Securing Informed Consent from Less Educated Respondents: 

Results from the National Inmate Survey 

Rachel A. Caspar

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, caspar@rti.org

Abstract: 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop 

new national data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault within correctional facilities. The Act requires 

BJS to survey each year not less than 10% of all federal, state, and local correctional facilities and to provide facility-level 

estimates of sexual assault for each sampled facility. To fully implement PREA, BJS has developed a multiple-measure, 

multiple-method data collection strategy. One of these data collection activities, the National Inmate Survey (NIS), involves 

obtaining information directly from adult inmates on their experiences with sexual assault. Approval to conduct the NIS was 

sought from a number of different Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) including RTI International’s (which serves as the IRB 

of record), the IRBs for each of the 50 state Departments of Corrections, and IRBs associated with individual jails. As 

inmates are defined as a protected class by DHHS’s Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and because the NIS 

collects data of a very sensitive nature, these IRBs were especially concerned with issues related to inmate coercion, the right 

to refuse, and ensuring inmates understood exactly what participation entailed. This presentation will discuss the challenges 

of developing and administering consent materials for an inmate population where literacy and formal education levels are 

typically lower than in the general U.S. population. We will provide a review of the consent form used in the NIS and an 

analysis of the questions and comments raised by sampled inmates as they decided whether or not to participate in the study. 

Our analysis will examine whether there were particular aspects of the NIS consent materials that were especially difficult for

the inmate population to understand and discuss the implications of our findings. 

Keywords: prisoners, sensitive behaviors, informed consent 

Introduction 

Although prevalence estimates have varied, it is generally acknowledged that some proportion of the incarcerated population 

is sexually victimized. Inmates are under the care of Federal, state, or local authorities, and as such should be kept safe from 

victimization to the extent prevention of such activities is possible. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 (P.L. 

108-79) mandates funding for a number of studies on sexual victimization in correctional facilities. The need for these 

studies is founded in two related problems: (1) some inmates are sexually assaulted and (2) the validity and reliability of

existing data on this phenomenon are inadequate. 

Prior to the implementation of PREA, there was relatively little research on the sexual assault of inmates, and the validity and 

reliability of the methods employed and data generated by existing research are largely flawed. The few existing studies have 

used a variety of definitions, timeframes, and methods yielding unfocused epidemiological data and a wide range of 

prevalence estimates. For example, Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (2000) estimated that 21% of incarcerated 

males in four Nebraska State prisons experienced pressured or forced sexual contact. Tewksbury (1989) found that none of 

the inmates in an Ohio prison reported being raped, but almost 5% reported that another inmate tried to use threats or force to

make them have sex. Hensley, Tewksbury, and Castle (2003) found that approximately 1% of male inmates in an Oklahoma

prison reported being raped, but almost 14% were threatened sexually. Generally, estimates of the prevalence of sexual 

assault in corrections range from 0 to 40 percent (for a complete summary of the literature see Gaes & Goldberg, 2004). 

Although these studies conclude that sexual assault occurs in correctional facilities and provide some insight into the 

dynamics of such events, there are serious methodological limitations and inconsistencies across these studies that limit the 

utility and comparability of their findings. Many prison rape studies utilizing personal interviews or self-administered 

questionnaires suffer from very low response rates (e.g., less than 30%), and few attempt to compare respondents to nonrespondents in an effort to address concerns about selection bias or to assess their samples for representativeness. For 
example, the Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson (2000) study that obtained a sexual assault prevalence rate of 21% 

considered the issue of selection bias, conceding that respondents were different from non-respondents in terms of age, race, 

instant offense, and sentence length. The inmate response rate for this study was below 29% and the authors did not conduct 

any statistical tests on these results or attempt to adjust for nonresponse (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000). 

Additionally, existing studies have used a wide variety of definitions and interview instruments, and there have been no 

efforts to weight data to adjust for non-response (Gaes & Goldberg, 2004). As a result, there is a need to standardize 

definitions and concepts; conduct more statistically rigorous sampling; and develop and employ improved data collection and 

analytic methods to encourage participation and honest responses, assess samples for representativeness, and adjust for 

selection bias resulting from non-response. 

