captured information on the relationship between the victim and 

the offender. This question included seven response options (a stranger; someone you had seen or heard 

about but not talked to; an acquaintance, friend of a friend, or someone that you had just met; a professor 

or teaching assistant; a current or ex friend or roommate; a current or ex dating partner or spouse; or 

someone else). Because the large number of categories created difficulty in developing precise estimates for 

each, the categories were collapsed into four:47 a current or ex friend or roommate, a current or ex dating 

47The “someone else” category was excluded from all four categories due to low levels of endorsement (0.3% for rape and 0.7% for 

sexual battery).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

102

partner or spouse, someone else known to the victim (including someone the victim had seen or heard 

about but not talked to; an acquaintance, friend of a friend, or someone that the victim had just met; or a 

professor or teaching assistant), and stranger.

The findings suggest that, among female victims at the nine schools, incidents of rape and sexual 

battery were most likely to be perpetrated by someone the victim knew casually (Figure 26). Across the 

nine schools, an average of 48% of sexual battery incidents and 59% of rape incidents were perpetrated 

by “someone else the victim knew.” When examining the specific types of offenders within this category, 

53.0% of rape incidents and 41.1% of sexual battery incidents were perpetrated by an acquaintance, friend 

of a friend, or someone that the victim had just met; 7.7% of rape incidents and 9.3% of sexual battery 

incidents were perpetrated by someone the victim had seen or heard about but not talked to; and 0.9% of 

rape incidents and 0.9% of sexual battery incidents were perpetrated by a professor or teaching assistant.

Some degree of school-level variation was evident in these estimates. For example, the percentage of rape 

incidents involving someone else the victim knew as the category of offender ranged from 50% at School 4 

to 71% at School 3.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

103

Figure 26. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females 

involving various offender categories, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and 

low prevalence rates did not provide sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus 

it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, School 2 is included in the 

average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools 

out of 9 that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer 

respondents.

For incidents of sexual battery, the second most common category of offenders was strangers. On 

average, across the nine schools, the offender was a stranger in 34% of sexual battery incidents. However, 

for rape incidents, an average of 9% were perpetrated by a stranger. Across schools, the percentage of 

sexual battery incidents perpetrated by strangers ranged from 23% at School 4 to 47% at School 9. Among 

female victims across the nine schools, the offender was a current or ex dating partner or spouse in 23% of 

rape incidents and 7.2% of sexual battery incidents. Current or ex friends or roommates perpetrated 16% 

of rape incidents and 12% of sexual battery incidents overall.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

104

5.4.7 Location and Offender School Affiliation

Overall, about one-third of rape incidents (33%) and 28% of sexual battery incidents took place 

on campus (Figure 27). However, some variability across schools was evident. At some schools (Schools 

1 and 5), more incidents of rape actually took place on campus than off campus. For example, in School 5, 

which had the highest proportion of rape incidents occurring on campus, 62% of rape incidents happened 

on campus. In all schools, more incidents of sexual battery took place off campus than on campus, with the 

highest proportion of sexual battery incidents that took place on campus being 47% (School 5).

Overall, slightly more than half of the offenders in rape (55%) and sexual battery (56%) incidents 

were affiliated with the school, meaning that they were students, professors, or other employees of the 

school. The highest school estimate for offender school affiliation was 69% for sexual battery incidents 

(School 7) and 71% for rape incidents (School 1), meaning that at these schools, more than two-thirds of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females during the 2014–2015 academic 

year were perpetrated by someone who was affiliated with the school. The lowest school estimate for 

offender school affiliation (from among the eight schools with sufficiently precise estimates) was 39% for 

sexual battery incidents (School 6) and 43% for rape incidents (School 6).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

105

Figure 27. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females 

that took place on campus and involved an offender affiliated with the 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and 

low prevalence rates did not provide sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus 

it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, School 2 is included in the 

average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools 

out of 9 that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer 

respondents.

5.4.8 Drug and Alcohol Use

In more than half of the incidents of rape (59%) and sexual battery (58%), the victim perceived 

that the offender was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There was school-level variation in these 

estimates (Figure 28). The percentage of female rape victims who indicated that the offender had been 

drinking or using drugs ranged from 47% at School 6 to 71% at School 1.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

106

Overall, for the nine schools, victims’ use of alcohol and drugs in the hours prior to the incident 

was more common for rape incidents (63%) than incidents of sexual battery (49%). The percentage of rape 

incidents that occurred when the victim was using alcohol or drugs ranged from 43% at School 9 to 75% at 

School 1.

Figure 28. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of 

rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females 

that were believed to involve offender and victim alcohol/drug use, 2014–

2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and 

low prevalence rates did not provide sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus 

it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, School 2 is included in the 

average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools 

out of 9 that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer 

respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

107

5.4.9 Reporting of Incidents

Across all schools, the majority of incidents of rape (64%) and sexual battery (68%) were disclosed 

to a roommate, friend, or family member.

The likelihood of formal reporting was much lower (Figure 29).

48 Across all nine schools, 

4.3% of sexual battery incidents and 12.5% of rape incidents were reported by the victim to any official,

including—

■ Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at the school

■ A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care center at the school

■ A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care center not at the school

■ Campus police or security at the school

■ Local police not at the school, such as the county or city police department.

Due to the small sample sizes, it was not possible to generate school-specific estimates of the 

percent of rape incidents reported to any official for four of the schools. For sexual battery, all nine of 

the schools had too few victims who reported to generate school-specific estimates. It was not possible 

to develop precise estimates for each of the five categories of officials covered in the survey, even at 

the aggregate level. However, aggregate estimates of the percentage of incidents reported to any law 

enforcement official (which includes campus police or security at the school and local police not at the 

school, such as the county or city police department) and the percentage of incidents reported to any 

school official (which includes administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at the school; a crisis 

center or helpline, or a hospital or health care center at the school, and campus police or security at the 

school) were created. Across the nine schools, 1.1% of sexual battery incidents and 4.2% of rape incidents 

were reported by the victim to any law enforcement agency.

49 About 2.7% of sexual battery incidents 

and 7.0% of rape incidents were reported by the victim to any school official.

50 It was not possible to 

report these estimates at the school level, precluding comparisons in reporting to these organizations 

across schools.

48 Because incidents of sexual assault could be reported by someone other than the victim, the survey also asked whether the 

incident was reported by someone else. These estimates are a little higher than for self-reporting to officials, with 5.3% of sexual 

battery incidents and 14.6% of rape incidents reported by either the victim or someone else to any of the officials listed.

49 When factoring in reports made about the incident either by the victim or someone else to a law enforcement agency, these 

estimates increase to 1.9% for sexual battery incidents and 6.8% for rape incidents.

50 When factoring in reports made about the incident either by the victim or someone else to any school official, these estimates 

increase to 3.4% for sexual battery incidents and 9.1% for rape incidents.
108

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 29. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual battery incidents 

experienced by undergraduate females that were disclosed to various sources, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and low prevalence rates did not provide 

sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, 

School 2 is included in the average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools out of 9 that 

have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

109

Of the victims who reported the incident to officials, the majority believed that the officials were 

helpful. This was particularly true for rape incidents that were reported. For 81% of rape incidents and 79% 

of sexual battery incidents that were reported to any official, victims considered the official to be helpful.

51

When considering only incidents that were reported to a law enforcement agency, victims considered the 

official to be helpful for 53% of rape incidents and 69% of sexual battery incidents. Finally, when 

considering only incidents that were reported to any school official, victims across the nine schools 

considered the official to be helpful in 75% of rape incidents and 66% of sexual battery incidents. Once 

again, due to the small number of victims who reported, it was not possible to generate school-specific 

estimates of satisfaction with reporting experiences, making it difficult to compare estimates across 

schools. See Appendix E-48 through 51 for estimates and standard errors for all reporting characteristics 

discussed in this section.

51 If a victim reported to more than one organization and indicated that any of them were helpful, the report was considered to be 

helpful.

The Clery Act and Reporting Campus Rape

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act was signed into law 

in 1990 as the Campus Security Act, and it has been amended several times.a The act requires institutions 

of higher education that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information 

about crime on and near their campus. The U.S. Department of Education monitors compliance. Schools in 

violation can face warnings, up to $35,000 per violation fines, limitations or suspension of federal aid, or the 

loss of eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. The Clery Act requires institutions to fulfill the 

following obligations:

•	 Publish an annual campus security report by October 1 that documents three calendar years of 

specified campus crime statistics. This report must be made available to current and prospective 

students and employees. The crime statistics must include incidents occurring on campus, in public 

areas adjacent to or running through the campus, and at certain off-campus buildings.

•	 Maintain a timely public log of all crimes reported or otherwise known to campus law enforcement 

officials. The log must be accessible to the public during normal business hours.

•	 Give timely warning of crimes that represent a threat to student or employee safety.

•	 Submit an annual report to the U.S. Department of Education. The report should include statistics 

on criminal homicide, sex offenses (forcible and nonforcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, 

motor vehicle theft, and arson. The report must identify any of these offenses, as well as any 

incidents of larceny or theft; simple assault; intimidation; and destruction, damage, or vandalism of 

property that are believed to be hate crimes. The report must also include arrests and disciplinary 

referrals for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession. Clery Act 

statistics are available at http://ope.ed.gov/security/.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

110

Based on data from the CCSVS, male and female undergraduate students at the nine institutions 

participating in the CCSVS experienced a total of 2,380 incidents of completed rape during the 2014–15 

academic year, of which 770 (32%) occurred on campus. According to the CCSVS data, about 60 of these 

rape incidents (margin of error between 30 and 90 incidents) were committed on campus and reported to 

school authorities. In other words, approximately 3% of all completed rapes captured by the CCSVS would 

be expected to be included under Clery reporting standards. When comparing the number of rape incidents 

subject to Clery reporting standards among the nine CCSVS institutions with actual Clery data for these 

institutions based on the most recent Clery data available (2014 calendar year), the CCSVS estimate (60 

rape incidents) was not statistically different from the Clery number of rapes reported (40 rape incidents).

In other words, the Clery data and the CCSVS data appear to converge in terms of the number of rape 

incidents that were committed on campus and reported to school authorities. Although some caution 

should be used in interpreting these findings due to slight measurement differences between the 

CCSVS and Clery collections,b the CCSVS data suggest that the vast majority of rapes are not reported 

to authorities and are not represented in an institution’s Clery numbers. Self-report surveys such as the 

CCSVS can produce a more complete picture of rape and sexual assault experienced by students and 

provide data that can be used to describe these incidents.

a On Aug. 14, 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, or HEOA (Public Law 110-315), reauthorized and expanded 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. HEOA amended the Clery Act and created additional safety- and 

security-related requirements for institutions

b Clery uses a calendar year reference period; the CCSVS was administered in the spring of 2015 and asked about 

incidents that occurred since the beginning of the academic year. Clery includes all students, undergraduates and 

graduates, whereas the CCSVS represents only undergraduates. In addition, some victimized students may have 

dropped out of school and not had the opportunity to participate in the survey. Other potential sources of variation 

between the CCSVS and Clery include definitional differences (e.g., rape, what is defined as being on campus, who 

is considered a reporting official) and reporting differences (e.g., in the CCSVS, students may have misreported 

incidents that actually occurred outside the referenced school year, whereas with Clery numbers, schools may not 

report all incidents).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

111

5.4.10 Reasons for Not Reporting

For each agency to which the victim did not report an incident of sexual assault (out of the five 

organizations listed above), victims were asked whether each of the following six factors were a reason for 

not reporting the incident.

■	 The student did not know how to contact the group.

■	 The student was concerned that the group would not keep his/her situation confidential.

■	 The student was concerned that the group would treat him/her poorly, not respond effectively, or 

not take any action.

■	 The student did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or 

did not want any action taken.

■	 The student felt that other people might think that what happened was at least partly his/her fault 

or that he/she might get in trouble for some reason.

■	 The student was worried that either the person who did this to him/her or other people might find 

out and do something to get back at him/her.

Because the majority of incidents were not reported to an official, school-level estimates of the 

reasons victims did not report to each of the five organizations were precise.

Across all nine schools, the most common reason for not reporting both rape and sexual battery 

incidents to each of the five categories of officials was that the victim did not need assistance, did not think 

the incident was serious enough to report, or did not want any action taken (Figure 30, with additional 

details shown in Appendix E-52 through 55). More sexual battery incidents than rape incidents were 

not reported for this reason. The second and third most commonly endorsed reasons for not reporting 

were that the student felt that other people might think that what happened was at least partly her fault 

or that she might get in trouble for some reason; and that the student was worried that either the person 

who did this to her or other people might find out and do something to get back at her. These were the 

next most commonly endorsed reasons for not reporting both rape and sexual battery incidents, for all 

five agency types, and across all nine schools. However, overall, victims were more likely to identify these 

considerations as reasons for not reporting rape incidents than sexual battery incidents. For rape incidents, 

concerns about confidentiality and poor treatment were also more commonly reported as reasons for not 

reporting than for sexual battery incidents. Overall, not knowing how to contact particular organizations 

did not appear to be a major factor for not reporting either rape or sexual battery incidents. A relatively 

low percentage of incidents were not reported for this reason, making it difficult to compare these 

estimates across schools due to low precision.
112

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 30. Reasons for not reporting rape and sexual battery incidents experienced by undergraduate females to various 

officials, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

113

Because of its high level of endorsement, future studies could consider splitting the “did not 

need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not want any action 

taken” reason for not reporting into multiple response options. These considerations, which are in many 

ways quite distinct, were aggregated in the CCSVS Pilot Test instrument. To better understand whether 

endorsement of this item was likely due to the respondent not wanting action taken or the respondent 

thinking the incident was not serious enough to report, additional analyses were conducted (see Appendix 

E-56 through 59). The joint endorsement of this item with the other reasons for not reporting was 

examined (as noted above, respondents could endorse multiple reasons for not reporting incidents to each 

reporting organization). For a sizable proportion of incidents where the respondent indicated that she did 

not want action taken or thought the incident was not serious enough to report, the respondent provided 

at least one other reason for not reporting. As shown in the appendix tables, this proportion varied across 

reporting organizations, schools, and victimization types. Respondents endorsed one or more additional 

reasons for not reporting to local police for the majority of rape incidents at all schools except one (School 

9), ranging from 56% of victimizations (at School 4) to 77% of victimizations (at School 3). For sexual 

battery incidents, among the eight schools with reliable estimates, respondents endorsed additional 

reasons for not reporting to local police for 21% (at School 1) to 41% (at School 5) of incidents. The most 

common additional reasons endorsed were that the student felt that other people might think that what 

happened was at least partly her fault or that she might get in trouble for some reason; that the student was 

worried that either the person who did this to her or other people might find out and do something to get 

back at her; and that the student was concerned that the group would not keep her situation confidential.

5.4.11 Impact of Incidents

The incident follow-up loop also included a series of questions that could be used to assess the 

harms associated with sexual assault victimization. Overall, the majority (79%) of rape incidents were 

described by the victim as upsetting or very upsetting (Figure 31). The percentage of rape incidents 

described as upsetting or very upsetting ranged from 74% at School 5 to 85% at School 2. In contrast, 47% 

of sexual battery incidents were described as upsetting or very upsetting by the victim.

The most common set of problems that resulted from both rape and sexual battery incidents were 

problems with friends, roommates, or peers (such as getting into more arguments or fights than before, 

the victim not feeling that he/she could trust them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before). This 

held true across all schools. However, overall it was more commonly reported as a consequence of rape 

incidents (44%) than incidents of sexual battery (14%).

In general, a greater percentage of incidents of rape caused problems for the victim compared 

to incidents of sexual battery. Across the nine schools, about 30.7% of rape and 7.3% of sexual battery 

incidents impacted victims’ schoolwork or grades. Just under a quarter of rape incidents (22.9%) and 4.1% 

of sexual battery incidents caused problems with family members and 13.0% of rape and 3.7% of sexual 

battery incidents caused problems at work.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

114

Other consequences of the incident were covered in the survey, such as whether the victim moved 

(or wanted to move) to a new dormitory or other residence, dropped classes or changed his/her schedule, 

or considered taking time off school, transferring, or dropping out. Incidents of rape were more likely 

to result in each action on the part of the victim than sexual battery incidents (Figure 32). On average, 

for 21.7% of rape incidents (and 5.9% of sexual battery incidents), the victim thought about taking some 

time off from school, transferring, or dropping out. For 8.4% of rape incidents (and 1.6% of sexual battery 

incidents), the victim dropped classes or changed her schedule. Additionally, for 11.4% of rape incidents 

and 4.4% of sexual battery incidents the victim indicated that she wanted to drop classes or change her 

schedule. Finally, the victim moved or changed where she lived after 7.2% of rape incidents and 1.1% of 

sexual battery incidents; in an additional 15.5% of rape incidents and 6.7% of sexual battery incidents, the 

victim wanted to move or change where she lived. All estimates and standard errors for the victim impact 

characteristics discussed in this section are shown in Appendix E-60 through 63.
115

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 31. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual battery incidents 

experienced by undergraduate females that led to various problems, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and low prevalence rates did not provide 

sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, 

School 2 is included in the average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools out of 9 that 

have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.
116

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 32. Minimum, maximum, and overall average estimates of the percentage of rape and sexual battery incidents 

experienced by undergraduate females that led to various victim actions, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: School 2 was excluded from the min/max estimates of incident characteristics as its sample sizes and low prevalence rates did not provide 

sufficient precision for the majority of incident-level estimates and thus it provides an unrepresentative depiction of the variation across schools. However, 

School 2 is included in the average estimates and the unreliable estimate (UE) count. Unreliable estimates refer to the number of schools out of 9 that 

have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

117

5.5 Methodological Assessments Related to Sexual Assault Estimates

The CCSVS Pilot Test included numerous methodological assessments designed to inform future 

efforts similar in scope and to better understand the validity of the data gathered. These assessments, 

which are discussed in the subsections below, include an analysis of the ideal field period for capturing 

stable and precise estimates of sexual assault victimization, an assessment of how respondents ordered 

multiple incidents in the survey, an examination of incidents that were entered but then “backed out” by 

respondents, and the findings from the latent class analyses.

5.5.1 Field Period Assessment

As described in Section 3.3.2, the data collection period for the CCSVS Pilot Test lasted between 

5 and 6 weeks at each school during spring 2015, with an average field period of 57 days. The exact 

field period depended on when spring break was scheduled and when final exams began. As discussed 

previously, almost all schools achieved their targeted number of completed interviews within 28 days. As 

such, it is of interest to know if the victimization rate at each school changed after this time. If students 

who responded to the survey later in the field period were more or less likely to have experienced 

sexual assault than early responders, estimates would be expected to change over the field period as 

late responses trickled in (i.e., this would indicate that the estimates would be biased if the field period 

ended before the late responders participated). However, if there was no clear association between sexual 

assault victimization and when students completed the survey, estimates would remain stable across the 

field period.

After 28 days of data collection, the victimization rate for females did not appear to change 

significantly (Figure 33). For males, the rates were somewhat less stable over time (Figure 34). This was 

due in part to the fact that the CCSVS Pilot Test was not powered to produce sexual assault estimates for 

males at the school level.
118

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 33. Unweighted estimated sexual assault rates for undergraduate females, by time in field and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bold vertical line indicates the 28th day of data collection at each school.
119

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Figure 34. Unweighted estimated sexual assault rates for undergraduate males, by time in field and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Bold vertical line indicates the 28th day of data collection at each school.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

120

Although the estimated sexual assault prevalence rate among females appeared to stabilize after 

28 days, the precision of that estimate will decrease if a shorter field period results in fewer students 

responding to the survey. To inform future surveys similar in scope, a simulation was run to assess how 

much the precision would change and whether any bias (i.e., change in the estimates) would be introduced 

with a shorter field period than was used for the CCSVS Pilot Test. Table 24 presents the weighted 

sexual assault prevalence estimate among females52 and its resulting relative standard error under (1) 

the full CCSVS Pilot Test field period (approximately 57 days), (2) a 28-day field period, and (3) a 21-

day field period.

53 For this simulation analysis, surveys were sorted by their completion date. Surveys 

completed after the alternative field period (e.g., after 28 days for the 28-day estimates) were considered 

nonrespondents. Appropriate analysis weights were then computed based on the desired field period (i.e., 

weights were recalibrated to account for the changes in response status among students due to a shorter 

field period).

Table 24. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual assault 

prevalence rates among undergraduate females, by field period length and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Full Period 28-Day Period 21-Day Period

School Estimate RSE Estimate RSE Estimate RSE

Overall 10.3 % 1.8 % 10.4 % 2.2 % 10.5 % 2.4 %

1 20.0 3.7 19.1 5.4 19.5 5.9

2 4.2 14.4 4.8 15.0 5.2 16.2

3 8.7 6.9 9.1 7.4 9.0 7.5

4 5.8 6.9 5.6 9.1 6.4 10.6

5 16.9 3.8 16.6 4.4 16.9 5.2

6 7.0 5.5 7.1 6.2 7.3 6.7

7 11.9 4.5 12.3 5.0 11.7 5.4

8 10.7 5.3 11.1 6.2 11.3 6.5

9 7.1 6.4 7.4 7.1 7.5 8.1

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: RSE = relative standard error.

This assessment of field period length had two objectives:

1. Determine if point estimates for sexual assault changed under shorter field periods, and

2. Determine how much larger the standard errors would become as the field period decreases.

52 This evaluation was not conducted for males because the CCSVS was not designed to produce precise estimates of sexual assault 

victimization for males.

53 These two alternative field periods were chosen because they either achieved the targeted number of completed interviews (six 

of the nine schools achieved their target sample size within 21 days) or seemed like a plausible field period if time was limited.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

121

The estimated prevalence of sexual assault among females changed by less than one percentage 

point when the data collection window was shortened to 28 or 21 days (Table 24). Therefore, for the nine 

participating schools it does appear that the sexual assault prevalence rate would not have substantively (or 

statistically) changed if the field period was reduced to 21 or 28 days.

In assessing the second objective, the results show that the relative standard error does increase 

as the data collection period is reduced. This is expected because the number of respondents, and thus the 

precision, is reduced as the field period is shortened. However, even for a 21-day field period, all schools 

except School 2 and School 4 maintain an RSE of less than 10%.

54

This analysis does not take into account the impact on precision for subpopulation (e.g., year 

of study, race/ethnicity) or sub-victimization type (e.g., rape) estimates. In other words, using a shorter 

field period might still yield stable overall sexual assault prevalence rates, but any efforts to analyze rates 

for subpopulations or specific victimization types might be futile with the reduced precision of a shorter 

field period. Therefore, even though, in the CCSVS, the estimates for the prevalence of sexual assault 

victimization appear stable and the RSEs remain reasonable (i.e., late responders do not experience sexual 

assault at a higher or lower rate than early responders), when the field period is shortened, future similar 

studies should consider using a longer field period to maximize the precision for subpopulation estimates 

and minimize the potential for bias.

Given that the estimates for the prevalence of sexual assault victimization and RSEs remained 

stable across field periods, the underlying components of sexual assault victimization—rape and 

sexual battery—were assessed to ensure that the same result held. In terms of bias, the estimates for 

the prevalence of both rape and sexual battery were stable across the three field periods (Table 25

and Table 26). For both components, the absolute difference between the full period estimate and the 

abbreviated field period estimate was less than 1% for all estimates except one (School 1 at 28 days for 

sexual assault). However, in terms of precision, the RSEs do increase for both outcomes as the field period 

is reduced—especially for rape. For rape, the RSE increases by 25% or more in seven of nine schools, with 

the largest increases occurring at School 1 (97%) and School 4 (57%) when the field period is reduced to 

21 days (not shown). With a 28-day field period, the percent change in RSE is less than 20% in all schools 

except School 1 and School 4. For sexual battery, the RSEs are more stable than the RSEs for rape, but four 

of the nine schools have an increase in RSE greater than 25%. The largest increase is at School 4 (53%).

54 An RSE less than 10% is usually considered reasonable precision for a survey estimate.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

122

Table 25. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for rape prevalence 

rates among undergraduate females, by field period length and school, 

2014–2015 academic year

Full Period 28-Day Period 21-Day Period

School Estimate RSE Estimate RSE Estimate RSE

Average 4.1 % 3.0 % 4.2 % 3.9 % 4.2 % 4.3 %

1 6.2 7.3 6.6 13.1 6.6 14.3

2 2.4 20.2 2.6 21.0 2.6 23.9

3 3.0 12.1 3.2 13.0 3.3 13.0

4 2.8 9.7 2.6 13.2 2.8 15.3

5 7.9 5.7 7.4 6.8 7.4 7.9

6 2.7 8.6 2.7 10.0 2.7 11.0

7 5.8 6.6 5.7 7.5 5.5 8.3

8 4.5 8.8 4.3 10.3 4.3 11.1

9 2.2 11.9 2.4 13.4 2.5 15.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: RSE = relative standard error.

Table 26. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual battery 

prevalence rates among undergraduate females, by field period length and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Full Period 28-Day Period 21-Day Period

School Estimate RSE Estimate RSE Estimate RSE

Overall 5.6 % 2.5 % 5.7 % 2.9 % 5.9 % 3.2 %

1 13.2 4.8 11.9 6.0 12.3 6.6

2 1.7 22.7 2.1 22.7 2.5 23.3

3 4.7 9.5 4.9 10.3 4.7 10.6

4 2.6 10.7 2.5 13.4 3.0 16.4

5 8.6 5.6 8.8 6.5 9.1 7.7

6 4.1 7.6 4.2 8.3 4.3 9.0

7 5.7 6.7 6.1 7.1 5.7 8.0

8 5.9 7.3 6.6 8.4 6.8 8.7

9 4.2 8.3 4.3 9.5 4.4 10.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: RSE = relative standard error.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

123

5.5.2 Assessment of Incident Ordering

Chronological and Severity Ordering

The survey instrument included up to three incident follow-up loops in which victims of 

unwanted sexual contact answered detailed questions about each incident. If the student indicated (in 

Survey Item P2) that she/he experienced more than three incidents, the incident follow-up loop was not 

repeated for the fourth (or more) incident. The survey instrument allowed respondents to adopt their 

own ordering strategy and order their incidents of unwanted sexual contact in a manner they found most 

convenient or sensible. As a result of this uncontrolled strategy, for students who experienced more than 

three incidents (and for which details about the fourth or more incident were not captured), it is possible 

that incident-level analyses may be biased if all incidents are reported in a systematic manner (e.g., in 

chronological order or based on severity of incident). To assess whether this potential bias exists, three 

analyses were conducted among students who reported experiencing two or three incidents of unwanted 

sexual contact (using the incident-level follow-up details provided for the first three incidents).

55 These 

analyses include—

1. Assessment of the chronological order in which incidents were reported,

2. Assessment of the order in which incidents are reported based on the severity of the incident,56

and

3. Assessment of when a student indicates he/she is “unsure” of the month in which the 

incident occurred.

Across all nine schools, 86% of students had incidents that occurred in different months and 

ordered their incidents chronologically, with the majority (81%) ordering them from the earliest to the 

latest in the 2014–2015 academic year (Figure 35). Chronological order could not be determined for the 

13% of students whose incidents occurred in the same month.

55This analysis was limited to students who reported two or three incidents. It is not possible to assess incident ordering for those 

who experienced more than three incidents as the type of victimization and month of occurrence for the 4th and 5th incidents were 

not collected.

56Severity ordering was assessed based on the following hierarchy (from most to least serious): rape, sexual battery, unsure, no 

type of sexual contact endorsed, and missing.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

124

Figure 35. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females 

with two or three unwanted sexual contact incidents, 2014–2015 academic 

year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

In terms of the severity of the incidents reported, the majority of students with more than one 

incident (66%) reported the same type of sexual contact for each (i.e., all incidents were rape or sexual 

battery only), which means that it is not possible to learn anything about severity ordering from these 

respondents (Figure 36). However, when the type of incidents differed in severity, most students ordered 

the incidents from most severe to least severe (19%, which is approximately two-thirds of students whose 

incidents varied in terms of severity; see Appendix E-64).
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

125

Figure 36. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females 

with two or three unwanted sexual contact incidents, by severity, 2014–2015 

academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Severity ordering was assessed based on the following hierarchy (from most to least serious): rape, 

sexual battery, unsure, no type of sexual contact endorsed, and missing.

As discussed previously, a relatively high number of victims did not specify the month in which 

the incident occurred. The majority of students (50%) who had at least one incident for which they 

were unsure of the month, indicated that they were unsure of the month for all reported victimizations 

(Figure 37). When the student provided the month for some victimizations but was unsure for others, the 

student was more likely to report the unsure incidents last (27% reported unsure incidents last vs. 20% 

who reported unsure incidents first).

Based on these analyses, it appears that students may be systematically ordering their incidents, 

either chronologically or in terms of severity. However, this potential bias would primarily impact 

the approximately 6% of victims who reported experiencing four or more incidents of unwanted 

sexual contact—those for whom incident-level details were not captured for all incidents. For these 

students, incidents that occurred later in the academic year or that did not involve penetration may be 

underrepresented. In addition, this potential bias may affect the responses of students who experienced 

three incidents and skipped questions in the second or third incident follow-up loop (see Section 4.2.1).

For these students, incomplete information may have been provided for incidents that occurred later in the 

academic year or that did not involve penetration.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

126

Figure 37. Order in which incidents are listed by undergraduate males and females 

with two or three unwanted sexual contact incidents, by when “unsure” was 

listed for month, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Respondents Who Backed Out Incidents

Respondents’ answers to Survey Item P2 (the number of incidents of unwanted sexual contact 

students had experienced during the 2014–2015 academic year) drove the number of incident reports, or 

rounds of detailed sexual assault incident follow-up questions, they received. Upon indicating one or more 

incidents in Survey Item P2, respondents were asked to provide the month in which each incident occurred 

and were then asked detailed questions about each incident (for up to three incidents). The data cleaning 

procedures revealed that some respondents, upon entering the incident loop, went back and revised 

their answers to Survey Item P2, thus reducing the number of incident loops they received and removing 

incidents corresponding with the original value of Survey Item P2, which no longer applied. Respondents 

could have removed incidents for a number of reasons. Some respondents might have become fatigued 

or found the additional incident-specific questions too upsetting, whereas others might have realized 

upon entering the loop that the questions were not actually relevant to their incident. For example, if 

a student experienced coerced sexual contact, but not sexual assault, she/he might have decided to go 

back and change her/his answer to Survey Item P2 to a lower number or to zero. As described previously, 

respondents who changed their answer to zero were classified as non-victims. However, the survey data 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

127

for these incidents removed by respondents were retained and reviewed to assess what types of unwanted 

sexual contact incidents had been removed, and the number of victimizations that were removed (and thus 

the potential impact on survey estimates).

A total of 201 incidents reported by females (7.1% of the total number of incidents reported by 

females) and 64 incidents reported by males (13.5% of the total number of incidents reported by males) 

were removed by respondents following their initial responses to Survey Item P2 (Table 27 and Table 28).

These 265 incidents were associated with 172 unique respondents (0.7% of all respondents), 152 of whom 

ended up having their classification switched from sexual assault victims to non-victims as a result of 

removing their incidents (7.8% of victims).

As shown in the tables, most incidents removed by respondents corresponded to incident one, as 

the number of removed incidents was lower for incidents two and three. Thus, respondents who completed 

their first incident report were unlikely to backtrack through the survey and remove incidents two and/

or three, but a sizeable number of respondents did reduce the number of incidents of unwanted sexual 

contact to zero prior to completing their first incident report. Respondents provided limited information 

about the removed incidents prior to backtracking and modifying their Survey Item P2 responses, with 

item nonresponse rates increasing as the survey progressed. For a high proportion of removed incidents, 

respondents specified that they were unsure of the month in which the incident occurred (31% for females 

and 39% for males). Removed incidents had high missing data rates for the type of unwanted sexual 

contact (68% for females and 73% for males) and the tactics used (72% for females and 77% for males).

Upon being asked the detailed follow-up questions, 7.1% of the potential sexual assault incidents 

against females and 13.5% of potential sexual assault incidents against males were backed out by 

respondents. Respondent fatigue and sensitivity to the burden associated with being asked to answer 

detailed follow-up questions about each incident could lead to suppression of incidents once respondents 

realize that follow-up questions will be asked about each incident. The detailed follow-up questions could 

also trigger respondents’ recognition of a prior incorrect response. Regardless, the incident loop provides 

valuable data that allows better classifications of the type of sexual contact and documents important 

characteristics associated with each sexual assault incident.
128

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 27. Distribution of incidents removed by undergraduate females, by month, type of victimization and tactic, 

2014–2015 academic year

Overall Incident 1 Incident 2 Incident 3

Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent

Overall 201 100.0 % 115 100.0 % 53 100.0 % 33 100.0 %

Month (Survey Item ILF1)

Specified Valid Month 139 69.2 % 82 71.3 % 35 66.0 % 22 66.7 %

Specified Unknown Month 62 30.8 33 28.7 18 34.0 11 33.3

Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Type of Victimization (Survey Item 

ILF2)

Rape 18 9.0 % 15 13.0 % 3 5.7 % 0 0.0 %

Sexual Battery 32 15.9 32 27.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Unsure 4 2.0 4 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

All No 11 5.5 11 9.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

All Missing 136 67.7 53 46.1 50 94.3 33 100.0

Tactic (Survey Item ILF3)

Specified One or More Tactics 41 20.4 % 39 33.9 % 2 3.8 % 0 0.0 %

Unsure/No Tactics 15 7.5 14 12.2 1 1.9 0 0.0

Missing All Tactics 145 72.1 62 53.9 50 94.3 33 100.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
129

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 28. Distribution of incidents removed by undergraduate males, by month, type of victimization and tactic, 

2014–2015 academic year

Overall Incident 1 Incident 2 Incident 3

Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent Num Percent

Overall 64 100.0 % 37 100.0 % 16 100.0 % 11 100.0 %

Month (Survey Item ILF1)

Specified Valid Month 39 60.9 % 24 64.9 % 8 50.0 % 7 63.6 %

Specified Unknown Month 25 39.1 13 35.1 8 50.0 4 36.4

Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Type of Victimization (Survey Item 

ILF2)

Rape 3 4.7 % 3 8.1 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %

Sexual Battery 10 15.6 10 27.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Unsure 2 3.1 2 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

All No 2 3.1 2 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

All Missing 47 73.4 20 54.1 16 100.0 11 100.0

Tactic (Survey Item ILF3)

Specified One or More Tactics 10 15.6 % 10 27.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %

Unsure/No Tactics 5 7.8 5 13.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Missing All Tactics 49 76.6 22 59.5 16 100.0 11 100.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

130

These results and the assessment of item nonresponse (see Section 4.2.1) suggest that the number 

of sexual assault incidents about which detailed follow-up questions are asked should potentially be 

limited to improve data quality and completeness. The CCSVS Pilot Test capped the number of incidents 

about which details were asked at three, which was generally effective.

5.5.3 Latent Class Analysis Results

To help further validate the CCSVS Pilot Test results, the CCSVS included latent class analysis 

(LCA) in its design and implementation. LCA is a model-based technique that uses embedded replication 

(i.e., multiple survey items asking about a latent construct) to measure the accuracy of the reported 

estimates and produce unbiased estimates of the latent construct of interest (Biemer, 2011). In the case 

of the CCSVS, the latent construct is experiencing unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the 

2014–2015 academic year. Rather than using a gold standard or known truth, neither of which exists, 

to estimate the measurement error, LCA uses these embedded replicates to estimate the measurement 

error. For categorical constructs, like sexual assault in the CCSVS Pilot Test, classification error is the type 

of measurement error of interest. Classification error includes the false positive rate and false negative 

rate for a survey item trying to measure a latent construct. The false positive rate is the probability that 

a respondent indicates that the latent construct did occur when the respondent’s true status is that it 

did not. The false negative rate is the probability that a respondent indicates that the latent construct 

did not occur when the respondent’s true status is that it did occur. In web-based surveys such as the 

CCSVS, classification error may occur because (1) the respondent did not understand the question (e.g., 

misinterpreted the meaning of the latent construct or misunderstood the questions of interest), or (2) the 

respondent did not want to provide a truthful answer. By asking about the latent construct in different 

ways, through the embedded replicates, LCA attempts to measure a respondent’s true latent status.

For sensitive events such as sexual assault, the false positive rate is usually near zero whereas the 

false negative rate is non-negligible (Berzofsky, Biemer, & Kalsbeek, 2014). In other words, it is unlikely 

for a respondent to indicate that a sensitive event occurred when it did not, but it is more likely for a 

respondent to indicate a sensitive event did not occur when it truly did. Because of this phenomenon, the 

analysis will review the false positive rates, but focus primarily on the false negative rates.

For the CCSVS Pilot Test, four indicators of the latent construct were embedded in the survey 

instrument. These indicators are—

A. any unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the academic year (Survey Item P1).

B. the number of separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact experienced since the beginning 

of the academic year (Survey Item P2).

C. whether each of 4 (males) or 5 (females) types of unwanted sexual contact happened since the 

beginning of the academic year (Survey Item LCA2).

D. the most recent experience of unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item LCA3).

For the specific wording of these items, see Section 5.1.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

131

For each indicator, a respondent’s response was dichotomized to either experiencing unwanted 

sexual contact or not experiencing unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the 2014–2015

academic year. Indicator A is a dichotomous question where a “yes” response indicates the student 

experienced unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the academic year. Indicator B is 

dichotomized by assigning a response of one or more unwanted sexual contacts since the beginning of the 

academic year as a “yes” for the LCA. Indicator C is based on a series of questions regarding specific types 

of unwanted sexual contact since the beginning of the academic year; if the respondent indicated that 

any of these occurred then she/he is assigned to a “yes” for experiencing unwanted sexual contact since 

the beginning of the academic year. Indicator D is dichotomized by assigning respondents who indicated 

that their last unwanted sexual contact occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year as a student who 

experienced unwanted sexual contact during the 2014–2015 academic year.

LCA uses the responses across each set of indicators conditioned on a set of grouping variables 

(i.e., characteristics that are associated with classification error) to estimate the classification error and 

unbiased estimates of the latent construct.

57 Overall, 93.2% of respondents provided consistent answers 

to all four indicators; however, 6.8% of respondents provided inconsistent responses (Table 29). This is an 

indication that some of the respondents interpreted the indicators differently and that measurement error 

may exist.

Table 29. Comparisons of LCA variable consistency for complete undergraduate 

female cases, 2014–2015 academic year

LCA Variable Consistency Number of Females Percent

Consistent indication of unwanted sexual contact 13,573 93.2 %

Unwanted sexual contact indicated in all four measures 930 6.4

No unwanted sexual contact indicated in all four measures 12,643 86.8

Inconsistent indication of unwanted sexual contact 998 6.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: The counts and percentages presented in this table are based on cases that responded to all indicators. 

Because of the small amount of missing data, the conclusions drawn from this table are not impacted by 

excluding the cases with some missing data.

57Through a system of equations, for a latent construct with fixed levels (e.g., experienced unwanted sexual contact or did not 

experience unwanted sexual contact), the model estimates the classification error rates for the indicators simultaneously using 

those rates in the estimation of the unbiased estimates.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

132

In order to conduct the LCA and ensure that all necessary model assumptions were met, the 

process developed by Berzofsky, Biemer, and Kalsbeek (2014) was followed.

58 In addition, although most 

respondents answered all the LCA items, there was some missing data. Using the approach developed 

by Edwards, Berzofsky, and Biemer (2015), the analysis assessed the data to determine the missing 

data mechanism (missing at random or missing not at random) and used Full Information Maximum 

Likelihood (FIML) to include all respondents in the LCA.

59 Furthermore, it was of interest to compare 

the unbiased estimates to the reported estimates based on Survey Item P2 (Indicator B in the LCA) for key 

student characteristics. Therefore, indicators for school, year of study, and sexual orientation were included 

in the structural component of the model.

Examination of the female false positive and false negative rates for each indicator showed that the 

false positive rates were relatively small, the largest being 1.3% for Indicator C (Figure 38). Even with all 

the false positive rates being small, the false positive rates for Indicator A and Indicator B were significantly 

smaller than the false positive rate for Indicator C and Indicator D. Furthermore, the false negative rates 

were larger than the false positive rates. The false negative rates for Indicator B and Indicator C were 

significantly less than the false negative rates for Indicator A and Indicator D. The reason for the difference 

in the false negative rates may be due to the wording of the indicators. Berzofsky, Biemer, and Kalsbeek 

(2014) found that behaviorally specific questions like Indicator C produce smaller false negative rates; 

whereas more pointed questions like Indicator A produce higher rates. Indicator B requires the respondent 

to think about a specific number of times unwanted sexual contact occurred which may have helped its 

accuracy (protecting against both the false positive and false negative bias). Indicator D appeared to be the 

most problematic indicator (i.e., higher false positive and false negative rate). It had the largest amount 

of missing responses (1.8% of respondents). Perhaps requiring respondents to enter a specific month and 

year was difficult on some device types (e.g., smartphones), perhaps respondents had difficulty placing the 

incidents of unwanted sexual contact within a specific calendar month, or perhaps respondents thought 

this question was referring to any additional events because they had already indicated the month of each 

incident previously in the survey.

58Latent Gold software was used for the LCA, which allows for the complex survey design and unequal weights to be taken into 

account.

59The assessment of missing data found that a missing-at-random assumption was valid.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

133

Figure 38. False positive and false negative rates based on LCA among undergraduate 

females, by indicator, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: False positive rate refers to the estimated percentage of respondents who indicated that they were 

a victim given their true status as a non-victim. False negative rate refers to the estimated percentage of 

respondents who indicated that they were a non-victim given their true status as a victim.

Given these classification error rates, unbiased estimates of unwanted sexual contact since the 

beginning of the academic year were produced across all respondents and by school (Figure 39), by year 

of study (Figure 40), and by sexual orientation (Figure 41). (For additional details, see Appendix E-65

through 68). Overall, after taking classification error into account, the unbiased sexual assault prevalence 

estimate increased 0.5% over the reported (Survey Item P2) estimate (10.7% vs. 10.2%).

60 The fact that the 

unbiased estimate is larger than the reported estimate indicates that the influence of the false negative rate 

is greater than the influence of the false positive rate (i.e., the number of reported “no” responses that are 

true “yes” values is greater than the number of “yes” responses that are true “no” values). However, this 

finding was not consistent across all schools. For example, some schools had larger differences between 

the unbiased and reported percentages (e.g., School 9 had a 1.3% difference), whereas other schools had 

a lower unbiased percentage than the reported percentage (e.g., School 3 had a −0.6% difference). For 

the nine schools combined, by year of study, all years had an unbiased estimate that was larger than the 

reported estimated; however, the difference was larger for freshmen and sophomores than juniors and 

60The overall reported rate used in this analysis (10.2%) is different from the overall reported rate used earlier in the report 

(10.3%) because the method used was altered to match how the latent class software (Latent Gold) produced overall estimates.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

134

seniors. This indicates that underclassmen were more likely than upperclassmen to report a false negative 

response than a false positive response. By sexual orientation, both heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals 

had an unbiased estimate that was greater than the reported estimate. The difference in the estimates 

was greater for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or other nonheterosexuals than hetrosexuals (an increase of 

2.5% for nonheterosexuals compared to 0.5% for heterosexuals). It should be noted that statistical tests 

to determine if these differences were significantly different were not conducted because the correlation 

between the unbiased estimate and the reported estimate is unknown. Furthermore, the basic trend in 

the findings remains unchanged (e.g., the order of schools from lowest to highest is the same), and the 

magnitude was not dramatically different.

Figure 39. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate 

females, 2014–2015 academic year, by school

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: P2 estimate is the primary estimate in the survey.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

135

Figure 40. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate 

females, by year of study, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: P2 estimate is the primary estimate in the survey.

The LCA findings suggest that (1) the indicator used for estimating the prevalence of sexual 

assault (Indicator B) did a good job at minimizing the levels of both types of classification error; (2) as 

found in previous studies, an indicator based on a behaviorally specific screener (Indicator C) provided 

the lowest false negative rate, but, in this case, a relatively high false positive rate; (3) overall, the unbiased 

estimate of unwanted sexual contact during the 2014–2015 academic year was larger than the primary 

estimate (Survey Item P2); (4) the rate of change within a characteristic (e.g., school, year of study, sexual 

orientation) does vary indicating that classification error is not constant within a characteristic; (5) the 

unbiased estimates for individual point estimates by school and some student characteristics were not 

substantively different from the primary estimates (i.e., the basic conclusions drawn from the primary 

estimates are unchanged after accounting for the classification error); and (6) trends across levels within a 

characteristic remain unchanged. Based on these findings, the primary sexual assault estimates based on 

Survey Item P2 appear to be valid.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

136

Figure 41. Unbiased LCA and primary estimates of sexual assault for undergraduate 

females, by sexual orientation, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: P2 estimate is the primary estimate in the survey.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

137

6. Sexual Harassment and Coercion

In addition to sexual assault, sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact were also measured in 

the CCSVS Pilot Test. This section describes the measurement strategy and prevalence estimates for these 

two outcomes.

6.1 Measurement

Sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact were covered early in the survey instrument (Survey 

Section 2), before the topic of unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact was covered (Survey Section 3). This 

was done to ensure that respondents did not include experiences with harassment and/or coercion when 

they answered the critical gate questions about unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact.

61 In other words, 

it was desired that respondents who had experienced sexual harassment and/or coerced sexual contact 

would report these experiences early in the survey and then focus only on experiences fitting within the 

definition of sexual assault used for the remainder of the survey (i.e., sexual contact that they did not 

consent to and did not want to happen).

The specific wording of the questions that were used to measure sexual harassment victimization 

in the CCSVS is shown below.

61 In the CCSVS, coerced sexual contact was defined as sexual misconduct, in which verbal pressure is used to achieve sexual 

contact with another person (e.g., threatening to spread rumors, constant verbal pressure after the person said no). Coerced sexual 

contact was measured separate from sexual assault, which was defined as sexual contact that the victim did not want to happen 

and did not consent to.

