Cited by 1,263Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization

Open access
Koss, Mary P., Abbey, Antonia, Campbell, Rebecca, Cook, Sarah, Norris, Jeanette, Testa, Maria, Ullman, Sarah, West, Carolyn +1 more·2007·Psychology of Women Quarterly

Abstract

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) assesses victimization and perpetration of unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987 ). Revised versions of the SES that resulted from the work of the SES Collaboration are now available. This article reviews weaknesses of the SES that were identified, strengths that were preserved, and methodological considerations in the measurement of unwanted sexual experiences that informed the revisions. The primary changes include: more behavioral specificity; conversion to gender neutrality; full crossing of unwanted acts and coercive tactics; and revised and updated wording for assessing consent, alcohol-related incidents, unwanted acts, and coercive tactics. For illustration, the full text of the revised victimization version and its scoring rules are provided. The article concludes with suggestions for future research. These suggestions aim to involve researchers in a coordinated agenda to develop data that clarify methodological questions and contribute to continued improvement in assessing sexual victimization and perpetration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Sexual Experiences Survey covers many SA types and is regarded as a gold-standard self-report measure of SA victimization.

    “Some studies use the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al., 2007), which includes a variety of types of SA (e.g., coerced, incapacitated, and forced; attempted and completed; fondling and penetrative SA) and, given its specificity, is considered to be a gold standard self-report measure for assessing SA victimization.”

    From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Koss et al., 2007

    The Appendix A victimization survey covers fondling, penetration and attempted penetration, with tactics including verbal coercion, incapacitation and force. The “Strengths and Weaknesses Identified” section says the SES is widely used and behaviorally specific, but the paper does not call it a gold standard; it also cautions that treating existing versions as a standardized measure is becoming less justifiable. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Crawford, M. C., & Kimmel, E. B. (Eds.). (1999). Innovations in feminist research [Special issue]. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1).
  2. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). The Sexual Experience Survey: An empirical instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.
  3. Seidman, I., &Vickers, S. (2005). The second wave: An agenda for the next thirty years of rape law reform. Suffolk University Law Review, 38, 467-490.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Washington Tacoma (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Corresponding author
Koss, Mary P.
Venue
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Published
2007-12
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
357-370
ISSN
  • 0361-6843 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6402
OpenAlex
W2051382776
Cited by
1,263
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 137 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 41
FWCI
24.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Women Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Keywords
Sexual Experiences Survey, sexual victimization, sexual offending, unwanted sexual experiences, coercive practices, consent, gender neutrality, scoring rules

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