PREA requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop new national data collections on the incidence and 

prevalence of sexual assault within correctional facilities. The Act requires BJS to survey each year not less than 10% of all 

federal, state, and local correctional facilities and to provide facility-level estimates of sexual assault for each sampled 

facility. To fully implement PREA, BJS has developed a multiple-measure, multiple-method data collection strategy. One of 

these data collection activities, the National Inmate Survey (NIS), involves obtaining information directly from adult inmates 

on their experiences with sexual assault within the correctional facility in which they are housed. The NIS addresses the 

methodological weaknesses inherent in the previous research. Specifically, 

• The sample design of the NIS allows for facility-level as well as national estimates of victimization. 

• The study is designed to minimize the burden to participating facilities and sampled inmates to the greatest extent 

possible thereby improving response rates at both the facility and inmate level. 

• The questionnaire includes very specific questions regarding the different behaviors that constitute sexual 

victimization rather than vague, poorly defined terms such as “raped” or “victimized”. Questions also include clear 

reference periods such that all inmates report events that occurred during the previous 12 months or since they 

arrived at the facility (whichever is longer). 

• Data are collected via audio-computer assisted self interviewing (ACASI) as this method has been found to result in 

higher reporting of sensitive topics (Turner, et al, 1998). 

• Interviews take place in private locations where the inmate and interviewer cannot be overheard and where the 

laptop screen cannot be seen by other inmates or facility staff. 

• Inmate names are never connected to interview data, further increasing the willingness of inmates to report honestly. 

Protection of Human Subjects 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office for Protection from Research Risks provides regulations for the 

protection of all human subjects in federally funded research. Commonly referred to as 45CFR, Part 46, these regulations 

include specific procedures for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to follow to determine whether a particular research 

project is acceptable for human subjects. Typically, though not always, research using a survey instrument to collect data is 

categorized as being of minimal risk to participants. To be so categorized, the research must ensure that the probability and 

magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those that are encountered in ordinary daily 

life or as a part of routine physical or psychological examinations or testing (U.S. DHHS Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

45, Part 46, Subpart A). Subpart C of these same regulations speaks specifically to the requirements that must be met in order 

to conduct research with prisoners. Only two types of minimal risk research are permitted with prisoners. These include: 

• Studies of the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration, and of criminal behavior, provided the study 

presents no more than minimal risk 

• Studies of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons (U.S. DHHS Code of Federal 

Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, Subpart C) 

In order to approve research with prisoners, the IRB must determine that: 
• Any advantages that accrue to the inmate through participation are not of such magnitude that his or her ability to 

weigh the risks of the research against the value is impaired 

• Risks involved with the research are commensurate with risks that would be accepted by nonprisoner volunteers 

• Procedures for selecting subjects are fair and immune from arbitrary intervention by prison authorities or other 

prisoners. Random selection of prisoners who meet the characteristics needed for the research project is required 

unless sufficient justification exists for some other selection process. 

• All information is presented in language that will be understandable to the prisoners 

• Adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account a prisoner’s participation in the research 

when making decisions about parole. Prisoners must be explicitly informed prior to participation that their decision

will have no effect on decisions regarding parole 

• Adequate provisions exist to provide any necessary followup care to prisoners once their participation in the study 

ends. 

Two additional types of research may be permitted with prisoners but only after the research is formally vetted with 

appropriate experts in the field and intent to conduct the research is published in the Federal Register. These research areas

include: 

• Studies of conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class. Examples include research on infectious diseases 

which are more prevalent in prisons than elsewhere 

• Studies of practices which have the intent and reasonable probability of improving the health or well-being of the 

subject. (U.S. DHHS Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, Subpart C) 

Ultimately the NIS was approved by RTI’s IRB as a study of the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration, and 

of criminal behavior that presented no more than minimal risk to prisoners. However, there were still challenges to meeting 

each of six requirements described above, most notably developing procedures for explaining the study protocol and 

obtaining consent in a way that ensured informed and uncoerced decision-making for each sampled inmate. Research 

involving inmates is subject to additional scrutiny as the very fact that participants are incarcerated may constrain their ability 

to make truly voluntary and uncoerced decisions. In addition, the inmate population has less formal education and is more 

likely to be semi- or illiterate in comparison to the general adult population of the United States. As such, both the text used 

in the consent materials as well as the process and logistics of obtaining consent are critical to meeting the requirements of 

the federal regulations. In the remainder of this paper I describe the development of the consent procedures used for the NIS

and what we have learned as a result of completing data collection with approximately 150,000 inmates. 