SH1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone done the following to you either in person or by phone, text message, e-mail, or social 

media? Please include things regardless of where they happened.

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes that were 

unwelcome to you

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed themselves to you without your consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent you sexual pictures, photos, or videos that you 

didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Showed or sent sexual photos/videos of you or spread sexual 

rumors about you that you didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of you when you were nude or 

having sex, without your consent

○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

138

To measure coerced sexual contact, the following language was used:

6.2 Prevalence Estimates

Students who answered “yes” to any item in Survey Item SH1 were classified as having experienced 

sexual harassment since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year. Students who answered “yes” 

to Survey Item EC1 were classified as having experienced coerced sexual contact since the beginning of 

the 2014–2015 academic year. Neither sexual harassment nor sexual coercion experiences were included 

in any estimates of sexual assault. The prevalence estimates for sexual harassment and coercion were 

calculated separately by dividing the weighted number of victims (i.e., those who answered “yes” to any 

item in Survey Item SH1 or Survey Item EC1) by the total population (i.e., weighted number of survey 

respondents). Estimates were calculated separately for females (overall and for each school) and males 

(overall and for each school).

6.2.1 Female Estimates

The percentage of female undergraduates who experienced sexual harassment during the 2014–

2015 academic year ranged from 14% at School 2 to 46% at School 1, with a combined percentage of 28% 

for all nine schools (Figure 42). The percentage who experienced coerced sexual contact ranged from 3.8% 

at School 2 to 11.4% at School 5, with a combined percentage of 7.7% across all nine schools.

While the study design did not power the sample size based on estimates of sexual harassment, 

across the nine schools, the relative standard errors (RSEs) for sexual harassment were low. The RSEs were 

below 4.0% for all schools except School 2 which had an RSE of 7.5%. The RSEs for coerced sexual contact 

EC1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone had sexual contact with you by threatening to tell lies, end your relationship, or spread 

rumors about you; making promises you knew or discovered were untrue; or continually verbally 

pressuring you after you said you didn’t want to?

Sexual contact includes:

• touching of a sexual nature (kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up 

against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

• oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or 

tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

• anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus)

• sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in [IF D3=MALE, FILL “someone’s”, ELSE FILL 

“your” vagina)

• sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a 

bottle or a candle in your [IF D3 NE MALE, FILL: “vagina or”] anus.

o Yes

o No
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

139

were higher than those for sexual harassment, but still relatively low, with RSEs below 9.0% for all schools 

except School 2 (15.2%). (All estimates, standard errors, and RSEs are shown in Appendix F-1 through 3.) 

Thus, given the sample sizes obtained at each school based on the design of the CCSVS Pilot Test, stable 

estimates were produced.

Figure 42. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting sexual harassment and 

coerced sexual contact, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

The estimates for several schools were statistically distinguishable from one another. For example, 

among the schools participating in the CCSVS Pilot Test, the sexual harassment estimate for School 4 

was significantly different from that of every school except Schools 6 and 9, and the prevalence of sexual 

harassment at School 2 was significantly different, and lower, than for all other schools. Sexual harassment 

appeared to track with sexual assault, in that schools with the highest rates of sexual harassment also 

tended to have the highest rates of sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape (see Figure 5).

School-level estimates of the prevalence of coerced sexual contact varied less than the estimates 

of sexual harassment and few of the school-specific estimates were statistically distinguishable from one 

another. For the CCSVS Pilot Test schools, coerced sexual contact did not appear to track with sexual 

harassment, in that the highest rates of sexual harassment were not associated the highest rates of coerced 

sexual contact.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

140

6.2.2 Male Estimates

For males, the prevalence of sexual harassment victimization ranged from 6.7% (School 2) to 

22.9% (School 5), with a cross-school average of 13.2%. The prevalence of coerced sexual contact ranged 

from 3.4% (School 1) to 8.4% (School 4), with a cross-school average of 5.8% (Figure 43). By design, the 

RSEs for males were higher for both sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact than those for females.

For sexual harassment, at the school level, the RSEs ranged from 4.9% (School 5) to 14.5% (School 2). For 

coerced sexual contact, at the school level, the RSEs ranged from 9.0% (School 7) to 20.6% (School 2). (All 

estimates, standard errors, and RSEs for male rates are shown in Appendix F-4 through F-6.)

Figure 43. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Due to the relatively large standard errors, many of the school-specific estimates of male sexual 

harassment and coerced sexual contact are not statistically different. The variability in the estimates across 

schools was also narrower for males (6.7% to 22.9%) than females (13.7% to 46.4%). However, at these 

schools, male sexual harassment tended to track with female rates in that schools with the highest (and 

lowest) rates for females also had the highest (and lowest) rates for males. As with females, coerced sexual 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

141

contact did not appear to track with sexual harassment victimization, in that schools with the highest rates 

of male sexual harassment victimization did not necessarily also have the highest rates of coerced sexual 

contact. At all schools, the rates of sexual harassment victimization were significantly lower for males than 

females. At five of the nine schools, the rates of coerced sexual contact were significantly lower for males 

than females (see Appendix E-7).

6.3 Methodological Assessments

6.3.1 Type of Tactic

To be identified as a victim of sexual harassment, a student had to endorse one or more of the five 

tactics that constitute sexual harassment. The five tactics presented in the CCSVS instrument (Survey Item 

SH1, with question wording shown in Section 6.1) were (1) made sexual advances, gestures, comments, 

or jokes that were unwelcome to you; (2) flashed or exposed themselves to you without your consent; 

(3) showed or sent you sexual pictures, photos, or videos that you didn’t want to see; (4) showed or 

sent sexual photos/videos of you, or spread sexual rumors about you, that you didn’t want shared; and 

(5) watched or took photos/videos of you when you were nude or having sex, without your consent.

Among female sexual harassment victims at the nine schools, the most frequently specified 

tactic was experiencing sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes that were unwelcome (90.9%; 

Figure 44).

62 After unwelcome sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes, 21.6% of female sexual 

harassment victims indicated they were shown or sent sexual photos or videos, 13.9% indicated that sexual 

photos or videos of them or sexual rumors about them were spread/shared, 15.4% indicated being flashed 

or exposed by someone, and 4.6% indicated being watched or having photos or videos taken of them 

while nude.

The school-level distributions for the type of sexual harassment experienced were generally 

consistent with the average distributions for all nine schools combined (see Appendix F-7 and 8 for 

school-level distributions and standard errors). Sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes were the 

most commonly endorsed tactics in each of the school samples. At all schools except School 5, being 

shown or sent sexual photos or videos was the second most endorsed tactic. At each school except School 

5, being flashed, having photos or videos of them, or having sexual rumors spread about them had 

similar levels of endorsement. Being watched or having photos or videos taken of them while nude was 

consistently the least endorsed tactic at each school.

62For all tactics of sexual harassment, the amount of item nonresponse was 0.1% or less.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

142

Figure 44. Distribution of tactics used by offenders reported by female sexual harassment victims, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

6.3.2 Field Period Assessment

Although these outcomes were of secondary interest, it is still of interest to know if the estimates 

for sexual harassment and coerced sexual contact would be substantively different or if the precision would 

be appreciably worse if the field period were shorter. Using the same methodology as for sexual assault to 

produce representative analysis weights for respondents at 28 days and 21 days in the field, respectively 

(see Section 5.5.1), the difference in the estimates and RSEs was compared.

Sexual Harassment

Regardless of the length of the field period, the difference in the estimates for sexual harassment 

was less than 3% (Table 30). Given the larger estimates for sexual harassment, none of the differences 

were substantively different. In terms of precision, at all field period lengths, for all schools, the RSE was 

less than 10%. Based on these findings, field period length did not appreciably impact the estimates or 

precision of sexual harassment.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

143

Table 30. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for sexual harassment 

prevalence among undergraduate females, by field period length and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Full Period 28-Day Period 21-Day Period

School Estimate RSE Estimate RSE Estimate RSE

Average 28.2 % 1.0 % 28.6 % 1.2 % 28.9 % 1.3 %

1 46.4 2.0 43.8 2.6 44.1 2.9

2 13.7 7.5 14.3 8.2 14.5 9.1

3 28.3 3.4 28.7 3.7 29.1 3.7

4 21.4 3.3 23.0 4.3 23.7 5.1

5 41.8 2.0 42.4 2.3 43.0 2.8

6 18.9 3.1 19.5 3.5 19.4 3.9

7 32.5 2.4 33.4 2.6 33.2 2.8

8 27.8 2.9 28.9 3.4 29.1 3.6

9 22.8 3.4 23.6 3.9 23.8 4.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: RSE = relative standard error.

Coerced Sexual Contact

The difference in the estimates for coerced sexual contact between the full data collection period 

and the abbreviated field periods was consistently less than 1% (Table 31). Given the magnitude of 

change for coerced sexual contact, changes in the field period would not result in substantively different 

estimates. In terms of precision, at a 28-day field period, except for School 2, all RSEs remain below 10%.

At a 21-day field period, all RSEs are below 10% except for School 2 (18.2%) and School 4 (10.5%). Based 

on these findings, field period length does not appreciably impact the estimates or precision of coerced 

sexual contact.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

144

Table 31. Weighted estimates and relative standard errors for coerced sexual contact 

prevalence among undergraduate females, by field period length and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Full Period 28-Day Period 21-Day Period

School Estimate RSE Estimate RSE Estimate RSE

Average 7.7 % 2.2 % 7.7 % 2.5 % 7.6 % 2.8 %

1 9.7 5.8 9.3 6.9 9.0 8.0

2 3.8 15.3 3.9 16.0 3.9 18.2

3 6.5 8.1 6.6 9.0 6.7 9.0

4 6.7 6.1 6.5 8.5 5.9 10.5

5 11.4 4.7 11.5 5.5 11.6 6.6

6 4.9 6.1 5.0 7.2 4.7 8.1

7 9.2 5.1 9.6 5.6 9.2 6.1

8 9.2 5.8 8.9 7.0 8.8 7.5

9 8.0 6.4 8.6 7.0 9.0 7.7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: RSE = relative standard error.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

145

7. Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

This section describes the measurement strategy and prevalence estimates for intimate partner 

violence (IPV) victimization.

7.1 Measurement

IPV was covered in Survey Section 4, after sexual assault victimization was covered. The specific 

wording of the questions that were used to measure intimate partner violence in the CCSVS is shown 

below.

7.2 Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence

Students who answered “yes” to any item in Survey Item IPV1 were classified as having 

experienced IPV since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year. An additional measure of IPV (IPV 

Including Sexual Assault) also counts respondents who were classified as sexual assault victims and who 

reported that the offender was a current or ex dating partner or spouse. IPV victimization prevalence rates 

were calculated by dividing the weighted number of IPV victims by the total number of students in the 

population (i.e., weighted number of respondents) and were calculated separately for females (overall and 

for each school) and males (overall and for each school).

7.2.1 Female Estimates

The range of IPV (physical abuse) prevalence during the 2014–2015 academic year for 

undergraduate females was 4.6% (School 1) to 8.5% (School 2), with a cross-school average of 6.4% 

(Figure 45). The range of IPV (including physical abuse and/or sexual assault) prevalence during the 

2014–2015 academic year was 5.5% (School 6) to 9.4% (School 2), with a cross-school average of 7.4%. A 

high amount of overlap was observed between physical abuse and sexual assault by an intimate partner 

This section asks more questions about your experiences since the beginning of the current academic 

year. These questions asks about things that an intimate partner may have done to you. An intimate 

partner might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, or anyone you were in an intimate relationship with or 

hooked up with, including exes and current partners. As you answer the questions, please do not include 

times you knew they were joking around.

IPV1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has an 

intimate partner...

Yes No

a. threatened to hurt you and you thought you might really get hurt? ○ ○

b. pushed, grabbed, or shook you? ○ ○

c. hit you, kicked you, slapped you, or beat you up? ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

146

among victims of either type of IPV. Across all schools, 20% of victims of physical abuse and/or sexual 

assault by an intimate partner were victims of both physical abuse and sexual assault, 60% were victims of 

physical abuse but not sexual assault, and 11% were victims of sexual assault but not of nonsexual physical 

abuse. At the school level, the precision for IPV estimates was reasonable, with RSEs ranging from 6.0% 

to 11.4%. This indicates that while IPV was not a primary outcome, the design and resulting sample sizes 

achieved in the CCSVS Pilot Test resulted in good precision for IPV estimates for undergraduate females.

Appendix G-1 through 3 show estimates, standard errors, and RSEs for female IPV estimates.

For the nine schools in the CCSVS Pilot Test, IPV did not appear to track with sexual assault (see 

Figure 5) or sexual harassment (see Figure 42). In other words, although there was some variation across 

schools with regard to IPV victimization rates (as shown by non-overlapping error bars), schools with 

relatively high rates of IPV (e.g., School 2) were not necessarily the same ones that had high rates of sexual 

assault and/or sexual harassment (e.g., School 1). However, in general, the range for IPV was fairly narrow 

and many of the estimates are not statistically distinguishable from one another.

Figure 45. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting intimate partner violence, 

by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

147

7.2.2 Male Estimates

For males, the prevalence rate for IPV (physical abuse) during the 2014–2015 academic year 

ranged from 2.7% (School 1) to 7.6% (School 5), with a cross-school average of 4.9% (Figure 46). When 

sexual assault perpetrated by an intimate partner is included, the prevalence rate ranged from 3.0% 

(School 6) to 8.1% (School 5), with a cross-school average of 5.1%. At the school-level, the RSEs for the 

estimates of IPV (physical) ranged from 9.7% to 22.8%. Given the imprecision of the estimates, none of 

the IPV estimates were statistically distinguishable between any schools (see Appendix G-3 through 6 for 

male estimates, standard errors, and RSEs). As with the pattern observed for females, IPV did not appear 

to track closely with sexual assault at the school level.

Figure 46. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting intimate partner violence, by 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

148

8. Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration

Perpetration of sexual harassment and sexual assault was covered in the CCSVS Pilot Test. This 

section presents the measurement strategy and estimates for these outcomes.

8.1 Measurement

Sexual harassment perpetration and sexual assault perpetration were covered in Survey Section 5.

The specific wording of the questions is shown below. Note that respondents were asked about 

perpetrating the same forms of sexual harassment as were covered in the victimization question (Survey 

Item SH1), with parallel wording for these questions.

After answering the sexual harassment perpetration questions, students were asked about 

sexual assault perpetration. The lead text that preceded these questions generally paralleled the text that 

introduced sexual assault victimization in that the respondents were asked about times they may have 

had sexual contact with someone without the person’s consent and that they did not want to happen, and 

that the context in which this behavior can take place was noted. In addition, the lead text asked students 

to answer the questions honestly and reminded them that their answers would not be linked to any 

identifying information about them.

Then, students were asked to indicate the number of times they had unwanted sexual contact 

with someone since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year using each of four tactics (touching/

grabbing, threats, physical force, and incapacitation).

This section of the survey asks about things you may have done to other people.

SHP1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, have you

done the following to anyone either in person or by phone, text message, e-mail, or social 

media...

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes to someone 

that were unwelcome to them

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed yourself to someone without their consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent someone sexual pictures, photos, or videos that 

they didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Showed or sent sexual photos/videos of someone or spread sexual 

rumors about someone that they didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of someone when they were nude 

or having sex, without their consent

○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

149

8.2 Sexual Harassment Perpetration Prevalence Estimates

Students who answered “yes” to any item in Survey Item SHP1 were considered to have 

perpetrated sexual harassment during the 2014–2015 academic year. Sexual harassment perpetration 

prevalence rates were calculated by dividing the weighted number of sexual harassment perpetrators 

by the total number of students in the population (i.e., the weighted number of respondents) and were 

calculated separately for females (overall63 and for each school) and males (overall and for each school).

Overall, 2.9% of females and 4.4% of males reported perpetrating at least one type of behavior 

considered to be sexual harassment during the 2014–2015 academic year (Figure 47, with the estimates 

and standard errors shown in Appendix H-1 and 2).

63 Overall estimates for females and males were based on the weighted average across schools rather than the cross-school average.

The final questions in this section ask about times when you may have had sexual contact with someone 

without their consent and that they did not want to happen. Sometimes this happens with a stranger 

or with someone you know, such as a friend or someone you were dating or hanging out with. It often 

happens when people have been drinking, but it can also happen when people are sober.

Please answer these questions honestly. Your answers will not be linked to any identifying information 

about you and will remain completely confidential.

Remember that sexual contact includes touching of someone’s sexual body parts, oral sex, anal sex, 

sexual intercourse, and penetration of their vagina or anus with a finger or object.

SAP1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, how 

many times have you had unwanted sexual contact with someone (i.e., sexual contact without 

their consent and that they did not want to happen)...

0 

Times

1 

Time

2 

Times

3 

Times

4 

Times

5 or 

More 

Times

a. By touching or grabbing the person’s sexual body 

parts (e.g., their butt, breasts, or crotch)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. by threatening to hurt the person or someone 

they cared about?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

c. by using physical force against the person, such 

as holding them down with your body weight, 

pinning their arms, hitting or kicking them?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. when the person was incapacitated, passed out, 

unconscious, blacked out, or asleep and unable 

to provide consent?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

150

Figure 47. Percentage of undergraduate males and females reporting any sexual harassment perpetration, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

8.3 Sexual Assault Perpetration Prevalence Estimates

Students who reported using any tactic one or more times in Survey Item SAP1 were considered 

to have perpetrated sexual assault during the 2014–2015 academic year. Sexual assault perpetration 

prevalence rates were calculated by dividing the weighted number of sexual assault perpetrators by the 

total number of students in the population (i.e., weighted number of respondents) and were calculated 

separately for females (overall and for each school) and males (overall and for each school). In addition 

to the “any perpetration” prevalence estimates, prevalence estimates reflecting the weighted percentage 

of students who reported one perpetration and the percentage of students who reported two or more 

perpetrations were also created. These estimates were created for “any perpetration” as well as for specific 

tactics (e.g., touching or grabbing, threatening to harm, using physical force, and sexual contact when the 

victim was incapacitated).

Few males or females reported having unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact with someone 

during the 2014–2015 academic year using any of the tactics included in the survey question (Figure 48, 

with additional details shown in Appendix H-3 and 4). Overall, 2.8% of females and 2.9% of males 

reported engaging in unwanted sexual contact without the other person’s consent at least one time using 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

151

at least one tactic during the 2014–2015 academic year.

64 Of the few students who indicated they had 

unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact with someone one or more times, the most commonly reported 

tactic for males and females was touching or grabbing the person’s sexual body parts. In addition, most 

students who indicated they had unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact with someone indicated that 

they only used the tactic one time.

Figure 48. Percentage of undergraduate males and females reporting various forms of 

sexual assault perpetration, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Unreliable estimates (UE) refer to the estimates that have a relative standard error of greater than 50% or 

have an estimate based on 10 or fewer respondents.

64 The range of this estimate across schools is not presented because many of the school-specific estimates are unreliable.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

152

9. School Connectedness and Campus Climate

The final set of estimates that were developed in the CCSVS Pilot Test pertain to campus climate, 

including school connectedness; general perceptions of university leadership; perceptions of leadership 

around sexual assault prevention and response; student norms related to sexual conduct; and attitudes 

about sexual assault. This section describes the approach that was used to measure various aspects of 

campus climate, the scales that were developed from the survey items, estimates of campus climate scores, 

and the association between campus climate and sexual misconduct.

9.1 Measurement

The CCSVS Pilot Test included numerous items intended to capture students’ perceptions of 

campus climate related to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Survey Section 1 included items pertaining 

to general school connectedness and general perceptions of campus police, faculty, and leadership staff.

These items were placed at the beginning of the survey to help develop some rapport with respondents 

and to avoid asking students to answer sensitive questions right away. Importantly, none of these questions 

referred to sexual behavior, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. The preference of the study team was 

to avoid mentioning these concepts or defining these terms until after students had completed the key 

victimization and perpetration modules (Survey Sections 2-5) due to concerns that being asked to think 

about sexual assault prior to being asked the behaviorally specific questions about sexual victimization and 

perpetration experiences might prime respondents and affect how they answered. Therefore, only general 

perceptions (unrelated to sexual harassment or sexual assault) were covered in Survey Section 1. The 

specific questions are shown below. The gray headings were not visible to survey respondents.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

153

School Connectedness

SC2. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please 

provide an answer that best reflects how you feel.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. I feel valued as an individual at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. I feel close to people at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

c. I feel like I am a part of this school ○ ○ ○ ○

d. I am happy to be a student at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

e. I feel safe when I am on this school’s campus ○ ○ ○ ○

f. I believe there is a clear sense of appropriate and 

inappropriate behavior among students at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

g. I believe alcohol abuse is a big problem at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

h. I believe this school is trying hard to protect the rights 

of all students

○ ○ ○ ○

i. I believe this school is trying hard to make sure that all

students are treated equally and fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

j. I believe this school is trying hard to make sure that all

students are safe

○ ○ ○ ○

k. I believe that students at this school trust one another ○ ○ ○ ○

l. I believe that students at this school respect one 

another

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

154

General Perceptions of Campus Police

The next questions ask your views about three groups at this school: 1) Campus police/security, 2) 

Faculty, and 3) School Leadership. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following 

statements, and answer as best as you can. 

GC1. Overall, the campus police/security at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this 

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

General Perceptions of Faculty

GC2. Overall, the faculty at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this 

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

GC3. Overall, the President/Chancellor, Deans, and other leadership staff at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this 

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

155

After answering the sexual victimization and perpetration modules, the bulk of the climate 

measures—which were specific to sexual harassment and sexual assault—were covered in the final section 

of the survey (Survey Section 6). The specific questions are shown below. As is evident from the question 

wording, some of the items measure students’ perceptions of the school’s leadership efforts related to 

sexual misconduct whereas others measure students’ perceptions of the campus culture or climate among 

students (e.g., student norms). Finally, some questions measure students’ own attitudes toward sexual 

misconduct and the use of bystander intervention behaviors.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response

SAC1. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please 

answer as best as you can when thinking about your school.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Sexual harassment is not tolerated at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. This school takes training in sexual assault prevention 

seriously

○ ○ ○ ○

c. This school is doing a good job of educating students 

about sexual assault (e.g., what consent means, how to 

define sexual assault, how to look out for one another)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. This school is doing a good job of trying to prevent 

sexual assault from happening

○ ○ ○ ○

e. This school is doing a good job of providing needed 

services to victims of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

f. This school is doing a good job of investigating incidents 

of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

g. This school is doing a good job of holding people 

accountable for committing sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

156

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy and Resources

SAC3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, 

answering as best as you can when thinking about your school.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. I am aware of and understand this school’s 

procedures for dealing with reported incidents of 

sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

b. I know what services are available for people who 

experience sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If a friend of mine were sexually assaulted, I know 

where to take my friend to get help

○ ○ ○ ○

d. At this school, students who are accused of 

perpetrating a sexual assault are treated fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

e. At this school, when it is determined that sexual 

assault has happened, the perpetrator gets punished 

appropriately

○ ○ ○ ○

Perception of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

SAC4. If I were sexually assaulted I believe this school would...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Take my case seriously ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Protect my privacy ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat me with dignity and respect ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Enable me to continue my education without 

having to interact with the person who assaulted 

me

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

157

Likelihood of Bystander Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

SAC6-7. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following things. Please 

think about the situation and answer as best as you can.

Very 

likely

Likely Not 

likely

Not at 

all likely

a. If your friends are sending sexual pictures, web 

pages, or messages to someone who didn’t ask for 

them, how likely are you to say something to try to 

get them to stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

b. If people you don’t know very well are making 

unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, how 

likely are you to say something to try to get them to 

stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If you see one of your friends leading someone who 

is obviously drunk away to have sex with them, how 

likely are you to say or do something to get them to 

stop? 

○ ○ ○ ○

d. If you suspect that one of your friends might be in 

an abusive relationship, how likely are you to ask 

them if they are being mistreated?

○ ○ ○ ○

e. If someone tells you that they had sex with someone 

who was passed out, how likely are you to report 

the incident to a campus administrator or police?

○ ○ ○ ○

f. If you see someone you don’t know who looks 

uncomfortable and is being touched, grabbed, or 

pinched in a sexual way, how likely are you to speak 

up or help in some other way?

○ ○ ○ ○

g. When you go out with your friends, how likely are 

you to come up with a plan for checking in with one 

another throughout the evening? 

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

158

Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct

SAC8-9. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. As you 

consider these statements, please think about the overall population of students at this school 

and try to answer as best as you can.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. At this school, it is common for students to spread 

sexual comments, photos, or videos that people 

don’t want shared, either in person or by text, email, or social media

○ ○ ○ ○

b. At this school, it is common for students to call 

people who are gay or lesbian a negative name 

○ ○ ○ ○

c. At this school, when students make sexual 

comments, jokes, or gestures , other students stand 

up to them

○ ○ ○ ○

d. A lot of sexual assault happens among students at 

this school when students are unable to provide 

consent because they are incapacitated, passed 

out, unconscious, blacked out, or asleep

○ ○ ○ ○

e. Many students at this school initiate or lead 

campus efforts to raise awareness about sexual 

assault 

○ ○ ○ ○

f. Most students at this school are knowledgeable 

about the topic of sexual assault, including how it is 

defined, how often it occurs, and what the legal 

consequences are

○ ○ ○ ○

g. At this school, it is common for students to make 

jokes about sexual assault or rape

○ ○ ○ ○

h. At this school, if students see someone trying to 

have unwanted sexual contact with someone, they 

will try to stop them

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

159

9.2 Creation of Scales

Students’ responses to the climate measures above were assessed for reliability. This allowed for an 

assessment of whether the items that were grouped together (as “sets”) in the survey tended to generate 

similar types of responses (i.e., whether students tended to provide consistent responses to the items in 

each set and thus the items described the same construct). The reliability assessment involved recoding all 

negatively worded items (labeled with an asterisk above) such that higher scores would consistently reflect 

more positive attitudes about the climate. Then, for each set of items, the distribution of scores based on 

the full sample of respondents (i.e., males and females combined across all schools) was examined. The 

Cronbach’s alpha reflecting the internal consistency of the set of items was reviewed to see if the reliability 

was acceptable and whether it could be improved substantially by dropping particular items from the 

set. These diagnostics revealed that high reliability was achieved with the full set of items for five sets of 

items, suggesting that all items in the set could be retained to create scales. To create these scales, each 

respondent’s responses (strongly agree = 3, agree = 2, disagree = 1, strongly disagree = 0, with reverse 

coding used for negatively worded questions) to each item in the scale were simply summed (Table 32).

Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct

SAC10-11. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. People get too offended by sexual comments, jokes, 

or gestures

○ ○ ○ ○

b. It doesn’t really hurt anyone to post sexual 

comments or photos of people without their consent 

through e-mail, text, or social media

○ ○ ○ ○

c. A person who is sexually assaulted while he/she is 

drunk is at least somewhat responsible for putting 

themselves in that position

○ ○ ○ ○

d. If one of your friends told you that someone had 

unwanted sexual contact with them, you would 

encourage him/her to report the incident to campus 

or local police

○ ○ ○ ○

e. It is not necessary to get consent before sexual 

activity if you are in a relationship with that person

○ ○ ○ ○

f. Accusations of sexual assault are often used by one 

person as a way to get back at the other

○ ○ ○ ○

g. A lot of times, what people say is rape is actually 

consensual sex that they regretted afterwards

○ ○ ○ ○
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

160

Table 32. Reliability of campus climate scales (scales with no items dropped)

Scale Items

Cronbach’s 

Alpha

General School Connectedness (0–36) SC2a-l 0.86

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct 

Prevention and Response (0–21)

SAC1a-g 0.92

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy 

and Resources (0–15)

SAC3a-e 0.88

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual 

Assault Victims (0–12)

SAC4a-d 0.92

Likelihood of Personal Bystander Behavior to Prevent Sexual 

Misconduct (0–21)

SAC6-7a-g 0.84

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

For the remaining sets of items, the reliability assessment results suggested that modifications 

would substantially improve reliability. In most cases, this meant dropping one item that did not seem to 

generate responses that were consistent with the other responses in the set. However, for one set of items 

(Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct), it appeared that creating two separate 

scales would be the appropriate solution, one related to student misconduct and the other related to 

student bystander behavior and involvement (Table 33).

Table 33. Reliability of campus climate scales (scales in which some items were 

dropped)

Scale Items

Cronbach’s 

Alpha

General Perceptions of Campus Police (0–9) GC1a–c (item d dropped) 0.86

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) GC2a–c (item d dropped) 0.85

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff (0–9) GC2a–c (item d dropped) 0.90

Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual 

Misconduct: Student Misconduct (0–12)

SAC8-9a, b, d, and g 

(remaining items included in 

“Student Bystander Behavior 

and Involvement” scale)

0.80

Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual 

Misconduct: Student Bystander Behavior and 

Involvement (0–12)

SAC8-9c, e, f, and h 0.75

Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct 

(0–18)

SAC10-11a–c, e–g (item d 

dropped)

0.80

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

161

For both males and females, the average scores on most of the campus climate scales were fairly 

high (relative to the upper limit of the scales) and there was little variability in the average scores across the 

schools (Table 34 and Table 35). Climate ratings tended to be similar, on average, for undergraduate males 

and females, although females appeared to perceive the 

school leadership climate slightly less positively than males.

For example, the average score on the Perceptions of School 

Leadership Climate for Prevention and Response was 15 for 

males and 14 for females. Females (17) also scored slightly 

higher than males (15) on climate measures reflecting 

personal likelihood of bystander-intervention behavior.

Additionally, females (13) had higher average scores 

compared to males (12) on the Personal Acceptance of 

Sexual Misconduct scale, meaning that females were less 

likely to endorse rape myths (e.g., students who are sexually 

assaulted after drinking are at least partially responsible for 

the incident). School-specific estimates and standard errors 

are shown in Appendix I-1 through 4.

Although several attempts were made, it was 

determined that the limited variability in the average 

climate scores across schools hindered the examination of 

the relationship between campus climate and sexual assault 

victimization rates. Therefore, an alternative coding strategy 

was explored. The alternative approach was intended to 

differentiate schools based on the proportion of students who provided extremely negative responses to 

the climate questions, rather than the average responses among the entire student body. To create these 

scores, the distribution of weighted student scores pooled across males and females across all schools was 

examined for each scale. Percentiles for the responses were calculated, using the bottom 25th percentile 

score as the cut point for defining poor climate for each scale. All students whose scores fell below that cut 

point were then classified as giving a poor climate rating for that scale. For each school, the percentage of 

students who gave poor climate ratings was calculated, by sex, for each scale. This strategy allowed for the 

examination of whether the students who provided the worst scores among the whole sample tended to 

cluster in particular schools.

Additional Climate Measures: 

Participation in Training

In addition to student attitudes about 

their school’s leadership related to 

sexual misconduct, students were asked 

whether they had participated in any type 

of training that covered each of seven 

topics (e.g., the definition of consent, the 

school’s policy on sexual assault, how to 

intervene as a bystander). After summing 

the students’ scores for each school, 

it is evident that there was substantial 

variability across schools, ranging from an 

average of 1.7 to 4.9 topics for females 

and 1.8 to 5.3 topics for males. The topics 

that were most commonly reported as 

being covered in training by males and 

females in nearly all schools were 1) the 

legal definition of consent and how to 

obtain it from a sexual partner, and 

2) how to report sexual assault.
162

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 34. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate females, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Scale

CrossSchool 

Average

School 

2

School 

4

School 

6

School 

9

School 

3

School 

8

School 

7

School 

5

School 

1

General school connectedness (0–36) 24.6 26.7 25.1 24.9 25.1 22.1 24.9 24.7 25.0 23.0

General perceptions of campus police

(0–9) 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.4

General perceptions of faculty (0–9) 6.5 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.6 7.0 6.4

General perceptions of leadership staff

(0–9) 6.1 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.2 5.2 6.6 6.2 5.7 5.9

Perceptions of school leadership climate 

for sexual misconduct prevention and 

response (0–21) 14.1 14.9 14.8 14.5 15.3 13.2 14.7 13.9 14.1 11.2

Awareness and perceived fairness 

of school sexual assault policy and 

resources (0–15) 9.2 8.9 9.6 9.0 10.1 8.3 9.1 8.7 10.2 9.0

Perception of school leadership climate 

for treatment of sexual assault victims 

(0–12) 8.8 9.4 9.0 9.0 9.4 8.3 9.1 8.8 8.9 7.3

Likelihood of bystander behavior to 

prevent sexual misconduct (0–21) 16.8 17.4 17.4 16.3 17.0 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.2 15.6

Perceptions of student norms related to 

sexual misconduct: student misconduct

(0–12) 7.4 9.1 7.1 7.9 8.0 7.2 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.4

Perceptions of student norms related to 

sexual misconduct: student bystander 

behavior and involvement (0–12) 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 7.2 6.5 6.8 6.5 7.4 6.9

Personal acceptance of sexual 

misconduct

(0–18) 13.4 13.5 12.6 13.6 13.4 13.2 13.4 13.3 13.8 14.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
163

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 35. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate males, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Scale

CrossSchool 

Average

School 

2

School 

4

School 

6

School 

9

School 

3

School 

8

School 

7

School 

5

School 

1

General school connectedness (0–36) 24.9 25.9 24.5 25.4 24.9 23.1 25.1 25.2 24.9 24.9

General perceptions of campus police

(0–9) 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.7 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.8

General perceptions of faculty (0–9) 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.6

General perceptions of leadership staff

(0–9) 6.0 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.4 6.5 6.3 5.7 6.0

Perceptions of school leadership 

climate for sexual misconduct 

prevention and response (0–21) 15.1 15.0 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.4 15.5 15.1 15.2 14.1

Awareness and perceived fairness 

of school sexual assault policy and 

resources (0–15) 9.8 9.4 9.9 9.4 10.4 9.1 9.7 9.7 10.4 10.1

Perception of school leadership climate 

for treatment of sexual assault victims 

(0–12) 9.1 9.3 9.0 9.4 9.5 8.7 9.4 9.2 9.0 8.4

Likelihood of bystander behavior to 

prevent sexual misconduct (0–21) 15.3 15.8 15.8 15.1 15.3 15.0 15.3 15.5 15.7 14.5

Perceptions of student norms related to 

sexual misconduct: student misconduct

(0–12) 7.6 8.8 7.0 8.1 8.0 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.3

Perceptions of student norms related to 

sexual misconduct: student bystander 

behavior and involvement (0–12) 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.4 7.3

Personal acceptance of sexual 

misconduct(0–18) 11.5 11.9 10.8 12.0 11.5 11.6 11.5 11.3 11.0 12.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

164

This approach generated greater variability among schools, for both female and male climate 

ratings (Table 36 and Table 37). For example, the percent of females providing extremely negative 

responses to the General School Connectedness scale items ranged from 11% at School 2 to 41% at School 

3. For males, this range was 15% at School 2 to 32% at School 3. (School-specific estimates and standard 

errors are shown in Appendix I-5 through 8.) In general, poor ratings on several dimensions of campus 

climate tended to cluster together such that the schools with the lowest proportions of females providing 

extremely negative climate ratings for one scale also tended to have the lowest proportion of females 

with extremely negative climate ratings for the other scales, with a similar pattern observed for schools 

with the highest proportion of females that provided extremely negative climate ratings. However, this 

was not the case for Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy and Resources 

scales, Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct: Student Bystander Behavior and 

Involvement, or Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct. This is not surprising given that the CCSVS 

Pilot Test measured several distinct aspects of campus climate, including students’ own attitudes and 

involvement, perceptions of the student culture on campus, and campus leadership efforts related to 

prevention and response.

Also of interest in the exhibits are some apparent gender differences similar to the patterns 

observed for the average climate scores. For several dimensions of climate, including General School 

Connectedness, Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and 

Response, Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy and Resources, Perceptions 

of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims, and Perceptions of Student 

Norms for Sexual Misconduct (both subscales), higher proportions of females than males were classified 

as having extremely negative climate scores. For example, 25% of females but only 16% of males were 

classified as having extremely negative climate scores for Perceptions of School Leadership climate for 

Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response. However, for other dimensions of climate, including General 

Perceptions of Campus Police, Likelihood of Personal Bystander Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct, 

and Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct, higher proportions of males than females were classified 

as having extremely negative climate scores. The biggest differential was observed for Personal Acceptance 

of Sexual Misconduct, for which 34% of males and 14% of females were classified as having extremely 

negative climate scores.
165

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 36. Percentage of undergraduate females with low climate scores, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Scale

CrossSchool 

Average

School 

2

School 

4

School 

6

School 

9

School 

3

School 

8

School 

7

School 

5

School 

1

General school connectedness (0–36) 23.9 % 10.9 % 22.6 % 19.7 % 20.5 % 40.8 % 20.7 % 24.0 % 21.7 % 34.4 %

General perceptions of campus police 

(0–9) 19.9 13.3 20.0 23.1 16.9 28.4 20.8 16.1 19.2 21.5

General perceptions of faculty (0–9) 17.3 10.2 17.7 12.8 20.5 25.3 17.9 16.2 13.2 21.7

General perceptions of leadership 

staff (0–9) 23.6 11.1 17.5 19.7 19.9 41.2 15.5 21.0 33.8 32.7

Perceptions of school leadership 

climate for sexual misconduct 

prevention and response (0–21) 24.8 14.1 19.9 18.3 15.3 30.1 20.4 25.6 26.4 53.1

Awareness and perceived fairness 

of school sexual assault policy and 

resources (0–15) 17.8 20.5 16.7 16.6 12.3 26.2 20.0 23.1 11.9 13.3

Perception of school leadership 

climate for treatment of sexual assault 

victims (0–12) 22.6 10.4 18.8 17.8 15.0 27.2 16.4 20.2 24.8 53.1

Likelihood of bystander behavior to 

prevent sexual misconduct (0–21) 15.6 10.6 11.1 19.7 15.4 15.8 15.3 15.2 12.0 25.4

Perceptions of student norms related 

to sexual misconduct: student 

misconduct (0–12) 20.0 4.2 23.8 10.9 12.8 20.5 25.6 27.0 25.1 29.8

Perceptions of student norms related 

to sexual misconduct: student 

bystander behavior and involvement 

(0–12) 24.6 22.9 27.8 24.7 21.4 29.5 24.3 30.1 19.2 21.5

Personal acceptance of sexual 

misconduct (0–18) 14.3 13.3 22.2 11.3 15.5 16.3 13.5 14.5 13.1 8.7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Low scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students.
166

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 37. Percentage of undergraduate males with low climate scores, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Scale

CrossSchool 

Average

School 

2

School 

4

School 

6

School 

9

School 

3

School 

8

School 

7

School 

5

School 

1

General school connectedness 

(0–36) 21.9 % 14.8 % 25.9 % 16.5 % 22.2 % 31.5 % 20.0 % 20.2 % 24.3 % 21.7 %

General perceptions of campus 

police (0–9) 22.8 18.6 29.9 28.1 18.6 23.3 25.4 21.7 24.6 15.0

General perceptions of faculty (0–9) 17.5 12.0 21.5 13.5 20.6 20.8 17.7 16.2 15.2 20.4

General perceptions of leadership 

staff (0–9) 25.1 17.3 24.0 21.4 22.3 37.3 16.7 22.2 34.6 30.4

Perceptions of school leadership 

climate for sexual misconduct 

prevention and response (0–21) 15.6 11.6 16.0 12.3 10.7 19.2 13.8 14.4 16.5 26.2

Awareness and perceived fairness 

of school sexual assault policy and 

resources (0–15) 13.1 11.6 14.1 13.8 9.4 17.9 15.5 14.0 12.0 9.5

Perception of school leadership 

climate for treatment of sexual 

assault victims (0–12) 18.0 10.0 20.8 13.2 14.3 21.1 14.2 14.2 23.7 30.2

Likelihood of bystander behavior to 

prevent sexual misconduct (0–21) 28.8 22.9 24.5 31.3 30.9 31.8 27.9 27.0 24.7 38.2

Perceptions of student norms 

related to sexual misconduct: 

student misconduct (0–12) 18.1 7.3 28.1 10.5 16.4 18.2 21.5 20.7 19.8 20.2

Perceptions of student norms 

related to sexual misconduct: 

student bystander behavior and 

involvement (0–12) 23.1 24.1 25.3 24.1 23.7 26.5 23.3 22.6 20.8 17.6

Personal acceptance of sexual 

misconduct (0–18) 34.0 27.6 43.9 27.9 35.5 32.6 35.3 35.4 40.4 27.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Low scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

167

9.3 Association between Campus Climate and Sexual Assault Victimization

Several strategies were employed to assess the relationship between the various measures of 

campus climate assessed in the CCSVS Pilot Test survey and sexual harassment and sexual assault. An 

implicit assumption behind the calls for measuring campus climate is that climate is related to sexual 

assault rates, such that schools with worse climates are likely to have higher rates of sexual harassment and 

sexual assault. It is thought that by identifying areas in which the climate can be improved and making 

positive changes through interventions targeting the student population (e.g., sexual assault education, 

bystander intervention), victimization and perpetration rates on college campuses could be decreased.

In the CCSVS Pilot Test, the association between school-level climate and sexual harassment and 

sexual assault was explored. Both sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization were assessed because 

these two types of victimization track together at the school level, which suggests they are similarly 

influenced by some dimensions of campus environment, culture, or climate. It was hypothesized that there 

would be an inverse relationship between climate and sexual assault/sexual harassment, such that schools 

with the worst climates (i.e., the highest proportion of students providing negative climate ratings) would 

have higher rates of sexual harassment and sexual assault. For most of the climate scales, particularly those 

that focus on student norms or culture related to sexual harassment and sexual assault, this hypothesis 

is logical. Because many incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault experienced by students at a 

given campus are likely to be perpetrated by other students on that campus, one would expect to see a 

relationship between climate related to student norms and sexual harassment and sexual assault. However, 

given the cross-sectional nature of the study, the possibility that for scales measuring school leadership 

climate (e.g., efforts to prevent or address sexual harassment and sexual assault), the relationship between 

climate and sexual harassment/assault could go in either direction was also recognized. On the one hand, 

schools that are not doing much to address sexual harassment and sexual assault (i.e., have poor leadership 

climate related to sexual harassment and sexual assault) could have higher levels of victimization because 

they do not have such policies and practices in place. But it could also be the case that schools that do have 

a lot of such efforts in place have implemented them specifically because they recognize that sexual assault/

harassment is a significant problem on their campuses, in which case higher victimization rates could 

actually be related to a more positive leadership climate in this area. Therefore, the analyses of school-level 

climate and sexual harassment/assault was considered to be exploratory in nature.

Several strategies for assessing the relationship between the various measures of campus climate 

and sexual harassment and assault were employed. First, schools’ poor climate estimates (i.e., the 

percentage of students providing climate ratings that were in the bottom 25th percentile overall) were 

compared with their sexual assault and sexual harassment prevalence estimates to see if schools with a 

larger proportion of students providing poor climate ratings were also those with high sexual harassment 

and sexual assault victimization rates. It appeared that some climate measures were indeed associated 

with sexual victimization. Therefore, the correlations between low climate estimates (looking separately 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

168

at climate estimates provided by males and females) and female sexual harassment and sexual assault 

victimization rates at the school level were estimated (Figure 49, with all correlations presented in

Appendix I-9).

The Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response, 

Perception of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims, and General 

Perceptions of Leadership Staff scales had fairly high positive correlations, with both male and female 

climate ratings associated with higher rates of sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization for 

females at the school. For these scales, schools with higher proportions of students providing extremely 

low climate ratings (i.e., worse climate) had higher rates of female sexual harassment and sexual assault 

victimization. Female (but not male) climate ratings for Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual 

Misconduct: Student Misconduct were also highly correlated with female sexual harassment and sexual 

assault victimization rates.

Some negative correlations were also observed. Schools with a higher percentage of males 

reporting extremely low scores on the Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct: 

Student Bystander Behavior and Involvement scale had lower rates of female sexual harassment and sexual 

assault victimization.

Multivariate models exploring whether a student’s likelihood of experiencing sexual assault 

during the 2014–2015 academic year was associated with the school’s climate score (i.e., the proportion 

of students who reported climate ratings that were in the bottom 25th percentile) were estimated for 

each climate scale. However, these models were significantly underpowered because treating climate as a 

school-level variable requires a larger sample of schools.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

169

Figure 49. Correlation between low school-level male and female climate ratings and 

female sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization rates, 2014–

2015 academic year

Scale

1 General School Connectedness

2 General Perceptions of Campus Police

3 General Perceptions of Faculty

4 General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

5 Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and 

Response

6 Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy and Resources

7 Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

8 Likelihood of Personal Bystander Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

9 Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct: Student Misconduct

10 Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct: Student Bystander 

Behavior and Involvement

11 Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: SH = Sexual Harassment; SA = Sexual Assault.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

170

Finally, student characteristics that were associated with low climate ratings were explored. For 

each climate scale at each school, the percentage of male and female students who provided extremely 

low climate ratings based on the following student characteristics were estimated: age, year of study, race/

ethnicity, sexual orientation, and sexual assault victimization status. The most consistent findings were that 

the following student characteristics were associated with providing extremely low climate ratings:

■ In general, higher proportions of sexual assault victims than non-victims gave low climate 

ratings. This pattern was evident for both males and females across most schools and for most 

dimensions of campus climate.

■ In general, higher proportions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other nonheterosexual students 

than heterosexual students gave low climate ratings. This pattern was evident for both males 

and females across most schools and for most dimensions of campus climate.

