Further Investigation on Sexual Abuse Experiences: Revisiting the Psychometric Properties of the Sexual Abuse History Questionnaire and the Content of its Open-Ended Item
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Numerous studies have assessed sexual abuse (SA) in association with psychological consequences, psychiatric disorders, or somatic disorders. However, assessing such a complex psychological construct faces both methodological and theoretical difficulties. Method The aim of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Sexual Abuse History Questionnaire (SAHQ) in a large, non-clinical sample ( N = 24,715) and to identify other potential manifestations of sexual abuse using an open-ended question (e.g., groping, non-physical coercion, consent regarding sexual health, and the reproductive system). Results Two subsamples were created to perform both EFA and CFA, since no pre-established factor structure existed for the scale. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified a one-factor structure in sexual abuse both in childhood (CSA) and adolescence/adulthood (AASA). AASA and CSA showed a moderate positive correlation in both subsamples. Both AASA and CSA correlated positively with compulsive sexual behavior, sexual dysfunction, and number of sexual partners and negatively with problematic pornography consumption, although these associations were weak. Our qualitative analysis indicated eight additional categories of SA that the scale did not measure. Conclusions Our quantitative analyses showed adequate reliability but insufficient criterion validity for the SAHQ. Our qualitative analyses indicated that the scale is presumably not able to measure sexual abuse in its full complexity. Policy Implications The present research may point to the need to apply broader definitions of sexual abuse when it comes to designing interventions or treatment for SA survivors, as they can result in more personalized, inclusive, and effective intervention programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".