The Logistics of Obtaining Consent 

Early in the process of developing procedures for obtaining consent from inmates selected for the NIS it was recognized that 

privacy was going to be an essential component to voluntary and uncoerced consent and yet a difficult standard for many 

facilities to meet. Given the very sensitive and highly political nature of the NIS topic the project team was concerned there

could be many mechanisms by which an inmate might be subtly or overtly coerced into making a particular decision about 

participation. For example, coercion to refuse could occur if a victim was selected and his/her perpetrator was to find out and 

threaten retaliation if the inmate participated in the study. Coercion to refuse could also occur if facility staff attempted to 

discourage inmates from participating because the administrators disagree with the PREA legislation. In contrast coercion to 

participate could occur if a facility is trying to make sure a high survey response rate is achieved at the facility and thus 

introduces consequences to inmates who refuse. Similarly it could occur if an inmate leader of a housing unit might decide 

that participation is a good idea and coerce all selected inmates in the unit to participate. Efforts to ensure all inmates fully 

understand what participation entails are likely to require some degree of conversation between the interviewer and the 

inmate. A private space will increase an inmate’s comfort in raising questions and voicing any concerns prior to making a 

decision. 

Private space is not in great supply in prisons and jails and the variety of demands for such space (for meetings between 

inmates and their lawyers, staff offices, etc.) make it difficult to obtain for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, the

procedures set in place for the NIS require that each inmate meet with an interviewer one-on-one in a private setting to hear 

about the study, ask any questions he/she might have, and ultimately to make a decision about participation.1

 During early 

 

1

 The interview itself is conducted in a private setting as well but that is not the topic of this paper so details of how the 

interview is administered are not included here. 
discussions with a sampled facility, project staff describe the required characteristics of the space where the NIS interviews 

can be conducted. The number of private rooms a facility can provide determines the number of interviewers that will be 

sent to work at the facility and that in turn plays a significant role in determining how much time it takes to complete data 

collection at the facility. Throughout the first two years of NIS data collection we have been fortunate that virtually all 

facilities have been able to identify a sufficient number of private rooms to enable data collection to be completed within a 

one week period. Identifying such space hasn’t always been easy, however. A number of facilities have had to think 

creatively to find private space; for example, housing interviewers in the education wing of the facility during weeks when 

classes are not in session, building wooden dividers that allow large spaces such as a gymnasium to be divided into multiple 

interviewing “rooms”, and asking facility staff to vacate offices during the week of data collection. Project staff from RTI 

have made site visits to facilities to assist in identifying suitable space. In the small number of facilities where suitable space 

could not be identified it was most often when a major renovation was underway at the facility and space of all types was at a 

premium. In these situations the facility was excused from that year’s data collection as the alternative – interviewing in a 

semi-private or public location was simply not acceptable. 

The other logistical aspect of the consent process involved determining how information about the study would be conveyed 

to the inmates. Typically a facility provides the interviewing team with at least one staff member who assists with bringing 

inmates to and from the interviewing rooms. Thus, the first that an inmate hears about his/her selection for the NIS is when 

an officer calls for or escorts him/her to meet with the interviewer. During the pilot study for the NIS we drafted a brief 

paragraph of text that these officers could use to explain why the inmate was going to meet with the interviewer. We had no 

control over whether officers chose to use the text or whether they augmented the text with any additional information. 

Results from the pilot study indicated that a number of inmates were coded as refusals because they refused to come and 

meet with the interviewer to even hear about the study. Since we could not be sure what conversation might have taken place 

between the inmate and the officer and because the officers had not been trained to fully explain the study to the same extent 

that our interviewers had, we felt such refusals could not really be considered informed decision-making. 

Prior to beginning the first year of data collection for the NIS the project team returned to RTI’s IRB with a request for an 

amendment to our study protocol. Instead of asking the officers to provide the initial introduction to the study we sought

approval for an approach whereby officers would simply require each inmate to come to the interviewing room and meet with 

the interviewer to hear about the study. After speaking with the interviewer each inmate could decide whether to participate 

in the study. The benefit of this approach was that the project team could more fully ensure that each inmate received an 

accurate description of the study and had an opportunity to ask any questions of an individual who would know the answers. 

This procedure more fully meshed with the requirements of informed consent because under the old procedures some inmates 

were making their decision based on incomplete or even inaccurate information in an environment that might not afford the 

same privacy as the space where the interviewers were working. RTI’s IRB approved the amendment and the new protocol 

has been used in the collection of data for both the 2008 and 2009 NIS. While we do still experience situations where an 

inmate refuses to come to the interviewing room and thus does not have a chance to hear a full description of the study, these 

cases comprise only a small percentage of the total caseload and typically are due to inmates who are too sick to leave their 

housing unit. 