No sizeable or consistent differences in climate ratings by age, year of study, or race/ethnicity were 

found. An illustration of the relationship between student characteristic and school climate is shown for 

the Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response scale for 

females (Table 38) and males (Table 39) below. Standard errors for these estimates are shown in Appendix 

I-10 through 13.
171

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 38. Percentage of undergraduate females reporting low climate scores for “perceptions of school leadership 

climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” by student characteristics and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

CrossSchool 

Average School 2 School 4 School 6 School 9 School 3 School 8 School 7 School 5 School 1

Overall 24.8 % 14.1 % 19.9 % 18.3 % 15.3 % 30.1 % 20.4 % 25.6 % 26.4 % 53.1 %

Year of Study

1st/2nd Year 21.3 % 13.8 % 17.4 % 16.9 % 11.3 24.2 % 17.5 % 22.5 % 24.2 % 44.2 %

3rd/4th Year 28.0 16.0 21.7 19.2 21.4 32.5 22.2 28.2 28.9 61.9

Sexual Assault 

Victimization Status

Victims 40.7 % 28.1 % 44.2 % 30.9 % 32.9 % 45.7 % 38.3 % 40.2 % 45.1 % 60.7 %

Non-Victims 23.1 13.6 18.4 17.4 14.0 28.7 18.3 23.6 22.6 51.2

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 24.7 % 12.5 % 21.2 % 18.3 % 15.6 % 27.6 % 20.3 % 25.8 % 28.7 % 52.9 %

Other 24.9 22.6 15.4 19.2 15.5 30.6 21.4 25.5 21.3 53.0

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 23.7 % 14.2 % 18.9 % 17.5 % 14.1 % 28.8 % 19.9 % 24.9 % 23.7 % 51.5 %

Lesbian, gay, 

bixsexual, or other 36.0 12.6 34.8 26.8 31.6 43.5 26.1 33.9 41.1 73.9

Age

18–21 24.4 % 15.1 % 21.0 % 18.3 % 14.6 % 28.9 % 19.9 % 25.5 % 25.0 % 51.0 %

22+ 27.4 13.4 18.3 18.4 19.9 31.4 21.2 25.7 34.2 63.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Low scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students.
172

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Table 39. Percentage of undergraduate males reporting low climate scores for “perceptions of school leadership climate 

for sexual misconduct prevention and response” by student characteristics and school, 2014–2015 academic 

year

Overall School 2 School 4 School 6 School 9 School 3 School 8 School 7 School 5 School 1

Overall 15.6 % 11.6 % 16.0 % 12.3 % 10.7 % 19.2 % 13.8 % 14.4 % 16.5 % 26.2 %

Year of Study

1st/2nd Year 12.6 11.0 11.6 10.2 9.2 16.4 10.0 13.3 13.1 18.8

3rd/4th Year 18.4 16.1 19.4 13.4 12.5 20.3 15.8 15.1 19.5 33.6

Sexual Assault 

Victimization Status

Victims 31.6 53.5 ! 39.6 32.2 37.5 21.0 26.5 20.3 22.8 31.0

Non-Victims 15.2 11.0 15.5 12.0 9.8 19.1 13.4 14.1 16.1 25.9

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 14.9 11.2 16.1 10.6 12.9 19.3 12.8 11.7 17.0 22.7

Other 18.1 14.0 14.1 20.6 9.2 19.2 16.9 22.5 16.2 30.1

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 14.8 11.6 15.2 11.8 9.9 18.7 12.2 13.5 15.5 24.9

Lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, or other 24.8 13.6 19.0 18.1 25.0 27.1 30.2 22.8 27.6 40.0

Age

18-21 15.5 13.5 16.6 12.8 11.4 17.2 12.1 12.8 17.0 26.4

22+ 15.2 10.3 15.1 11.6 7.6 20.9 15.2 16.3 14.7 25.2

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Low scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

173

10. Experiments

Because one of the goals of the CCSVS Pilot Test was to develop a valid and reliable 

methodology for campus climate surveys, the study design incorporated experiments intended to guide 

recommendations regarding incentives and recruitment messages for future efforts. Two experiments 

were included in the CCSVS Pilot Test: an incentive experiment comparing $10, $25, and $40 promised 

incentives and a greeting experiment comparing personalized and generic greetings in emails to 

students inviting them to participate in the survey. Each experiment had several goals but ultimately 

the interest was to determine the impact of the conditions on survey response rates and sexual assault 

victimization rates.

The incentive experiment was also designed to inform the discussion about whether unbiased 

data can be collected on rape and sexual assault and other sensitive behaviors without taking a full census 

of the entire student population at a school. Understanding the effect of incentives of different amounts 

on response rates and rates of victimization can inform future studies on rape and sexual assault at the 

university-specific level because it is also the single biggest factor that influences the cost of administering 

a climate survey. If cost-effectiveness can be maximized such that the money spent on research and 

data collection ensures high response rates within the sample drawn, with minimal observed effect on 

variability within those responses, then it is important for schools and future researchers to understand 

the interplay between a monetary incentive at different levels and how reliably data can be collected at 

relatively low cost.

Each participating school was included in one of the two experiments. Because school context is 

likely to influence the manner in which a given condition (e.g., a $40 incentive) performs, it was necessary 

to vary the conditions within each of the participating schools to rule out the possibility of school 

characteristics being responsible for any observed variability in the conditions. Therefore, rather than 

assigning all sampled students in a given school to receive one condition and then comparing this against 

the other condition at another school, the experimental conditions were varied within each participating 

school. The incentive experiment was conducted at four schools and the greeting experiment was 

conducted with the five remaining schools.

10.1 Greeting Experiment

10.1.1 Methodology

The greeting experiment was implemented so the impact of personalization on response rates and 

survey estimates could be evaluated. Evidence suggests that personalized invitations (e.g., “Dear John”) 

tend to increase response rates in web surveys (Cook et al., 2000). However, personalization may have an 

unintended impact on survey estimates. There is some evidence that personalization may reduce selfdisclosure on sensitive items (Joinson, Woodley, & Reips, 2004) or increase socially desirable responding 

(Heerwegh et al., 2005), but other studies have been unable to replicate these findings (e.g., Heerwegh, 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

174

2005; Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2006). Based on the limited previous literature available, it was hypothesized 

that a personalized greeting would result in a higher response rate than a generic greeting but would 

result in lower rates of self-reported sexual assault victimization compared to a generic greeting. This is 

predicated on the assumption that sample members receiving the personalized greeting would perceive 

the survey as less anonymous, making victims less likely to participate (or less likely to report their 

victimization experiences if they did participate).

To implement the greeting experiment, sample members at five schools were randomly assigned 

to receive either a personalized greeting (“Dear John”) or a generic greeting (“Dear [Fill: School Name] 

Student”) in their survey invitation and reminders. (In the remaining schools, the personalized greeting 

was used for all students.) Because analysis would be conducted separately for males and females, at each 

school random assignments were made to balance the number of students of each sex receiving each 

experimental condition. As shown in the table, the experiment was powered to detect small differences in 

both participation (3.03% or less) and victimization (2.18% or less) rates (Table 40).

Following data collection, tests were conducted to determine whether or not observed differences 

in survey participation rates and sexual assault victimization rates were statistically significant. In addition, 

logistic regression models were fit to assess differences in rates controlling for demographic characteristics 

of students and to assess differences across schools. All estimates took into account the stratified random 

sampling design and were calculated using unweighted data. Tests were conducted using unweighted 

data because these experiments were testing differences among respondents rather than trying to make 

inference about the entire student population. The sections below contain detailed results of these analyses 

for the greeting and incentive experiments, respectively.

Table 40. Minimum detectable differences in participation and sexual assault rates 

for the greeting experiment, by sex 

Females Males

N

Minimum Detectable 

Difference N

Minimum Detectable 

Difference

Participation Rates 11,823 2.54 % 8,479 3.03 %

Sexual Assault Rates 6,971 2.18 3,828 1.50

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Detectable difference calculations assume a two-sided Pearson’s chi-squared test with alpha = 0.05 and 

80% power. Observed sample sizes, participation rates, and victimization rates were used in the calculations, 

and detectable differences shown are in the direction of the observed difference.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

175

10.1.2 Results of Bivariate Analysis

The personalized greeting led to significantly higher survey participation rates for both males and 

females (Table 41). For both sexes, survey participation rates were about 3.5 percentage points higher for 

students who were randomized to receive the personalized greeting than the generic greeting. As expected, 

victimization rates were significantly, though only slightly, lower for females who received the personalized 

greeting, but there was no significant difference for males.

Table 41. Comparison of participation and sexual assault rates, by greeting 

assignment and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Generica Personalized

Number Percent SE Number Percent SE

Participation

Males 1,819 43.3 % 0.3 % 2,009 46.9 %* 0.3 %

Females 3,382 57.2 0.1 3,589 60.7 * 0.1

Victimization

Males 65 3.6 0.1 68 3.4 0.1

Females 443 13.1 0.1 441 12.3 * 0.1

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: SE = standard error.

aReference group.

* Personalized rate is significantly different than generic rate at the alpha = 0.05 level.

10.1.3 Results of Model-Based Analysis

To ensure that these differences were due to the experimental treatments rather than differences 

in the populations, two logistic regression models were fit for each sex: a participation model and a 

victimization model that controlled for the school and other student characteristics.

Participation Model

In the participation model, the odds of participating in the CCSVS Pilot Test for both the generic 

and the personalized conditions were assessed, controlling for the students’ age, whether they were full 

time or part time, whether they resided on or off campus, and which school they attended.

65 In addition, 

the school-by-greeting interaction was included to allow for different results across schools.

65Characteristics controlled for in the model were those that were obtained on the rosters for all schools participating in the 

greeting experiment.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

176

The overall (pooled) estimates for both males and females are well above the horizontal line 

designating an odds ratio of one, as the odds that students who received the personalized greeting would 

participate were 1.18 times higher (95 percent confidence intervals (CI) of 1.14 to 1.22 for males and 1.16 

to 1.20 for females) than those who received the generic greeting, when controlling for the demographic 

characteristics of the students (Figure 50). Although the odds ratios varied by school, the personalized 

greeting produced higher participation rates at all schools except for one, where the trend was reversed for 

females (School A). For males, the largest increase in participation rates due to the personalized greeting 

was at School B with an odds ratio of 1.25 (95 percent CI of 1.25 to 1.25), and the smallest increase was 

at School A with an odds ratio of 1.14 (95 percent CI of 1.02 to 1.27). For females, the largest increase 

in participation rates was at School C with an odds ratio of 1.33 (95 percent CI of 1.33 to 1.34), and the 

largest decrease was at School B with an odds ratio of 0.98 (95 percent CI of 0.96 to 1.00). Although 

most of the confidence intervals for males are overlapping, some differences can be detected between 

schools (e.g., Schools B and C). For females, almost all school-level effects are significantly different (e.g., 

Schools A–D are all significantly different). The odds ratios and upper and lower bounds for the greeting 

experiment are shown in Appendix J-1 and J-2.

Figure 50. Adjusted odds ratio of survey participation for the greeting experiment (generic vs. personalized), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Generic greeting is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is 

implied.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

177

Victimization Model

For the victimization model, the odds of indicating a sexual assault victimization for both the 

generic and the personalized conditions were assessed, controlling for each student’s year of study, race/

ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, full- or part-time status, whether she/he resided on or off 

campus, and school attended. The interaction of school and type of greeting was also included to allow for 

different results across schools. The generic greeting was the reference group, and the odds of experiencing 

sexual assault for the personalized greeting relative to the generic greeting are shown. Odds ratios of more 

than one indicate that more students self-identified as experiencing sexual assault in the personalized 

condition, whereas odds ratios of less than one indicate that more students self-identified as experiencing 

sexual assault in the generic greeting.

The overall (pooled) estimates are right at one (0.97 for males with a 95 percent CI of 0.72 to 1.32 

and 1.00 for females with a 95 percent CI of 0.90 to 1.11), indicating no significant difference in sexual 

assault victimization between the two conditions when controlling for student characteristics (Figure 51).

Thus, there was no significant difference in terms of experiencing sexual assault for the two experimental 

groups when taking into account student characteristics at the overall level. Although the statistical 

testing presented in Table 41 found a significant difference between the sexual assault victimization rates 

for females in the generic and personalized conditions, this difference was not significant in a modeling 

context when controlling for student characteristics.

Although estimated odds ratios across schools ranged from 0.75 to 1.70 for males, all confidence 

bounds overlap and no differences in the school-level effects of the greeting experiment on sexual assault 

victimization rates can be detected. For females, odds ratios ranged from 0.83 at Schools A and C (both 95 

percent CIs of 0.70 to 0.99) to 1.45 at School B (95 percent CI of 0.84 to 2.50) for females. The only schools 

with non-overlapping confidence intervals for females are Schools A and C vs. D (School D has an odds 

ratio of 1.25 with 95 percent CIs of 1.01 to 1.56), so some school-level differences are detected.

Because the personalized email greetings led to significantly higher survey participation rates and 

no substantive differences in victimization rates when taking into account the characteristics of students, 

one methodological lesson for future studies similar in scope is that the use of a personalized greeting 

when recruiting students to participate in the survey is preferable over a generic greeting.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

178

Figure 51. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for the greeting experiment (generic vs. personalized), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Generic greeting is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is 

implied.

10.2 Incentive Experiment

10.2.1 Methodology

The incentive experiment was implemented to determine the impact of various incentive 

amounts on response rates and sexual assault victimization rates. Although larger incentives have been 

found to lead to higher response rates, the returns are diminishing (Cantor, O’Hare, & O’Connor, 2008).

Additionally, the impact of a particular incentive amount depends on characteristics of the survey 

and sample, so an incentive amount that is effective for one survey may not be equally effective for 

another survey.

The experiment aimed to determine the optimal dollar amount for increasing response rates while 

balancing the costs of survey administration, which led to the decision to test three amounts: $10, $25, 

and $40. These amounts are similar to those used successfully in other federally funded surveys of college 

students, such as the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (Wine et al., 2011) and the 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

179

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (Wine et al., 2013). Students at two schools were randomized 

to receive either a $10 or $25 gift card, and students at two other schools were randomized to receive either 

a $25 or $40 gift card. At the five remaining schools, students were offered a $25 gift card as incentive for 

completing the survey.

66

Both experiments were powered to detect small differences in participation (3.65% or less) and 

victimization (2.64% or less) rates (Table 42).

Table 42. Minimum detectable differences in survey participation and sexual assault 

rates for the incentive experiment

Females Males

N

Minimum Detectable 

Difference N

Minimum Detectable 

Difference

Participation Rates

$25 vs. $10 9,898 2.80 % 7,277 3.04 %

$25 vs. $40 7,118 3.32 5,535 3.65

Victimization Rates

$25 vs. $10 4,395 2.41 2,176 1.71

$25 vs. $40 3,623 2.64 2,030 1.79

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Detectable difference calculations assume a two-sided Pearson’s chi-squared test with alpha=0.05 and 

80% power. Observed sample sizes, participation rates, and victimization rates were used in the calculations, 

and detectable differences shown are in the direction of the observed difference.

10.2.2 Results of Bivariate Analysis

The $25 incentive led to significantly higher survey participation rates than the $10 incentive 

for both males and females (Table 43). For both sexes, participation rates were more than 5 percentage 

points higher for students who were randomized to the $25 incentive than the $10 incentive condition. For 

females, victimization rates were significantly higher for students who received the $10 incentive (observed 

difference of 1.7 percentage points), whereas no significant differences were found for males.

66As described earlier, study contact materials informed sample members that if they completed the survey, they would be able 

to choose among nine online and in-store gift card options as a token of appreciation. The nine gift cards they could choose from 

were Amazon.com, Chili’s, CVS, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts, Panera Bread, Staples, Starbucks, and Walmart. Gift cards were 

sent to respondents electronically within two business days of completing the survey.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

180

Table 43. Comparison of participation and sexual assault rates, by incentive amount 

($25 vs $10), 2014–2015 academic year

$25a $10

Number Percent SE Number Percent SE

Participation

Males 1,186 32.6 % 0.4 % 990 27.2 %* 0.3 %

Females 2,325 47.0 0.3 2,070 41.8 * 0.3

Victimization

Males 34 2.9 0.3 25 2.5 0.2

Females 179 7.7 0.3 195 9.4 * 0.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: SE = standard error.

aReference group.

* Rate for $10 incentive is significantly different from rate for $25 incentive at the alpha=0.05 level.

When evaluating the effects of the $40 incentive vs. the $25 incentive, there were no statistically 

significant differences in survey participation rates for males or females when pooling across the two 

schools (see Table 44). For females, sexual assault victimization prevalence rates were significantly higher 

for students who received the $40 incentive than for those who received the $25 incentive, whereas no 

significant differences were found for males.

Table 44. Comparison of survey participation and sexual assault rates, by incentive 

amount ($25 vs $40), 2014–2015 academic year

$25a $40

Number Percent SE Number Percent SE

Participation

Males 991 36.0 % 0.7 % 1,039 37.3 % 0.7 %

Females 1,769 50.3 0.6 1,854 51.5 0.6

Victimization

Males 30 3.0 0.4 27 2.6 0.3

Females 133 7.5 0.4 163 8.8 * 0.5

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: SE = standard error.

aReference group.

* Rate for $40 incentive is significantly different from rate for $25 incentive at the alpha=0.05 level.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

181

10.2.3 Results of Model-Based Analysis

As with the greeting experiment, two logistic regression models were fit for each sex for each 

incentive experiment to determine if controlling for student characteristics altered the bivariate findings: a 

participation model and a victimization model.

Participation Models

In the participation models, the odds of participating in the survey were assessed for both 

incentive conditions. Due to differences in student characteristics provided by schools on their rosters, 

different control variables were used in each model. For the $25 vs. $10 experiment, odds ratios were 

adjusted based on each student’s age, year of study, full- or part-time status, race/ethnicity, and school 

attended. For the $25 vs. $40 experiment, odds ratios were adjusted based on each student’s age, year of 

study, and school attended. The school-by-incentive amount interaction was included in all models to 

allow for different results between the incentive experiment schools.

Adjusted odds ratios of survey participation for the $25 vs. $10 and $25 vs. $40 experiments, 

respectively, by school67 and sex were generated (Figure 52 and Figure 53). In both figures, the $25 

incentive is the reference group and the odds of participating in the CCSVS Pilot Test for the $10 or 

$40 incentive group relative to the $25 incentive group are shown. Thus, odds ratios of more than one 

(horizontal line) indicate that the alternative incentive amount ($10 or $40) resulted in a higher likelihood 

of survey participation, whereas odds ratios of less than one indicate that the $25 incentive resulted in a 

higher likelihood of survey participation.

The overall (pooled) estimates for both males and females are well below the line, as the odds that 

students who received the $10 incentive would participate were about 0.8 times (odds ratio of 0.77 with a 

95 percent CI of 0.74 to 0.81 for males and 0.81 with a 95 percent CI of 0.78 to 0.84 for females) those who 

received the $25 incentive when controlling for student characteristics (Figure 52). For males, the odds 

ratios for School A and School B were not significantly different. For females, the odds ratios for School 

A and School B were significantly different, but the effects were relatively small and in the same direction 

(odds ratio of 0.86 with a 95 percent CI of 0.86 to 0.87 for females at School A and 0.76 with a 95 percent 

CI of 0.71 to 0.81 for females at School B).

67 The two schools in each figure are denoted by School A and School B, but these represent different schools in each figure and no 

mapping to Schools 1-9 is implied for these four schools.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

182

Figure 52. Adjusted odds ratio of survey participation for Incentive Experiment 1 ($25 

vs. $10), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: $25 incentive is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is implied.

The overall (pooled) odds ratios for Incentive Experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40) are slightly more than 

one (odds ratios of 1.06 for males and 1.05 for females), but the 95 percent confidence bands include 

one (95 percent CI of 0.98 to 1.15 for males and 0.98 to 1.11 for females) (Figure 53). Thus, the odds 

of participation in the survey for the two incentive amounts are the same when controlling for student 

characteristics. However, when examining the odds ratios at the school level, it is evident that opposite 

trends were observed for females. At School A, significantly higher survey participation rates were 

observed for the $40 incentive group (odds ratio of 1.15 with 95 percent CI of 1.04 to 1.28), whereas at 

school B significantly higher participation rates were observed for the $25 incentive group (odds ratio 

of 0.92 with 95 percent CI of 0.87 to 0.98). Because the effects were in opposite directions, the pooled 

effects cancelled out, leading to no detectable differences in the impact of different incentive amounts on 

survey participation.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

183

Figure 53. Adjusted odds ratio of participation for Incentive Experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40), 

by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: $25 incentive is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is implied.

Victimization Models

For the victimization models, the odds of experiencing sexual assault for the different incentive 

amounts were assessed, controlling for characteristics of the students. For Experiment 1 ($25 vs. $10), the 

models controlled for each student’s year of study, race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, 

full- or part-time status, and school attended. For Experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40), the models controlled for 

each student’s year of study, race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and school attended.

The school-by-greeting interaction was also included to allow for different results between schools. As 

with the participation graphic, the $25 incentive is the reference group and the odds of identifying as 

experiencing sexual assault for the alternative incentives ($10 or $40) relative to the $25 incentive are 

shown. Odds ratios of more than one indicate that more students indicated that they experienced sexual 

assault in the alternative incentive group, whereas odds ratios of less than one indicate that more students 

identified as experiencing sexual assault with the $25 incentive group.

For males, the adjusted odds ratio overall and for both schools in Incentive Experiment 1 are 

very close to one, and the 95 percent confidence intervals include one. The odds ratios were 0.93 (95 

percent CI of 0.57 to 1.50), 1.33 (95 percent CI of 0.69 to 2.55), and 0.66 (95 percent CI of 0.33 to 1.33) 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

184

for overall, School A, and School B, respectively (see Figure 54). This indicates no significant difference 

in sexual assault victimization rates between the $25 and $10 conditions when controlling for student 

characteristics. However, for females the overall and school-level estimates are more than one, indicating 

that students in the $10 incentive group were more likely to identify as experiencing sexual assault than 

students in the $25 incentive group. The odds ratios were 1.26 (95 percent CI of 1.05 to 1.50), 1.20 (95 

percent CI of 0.91 to 1.57), and 1.31 (95 percent CI of 1.05 to 1.65) for overall, School A, and School B, 

respectively.

Figure 54. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for Incentive Experiment 1 ($25 

vs. $10), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: $25 incentive is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is implied.

For the second incentive experiment ($25 vs. $40), there are no detectable differences in the sexual 

assault victimization rates for males when controlling for characteristics of the students (see Figure 55).

The odds ratios were 0.87 (95 percent CI of 0.53 to 1.43), 0.76 (95 percent CI of 0.35 to 1.66), and 1.00 (95 

percent CI of 0.54 to 1.84) for overall, School A, and School B, respectively. For females, after controlling 

for student characteristics, the overall effect is no longer significant (odds ratio of 1.15 with 95 percent CI 

of 0.94 to 1.41), but it is still significant for one of the schools. For School A, sexual assault victimization 

rates are higher in the $40 group than the $25 group (odds ratio of 1.47 with a 95 percent CI of 1.08 to 

2.00). All odds ratios and upper and lower bounds for the incentive experiments are shown in Appendix 

J-3 through 6.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

185

Figure 55. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault rates for Incentive Experiment 2 ($25 

vs. $40), by sex and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: $25 incentive is the reference group; no mapping between school numbers and school letters is implied.

Overall, the incentive experiments showed that survey participation rates are significantly higher 

for both males and females when a $25 incentive is offered rather than a $10 incentive. When comparing a 

$25 and a $40 incentive, the results are less clear. For males, no significant differences were found in survey 

participation rates. However, for females, participation rates were significantly different, but the direction 

of the effect differed between the two schools in the experiment.

Not only does the incentive amount affect the rate of survey participation, but it also appears 

to affect the composition of the sample regarding the key survey outcome (sexual assault victimization 

prevalence). For females, the $10 incentive group had a higher prevalence of sexual assault than the 

$25 group, even when controlling for student characteristics in a modeling context. This provides some 

evidence that sexual assault victims may have been more likely to participate in the CCSVS Pilot Test even 

when a lower incentive amount was offered, and that the higher incentive amount brought in more nonvictims. Again, the results of the $25 vs. $40 experiment were less clear. Although the overall difference 

in sexual assault victimization prevalence rates for females was no longer significant when controlling for 

student characteristics in a modeling context, there was a significant difference at one school, with students 

who received the $40 incentive having a significantly higher rate of sexual assault victimization than 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

186

students who received the $25 incentive. It is unclear why the higher incentive amount, at least in some 

schools, would lead to lower survey participation, or be more likely to attract sampled members who were 

victims of sexual assault.

The selection of the appropriate incentive amount for future studies similar in scope must consider 

the impact on both survey participation rates and sexual assault victimization rates. It is clear that the $25 

incentive provides survey participation gains over the $10 incentive, and likely results in a significantly 

larger and more representative sample. It is less clear, however, whether moving to a $40 incentive offers 

any advantage. Thus, it is recommended that incentives be in the $20 to $30 range for future studies of 

this kind.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

187

11. Summary and Conclusions

Based on the experiences of the CCSVS Pilot Test, the methodology and survey instrument that 

were used appear to be effective at efficiently collecting valid school-level data on campus climate and 

sexual victimization. Each of the major goals of the CCSVS Pilot Test was achieved.

In the development of the survey instrument (Goal 1), the CCSVS Pilot Test used a collection 

of techniques including a web-based platform, behaviorally specific language, and incident collection 

forms to efficiently and confidentially collect valid data from undergraduate students about their sexual 

victimization experiences and perceptions of campus climate related to sexual harassment and sexual 

assault. Refined based on an extensive cognitive testing process, the final survey instrument that was 

fielded used behaviorally specific screener questions to identify sexual assault victims and employed 

detailed incident-level follow-up questions to capture information about up to three individual sexual 

assault incidents.

The data collection methodology yielded relatively high response rates and high quality data 

(Goal 2). Surveys were completed by more than 23,000 undergraduate students (approximately 15,000 

females and 8,000 males). The average response rate across all nine schools was 54% for females and 40% 

for males. For females, the expected response rate of 40% was exceeded in all schools. For males, expected 

response rates (35%) were achieved or exceeded in five of the nine schools. Nonresponse bias analyses 

were conducted at the school level using detailed student roster data provided by the schools. Minimal 

bias was detected (i.e., differences in characteristics of respondents and the population of eligible students) 

and survey data were adjusted or weighted to compensate accordingly. The survey data were thoroughly 

reviewed for quality and completeness. Only about 2% of respondents started but did not finish the survey, 

and the level of missing data (i.e., the proportion of survey items not answered by survey respondents) 

was also relatively low for most items. In addition, the CCSVS used representative samples of students 

at eight of the nine schools to obtain female prevalence estimates of sexual assault within the desired 

level of precision (Goal 2). In other words, the precision for the prevalence estimates for sexual assault 

experienced during the 2014–2015 academic year exceeded the design goal of a 9% RSE at all schools 

except one. The better than expected RSE was due to (1) a larger than expected number of respondents 

due to higher response rates than assumed in the design and (2) a higher prevalence rate of sexual assault 

at most schools compared to the prevalence rate assumed for design purposes. For small schools, however, 

it may be necessary to field a census to get enough completed surveys to achieve reasonable levels of 

precision for key estimates.

The CCSVS also implemented a methodology in a standardized manner that allows for 

cross-school comparisons and produces results in which schools have confidence (Goal 3). The 

standardized methodology implemented in the CCSVS Pilot Test allowed prevalence and incident rates 

for key outcomes to be compared across schools. The school-level estimates presented in this report are 

comparable because the same sampling, instrument, data collection, and estimation procedures were used 

at each school. Numerous methodological assessments were conducted in an effort to assess the quality 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

188

and validity of the data collected for the CCSVS Pilot Test; based on the results of the latent class analysis 

assessment, the primary victimization estimates appeared to be valid (i.e., did not appear to be impacted 

by false-positive or false-negative bias).

The CCSVS Pilot Test produced data that can potentially be used to inform decisions related to 

the ongoing NCVS redesign effort. Specifically, by analyzing data collected from NCVS respondents who 

are similar demographically to the CCSVS Pilot Test respondents (e.g., college students who are mostly 18 

to 24 years of age), differences between sexual victimization rates can be attributed, at least in part, to the 

different approaches used to measuring rape and sexual assault. The adoption of various data collection 

techniques showcased in the CCSVS project can lead to more reliable and valid estimates of rape and 

sexual assault for the nation.

11.1 What Worked

Several factors are at least partially responsible for the success of the CCSVS Pilot Test in 

meeting its stated goals. First, the use of survey incentives likely contributed to the high response rates 

and minimal nonresponse bias among the sample. Incentives are typically the single biggest factor that 

influence the cost of administering a climate survey and it is critical to maximize cost-effectiveness such 

that the money spent on research and data collection ensures high response rates among the students 

who are invited to participate, minimizing nonresponse bias to the extent possible and allowing for 

adequate statistical precision. It is important for schools and future researchers to understand the interplay 

between a monetary incentive at different levels and how reliable data can be collected at relatively low 

cost, particularly when a representative sample of students is selected for participation (rather than 

inviting the entire student population to participate). Based on the results of the experiment conducted 

in four of the CCSVS Pilot Test schools, a $25 incentive provides survey participation gains over a $10 

incentive and likely results in a significantly larger and more representative sample. It is less clear, however, 

whether moving to a $40 incentive offers any advantage. Thus, $20-$30 appears to be an ideal range for 

maximizing participation.

Second, the fact that the survey was short, easy to take on a range of devices, and appeared 

to be acceptable from a content perspective likely made participation acceptable to students who were 

selected to participate. Across the nine schools, the average survey length was 16 minutes for females 

and 15 minutes for males. Although the survey took longer for sexual assault victims to complete (about 

8 minutes longer for female victims and 5 minutes longer for male victims, compared to non-victims) 

because of the detailed incident-level follow-up questions that were asked, the study team attempted to 

streamline this question series and make the follow-up loop as simple as possible (e.g., a display tool68 was 

used for students who had experienced multiple victimizations, simple grids were used for questions of 

68The display tool was a header that appeared on each web page during the incident-level follow-up questions. It listed the number 

of incidents about which victims would be asked (up to 3), and the month and date of each. As students completed the loop for 

one incident, that incident appeared in bold in the header.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

189

a similar type, and skip/fill patterns further simplified and tailored the follow-up questions). The survey 

used a question structure and onscreen design features that appeared to be clear and readily intuitive to 

respondents. The extensive cognitive testing of the draft survey undoubtedly helped improve the content 

of the survey, such that it used terminology that was clear, understandable, and conveyed the intended 

meaning of questions to a wide variety of college students. Many students (about 30%) took advantage 

of the survey being accessible on handheld devices, and very few students started but did not finish the 

survey. This suggests that the survey length and accessibility were generally acceptable to students in the 

participating schools, relative to the incentive amount they were offered. Although data were not collected 

on students’ reactions to the content of the survey, the survey also appears to have been acceptable from 

a content perspective. No participants who emailed the CCSVS Pilot Test team (an email address was 

provided in all recruitment materials) or who provided open-ended responses in the survey (as described 

previously, the survey included a few places for students to write in open-ended responses) indicated that 

the survey content was upsetting or objectionable. In addition, during the in-person cognitive interviews, 

no participants indicated that the survey was upsetting to them. Approximately 15% of CCSVS Pilot Test 

respondents who took the survey viewed the information made available on school-specific, local, and 

national resources related to sexual violence, but it cannot be determined whether the survey directly 

caused distress for these (or other) respondents.

Third, the timing of the survey administration, fairly lengthy field period, and use of multiple 

follow-up reminders to nonrespondents likely helped increase participation and reduced the likelihood 

of bias. In most schools, the survey was fielded shortly after spring break and was kept open until right 

before final exam week, which was a 57-day field period, on average. This timing minimized students’ 

competing demands during spring break and finals. In addition, it allowed time for repeated follow-up 

reminders with nonrespondents (up to five reminders were sent), which appeared to be effective given that 

bumps in response rates were observed each time a follow-up was sent. As discussed in the report, the field 

period simulations that were conducted for the CCSVS Pilot Test indicate that a shorter field period (e.g., 

28 days) can be used to achieve adequate precision for school-level prevalence estimates of sexual assault 

victimization (provided that the overall study design, including incentives and recruitment procedures, 

achieves the targeted sample sizes within this period and that no nonresponse bias exists with the shorter 

field period). However, keeping the survey open for 57 days helps with the precision of subgroup estimates 

(e.g., victimization by year of study, sexual orientation) because more completed interviews can be 

obtained. Another advantage of the 57-day field period was that it allowed the study team to incorporate 

a “hold sample” into the design to account for uncertainty in the response rate and minimize the number 

of students sampled. Response rates were monitored daily and the pre-selected hold samples for males and 

females were only released if response rates were below a certain threshold after 2 weeks of data collection.

This strategy helped ensure that sample size targets were met.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

190

11.2 Potential Modifications to Consider

The results of the CCSVS Pilot Test also identify several aspects of the data collection methodology 

and survey instrument that could be improved.

11.2.1 Data Collection Methodology

First, given that participation in the study was much lower for men than women, future studies 

should consider tailoring recruitment materials for men. Although the CCSVS Pilot Test survey was 

marketed with the general term “College Experiences Survey,” it was necessary to list the topics to be 

covered in the survey on the informed consent screens and it is possible that some men did not feel that 

a survey about experiences with unwanted sexual contact was relevant to them. The inclusion of specific 

statements in recruitment materials about why it is important that men, in particular, take the survey is a 

strategy that should be considered by future studies.

Second, to facilitate the nonresponse bias analysis, it is recommended that as many auxiliary 

variables as possible be used in the nonresponse bias analyses conducted at the school level to assess 

the potential for bias. The CCSVS Pilot Test requested an extensive list of data elements on the student 

population from all participating schools for this purpose and included all variables that were provided 

by the participating schools in the nonresponse bias analysis. However, the data elements were limited in 

a few schools, which reduced the rigor of the nonresponse bias analysis in those schools. Even though the 

weighting did not significantly alter the estimates for the nine schools in the CCSVS Pilot Test, obtaining 

and adjusting for as many student characteristics as possible may further reduce the potential for bias for 

future studies similar in scope. More research can be done to understand which characteristics are most 

strongly associated with key estimates. Researchers can then prioritize the collection of these variables in 

future studies in an effort to minimize nonresponse bias and respondent burden.

Finally, based on the results of the greeting experiment conducted in five of the CCSVS Pilot Test 

Schools, future climate surveys similar in scope should use a personalized, as opposed to generic, 

greeting when recruiting students to participate in the survey. The personalized email greetings led to 

significantly higher survey participation rates and no substantive differences in victimization rates when 

taking into account the characteristics of participating students.

11.2.2 Survey Instrument

Although the CCSVS Pilot Test instrument appeared to work well and seemingly produced high 

quality, valid data, the study team’s detailed review of survey responses suggests that several improvements 

to the survey instrument could be made. Many of these improvements pertain to the incident-specific 

follow-up questions that were asked of sexual assault victims. First, it is clear that the number of sexual 

assault incidents about which detailed follow-up questions can credibly be asked—and the number 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

191

of questions in each follow-up loop—should be limited. The survey items that were most often not 

answered by students were in the sexual assault incident follow-up question series for the second and third 

incidents, which indicates respondent fatigue

In addition, further survey development work may be needed to accurately document the 

victims’ perspectives on the tactic that was used by the offender to execute a particular incident of sexual 

assault. When presented with the close-ended response options for type of tactic in the CCSVS Pilot Test, 

a number of victims did not endorse any of the tactics. When reviewing the open-ended responses these 

victims provided (Survey Item ILF3), it was evident that some assaults appeared to have occurred due to 

physical force on the part of the offender, such as not stopping with the unwanted sexual contact when the 

victim told them to or that the victim could not stop the offender from achieving unwanted sexual contact, 

yet these victims did not endorse the response option that was intended to represent such incidents. It is 

possible that the language used in the CCSVS Pilot Test instrument (“someone uses force against you, such 

as holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you”) may have 

been too strong or raised the bar too high. Therefore, refinement of the wording of this response option 

may be needed (e.g., “you could not stop them or get them to stop, or they used force against you, such as 

holding you down with their body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you”). In addition, the 

review of open-ended responses pertaining to the tactic used to achieve the sexual assault also suggested 

that some respondents may have reported incidents involving coerced sexual contact or sexual harassment 

as unwanted/nonconsensual sexual assault, even though (1) coerced sexual contact and sexual harassment 

were covered earlier in the survey in an attempt to avoid this and (2) extensive definitions of unwanted/

nonconsensual sexual contact were provided. Therefore, another approach to consider is to add specific 

language when defining unwanted/nonconsensual sexual contact that asks respondents not to count 

experiences with coerced sexual contact or sexual harassment.

Similar to the issue with lack of reporting the tactic used during the incident, not all victims 

indicated the type of unwanted sexual contact that took place during the incident. This particular item 

was critically important in the CCSVS because it was used to classify a sexual assault incident as rape and/

or sexual battery. Therefore, edit checks could be added to the instrument to encourage respondents to 

enter a type of unwanted sexual contact for each victimization incident. Some victims, particularly those 

who were incapacitated during the incident, may not be certain about the type of sexual contact that 

occurred. This consideration is what led to the inclusion of “unsure” as a response option in the CCSVS 

Pilot Test instrument. However, if a victim answers “unsure” or “no” for each type of sexual contact (or 

leaves the entire question blank), it may be helpful to build in an edit check to confirm that the victim 

cannot provide additional information.

Another modification that should be considered is the refinement of the questions used to 

document the reasons that victims did not report incidents to officials. The CCSVS instrument asked 

about six reasons for not reporting, with the most commonly-endorsed reason being “You did not need 

assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not want any action taken.” 

With hindsight, separating “did not think the incident was serious enough to report” from the other two 
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

192

response options would likely result in a better understanding of the various reasons that many sexual 

assault victims do not report their experiences to officials. Because there was very little variation in the 

reasons that victims did not report to the various types of officials (e.g., the reasons for not reporting 

to campus police were the same as the reasons for not reporting to school administrators) among the 

CCSVS Pilot Test Schools, the set of questions could be streamlined by covering reasons for not reporting 

overall—but using finer categories for the reasons—rather than attempting to document reasons for each 

specific type of official.

As described in Section 5.4.4, the assessment of potential telescoping indicated that some 

students, particularly seniors, may have included some incidents of sexual assault within the primary 

reference period (since the beginning of the 2014–2015 academic year) even though the incident 

actually happened outside of the reference period. This suggests that it might be a good idea to include 

months as response options that are outside of the reference period, in the item that asks victims when 

an incident happened, to better detect telescoping. This would allow respondents who want to report an 

incident a chance to respond accurately, but enable the researchers to potentially detect telescoping (and 

facilitate the exclusion of any out-of-range cases).

In addition, the use of the open-ended item asking victims whether they want to provide any 

other information about the incident should be carefully evaluated, given the tradeoff between survey 

length and data quality. Very few victims took the opportunity to provide additional information, with 

item missingness ranging from 85 to 90%. On the one hand, including qualitative opportunities like this 

can inform researchers’ understanding of sexual victimization incidents, enable improvements to the 

classification of incidents, and provide a richness and a context to the data that are sometimes missing 

when only quantitative data are captured. However, if very few students take the time to respond to this 

(fairly burdensome) question, the resulting data will not be representative. The tradeoff is particularly 

important given the labor-intensive and complex nature of reviewing and coding open-ended responses.

Finally, based on the sexual assault perpetration estimates generated from the CCSVS Pilot Test, 

further survey development work is needed for measuring perpetration. The efforts of the CCSVS 

Pilot Test to measure self-reported sexual assault perpetration do not appear to have been successful.

The very low prevalence estimates for perpetration (relative to the victimization estimates) and the fact 

that estimates were comparable for males and females (both in terms of reporting any perpetration and 

the specific tactics and number of incidents of perpetration endorsed) raise serious doubts about the 

validity of the perpetration data that were collected for the CCSVS Pilot Test. Although useful data about 

perpetrators was captured directly from victims in the incident-specific follow-up questions, estimates of 

the percent of students who perpetrated sexual assault during the reference period were of limited utility.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

193

References

Berzofsky, M. E., Biemer, P. P., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (2014). Local dependence in latent class 

analysis of rare and sensitive events. Sociological Methods and Research, 43(1), 137-170.

doi:10.1177/0049124113506407

Biemer, P. P. (2011). Latent Class Analysis of Survey Error. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Biner, P. M., & Kidd, H. J. (1994). The interactive effects of monetary incentive justification and 

questionnaire length on mail survey response rates. Psychology and Marketing, 11, 483-492.

Callegaro, M., Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2015). Web Survey Methodology. London: Sage.

Cantor, D., O’Hare, B., & O’Connor, K. (2008). The use of monetary incentives to reduce non-response in 

random digit dial telephone surveys. In Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology, eds. James M.

Lepkowski, Clyde Tucker, J. Michael Brick, Edith de Leeuw, Lilli Japec, Paul J. Lavrakas, Michael 

W. Link, and Roberta L. Sangster, 471-98. New York: Wiley.

Cape, P. (2010). Questionnaire length, fatigue effects and response quality revisited. Retrieved from http://

www.surveysampling.com/ssi-media/Corporate/white_papers/SSI_QuestionLength_WP.image

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based 

surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.

Couper, M. P. (2008). Designing Effective Web Surveys. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The 

Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, S. L., Berzofsky, M. E., & Biemer, P. P. (in press). Addressing nonresponse for categorical data 

items in complex surveys using full information maximum likelihood. In Proceedings of the Joint 

Statistical Meetings, Survey Research Methods Section. Seattle, WA.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. (NCJ Doc.

No. 182369). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

194

Galesic, M. (2006). Dropouts on the web: Effects of interest and burden experienced during an online 

survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 22(2), 313-328.

Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of 

response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349-360.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009, July).

Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2-31.

Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. D. (2000). A leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: 

Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299-308.

Hamby, S. (2014). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence:

A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1037/a0038207

Heerwegh, D. (2005). Effects of personal salutations in e-mail invitations to participate in a web survey.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(4), 588-598.

Heerwegh, D. & Loosveldt, G. (2006). Personalizing e-mail contacts: Its influence on web survey response 

rate and social desirability response bias. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 

258-268.

Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Matthijs, K, & Loosveldt, G. (2005). The effect of personalization on response 

rates and data quality in web surveys. Int. J. Social Research Methodology, 8(2), 85-99.

Hill, C., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the Line: Sexual Harassment at School. Washington, DC: American 

Association of University Women.

Joinson, A. N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U. (2004). Personalization, authentication, and self-disclosure in selfadministered Internet surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2007), 275-285.

Kish L. (1992). Weighting for unequal Pi. Journal of Official Statistics, 8(2), 183-200.
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

195

Koss, M. P. Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J.

(2006a). The Sexual Experiences Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV). Tucson, AZ: University 

of Arizona.

Koss, M. P. Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J.

(2006b). The Sexual Experiences Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP). Tucson, AZ: University 

of Arizona.

Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S; Norris, J., Testa, C., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J.

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and 

victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) 

Study (NCJ Doc. No. 221153). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009). College women’s experiences 

with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before 

and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639-649.

Krebs, C. P., Barrick, K., Lindquist, C. H., Crosby, C., Boyd, C., & Bogan, Y. (2011). The sexual assault 

of undergraduate women at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3640–3666.

Macer, T. & Wilson, S. (2014). The Confirmit Annual Market Research Software Survey, 2013. United 

Kingdom: Meaning Ltd.

McMahon, L. & Stamp, R. (2009). Questionnaire intelligence: New rules of engagement for online survey 

design. Presented at the Worldwide Readership Research Symposia, Valencia, and Spain.

Truman, J. L., & Langton, L. (2014). Criminal Victimization, 2013 (NCJ 247648). Washington, DC: Bureau 

of Justice Statistics.

Wine, J., Bryan, M., Siegel, P., & Hunt-White, T. (2013). 2011-12 National postsecondary student aid study 

(NPSAS:12): Data file documentation. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014182.pdf

Wine, J., Janson, N., Wheeless, S., & Hunt-White, T. (2011). 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09): Full-Scale Methodology Report. http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2012/2012246.pdf
Appendix A: Cognitive Interview Materials
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

A-1. Instrument Tested Using Crowdsourced Cognitive Interviewing 

Section 1. [DEMOGRAPHICS]

The survey you are about to take is not a typical survey. It is actually a survey about a survey. We will ask 

you some of our survey questions and then we will ask for your feedback on those questions. Your 

comments and recommendations will be used to improve the survey questions in the future. We will 

present the survey questions to you in black font and our questions about the questions will be in blue 

font.

This section asks you some basic demographic questions. 

D1. Please enter the month and year in which you were born using the MM/YYYY format. For

example, if you were born in December of 1990 you would need to enter 12 in the first column

and 1990 in the second column.

[MONTH] [YEAR]

[RESPONDENT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN ORDER TO PROCEED.]

D1a. [IF UNDER 18 IN D1] We are sorry, but you are not eligible to participate in the study. Please 

click "Next" below to end this session.

D2. What is your race (as you define it)? Select one or more.

o American Indian or Alaskan Native

o Asian

o Black or African American

o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

o White

D3. What is your ethnicity (as you define it)? 

o Hispanic or Latino

o Not Hispanic or Latino

Section 2. [SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMIZATION]

This section asks about times when you may have experienced unwanted sexual contact, which is sexual 

contact that you did not consent to and that you did not want to happen. Please keep in mind that both 

men and women can experience unwanted sexual contact.

A-1 
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

PROBE: In your own words, what is the meaning of “consent” in this context? 

Unwanted sexual contact often occurs when:

someone uses force against you, such as holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning

your arms, hitting or kicking you;

someone threatens to hurt you or someone close to you; or

you are unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because you are passed out,

drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep. This could happen after you voluntarily use alcohol or

drugs, or after you are given a drug without your knowledge or consent.

When answering the following questions, please consider that there are five types of unwanted sexual 

contact: 

1. forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling,

rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

2. oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or

tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

3. sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina or you being forced to put your

penis in someone’s vagina)

4. anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus)

5. sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle

or a candle in your vagina or your anus).

Also, keep in mind that the person(s) who had unwanted sexual contact with you could be someone you

knew, such as a friend, family member, or person you were dating or hanging out with. 

