An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths
Abstract
Social workers responsible for developing rape prevention programs on college campuses must have valid evaluation instruments. This article presents the challenges encountered by the authors when they attempted to keep rape myth measures relevant to student populations by updating the language to reflect the subtleties involved with rape myths. The development of a modified version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale is described. Focus groups were conducted to gather feedback about the language used by college students related to sexual encounters and rape. The instrument was then tested with 951 undergraduate students at a large northeastern university. Exploratory structural equation modeling was used to assess the factor structure of the scale. In addition, multiple-indicators multiple-causes modeling was used to assess the potential differential item functioning of the measure's items by gender, previous experience with sexual assault prevention programming, and knowing someone who was sexually assaulted. A four-factor structure was hypothesized and a five-factor structure supported, indicating a separate factor that looks at alcohol and accountability. Implications for social workers are discussed, including the necessity of continuously updating rape myth measures to ensure validity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
McMahon and Farmer developed the Subtle Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, a revised IRMA, to eliminate potential bias or strong language and replace it with more common vernacular.
“McMahon and Farmer (2011) developed a slightly revised version of the IRMA, because of concerns about the language used in the IRMA; the Subtle Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (McMahon & Farmer, 2011), and it is thought to eliminate potential bias or strong language (e.g.caught having an illicit affair) and replaced it with more common vernacular (e.g.caught cheating) (Venema, 2013).”
From From 'real rape' to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs (2017) · cites this paper as McMahon & Farmer, 2011
Cites
Rape Prevention With College Men: Evaluating Risk Status
Stephens, K. A., & George, W. H. (2009) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260508319366 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Do We Know About Rape Myths and Juror Decision Making?’,
Leverick, F. (2020) · The International Journal of Evidence & Proof · doi:10.1177/1365712720923157 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Yapp, E. J., & Quayle, E. (2018) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.002 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
From 'real rape' to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs
Parratt, K. A., & Pina, A. (2017) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.005 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Klement, K. R., Sagarin, B. J., & Skowronski, J. J. (2019) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0950-4 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
The role of psychopathy and exposure to violence in rape myth acceptance.
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Kola, S., & Meller-Prunska, A. (2015) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260514553635 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Gekoski, A., Massey, K., Allen, K., Ferreira, J., Dalton, C. T., Horvath, M., & Davies, K. (2024) · International Review of Victimology · doi:10.1177/02697580221142891 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Osborn, K., Davis, J. P., Button, S., & Foster, J. (2021) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260518768566 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
The Impact of Rape Myth Education on Jury Decision-Making: A Systematic Review’,
Hudspith, L. F., Wager, N., Willmott, D., & Gallagher, B. (2024) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380241270082 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Adapting a sexual violence primary prevention program to Ghana utilizing the ADAPT-ITT framework
Munro-Kramer, M. L., Rominski, S. D., Seidu, A.-A., Darteh, E. K. M., Huhman, A., & Stephenson, R. (2020) · Violence Against Women · doi:10.1177/1077801219828533 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Grandgenett, H. M., Steel, A. L., Brock, R. L., & DiLillo, D. (2022) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260519898429 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Sciacca, B., Mazzone, A., O’Higgins Norman, J., & Foody, M. (2021) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103354 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Courtois, R., Schlegel, A., Bonhommet, J., Doineau, E., Bertsch, I., Potard, C., & Pham, T. (2021) · L'Encéphale · doi:10.1016/j.encep.2020.11.010 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Fordham University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McMahon, S.
- ORCID
- McMahon, S.
- Venue
- Social Work Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 71-81
- ISSN
- 1070-5309 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-6838
- OpenAlex
- W2032408717
- Cited by
- 554
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 16.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Work Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- rape myths, rape myth acceptance, scale development, university students, assessment validity, differential item functioning, gender differences, sexual assault prevention, factor structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