Content of the Consent Form 

The other aspect of the consenting process that demanded careful attention during the development of the NIS was the actual 

content of the consent form. There are specific requirements as to what a consent form must contain. These required 

elements include: 

• That the study involves research 

• The purpose of the research and why the subject qualifies (or was selected)

• The duration of the subject's participation 

• What procedures will be and which are experimental

• Any foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject, including both physical and psychological/social/legal risks. (If 

sensitive questions are being asked, subjects need to be informed about the nature of the questions.) 
• Any benefits to the subject or to others from the research. (Monetary compensation or gifts are not considered 

benefits.)

• Alternative procedures or courses of treatment that might be advantageous to the subject. 

• Whether compensation and treatment are available if the subject is injured (applies only for studies posing greater 

than minimal risk) 

• The names and telephone numbers (preferably toll-free) for at least two contacts: one contact for study-related 

questions and a second contact for questions concerning the subject's rights or research related injury 

• That participation is completely voluntary 

• That refusal to participate or discontinuing participation will not result in the loss of any benefits to which subject is 

otherwise entitled

• The extent to which the subject's personally identifiable private data will be held in confidence and any exceptions 

to confidentiality, such as imminent harm or circumstances where mandatory reporting might occur 

• The compensation offered to subject 

• If the subject may be re-contacted in the future 

• Approximate number of subjects in a study 

• Consequences of subject's decision to withdraw from the study 

The need to include so many required elements in the consent form is especially challenging when creating consent materials 

for individuals with low literacy and/or little formal education. Careful attention must be paid to addressing each element in

a way that can be easily understood. Exhibit 1 shows the consent form that was utilized for the 2008 NIS. In developing the 

content of the NIS consent form the project team consulted with a local adult literacy organization for advice. A first

recommendation they made was consistent with our existing protocol, namely that the interviewer read the text aloud while 

the inmate followed along on their copy. This approach ensured that all content was reviewed as well as addressing the 

situation of words that are familiar when heard but are not recognized in print (for example, incarceration). Another 

recommendation was to divide the text into clear topical areas so the inmate would more easily be able to identify the intent 

of each paragraph. Another suggestion was to use short, more common words whenever possible. So, for example in the 

first sentence of the form we indicated that the study was being ‘done’ by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as opposed to being

‘conducted’. Unfortunately some of the concepts that must be included are, by their very nature, complex. We know, for 

example, that the concept of random selection is difficult for many respondents to understand and even an extensive written 

description seems to make little difference. As a result, we anticipated inmates would have questions about the study goals 

and procedures even after reviewing the consent and during project training interviewers received extensive training in how 

to respond to those questions. 

In an effort to gain feedback on the consent form, we included an item for the interviewer to complete at the end of each 

interview. This item asked the interviewer to describe any questions asked or comments made by the inmate during the 

consent process. These comments were reviewed, codes were created and the comments from inmates housed in prisons (n = 

26,311) were coded. After the codes were created two coders independently coded approximately 50 cases and the codes 

were compared. In cases where the codes assigned did not agree (n = 7), the coders discussed the comment and agreed on 

how to code the case. Following these discussions an additional 50 cases were independently coded and 100% agreement 

was attained. At this point the remaining cases were divided between the two coders and coded by only a single coder. A 

total of 1,829 inmates (7%) made comments and these cases resulted in 1,916 unique comments to be coded (as an inmate 

might raise more than one question or comment). Table 1 provides the results of this coding exercise, including examples of 

the types of comments or questions that were included in each code. 

The first thing to note from the data in Table 1 is nearly half (43.1%) of the topics raised by the inmate during the informed 

consent process are not related to the issue of consent. Inmates regularly wanted to discuss other topics with the interviewer. 

During debriefing meetings with interviewers we were told that many inmates were pleased to have someone to talk with and 
Exhibit 1 

 

Bureau of Justice National Inmate Survey 

Statistics Consent to Participate in Research ,

Introduction

The National Inmate Survey is a research study being done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI 

International, a not-for-profit research organization in North Carolina. You are one of about [XXX] inmates at 

this facility who have been randomly selected to participate. Inmates will be interviewed at about 500 facilities 

across the country. The purpose of this research project is to estimate the number of inmates who are sexually 

assaulted in prisons and jails each year. 