PROBE: What would you think about an audio option that would read these definitions to you? Would 

you use it?

P1. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “January 

15, 2015”], has anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you?

o Yes

o No

A-2
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

PROBE: Did you read the entire description of what constitutes unwanted sexual contact?

PROBE: Even if you did not look at the description of unwanted sexual contact, in your own words, what 

do you think “unwanted sexual contact” is?

P2. How many separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact have you experienced in the past 12 

months, which is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “January 15, 2015”]?

o __________ incidents [IF P2 = 0 IINCIDENTS, SKIP TO IPV1]

PROBE: Did you read or notice the definition of “incidents”?

PROBE: In your own words, how would you define an “incident” of unwanted sexual contact?

You are now going to be asked some questions about the [FILL # REPORTED IN #P2 AND “incident” IF 

#P2 = 1 OR “incidents” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] of unwanted sexual contact you experienced in the past 12 

months. The questions ask when the incidents happened, how you know the person who had unwanted 

sexual contact with you, and whether you sought services after the incident. [IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: 

“The questions refer to the incidents as incident #1, incident #2, and so on.”]

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How do you feel about referring to the different incidents by 

number, such as “incident 1, incident 2, etc.”?

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How did you decide the order you reported the incidents in? (IF 

NEEDED: How did you choose which one is incident 1, incident 2, etc.)

A-3
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How easy or difficult was it to refer to these incidents as “incident 

1, incident 2, etc. Did it ever get confusing? Please explain

ILF1. [IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: “Please think about incident #1”]. In what month did this incident of 

unwanted sexual contact occur?

INSERT DROP DOWN MENU WITH THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS:

o January, 2014

o February, 2014

o March, 2014

o April, 2014

o February, 2015

o May, 2014

o June, 2014

o July, 2014

o August, 2014

o September, 2014

o October, 2014

o November, 2014

o December, 2014

PROBE: How easy or difficult was for you to pick which month (each/the) incident happened? Please 

explain. 

PROBE: How did you remember which month the incident(s) occurred?

A-4
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

ILF2. During [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH REPORTED IN #ILF1, e.g., “February, 2014.”], which of the following types of 

unwanted sexual contact happened? Please select all types of unwanted sexual contact that 

happened during this incident.

o Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts,

grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your 

clothes)

o Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your

mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals) 

o Sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina or you being forced to

put your penis in someone’s vagina) 

o Anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus)

o Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an

object like a bottle or a candle in your vagina or anus

o Don’t Know

PROBE: In your own words, what do you think “forced touching of a sexual nature” includes?

ILF3. During [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] in [FILL THE MONTH 

REPORTED IN #3, e.g., “February, 2014”], how did the person(s) have unwanted sexual contact 

with you? Please select all that apply.

o Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about

o Used physical force against you, such as holding you down with his or her body

weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you;

o You were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were

passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep

o Don’t know

PROBE: What do you think we are referring to when we talk about unwanted sexual contact happening 

when someone is unable to provide consent?

PROBE: In your own words, what does “unable to provide consent” mean?

A-5
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

Section 3. [EXPERIENCE WITH IPV AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT]

This next question asks about things that an intimate partner may have done to you. An intimate 

partner might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, or anyone you dated or were in a relationship 

with, including exes and current partners. Please do not include times you knew they were joking 

around.

IPV1. In the past 12 months, which is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“January 15, 2014], has an intimate partner...

Yes No

a. threatened to hurt you and you thought you might really get hurt? ○ ○

b. pushed, grabbed, or shook you? ○ ○

c. hit you, kicked you, slapped you, or beat you up? ○ ○

PROBE: Do you think it is clear what this question is asking you about?

HMIT1. In the past 12 months, which is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“January 15, 2014], have you been sexually harassed? Sexual harassment includes unwelcome 

sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal conduct of a sexual nature when 

this conduct is made a condition of employment, or resistance to behavior affects employment/ 

academic decisions, or if conduct creates a hostile environment? 

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

PROBE: Did you find the definition of sexual harassment to be helpful when answering the previous 

question?

A-6
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

Section 4. [PERCEIVED TOLERANCE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AMONG THE 

CAMPUS COMMUNITY]

These next questions are about how you feel regarding your campus community.

SH1. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

At this school, it is common for students to make sexual 

comments about people on the Internet or through email, instant message, or text 

○ ○ ○ ○

At this school, it is common for students to call people 

gay or lesbian or a homophobic name (such as faggot or 

dyke)

○ ○ ○ ○

At this school, it is common for students to share sexual 

pictures, web pages, or messages

○ ○ ○ ○

 At this school, when students make sexual comments,

 jokes, or gestures , other students stand up to them

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: What do you think we mean when we ask if other students “stand up to them”?

SA1.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

A lot of unwanted sexual contact happens among 

students at this school when students are physically 

forced, threatened, or unable to provide consent 

because they are passed out, drugged, or drunk

○ ○ ○ ○

Most students at this school support campus efforts to 

prevent sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

Most students at this school feel that it is not their 

responsibility to get involved in campus efforts to 

prevent sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

Students at this school are knowledgeable about the 

topic of sexual assault, including how it is defined, how 

often it occurs, and what the legal consequences are

○ ○ ○ ○

Most students at this school would respect someone 

who did something to prevent a sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

A-7
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

At this school, it is common for students to make jokes 

about sexual assault or rape

○ ○ ○ ○

At this school, if students see someone trying to have 

unwanted sexual contact with someone who is passed 

out, they will try to stop them

○ ○ ○ ○

If someone at this school gets drunk and experiences 

unwanted sexual contact, most students assume it is

least partially the drunk person's fault

○ ○ ○ ○

If a student at this school were to report that he or she 

experienced unwanted sexual contact to university 

administrators, other students would label him/her as a 

troublemaker or someone looking for attention

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: Were you comfortable answering these questions using the response options, strongly agree, 

agree, disagree, and strongly disagree?

PROBE: Were these questions difficult for you to answer? If yes, which one(s)?

A-8
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

Section 5. [ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND METHODOLOGICAL FEEDBACK]

D4. What is your current gender identity?

o Female

o Male

o Transgender

o Something else (please specify) _________________________

PROBE: What do you think we mean when we say “gender identity”?

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering this question?

D5. Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?

o Lesbian or gay

o Straight, that is, not lesbian or gay

o Bisexual

o Something else (please specify) _________________________

PROBE: How did you feel about answering this question?

This last set of questions asks for your feedback on the survey. We are asking about the survey questions 

that we are testing, i.e., the questions in black font. These final questions are not asking about the 

questions in blue font.

MF1. Overall, what are your thoughts on this survey?

MF2. How easy or difficult do you think it would be for other students to respond to this survey?

A-9
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

MF3. How comfortable were you answering these questions in a web environment?

MF4. Other than anything you may have already told us, were there any terms or definitions you did 

not understand?

MF5. If you had the opportunity, what would you do to improve this survey?

MF6. Overall, how easy or difficult was it for you to understand the questions in the survey? 

o very easy

o pretty easy

o pretty difficult

o very difficult

MF7. Did answering any of the questions in this survey make you upset or distressed?

o Yes

o No

Please explain:

MF8. How easy or difficult was it for you to navigate through the survey, given the format, font size, and 

amount of text on the screen?

o Very easy

o Pretty easy

o Pretty difficult

o Very difficult

MF9. Did you take the survey on...

o A desktop computer

o Laptop computer

o Tablet

o Smartphone

o Other device

MF10. The plan is to administer this survey to thousands of college students around the country. The 

full-length version will take them approximately 15-20 minutes to complete and we plan to give them a 

A-10
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Materials

$10 incentive for participating. As a college student, if you got invited to complete this survey, what 

would your preference be in terms of where you could use the incentive? 

o Amazon.com (takes approx. 2 business days to receive via email)

o Walmart.com (takes approx. 2 business days to receive via email)

o Super certificates, which allows the user to select from hundreds of vendors and choose

either a gift card to be mailed to you or an e-gift card to be used online

o Cash (takes 1-2 weeks to receive via standard mail)

o Other online vendor (please specify): _________________________________________

A-11
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-12

A-2. Instrument Tested Using In-Person Cognitive Interviewing 

On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak 

with me today. I greatly appreciate it.

Purpose: The purpose of this interview is to show you a web survey with questions about your school and 

experiences as a college student. We are hoping to get your feedback and opinions on these questions.

Procedure: I am going to ask you to complete a web survey as if you were taking it at home, by yourself, 

except I want you to read the questions out loud so I can follow along. Please answer these questions to 

the best of your knowledge and know that there are no right or wrong answers. After some of the survey 

questions I may ask you follow-up questions to better understand your answer and the way you thought 

about the question. As we are going through the survey, please feel free to tell me anything that comes 

to mind or to ask me anything you are unclear about. Feel free to think aloud as you are answering 

these questions. We want your honest opinions about what you like and dislike and what you do and 

don’t understand so we can improve this survey. I also want to remind you that you do not have to 

answer any questions you do not want to and you can end the interview at any time.

Once you have completed the survey, I will ask you a few follow-up questions about your overall 

thoughts about the survey.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Section 1. [DEMOGRAPHICS]

This section asks you some basic demographic questions. 

D1. In what month and year were you born? (Please enter the month and year in which you were

born using the MM/YYYY format. For example, if you were born in December of 1990 you would

need to enter 12 in the first column and 1990 in the second column.)

[MONTH] [YEAR]

[RESPONDENT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN ORDER TO PROCEED.]

D1a. [IF UNDER 18 IN D1] We are sorry, but you are not eligible to participate in the study.

D2. What is your current student status? 

o First year student (freshman)

o Second year student (sophomore)

o Third year student (Junior)

o Fourth year student (Senior)
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-13

o Other (please describe your student status ____________________)

D3. Are you currently attending a 2-year or a 4-year school?

o 2-year

o 4-year

o Don’t Know

D4. Are you currently attending a private or a public school?

o Private

o Public

o Don’t Know

Section 2. [SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS AND GENERAL CLIMATE]

Now you are going to be asked some questions about this school.

SC1. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. I feel valued as an individual at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. I feel close to people at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

c. I feel like I am a part of this school ○ ○ ○ ○

d. I am happy to be a student at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

e. I feel safe when I am on this campus ○ ○ ○ ○

f. There is a clear sense of appropriate and inappropriate

behavior among students at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

g. Alcohol use is a big problem at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

h. This school is trying hard to protect the rights of ALL

students

○ ○ ○ ○

i. This school is trying hard to make sure that ALL

students treated equally and fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

j. This school is trying hard to make sure that ALL

students are safe

○ ○ ○ ○

You are now going to be asked about your views of three groups at this school: 1) Campus 

police/security, 2) Faculty and staff, and 3) Administrators. Please indicate how much you agree with 

each of the following statements. 
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-14

GC1. The campus police/security at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Should do more to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: How familiar are you with campus police/security at this school?

GC2. The faculty and staff at this school ...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Should do more to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering these questions about faculty and staff?

GC3. Administrators at this school... 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Should do more to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: How familiar are you with administrators at this school?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-15

Section 3. [EXPERIENCES WITH IPV AND HARASSMENT]

HMIT1. In that last 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“February 1, 2014”] has anyone done the following to you either in person or by text, e-mail, or 

social media

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes that were

unwelcome to you

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed themselves to you without your consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent you sexual pictures, photos, or videos that you

didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Spread sexual rumors about you or sexual photos/videos of you

that you didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of you when you were nude or

having sex, without your consent

○ ○

This next question asks about things that an intimate partner may have done to you. An intimate 

partner might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, or anyone you dated or were in a relationship 

with, including exes and current partners. Please do not include times you knew they were joking 

around.

IPV. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “February 

1, 2014”], has an intimate partner...

Yes No

a. threatened to hurt you and you thought you might really get hurt? ○ ○

b. pushed, grabbed, or shook you? ○ ○

c. hit you, kicked you, slapped you, or beat you up? ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-16

Section 4. [SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVALENCE AND INCIDENT-LEVEL FOLLOW-UP]

This section asks about times when you may have experienced unwanted sexual contact, which is sexual 

contact that you did not consent to and that you did not want to happen. Please keep in mind that both 

men and women can experience unwanted sexual contact.

Unwanted sexual contact often occurs when:

someone uses force against you, such as holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning

your arms, hitting or kicking you;

someone threatens to hurt you or someone close to you; or

you are unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because you are passed out,

drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep. This could happen after you voluntarily use alcohol or

drugs, or after you were given a drug without your knowledge or consent.

When answering the following questions, please consider that there are five types of unwanted sexual 

contact: 

1. forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling,

rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

2. oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or

tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

3. sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina)

4. anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus)

5. sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle

or a candle in your vagina or your anus).

Also, keep in mind that the person(s) who had unwanted sexual contact with you could have been a 

stranger or someone you know, such as a friend, family member, or person you were dating or hanging 

out with. 

PROBE: What would you think about an audio option that would read these definitions to you? Would 

you use it?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-17

P1. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013], has anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you?

o Yes

o No

PROBE: Did you read or notice the entire description of what constitutes unwanted sexual contact?

PROBE: Even if you did not look at the description, in your own words, what do you think “unwanted 

sexual contact” is?

P2. How many separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact have you experienced in the past 12 

months, which is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “September 26, 

2013]? 

__________ incidents [IF P2 = 0 IINCIDENTS, SKIP TO LCA2a]

PROBE: Did you read or notice the definition of “incidents”?

PROBE: In your own words, how would you define an “incident” of unwanted sexual contact?

You are now going to be asked some questions about the [FILL # REPORTED IN #P2 AND “incident” IF 

#P2 = 1 OR “incidents” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] of unwanted sexual contact you experienced in the past 12 

months. The questions ask when the incidents happened, how you know the person who had unwanted 

sexual contact with you, and whether you sought services after the incident. [IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: 

“The questions refer to the incidents as incident #1, incident #2, and so on.”]

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How do you feel about referring to the different incidents by 

number, such as “incident 1, incident 2, etc.”?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-18

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How did you decide the order you reported the incidents in? (IF 

NEEDED: How did you choose which one is incident 1, incident 2, etc.)

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How easy or difficult was it to refer to these incidents as “incident 

1, incident 2, etc. Did it ever get confusing?

ILF1. [IF P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: “Please think about incident #1.”] In what month did this incident of 

unwanted sexual contact occur?

o January, 2014

o February, 2014

o March, 2014

o April, 2014

o June, 2014

o July, 2014

o August, 2014

o September, 2014

o October, 2014

o November, 2014

o December, 2014

o January, 2015

o February, 2015

o Unsure/Don’t know

[IF P2= 2 OR 3, AS THE RESPONDENT COMPLETES ILF1 FOR THE 2ND OR 3RD INCIDENT, THE 

INCIDENT(S) AND DATES ALREADY REPORTED WILL DISPLAY (E.G., “INCIDENT #1: December 

2015, INCIDENT #2, January 2015]

PROBE: How easy or difficult was for you to pick which month (each/the) incident happened?

PROBE: How did you remember which month the incident(s) occurred?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-19

ILF2. During [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH REPORTED IN #ILF1, e.g., “February, 2014.”], which of the following types of 

unwanted sexual contact happened? Please select all types of unwanted sexual contact that 

happened during this incident.

Yes No Unsure

a. Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of

private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a

sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

○ ○ ○

b. Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your

genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone

else’s genitals)

○ ○ ○

c. [RESPONSE WILL NOT DISPLAY UNLESS THE RESPONDENT IS

FEMALE] Sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your

vagina)

○ ○ ○

d. Anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus) ○ ○ ○

e. Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their

finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your [IF R IS FEMALE,

FILL: “vagina or anus”; IF R IS MALE, FILL: “anus”].

○ ○ ○

f. Don’t Know ○ ○ ○

PROBE: In your own words, what do you think “forced touching of a sexual nature” includes?

ILF3. During [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] in [FILL THE MONTH 

REPORTED IN #3, e.g., “February, 2014”], how did the person(s) have unwanted sexual contact 

with you? Please select all that apply.

Yes No Unsure

a. Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about ○ ○ ○

b. Used physical force against you, such as holding you down with his

or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you;

○ ○ ○

c. You were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening

because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or

asleep

○ ○ ○

d. Don’t Know ○ ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-20

PROBE: What do you think we are referring to when we talk about unwanted sexual contact happening 

when someone is unable to provide consent?

PROBE: In your own words, what does “unable to provide consent” mean?

ILF4. Where did [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] occur?

o On this campus

o Off-campus but in the same city or town

o In a different city or town

o Don’t know

ILF5. During [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], how many people 

had unwanted sexual contact with you?

[DROP DOWN BOX INCLUDING: 1 person, 2 people, 3 people, 4 people, 5 people, 6+ people]

ILF6. [IF #ILF5 = 1] What was their sex?

o Male

o Female

ILF7. [IF #ILF5 = 2+] What were the sexes of the people who had unwanted sexual contact with you?

Male

Female

Both 

ILF8. [IF #ILF5 = 1] Did you know or recognize the person?

o Yes

o No (Skip to IFL14)

o Don’t know

ILF9. [IF #ILF5 = 2+] Out of the people who had unwanted sexual contact with you during [FILL “the 

incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], how many did you know or recognize?

o All of them

o Some of them

o None of them (skip to #IFL14)

o Don’t Know

PROBE: What kind of people would you include when thinking about those you “know or recognize”?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-21

ILF10. [IF #ILF5 = 1 AND #ILF8 = Yes] Was the person a student, professor, or other employee at this 

school?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

ILF11. [IF #ILF5 = 2+ AND #ILF9 = “All of them” OR “Some of them”] How many of the people were 

students, professors, or other employees at this school?

o All of them

o Some of them

o None of them

o Unsure/Don’t know

ILF12. [IF #ILF5 = 1 AND #ILF8 = Yes] Who was the person who had unwanted sexual contact with you 

during [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE]? Please select all 

that apply.

Someone you had seen or heard about but not talked to

An acquaintance or a friend of a friend

A professor or teaching assistant 

A friend or a roommate 

A current or ex dating partner or spouse

Someone else

Don’t Know 

ILF13. [IF #ILF5 = 2+ AND #ILF9 = “All of them” OR “Some of them”] Who were the people who had 

unwanted sexual contact with you during [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 

= 2 OR MORE]? Please select all that apply.

Someone you had seen or heard about but not talked to

An acquaintance or a friend of a friend

A professor or teaching assistant 

A friend or a roommate 

A current or ex dating partner or spouse

Someone else

Don’t Know 

ILF14. [IF #ILF5 = 1] Had the person who had unwanted sexual contact with you been drinking alcohol 

or using drugs?

o Yes
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-22

o No

o Don’t know

ILF15. [IF #ILF5 = 2+] How many of the people who had unwanted sexual contact with you had been 

drinking alcohol or using drugs?

o All of them

o Some of them

o None of them

o Don’t know

ILF16. Prior to [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], had you been 

drinking alcohol or using drugs? Please keep in mind that you are in no way responsible for what 

happened, even if you had been drinking or using drugs.

o Yes

o No

The next questions ask about whether you told anyone about the unwanted sexual contact that happened 

during [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] that occurred in [FILL THE 

MONTH REPORTED IN # ILF1, e.g., “February, 2014”].

R1. Did you tell any of your roommates, friends, or family members about [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 

= 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE]? 

o Yes

o No

R2. Please indicate whether each of the following groups or organizations were notified about [FILL 

“the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], whether it was by you or 

someone else.

Group or Organization Yes No Not 

applicable

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials at this

school

o o o

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health 

care center at this school

o o o

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health 

care center NOT at this school

o o o

d. Campus police or security at this school o o o

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

o o o

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering this question?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-23

R3. [DISPLAY ORGANIZATIONS FOR WHICH “YES” IS CHECKED IN #R2] Who notified the groups or 

organizations about [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE]? Please 

select all that apply.

Group or organization

You Someone 

Else

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

o o

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center at this school

o o

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center not at this school

o o

d. Campus police or security at this school o o

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or

city police department

o o

R4. [DISPLAY ORGANIZATIONS FOR WHICH “YES” IS CHECKED IN #R2] When each of the following 

groups or organizations were notified about [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF 

#P2 = 2 OR MORE], were they helpful?

Group or organization Yes No

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

o o

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center at this school

o o

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center not at this school

o o

d. Campus police or security at this school o o

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or

city police department

o o

PROBE: What do you think it means for one of these groups to be helpful?

[FOR EACH ORGANIZATIONS FOR WHICH “NO” IS CHECKED IN #R2 OR FOR WHICH “SOMEONE ELSE” IS 

CHECKED FOR #R3] 
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-24

R5a. There are many reasons why students might not notify certain groups or organizations about 

incidents like this. 

For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you didn’t

know how to contact them? 

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

R5b. For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you were 

concerned that the group would not keep your situation confidential? 

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

R5c. For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you were 

concerned that the group would treat you poorly, not respond effectively, or not take any 

action? 

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-25

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

R5d. For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you did 

not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not want 

any action taken? 

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

R5e. For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you felt 

that other people might think that what happened was at least partly your fault or that you 

might get in trouble for some reason? 

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-26

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

R5f. For each of the groups or organizations below, did you not contact the group because you were 

worried that either the person who did this to you or other people might find out and do 

something to get back at you?

Yes, this was a 

reason

No, this was not 

a reason

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

I1. Experiencing unwanted sexual contact can affect people in different ways. Did [FILL “the 

incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] lead you to have significant problems 

with your job or schoolwork, or trouble with your boss, coworkers, or peers?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

I2. Did [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] lead you to have 

significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or 

fights than you did before, not feeling you could trust them as much, or not feeling as close to 

them as you did before?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

I3. Did [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] have a negative impact 

your grades?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-27

I4. As a result of [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE], did you move 

or change where you live? 

o Yes

o No

I4a. [IF I4 = No] Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of [IF P2=1, FILL “the 

incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

I5. As a result [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], did you drop any 

classes or change your class schedule? 

o Yes

o No

I5a. [IF I5 = No] Did you want to drop any classes or change your class schedule as a result of [IF 

P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

I6. How upsetting was [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR “incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] for you?

o Very upsetting

o Upsetting

o Not very upsetting

o Not at all upsetting

VQ. In your own words, please provide a brief description of [FILL “the incident” IF #P2 = 1 OR 

“incident #1” IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE] of unwanted sexual contact, which occurred in [FILL THE 

MONTH REPORTED IN # ILF1, e.g., “February, 2014”]. Please do not include any names or other 

personally identifying information in your description.

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How did you decide the order you reported the incidents in? (IF 

NEEDED: How did you choose which one is incident 1, incident 2, etc.)
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-28

PROBE: IF R REPORTS >1 INCIDENT – How easy or difficult was it to refer to these incidences as “incident 

1, incident 2, etc. Did it ever get confusing?

LCA2a. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013] has someone had sexual contact with you by telling lies, threatening to end 

your relationship, threatening to spread rumors about you, making promises you knew or discovered 

were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring you after you said you didn’t want to.

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know

LCA2b. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013] has someone had unwanted sexual contact with you by threatening to 

hurt you or someone you care about?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know

LCA2c. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL: Date] has someone had unwanted sexual contact with 

you by using physical force against you?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know

LCA2d. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013]has someone had unwanted sexual contact with you when you were 

unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, 

drunk, incapacitated, or asleep?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t Know

LCA3. When was the last time you experienced unwanted sexual contact?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-29

Never Month Year 

Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN 

LIST JAN-DEC]

Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN LIST 

2015-2005 OR EARLIER

C1. [IF #P1 = No] Just to confirm, you have NOT experienced any unwanted sexual contact in the 

past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “September 26, 

2013]. Is that correct?

o Yes

o No [IF THEY REPORT NO, ROUTE BACK TO #P2]

Remember, unwanted sexual contact:

Can be physically forced upon you or happen when you are incapacitated and unable to

provide consent.

Can involve touching of a sexual nature, oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal sex, or sexual

penetration with a finger or object.

Can be done by a stranger or someone you know, such as a friend, family member, or

person you were dating or hanging out with.
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-30

Section 5. [SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PERPETRATION]

You are now going to be asked some questions about things you may have done to people.

H1-10. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013]have you done the following to anyone either in person or by text, e-mail, or social 

media

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes to someone

that were unwelcome to them

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed yourself to someone without their consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent someone sexual pictures, photos, or videos that

they didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Spread sexual rumors about someone or sexual photos/videos of

someone that they didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of someone when they were nude

or having sex, without their consent

○ ○

PROBE: Can you think of any other examples that should be listed here? Any that should be removed?

This section asks about times when you may have engaged in sexual contact with someone without their 

consent and that they did not want to happen. Sometimes this happens with a stranger or with 

someone you know, such as a friend or someone you were dating or hanging out with. It often happens 

when people have been drinking, but it can also happen when people are sober. 

PROBE: How easy or difficult to understand was this description?

Please answer these questions honestly and remember that your answers will not be linked to any 

identifying information about you and will remain completely confidential. 

Remember that sexual contact includes touching of someone’s sexual body parts, oral sex, anal sex, 

sexual intercourse, and penetration of their vagina or anus with a finger or object. 

SAP1. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, 

“September 26, 2013], how many times have you done each of the following things without the 

person’s consent?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-31

Fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against someone’s 

private areas (lips, breast/chest, crotch, or butt) 

or removed some of their clothes

INSERT DROP DOWN BOX WITH 

THE OPTIONS FOR 0, 1, 2, 3...9+

Had oral sex with someone or had someone 

perform oral sex on you

INSERT DROP DOWN BOX WITH 

THE OPTIONS FOR 0, 1, 2, 3...9+

Put your penis (men only) or put your fingers or 

objects (all respondents) into a woman’s vagina

INSERT DROP DOWN BOX WITH 

THE OPTIONS FOR 0, 1, 2, 3...9+

Put your penis (men only) or put your fingers or 

objects (all respondents) into someone’s butt

INSERT DROP DOWN BOX WITH 

THE OPTIONS FOR 0, 1, 2, 3...9+

PROBE: Do you think that students will answer these questions honestly?

[IF P1, P2, P3, or P4 = 1+] Please think about the times in the past 12 months that you [FILL WITH 

ANSWERS FROM P1, P2, P3, or P4; FOR EXAMPLE: “fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against someone’s 

private areas”; “had oral sex with someone”; “put your penis (men only) or your fingers or objects in 

someone’s vagina”; “put your penis (men only) or your fingers or objects in someone’s butt”]. These are 

the times you had sexual contact with someone that they did not want to happen and that they did not 

consent to. Now, please think about the most recent time that this happened. 

During the most recent time that you had sexual contact with someone, that they did not want to 

happen, which of the following things occurred without their consent? (select all that apply)

Yes No

P1b. Fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against someone’s private areas 

(lips, breast/chest, crotch, or butt) or removed some of their clothes

○ ○

P2b. Had oral sex with someone or had someone perform oral sex on 

you

○ ○

P3b. Put your penis (men only) or put your fingers or objects (all 

respondents) into a woman’s vagina

○ ○

P4b. Put your penis (men only) or put my fingers or objects (all 

respondents) into someone’s butt

○ ○

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering these questions?

During this most recent time that you [FILL WITH ANSWERS FROM P1b, P2b, P3b, or P4b; FOR EXAMPLE: 

“fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against someone’s private areas”; “had oral sex with someone”; “put 
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-32

your penis (men only) or your fingers or objects in someone’s vagina”; “put your penis (men only) or 

your fingers or objects in someone’s butt”], did you have the sexual contact...

Yes No

a. By threatening to hurt the person or someone they cared about? ○ ○

b. By using physical force against the person, such as holding them

down with your body weight, pinning their arms, hitting or kicking 

them?

○ ○

c. When the person was passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or

asleep and unable to provide consent?

○ ○

PROBE: How did you feel about answering this question?

Did the sexual contact happen...(Where did the sexual contact happen?)

Yes No

a. On this campus? ○ ○

b. Off-campus but in the same city or town ○ ○

c. In a different city or town? ○ ○

Did you have the sexual contact with a...

Yes No

a. Someone who is a student at this school ○ ○

b. Woman ○ ○

c. Man ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-33

Section 6. [CAMPUS CLIMATE RELATED TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT]

You are now going to be asked some questions about this school’s efforts related to sexual assault.

PROBE: What do you think we mean when we say “sexual assault”?

SAC1. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Sexual harassment is not tolerated at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Training in sexual assault prevention is taken seriously

at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

c. This school is doing a good job of educating students

about sexual assault (e.g., what consent means, how to

define sexual assault, how to look out for one another)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. This school is doing a good job of trying to prevent

sexual assault from happening

○ ○ ○ ○

e. This school is doing a good job of providing needed

services to victims of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

f. This school is doing a good job of investigating incidents

of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

g. This school is doing a good job of holding people

accountable for committing sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: What do you think we mean when we say “the school is doing a good job”? 

T1. While at this school, have you attended an assembly, workshop, or received any other type of 

training or classes about sexual harassment or sexual assault? 

o Yes

o No

T2. (If yes) What topics were covered? Please select all that apply.

Yes No
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-34

a. The legal definition of sexual assault? ○ ○

b. The campus policy on sexual harassment or sexual assault ○ ○

c. How to report sexual harassment or sexual assault ○ ○

d. What services are available for survivors of sexual assault ○ ○

e. How to intervene as a bystander to protect other students from sexual

harassment or sexual assault

○ ○

f. What the definition of “consent” is and how to obtain it from a sexual partner ○ ○

g. Something else (please specify):

______________________________________________

○ ○

T3. While at this school, have you received training or classes that focused on the prevention of sexual 

assault? 

o Yes

o No

T4. [IF T3 = Yes] How helpful was the sexual assault prevention training or classes you received?

o Very helpful

o Helpful

o Somewhat helpful

o Not at all helpful

PROBE: What about the training or class you received was (very helpful/helpful/somewhat helpful/not 

at all helpful)?

T5. [IF T3 = Yes] Have you been able to use any of the skills or knowledge you learned during the 

sexual assault prevention training to keep yourself or others safe?

o Yes

o No

T6. Do you think the sexual assault prevention efforts that this school is implementing are effective?

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

T7. How involved are you in the sexual assault prevention efforts that this school is implementing?

o Very involved

o Involved

o Somewhat involved
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-35

o Not at all involved

PROBE: IF NOT CLEAR - Are you aware of any of the school’s sexual assault prevention efforts?

R1. How much do you agree that each of the following things happen when or if students at this 

school report experiencing sexual assault to faculty, staff, administrators, or police/security?

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. This school follows the procedures that are in place for

fairly and effectively dealing with reported incidents of

sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Reported incidents of sexual assault are taken seriously ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Knowledge of and information about reported incidents

of sexual assault are limited to those who need to know

○ ○ ○ ○

d. Steps are taken to ensure the safety of the person

reporting the sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

e. The person making the report is well-supported by

university faculty, staff, administrators, and

police/security

○ ○ ○ ○

f. The person accused of perpetrating the sexual assault is

treated fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

g. When it is determined that sexual assault has

happened, the perpetrator gets punished

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: How easy or difficult were these questions to answer?

SAC4. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Protect I am aware of and understand this school’s

procedures for dealing with reported incidents of sexual

assault

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-36

b. I know what services are available for people who

experience sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If a friend of mine were sexually assaulted, I know where

to take my friend to get help

○ ○ ○ ○

SH1. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. At this school, it is common for students to make sexual

comments about people on the Internet or through email, instant message, or text

○ ○ ○ ○

b. At this school, it is common for students to call people

gay or lesbian or a homophobic name (such as faggot or

dyke)

○ ○ ○ ○

c. At this school, it is common for students to share sexual

pictures, web pages, or messages

○ ○ ○ ○

d. At this school, when students make sexual comments,

jokes, or gestures , other students stand up to them

○ ○ ○ ○

SA1.

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. A lot of unwanted sexual contact happens among

students at this school when students are physically

forced, threatened, or unable to provide consent

because they are passed out, drugged, or drunk

○ ○ ○ ○

b. Most students at this school support campus efforts to

prevent sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

c. Most students at this school feel that it is not their

responsibility to get involved in campus efforts to

prevent sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

d. Students at this school are knowledgeable about the

topic of sexual assault, including how it is defined, how

often it occurs, and what the legal consequences are

○ ○ ○ ○

e. Most students at this school would respect someone

who did something to prevent a sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

f. At this school, it is common for students to make jokes

about sexual assault or rape

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-37

g. At this school, if students see someone trying to have

unwanted sexual contact with someone who is passed

out, they will try to stop them

○ ○ ○ ○

h. If someone at this school gets drunk and experiences

unwanted sexual contact, most students assume it was

least partially the drunk person's fault

○ ○ ○ ○

i. If a student at this school were to report that he or she

experienced unwanted sexual contact to university

administrators, other students would label him/her as a

troublemaker or someone looking for attention

○ ○ ○ ○

CH1. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

If I were sexually assaulted I believe this school would... Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Take my case seriously. ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Protect my privacy. ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat me with dignity and respect. ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Enable me to continue my education without having to

interact with the person who assaulted me.

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering these questions?

CH2. How likely is it that you would actually go to or get in touch with the following groups or 

organizations at your school if you thought you might need some kind of assistance from them, or if 

someone suggested that you get in touch with them?

Very 

Likely

Likely Unlikely Very 

Unlikely

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care 

center NOT at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or city

police department

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-38

CH3. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of 

the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. People get too offended by sexual comments, jokes, or

gestures

○ ○ ○ ○

b. It doesn’t really hurt anyone to post sexual comments

about people on the Internet, or through e-mail, instant

message, or text

○ ○ ○ ○

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. It is okay to have sex with someone who is drinking ○ ○ ○ ○

b. It is okay to have sex with someone who is drunk ○ ○ ○ ○

c. It is okay to have sex with someone who is passed out ○ ○ ○ ○

d. A person who is sexually assaulted or raped while

he/she is drunk is at least somewhat responsible for

putting themselves in that position

○ ○ ○ ○

e. If one of your friends told you that someone had

unwanted sexual contact with them, you would

encourage him/her to report the incident to campus or

local police

○ ○ ○ ○

f. It is important that college campuses try to prevent

sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

g. Accusations of rape are often used by one person as a

way to get back at the other

○ ○ ○ ○

h. A lot of times, what people say is rape is actually

consensual sex that they regretted afterwards

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering these questions?

CH4.

Very 

Likely

Likely Unlikely Very 

Unlikely

a. If your friends are sending sexual pictures, web pages, or

messages to someone who didn’t ask for them, how

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-39

likely are you to say something to try to get them to 

stop?

b. If people you don’t know very well are making sexual

comments, jokes, or gestures, how likely are you to say

something to try to get them to stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

Very 

Likely

Likely Unlikely Very 

Unlikely

a. If you see one of your friends leading someone who is

obviously drunk into their room to have sex with them,

how likely are you to say or do something to get them to

stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

b. If your friend said, “Anyone who gets drunk and then

raped is partly responsible for what happened,” how

likely are you to tell them you disagree?

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If you suspect that one of your friends might be in an

abusive relationship, how likely are you to talk to

him/her about the situation?

○ ○ ○ ○

d. If someone tells you that they had sex with someone

who was passed out, how likely are you to report the

incident to a campus administrator or police?

○ ○ ○ ○

e. If you see someone you don’t know who looks

uncomfortable and is being touched, grabbed, or

pinched in a sexual way, how likely are you to speak up

or help in some other way?

○ ○ ○ ○

f. When you go out with your friends, how likely are you to

come up with a plan for checking in with one another

throughout the evening?

○ ○ ○ ○

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering these questions?

LCA4. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “February 

1, 2014”] have you been sexually assaulted?

o Yes

o No

LCA5. In the past 12 months, that is since [FILL WITH DATE 12 MONTHS AGO; FOR EXAMPLE, “February 

1, 2014”], have you been raped?

o Yes

o No
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-40

Section 7. [ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND METHODOLOGICAL FEEDBACK]

D1. What is your race (as you define it)? Select all that apply.

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White

D2. What is your ethnicity (as you define it)? 

o Hispanic or Latino

o Not Hispanic or Latino

PROBE: What do you think we mean when we say “gender identity”?

PROBE: Did you have any difficulty answering this question?

D4. Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself? 

o Lesbian or gay

o Straight, that is, not lesbian or gay

o Bisexual

o Something else (please specify) _________________________

MF1. Overall, what are your thoughts on this survey?

MF2. How easy or difficult do you think it would be for other students to respond to this survey?

MF3. How comfortable were you answering these questions in a web environment?
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-41

MF4. Other than anything you may have already told us, were there any terms or definitions you did 

not understand?

MF5. If you had the opportunity, what would you do to improve this survey?

MF6. Overall, how easy or difficult was it for you to understand the questions in the survey? 

o very easy

o pretty easy

o pretty difficult

o very difficult

MF7. Did answering any of the questions in this survey make you upset or distressed?

o Yes

o No

Please explain:

MF8. How easy or difficult was it for you to navigate through the survey, given the format, font size, and 

amount of text on the screen?

o Very easy

o Pretty easy

o Pretty difficult

o Very difficult

MF9. Did you take the survey on...

o A desktop computer

o Laptop computer

o Tablet

o Smartphone

o Other device

MF10. The plan is to administer this survey to thousands of college students around the country. The 

full-length version will take them approximately 15-20 minutes to complete and we plan to give them a 

$10 incentive for participating. As a college student, if you got invited to complete this survey, what 

would your preference be in terms of where you could use the incentive? 

o Amazon.com (takes approx. 2 business days to receive via email)

o Walmart.com (takes approx. 2 business days to receive via email)
RTI A. Cognitive Interview Mateirals

A-42

o Super certificates, which allows the user to select from hundreds of vendors and choose

either a gift card to be mailed to you or an e-gift card to be used online

o Cash (takes 1-2 weeks to receive via standard mail)

o Other online vendor (please specify): _________________________________________

Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me 

and for providing your valuable input.
Appendix B: Pilot Study Instrument
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-1

Section 1 [DEMOGRAPHICS, SCHOOL CONNECTEDNESS, AND GENERAL CLIMATE]

This section asks you some basic demographic questions. 

D1. How old are you? 

Select an answer... ˅ [DROP-DOWN LIST: under 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25+]

[RESPONDENT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN ORDER TO PROCEED.] 

Previous Next

D1a. [IF UNDER 18 IN D1] We are sorry, but you are not eligible to participate in the study. Please 

click "Next" below to end this session. 

Previous Next

D2. What is your current student status? 

o First year student (freshman)

o Second year student (sophomore)

o Third year student (Junior)

o Fourth year student (Senior)

o Other (please describe your student status ____________________)

D3. What is your current gender identity? 

o Female

o Male

o Transgender

o Something else (please specify your current gender identity_____________________)

Previous Next

The next questions ask about this school, meaning [FILL WITH UNIVERSITY SHORT NAME]. 

SC1. When did you first enroll as a student at this school? 

Year Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN LIST: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 AND 

2009 OR EARLIER]

Month Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN LIST: JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, MAY, 

JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, 

DECEMBER. IF 2015 IS SELECTED, JUNE-DECEMBER DO NOT 

DISPLAY.]

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-2

SC2. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please 

provide an answer that best reflects how you feel. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. I feel valued as an individual at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. I feel close to people at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

c. I feel like I am a part of this school ○ ○ ○ ○

d. I am happy to be a student at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

e. I feel safe when I am on this school’s campus ○ ○ ○ ○

f. I believe there is a clear sense of appropriate and

inappropriate behavior among students at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

g. I believe alcohol abuse is a big problem at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

h. I believe this school is trying hard to protect the rights

of all students

○ ○ ○ ○

i. I believe this school is trying hard to make sure that all

students are treated equally and fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

j. I believe this school is trying hard to make sure that all

students are safe

○ ○ ○ ○

k. I believe that students at this school trust one another ○ ○ ○ ○

l. I believe that students at this school respect one

another

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

The next questions ask your views about three groups at this school: 1) Campus police/security, 2) 

Faculty, and 3) School Leadership. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following 

statements, and answer as best as you can. 

GC1. Overall, the campus police/security at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-3

GC2. Overall, the faculty at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

GC3. Overall, the President/Chancellor, Deans, and other leadership staff at this school...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Are genuinely concerned about my well-being ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Are doing all they can to protect students from harm ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat students fairly ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Are more interested in protecting the reputation of this

school than the students they serve

○ ○ ○ ○

You have completed 1 out of 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-4

Section 2 [EXPERIENCES WITH HARASSMENT AND EMOTIONAL COERCION]

SH1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone done the following to you either in person or by phone, text message, e-mail, or social 

media? Please include things regardless of where they happened. 

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes that were

unwelcome to you

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed themselves to you without your consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent you sexual pictures, photos, or videos that you

didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Showed or sent sexual photos/videos of you or spread sexual

rumors about you that you didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of you when you were nude or

having sex, without your consent

○ ○

Previous Next

EC1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone had sexual contact with you by threatening to tell lies, end your relationship, or spread 

rumors about you; making promises you knew or discovered were untrue; or continually verbally 

pressuring you after you said you didn’t want to? 

Sexual contact includes: 

 touching of a sexual nature (kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up

against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

 oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or

tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

 anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus)

 sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in [IF D3=MALE, FILL “someone’s”, ELSE FILL

“your” vagina)

 sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a

bottle or a candle in your [IF D3 NE MALE, FILL: “vagina or”] anus.

o Yes

o No

You have completed 2 out of 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-5

Section 3 [SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMIZATION]

This section asks about times when you may have experienced unwanted sexual contact. In these 

questions, unwanted sexual contact is sexual contact that you did not consent to and that you did not 

want to happen. Remember that sexual contact includes touching of your sexual body parts, oral sex, 

anal sex, sexual intercourse, and penetration of your [IF D3=FEMALE OR TRANSGENDER OR SOMETHING 

ELSE OR MISSING, FILL “vagina or”] anus with a finger or object. 

Please check off each point as you read through these descriptions. 

Unwanted sexual contact could happen when: [EACH ITEM MUST BE CHECKED TO ADVANCE]

 someone touches or grabs your sexual body parts (e.g., butt, crotch, or breasts); 

 someone uses force against you, such as holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning 

your arms, hitting or kicking you; 

 someone threatens to hurt you or someone close to you; or 

 you are unable to provide consent because you are incapacitated, passed out, unconscious, 

blacked out, or asleep. This could happen after you voluntarily used alcohol or drugs, or after 

you were given a drug without your knowledge or consent. 

Please keep in mind that anyone – regardless of gender – can experience unwanted sexual contact. Also, 

the person who does this could be a stranger or someone you know, such as a friend, family member, or 

person you were dating or hanging out with. 

Previous Next

When you answer the questions in this section, please count any experience of unwanted sexual contact 

since the beginning of the current academic year, regardless of where it happened. 

P1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has 

anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o Yes

o No

P2. How many separate incidents of unwanted sexual contact have you experienced since the 

beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014? 

o 0 incidents [IF P2 = 0 IINCIDENTS, SKIP TO LCA2]

o 1 incident

o 2 incidents

o 3 incidents

o 4 incidents

o 5 or more incidents
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-6

Previous Next

The next questions ask about [IF P2=1, FILL: “this incident”; IF P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL “these incidents”] of 

unwanted sexual contact that you experienced since the beginning of the current academic year. The 

questions ask when the incidents happened, if/how you know the person who did it, and whether you 

sought services after the incident. [IF P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: “The questions refer to the incidents as 

incident #1, incident #2, and so on.”] [IF P2=4 OR 5+, FILL: “You will be asked about 3 incidents.”]

ILF1. [IF P2 = 2 OR MORE, FILL: “Please think about incident #1.”] In what month did this incident of 

unwanted sexual contact occur? 

o August, 2014

o September, 2014

o October, 2014

o November, 2014

o December, 2014

o January, 2015

o February, 2015

o March, 2015

o April, 2015

o May, 2015

o Unsure/Don’t know

[IF P2= 2 OR 3, AS THE RESPONDENT COMPLETES ILF1 FOR THE 2ND OR 3RD INCIDENT, THE 

INCIDENT(S) AND DATES ALREADY REPORTED WILL DISPLAY (E.G., “INCIDENT #1: December 

2015, INCIDENT #2, January 2015] 

Previous Next

ILF1a. [ASK IF RESPONDENT SELECTS 2 INCIDENTS IN THE SAME MONTH IN ILF1] Just to confirm, you 

reported incident #1 in [FILL WITH MONTH, YEAR] and incident #2 in [FILL WITH MONTH YEAR]. 

Are these separate incidents? 

o Yes, these are separate incidents

o No, this is the same incident [COMBINE THESE INTO 1 INCIDENT]

Previous Next

ILF2. During [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IF P2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH AND YEAR REPORTED IN #ILF1, e.g., “October, 2014.”], which of the following 

types of unwanted sexual contact happened? Please indicate whether each type of unwanted 

sexual contact happened during this incident. 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-7

Yes No Unsure

a. Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of

private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a

sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

○ ○ ○

b. Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your

genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone

else’s genitals)

○ ○ ○

c. Anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus) ○ ○ ○

d. [RESPONSE WILL NOT DISPLAY IF D3=MALE] Sexual intercourse

someone putting their penis in your vagina)

○ ○ ○

e. Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their

finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your [IF D3=FEMALE

TRANSGENDER, SOMETHING ELSE, OR BLANK, FILL: “vagina or

anus”; IF D3=MALE, FILL: “anus”])

○ ○ ○

Previous Next

ILF3. During [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IF P2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] which occurred in 

[FILL THE MONTH REPORTED IN ILF1, e.g., “October, 2014”], how did the person(s) have 

unwanted sexual contact with you? Please indicate whether each of the following happened. 

Yes No Unsure

a. [THIS ITEM ONLY DISPLAYED IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED YES TO

ILF2a AND DID NOT ANSWER YES TO ILF2b, ILF2c, ILF2d, OR ILF2e]

Touched or grabbed your sexual body parts (e.g., butt, crotch, or

breasts)

○ ○ ○

b. Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about ○ ○ ○

c. Used physical force against you, such as holding you down with his

or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you

○ ○ ○

d. You were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening

because you were incapacitated, passed out, unconscious, blacked

out, or asleep

○ ○ ○

e. Other. [TEXT FIELD IS ONLY ACTIVE IF ILF3E=YES OR UNSURE

Please describe how the incident happened: ________________

○ ○ ○

Previous Next

ILF4. Where did [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] occur? 

o On this school’s campus

o Off-campus but in the same city or town

o In a different city or town
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-8

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF5. During [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], how many people had 

unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o 1 person

o 2 or more people

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF6. [IF ILF5 = 1] What was the gender of the person who had unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o Male

o Female

o Transgendered/Other

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF7. [IF ILF5=2+ OR UNSURE OR BLANK] What were the genders of the people who had unwanted 

sexual contact with you? Please select all that apply. 

 Male 

 Female 

 Transgendered/Other 

 Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF10. [IF ILF5=1] Was the person a student, professor, or other employee at this school? 

o Yes

o No

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF11. [IF ILF5=2+ OR UNSURE OR BLANK] How many of the people were students, professors, or other 

employees at this school? 

o All of them

o Some of them

o None of them

o Unsure/Don’t know
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-9

Previous Next

ILF12. [IF ILF5=1] Who was the person who had unwanted sexual contact with you during [IF P2=1, FILL 

“the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? Please select all that apply. 

 A stranger 

 Someone you had seen or heard about but not talked to 

 An acquaintance, friend of a friend, or someone that you had just met 

 A professor or teaching assistant 

 A current or ex friend or roommate 

 A current or ex dating partner or spouse 

 Someone else (please specify relationship: ________________________________________) 

 Unsure/Don’t know [NO OTHER RESPONSE OPTION CAN BE SELECTED WITH “UNSURE”]

Previous Next

ILF13. [IF ILF5=2+ OR UNSURE OR BLANK] Who were the people who had unwanted sexual contact 

with you during [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? Please select 

all that apply. 

 A stranger 

 Someone you had seen or heard about but not talked to 

 An acquaintance, friend of a friend, or someone that you had just met 

 A professor or teaching assistant 

 A current or ex friend or roommate 

 A current or ex dating partner or spouse 

 Someone else (please specify relationship: ________________________________________) 

 Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF14. [IF ILF5=1] Had the person who had unwanted sexual contact with you been drinking alcohol or 

using drugs? 

o Yes

o No

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF15. [IF ILF5=2+ OR UNSURE OR BLANK] How many of the people who had unwanted sexual contact 

with you had been drinking alcohol or using drugs? 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-10

o All of them

o Some of them

o None of them

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

ILF16. In the hours prior to [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], had you 

consumed alcohol or drugs? Please keep in mind that you are not responsible for what happened, 

even if you had been drinking or using drugs or had been given a drug without your knowledge or 

consent. Remember that your answers will remain completely confidential. 

o Yes

o No

o Unsure/Don’t know

Previous Next

The next questions ask about whether you have told anyone about [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR 

MORE, FILL “incident #1]. 

R1. Have you told any of your roommates, friends, or family members about [IF P2=1, FILL “the 

incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next

R2. Please indicate whether each of the following groups or organizations have been notified about 

[IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], whether it was by you or 

someone else. 

Group or Organization Yes No

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

o o

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center at this school

o o

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center not at this school

o o

d. Campus police or security at this school o o

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or

city police department

o o
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-11

Previous Next

R3. [ASK IF YES IS SELECTED FOR ANY GROUP IN R2] Who notified the groups or organizations about 

[IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATIONS FOR WHICH R2=YES]

Group or organization

You Someone 

Else

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

 

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center at this school

 

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center not at this school

 

d. Campus police or security at this school  

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or

city police department

 

Previous Next

R4. [ASK IF YES IS SELECTED FOR ANY GROUP IN R2] When each of the following groups or 

organizations were notified about [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident 

#1”], were they helpful or not? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATIONS FOR WHICH R2=YES]

Group or organization Yes No

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

o o

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center at this school

o o

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center not at this school

o o

d. Campus police or security at this school o o

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or

city police department

o o

Previous Next

[ASK R5A-F IF R2=NO OR BLANK FOR ANY ORGANIZATION OR R3=SOMEONE ELSE FOR ANY 

ORGANIZATION.] There are many reasons why students might not notify certain groups or organizations 

about incidents like this. 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-12

R5a. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you

didn’t know how to contact them? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU]

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

R5b. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you 

were concerned that the group would not keep your situation confidential? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU]

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

R5c. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you 

were concerned that the group would treat you poorly, not respond effectively, or not take 

any action? 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-13

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU] 

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group

f. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

g. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

h. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

i. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

j. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

R5d. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you 

did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not 

want any action taken? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU] 

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group

k. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

l. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

m. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

n. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

o. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

R5e. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you 

felt that other people might think that what happened was at least partly your fault or that 

you might get in trouble for some reason? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU] 

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-14

p. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

q. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

r. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

s. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

t. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

R5f. For each of the groups or organizations below, have you not contacted the group because you 

were worried that either the person who did this to you or other people might find out and do 

something to get back at you? 

[GRID DISPLAYS EACH ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH 

R2=NO OR BLANK OR FOR R3 NE YOU] 

Yes, this was a 

reason for not 

contacting group

No, this was not 

a reason for not 

contacting group

u. Administrators, faculty, or other officials or staff at

this school

○ ○

v. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center at this school

○ ○

w. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health

care center not at this school

○ ○

x. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○

y. Local police not at this school, such as the county

or city police department

○ ○

Previous Next

I1. How upsetting was [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] for you? 

o Very upsetting

o Upsetting

o Not very upsetting

o Not at all upsetting

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-15

I2. Did [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] lead you to have problems 

with your...

Yes No

a. schoolwork or your grades? ○ ○

b. friends, roommates, or peers, such as getting into more arguments or

fights than you did before, not feeling you could trust them as much, or

not feeling as close to them as you did before?

○ ○

c. family members, such as getting into more arguments or fights than you

did before, not feeling you could trust them as much, or not feeling as

close to them as you did before?

○ ○

d. job or with your boss or coworkers? ○ ○

Previous Next

I4. As a result of [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], did you move or 

change where you live? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next

I4a. [IF I4 = No] Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of [IF P2=1, FILL “the 

incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next

I5. As a result [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”], did you drop any 

classes or change your class schedule? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next

I5a. [IF I5 = No] Did you want to drop any classes or change your class schedule as a result of [IF 

P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-16

I6. Did you think about taking some time off from school, transferring to another school, or 

dropping out of school as a result of [IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL 

“incident #1”]? 

o Yes

o No

Previous Next

VQ. Thank you for answering these questions. If there is anything else you would like to tell us about 

[IF P2=1, FILL “the incident”; IFP2=2 OR MORE, FILL “incident #1”] of unwanted sexual contact, 

which occurred in [FILL THE MONTH REPORTED IN # ILF1, e.g., “October, 2014”], please do so in 

the space provided below. Please do not include any names or other personally identifying 

information in your description.

Previous Next

[IF #P2 = 2 OR MORE, REPEAT ILF1-VQ FOR UP TO 3 INCIDENTS, REPLACING “INCIDENT #1” WITH 

“INCIDENT #2” OR “INCIDENT #3.” FOR RESPONDENTS WHO RECEIVE THIS LOOP FOR 2 OR 3 INCIDENTS, 

A DISPLAY TOOL WILL BE USED TO HELP THEM KEEP TRACK OF THE INCIDENT. THE TOOL WILL LIST THE 

INCIDENTS BY NUMBER AND THE MONTH/YEAR OF EACH AND WILL APPEAR AS A HEADER 

THROUGHOUT ILF1-VQ, WITH THE CURRENT INCIDENT BOLDED. FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE SECOND 

LOOP, THE DISPLAY WILL LOOK LIKE THIS: 

INCIDENT #1: AUGUST, 2014 (QUESTIONS COMPLETED) 

INCIDENT #2: OCTOBER, 2014 

INCIDENT #3: JANUARY, 2015] 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-17

[LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS ITEMS (ASKED OF EVERYONE)] 

LCA2. Just to confirm, since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 

2014, has anyone had any of the following types of unwanted sexual contact with you (i.e., 

sexual contact without your consent and that you did not want to happen? 

Yes No

a. Forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private

parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if

it is over your clothes)

○ ○

b. Oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals

or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

○ ○

c. Anal sex (someone putting their penis in your anus) ○ ○

d. [RESPONSE WILL NOT DISPLAY IF D3=MALE] Sexual intercourse

(someone putting their penis in your vagina)

○ ○

e. Sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger

or an object like a bottle or a candle in your [IF D3= FEMALE OR

TRANSGENDER ORSOMETHING ELSE OR MISSING, FILL: “vagina or”] anus

○ ○

Previous Next

LCA3. Thinking about your whole life, when was the last time you experienced unwanted sexual 

contact? 

Never Month Year 

 Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN 

LIST JAN-DEC]

Select an answer... ˅ [DROP DOWN LIST 

2015-2005 OR EARLIER

Previous Next

LCA4. [SKIP IR P1=YES OR P2=1+ OR LCA2a=YES OR LCA2b=YES OR LCA2c=YES OR LCA2d=YES OR 

LCAe=YES OR LCA=NEVER] For the final question in this section, please think about the time 

since you entered college. If you have attended more than one school, please think about the 

time since you first entered any college or university. At any point since you entered college, 

has anyone had unwanted sexual contact with you? 

o Yes

o No

You have finished 3 out of 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-18

Section 4 [IPV]

This section asks more questions about your experiences since the beginning of the current academic 

year. These questions asks about things that an intimate partner may have done to you. An intimate 

partner might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, or anyone you were in an intimate relationship with or 

hooked up with, including exes and current partners. As you answer the questions, please do not include 

times you knew they were joking around.

IPV1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, has an 

intimate partner...

Yes No

a. threatened to hurt you and you thought you might really get hurt? ○ ○

b. pushed, grabbed, or shook you? ○ ○

c. hit you, kicked you, slapped you, or beat you up? ○ ○

You have finished 4 out of 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-19

Section 5 [SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PERPETRATION]

This section of the survey asks about things you may have done to other people. 

SHP1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, have you 

done the following to anyone either in person or by phone, text message, e-mail, or social 

media...

Yes No

a. Made sexual advances, gestures, comments, or jokes to someone

that were unwelcome to them

○ ○

b. Flashed or exposed yourself to someone without their consent ○ ○

c. Showed or sent someone sexual pictures, photos, or videos that

they didn’t want to see

○ ○

d. Showed or sent sexual photos/videos of someone or spread sexual

rumors about someone that they didn’t want shared

○ ○

e. Watched or took photos/videos of someone when they were nude

or having sex, without their consent

○ ○

Previous Next

The final questions in this section ask about times when you may have had sexual contact with someone 

without their consent and that they did not want to happen. Sometimes this happens with a stranger 

or with someone you know, such as a friend or someone you were dating or hanging out with. It often 

happens when people have been drinking, but it can also happen when people are sober. 

Please answer these questions honestly. Your answers will not be linked to any identifying information 

about you and will remain completely confidential. 

Remember that sexual contact includes touching of someone’s sexual body parts, oral sex, anal sex, 

sexual intercourse, and penetration of their vagina or anus with a finger or object. 

SAP1. Since the beginning of the current academic year in [FILL: August/September], 2014, how 

many times have you had unwanted sexual contact with someone (i.e., sexual contact without 

their consent and that they did not want to happen)...

0 

Times

1 

Time

2 

Times

3 

Times

4 

Times

5 or 

more 

Times

a. By touching or grabbing the person’s sexual

body parts (e.g., their butt, breasts, or crotch)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

b. by threatening to hurt the person or someone

they cared about?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-20

c. by using physical force against the person, such

as holding them down with your body weight,

pinning their arms, hitting or kicking them?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

d. when the person was incapacitated, passed out,

unconscious, blacked out, or asleep and unable

to provide consent?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

You have finished 5 out of 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-21

Section 6 [SCHOOL CLIMATE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT PREVENTION]

The next questions ask your opinion about this school’s efforts related to sexual harassment and sexual 

assault. 

SAC1. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please 

answer as best as you can when thinking about your school. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Sexual harassment is not tolerated at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. This school takes training in sexual assault prevention

seriously

○ ○ ○ ○

c. This school is doing a good job of educating students

about sexual assault (e.g., what consent means, how to

define sexual assault, how to look out for one another)

○ ○ ○ ○

d. This school is doing a good job of trying to prevent

sexual assault from happening

○ ○ ○ ○

e. This school is doing a good job of providing needed

services to victims of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

f. This school is doing a good job of investigating incidents

of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

g. This school is doing a good job of holding people

accountable for committing sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC2. Have you ever attended an assembly, workshop, or received any other type of training or classes 

offered by this school that covered...

Yes No

a. The legal definition of sexual assault? ○ ○

b. What the definition of “consent” is and how to obtain it from a sexual partner? ○ ○

c. This school’s policy on sexual assault? ○ ○

d. How to report sexual assault? ○ ○

e. What services are available for survivors of sexual assault? ○ ○

f. How to intervene as a bystander to protect other students from sexual

assault?

○ ○

g. Other strategies for preventing sexual assault? ○ ○

Previous Next
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-22

SAC3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, 

answering as best as you can when thinking about your school. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. I am aware of and understand this school’s procedures

for dealing with reported incidents of sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

b. I know what services are available for people who

experience sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If a friend of mine were sexually assaulted, I know

where to take my friend to get help

○ ○ ○ ○

d. At this school, students who are accused of

perpetrating a sexual assault are treated fairly

○ ○ ○ ○

e. At this school, when it is determined that sexual assault

has happened, the perpetrator gets punished

appropriately

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC4. If I were sexually assaulted I believe this school would...

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. Take my case seriously ○ ○ ○ ○

b. Protect my privacy ○ ○ ○ ○

c. Treat me with dignity and respect ○ ○ ○ ○

d. Enable me to continue my education without having to

interact with the person who assaulted me

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC5. How likely or unlikely would you be to go to or get in touch with the following groups or 

organizations at your school if you were sexually assaulted? 

Very 

likely

Likely Not 

likely

Not at 

all likely

a. Administrators, faculty, or other officials at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

b. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center at this school

○ ○ ○ ○

c. A crisis center or helpline, or a hospital or health care

center not at this school

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-23

d. Campus police or security at this school ○ ○ ○ ○

e. Local police not at this school, such as the county or city

police department

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC6-7. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following things. Please 

think about the situation and answer as best as you can. 

Very 

likely

Likely Not 

likely

Not at 

all likely

a. If your friends are sending sexual pictures, web pages,

or messages to someone who didn’t ask for them, how

likely are you to say something to try to get them to

stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

b. If people you don’t know very well are making

unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, how

likely are you to say something to try to get them to

stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

c. If you see one of your friends leading someone who is

obviously drunk away to have sex with them, how likely

are you to say or do something to get them to stop?

○ ○ ○ ○

d. If you suspect that one of your friends might be in an

abusive relationship, how likely are you to ask them if

they are being mistreated?

○ ○ ○ ○

e. If someone tells you that they had sex with someone

who was passed out, how likely are you to report the

incident to a campus administrator or police?

○ ○ ○ ○

f. If you see someone you don’t know who looks

uncomfortable and is being touched, grabbed, or

pinched in a sexual way, how likely are you to speak up

or help in some other way?

○ ○ ○ ○

g. When you go out with your friends, how likely are you

to come up with a plan for checking in with one another

throughout the evening?

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC8-9. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. As you 

consider these statements, please think about the overall population of students at this school 

and try to answer as best as you can. 
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-24

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. At this school, it is common for students to spread

sexual comments, photos, or videos that people don’t

want shared, either in person or by text, e-mail, or social

media

○ ○ ○ ○

b. At this school, it is common for students to call people

who are gay or lesbian a negative name

○ ○ ○ ○

c. At this school, when students make sexual comments,

jokes, or gestures , other students stand up to them

○ ○ ○ ○

d. A lot of sexual assault happens among students at this

school when students are unable to provide consent

because they are incapacitated, passed out,

unconscious, blacked out, or asleep

○ ○ ○ ○

e. Many students at this school initiate or lead campus

efforts to raise awareness about sexual assault

○ ○ ○ ○

f. Most students at this school are knowledgeable about

the topic of sexual assault, including how it is defined,

how often it occurs, and what the legal consequences

are

○ ○ ○ ○

g. At this school, it is common for students to make jokes

about sexual assault or rape

○ ○ ○ ○

h. At this school, if students see someone trying to have

unwanted sexual contact with someone, they will try to

stop them

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

SAC10-11. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

a. People get too offended by sexual comments, jokes, or

gestures

○ ○ ○ ○

b. It doesn’t really hurt anyone to post sexual comments or

photos of people without their consent through e-mail,

text, or social media

○ ○ ○ ○

c. A person who is sexually assaulted while he/she is drunk

is at least somewhat responsible for putting themselves

in that position

○ ○ ○ ○

d. If one of your friends told you that someone had

unwanted sexual contact with them, you would

○ ○ ○ ○
RTI B. Pilot Study Instrument

B-25

encourage him/her to report the incident to campus or 

local police

e. It is not necessary to get consent before sexual activity if

you are in a relationship with that person

○ ○ ○ ○

f. Accusations of sexual assault are often used by one

person as a way to get back at the other

○ ○ ○ ○

g. A lot of times, what people say is rape is actually

consensual sex that they regretted afterwards

○ ○ ○ ○

Previous Next

D4. What is your ethnicity (as you define it)? 

o Hispanic or Latino

o Not Hispanic or Latino

D5. What is your race (as you define it)? Select one or more. 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 

 Asian 

 Black or African American 

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

 White 

D6. Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself? 

o Gay or lesbian

o Straight, that is, not gay or lesbian

o Bisexual

o Something else (please specify) _________________________

You have completed all 6 sections of the survey. 

Previous Next
Appendix C: Pilot Study Materials
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-1. Pilot Study School Recruitment Letter and Frequently Asked 

Questions 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

[PRESIDENT NAME] 

[SCHOOL NAME] 

January 2nd, 2015

Dear [PRESIDENT LAST NAME],

In April 2014 the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault released the Not 

Alone report, which, among other things, calls for research on sexual assault in the form of campus 

climate surveys. Through a cooperative agreement, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a statistical 

agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, and RTI International, an independent, non-profit research 

organization, have designed and will be conducting the College Experiences Survey (CES) Pilot Test at 

14 universities in the Spring of 2015. The CES Pilot Test will assess whether the survey instrument and 

methodology captures valid and reliable data on campus climate and sexual assault at participating 

universities. At the end of the CES Pilot Test we will provide a final survey instrument and extensive 

recommendations for efficiently collecting valid and reliable data on topics such as, student perceptions 

of the campus environment, knowledge and training related to incident reporting and prevention 

programming, the prevalence and incidence of sexual assault, help seeking behavior exhibited by 

victims, and general attitudes related to sexual assault tolerance among the student body. 

We invite your university to participate in the CES Pilot Test. By participating, your university will help 

inform research about the best way to define and measure campus climate and sexual assault. In addition, 

your university will receive university-specific results on the prevalence of sexual assault and other 

climate topics that can be used to inform your policies and practices related to campus climate and sexual 

assault. 

Included with this letter is a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document that addresses the primary 

questions we anticipate receiving about the CES Pilot Test. The schedule for conducting the CES Pilot 

Test is aggressive and we would like to confirm your participation as soon as possible. Please contact, 

or have a designee contact, Dr. Chris Krebs of RTI International (krebs@rti.org; 919-485-5714) at your 

earliest convenience. If he does not hear from you in the next week or so, he will likely be reaching out. 

C-1
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

BJS is authorized to conduct this data collection under its authorizing statute, which reads in part that 

BJS is authorized to "collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, 

rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, at the Federal, State, tribal, and local." 42 U.S.C. § 

3732 (c) (5). The information provided will be used for statistical purposes only and may not be 

disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose as required by law (Title 42, U.S. Code, 

Sections 3789g).

Thank you, in advance, for considering participation in the CES Pilot Test. 

William J. Sabol 

Acting Director 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

C-2
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

College Experiences Survey (CES) Pilot Test 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Universities Invited to Participate 

What does university participation in the CES Pilot Test entail? 

University participation in the CES Pilot Test will involve: 

1) beginning in January and February of 2015, providing guidance to RTI on the Institutional Review

Board (IRB) approval process at your university (including whether RTI’s IRB approval is sufficient to 

cover the activities at your university); 

2) throughout the study period, informing staff and students about the implementation and importance

of the CES Pilot Test (i.e., helping to support the study at your university); and 

3) in February or March of 2015, providing us with a roster of all undergraduate students and the

information needed to field the survey. 

At a minimum, we would like to receive the following data elements on the roster: 

 Unique Student ID#

 First name

 Last name

 Sex/gender

 Birth date (or current age in years)

 Race/ethnicity

 Year of study (e.g., 1st year undergraduate, 2nd year undergraduate, 3rd year

undergraduate, 4th year undergraduate, or 5th or more year undergraduate)

 Part-time/full-time status

 Degree-seeking status

 Email address(es)

 Campus/local mailing address

If available, we would like to also receive the following data elements on the roster: cell phone 

number, transfer status (yes/no), major, highest SAT score, highest ACT score, GPA, Educational 

Testing Service (ETS) or CEEB code, whether living on or off campus, (if on campus) dorm, and whether 

studying abroad. The data will be used to recruit students for the study, send follow-up reminders, 

and conduct a nonresponse bias analysis so we can weight (i.e., adjust) the survey data if certain types 

of students were more or less likely to participate. In addition, these data elements will be used in 

combination with the survey data to identify factors associated with campus climate and sexual 

assault. The purpose of all of these analyses is to produce university-specific results that you and your 

staff can use to inform your policies and practices related to campus climate and sexual assault. 

C-3
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

We will develop a Data Use Agreement between RTI and your university that outlines procedures for 

the secure transmission and storage of the data, the limited use of the data by RTI, and steps for 

destroying the data that you provided at the end of the study. 

What will participation mean for the students? 

Using the roster, RTI will randomly select the number of undergraduate students necessary to produce 

valid estimates of sexual assault prevalence and campus climate estimates specific to your institution. 

In the spring (approximately March-May 2015), these students will be recruited via e-mail to participate 

in a 15-20 minute, web-based survey that asks questions about campus climate and sexual assault, as 

well as on some demographic and behavioral factors. The survey will be completely voluntary for 

students, their data will remain anonymous, and they will receive a $25 incentive for participating. The 

survey will also provide links to local and national resources for sexual assault. RTI has extensive 

experience conducting surveys on sexual assault with college students and we are well-equipped to 

approach this sensitive topic with an eye for human subjects’ protection and scientific rigor.

What will my university receive in return? 

In addition to helping shape critical research on defining and measuring campus climate and sexual 

assault, each participating university will receive—in the Fall of 2015—a detailed, university-specific 

report summarizing the data and results for your school. The report will include data on the prevalence 

of sexual assault among undergraduate women at your university, in addition to many other related 

attitudinal and campus climate measures. 

Will the fact that my university is participating in the CES Pilot Test be made known to the public? 

No. This is a pilot test – not a full-scale implementation. We are testing the survey instrument and 

methodology, so it would be inappropriate to share publicly the identities of the schools that are 

participating and helping us test our methods. In addition, none of the schools in the CES Pilot Test will 

know which other schools are participating. 

Will the results for my university be made available to the public? 

In the Fall of 2015, we will be sharing publicly the results from the CES Pilot Test, aggregated across 

universities, and we will share university-specific results publicly (labeled as “University A”, “University 

B”, etc.), but the participating universities will not be named or identified. Therefore, no one will be 

able to attribute data or results to any given university. 

If I want to share my CES Pilot Test results with the public, is that permissible? 

Yes. Once you receive the results for your university, you are welcome to do whatever you want with 

them. 

How did you select my university? 

Because the CES Pilot Test was designed to include a diverse set of institutions that vary in terms of size, 

public vs. private status, and whether the institution issues 2 year or 4 year degrees, we used a national 

dataset to identify all institutions that fall within each strata and then randomly selected the institutions, 

which we are not inviting to participate in the CES Pilot Test. 

Is participating in the CES Pilot Test mandatory? 

No. Participation is voluntary. 

Will my university have to pay any money to participate in the CES Pilot Test? 

C-4
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

No. 

Is participation in the CES Pilot Test permissible under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)?

Yes. Because your university would be collaborating with us and because we will be sharing data and 

results with you, and thus conducting research on your behalf, you are allowed to share student data 

with us for research purposes. 

Has the CES Pilot Test been approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB)?

Yes. The CES Pilot Test has been approved by the IRB at RTI International, which has Federalwide 

Assurance (FWA #3331), and is being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We will 

comply with any additional IRB requirements at your institution. 

Who do I contact if I have additional questions about the CES Pilot Test? 

Please contact, Dr. Chris Krebs of RTI International at krebs@rti.org or 919-485-5714. 

C-5
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-2. University Lead E-mail 

March 15th, 2015

Dear [UNIVERSITY NAME] Students, 

Over the next few weeks, [UNIVERSITY NAME] will be working with RTI 

International—an independent, non-profit research organization—to implement the 

College Experiences Survey (CES). This is a web-based survey about the sexual 

experiences and attitudes of undergraduate students at 10 schools around the country. 

Some of you will soon be selected randomly from all undergraduate students at 

[UNIVERSITY NAME] and asked to participate in the CES. Your participation is 

completely voluntary, but we hope you choose to take the survey. Your views and 

experiences are very important and sharing them will help inform positive change at 

[UNIVERSITY NAME], so please make your voice heard by taking the survey! The 

answers you provide will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your 

identity. 

Invitations to participate in the CES, as well as detailed information about the study, will 

arrive via your [UNIVERSITY NAME] email address. If you have any additional 

questions or comments, you can email them to: CollegeExperiences@rti.org. 

Thank you in advance for participating in this important study! It is our hope that 

everyone given the opportunity to participate will do so. 

President/Chancellor, [UNIVERSITY NAME]

C-6
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-3. Student Recruitment E-mail 

FROM: College Experiences Survey 

SUBJECT: College Experiences Survey – Your link and access code 

Dear [FIRST NAME or [SCHOOLNAME] STUDENT],

[UNIVERSITY NAME HERE] is participating in the College Experiences Survey (CES), a pilot 

study of the sexual experiences and attitudes among undergraduate students at 11 schools around 

the country. The study is being conducted by RTI International—an independent, non-profit 

research organization. 

You were chosen randomly from all undergraduate students at [UNIVERSITY NAME HERE] to 

be invited to participate in the CES. For completing this brief web-based survey, you will 

receive a $[INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a store of your choice from among 9 

online and in-store options including Amazon.com, Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, and 

Domino’s Pizza. 

Please click on the following link to participate in the survey or to learn more about it. To take 

the survey, you will need the access code below. 

collegeexperiencessurvey.org 

Your Access Code: [ACCESS CODE] 

The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary. 

The answers you provide will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your 

identity.

Your views and experiences are very important and your participation will help inform positive 

change at [UNIVERSITY NAME], so we hope you will make your voice heard by taking the 

survey! 

To unsubscribe from further e-mails about the CES study, please click on unsubscribe, 

C-7
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

Start the Survey

C-4. Generic Survey Home Page 

Welcome to the College Experiences Survey

(CES)

About the survey 

 Nationwide, approximately 20,000 undergraduate students at 11 schools around the country were

randomly selected to participate in the CES.

 The CES is a research study being conducted by RTI International (an independent, non-profit,

research organization), with the support of each participating college or university. Students who

were invited to participate in the CES can view a letter of support from their school after logging

into the CES website below. The CES is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the

Office on Violence Against Women.

 The CES is a 15- minute web-based survey that asks about students’ demographic characteristics,

perceptions of school safety and school climate, experiences with unwanted sexual contact, and

how schools handle various situations.

 We want the study to represent all undergraduate men and women, so we need everyone who was

selected to participate no matter what experiences they have had.

 The survey is completely voluntary and students can choose to skip any questions or stop the

survey at any time. The participating schools will not know which students took the survey.

 Students who take the survey will receive a gift card for a store of your choice from among 9

online and in-store options including: Amazon.com, Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, Domino’s Pizza,

Staples, Dunkin’ Donuts, Panera Bread, and CVS.

 Students’ responses to the survey questions will remain completely confidential and no survey

responses will ever be associated with students’ identities. For questions about the survey, please

email them to CollegeExperiences@rti.org. For questions about your rights as a study

participant, you can call RTI's Office of Research Protection at 1-866-214-2043 (a toll-free

number). Please feel free to print this home screen for your records.

To proceed to the CES website to take the survey or learn more about it, please 

click the box below. You will need the Survey Access Code that was e-mailed to 

you.

C-8
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-5. Survey Start Page 

Before starting the survey, please read these important facts. 

The survey questions will ask about your demographic characteristics, perceptions of school 

safety and school climate, experiences with unwanted sexual contact (i.e., things that you may 

have done or had done to you), and how your school handles various situations. 

Please answer honestly so that your views and experiences can help inform positive change at 

[UNIVERSITY NAME]. 

Because of the sensitive content of this survey, some of the questions may make you feel 

uncomfortable. Please complete the survey in a private setting and access the local and 

national student support services provided at the end of the survey if you would like help. 

Your responses to the survey questions will remain completely confidential and none of your 

survey responses will ever be associated with your identity. 

RTI may combine your survey responses with basic administrative data about you provided by 

your school (e.g., academic data, transfer status), but no information about your identity will 

ever be linked to your survey data. 

If you complete the survey, you will receive a $[FILL INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a store 

of your choice from among 9 online and in-store options including: Amazon.com, Starbucks, 

Walmart, Chili’s, Domino’s Pizza, Staples, Dunkin’ Donuts, Panera Bread, and CVS. Instructions 

on how to claim the gift card will be e-mailed to you within approximately 2 business days of 

completing the survey.

You can stop and re-enter the survey where you left off, using your Survey Access Code. 

DO NOT share your Survey Access Code with anyone. 

For questions about the survey, you can email CollegeExperiences@rti.org. For questions 

about your rights as a study participant, you can call RTI's Office of Research Protection at 1-

866-214-2043 (a toll-free number). Comments regarding cost, burden, and data usage may be 

sent to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Director at Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh 

Street, NW Washington, DC 20531. Title 42, Section 3732, United States Code, authorizes the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, to collect information using this survey and 

C-9
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

requires us to keep all information about you strictly confidential. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless 

such collection displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number for this information 

collection is OMB 1121-0339. Please feel free to print this screen for your records. 

Would you like to view the letter of support from [UNIVERSITY NAME]?

o Yes [IF YES, DISPLAY LETTER OF SUPPORT]

o No

If you understand the study, please indicate whether you agree to participate. 

o Yes – I would like to participate

o No – I do not wish to participate [TERMINATE]

C-10
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-6. National Student Support Services Listed for Survey 

Participants 

National Resources

National Crisis Centers 

Human Trafficking Resource Center. The National Human Trafficking Resource Center is a 24/7 

hotline that provides callers with comprehensive services, including crisis intervention, urgent 

and non-urgent referrals for services, tip reporting, information on human trafficking and 

technical assistance for the anti-trafficking field. The center connects callers with referrals and 

resources in their local area using an up-to-date national database of over 3000 referral sources 

and first responders. Call (888)373-7888 For more information please visit, 

http://www.polarisproject.org/ 

The National Sexual Assault Hotline. The Rape Abuse Incest National Network Online Hotline is 

the nation's first online crisis hotline and provides free, anonymous help and high-quality 

support services online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Additionally with more than 1,000 

community rape crisis center partners, RAINN provides help by phone to victims, survivors and 

loved ones across the country Call 800-656-HOPE (4673) For more information please visit, 

https://www.rainn.org/get-help 

Additional Resources—Get Involved! 

Men Can Stop Rape. The Men Can Stop Rape Initiative mobilizes male youth to prevent men's 

violence against women. We build young men's capacity to challenge harmful aspects of 

traditional masculinity, to value alternative visions of male strength, and to embrace their vital 

role as allies with women and girls in fostering healthy relationships and gender equity. For 

more information please visit, http://www.mencanstoprape.org/

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. Leaders from statewide organizations joined with 

local rape crisis centers and prominent national advocates to create the National Alliance to End 

Sexual Violence. Its mission is to provide a missing voice in Washington for state coalitions and 

local programs advocating and organizing against sexual violence and for survivors. For more 

information please visit, http://www.endsexualviolence.org/ 

The National Center for Victims of Crime. This center has become the nation's leading resource 

and advocacy organization for victims of all types of crime and for the people who serve them. 

They have enabled more people to understand that justice for victims involves more than 

holding offenders accountable for their crimes. Their work involves providing victims full 

participation in the criminal justice process and the means to overcome the physical, emotional, 

and financial 

C-11
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

C-7. Follow-up Reminder E-mails 

(1st Follow-up E-mail Reminder) 

FROM: College Experiences Survey 

SUBJECT: Please help by taking the College Experiences Survey 

Dear [FIRST NAME or [SCHOOLNAME] STUDENT],

This is a reminder that you were selected to participate in the College Experiences Survey (CES). 

Please click on the following link to participate in the web survey or to learn more about it. You 

will need the Survey Access Code below to start the survey. For completing this brief survey, 

you will receive a $[INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a store of your choice from 

among 9 online and in-store options including Amazon.com, Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, 

and Domino’s Pizza. 

collegeexperiencessurvey.org 

Your Survey Access Code: [ACCESS CODE]

The CES is a pilot study of the sexual experiences and attitudes among undergraduate students at 

11 schools around the country. The study is being conducted by RTI International--a non-profit 

research organization. 

You were chosen randomly from all undergraduate students at [UNIVERSITY NAME HERE] to 

be invited to participate in the CES, and we really need you to take the survey so that your views 

and experiences are represented. 

The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary. 

The answers you provide will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your 

identity. 

Thanks in advance for your participation. 

To unsubscribe from further e-mails about the CES study, please click on unsubscribe. 

C-12
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

(2nd Follow-up E-mail Reminder) 

FROM: College Experiences Survey 

SUBJECT: Reminder: Please take the College Experiences Survey 

Dear [FIRST NAME or [SCHOOLNAME] STUDENT],

You were randomly selected from all undergraduate students at [UNIVERSITY NAME HERE] to 

share your experiences and opinions in the College Experiences Survey (CES). We cannot 

replace you in the sample and really need you to participate in the survey so that your views and 

experiences are represented. For completing this brief survey, you will receive a 

$[INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a store of your choice from among 9 online and instore options including Amazon.com, Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, and Domino’s Pizza. 

Please click on the following link to participate in the web survey or to learn more about it. You 

will need the Survey Access Code below to start the survey. 

collegeexperiencessurvey.org 

Your Access Code: [ACCESS CODE] 

The CES is a pilot study of the sexual experiences and attitudes among undergraduate students at 

11 schools around the country. The study is being conducted by RTI International--a non-profit 

research organization. 

The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary. 

The answers you provide will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your 

identity. 

We greatly appreciate your participation. 

To unsubscribe from further e-mails about the CES study, please click on unsubscribe. 

C-13
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

(3rd and 4th Follow-up E-mail Reminder) 

FROM: College Experiences Survey 

SUBJECT: Time is running out for the College Experiences Survey 

Dear [FIRST NAME or [SCHOOLNAME] STUDENT],

This is a reminder that you were selected to participate in the College Experiences Survey (CES). 

Please click on the following link to participate in the web survey or to learn more about it. You 

will need the Survey Access Code below to start the survey. For completing this brief survey, 

you will receive a $[INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a store of your choice from 

among 9 online and in-store options including Amazon.com, Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, 

and Domino’s Pizza. 

collegeexperiencessurvey.org 

Your Survey Access Code: [ACCESS CODE]

The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary. 

The answers you provide will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your 

identity. 

We appreciate your participation! 

To unsubscribe from further e-mails about the CES study, please click on unsubscribe. 

C-14
RTI C. Pilot Study Materials

(Final Follow-up E-mail Reminder) 

FROM: College Experiences Survey 

SUBJECT: College Experiences Survey – Last Chance 

Dear [FIRST NAME or [SCHOOLNAME] STUDENT],

Over the past several weeks we have contacted you to ask for your participation in the College 

Experiences Survey (CES). Our records show that you have not yet completed the survey. We 

would really like your input. We will end the survey in three days so we can begin analyzing the 

data, so please respond as soon as possible. 

Please click on the following link to participate in the web survey or to learn more about it. You 

will need the Survey Access Code below to start the survey. 

collegeexperiencessurvey.org 

Your Access Code: [ACCESS CODE]

If you complete the survey, you will receive a $[INCENTIVE AMOUNT] gift card for a 

store of your choice from among 9 online and in-store options including Amazon.com, 

Starbucks, Walmart, Chili’s, and Domino’s Pizza as a token of appreciation. The survey 

will take about 15 minutes to complete. 

Thanks very much for participating in this important study. 

To unsubscribe from further e-mails about the CES study, please click on unsubscribe. 

C-15
Appendix D: Response Rates, by School
RTI D. Response Rates, by School

D-1

Table D-1. Response rates by school and sex

Response Rate

School Female Male

Average 54.4 % 40.4 %

1 51.1 37.8

2 50.8 34.6

3 46.0 34.8

4 43.3 29.5

5 70.8 59.6

6 65.4 52.3

7 59.6 45.9

8 45.5 30.3

9 57.2 38.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by 

summing the estimate for each of the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This 

treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
Appendix E: Data Tables for Sexual 

Assault, Rape, and Sexual 

Battery
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-1

Table E-1. Percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type and school 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–2015

Academic Year

4.1 % 6.2 % 2.4 % 3.0 % 2.8 % 7.9 % 2.7 % 5.8 % 

Sexual Battery During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

5.6 13.2 1.7 4.7 2.6 8.6 4.1 5.7 

Sexual Assault During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

10.3 20.0 4.2 8.7 5.8 16.9 7.0 11.9 

Sexual Assault Since Entering

Any College

20.5 37.5 13.5 18.2 12.2 27.8 16.6 22.9 

Sexual Assault in Lifetime 34.4 45.8 31.0 32.0 25.7 39.4 33.2 40.5 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Table E-2. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimizatio

school 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–2015

Academic Year

0.1 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.2 % 0.4 % 

Sexual Battery During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

0.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 

Sexual Assault During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

0.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 

Sexual Assault Since Entering

Any College

0.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 

Sexual Assault in Lifetime 0.3 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-2

Table E-3. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by vic

and school 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–2015

Academic Year

3.0 % 7.3 % 20.0 % 12.2 % 9.6 % 5.7 % 8.5 % 6.7 % 

Sexual Battery During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

2.5 4.8 22.4 9.6 10.7 5.6 7.5 6.6 

Sexual Assault During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

1.8 3.7 14.4 6.9 6.8 3.8 5.4 4.5 

Sexual Assault Since Entering

Any College

1.2 2.4 7.4 4.5 4.7 2.8 3.5 3.1 

Sexual Assault in Lifetime 0.9 2.0 4.4 3.1 3.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Table E-4. Percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and school 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–2015

Academic Year

0.8 % 1.1 % ! 0.4 %! 0.5 % ! 0.9 %! 1.4 % ! 0.3 %! 0.7 % 

Sexual Battery During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

1.7 3.1 0.4 ! 1.5 0.7 ! 3.3 0.6 ! 2.5 

Sexual Assault During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

3.1 4.5 1.4 ! 2.3 2.4 5.7 1.4 4.1 

Sexual Assault Since Entering

Any College

7.0 8.6 3.7 5.3 7.5 11.8 4.1 7.1 

Sexual Assault in Lifetime 11.2 10.7 8.9 10.3 11.3 16.3 8.4 11.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-3

Table E-5. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

0.1 % 0.3 %! 0.2 %! 0.2 %! 0.3 %! 0.3 %! 0.1 %! 0.2 %! 

Sexual Battery During

2014–2015 Academic

Year

0.1 0.7 0.3 ! 0.4 0.2 ! 0.5 0.2 ! 0.4 

Sexual Assault During

2014–2015 Academic

Year

0.2 0.8 0.5 ! 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 

Sexual Assault Since

Entering Any College

0.3 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.6 

Sexual Assault in

Lifetime

0.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-4

Table E-6. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victi

school 

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

10.8 % 32.3 %! 57.4 %! 42.8 %! 27.9 %! 20.6 %! 51.2 %! 31.6 %! 

Sexual Battery During

2014–2015 Academic

Year

7.9 22.2 57.4 ! 23.8 28.7 ! 15.7 29.5 ! 15.6 

Sexual Assault During

2014–2015 Academic

Year

5.6 17.3 33.5 ! 19.0 17.2 11.2 20.9 11.9 

Sexual Assault Since

Entering Any College

3.7 12.5 22.1 12.8 10.1 7.3 13.3 8.8 

Sexual Assault in

Lifetime

2.9 10.8 13.2 8.9 8.1 6.0 9.2 6.6 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-5

Table E-7. Comparison of victimization prevalence rates for undergraduate males and fem

victimization type and school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Sexual Assault Rape Sexual Battery Sexual Harassment Co

School

Male  

Female  

Diff p‐value

Male  

Female  

Diff p‐value

Male  

Female  

Diff p‐value

Male  

Female  

Diff p‐value

Male

School 1 4.5 % 20.0 %  ‐15.5 0.00 1.1 %! 6.2 % ‐5.1 0.00 3.1 % 13.2 % ‐10.1 0.00 16.0 % 46.4 % ‐30.5 0.00 3.4 School 2 1.4 ! 4.2   ‐2.8 0.00 0.4 ! 2.4 ‐2.0 0.00 0.4 ! 1.7   ‐1.3 0.01 6.7 13.7 ‐7.0 0.00 3.5 School 3 2.3 8.7   ‐6.4 0.00 0.5 ! 3.0 ‐2.5 0.00 1.5 4.7   ‐3.2 0.00 10.0 28.3 ‐18.3 0.00 4.9 School 4 2.4 5.8   ‐3.5 0.00 0.9 ! 2.8 ‐1.8 0.00 0.7 ! 2.6   ‐1.9 0.00 14.5 21.4 ‐6.9 0.00 8.4 School 5 5.7 16.9   ‐11.2 0.00 1.4 ! 7.9 ‐6.5 0.00 3.3 8.6   ‐5.3 0.00 22.9 41.8 ‐18.9 0.00 7.4 School 6 1.4 7.0   ‐5.6 0.00 0.3 ! 2.7 ‐2.4 0.00 0.6 ! 4.1   ‐3.5 0.00 8.3 18.9 ‐10.6 0.00 3.7 School 7 4.1 11.9   ‐7.7 0.00 0.7 ! 5.8 ‐5.1 0.00 2.5 5.7   ‐3.2 0.00 16.4 32.5 ‐16.2 0.00 6.7 School 8 3.0 10.7   ‐7.8 0.00 0.9 4.5 ‐3.5 0.00 1.5 5.9   ‐4.4 0.00 15.0 27.8 ‐12.8 0.00 7.1 School 9 3.3 7.1   ‐3.7 0.00 0.9 ! 2.2 ‐1.3 0.00 1.5 4.2   ‐2.7 0.00 9.3 22.8 ‐13.6 0.00 7.3 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-6

Table E-8. Standard errors of comparisons of victimization prevalence rates for undergra

females by victimization type and school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Sexual Assault Rape

Sexual Battery

(without Rape)

Sexual

Harassment

Coerced Sexual

Contact

School

Male  

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female  

Male  

Female  

School 1 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.3 %! 0.4 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 1.3 % 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.6 %School 2 0.5 ! 0.6 0.2 ! 0.5 0.3 ! 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6School 3 0.4 0.6 0.2 ! 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.5School 4 0.4 0.4 0.3 ! 0.3 0.2 ! 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.4School 5 0.6 0.6 0.3 ! 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5School 6 0.3 0.4 0.1 ! 0.2 0.2 ! 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3School 7 0.5 0.5 0.2 ! 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5School 8 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5School 9 0.5 0.4 0.3 ! 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-7

Table E-9. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, cross-school average 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault 

Entering Colle

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent 

All persons/victims 28.2 % 0.3 % 10.3 % 0.2 % 4.1 % 0.1 % 5.6 % 0.1 % 20.5 % 0.Year of study

1 32.3 % 0.6 % 13.1 % 0.4 % 5.4 % 0.3 % 7.0 % 0.3 % 16.7 % 0.2 32.1 0.6 11.6 0.4 4.9 0.3 6.2 0.3 20.2 0.3 29.7 0.6 10.6 0.4 4.1 0.2 6.0 0.3 22.6 0.4 28.5 0.6 9.7 0.4 3.4 0.2 5.9 0.3 25.1 0.Other 8.4 ! 2.7 ! 2.5 ! 1.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 2.5 ! 1.8 ! 17.5 3.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 32.3 % 0.6 % 13.1 % 0.4 % 5.4 % 0.3 % 7.0 % 0.3 % 16.7 % 0.2, 3, 4 29.6 0.3 10.5 0.2 4.1 0.1 5.9 0.2 22.8 0.Other 8.4 ! 2.7 ! 2.5 ! 1.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 2.5 ! 1.8 ! 17.5 3.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Age category

18–22 31.2 % 0.3 % 11.1 % 0.2 % 4.6 % 0.2 % 6.0 % 0.2 % 20.3 % 0.23+ 20.9 1.4 8.9 1.3 3.6 0.9 5.0 1.0 24.0 1.