Description of the Study

This interview will take about 30 minutes. To start, the interviewer will ask you some questions about your 

background, education, and reason for incarceration and enter them into the computer. Next the interviewer will 

show you how to use the computer and you can complete the rest of the survey on your own in privacy while the 

interviewer stands on the other side of or outside the room. You will be able to read the questions on the 

computer screen and listen to them through headphones and then enter your answers directly into the computer by 

touching the screen. As part of this interview, the computer will randomly decide to ask you questions from one 

of two questionnaires. In one questionnaire, you will be asked explicit questions about your own experiences 

with sex and sexual assault in this facility (such as the types of sexual acts and where they occurred). In addition, 

you may also be asked about your use of drugs and alcohol prior to incarceration. In the other questionnaire you 

will be asked about your use of drugs and alcohol prior to incarceration and treatment you may have received. 

Only you will know which set of questions you answered. Not even the interviewer will know unless you discuss 

the questions with her. You will never be asked to identify anyone by name. To thank you for participating in the 

study, we will provide you with a snack that you must eat before you leave the interview location. 

Possible Risks or Discomforts

Some of the survey questions are personal and it is possible that they may make you feel uncomfortable or upset. 

There are no right or wrong answers and you can skip any questions you do not want to answer. If you become 

upset for any reason, you can ask the interviewer to stop the interview. If you want to take a break at any time 

during the interview, please tell the interviewer. If you find the survey questions to be upsetting for any reason, 

the interviewer can also provide you with instructions for contacting a mental health counselor employed by this 

facility. 

Benefits

You will not receive any direct benefits for participating in this study. However, the results of this study may 

help to improve the condition and well-being of inmates in correctional facilities across the nation. 

Confidentiality

Your participation in this project is voluntary and you can stop at any time. If you choose not to participate you 

will not lose any benefits or services that you now receive or might receive in the future. Whether you participate 

or not will not affect your legal status or any decisions regarding your release from this facility in any way. Your 

name will never be connected with the information you provide in this interview. We will treat everything you 

say as private and confidential and we will not share any information you provide with anyone outside or at the 

facility or anyone who is not working on the project. There is, however, an exception to our promise of 
confidentiality. If you tell the interviewer that you intend to seriously harm yourself or a specific person, we may 

need to inform correctional staff. 

Do you have any questions about taking part in this study? 

Further Questions 

You may keep a copy of this form. If you have any questions about the project, you may write to the National 

Inmate Survey at RTI International, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194. If you have 

questions about your rights as a project participant, you can write to RTI's Office of Research Protection at the 

same address. 

If you would like to help us with our study by participating in the interview, please tell me now and we will begin. 

□ Willing to participate in the interview.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

I certify that the nature and purpose, the potential benefits, and possible risks associated with participating in this 

research have been explained to the participant. 

Person Who Obtained Consent: ______________________________________ 

ID Number: ________________ 

Date: _____/_______/_________ 

Interviewer: Please indicate whether or not the inmate accepted the snack. 

□ Inmate accepted snack.

□ Inmate declined snack.
used the opportunity to raise other issues that they hoped the interviewer might be able to help with. Among the comments 

that were related to informed consent, the most oft cited issue was concerns about confidentiality (13% of the codes) 

followed by questions about the selection process (10.4% of the codes). These findings are somewhat different from results 

obtained from some other surveys of sensitive topics conducted by RTI. Albeit not a probability-based sample of all RTI 

studies, a review of three household-based surveys indicated the most common concern/question raised by respondents is 

how selection is determined followed by how long the interview will take. It is perhaps not surprising that an inmate 

population would have slightly different concerns particularly for a survey asking about sensitive behaviors that have 

occurred during their incarceration. Inmates also tend to have fewer scheduled activities to occupy their time and in fact the

interview may be viewed as a pleasant distraction, so it is perhaps not surprising that this concern ranks quite low for NIS 

respondents. In addition, the NIS is a fairly short interview (approximately 30 minutes) as compared with most of RTI’s 

household-based surveys which typically last at least an hour. 