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white 29.8 % 0.4 % 10.4 % 0.3 % 4.5 % 0.2 % 5.6 % 0.2 % 21.1 % 0.4 

Other 26.6 0.6 9.7 0.4 3.5 0.2 5.4 0.3 20.1 0.Missing 33.1 1.8 21.8 1.6 9.7 1.2 9.2 1.1 34.0 2.0 

Gender identity (dichotomous)

Female 28.2 % 0.3 % 10.2 % 0.2 % 4.1 % 0.1 % 5.6 % 0.1 % 20.4 % 0.Transgender/Something else 27.7 3.0 15.7 2.7 7.5 ! 1.7 ! 7.8 ! 2.2 ! 27.8 3.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-8

Table E-9. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, cross-school average (continued) 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault 

Entering Colle

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent 

Sexual orientation

Gay or lesbian 29.8 % 2.5 % 8.6 % 1.4 % 4.2 %! 1.0 %! 3.5 %! 0.9 %! 22.3 % 2.4 Straight 26.8 0.3 9.4 0.2 3.7 0.1 5.3 0.1 19.1 0.Bisexual 42.2 1.4 18.4 1.1 8.4 0.8 9.8 0.9 35.3 1.4 Something else 50.4 3.0 17.1 2.4 5.4 1.1 10.9 2.1 31.3 2.8 Missing 33.3 1.9 21.5 1.7 9.4 1.2 9.1 1.1 32.4 2.0 

Sexual orientation collapsed

Heterosexual 26.8 % 0.3 % 9.4 % 0.2 % 3.7 % 0.1 % 5.3 % 0.1 % 19.1 % 0.Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, or other 41.4 1.1 16.1 0.8 7.1 0.6 8.6 0.6 32.2 1.

Missing 33.3 1.9 21.5 1.7 9.4 1.2 9.1 1.1 32.4 2.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Note: Year of study estimates only include respondents at 4‐year schools.

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-9

Table E-10. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 1 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Sinc

Entering College

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 46.0 % 0.9 % 19.8 % 0.7 % 6.0 % 0.4 % 13.1 % 0.6 % 37.0 % 0.9 23+ 71.9 ! 10.6 ! 30.3 ! 10.7 ! 13.8 ! 8.1 ! 16.5 ! 8.2 ! 63.6 ! 11.5 

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 40.9 % 1.5 % 19.6 % 1.2 % 6.6 % 0.8 % 12.3 % 1.0 % 25.8 % 1.4 2, 3, 4 48.5 1.1 20.1 0.9 6.0 0.5 13.5 0.8 41.6 1.1 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Year of study

1 40.9 % 1.5 % 19.6 % 1.2 % 6.6 % 0.8 % 12.3 % 1.0 % 25.8 % 1.4 2 47.4 1.7 21.1 1.4 6.3 0.8 13.6 1.2 34.6 1.6 3 43.7 1.9 16.8 1.4 4.9 0.8 11.5 1.3 38.5 1.8 4 53.6 2.1 22.2 1.8 6.8 1.1 15.3 1.5 50.8 2.1 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanicwhite

49.3 % 1.3 % 21.3 % 1.1 % 7.2 % 0.7 % 13.7 % 1.0 % 38.1 % 1.3 

Other 42.7 1.3 17.3 1.0 4.6 0.6 12.1 0.8 35.1 1.3 Missing 59.7 5.4 41.4 5.4 14.5 ! 3.8 ! 21.0 ! 4.4 ! 65.8 5.2 

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 45.2 % 1.0 % 18.8 % 0.8 % 5.6 % 0.4 % 12.8 % 0.6 % 35.8 % 0.9 Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

57.5 3.8 27.4 3.6 11.9 2.8 15.1 2.9 47.6 3.8 

Missing 62.6 5.5 42.3 5.6 12.4 ! 3.8 ! 23.4 ! 4.8 ! 69.5 5.1 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-10

Table E-11. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 2 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assau

Since Enterin

College

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent S

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 16.1 % 1.5 % 4.2 % 0.8 % 3.0 %! 0.8 %! 0.9 %! 0.3 %! 8.7 % 1.23+ 11.1 1.3 4.3 0.9 1.7 ! 0.6 ! 2.6 ! 0.7 ! 18.5 1.

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 9.6 % 1.7 % 4.1 %! 1.3 %! 2.0 %! 1.0 %! 2.1 %! 0.9 %! 12.0 % 2.2, 3, 4 15.1 1.3 4.3 0.7 2.4 0.5 1.7 ! 0.4 ! 13.8 1.Other 11.2 ! 4.5 ! 4.9 ! 3.3 ! 4.9 ! 3.3 !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 19.6 ! 5.Missing 64.8 ! 22.6 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Year of study

1 9.6 % 1.7 % 4.1 %! 1.3 %! 2.0 %! 1.0 %! 2.1 %! 0.9 %! 12.0 % 2.2 15.3 1.8 4.9 1.0 2.2 ! 0.6 ! 2.7 ! 0.8 ! 9.9 1.3 15.9 2.4 4.7 ! 1.5 ! 3.6 ! 1.4 ! 0.4 ! 0.3 ! 20.5 2.4 13.7 2.4 2.0 ! 0.9 ! 0.9 ! 0.6 ! 1.2 ! 0.6 ! 13.2 2.Other 11.2 ! 4.5 ! 4.9 ! 3.3 ! 4.9 ! 3.3 !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 19.6 ! 5.Missing 64.8 ! 22.6 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

13.7 % 1.1 % 3.8 % 0.7 % 2.1 %! 0.5 %! 1.7 %! 0.4 %! 12.2 % 1.

Other 13.9 2.6 5.0 ! 1.6 ! 2.9 ! 1.4 ! 2.1 ! 0.9 ! 17.8 3.Missing 9.6 ! 4.7 ! 16.1 ! 6.3 ! 10.2 ! 5.0 !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 33.4 ! 10.

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 12.8 % 1.1 % 4.0 % 0.6 % 2.2 % 0.5 % 1.8 % 0.4 % 12.5 % 1.Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

27.2 4.7 3.8 ! 1.8 ! 2.0 ! 1.4 ! 1.8 ! 1.3 ! 21.5 4.

Missing 7.7 ! 4.0 ! 13.0 ! 5.5 ! 8.2 ! 4.2 !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 27.0 ! 9.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015s

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-11

Table E-12. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 3 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault S

Entering Colleg

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent S

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 33.6 % 1.3 % 10.8 % 0.8 % 3.4 % 0.5 % 6.4 % 0.7 % 19.1 % 123+ 18.7 1.4 5.0 0.8 2.2 0.5 1.8 0.5 16.6 1

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 34.7 % 2.5 % 13.0 % 1.8 % 4.1 % 1.1 % 7.3 % 1.4 % 16.2 % 22, 3, 4 27.2 1.0 8.0 0.6 2.8 0.4 4.3 0.5 18.6 0Other 15.3 ! 12.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 15.2 ! 12Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Year of study

1 34.7 % 2.5 % 13.0 % 1.8 % 4.1 % 1.1 % 7.3 % 1.4 % 16.2 % 22 35.2 2.9 10.0 1.8 2.9 ! 1.0 ! 5.9 1.4 17.3 23 28.1 1.8 8.2 1.1 3.1 0.7 4.5 0.8 17.5 14 23.9 1.4 7.2 0.9 2.6 0.5 3.6 0.6 19.8 1Other 15.3 ! 12.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 15.2 ! 12Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

32.8 % 2.1 % 9.6 % 1.3 % 4.2 % 0.9 % 4.4 % 0.9 % 24.4 % 1

Other 27.0 1.1 8.2 0.7 2.4 0.4 4.8 0.5 16.2 0Missing 24.3 ! 6.9 ! 21.5 ! 6.6 ! 12.2 ! 5.2 ! 6.1 ! 3.8 ! 22.3 ! 6

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 27.0 % 1.0 % 7.9 % 0.6 % 2.7 % 0.4 % 4.3 % 0.5 % 17.1 % 0Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

42.0 3.7 15.6 2.7 4.5 ! 1.5 ! 9.2 2.1 29.7 3

Missing 26.3 ! 7.9 ! 19.1 ! 7.1 ! 11.3 ! 5.7 ! 3.8 ! 3.4 ! 20.0 ! 7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-12

Table E-13. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 4 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Sin

Entering College

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 26.2 % 0.9 % 7.3 % 0.5 % 3.6 % 0.4 % 3.0 % 0.4 % 12.9 % 0.7 23+ 10.9 1.1 2.7 0.5 0.9 ! 0.3 ! 1.7 ! 0.4 ! 10.7 1.0 

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 26.2 % 1.7 % 8.7 % 1.1 % 4.3 % 0.7 % 3.6 % 0.8 % 10.7 % 1.1 2, 3, 4 20.3 0.8 5.1 0.4 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 12.7 0.7 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 9.1 ! 5.1 Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Year of study

1 26.2 % 1.7 % 8.7 % 1.1 % 4.3 % 0.7 % 3.6 % 0.8 % 10.7 % 1.1 2 23.1 1.5 5.7 0.8 3.0 0.6 2.7 0.6 11.3 1.2 3 17.6 1.3 5.4 0.8 2.9 0.5 1.7 ! 0.4 ! 12.5 1.1 4 20.6 1.3 4.4 0.6 1.5 0.3 2.7 0.5 13.7 1.1 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 9.1 ! 5.1 Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

21.8 % 0.8 % 5.6 % 0.5 % 2.9 % 0.3 % 2.6 % 0.3 % 11.5 % 0.6 

Other 19.0 1.5 5.3 0.8 2.0 ! 0.5 ! 2.1 0.5 13.6 1.3 Missing 30.2 4.9 15.1 3.3 6.7 ! 2.2 ! 7.1 ! 2.4 ! 20.0 3.9 

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 20.0 % 0.7 % 5.1 % 0.4 % 2.5 % 0.3 % 2.1 % 0.3 % 11.2 % 0.6 Gay, lesbian,

bisexual,other

39.2 3.9 12.7 2.5 4.7 ! 1.4 ! 8.0 ! 2.1 ! 24.8 3.3 

Missing 31.2 5.0 14.6 ! 3.4 ! 6.8 ! 2.3 ! 6.4 ! 2.4 ! 18.8 3.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-13

Table E-14. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 5 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assau

Entering Co

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 42.7 % 0.8 % 17.0 % 0.6 % 8.1 % 0.5 % 8.4 % 0.5 % 27.3 % 23+ 17.5 ! 4.4 ! 15.8 ! 4.3 ! 3.5 ! 1.9 ! 12.3 ! 3.9 ! 41.2 ! 

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 45.7 % 1.6 % 20.1 % 1.3 % 10.4 % 1.0 % 9.0 % 0.9 % 22.9 % 2, 3, 4 40.4 1.0 15.8 0.7 7.0 0.5 8.4 0.6 29.8 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Year of study

1 45.7 % 1.6 % 20.1 % 1.3 % 10.4 % 1.0 % 9.0 % 0.9 % 22.9 % 2 39.9 1.6 15.8 1.2 9.2 1.0 6.7 0.8 26.0 3 42.7 1.7 17.2 1.3 7.7 0.9 8.8 1.0 31.7 4 38.3 1.8 14.2 1.3 3.9 ! 0.7 ! 9.9 1.1 31.9 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

45.8 % 1.0 % 18.9 % 0.8 % 10.0 % 0.6 % 8.6 % 0.6 % 29.5 % 

Other 33.0 1.4 12.1 1.0 3.5 0.5 7.9 0.8 23.4 Missing 50.1 6.0 28.9 ! 5.4 ! 10.1 ! 3.7 ! 18.8 ! 4.7 ! 45.5 ! 

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 39.2 % 0.9 % 15.8 % 0.7 % 6.7 % 0.5 % 8.6 % 0.5 % 25.5 % Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

55.6 2.5 22.0 1.9 14.4 1.5 7.2 1.2 39.2 

Missing 51.0 ! 6.3 ! 32.5 ! 5.9 ! 11.4 ! 4.1 ! 21.1 ! 5.2 ! 45.8 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-14

Table E-15. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 6 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Si

Entering Colleg

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 21.7 % 0.7 % 7.8 % 0.4 % 3.1 % 0.3 % 4.5 % 0.3 % 16.0 % 0.23+ 9.5 1.1 4.0 0.8 1.2 ! 0.4 ! 2.8 ! 0.7 ! 18.5 1.

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 21.3 % 1.3 % 7.1 % 0.8 % 3.4 % 0.5 % 3.5 % 0.5 % 9.7 % 0.2, 3, 4 18.4 0.7 7.0 0.4 2.6 0.3 4.3 0.4 18.3 0.Other 13.7 ! 5.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 17.3 ! 6.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Year of study

1 21.3 % 1.3 % 7.1 % 0.8 % 3.4 % 0.5 % 3.5 % 0.5 % 9.7 % 0.2 20.1 1.3 8.7 0.9 3.6 0.6 4.6 0.7 15.9 1.3 23.2 1.3 9.3 0.9 3.3 0.5 5.8 0.8 20.4 1.4 14.0 0.9 4.4 0.5 1.4 ! 0.3 ! 3.0 0.4 18.1 1.Other 13.7 ! 5.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 17.3 ! 6.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

18.8 % 0.6 % 7.0 % 0.4 % 2.8 % 0.2 % 4.2 % 0.3 % 16.8 % 0.

Other 19.2 1.9 6.5 1.1 1.9 ! 0.6 ! 3.7 ! 0.9 ! 15.9 1.Missing 22.7 ! 4.7 ! 8.7 ! 2.9 ! 2.8 ! 1.6 ! 2.9 ! 1.7 ! 11.8 ! 3.

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 17.3 % 0.6 % 6.0 % 0.4 % 2.3 % 0.2 % 3.6 % 0.3 % 15.4 % 0.Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

33.0 2.3 15.2 1.9 6.2 1.1 9.0 1.6 29.0 2.

Missing 21.2 ! 4.9 ! 9.2 ! 3.1 ! 2.9 ! 1.7 ! 3.1 ! 1.8 ! 9.2 ! 3.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-15

Table E-16. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 7 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Si

Entering Colleg

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 39.6 % 1.0 % 14.4 % 0.7 % 7.0 % 0.5 % 7.0 % 0.5 % 25.8 % 0.23+ 17.2 1.2 6.4 0.8 3.0 0.6 2.9 0.5 16.8 1.

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 33.8 % 1.6 % 13.5 % 1.1 % 6.6 % 0.8 % 6.8 % 0.8 % 18.4 % 1.2, 3, 4 32.5 0.9 11.6 0.6 5.6 0.4 5.5 0.4 23.8 0.Other 12.4 ! 5.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 56.5 ! 9.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Year of study

1 33.8 % 1.6 % 13.5 % 1.1 % 6.6 % 0.8 % 6.8 % 0.8 % 18.4 % 1.2 35.6 1.6 12.9 1.1 6.6 0.8 5.9 0.8 20.4 1.3 33.2 1.6 11.5 1.1 5.8 0.8 5.3 0.7 23.6 1.4 29.6 1.4 10.7 1.0 4.7 0.7 5.3 0.7 26.6 1.Other 12.4 ! 5.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ ! 56.5 ! 9.Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

31.1 % 0.9 % 11.0 % 0.6 % 5.3 % 0.4 % 5.5 % 0.4 % 22.4 % 0.

Other 36.8 1.7 13.5 1.2 6.2 0.8 6.3 0.8 22.9 1.Missing 39.0 5.7 27.1 5.1 17.6 ! 4.4 ! 5.1 ! 2.5 ! 44.0 6.

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 31.9 % 0.8 % 11.5 % 0.6 % 5.4 % 0.4 % 5.7 % 0.4 % 21.9 % 0.Gay, lesbian,

bisexual, other

37.6 2.8 12.4 1.9 6.3 ! 1.4 ! 5.4 ! 1.3 ! 29.4 2.

Missing 40.2 5.8 27.8 5.2 18.1 ! 4.5 ! 5.2 ! 2.5 ! 40.2 6.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-16

Table E-17. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 8 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Sin

Entering College

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 31.3 % 0.9 % 11.7 % 0.7 % 4.6 % 0.4 % 6.7 % 0.5 % 21.3 % 0.8 23+ 17.1 1.5 7.9 1.2 3.9 0.9 3.4 0.7 22.3 1.7 

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 33.6 % 1.9 % 14.5 % 1.5 % 5.3 % 0.9 % 8.7 % 1.2 % 17.1 % 1.5 2, 3, 4 26.5 0.9 9.8 0.6 4.3 0.4 5.2 0.4 22.4 0.9 Other 26.1 ! 14.9 ! 19.7 ! 14.6 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 19.7 ! 14.6 ! 41.8 ! 17.3 Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Year of study

1 33.6 % 1.9 % 14.5 % 1.5 % 5.3 % 0.9 % 8.7 % 1.2 % 17.1 % 1.5 2 33.8 1.9 13.3 1.3 5.3 0.9 7.6 1.1 22.4 1.7 3 24.3 1.5 7.7 0.9 3.1 0.6 4.3 0.7 20.8 1.4 4 24.0 1.4 9.5 1.0 4.5 0.8 4.4 0.7 23.7 1.4 Other 26.1 ! 14.9 ! 19.7 ! 14.6 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 19.7 ! 14.6 ! 41.8 ! 17.3 Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  ! ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanic

white

27.7 % 0.9 % 9.9 % 0.6 % 4.0 % 0.4 % 5.6 % 0.5 % 20.8 % 0.8 

Other 27.2 2.0 12.0 1.5 5.6 1.0 5.8 1.1 21.5 1.9 Missing 35.0 5.2 28.2 4.9 11.3 ! 3.5 ! 14.9 ! 3.8 ! 43.4 5.9 

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 26.6 % 0.8 % 9.6 % 0.6 % 4.2 % 0.4 % 5.0 % 0.4 % 19.7 % 0.8 Gay, lesbian,bisexual,other

39.0 3.2 17.5 2.5 5.1 ! 1.6 ! 12.4 2.1 34.8 3.1 

Missing 34.3 5.3 28.7 4.9 11.5 ! 3.5 ! 15.1 ! 3.9 ! 44.3 6.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-17

Table E-18. Percentage (and standard errors) of undergraduate female victims by victimiza

demographic characteristics, School 9 

Sexual Harassment,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Rape, 2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Battery,

2014–2015

Academic Year

Sexual Assault Sin

Entering College

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Age (dichotomous)

18–22 23.5 % 0.8 % 7.3 % 0.5 % 2.2 % 0.3 % 4.5 % 0.4 % 14.6 % 0.7 23+ 13.8 ! 3.4 ! 4.0 ! 1.5 ! 2.0 ! 1.0 ! 1.0 ! 0.7 ! 7.4 ! 2.1 

Year of study (dichotomous)

1 22.4 % 1.1 % 8.6 % 0.7 % 2.8 % 0.4 % 5.1 % 0.6 % 12.4 % 0.9 2, 3, 4 23.2 1.0 6.2 0.6 1.9 0.3 3.8 0.4 15.1 0.9 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Year of study

1 22.4 % 1.1 % 8.6 % 0.7 % 2.8 % 0.4 % 5.1 % 0.6 % 12.4 % 0.9 2 21.5 1.5 5.4 0.8 1.9 ! 0.5 ! 2.8 0.6 13.7 1.3 3 25.0 2.0 8.4 1.2 2.3 ! 0.7 ! 5.9 1.0 16.1 1.7 4 23.7 2.0 5.3 1.0 1.4 ! 0.5 ! 2.9 ! 0.7 ! 16.0 1.6 Other  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ Missing  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Race/ethnicity (dichotomous)

Non‐Hispanicwhite

27.0 % 1.5 % 6.9 % 0.8 % 2.2 % 0.4 % 4.3 % 0.6 % 13.8 % 1.2 

Other 20.6 0.9 7.0 0.6 2.2 0.3 4.0 0.4 13.9 0.8 Missing 27.3 4.4 8.8 ! 2.6 ! 1.7 ! 1.2 ! 7.1 ! 2.3 ! 19.4 3.7 

Sexual orientation (dichotomous)

Heterosexual 21.3 % 0.8 % 6.2 % 0.4 % 1.7 % 0.2 % 3.8 % 0.4 % 12.5 % 0.6 Gay, lesbian,

bisexual,other

41.3 3.6 18.1 2.7 9.0 2.0 9.2 2.0 34.0 3.5 

Missing 24.8 4.6 6.3 ! 2.3 ! 2.0 ! 1.4 ! 4.3 ! 1.8 ! 16.5 ! 3.6 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

SE= standard error

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.

‐‐ Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-18

Table E-19. Comparison of unweighted and weighted estimates for undergraduate females 

victimization and school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Sexual Assault Rape Se

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted 

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Average 10.3 % 0.2 % 10.3 % 0.2 % 4.2 % 1.1 % 4.1 % 1.1 % 5.6 % 0.1 School 1 19.5 0.7 20.0 0.7 6.1 0.4 6.2 0.4 12.8 0.6 School 2 4.1 0.5 4.2 0.6 2.2 0.4 2.4 0.5 1.7 0.4 School 3 8.9 0.6 8.7 0.6 3.0 0.4 3.0 0.4 4.8 0.5 School 4 6.1 0.4 5.8 0.4 3.0 0.3 2.8 0.3 2.6 0.3 School 5 16.7 0.6 16.9 0.6 8.0 0.4 7.9 0.4 8.2 0.5 School 6 7.2 0.4 7.0 0.4 2.9 0.2 2.7 0.2 4.0 0.3 School 7 12.4 0.5 11.9 0.5 6.0 0.4 5.8 0.4 6.0 0.4 School 8 10.7 0.5 10.7 0.6 4.4 0.4 4.5 0.4 5.9 0.4 School 9 7.4 0.5 7.1 0.4 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.3 4.5 0.4 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

SE= standard error
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-19

Table E-20. Comparisons of sexual assault measurement methods: prevalence rates for un

females by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Primary

Measure Two‐Step 1 Two‐Step 2 Two‐Step 3 Two‐Step 4 Two‐Step 5

Behavioral

Screener

Sex

Miscon

Average 10.3 % 10.1 % 8.9 % 10.0 % 9.8 % 8.3 % 11.0 % 14.1 School 1 20.0 19.7 18.1 19.8 19.4 17.3 20.8 23.3 

School 2 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.6 6.2 

School 3 8.7 8.5 6.9 8.2 8.0 5.9 9.2 12.2 

School 4 5.8 5.6 4.8 5.5 5.5 4.4 6.2 10.2 

School 5 16.9 16.7 14.0 16.5 16.4 13.1 17.1 21.9 

School 6 7.0 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.8 6.2 7.5 9.6 

School 7 11.9 11.7 10.3 11.5 11.3 9.6 13.2 15.7 

School 8 10.7 10.5 9.4 10.5 10.0 8.8 11.4 15.2 

School 9 7.1 6.8 6.1 6.5 6.7 5.4 9.3 12.3 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Primary Measure: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified fo

Two‐Step 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents provided information in open‐ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual assault occurred.

Two‐Step 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents identified the month in which the incident occurred (Survey Item ILF1).

Two‐Step 3: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents identified the type of sexual contact that occurred during the incident (Survey Item ILF2).

Two‐Step 4: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondent identified one or more tactics used by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3).

Two‐Step 5: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondent (1) identified the month of the incident (Survey Item ILF1) AND (2) identified the type of sexual contact that occurred duri

Item ILF2) AND (3) identified one or more tactics used by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3) AN

information in open‐ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual assault occurred.

Behavioral Screener: classifies respondents who endorsed any of the sub‐items in Survey Item LCA2, which presents behaviorally‐spec

different types of unwanted sexual contact, as sexual assault victims

Sexual Misconduct 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specifie

respondents experienced coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1).

Sexual Misconduct 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if respondent (1) specified one or more incidents of unwanted se

Item P2, (2) experienced coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1), or (3) experienced any type of sexual harassment (Survey Item SH)
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-20

Table E-21. Comparisons of sexual assault measurement methods: standard errors of prev

undergraduate females by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Primary

Measure Two‐Step 1 Two‐Step 2 Two‐Step 3 Two‐Step 4 Two‐Step 5

Behavioral

Screener

Sexu

Miscon

Average 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 School 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 

School 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 

School 3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 

School 4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 

School 5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 

School 6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

School 7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 

School 8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 

School 9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Primary Measure: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified fo

Two‐Step 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents provided information in open‐ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual assault occurred.

Two‐Step 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents identified the month in which the incident occurred (Survey Item ILF1).

Two‐Step 3: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondents identified the type of sexual contact that occurred during the incident (Survey Item ILF2).

Two‐Step 4: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondent identified one or more tactics used by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3).

Two‐Step 5: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specified in Surve

respondent (1) identified the month of the incident (Survey Item ILF1) AND (2) identified the type of sexual contact that occurred duri

Item ILF2) AND (3) identified one or more tactics used by the perpetrator to engage in unwanted sexual contact (Survey Item ILF3) AN

information in open‐ended responses to suggest that something other than a sexual assault occurred.

Behavioral Screener: classifies respondents who endorsed any of the sub‐items in Survey Item LCA2, which presents behaviorally‐spec

different types of unwanted sexual contact, as sexual assault victims

Sexual Misconduct 1: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if one or more incidents of unwanted sexual contact are specifie

respondents experienced coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1).

Sexual Misconduct 2: classifies respondents as sexual assault victims if respondent (1) specified one or more incidents of unwanted se

Item P2, (2) experienced coerced sexual contact (Survey Item EC1), or (3) experienced any type of sexual harassment (Survey Item SH)
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-21

Table E-22. Percentage of undergraduate females experiencing 1, 2, and 3 or more sexual 

victimizations, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Number of

Sexual Assault

Victimizations Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 Sc

1 5.6 % 11.5 % 1.4 %! 5.1 % 3.1 % 8.7 % 4.1 % 6.4 % 2 3.1 5.8 2.2 2.4 1.5 4.8 1.7 3.6 3 or more 1.6 2.7 0.6 ! 1.2 1.2 3.5 1.1 1.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

Table E-23. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate females experiencing 1, 2, an

sexual assault victimizations, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Number of

Sexual Assault

Victimizations Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 Sc

1 0.1 % 0.6 % 0.3 %! 0.5 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 3 or more 0.1 0.3 0.2 ! 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-22

Table E-24. Percentage of undergraduate males experiencing 1, 2, and 3 or more sexual a

victimizations, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Number of

Sexual Assault

Victimizations Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 Sc

1 1.8 % 2.9 % 0.6 %! 1.3 % 1.2 % 3.4 % 0.4 %! 2.5 % 2 0.9 1.0 ! 0.6 ! 0.5 ! 0.7 ! 1.6 ! 0.9 ! 1.0 ! 

3 or more 0.4 0.5 ! 0.2 ! 0.6 ! 0.4 ! 0.7 ! 0.1 ! 0.6 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

Table E-25. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate males experiencing 1, 2, and 

assault victimizations, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Number of

Sexual Assault

Victimizations Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 Sc

1 0.1 % 0.6 % 0.3 %! 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 0.1 %! 0.4 % 2 0.1 0.3 ! 0.3 ! 0.2 ! 0.2 ! 0.4 ! 0.2 ! 0.3 ! 

3 or more 0.1 0.3 ! 0.2 ! 0.2 ! 0.2 ! 0.2 ! 0.1 ! 0.2 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-23

Table E-26. Victimization rate among undergraduate females, by victimization type and sc

academic year 

Type of Victimization Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Any Sexual Assault 175.6 324.5 84.8 144.8 105.4 298.6 119.5 208.4 Rape 54.2 75.3 31.2 36.6 37.3 109.5 34.8 75.9 

Sexual Battery 96.3 221.0 33.6 75.5 45.9 159.3 67.9 98.4 

Unsure 4.9 7.2 3.6 ! 9.0 1.9 ! 5.7 ! 2.7 ! 5.5 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

5.4 1.1 ! 2.5 ! 9.5 6.9 8.3 ! 0.9 ! 7.9 

Missing by Design 10.1 13.5 7.9 ! 9.7 7.9 12.2 10.3 15.0 

Missing 4.6 6.5 ! 6.0 ! 4.5 ! 5.5 ! 3.5 ! 2.8 ! 5.7 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Note: Victimization rate is the number of incidents per 1,000 undergraduate students

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50. Victimization rate 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-24

Table E-27. Standard errors of victimization rate among undergraduate females, by victim

school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Type of Victimization Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Any Sexual Assault 1.0 4.7 5.5 0.6 1.9 2.7 2.5 1.8 Rape 1.7 5.9 6.5 3.8 3.2 7.2 3.6 4.9 

Sexual Battery 1.9 7.2 7.0 4.4 3.7 7.9 4.8 5.0 

Unsure 0.6 1.8 2.1 ! 2.1 0.9 ! 2.1 ! 1.2 ! 1.7 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

0.6 0.7 ! 1.3 ! 2.1 1.9 2.5 ! 0.6 ! 2.1 

Missing by Design 0.8 2.7 3.0 ! 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.1 2.5 Missing 0.6 2.1 ! 2.9 ! 1.6 ! 1.7 ! 1.5 ! 1.2 ! 1.6 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Note: Victimization rate is the number of incidents per 1,000 undergraduate students

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50. Victimization rate 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-25

Table E-28. Victimization rate among undergraduate males, by type of victimization and sc

academic year 

Type of Victimization Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Any Sexual Assault 52.9 70.4 28.8 41.5 45.1 95.7 27.3 69.2 Rape 10.1 12.9 ! 8.1 ! 6.4 ! 9.3 ! 19.9 3.8 ! 7.4 ! 

Sexual Battery 23.1 40.5 6.9 ! 22.5 10.6 45.7 6.8 ! 35.3 

Unsure 6.4 2.2 ! 7.1 ! 2.8 ! 8.7 ! 11.4 ! 8.7 ! 5.5 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

5.4 3.5 ! 2.5 ! 2.9 ! 4.2 ! 7.5 ! 5.8 ! 9.2 

Missing by Design 4.6 4.1 ! 4.2 ! 1.9 ! 6.0 ! 7.9 ! 2.2 ! 5.3 ! 

Missing 3.3 7.2 !  ‐‐ ! 4.9 ! 6.4 ! 3.2 !  ‐‐ ! 6.5 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Note: Victimization rate is the number of incidents per 1,000 undergraduate students

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50. Victimization rate 

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-26

Table E-29. Standard errors of victimization rate among undergraduate males, by type of v

school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Type of Victimization Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Any Sexual Assault 1.1 5.4 1.4 0.3 2.4 5.7 1.4 2.3 Rape 1.1 3.8 ! 3.5 ! 2.3 ! 2.8 ! 4.5 2.2 ! 2.6 ! 

Sexual Battery 1.6 7.3 3.6 ! 3.1 2.6 8.2 2.3 ! 4.5 

Unsure 1.0 1.7 ! 3.9 ! 1.5 ! 3.1 ! 4.5 ! 2.9 ! 2.0 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

0.9 2.0 ! 2.5 ! 1.6 ! 2.0 ! 3.8 ! 2.4 ! 2.6 

Missing by Design 0.8 2.9 ! 2.8 ! 1.4 ! 2.4 ! 3.5 ! 1.5 ! 1.9 ! 

Missing 0.6 3.6 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 2.3 ! 2.2 !  ‐‐ ! 2.2 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

Note: Victimization rate is the number of incidents per 1,000 undergraduate students

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50. Victimization rate 

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-27

Table E-30. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual assault incidents in which various 

were specified, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Sexual Assault Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape 31.6 % 24.2 % 40.5 % 27.1 % 38.3 % 38.2 % 31.9 % 39.2 % Sexual Battery 57.9 71.1 43.7 55.9 47.0 55.6 62.2 50.9 

Unsure 3.6 2.3 4.6 ! 6.6 2.0 ! 2.0 ! 2.5 ! 2.9 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

4.0 0.3 ! 3.3 ! 7.0 7.0 2.9 ! 0.8 ! 4.1 

Missing 3.0 2.1 ! 7.8 ! 3.4 ! 5.7 ! 1.2 ! 2.6 ! 3.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

Table E-31. Standard error of percentage of undergraduate female sexual assault incident

various types of assault were specified, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Sexual Assault Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Rape 1.0 % 1.9 % 7.6 % 2.8 % 3.3 % 2.5 % 3.3 % 2.4 % Sexual Battery 1.1 2.0 7.7 3.1 3.5 2.6 3.5 2.5 

Unsure 0.5 0.6 2.7 ! 1.5 0.9 ! 0.7 ! 1.1 ! 0.9 ! 

No Types of SexualContact Endorsed

0.5 0.2 ! 1.7 ! 1.6 1.9 0.9 ! 0.6 ! 1.1 

Missing 0.4 0.7 ! 3.8 ! 1.2 ! 1.7 ! 0.5 ! 1.1 ! 0.8 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-28

Table E-32. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents in which various types of 

specified, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Rape

Type of

Penetration

Not Specified

Average Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Oral sex 3.9 % 36.7 % 33.3 % 28.5 %! 36.1 % 51.3 % 41.0 % 37.9 % 32.7 % Anal sex 6.6 10.3 6.5 ! 18.3 ! 10.4 ! 9.7 ! 6.2 ! 8.7 ! 8.2 

Sexual intercourse 2.5 58.7 52.2 61.7 61.2 52.8 53.7 56.0 63.9 

Sexual penetration

with finger or object

3.7 54.0 51.7 74.5 52.8 56.3 59.9 41.8 51.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-29

Table E-33. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents in whic

of penetration were specified, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Rape

Type of

Penetration

Not

Specified

Average Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Oral sex 0.7 % 1.9 % 4.0 % 11.0 %! 5.8 % 5.4 % 4.0 % 5.8 % 3.8 % Anal sex 1.0 1.3 2.1 ! 11.6 ! 3.7 ! 3.2 ! 2.0 ! 3.3 ! 2.1 

Sexual intercourse 0.6 1.9 4.4 12.0 5.9 5.4 4.1 6.0 3.8 

Sexual penetrationwith finger or object

0.8 2.0 4.4 11.5 6.0 5.4 4.0 6.0 4.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-30

Table E-34. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual assault incidents in which various 

used by offender (reported by victim), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Tactics Used During

Victimization

Percent

Missing

Average Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 

Touched or grabbed 11.2 % 85.4 % 89.8 % 84.3 % 79.2 % 81.9 % 89.9 % 92.1 % 87.9 % Threatened to hurt you or

someone you care about

6.7 4.9 2.1 ! 9.1 ! 4.7 5.7 6.1 4.9 ! 5.7 

Used physical force against

you

6.2 23.7 19.0 34.0 20.0 31.3 27.1 21.2 27.6 

You were unable to provide

consent to stop what was

happening

5.5 24.9 24.7 28.3 23.4 19.7 28.1 23.3 25.0 

Other 26.5 6.0 4.9 11.6 ! 6.2 7.9 4.2 7.5 6.1 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-31

Table E-35. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual assault inciden

various tactics were used by offender (reported by victim), by school, 2014–20year 

Tactics Used During

Victimization

Percent

Missing

Average Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Touched or grabbed 0.8 % 0.8 % 1.2 % 4.8 % 2.5 % 2.8 % 1.5 % 2.0 % 1.7 % Threatened to hurt you or

someone you care about

0.6 0.5 0.6 ! 4.7 ! 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.6 ! 1.2 

Used physical force against

you

0.5 0.9 1.7 7.4 2.5 3.2 2.3 2.9 2.3 

You were unable to

provide consent to stop

what was happening

0.5 1.0 1.8 6.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.1 

Other 1.0 0.6 1.0 5.8 ! 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.8 1.2 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-32

Table E-36. Percentage and standard errors of overlap of type of tactics and type of sexua

2015 academic year 

Pair P

A B Only A 

Touched/grabbed your sexual body parts Threatened to hurt you or someone you care about 95.1 % Touched/grabbed your sexual body parts Used physical force against you 72.5 Touched/grabbed your sexual body parts Unable to provide consent to stop what was happening 71.9 Touched/grabbed your sexual body parts Other 92.6 Threatened to hurt you or someone you care

about

Used physical force against you 9.3 

Threatened to hurt you or someone you care

about

Unable to provide consent to stop what was happening 12.5 

Threatened to hurt you or someone you care

about

Other 38.1 

Used physical force against you Unable to provide consent to stop what was happening 40.3 Used physical force against you Other 73.1 Unable to provide consent to stop what was

happening

Other 71.4 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-33

Table E-37. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents in which offender used va

(reported by victim), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Tactic Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Tactic—Threat or force used

Yes 43.7 % 43.4 % 68.6 % 42.6 % 43.2 % 47.2 % 33.3 % 47.3 % 

No 44.9 48.1 31.4 ! 42.7 45.0 41.4 60.5 39.3 Unsure 7.3 6.2 !  ‐‐ ! 11.9 ! 9.5 ! 7.2 ! 2.1 ! 5.8 ! 

Tactic—Incapacitated during incident

Yes 52.4 % 63.8 % 46.7 %! 50.5 % 42.8 % 55.9 % 55.6 % 46.6 % 

No 42.9 34.3 53.3 % 44.9 51.3 42.4 39.4 42.6 

Unsure 3.1 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 3.0 ! 5.9 ! 1.6 ! 2.3 ! 3.5 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-34

Table E-38. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents in whic

various tactics (reported by victim), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Tactic Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Tactic—Threat or force used

Yes 2.0 % 4.4 % 10.9 % 6.0 % 5.4 % 4.1 % 5.7 % 4.0 % 

No 2.0 4.4 10.9 ! 6.0 5.3 4.1 5.9 3.9 

Unsure 1.1 1.9 !  ‐‐ ! 3.9 ! 3.5 ! 2.1 ! 2.0 ! 1.9 ! 

Tactic—Incapacitated during incident

Yes 2.0 % 4.4 % 12.2 %! 6.0 % 5.3 % 4.1 % 6.0 % 4.0 % 

No 2.0 4.4 12.2 % 6.0 5.4 4.1 5.9 3.9 

Unsure 0.7 0.8 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 3.3 ! 1.0 ! 2.2 ! 1.5 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-35

Table E-39. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents in which offende

tactics (reported by victim), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Tactic Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Tactic—Touched or grabbed

Yes 92.9 % 92.4 % / % 93.2 % 92.7 % 92.8 % 96.8 % 95.7 % 

No 5.0 6.4   ‐‐ ! 4.0 ! 3.6 ! 5.4 ! 2.5 ! 3.8 ! 

Unsure 0.8 ! 0.2 !  ‐‐ ! 1.4 ! 0.8 ! 1.3 !  ‐‐ ! 0.5 ! 

Tactic—Threat or force used

Yes 19.3 % 12.6 % 16.3 %! 15.8 % 33.4 % 19.2 % 20.9 % 22.9 % 

No 74.8 81.5 83.7 76.2 62.5 75.8 76.4 71.1 

Unsure 2.0 1.6 !  ‐‐ ! 3.0 ! 3.0 ! 1.6 ! 1.3 ! 1.0 ! 

Tactic—Incapacitated during incident

Yes 12.7 % 11.1 % 14.5 %! 16.7 % 5.6 %! 9.6 % 7.1 %! 10.3 % 

No 83.1 83.8 80.2 78.9 91.6 86.2 90.8 84.5 

Unsure 0.7 ! 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 0.7 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 !  ‐‐ ! 0.5 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-36

Table E-40. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

offender used various tactics (reported by victim), by school, 2014–2015 acad

Tactic Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 

Tactic—Touched or grabbed

Yes 0.7 % 1.2 %   ‐‐ % 2.1 % 2.7 % 1.8 % 1.9 % 1.4 % 

No 0.6 1.1   ‐‐ ! 1.6 ! 2.2 ! 1.6 ! 1.8 ! 1.4 ! 

Unsure 0.3 ! 0.2 !  ‐‐ ! 1.0 ! 0.8 ! 0.7 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 ! 

Tactic—Threat or force used

Yes 1.2 % 1.6 % 7.8 %! 3.0 % 4.9 % 2.8 % 3.9 % 3.0 % 

No 1.3 1.9 7.8 3.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 

Unsure 0.4 0.6 !  ‐‐ ! 1.4 ! 1.7 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 ! 0.7 ! 