The results in Table 1 were encouraging to us as the indicated that none of the relevant questions being raised by the inmates 

were on topics that were not already addressed in our consent form. However, we did use the information to develop further 

content for our interviewer training. We spent additional time talking with the interviewers about how they could go about

addressing questions on these topics and 

Table 1: Comments/Questions Made by Prison Inmates During the Informed Consent Process

Topic of the Comment/Question Percent of 

Inmates 

Percent of 

Codes 

Confidentiality Concerns

participated?) 

(eg., Who will see my answers? Who will know that I 13.7 13.0 

Selection Process (eg., Was I selected because of 

just arrived, why me? Why didn’t you select X?) 

the crime I’m serving time for? I 10.9 10.4 

Not My Issue (eg., I’ve never been sexually assaulted. 

assault. Sexual assaults don’t happen here.) 

I’ve never seen a sexual 6.1 5.8 

Voluntariness (eg., Do I have to participate? What happens if I don’t participate?) 5.6 5.3 

Reason for Study (eg., 

should be studied?) 

Who is sponsoring this? Who decided that sexual assault 5.2 5.0 

Outcome of the Study (eg., What will this do 

How will the data be used?) 

for prison policies or for inmates? 4.0 3.8 

Impact on the Participant (eg., How will this help me? 

reduced? Will I get ‘good time’?) 

 Will my sentence be 3.3 3.1 

Who/What is RTI (eg., What is RTI’s relationship to

interviewer work for?) 

the prison/DOJ? Who does the 2.6 2.5 

Length of the Survey (eg., How long will the interview take?) 1.4 1.3 

Unrelated to Consent Process (eg., How did you get this job? Your data will be 

wrong because people lie. Can you get a message to my family?) 

45.2 43.1 

Insufficient Information to Code 6.9 6.6 

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 

(N = 1,829) (N = 1,916) 

 Data Source: 2008 National Inmate Survey, Prison Sample. 
ensuring they were knowledgeable of the material needed to appropriately address these types of concerns. It is worth 

noting, however, that the fact that inmates raised questions during the consent process is not an indication of poor interviewer 

behavior. The interviewer specifically asks the inmate if he/she has any questions and is trained to answer any questions the 

inmate has before proceeding with the interview. In addition, the interviewer may also address some of these topics as she 

works to avoid a refusal. Nevertheless we felt additional discussion on responding to these questions could only improve our 

interviewers’ interactions with the inmates. 

One additional method we used to determine whether changes were needed to the consent materials was to talk with the 

interviewers. With close to 300 interviewers working on the study we were unable to talk with all of them but we did 

conduct debriefing meetings with a subset of the interviewers and encouraged all interviewers to submit any thoughts they 

had via email. Based on this input, one small revision was made to the consent form that will be used for the 2010 NIS. 

Many interviewers noted that they almost always had to explain what the word “explicit” means. The word is used to 

describe the types of questions that will be asked about sexual assault. Our intent was to make clear that these items would 

ask about very specific details regarding sexual assault so that respondents wouldn’t be taken aback when they got to those 

sections. However, the word ‘explicit’ was not familiar to many respondents and as a result the interviewer was put in the 

somewhat uncomfortable situation of having to describe what the word meant in the context of the NIS. Interviewers also 

requested that the consent form be written in the first person so that when the interviewer reads it aloud she can say things 

like, “I will ask...” or “I will show” instead of referring to ‘the interviewer.” Unfortunately the IRB requires that the form be 

read exactly as written and making this change would cause the written form to read strangely. Thus, we have not 

implemented this change. 

Conclusions

Protecting the rights of the inmates who participate in the NIS is essential. To that end careful attention was given to the 

development of the informed consent materials used for the study. The challenge of creating a document that addresses all 

the elements required by the IRB in a way that is understandable to participants with low literacy levels and less formal 

education than the average American required great care. The results from our review of inmate comments suggest that our 

efforts were largely successful. We plan to continue to monitor the comments and questions inmates raise during the 

informed consent process to determine whether any additional changes may be needed to our materials. 

References

Gaes, G.G., and Goldberg, A.L. 2004. Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature. Washington, DC: W.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., and Castle, T. 2003. Characteristics of Prison Sexual Assault Targets in Male Oklahoma 

Facilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18:595 – 606. 

Struckman-Johnson, C. and Struckman-Johnson, D. 2000. Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prison Facilities for 

Men. The Prison Journal, 80:379 – 390. 

Tewksbury, R. 1989. Measures of Sexual Behavior in an Ohio Prison. Sociology and Social Research. 74:34 – 39. 

Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent Sexual behavior, 

drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280:867 – 873.