Tactic—Incapacitated during incident

Yes 1.0 % 1.5 % 7.0 %! 3.1 % 2.0 %! 2.1 % 2.4 %! 2.0 % 

No 1.1 1.8 8.5 3.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 

Unsure 0.2 ! 0.6 !  ‐‐ ! 0.7 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-37

Table E-41. Number of sexual assault incidents by month and year of study among underg

2014–2015 academic year 

All Types of Sexual Assault Victimization

Year of Study

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

August 2014 121 137 140 102September 2014 330 152 133 177

October 2014 299 205 135 238

November 2014 155 166 154 122

December 2014 91 74 104 123

January 2015 119 83 121 135

February 2015 156 129 161 148

March 2015 143 93 120 148

April/May 2015 31 46 59 100Unsure/Don't know 171 221 234 338

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Weighted counts are calculated by pooling data from all respondents across 4-year schools and calculating a weighted overall est
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-38

Table E-42. Number of rape and sexual battery incidents by month among undergraduate f

2015 academic year 

Type of Victimization

Rape Battery Unsure

August 2014 189 306 11September 2014 318 467 20October 2014 308 567 26

November 2014 247 332 30

December 2014 189 211 3

January 2015 198 242 24

February 2015 217 376 8

March 2015 146 352 18

April/May 2015 64 167 7Unsure/Don't know 167 723 82

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: The weighted counts are calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overa
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-39

Table E-43. Distribution of undergraduate female sexual assault victims who indicated uns

month/year the incident occurred, by Survey Item LCA3 response and year of s

academic year 

Survey Item LCA3 Response 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Provided Month/Year in Reference Period 63.0 % 39.6 % 48.0 % 37.3 %Indicated "Never" 14.8 9.4 18.0 20.9

Provided Month/Year Outside of Reference Period 14.8 26.4 22.0 23.9

Left Missing 7.4 24.5 12.0 17.9

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-40

Table E-44. Basic characteristics of undergraduate female rape incidents (percentage of r

involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Offenders

One 91.1 % 97.4 % 91.8 % 86.9 % 90.3 % 97.2 % 93.5 % 88.3 

More than one 5.0 1.8 !  ‐‐ ! 7.1 ! 7.6 ! 2.0 ! 4.3 ! 7.5 

Unsure 3.6 0.7 ! 8.2 ! 6.0 ! 2.0 !  ‐‐ ! 2.2 ! 2.8 

Gender of Offender(s)

Male 93.9 % 96.2 % / % 86.5 % 88.9 % 98.3 % 93.7 % 94.5 

Female 2.0 1.4 !  ‐‐ ! 3.0 ! 4.4 ! 0.9 ! 6.9 ! 0.8 

Transgender 0.8 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 3.0 ! 1.1 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Unsure 0.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 1.6 ! 1.0 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 0.6 

Location of Incident

On campus 32.8 % 53.3 % 3.7 %! 25.1 % 33.0 % 62.1 % 37.1 % 35.9 

Off campus 65.6 46.7 96.3 70.4 67.0 37.9 62.9 62.0 

Unsure 1.3 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 4.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Offender(s) Affiliated with School

Yes 54.5 % 71.1 % 18.5 %! 45.0 % 51.9 % 66.5 % 43.2 % 59.8 

None 40.4 25.2 65.2 48.9 39.6 31.2 53.6 33.7 

Unsure 3.9 0.6 ! 16.3 ! 6.1 ! 4.0 ! 2.3 ! 3.3 ! 3.1 

Relationship to Offender

Stranger 9.2 % 7.5 %! 20.1 %! 8.8 %! 9.8 %! 5.6 %! 4.6 %! 11.9 

Current or ex friend or

roommate

15.8 19.0 7.8 ! 11.1 ! 14.8 12.3 19.8 15.1 

Current or ex dating

partner or spouse

22.7 20.3 37.5 ! 13.1 ! 37.9 23.7 23.2 27.4 

Someone else known to

victim

58.7 56.5 34.6 ! 70.9 50.1 59.8 53.8 55.6 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-41

Table E-44. Basic characteristics of undergraduate female rape incidents (percentage of r

involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic year (continued) 

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Offender Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 59.4 % 71.1 % 64.5 % 55.4 % 52.3 % 62.8 % 47.4 % 58.4 

No 26.2 21.3 23.6 ! 26.8 37.3 21.6 43.5 25.1 

Unsure 13.6 7.6 ! 11.9 ! 16.3 8.4 ! 15.6 9.1 ! 14.3 

Victim Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 63.0 % 74.9 % 44.3 %! 63.0 % 46.5 % 63.3 % 55.0 % 58.5 

No 34.6 24.6 47.6 ! 35.4 51.1 36.7 45.0 36.6 

Unsure 1.9 0.5 ! 8.2 ! 1.6 ! 2.3 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 1.3 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-42

Table E-45. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents involvin

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Offenders

One 1.2 % 1.4 % 7.6 % 4.0 % 3.4 % 1.4 % 3.1 % 2.5 

More than one 0.9 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 3.0 ! 3.1 ! 1.3 ! 2.4 ! 2.1 

Unsure 0.8 0.7 ! 7.6 ! 2.9 ! 1.4 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 1.3 

Gender of Offender(s)

Male 1.0 % 1.6 %   ‐‐ % 4.1 % 3.6 % 1.1 % 2.9 % 1.8 

Female 0.6 0.9 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 2.6 ! 0.8 ! 3.2 ! 0.7 

Transgender 0.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 1.1 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Unsure 0.3 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 1.6 ! 1.0 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 0.6 

Location of Incident

On campus 1.8 % 4.4 % 3.7 %! 5.1 % 5.1 % 4.0 % 5.8 % 3.8 

Off campus 1.8 4.4 3.7 5.4 5.1 4.0 5.8 3.8 

Unsure 0.6 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 2.5 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Offender(s) Affiliated with School

Yes 2.0 % 3.9 % 7.9 %! 6.0 % 5.4 % 3.9 % 6.0 % 4.0 

None 2.0 3.7 11.5 6.0 5.2 3.8 6.1 3.8 

Unsure 0.9 0.6 ! 10.2 ! 2.9 ! 2.2 ! 1.2 ! 3.1 ! 1.5 

Relationship to Offender

Stranger 1.3 % 2.2 %! 10.5 %! 3.4 %! 3.4 %! 1.8 %! 2.5 %! 2.6 

Current or ex friend or

roommate

1.4 3.4 5.3 ! 3.7 ! 3.9 2.6 4.8 2.8 

Current or ex dating

partner or spouse

1.6 3.7 12.5 ! 4.1 ! 5.2 3.5 5.0 3.6 

Someone else known to

victim

1.9 4.4 10.7 ! 5.5 5.4 4.0 6.1 4.0 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-43

Table E-45. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents involvin

(continued) 

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Offender Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 2.0 % 4.1 % 11.2 % 6.0 % 5.4 % 3.9 % 6.1 % 3.9 

No 1.7 3.9 9.1 ! 5.3 5.2 3.3 6.0 3.5 

Unsure 1.4 2.1 ! 8.3 ! 4.5 3.0 ! 3.0 4.0 ! 2.8 

Victim Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 1.9 % 4.0 % 11.9 %! 5.8 % 5.4 % 4.0 % 6.0 % 3.9 

No 1.9 4.0 12.3 ! 5.8 5.4 4.0 6.0 3.8 

Unsure 0.6 0.4 ! 7.6 ! 1.6 ! 2.2 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 0.8 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-44

Table E-46. Basic characteristics of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents (perce

battery incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic ye

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Offenders

One 93.5 % 93.7 % / % 93.0 % 93.2 % 92.6 % 94.4 % 91.5 

More than one 4.5 5.2    ‐‐ ! 3.4 ! 4.1 ! 5.1 ! 4.1 ! 6.3 

Unsure 1.9 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 3.6 ! 0.9 ! 2.3 ! 0.8 ! 2.2 

Gender of Offender(s)

Male 95.2 % 97.1 % 98.8 % 95.6 % 92.4 % 94.6 % 94.1 % 97.1 

Female 2.3 0.8 ! 1.2 ! 1.5 ! 2.8 ! 2.2 ! 5.7 !  ‐‐ 

Transgender 0.2 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 1.4 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Unsure 0.9 0.8 !  ‐‐ ! 0.7 !  ‐‐ ! 1.0 !  ‐‐ ! 1.8 

Location of Incident

On campus 27.5 % 33.1 % 3.7 %! 24.5 % 44.9 % 46.9 % 27.3 % 29.3 

Off campus 71.5 66.2 96.3 74.0 51.7 51.2 72.7 70.3 

Unsure 0.8 ! 0.8 !  ‐‐ ! 1.5 ! 2.3 ! 2.0 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 

Offender(s) Affiliated with School

Yes 55.5 % 64.3 % 16.3 %! 50.4 % 56.5 % 63.0 % 39.2 % 68.6 

None 30.0 21.8 78.3 31.7 33.8 24.0 55.3 21.4 

Unsure 13.2 13.5 5.3 ! 16.5 4.7 ! 11.5 4.0 ! 9.2 

Relationship to Offender

Stranger 34.4 % 42.4 %   ‐‐ %! 34.6 % 23.3 % 24.5 % 24.3 % 26.1 

Current or ex friend or

roommate

11.9 11.5 10.9 ! 15.8 18.9 11.1 20.1 11.4 

Current or ex dating

partner or spouse

7.2 5.4 20.6 ! 5.7 ! 10.4 ! 4.1 ! 9.2 10.0 

Someone else known tovictim

48.1 44.7 68.4 41.2 48.8 60.9 51.3 57.5 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-45

Table E-46. Basic characteristics of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents (perce

battery incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic ye

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Offender Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 57.6 % 65.2 % 74.6 % 49.9 % 39.3 % 61.2 % 53.1 % 61.5 

No 21.0 13.2 14.9 ! 23.3 40.3 19.5 30.2 17.7 

Unsure 20.7 20.9 10.6 ! 26.1 18.5 19.3 15.1 20.5 

Victim Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 48.5 % 62.0 % 43.9 % 44.1 % 28.6 % 48.4 % 47.1 % 47.4 

No 49.4 35.7 56.1 ! 53.8 66.7 47.5 51.4 49.7 

Unsure 1.6 1.1 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 2.8 ! 3.5 ! 0.7 ! 2.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-46

Table E-47. Standard errors of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents involving ch

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Offenders

One 0.7 % 1.2 %   ‐‐ % 2.1 % 2.5 % 1.8 % 2.0 % 1.8 

More than one 0.6 1.1    ‐‐ ! 1.5 ! 2.0 ! 1.5 ! 1.7 ! 1.6 

Unsure 0.4 0.5 !  ‐‐ ! 1.6 ! 0.8 ! 1.0 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 

Gender of Offender(s)

Male 0.7 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 1.7 % 2.8 % 1.6 % 2.4 % 1.1 

Female 0.5 0.5 ! 1.2 ! 1.1 ! 2.0 ! 1.0 ! 2.3 !  ‐‐ 

Transgender 0.1 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 0.9 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ 

Unsure 0.3 0.4 !  ‐‐ ! 0.7 !  ‐‐ ! 0.6 !  ‐‐ ! 0.8 

Location of Incident

On campus 1.3 % 2.4 % 3.6 %! 3.6 % 5.1 % 3.5 % 3.9 % 3.1 

Off campus 1.3 2.4 3.6 3.7 5.2 3.5 3.9 3.2 

Unsure 0.3 ! 0.4 !  ‐‐ ! 1.0 ! 1.9 ! 1.0 !  ‐‐ ! 0.4 

Offender(s) Affiliated with School

Yes 1.5 % 2.4 % 7.4 %! 4.2 % 5.2 % 3.4 % 4.6 % 3.2 

None 1.4 2.1 8.7 3.9 5.1 3.0 4.7 2.9 

Unsure 1.0 1.7 5.1 ! 3.1 2.1 ! 2.2 1.7 ! 2.0 

Relationship to Offender

Stranger 1.4 % 2.5 %   ‐‐ %! 4.0 % 4.4 % 3.0 % 4.2 % 3.1 Current or ex friend or

roommate

1.0 1.7 6.1 ! 3.0 4.1 2.2 3.9 2.1 

Current or ex dating

partner or spouse

0.7 1.1 11.1 ! 1.9 ! 3.1 ! 1.3 ! 2.6 2.1 

Someone else known tovictim

1.5 2.6 11.6 4.1 5.2 3.4 4.8 3.4 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-47

Table E-47. Standard errors of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents involving ch

Characteristics of Incident Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Offender Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 1.5 % 2.4 % 11.2 % 4.2 % 5.0 % 3.4 % 4.8 % 3.4 

No 1.2 1.7 10.4 ! 3.5 5.2 2.7 4.6 2.6 

Unsure 1.2 2.0 6.2 ! 3.7 4.1 2.7 3.3 2.8 

Victim Drug/Alcohol Use

Yes 1.5 % 2.5 % 11.9 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 3.5 % 4.8 % 3.5 

No 1.5 2.5 11.9 ! 4.2 4.8 3.5 4.8 3.5 

Unsure 0.4 0.4 !  ‐‐ ! 1.2 ! 2.0 ! 1.2 ! 0.6 ! 1.1 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-48

Table E-48. Reporting characteristics of undergraduate female rape incidents (percentage 

incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Notified roommate, friends, or family

Yes 63.5 % 70.4 % 69.7 % 60.5 % 59.4 % 66.4 % 56.2 % 60.6 % 

No 35.9 29.6 30.3 ! 39.5 40.6 33.6 43.8 35.5 

Incident reported to any official

Yes 14.6 % 13.2 % 45.2 %! 20.6 % 7.5 %! 15.9 % 17.8 %! 12.3 % 

No 84.6 86.8 54.8 79.4 90.0 84.1 82.2 83.3 

Incident reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 6.8 % 0.7 %! 20.1 %! 12.9 %! 6.5 %! 4.8 %! 9.5 %! 4.9 %

No 92.2 99.3 77.6 87.1 92.3 94.2 90.5 90.7 

Incident reported to any school official

Yes 9.1 % 13.2 % 26.3 %! 11.8 %! 6.4 %! 9.8 % 6.7 %! 3.8 %

No 90.2 86.8 73.7 88.2 91.0 90.2 93.3 92.6 

Victim reported to any official

Yes 12.5 % 11.8 % 41.5 %! 16.0 % 7.5 %! 13.9 % 13.8 %! 9.4 % 

No 87.5 88.2 58.5 84.0 % 92.5 86.1 86.2 90.6 

Victim reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 4.2 % 0.7 %! 16.3 %! 7.1 %! 6.5 %! 4.8 %! 6.0 %! 2.6 %

No 95.8 99.3 83.7 92.9 % 93.5 95.2 94.0 97.4 

Victim reported to any school official

Yes 7.0 % 11.8 % 6.2 %! 8.8 %! 6.4 %! 8.9 % 1.5 %! 3.3 %

No 93.0 88.2 93.8 91.2 93.6 91.1 98.5 96.7 

Were officials reported to helpful

Yes 80.8 % 94.4 % / %! 70.8 %! 86.0 %! 82.5 % / %! 64.8 % 

No 19.2 5.6 ! ‐‐ ! 29.2 ! 14.0 ! 17.5 ! ‐‐ ! 35.2 ! 

Were law enforcement officials reported to helpful

Yes 53.0 % / %! / %! 43.8 %! 83.8 %! / %! / %! 38.0 %

No 42.0    ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 56.2 ! 16.2 ! ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 62.0 ! 

Were school officials reported to helpful

Yes 74.8 % 89.4 % 85.8 %! 61.2 %! 67.5 %! 90.5 % / %! 51.1 %

No 25.2 10.6 ! 14.2 ! 38.8 ! 32.5 ! 9.5 ! ‐‐ ! 48.9 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-49

Table E-49. Standard errors of undergraduate female rape incidents involving reporting ch

Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Notified roommate, friends, or family

Yes 1.9 % 3.9 % 10.6 % 5.9 % 5.3 % 3.9 % 6.0 % 3.9 % 

No 1.9 3.9 10.6 ! 5.9 5.3 3.9 6.0 3.8 

Incident reported to any official

Yes 1.4 % 2.8 % 12.5 %! 4.9 % 3.1 %! 3.0 % 5.1 %! 2.6 % 

No 1.5 2.8 12.5 4.9 3.4 3.0 5.1 3.0 

Incident reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 1.1 % 0.6 %! 10.5 %! 4.0 %! 2.9 %! 1.7 %! 4.1 %! 1.8 %

No 1.1 0.6 10.6 4.0 3.1 1.9 4.1 2.4 

Incident reported to any school official

Yes 1.2 % 2.8 % 11.3 %! 3.9 %! 2.9 %! 2.4 % 3.2 %! 1.5 %

No 1.2 2.8 11.3 3.9 3.3 2.4 3.2 2.1 

Victim reported to any official

Yes 1.3 % 2.7 % 12.6 %! 4.4 % 3.1 %! 2.8 % 4.6 %! 2.3 % 

No 1.3 2.7 12.6 4.4 % 3.1 2.8 4.6 2.3 

Victim reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 0.8 % 0.6 %! 10.2 %! 3.0 %! 2.9 %! 1.7 %! 3.5 %! 1.2 %

No 0.8 0.6 10.2 3.0 % 2.9 1.7 3.5 1.2 

Victim reported to any school official

Yes 1.0 % 2.7 % 5.9 %! 3.4 %! 2.9 %! 2.3 % 1.4 %! 1.4 %

No 1.0 2.7 5.9 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.4 1.4 

Were officials reported to helpful

Yes 4.5 % 5.0 %  ‐‐ %! 12.1 %! 13.1 %! 8.2 %  ‐‐ %! 11.1 % No 4.5 5.0 ! ‐‐ ! 12.1 ! 13.1 ! 8.2 ! ‐‐ ! 11.1 ! 

Were law enforcement officials reported to helpful

Yes 8.6 % ‐‐ %! ‐‐ %! 16.4 %! 15.1 %!  ‐‐ %! ‐‐ %! 17.4 %

No 8.6    ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 16.4 ! 15.1 ! ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 17.4 ! 

Were school officials reported to helpful

Yes 6.1 % 6.6 % 13.9 %! 17.2 %! 20.3 %! 8.0 %  ‐‐ %! 19.4 %

No 6.1 6.6 ! 13.9 ! 17.2 ! 20.3 ! 8.0 ! ‐‐ ! 19.4 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-50

Table E-50. Reporting characteristics of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents (p

sexual battery incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 acade

Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Notified roommate, friends, or family

Yes 67.9 % 68.4 % 65.6 % 61.8 % 63.7 % 73.9 % 63.8 % 72.1 % 

No 31.6 30.5 34.4 ! 38.2 34.4 26.1 35.4 27.4 

Incident reported to any official

Yes 5.3 % 2.6 %! 7.8 %! 7.8 % 8.0 %! 2.3 %! 7.9 %! 5.5 %

No 93.3 96.0 92.2 91.5 90.2 96.7 90.7 93.5 

Incident reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 1.9 % 1.1 %! 7.8 %! 2.2 %! 3.2 %! 1.7 %! 4.2 %! 1.6 %

No 96.9 97.5 92.2 97.0 94.9 97.3 94.3 97.4 

Incident reported to any school official

Yes 3.4 % 2.0 %! 7.8 %! 2.8 %! 8.0 %! 1.6 %! 6.1 %! 4.9 %

No 95.8 96.6 92.2 97.2 90.2 97.9 92.5 94.6 

Victim reported to any official

Yes 4.3 % 2.3 %! 7.8 %! 6.2 %! 8.0 %! 2.3 %! 7.1 %! 3.2 %

No 95.7 97.7 92.2 93.8 92.0 97.7 92.9 96.8 

Victim reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 1.1 %  ‐‐ %! 7.8 %! 0.7 %! 3.2 %! 1.7 %! 3.5 %! 1.6 %

No 98.9 / 92.2 99.3 96.8 98.3 96.5 98.4 

Victim reported to any school official

Yes 2.7 % 1.7 %! 7.8 %! 2.8 %! 8.0 %! 1.6 %! 5.3 %! 2.6 %

No 97.3 98.3 92.2 97.2 92.0 98.4 94.7 97.4 

Were officials reported to helpful

Yes 78.8 % / %! ‐‐ %! 90.2 %! 42.0 %! 45.1 %! / %! 48.5 %

No 18.4    ‐‐ ! / ! 9.8 ! 58.0 ! 30.4 ! ‐‐ ! 51.5 ! 

Were law enforcement officials reported to helpful

Yes 69.4 % 71.5 %! ‐‐ %! / %! 59.2 %! 24.9 %! 43.1 %! 62.4 %

No 23.1 ! 28.5 ! / ! ‐‐ ! 40.8 ! 41.6 ! 56.9 ! 37.6 ! 

Were school officials reported to helpful

Yes 65.8 % / %! ‐‐ %! 72.7 %! 18.2 %! 64.8 %! / %! 31.3 %

No 29.9    ‐‐ ! / ! 27.3 ! 81.8 ! ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 68.7 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-51

Table E-51. Standard errors of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents involving re

characteristics 

Average

School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Notified roommate, friends, or family

Yes 1.4 % 2.4 % 11.0 % 4.1 % 4.9 % 3.1 % 4.8 % 3.2 % 

No 1.4 2.3 11.0 ! 4.1 4.9 3.1 4.8 3.1 

Incident reported to any official

Yes 0.7 % 0.8 %! 7.3 %! 2.2 % 3.9 %! 1.0 %! 2.7 %! 1.6 %

No 0.8 1.0 7.3 2.3 4.1 1.2 2.9 1.7 

Incident reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 0.4 % 0.6 %! 7.3 %! 1.3 %! 2.2 %! 0.9 %! 2.1 %! 0.9 %

No 0.5 0.9 7.3 1.5 2.5 1.1 2.3 1.1 

Incident reported to any school official

Yes 0.6 % 0.7 %! 7.3 %! 1.4 %! 3.9 %! 0.8 %! 2.2 %! 1.5 %

No 0.6 1.0 7.3 1.4 4.1 0.9 2.4 1.6 

Victim reported to any official

Yes 0.7 % 0.8 %! 7.3 %! 2.0 %! 3.9 %! 1.0 %! 2.6 %! 1.2 %

No 0.7 0.8 7.3 2.0 3.9 1.0 2.6 1.2 

Victim reported to any law enforcement official

Yes 0.3 %  ‐‐ %! 7.3 %! 0.7 %! 2.2 %! 0.9 %! 2.0 %! 0.9 %

No 0.3  ‐‐ 7.3 0.7 2.2 0.9 2.0 0.9 

Victim reported to any school official

Yes 0.5 % 0.7 %! 7.3 %! 1.4 %! 3.9 %! 0.8 %! 2.1 %! 1.1 %

No 0.5 0.7 7.3 1.4 3.9 0.8 2.1 1.1 

Were officials reported to helpful

Yes 5.7 %  ‐‐ %! ‐‐ %! 9.2 %! 25.0 %! 22.3 %! ‐‐ %! 15.0 %

No 5.5  ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 9.2 ! 25.0 ! 21.8 ! ‐‐ ! 15.0 ! 

Were law enforcement officials reported to helpful

Yes 9.3 % 23.0 %! ‐‐ %! ‐‐ %! 33.4 %! 20.4 %! 27.3 %! 27.2 %

No 8.0 ! 23.0 ! ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 33.4 ! 26.6 ! 27.3 ! 27.2 ! 

Were school officials reported to helpful

Yes 8.2 %  ‐‐ %! ‐‐ %! 22.7 %! 17.2 %! 25.0 %! ‐‐ %! 14.4 %

No 8.0  ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 22.7 ! 17.2 ! ‐‐ ! ‐‐ ! 14.4 ! 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-52

Table E-52. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that were not reported to 

by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administration

Didn't know how to contact 6.3 % 3.4 %! 13.5 %! 13.7 %! 2.3 %! 2.5 %!  ‐‐ %! 5.5 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

22.6 21.5 8.4 ! 29.0 18.3 30.7 11.2 ! 25.3 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

20.7 26.9 16.7 ! 27.3 18.4 21.1 8.9 ! 19.6 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

67.2 77.1 40.8 ! 66.2 69.7 67.1 56.1 71.9 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

44.8 49.8 12.7 ! 43.7 43.8 47.2 32.2 46.2 

Worried someone might

get back at you

28.0 25.6 12.7 ! 25.6 26.4 41.5 19.3 34.9 

Campus police

Didn't know how to contact 6.1 % 2.9 %! 12.6 %! 11.2 %! 2.2 %! 3.5 %!  ‐‐ %! 3.4 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

20.5 17.9 4.1 ! 27.9 16.4 27.7 8.5 ! 22.3 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

20.7 19.4 11.9 ! 24.6 20.7 20.0 13.8 ! 20.7 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

67.2 74.8 42.0 ! 65.9 69.3 69.0 59.7 69.3 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

46.4 42.4 8.2 ! 52.5 44.2 47.4 35.3 49.5 

Worried someone might

get back at you

28.6 25.2 8.2 ! 24.5 28.0 42.4 23.6 37.5 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-53

Table E-52. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that were not reported to 

by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helpline

Didn't know how to contact 8.5 % 4.4 %! 12.6 %! 19.3 % 3.2 %! 4.1 %! 3.2 %! 4.2 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

14.1 12.8 4.1 ! 18.0 10.0 ! 18.3 5.6 ! 23.2 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

14.4 11.1 15.7 ! 18.1 15.3 13.6 3.8 ! 20.9 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

65.1 73.9 42.0 ! 62.3 69.8 64.1 58.4 69.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

38.8 37.6 8.2 ! 40.1 41.5 38.9 26.3 46.6 

Worried someone might

get back at you

24.3 16.6 11.9 ! 22.3 23.6 34.7 17.6 32.0 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

Didn't know how to contact 8.3 % 4.4 %! 10.9 %! 17.9 % 5.3 %! 5.0 %! 1.8 %! 3.7 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

12.5 8.8 10.4 ! 15.9 ! 10.1 ! 13.9 7.0 ! 17.4 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

11.8 6.8 ! 16.0 ! 14.5 ! 11.8 ! 9.4 8.4 ! 18.0 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

67.6 73.2 48.0 ! 65.9 71.0 65.3 66.1 66.0 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

39.4 33.4 15.9 ! 41.3 39.2 36.2 30.3 43.2 

Worried someone mightget back at you

24.6 14.6 15.9 ! 24.1 26.0 33.0 20.2 32.2 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-54

Table E-52. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that were not reported to 

by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at school

Didn't know how to contact 5.6 % 2.3 %! 24.2 %! 9.3 %! 1.2 %! 4.4 %! 6.4 %! 1.8 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

21.4 13.3 30.0 ! 31.1 18.4 22.2 8.5 ! 20.0 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

22.8 14.6 14.3 ! 35.6 20.7 17.3 13.6 ! 22.6 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

71.4 75.4 70.0 70.5 74.2 70.0 64.6 68.9 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

48.3 39.2 25.0 ! 55.2 44.3 43.5 35.0 49.7 

Worried someone might

get back at you

31.3 23.3 24.9 ! 32.3 33.0 40.3 31.5 36.1 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-55

Table E-53. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that we

to specific groups, by reason and school 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administration

Didn't know how to contact 1.1 % 1.5 %! 7.4 %! 4.2 %! 1.6 %! 1.3 %!  ‐‐ %! 1.8 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.7 3.6 5.8 ! 5.6 4.3 3.8 3.6 ! 3.6 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.6 4.0 7.9 ! 5.4 4.2 3.4 3.7 ! 3.2 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.9 4.0 12.0 ! 5.8 5.0 4.0 6.1 3.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

2.0 4.6 7.0 ! 6.1 5.4 4.2 5.6 4.0 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.8 3.9 7.0 ! 5.3 4.7 4.1 4.7 3.8 

Campus police

Didn't know how to contact 1.1 % 1.4 %! 7.0 %! 3.9 %! 1.5 %! 1.5 %!  ‐‐ %! 1.4 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.6 3.3 4.0 ! 5.5 4.2 3.8 3.2 ! 3.4 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.7 3.5 6.6 ! 5.3 4.4 3.3 4.2 ! 3.3 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.9 3.9 11.7 ! 5.8 5.1 3.9 6.1 3.7 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

2.0 4.3 5.6 ! 6.1 5.5 4.2 5.8 4.0 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.8 3.7 5.6 ! 5.3 4.8 4.2 5.1 3.9 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-56

Table E-53. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that we

to specific groups, by reason and school (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helpline

Didn't know how to contact 1.3 % 1.8 %! 7.0 %! 4.8 % 1.8 %! 1.6 %! 2.1 %! 1.6 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.4 2.9 4.0 ! 4.7 3.8 ! 3.3 2.6 ! 3.5 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.4 2.9 7.5 ! 4.7 4.1 2.9 2.6 ! 3.4 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

2.0 4.2 11.7 ! 5.9 5.0 4.1 6.1 3.7 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

2.0 4.4 5.6 ! 5.9 5.4 4.1 5.3 4.1 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.7 3.3 6.6 ! 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 3.8 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

Didn't know how to contact 1.3 % 1.8 %! 7.4 %! 4.8 % 2.3 %! 1.8 %! 1.7 %! 1.5 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.4 2.3 7.1 ! 4.6 ! 3.8 ! 3.0 3.3 ! 3.1 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.3 2.3 ! 8.6 ! 4.4 ! 3.5 ! 2.4 3.9 ! 3.2 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.9 4.0 13.2 ! 6.0 5.0 4.1 6.1 3.9 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

2.0 4.1 8.6 ! 6.2 5.3 4.1 5.9 4.1 

Worried someone mightget back at you

1.7 3.0 8.6 ! 5.4 4.8 4.0 5.1 3.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-57

Table E-53. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents that we

to specific groups, by reason and school (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at school

Didn't know how to contact 1.0 % 1.2 %! 13.0 %! 3.6 %! 1.1 %! 1.7 %! 3.0 %! 1.0 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.7 2.9 13.1 ! 5.7 4.4 3.5 3.2 ! 3.3 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.8 3.3 7.8 ! 5.9 4.4 3.1 4.4 ! 3.4 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.8 3.9 11.1 5.6 4.8 3.8 5.9 3.7 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

2.0 4.2 10.1 ! 6.1 5.5 4.1 5.8 4.0 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.9 3.7 10.1 ! 5.8 5.1 4.1 5.6 3.8 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-58

Table E-54. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents that were not re

specific groups, by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administration

Didn't know how to contact 3.3 % 1.0 %! 7.0 %! 3.7 %! 2.9 %! 0.8 %! 1.7 %! 5.4 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

10.3 6.1 11.4 ! 9.8 9.2 ! 13.2 8.0 ! 16.2 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

14.6 13.1 18.2 ! 14.3 15.6 20.3 8.9 ! 20.0 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

79.3 85.8 73.7 74.9 75.9 84.5 84.7 78.9 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

20.3 14.3 15.9 ! 22.9 23.2 27.7 13.9 25.2 

Worried someone might

get back at you

13.5 11.2 26.3 ! 8.6 17.9 21.4 9.8 21.3 

Campus police

Didn't know how to contact 2.6 % 0.2 %! 7.0 %! 2.2 %! 2.8 %! 1.4 %! 0.8 %! 4.4 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

8.3 3.4 11.4 ! 8.9 10.2 ! 12.5 9.0 ! 11.5 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

13.5 8.1 18.2 ! 17.3 13.2 21.9 8.8 ! 11.6 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

79.7 86.1 73.7 75.6 75.5 84.1 87.7 82.5 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

19.1 10.0 11.5 ! 22.9 23.5 27.2 12.4 26.3 

Worried someone might

get back at you

12.9 8.9 25.0 ! 8.9 20.2 18.8 9.8 20.4 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-59

Table E-54. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents that were not re

specific groups, by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helpline

Didn't know how to contact 2.9 % 0.3 %! 2.8 %! 3.6 %! 0.9 %! 0.7 %! 1.7 %! 5.5 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

5.0 2.2 ! 2.8 ! 5.6 ! 1.3 ! 4.1 ! 2.6 ! 7.7 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

7.5 4.7 9.6 ! 10.3 7.7 ! 8.8 3.5 ! 11.4 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

79.0 86.8 73.7 73.4 68.9 83.7 84.3 82.8 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

14.4 8.0 11.5 ! 16.7 14.2 19.0 6.4 ! 20.2 

Worried someone mightget back at you

8.6 5.9 21.9 ! 4.8 ! 11.4 11.9 5.2 ! 16.9 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

Didn't know how to contact 3.0 % 0.5 %! 8.5 %! 3.7 %! 0.9 %! 0.7 %! 0.8 %! 6.0 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

5.1 1.4 ! 8.5 ! 5.8 ! 2.7 ! 4.7 ! 5.3 ! 6.7 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

6.9 3.9 9.6 ! 9.0 8.2 ! 8.2 3.4 ! 9.6 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

78.8 86.4 73.7 71.9 70.5 83.1 85.6 83.3 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

13.6 7.7 11.5 ! 14.9 14.5 18.4 6.2 ! 20.7 

Worried someone mightget back at you

8.5 6.2 27.7 ! 5.6 ! 10.4 11.3 5.9 ! 15.4 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-60

Table E-54. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents that were not re

specific groups, by reason and school, 2014–2015 academic year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at school

Didn't know how to contact 1.9 % 0.6 %! 7.0 %! 3.0 %! 0.9 %! 1.8 %! 0.8 %! 2.8 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

8.0 2.7 11.4 ! 9.8 7.3 ! 10.3 5.8 ! 9.4 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

12.9 8.9 18.2 ! 16.8 9.8 ! 19.8 11.3 12.6 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

80.3 86.8 73.7 74.0 69.9 85.4 85.9 83.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

19.2 11.7 14.6 ! 21.7 18.3 27.3 14.1 26.9 

Worried someone might

get back at you

12.9 8.3 30.8 ! 11.0 16.4 17.4 8.5 ! 19.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-61

Table E-55. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

reported to specific groups, by reason and school 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administration

Didn't know how to contact 0.6 % 0.5 %! 5.0 %! 1.6 %! 2.1 %! 0.7 %! 1.1 %! 1.5 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.9 1.1 6.5 ! 2.5 3.2 ! 2.4 2.6 ! 2.6 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.0 1.7 8.6 ! 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.7 ! 2.8 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.2 1.8 12.4 3.7 4.5 2.6 3.4 2.8 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

1.2 1.8 7.3 ! 3.5 4.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.0 1.6 10.8 ! 2.4 4.1 2.9 2.6 2.9 

Campus police

Didn't know how to contact 0.6 % 0.2 %! 5.0 %! 1.2 %! 2.0 %! 0.9 %! 0.8 %! 1.4 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.8 0.8 6.5 ! 2.4 3.2 ! 2.4 2.9 ! 2.3 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.0 1.4 8.6 ! 3.1 3.5 2.9 2.7 ! 2.3 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.2 1.8 12.4 3.6 4.9 2.6 3.1 2.7 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

1.2 1.4 6.1 ! 3.5 4.4 3.1 2.9 3.1 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.0 1.4 10.7 ! 2.3 4.2 2.7 2.6 2.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-62

Table E-55. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

reported to specific groups, by reason and school 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helpline

Didn't know how to contact 0.6 % 0.2 %! 2.7 %! 1.6 %! 0.9 %! 0.7 %! 1.1 %! 1.5 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.7 0.7 ! 2.7 ! 1.9 ! 1.3 ! 1.5 ! 1.8 ! 1.9 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

0.8 1.1 6.6 ! 2.5 2.8 ! 2.0 2.0 ! 2.3 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.3 1.7 12.4 3.7 5.1 2.6 3.4 2.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

1.0 1.3 6.1 ! 3.1 3.6 2.7 2.2 ! 2.8 

Worried someone mightget back at you

0.8 1.2 10.3 ! 1.8 ! 3.1 2.2 2.0 ! 2.6 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

Didn't know how to contact 0.6 % 0.3 %! 6.2 %! 1.6 %! 0.8 %! 0.7 %! 0.8 %! 1.6 % 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.7 0.5 ! 6.2 ! 2.0 ! 2.0 ! 1.5 ! 2.5 ! 1.8 

Concerned would betreated poorly or get

ineffective response

0.8 1.0 6.6 ! 2.4 3.0 ! 2.0 1.9 ! 2.1 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.3 1.7 12.4 3.8 5.0 2.6 3.2 2.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

1.0 1.3 6.1 ! 3.0 3.7 2.7 2.1 ! 2.8 

Worried someone mightget back at you

0.8 1.2 11.1 ! 1.9 ! 3.0 2.2 2.1 ! 2.5 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-63

Table E-55. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

reported to specific groups, by reason and school 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at school

Didn't know how to contact 0.4 % 0.4 %! 5.0 %! 1.5 %! 0.9 %! 0.9 %! 0.8 %! 1.1 %! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.9 0.7 6.5 ! 2.5 2.6 ! 2.2 2.3 ! 2.1 

Concerned would be

treated poorly or get

ineffective response

1.0 1.5 8.6 ! 3.1 3.1 ! 2.8 3.0 2.4 

Did not want assistance or

action taken/not serious

enough to report

1.2 1.7 12.4 3.7 5.1 2.5 3.3 2.6 

Others might think you

were partly at fault/might

get in trouble

1.2 1.6 7.2 ! 3.4 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 

Worried someone might

get back at you

1.0 1.3 11.4 ! 2.6 3.7 2.6 2.5 ! 2.7 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-64

Table E-56. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for which victims who "did 

assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administrationOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

60.4 % 62.2 % 30.4 %! 68.4 % 49.3 % 59.7 % 46.9 % 65.8 % 

Didn't know how to contact 6.2 1.9 !  ‐‐ ! 13.6 ! 3.3 ! 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 7.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

23.7 18.4 9.9 ! 32.2 19.7 24.6 9.3 ! 24.8 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

20.2 22.6 20.5 ! 27.2 18.3 18.4   ‐‐ ! 16.8 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

51.6 52.4 10.7 ! 54.3 45.8 51.8 37.0 53.6 

Worried someone may get

back at you

29.4 28.1 10.7 ! 24.8 27.4 41.4 24.6 ! 36.1 

Campus police

One or more additional

reasons endorsed

62.5 % 61.5 % 27.6 %! 72.6 % 51.5 % 60.3 % 55.4 % 67.2 % 

Didn't know how to contact 5.1 2.7 ! 8.9 ! 7.4 ! 3.2 ! 2.6 !  ‐‐ ! 3.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

21.0 15.2   ‐‐ ! 30.4 18.4 ! 24.6 6.6 ! 20.3 

Concerned would be treated

poorly

20.4 15.5 18.7 ! 25.6 20.2 18.6 9.5 ! 17.2 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

53.9 49.7 9.7 ! 62.9 46.4 50.5 40.8 55.3 

Worried someone may get

back at you

29.1 26.5 9.7 ! 23.4 ! 27.7 41.2 30.4 36.2 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-65

Table E-56. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for which victims who "did 

assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic year (con

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helplineOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

55.8 % 55.7 % 27.6 %! 59.6 % 47.2 % 53.7 % 50.8 % 64.2 % 

Didn't know how to contact 7.9 3.0 ! 8.9 ! 16.9 ! 4.5 ! 1.3 ! 5.4 ! 4.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

15.3 12.8    ‐‐ ! 21.4 ! 8.0 ! 14.9 7.1 ! 24.3 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

15.5 11.0 ! 27.6 ! 16.7 ! 14.4 ! 13.2 !  ‐‐ ! 24.1 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

47.0 43.5 9.7 ! 50.0 44.1 43.5 33.6 54.4 

Worried someone may getback at you

26.1 18.3 18.6 ! 23.9 ! 21.9 38.4 21.3 ! 31.9 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

One or more additionalreasons endorsed

54.9 % 52.9 % 21.9 %! 58.2 % 48.1 % 52.2 % 57.5 % 64.6 % 

Didn't know how to contact 7.4 1.9 !  ‐‐ ! 14.8 ! 7.5 ! 4.0 ! 2.7 ! 4.2 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

13.1 8.5 !  ‐‐ ! 19.2 ! 8.0 ! 12.9 ! 10.6 ! 19.6 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

13.5 9.3 ! 21.9 ! 14.6 ! 12.5 ! 14.4 6.2 ! 20.7 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

46.9 40.1 11.4 ! 48.2 45.1 43.0 33.9 54.0 

Worried someone may get

back at you

25.1 17.8 11.4 ! 24.6 ! 23.3 36.5 21.7 ! 32.4 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-66

Table E-56. Percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for which victims who "did 

assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or did not taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic year (con

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at schoolOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

66.3 % 61.2 % 61.1 %! 76.5 % 56.3 % 62.1 % 60.9 % 70.4 % 

Didn't know how to contact 6.3 1.8 ! 27.0 ! 9.0 ! 1.6 ! 2.5 ! 7.6 ! 2.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

21.6 11.4 28.3 ! 32.9 20.0 18.8 8.5 ! 20.4 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

23.8 13.7 13.4 ! 34.8 20.4 17.3 12.7 ! 22.7 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

56.6 45.4 21.2 ! 67.3 43.2 49.8 39.1 59.5 

Worried someone may getback at you

32.4 27.0 21.0 ! 32.9 32.6 43.2 33.7 36.4 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-67

Table E-57. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for whi

"did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to repwant any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 ac

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administrationOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

2.4 % 5.1 % 15.3 %! 6.9 % 6.5 % 5.0 % 8.0 % 4.6 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.3 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 5.1 ! 2.2 ! 1.1 !  ‐‐ ! 2.5 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

2.1 3.7 9.4 ! 7.0 5.4 4.3 4.3 ! 4.2 

Concerned would be treated

poorly

2.0 4.1 13.2 ! 6.7 4.9 3.9   ‐‐ ! 3.6 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

2.4 5.1 10.1 ! 7.5 6.5 5.1 7.6 4.8 

Worried someone may get

back at you

2.2 4.5 10.1 ! 6.4 5.7 5.0 6.6 ! 4.6 

Campus police

One or more additional

reasons endorsed

2.3 % 5.0 % 14.0 %! 6.7 % 6.6 % 4.9 % 7.8 % 4.6 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.2 1.4 ! 8.5 ! 4.0 ! 2.2 ! 1.6 !  ‐‐ ! 1.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

2.0 3.4   ‐‐ ! 7.0 5.3 ! 4.3 3.6 ! 4.0 

Concerned would be treated

poorly

2.0 3.6 12.1 ! 6.6 5.2 3.8 4.4 ! 3.7 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

2.4 5.0 9.2 ! 7.3 6.6 5.0 7.6 4.8 

Worried someone may getback at you

2.1 4.4 9.2 ! 6.4 ! 5.7 4.9 7.0 4.7 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-68

Table E-57. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for whi

"did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to repwant any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 ac(continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helplineOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

2.5 % 5.3 % 14.0 %! 7.5 % 6.4 % 5.3 % 7.9 % 4.7 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.5 1.6 ! 8.5 ! 5.8 ! 2.5 ! 1.2 ! 3.6 ! 2.0 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.8 3.2    ‐‐ ! 6.3 ! 4.0 ! 3.7 3.8 ! 4.2 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

1.8 3.3 ! 14.0 ! 5.7 ! 4.4 ! 3.5 !  ‐‐ ! 4.2 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

2.5 5.2 9.2 ! 7.7 6.4 5.2 7.3 4.9 

Worried someone may getback at you

2.2 3.9 12.0 ! 6.5 ! 5.1 5.1 6.2 ! 4.6 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

One or more additional

reasons endorsed

2.5 % 5.1 % 14.0 %! 7.7 % 6.4 % 5.2 % 7.9 % 4.9 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.4 1.2 !  ‐‐ ! 5.5 ! 3.2 ! 2.0 ! 2.6 ! 2.0 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.7 2.6 !  ‐‐ ! 6.1 ! 4.0 ! 3.6 ! 4.9 ! 4.1 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

1.7 3.0 ! 14.0 ! 5.5 ! 4.1 ! 3.6 4.1 ! 4.2 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

2.5 4.9 10.8 ! 7.7 6.3 5.2 7.3 5.1 

Worried someone may get

back at you

2.1 3.8 10.8 ! 6.7 ! 5.2 5.0 6.3 ! 4.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-69

Table E-57. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents for whi

"did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to repwant any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 ac(continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at schoolOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

2.2 % 4.9 % 15.5 %! 6.2 % 6.3 % 4.8 % 7.5 % 4.4 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.3 1.2 ! 16.9 ! 4.2 ! 1.5 ! 1.6 ! 4.0 ! 1.4 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

2.1 3.0 17.0 ! 6.9 5.2 3.9 3.9 ! 4.0 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

2.2 3.6 9.1 ! 7.0 5.0 3.7 5.1 ! 4.1 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

2.3 5.0 11.4 ! 6.9 6.3 4.9 7.3 4.8 

Worried someone may getback at you

2.2 4.4 11.4 ! 6.9 5.9 4.9 7.0 4.7 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-70

Table E-58. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents for which victim

need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or daction taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic ye

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administrationOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

33.4 % 21.4 % 47.9 %! 40.6 % 37.5 % 40.9 % 24.7 % 37.0 % 

Didn't know how to contact 3.4 1.2 ! 9.5 ! 3.9 ! 3.9 ! 0.9 ! 0.9 ! 5.1 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

9.8 4.8 15.5 ! 8.5 ! 7.7 ! 13.2 8.6 ! 14.3 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

13.3 9.7 24.7 ! 15.4 15.0 ! 20.1 8.6 ! 14.0 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

22.0 12.7 21.6 ! 28.9 27.5 26.7 13.7 27.4 

Worried someone may getback at you

13.6 10.8 35.7 ! 9.7 ! 18.0 21.4 9.7 ! 19.3 

Campus police

One or more additionalreasons endorsed

30.6 % 17.7 % 47.9 %! 35.9 % 44.1 % 41.8 % 24.8 % 38.6 % 

Didn't know how to contact 2.4 0.2 ! 9.5 ! 0.9 ! 3.7 ! 1.6 ! 0.9 ! 4.1 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

7.6 3.1 15.5 ! 6.4 ! 8.7 ! 12.6 9.4 ! 11.4 

Concerned would be treated

poorly

13.3 6.4 24.7 ! 19.3 14.5 ! 22.1 9.2 ! 9.7 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

20.4 9.9 15.7 ! 26.7 28.2 26.2 11.7 28.5 

Worried someone may get

back at you

13.2 8.6 33.9 ! 8.3 ! 23.9 19.3 10.4 21.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-71

Table E-58. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents for which victim

need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or daction taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic ye

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helplineOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

24.6 % 14.8 % 42.0 %! 33.4 % 31.9 % 23.6 % 15.0 % 30.6 % 

Didn't know how to contact 3.0 0.3 ! 3.7 ! 3.9 ! 1.3 ! 0.9 ! 1.0 ! 5.4 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

5.0 2.6 ! 3.7 ! 3.9 !  ‐‐ ! 4.0 ! 3.1 ! 7.5 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

7.0 4.6 13.0 ! 10.3 7.4 ! 7.4 ! 3.2 ! 9.0 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

15.8 8.4 15.7 ! 20.8 18.7 17.4 6.8 ! 21.2 

Worried someone may getback at you

8.8 6.4 29.8 ! 4.8 ! 14.2 ! 11.2 6.2 ! 16.9 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

One or more additionalreasons endorsed

23.6 % 14.5 % 49.8 %! 28.9 % 33.3 % 23.0 % 17.4 % 29.0 % 

Didn't know how to contact 3.1 0.6 ! 11.6 ! 4.1 ! 1.2 ! 0.9 ! 0.9 ! 6.0 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

5.2 1.6 ! 11.6 ! 4.0 ! 3.8 ! 4.8 ! 6.2 ! 6.2 ! 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

6.3 3.6 13.0 ! 8.8 ! 9.7 ! 6.7 ! 3.1 ! 7.2 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

15.1 8.3 15.7 ! 18.7 20.6 16.8 6.5 ! 21.6 

Worried someone may get

back at you

9.1 6.8 37.6 ! 6.0 ! 12.5 ! 10.5 6.9 ! 16.5 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-72

Table E-58. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery incidents for which victim

need assistance, did not think the incident was serious enough to report, or daction taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2015 academic ye

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at schoolOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

30.8 % 20.8 % 53.9 %! 36.1 % 36.8 % 41.0 % 23.6 % 36.7 % 

Didn't know how to contact 1.7 0.7 ! 9.5 ! 2.0 ! 1.3 ! 2.1 ! 0.9 ! 2.8 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

7.0 3.1 15.5 ! 7.5 ! 5.3 ! 10.6 5.9 ! 7.3 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

12.6 7.7 24.7 ! 19.1 8.9 ! 20.0 9.4 ! 9.3 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

20.9 12.5 19.8 ! 27.4 21.1 26.7 14.7 28.3 

Worried someone may getback at you

13.3 9.1 41.7 ! 10.4 17.7 18.1 8.0 ! 20.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-73

Table E-59. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

victims who "did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious edid not want any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 2014–2year 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School administrationOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

1.6 % 2.2 % 13.7 %! 4.8 % 5.8 % 3.7 % 4.4 % 3.8 % 

Didn't know how to contact 0.7 0.5 ! 6.6 ! 1.9 ! 2.8 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 ! 1.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

1.0 1.1 8.6 ! 2.7 ! 3.4 ! 2.6 2.9 ! 2.7 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

1.1 1.6 11.1 ! 3.5 4.3 ! 3.1 2.9 ! 2.7 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

1.4 1.8 9.6 ! 4.4 5.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 

Worried someone may getback at you

1.1 1.6 13.3 ! 2.9 ! 4.7 3.1 2.9 ! 3.1 

Campus police

One or more additionalreasons endorsed

1.5 % 2.0 % 13.7 %! 4.6 % 5.8 % 3.8 % 4.4 % 3.8 % 

Didn't know how to contact 0.6 0.2 ! 6.6 ! 0.9 ! 2.7 ! 1.0 ! 0.9 ! 1.5 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.8 0.8 8.6 ! 2.3 ! 3.4 ! 2.6 3.2 ! 2.4 

Concerned would be treated

poorly

1.1 1.3 11.1 ! 3.8 4.2 ! 3.2 2.9 ! 2.3 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

1.3 1.5 8.1 ! 4.2 5.3 3.4 3.0 3.5 

Worried someone may get

back at you

1.1 1.5 13.3 ! 2.6 ! 5.1 3.0 2.9 3.2 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-74

Table E-59. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

victims who "did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious eor did not want any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 201year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

School crisis center or helplineOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

1.5 % 1.9 % 13.6 %! 4.6 % 5.6 % 3.2 % 3.7 % 3.5 % 

Didn't know how to contact 0.7 0.3 ! 3.7 ! 1.9 ! 1.2 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 ! 1.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.8 0.8 ! 3.7 ! 1.9 !  ‐‐ ! 1.6 ! 2.2 ! 2.0 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

0.9 1.1 8.7 ! 2.9 3.1 ! 2.0 ! 2.2 ! 2.2 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

1.2 1.4 8.1 ! 3.9 4.7 2.8 2.5 ! 3.1 

Worried someone may getback at you

0.9 1.3 12.9 ! 2.1 ! 4.1 ! 2.4 2.4 ! 2.9 

Crisis center or helpline not at school

One or more additionalreasons endorsed

1.4 % 1.9 % 13.7 %! 4.5 % 5.7 % 3.2 % 4.0 % 3.5 % 

Didn't know how to contact 0.7 0.4 ! 8.2 ! 2.0 ! 1.2 ! 0.8 ! 0.9 ! 1.7 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.8 0.6 ! 8.2 ! 2.0 ! 2.8 ! 1.7 ! 2.9 ! 1.8 ! 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

0.8 1.0 8.7 ! 2.8 ! 3.8 ! 1.9 ! 2.1 ! 1.9 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

1.2 1.4 8.1 ! 3.9 5.0 2.8 2.3 ! 3.1 

Worried someone may get

back at you

0.9 1.3 13.5 ! 2.4 ! 3.9 ! 2.3 2.5 ! 2.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-75

Table E-59. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

victims who "did not need assistance, did not think the incident was serious eor did not want any action taken" endorsed additional reasons, by school, 201year (continued) 

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Local police not at schoolOne or more additional

reasons endorsed

1.5 % 2.2 % 13.6 %! 4.7 % 5.7 % 3.7 % 4.3 % 3.7 % 

Didn't know how to contact 0.4 0.4 ! 6.6 ! 1.4 ! 1.2 ! 1.1 ! 0.9 ! 1.2 ! 

Concerned would not keep

confidential

0.9 0.8 8.6 ! 2.5 ! 2.5 ! 2.4 2.6 ! 1.9 

Concerned would be treatedpoorly

1.1 1.4 11.1 ! 3.8 3.4 ! 3.0 3.0 ! 2.3 

Others might think you were

partly at fault

1.3 1.7 9.4 ! 4.3 4.9 3.3 3.4 3.5 

Worried someone may getback at you

1.1 1.5 13.7 ! 3.0 4.5 2.9 2.7 ! 3.0 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-76

Table E-60. Victim impact characteristics of undergraduate female rape incidents (percen

incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

How upsetting was the incident?

Very upsetting 34.0 % 31.9 % 67.0 % 32.5 % 26.9 % 38.5 % 28.7 % 44.2 % 

Upsetting 45.0 43.5 18.1 ! 51.6 50.4 35.7 56.1 33.5 

Not very upsetting 18.0 20.9 11.2 ! 12.9 ! 17.7 24.0 15.2 ! 19.6 

Not at all upsetting 1.8 ! 2.1 !  ‐‐  ! 3.0 ! 2.5 ! 1.8 !  ‐‐  !  ‐‐  ! 

How upsetting was the incident? (dichotomous)

Upsetting 79.0 % 75.4 % 85.1 % 84.1 % 77.3 % 74.2 % 84.8 % 77.6 % 

Not upsetting 19.8 23.0 11.2 ! 15.9 20.2 25.8 15.2 ! 19.6 

Led to problems with schoolwork or grades

Yes 30.7 % 30.7 % 53.4 %! 34.4 % 31.7 % 31.1 % 30.3 % 36.1 % 

No 67.0 67.6 39.1 ! 64.4 65.8 68.9 69.7 58.9 

Led to problems with friends, roommates, or peers

Yes 43.7 % 40.0 % 47.3 %! 50.1 % 40.0 % 40.2 % 42.4 % 46.8 % 

No 54.7 58.4 45.2 49.9 57.5 59.8 57.6 49.7 

Led to problems with family members

Yes 22.9 % 13.5 % 57.9 %! 31.2 % 30.0 % 16.2 % 18.7 % 22.4 % 

No 75.3 84.8 34.6 ! 68.8 67.5 83.8 81.3 74.0 

Lead to problem with job, boss, or coworkers

Yes 13.0 % 12.6 % 49.0 %! 13.7 %! 17.7 % 6.5 %! 10.7 %! 12.2 % 

No 85.2 85.8 43.5 ! 86.3 79.8 93.5 89.3 84.3 

As a result of the incident, did you move or change where you live?

Yes 7.2 % 5.1 %! 12.1 %! 8.5 %! 7.3 %! 5.1 %! 1.6 %! 11.3 % 

No 91.1 93.3 80.4 91.5 90.2 94.9 98.4 85.9 

Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of the incident?

Yes 15.5 % 7.7 %! 45.9 %! 11.7 %! 6.4 %! 15.6 % 4.2 %! 21.7 % 

No 70.7 80.6 34.4 ! 70.9 71.4 78.6 92.5 58.8 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-77

Table E-60. Victim impact characteristics of undergraduate female rape incidents (percen

incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 academic year (cont

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

As a result of the incident, did you drop any classes or change your schedule?

Yes 8.4 % 8.5 %! 33.1 %! 10.4 %! 12.2 % 1.6 %! 1.3 %! 6.1 %! 

No 89.5 89.3 59.4 89.6 84.5 97.5 98.7 90.3 

Did you want drop any classes or change you schedule as a result of the incident?

Yes 11.4 % 7.5 % 8.9 %! 13.5 %! 4.4 %! 20.3 % 16.8 %! 12.8 % 

No 74.1 77.4 47.7 ! 70.3 72.4 74.3 80.2 73.4 

Did you think about taking some time off from school, transferring, or dropping out?

Yes 21.7 % 16.8 % 42.0 %! 26.7 % 17.4 % 27.9 % 17.3 %! 25.2 % 

No 76.5 81.0 50.5 ! 73.3 80.1 72.1 82.7 70.5 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-78

Table E-61. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents involvin

characteristics 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

How upsetting was the incident?

Very upsetting 1.9 % 4.1 % 10.8 % 5.6 % 4.6 % 4.0 % 5.7 % 4.0 % 

Upsetting 2.0 4.4 7.8 ! 6.0 5.4 3.9 6.1 3.7 Not very upsetting 1.5 3.5 8.2 ! 4.0 ! 4.1 3.5 4.5 ! 3.2 

Not at all upsetting 0.6 ! 1.1 !  ‐‐ ! 2.1 ! 1.7 ! 1.1 !  ‐‐ !  ‐‐ ! 

How upsetting was the incident? (dichotomous)

Upsetting 1.6 % 3.7 % 8.7 % 4.4 % 4.5 % 3.6 % 4.5 % 3.4 % 

Not upsetting 1.5 3.6 8.2 ! 4.4 4.3 3.6 4.5 ! 3.2 

Led to problems with schoolwork or grades

Yes 1.8 % 4.0 % 12.0 %! 5.7 % 5.2 % 3.8 % 5.8 % 3.8 % 

No 1.9 4.1 11.5 ! 5.8 5.2 3.8 5.8 3.9 

Led to problems with friends, roommates, or peers

Yes 2.0 % 4.3 % 12.4 %! 6.0 % 5.3 % 4.0 % 6.0 % 4.0 % 

No 2.0 4.4 11.9 6.0 5.4 4.0 6.0 4.0 

Led to problems with family members

Yes 1.7 % 3.0 % 11.7 %! 5.6 % 5.0 % 3.0 % 4.8 % 3.4 % 

No 1.7 3.2 11.1 ! 5.6 5.1 3.0 4.8 3.6 

Led to problem with job, boss, or coworkers

Yes 1.4 % 2.9 % 12.3 %! 4.2 %! 4.2 % 2.0 %! 4.0 %! 2.7 % No 1.4 3.1 11.8 ! 4.2 4.4 2.0 4.0 3.0 

As a result of the incident, did you move or change where you live?

Yes 1.1 % 1.9 %! 8.3 %! 3.3 %! 3.0 %! 1.8 %! 1.6 %! 2.6 % 

No 1.2 2.2 9.4 3.3 3.4 1.8 1.6 2.9 

Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of the incident?

Yes 1.5 % 2.3 %! 12.3 %! 3.9 %! 2.5 %! 3.0 % 2.3 %! 3.3 % 

No 1.9 3.4 11.1 ! 5.4 4.9 3.4 3.1 3.9 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-79

Table E-61. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female rape incidents involvin

characteristics (continued) 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

As a result of the incident, did you drop any classes or change your schedule?

Yes 1.2 % 2.5 %! 11.6 %! 3.7 %! 3.4 % 1.0 %! 1.3 %! 1.9 %! 

No 1.2 2.7 11.9 3.7 3.8 1.3 1.3 2.3 

Did you want drop any classes or change you schedule as a result of the incident?

Yes 1.3 % 2.1 % 6.0 %! 4.2 %! 2.6 %! 3.3 % 4.8 %! 2.8 % 

No 1.8 3.5 12.3 ! 5.5 4.8 3.6 5.1 3.6 

Did you think about taking some time off from school, transferring, or dropping out?

Yes 1.7 % 3.2 % 12.0 %! 5.3 % 4.4 % 3.7 % 5.0 %! 3.5 % 

No 1.7 3.3 12.2 ! 5.3 4.6 3.7 5.0 3.7 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-80

Table E-62. Victim impact characteristics of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

sexual battery incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 acade

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

How upsetting was the incident?

Very upsetting 11.0 % 7.4 % 7.1 %! 12.5 % 15.0 % 11.0 % 12.6 % 9.5 % 

Upsetting 35.9 26.6 59.5 ! 39.1 36.0 42.9 29.4 39.3 

Not very upsetting 43.7 55.5 30.4 ! 41.8 38.0 37.0 50.1 40.5 

Not at all upsetting 8.4 9.0 2.9 ! 5.8 ! 7.6 ! 9.1 7.1 ! 9.6 

How upsetting was the incident? (dichotomous)

Upsetting 46.9 % 34.0 % 66.6 % 51.6 % 51.0 % 53.8 % 42.0 % 48.8 % 

Not upsetting 52.0 64.5 33.4 ! 47.7 45.6 46.2 57.2 50.1 

Led to problems with schoolwork or grades

Yes 7.3 % 5.6 % 17.0 %! 6.7 %! 8.2 %! 9.3 % 9.6 %! 6.1 %! 

No 91.3 92.2 83.0 92.5 88.5 90.7 89.6 92.8 

Led to problems with friends, roommates, or peers

Yes 14.1 % 12.2 % 28.1 %! 13.9 % 16.6 % 16.4 % 17.2 % 18.6 % 

No 84.4 85.5 71.9 85.4 80.1 83.6 82.0 80.3 

Led to problems with family members

Yes 4.1 % 3.1 % 14.4 %! 3.5 %! 4.5 %! 7.1 % 7.5 %! 5.0 %! 

No 94.4 94.6 85.6 95.8 92.2 92.3 91.7 94.0 

Led to problem with job, boss, or coworkers

Yes 3.7 % 1.0 %! 16.6 %! 4.8 %! 2.3 %! 4.8 %! 11.8 % 3.1 %! 

No 94.7 96.7 83.4 94.4 93.6 95.2 87.4 95.8 

As a result of the incident, did you move or change where you live?

Yes 1.1 % 0.3 %! ‐‐ %! 1.5 %!  ‐‐ %! 1.1 %! 0.9 %! 1.7 %! 

No 97.4 97.0 / 97.8 96.7 98.9 98.3 97.2 

Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of the incident?

Yes 6.7 % 1.4 %! 32.5 %! 7.0 %! 6.0 %! 7.9 % 3.3 %! 11.4 % 

No 86.9 92.3 67.5 85.6 83.6 89.0 92.7 83.2 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-81

Table E-62. Victim impact characteristics of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

sexual battery incidents involving characteristic), by school, 2014–2015 acade(continued) 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

As a result of the incident, did you drop any classes or change your schedule?

Yes 1.6 % 0.7 %! ‐‐ %! 1.4 %! 5.6 %! 2.5 %! 0.8 %! 1.6 %! 

No 96.4 96.6 / 97.2 90.5 97.0 98.4 97.3 

Did you want drop any classes or change you schedule as a result of the incident?

Yes 4.4 % 2.6 %! 13.1 %! 3.3 %! 4.7 %! 2.9 %! 5.1 %! 5.0 %! 

No 87.2 91.7 86.9 83.6 81.3 92.7 88.7 88.8 

Did you think about taking some time off from school, transferring, or dropping out?

Yes 5.9 % 0.7 %! 14.6 %! 9.1 % 8.5 %! 8.7 % 4.7 %! 7.3 % 

No 92.4 96.4 85.4 90.2 87.3 91.3 94.5 91.6 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%/ Greater than 99.5%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-82

Table E-63. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

victim impact characteristics 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

How upsetting was the incident?

Very upsetting 1.0 % 1.3 % 4.9 %! 2.7 % 3.7 % 2.2 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 

Upsetting 1.4 2.2 11.4 ! 4.1 4.8 3.5 4.4 3.4 Not very upsetting 1.5 2.5 10.4 ! 4.1 5.2 3.4 4.8 3.4 Not at all upsetting 0.8 1.3 2.9 ! 2.0 ! 2.8 ! 2.0 2.5 ! 2.0 

How upsetting was the incident? (dichotomous)

Upsetting 1.5 % 2.4 % 10.7 % 4.2 % 5.2 % 3.5 % 4.7 % 3.5 % 

Not upsetting 1.5 2.4 10.7 ! 4.2 5.2 3.5 4.8 3.5 

Led to problems with schoolwork or grades

Yes 0.8 % 1.1 % 8.2 %! 2.1 %! 3.0 %! 2.1 % 2.9 %! 1.8 %! 

No 0.8 1.4 8.2 2.2 3.4 2.1 3.0 1.9 

Led to problems with friends, roommates, or peers

Yes 1.0 % 1.6 % 10.9 %! 2.9 % 3.8 % 2.5 % 3.7 % 2.7 % 

No 1.1 1.8 10.9 2.9 4.1 2.5 3.8 2.8 

Led to problems with family members

Yes 0.6 % 0.9 % 9.4 %! 1.5 %! 2.2 %! 1.9 % 2.6 %! 1.7 %! 

No 0.7 1.2 9.4 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.7 1.8 

Led to problem with job, boss, or coworkers

Yes 0.6 % 0.5 %! 10.8 %! 1.8 %! 1.6 %! 1.5 %! 3.1 % 1.2 %! 

No 0.7 0.9 10.8 1.9 2.5 1.5 3.2 1.4 

As a result of the incident, did you move or change where you live?

Yes 0.3 % 0.3 %! ‐‐ %! 1.0 %!  ‐‐ %! 0.7 %! 0.8 %! 0.9 %! 

No 0.5 0.9    ‐‐    1.2 1.9 0.7 1.1 1.2 

Did you want to move or change where you live as a result of the incident?

Yes 0.7 % 0.6 %! 12.0 %! 2.1 %! 2.4 %! 1.9 % 1.6 %! 2.3 % 

No 1.0 1.4 12.0 3.0 3.8 2.2 2.3 2.7 
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-83

Table E-63. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual battery inciden

victim impact characteristics (continued) 

Victim Impact

Characteristics

School

Average 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

As a result of the incident, did you drop any classes or change your schedule?

Yes 0.4 % 0.3 %! ‐‐ %! 1.0 %! 3.4 %! 1.1 %! 0.8 %! 1.1 %! 

No 0.6 1.0    ‐‐    1.4 3.8 1.2 1.1 1.3 

Did you want drop any classes or change you schedule as a result of the incident?

Yes 0.6 % 0.8 %! 6.9 %! 1.5 %! 2.3 %! 1.1 %! 2.2 %! 1.5 %! 

No 1.0 1.4 6.9 3.1 4.5 1.8 3.0 2.3 

Did you think about taking some time off from school, transferring, or dropping out?

Yes 0.7 % 0.4 %! 7.9 %! 2.4 % 2.9 %! 1.9 % 1.8 %! 1.8 % 

No 0.8 1.0 7.9 2.5 3.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

‐‐Less than 0.05%
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-84

Table E-64. Order in which incidents were listed by male and female undergraduate sexua

with two or three sexual assault incidents, 2014–2015 academic year 

Percent

Month of incident

Earliest to latest 80.7 %

Latest to earliest 5.1All in same month 13.0

No order 1.3

Severity of incident

Most severe to least severe 19.3 %

Least severe to most severe 9.7

All rape 17.3

All battery (excluding rape) 48.2All unsure 0.8

No types of sexual contact endorsed 1.1

All missing 3.7

Any month of incident unsure

Unsure first 19.6 %

Unsure last 27.3

All unsure 50.4

No pattern 2.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-85

Table E-65. False positive and false negative victimization rates among undergraduate fem

class analysis (LCA) variable, 2014–2015 academic year 

False Negative False Positive

Estimate SE Estimate SE

LCA A 17.9 % 1.2 % 0.6 % 0.1 %LCA B 9.9 1.0 0.6 0.1LCA C 7.3 0.9 1.3 0.1LCA D 21.2 1.4 1.1 0.1

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Weights were standardized within schools such that each school's weights summed to the same weight total and thus schools c

overall totals. This was done to mirror, as closely as possible, the arithmetic average overall estimate calculations used in the remaind

SE= standard error
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-86

Table E-66. Unbiased estimates vs. current estimates of sexual assault victimization amo

females, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Unbiased Current (Survey Item P2)

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Average 10.7 % 0.3 % 10.2 % 0.2 %School 2 4.5 0.9 4.2 0.6School 4 6.0 0.6 5.8 0.4School 6 7.0 0.7 7.0 0.4School 9 8.4 0.7 7.1 0.4School 3 8.1 0.6 8.7 0.6School 8 11.1 0.7 10.7 0.6School 7 12.7 0.8 11.9 0.5School 5 17.9 1.2 16.9 0.6School 1 21.3 1.1 20.0 0.7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Weights were standardized within schools such that each school's weights summed to the same weight total and thus schools c

overall totals. This was done to mirror, as closely as possible, the arithmetic average overall estimate calculations used in the remaind

SE= standard error
RTI E. Data Tables for Sexual Assault, Ra

E-87

Table E-67. Unbiased estimates vs. current estimates of sexual assault victimization amo

females, by year of study, 2014–2015 academic year 

Year of

Study

Unbiased Current (Survey Item P2)

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Year 1 12.8 % 0.6 % 12.1 % 0.4 %Year 2 11.6 0.6 10.6 0.4Year 3 10.1 0.6 9.9 0.4Year 4 8.9 0.5 8.8 0.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Weights were standardized within schools such that each school's weights summed to the same weight total and thus schools c

overall totals. This was done to mirror, as closely as possible, the arithmetic average overall estimate calculations used in the remai

SE= standard error

Table E-68. Unbiased estimates vs. current estimates of sexual assault victimization amo

females, by sexual orientation, 2014–2015 academic year 

Sexual Orientation

Unbiased Current (Survey Item P2)

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Heterosexual 9.8 % 0.3 % 9.3 % 0.2 %Gay, lesbian, bisexual,or other 19.1 1.2 16.6 0.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Weights were standardized within schools such that each school's weights summed to the same weight total and thus schools c

overall totals. This was done to mirror, as closely as possible, the arithmetic average overall estimate calculations used in the remai

SE= standard error
Appendix F: Data Tables for Sexual 

Harassment and Coercion
RTI F. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Coercion

F-1

Table F-1. Percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

28.2 % 46.4 % 13.7 % 28.3 % 21.4 % 41.8 % 18.9 % 32.5 % 27.8 % 22.8 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

7.7 9.7 3.8 6.5 6.7 11.4 4.9 9.2 9.2 8.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table F-2. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.3 % 0.9 % 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.7 % 0.8 % 0.6 % 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.8 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table F-3. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type 

and school

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

1.0 % 2.0 % 7.5 % 3.4 % 3.3 % 2.0 % 3.0 % 2.4 % 2.9 % 3.4 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

2.2 5.7 15.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 6.2 5.1 5.8 6.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
RTI F. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Coercion

F-2

Table F-4. Percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

13.2 % 16.0 % 6.7 % 10.0 % 14.5 % 22.9 % 8.3 % 16.4 % 15.0 % 9.3 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

5.8 3.4 3.5 4.9 8.4 7.4 3.7 6.7 7.1 7.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table F-5. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and school, 

2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.3 % 1.3 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 1.0 % 1.1 % 0.8 % 0.9 % 1.1 % 0.8 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table F-6. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual Harassment During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

2.5 % 8.0 % 14.5 % 9.1 % 7.1 % 4.9 % 9.0 % 5.5 % 7.2 % 9.1 %

Coerced Sexual Contact During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

3.9 18.0 20.6 13.1 9.5 9.3 13.1 9.0 10.7 9.9

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
RTI F. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Coercion

F-3

Table F-7. Percentage of undergraduate female sexual harassment victims who endorsed various tactics

used by offender, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Percent 

Missing

Average

Percent Endorsed

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual advances, 

gestures, comments, 

or jokes

-- % 90.9 % 94.3 % 91.9 % 90.9 % 87.9 % 93.3 % 88.0 % 88.4 % 90.4 % 92.5 %

Flashed or exposed 

themselves

0.1 ! 15.4 11.5 8.9 ! 15.5 12.6 15.6 13.1 % 20.9 18.4 12.5

Showed or sent you 

sexual photos or 

videos

0.1 ! 21.6 12.0 18.8 20.6 24.0 22.7 24.6 % 27.7 25.5 18.9

Showed or sent sexual 

photos/videos of you 

or spread rumors

0.1 ! 13.9 11.7 9.1 ! 12.2 14.9 26.1 16.3 % 16.4 12.5 13.7

Watched or took 

photos/videos of you 

when you were nude 

or having sex

0.1 ! 4.6 2.0 3.7 ! 5.8 6.2 5.2 3.7 % 2.8 4.7 5.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

--Less than 0.05%
RTI F. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Coercion

F-4

Table F-8. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female sexual harassment victims who

endorsed various tactics used by offender, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Percent 

Missing

Average

Percent Endorsed

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Sexual advances, 

gestures, comments, 

or jokes

-- % 0.4 % 0.6 % 2.5 % 1.2 % 1.3 % 0.6 % 1.1 % 0.9 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

Flashed or exposed 

themselves

-- 0.6 0.9 2.2 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3

Showed or sent you 

sexual photos or 

videos

0.1 0.6 0.9 3.0 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5

Showed or sent sexual 

photos/videos of you 

or spread rumors

0.1 0.5 0.9 2.6 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3

Watched or took 

photos/videos of you 

when you were nude 

or having sex

-- 0.3 0.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

--Less than 0.05%
Appendix G: Data Tables for Intimate 

Partner Violence
RTI G. Data Tables for Intimate Partner Violence

G-1

Table G-1. Percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

6.4 % 4.6 % 8.5 % 6.4 % 6.9 % 7.0 % 5.0 % 7.6 % 6.7 % 5.1 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

7.4 6.2 9.4 7.0 7.8 8.7 5.5 8.5 7.6 5.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table G-2. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

0.2 % 0.4 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.2 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
RTI G. Data Tables for Intimate Partner Violence

G-2

Table G-3. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female victims by victimization type 

and school, 2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

2.7 % 8.9 % 11.4 % 8.2 % 6.5 % 6.1 % 6.7 % 6.0 % 7.1 % 8.0 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

2.5 7.6 10.6 7.8 6.0 5.4 6.3 5.6 6.5 7.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table G-4. Percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and school, 2014–2015 

academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

4.9 % 2.7 % 4.6 % 4.9 % 6.5 % 7.6 % 2.9 % 6.2 % 4.2 % 4.8 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

5.1 3.1 4.8 4.9 6.6 8.1 3.0 6.5 4.3 5.0

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
RTI G. Data Tables for Intimate Partner Violence

G-3

Table G-5. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and school, 

2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

0.2 % 0.6 % 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.6 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

0.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.

Table G-6. Relative standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male victims by victimization type and 

school, 2014–2015 academic year

Average School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical Abuse) During 2014–

2015 Academic Year

4.5 % 22.8 % 19.2 % 13.3 % 11.4 % 9.7 % 16.0 % 10.0 % 13.7 % 13.0 %

Intimate Partner Violence 

(Physical and/or Sexual) During 

2014–2015 Academic Year

4.4 21.1 18.7 13.3 11.3 9.2 15.3 9.7 13.4 12.8

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing the estimate for each of 

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though schools are not of equal size.
Appendix H: Data Tables for Sexual 

Harassment and Sexual 

Assault Perpetration
RTI H. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration

H-1

Table H-1. Percentage (and standard error of percentage) of undergraduate females who perpetrated 

sexual harassment, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Perpetrated Sexual 

Harassment

Percent Standard Error

Average 2.9 % 0.1 %

School 1 3.0 0.3

School 2 1.5 ! 0.4 !

School 3 2.7 0.3

School 4 2.0 0.3

School 5 4.0 0.3

School 6 1.6 0.2

School 7 3.7 0.3

School 8 3.5 0.3

School 9 3.5 0.3

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50
RTI H. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration

H-2

Table H-2. Percentage (and standard error of percentage) of undergraduate males who perpetrated sexual 

harassment, by school, 2014–2015 academic year

Perpetrated Sexual 

Harassment

Percent Standard Error

Average 4.4 % 0.3 %

School 1 6.6 1.0

School 2 2.4 0.6

School 3 4.0 0.6

School 4 4.8 0.6

School 5 6.6 0.7

School 6 3.6 0.5

School 7 4.8 0.5

School 8 3.9 0.6

School 9 4.4 0.6

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.
RTI H. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration

H-3

Table H-3. Percentage of respondents indicating a sexual assault perpetration by gender and type of 

perpetration, 2014–2015 academic year

Any Perpetration

Touching or 

Grabbing Threatening Physical Force

Person 

Incapacitated

Males

Any perpetration 2.9 % 2.5 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.8 %

Number of perpetrations

1 1.3 % 1.3 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.5 %

2 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 ! 0.1 !

3 0.2 0.2 -- ! -- ! -- !

4 0.1 0.1 ! -- ! -- ! -- !

5+ 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

Females

Any perpetration 2.8 % 2.3 % 0.6 % 0.8 % 0.7 %

Number of perpetrations

1 1.1 % 1.2 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

2 0.7 0.6 0.1 ! 0.1 0.1

3 0.3 0.2 -- ! -- ! 0.1 !

4 0.2 -- ! -- ! -- ! -- !

5+ 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50 

--Less than 0.05%
RTI H. Data Tables for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Perpetration

H-4

Table H-4. Standard errors of percentage of respondents indicating a sexual assault perpetration by 

gender and type of perpetration, 2014–2015 academic year

Any Perpetration

Touching or 

Grabbing Threatening Physical Force

Person 

Incapacitated

Males

Any perpetration 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 %

Number of perpetrations

1 0.1 % 0.1 % -- % 0.1 % 0.1 %

2 0.1 0.1 -- -- ! -- !

3 0.1 0.1 -- ! -- ! -- !

4 -- -- ! -- ! -- ! -- !

5+ 0.1 0.1 0.1 -- --

Females

Any perpetration 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 %

Number of perpetrations

1 0.1 % 0.1 % -- % 0.1 % 0.1 %

2 0.1 0.1 -- ! -- --

3 -- -- -- ! -- ! -- !

4 -- -- ! -- ! -- ! -- !

5+ 0.1 -- -- -- --

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all respondents across the nine schools 

and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger schools.

! = Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or relative standard error is greater than 50

--Less than 0.05%
Appendix I: Data Tables for School 

Connectedness and Campus 

Climate
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-1

Table I-1. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate females, by school, 201

year 

Scale Average

School

2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 24.6 26.7 25.1 24.9 25.1 22.1 24.9 24.General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

6.4 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.3 6.

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 6.5 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

(0–9)

6.1 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.2 5.2 6.6 6.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and

Response (0–21)

14.1 14.9 14.8 14.5 15.3 13.2 14.7 13.

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy and

Resources (0–15)

9.2 8.9 9.6 9.0 10.1 8.3 9.1 8.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

(0–12)

8.8 9.4 9.0 9.0 9.4 8.3 9.1 8.

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

(0–21)

16.8 17.4 17.4 16.3 17.0 16.5 16.7 16.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Misconduct

(0–12)

7.4 9.1 7.1 7.9 8.0 7.2 6.9 6.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Bystander

Behavior and Involvement (0–12)

6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 7.2 6.5 6.8 6.

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

13.4 13.5 12.6 13.6 13.4 13.2 13.4 13.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-2

Table I-2. Standard error of mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate femal

2014–2015 academic year 

Scale Average

School

2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

(0–9)

0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and

Response (0–21)

0.03 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy andResources (0–15)

0.02 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

(0–12)

0.02 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

(0–21)

0.02 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Misconduct

(0–12)

0.02 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Bystander

Behavior and Involvement (0–12)

0.01 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

0.02 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-3

Table I-3. Mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate males, by school, 2014–

year 

Scale Average

School

2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 24.9 25.9 24.5 25.4 24.9 23.1 25.1 25.General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

6.3 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.7 6.1 6.1 6.

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

(0–9)

6.0 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.4 6.5 6.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and

Response (0–21)

15.1 15.0 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.4 15.5 15.

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy and

Resources (0–15)

9.8 9.4 9.9 9.4 10.4 9.1 9.7 9.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

(0–12)

9.1 9.3 9.0 9.4 9.5 8.7 9.4 9.

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

(0–21)

15.3 15.8 15.8 15.1 15.3 15.0 15.3 15.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Misconduct

(0–12)

7.6 8.8 7.0 8.1 8.0 7.6 7.2 7.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Bystander

Behavior and Involvement (0–12)

7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

11.5 11.9 10.8 12.0 11.5 11.6 11.5 11.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-4

Table I-4. Standard error of mean campus climate scale scores for undergraduate males

2014–2015 academic year 

Scale Average

School

2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 0.05 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.

General Perceptions of Leadership Staff

(0–9)

0.02 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Sexual Misconduct Prevention and

Response (0–21)

0.04 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy andResources (0–15)

0.03 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate

for Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

(0–12)

0.03 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual Misconduct

(0–21)

0.04 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Misconduct

(0–12)

0.03 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.

Perceptions of Student Norms Related toSexual Misconduct: Student Bystander

Behavior and Involvement (0–12)

0.02 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

0.03 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though sc

size.
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-5

Table I-5. Percentage of undergraduate female students with lowa campus climate scale 

school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Scale Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 23.9 % 10.9 % 22.6 % 19.7 % 20.5 % 40.8 % 20.7 % 24.0 General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

19.9 13.3 20.0 23.1 16.9 28.4 20.8 16.1 

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 17.3 10.2 17.7 12.8 20.5 25.3 17.9 16.2 

General Perceptions of Leadership

Staff (0–9)

23.6 11.1 17.5 19.7 19.9 41.2 15.5 21.0 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Sexual Misconduct

Prevention and Response (0–21)

24.8 14.1 19.9 18.3 15.3 30.1 20.4 25.6 

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy andResources (0–15)

17.8 20.5 16.7 16.6 12.3 26.2 20.0 23.1 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Treatment of Sexual

Assault Victims (0–12)

22.6 10.4 18.8 17.8 15.0 27.2 16.4 20.2 

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual

Misconduct (0–21)

15.6 10.6 11.1 19.7 15.4 15.8 15.3 15.2 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related

to Sexual Misconduct: StudentMisconduct (0–12)

20.0 4.2 23.8 10.9 12.8 20.5 25.6 27.0 

Perceptions of Student Norms Relatedto Sexual Misconduct: StudentBystander Behavior and Involvement

(0–12)

24.6 22.9 27.8 24.7 21.4 29.5 24.3 30.1 

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

14.3 13.3 22.2 11.3 15.5 16.3 13.5 14.5 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-6

Table I-6. Standard error of percentage of undergraduate female students with lowa cam

scores, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Scale Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 0.27 % 0.97 % 0.73 % 0.61 % 0.76 % 1.06 % 0.75 % 0.73 General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

0.25 0.99 0.70 0.62 0.69 0.97 0.74 0.62 

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 0.24 0.87 0.67 0.52 0.75 0.93 0.70 0.62 

General Perceptions of Leadership

Staff (0–9)

0.26 0.91 0.65 0.59 0.75 1.06 0.67 0.69 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Sexual Misconduct

Prevention and Response (0–21)

0.27 1.03 0.70 0.58 0.69 1.00 0.74 0.74 

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy and

Resources (0–15)

0.26 1.20 0.65 0.56 0.63 0.96 0.74 0.72 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Treatment of Sexual

Assault Victims (0–12)

0.26 0.93 0.69 0.58 0.68 0.96 0.69 0.68 

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual

Misconduct (0–21)

0.23 0.91 0.55 0.59 0.69 0.79 0.67 0.61 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related

to Sexual Misconduct: StudentMisconduct (0–12)

0.25 0.62 0.76 0.47 0.63 0.88 0.80 0.75 

Perceptions of Student Norms Relatedto Sexual Misconduct: StudentBystander Behavior and Involvement

(0–12)

0.28 1.25 0.79 0.65 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.78 

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

0.23 1.01 0.75 0.51 0.70 0.81 0.63 0.60 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-7

Table I-7. Percentage of undergraduate male students with lowa campus climate scale s

2014–2015 academic year 

School

Scale Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 21.9 % 14.8 % 25.9 % 16.5 % 22.2 % 31.5 % 20.0 % 20.2 General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

22.8 18.6 29.9 28.1 18.6 23.3 25.4 21.7 

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 17.5 12.0 21.5 13.5 20.6 20.8 17.7 16.2 

General Perceptions of Leadership

Staff (0–9)

25.1 17.3 24.0 21.4 22.3 37.3 16.7 22.2 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Sexual Misconduct

Prevention and Response (0–21)

15.6 11.6 16.0 12.3 10.7 19.2 13.8 14.4 

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy and

Resources (0–15)

13.1 11.6 14.1 13.8 9.4 17.9 15.5 14.0 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Treatment of Sexual

Assault Victims (0–12)

18.0 10.0 20.8 13.2 14.3 21.1 14.2 14.2 

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual

Misconduct (0–21)

28.8 22.9 24.5 31.3 30.9 31.8 27.9 27.0 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related

to Sexual Misconduct: StudentMisconduct (0–12)

18.1 7.3 28.1 10.5 16.4 18.2 21.5 20.7 

Perceptions of Student Norms Relatedto Sexual Misconduct: Student

Bystander Behavior and Involvement

(0–12)

23.1 24.1 25.3 24.1 23.7 26.5 23.3 22.6 

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

34.0 27.6 43.9 27.9 35.5 32.6 35.3 35.4 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-8

Table I-8. Standard error of percentage of undergraduate male students with lowa camp

scores, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Scale Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

General School Connectedness (0–36) 0.43 % 1.56 % 1.29 % 1.11 % 1.23 % 1.41 % 1.22 % 0.99 General Perceptions of Campus Police

(0–9)

0.42 1.63 1.33 1.26 1.13 1.28 1.29 1.02 

General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 0.40 1.37 1.21 1.01 1.19 1.23 1.15 0.91 

General Perceptions of Leadership

Staff (0–9)

0.44 1.64 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.46 1.11 1.04 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Sexual Misconduct

Prevention and Response (0–21)

0.37 1.33 1.04 0.91 0.91 1.20 1.04 0.87 

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of

School Sexual Assault Policy andResources (0–15)

0.35 1.36 1.00 0.99 0.93 1.18 1.14 0.87 

Perceptions of School Leadership

Climate for Treatment of Sexual

Assault Victims (0–12)

0.39 1.30 1.17 0.97 1.05 1.24 1.06 0.87 

Likelihood of Personal Bystander

Behavior to Prevent Sexual

Misconduct (0–21)

0.47 1.84 1.25 1.30 1.44 1.42 1.35 1.09 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related

to Sexual Misconduct: StudentMisconduct (0–12)

0.38 1.09 1.31 0.90 1.09 1.18 1.21 0.99 

Perceptions of Student Norms Relatedto Sexual Misconduct: Student

Bystander Behavior and Involvement

(0–12)

0.45 1.83 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.36 1.28 1.04 

Personal Acceptance of Sexual

Misconduct (0–18)

0.49 1.94 1.45 1.28 1.48 1.43 1.42 1.18 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-9

Table I-9. Correlation between undergraduate male and female lowa climate scores and 

female sexual harassment and sexual assault rates 

Scale

Male Scales Fem

Sexual

Harassment

Sexual

Assault

Sexual

Harassment

General School Connectedness (0–36) 0.35 0.18 0.56 General Perceptions of Campus Police (0–9)  ‐0.33  ‐0.37 0.23 General Perceptions of Faculty (0–9) 0.30 0.16 0.35 General Perceptions of Leadership Staff (0–9) 0.62 0.52 0.68 Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Sexual Misconduct

Prevention and Response (0–21)

0.77 0.74 0.83 

Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy

and Resources (0–15)

‐0.20  ‐0.28  ‐0.31  

Perceptions of School Leadership Climate for Treatment of Sexual

Assault Victims (0–12)

0.82 0.77 0.82 

Likelihood of Personal Bystander Behavior to Prevent Sexual

Misconduct (0–21)

0.47 0.48 0.49 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct:Student Misconduct (0–12)

0.46 0.34 0.82 

Perceptions of Student Norms Related to Sexual Misconduct:Student Bystander Behavior and Involvement (0–12)

‐0.79  ‐0.88  ‐0.26  

Personal Acceptance of Sexual Misconduct (0–18) 0.10  ‐0.02  ‐0.43  

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-10

Table I-10. Percentage of undergraduate female students with low scores on “perception

leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” scale, by 2015 academic year 

School

Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

Overall 24.8 % 14.1 % 19.9 % 18.3 % 15.3 % 30.1 % 20.4 % 25.6 % Characteristics

Year of Study

1st and 2nd Year Students 21.3 % 13.8 % 17.4 % 16.9 % 11.3 % 24.2 % 17.5 % 22.5 % 

3rd and 4th Year Students 28.0 16.0 21.7 19.2 21.4 32.5 22.2 28.2 

Sexual Assault Victimization Status

Victims 40.7 % 28.1 % 44.2 % 30.9 % 32.9 % 45.7 % 38.3 % 40.2 % 

Non‐Victims 23.1 13.6 18.4 17.4 14.0 28.7 18.3 23.6 

Race/Ethnicity

Non‐Hispanic White 24.7 % 12.5 % 21.2 % 18.3 % 15.6 % 27.6 % 20.3 % 25.8 % 

Other 24.9 22.6 15.4 19.2 15.5 30.6 21.4 25.5 

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 23.7 % 14.2 % 18.9 % 17.5 % 14.1 % 28.8 % 19.9 % 24.9 % 

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other 36.0 12.6 34.8 26.8 31.6 43.5 26.1 33.9 

Age

18–21 24.4 % 15.1 % 21.0 % 18.3 % 14.6 % 28.9 % 19.9 % 25.5 % 

22+ 27.4 13.4 18.3 18.4 19.9 31.4 21.2 25.7 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-11

Table I-11. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate female students with low sco

“perceptions of school leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention ascale, by school, 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

Overall 0.3 % 1.0 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.7 % 1.0 % 0.7 % 0.7 % Characteristics

Year of Study

1st and 2nd Year Students 0.4 % 1.3 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.7 % 1.7 % 1.1 % 1.0 % 

3rd and 4th Year Students 0.4 1.8 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 

Sexual Assault Victimization Status

Victims 1.2 % 6.8 % 3.6 % 2.6 % 3.2 % 3.7 % 2.8 % 2.4 % 

Non‐Victims 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 

Race/Ethnicity

Non‐Hispanic White 0.4 % 1.0 % 0.8 % 0.6 % 1.3 % 2.0 % 0.8 % 0.9 % 

Other 0.6 3.7 1.4 2.0 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.5 

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 0.3 % 1.1 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.7 % 1.0 % 0.8 % 0.8 % 

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other 1.0 3.2 3.6 2.1 3.5 3.8 2.9 2.7 

Age

18–21 0.3 % 1.6 % 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.7 % 1.4 % 0.9 % 0.9 % 

22+ 0.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-12

Table I-12. Percentage of undergraduate male students with low scores on “perceptions o

leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” scale, by 2015 academic year 

School

Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

Overall 15.6 % 11.6 % 16.0 % 12.3 % 10.7 % 19.2 % 13.8 % 14.4 % Characteristics

Year of Study

1st and 2nd Year Students 12.6 % 11.0 % 11.6 % 10.2 % 9.2 % 16.4 % 10.0 % 13.3 % 

3rd and 4th Year Students 18.4 16.1 19.4 13.4 12.5 20.3 15.8 15.1 

Sexual Assault Victimization Status

Victims 31.6 % 53.5 %! 39.6 % 32.2 % 37.5 % 21.0 % 26.5 % 20.3 % 

Non‐Victims 15.2 11.0 15.5 12.0 9.8 19.1 13.4 14.1 

Race/Ethnicity

Non‐Hispanic White 14.9 % 11.2 % 16.1 % 10.6 % 12.9 % 19.3 % 12.8 % 11.7 % 

Other 18.1 14.0 14.1 20.6 9.2 19.2 16.9 22.5 

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 14.8 % 11.6 % 15.2 % 11.8 % 9.9 % 18.7 % 12.2 % 13.5 % 

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other 24.8 13.6 19.0 18.1 25.0 27.1 30.2 22.8 

Age

18‐21 15.5 % 13.5 % 16.6 % 12.8 % 11.4 % 17.2 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 

22+ 15.2 10.3 15.1 11.6 7.6 20.9 15.2 16.3 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
RTI I. Data Tables for School Connectednes

I-13

Table I-13. Standard errors of percentage of undergraduate male students with low score

of school leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response” 2014–2015 academic year 

School

Average 2 4 6 9 3 8 7 

Overall 0.4 % 1.3 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 0.9 % Characteristics

Year of Study

1st and 2nd Year Students 0.5 % 1.5 % 1.3 % 1.4 % 1.1 % 2.1 % 1.4 % 1.2 % 

3rd and 4th Year Students 0.6 3.4 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 

Sexual Assault Victimization Status

Victims 3.1 % 16.7 %! 9.4 % 9.7 % 8.2 % 8.9 % 8.1 % 4.8 % 

Non‐Victims 0.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 

Race/Ethnicity

Non‐Hispanic White 0.5 % 1.4 % 1.2 % 0.9 % 1.7 % 2.4 % 1.1 % 0.9 % 

Other 0.8 3.6 2.1 3.1 1.1 1.4 3.0 2.2 

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual 0.4 % 1.3 % 1.1 % 0.9 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other 1.7 6.1 4.5 3.6 5.4 5.4 4.8 4.2 

Age

18‐21 0.5 % 2.2 % 1.3 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 1.6 % 1.3 % 1.1 % 

22+ 0.7 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the arithmetic average. Estimates based on the arithmetic average are calculated by summing th

the schools and dividing the sum by nine (the total number of participating schools). This treats each school equally even though scho

aLow scores are defined as those below the overall 25th percentile for all students

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases or RSE is greater than 50%.
Appendix J: Data Tables for Experiment 

Results
RTI J. Data Tables for Experiment Results

J-1

Table J-1. Adjusted odds ratio of participation for the greeting experiment (generic 

vs. personalized) by school and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 1.18 1.14 1.22 1.18 1.16 1.20

School A 1.14 1.02 1.27 0.98 0.96 1.00

School B 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.17 1.17 1.17

School C 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.33 1.33 1.34

School D 1.22 1.17 1.28 1.31 1.31 1.31

School E 1.16 1.08 1.25 1.23 1.16 1.30

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Generic Greeting

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval

Table J-2. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault prevalence for the greeting 

experiment (generic vs. personalized) by school and sex, 2014–2015 

academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 0.97 0.72 1.32 1.00 0.90 1.11

School A 1.70 0.87 3.31 0.83 0.70 0.99

School B 0.86 0.24 3.07 1.45 0.84 2.50

School C 0.90 0.58 1.38 0.83 0.70 0.99

School D 0.94 0.41 2.12 1.25 1.01 1.56

School E 0.75 0.47 1.20 0.95 0.78 1.15

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Generic Greeting

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval
RTI J. Data Tables for Experiment Results

J-2

Table J-3. Adjusted odds ratio of participation for incentive experiment 1 ($25 vs. 

$10) by school and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 0.77 0.74 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.84

School A 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.86 0.86 0.87

School B 0.78 0.71 0.86 0.76 0.71 0.81

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Incentive 1 ($25)

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval

Table J-4. Adjusted odds ratio of participation for incentive experiment 2 ($25 vs. 

$40) by school and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 1.06 0.98 1.15 1.05 0.98 1.11

School A 1.08 0.94 1.23 1.15 1.04 1.28

School B 1.05 0.96 1.14 0.92 0.87 0.98

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Incentive 1 ($25)

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval
RTI J. Data Tables for Experiment Results

J-3

Table J-5. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault prevalence for incentive 

experiment 1 ($25 vs. $10) by school and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 0.93 0.57 1.50 1.26 1.05 1.50

School A 1.33 0.69 2.55 1.20 0.91 1.57

School B 0.66 0.33 1.33 1.31 1.05 1.65

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Incentive 1 ($25)

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval

Table J-6. Adjusted odds ratio of sexual assault prevalence for incentive 

experiment 2 ($25 vs. $40) by school and sex, 2014–2015 academic year

Males Females

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Adjusted 

OR

OR lower 

bound

OR upper 

bound

Average 0.87 0.53 1.43 1.15 0.94 1.41

School A 0.76 0.35 1.66 1.47 1.08 2.00

School B 1.00 0.54 1.84 0.89 0.69 1.16

Source: Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015

Note: Average is calculated based on the weighted average. The weighted average is calculated by pooling data from all 

respondents across the nine schools and calculating a weighted overall estimate. This method gives greater influence to larger 

schools.

Reference Cell=Incentive 1 ($25)

OR = Odds Ratio

Note: Bounds are based on a 95% confidence interval
Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the presidents, chancellors, and staff at the nine 

institutions of higher education that participated in the Campus Climate Survey Validation Study 

(CCSVS) Pilot Test. Their support, commitment, and responsiveness—often under time-sensitive 

schedule demands—were critical to the success of the study. We also want to thank the many students 

who participated in the cognitive interviews and the Pilot Test, and by doing so, helped to improve the 

measurement of sexual assault and victim responses to this type of victimization.

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

provided funding and support for the project. Expert consultation throughout the project was provided 

by numerous researchers and federal partners from the Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, National Science Foundation, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many academic researchers and university administrators participated in listening sessions to guide the 

development of the CCSVS instrument and methodology. We also acknowledge the efforts of the White 

House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault to focus attention on the problem of campus 

sexual assault.

Additional RTI and BJS staff contributed to the CCSVS project and this report. Ashley Richards, 

Amanda Smith, and Michael Keating from RTI programmed the survey instrument, set up the data 

collection infrastructure, released the sample, managed the incentive redemption process, and monitored 

response rates and the overall data collection process. Sarah Cook, Nakisa Asefina, Stacy Cutbush, and 

Jeanne Snodgrass conducted the cognitive interviews. Amanda Lewis-Evans produced the numerous data 

figures contained in this report and Philip Lee and Stephanie Zimmer verified the data and estimates in 

the report. Colby Gabel, Nakisa Asefina, and Shari Lambert designed the school-specific reports. The RTI 

Publishing Services Group and the BJS Publication and Dissemination Unit were responsible for editorial 

assistance and document preparation.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal 

federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal 

offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal 

and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, 

analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice 

systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal 

justice information systems, and participates with national and international 

organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. 

William J. Sabol is director.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ249545