Student-Athlete Preferences for Sexual Violence Reporting: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
accepted:
13
09
2022
pubmed:
7
11
2022
medline:
7
1
2023
entrez:
6
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sexual violence (SV) is prevalent among US college athletes, but formal reports are rare. Little is known about adaptations to institution-level reporting policies and procedures that could facilitate reporting. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey with 1004 student-athletes at ten Division I NCAA member institutions to examine how attributes of the reporting system influence the decision to formally report SV to their institution. Changes in utility values were estimated using multinomial logistic regression and mixed multinomial logistic regression. Importance scores were compared to understand student-athlete preferences. In order of relative importance, the two attributes most preferred by student-athletes were higher probabilities of students perpetrating SV being found in violation of code of conduct policies (relative importance score = 33), and the availability of substance use amnesty policies (relative importance score = 24). Student-athletes with prior SV experiences were more likely to opt out of formally reporting in the DCE paired choice, had lower estimated utility values for all attributes, and had less between-person heterogeneity. While anonymous reporting and survivor-initiated investigations were preferred by student-athletes on average, there was considerable valuation heterogeneity between student-athletes (sizeable deviations from mean estimated utilities). These two attributes also varied in relative importance; anonymous reporting had higher relative importance after interacting levels with prior SV experiences and competitive status, but lower relative importance after interacting levels with whether a student-athlete played on men's or women's sports teams. Changes to reporting policies and procedures (e.g., transparency about SV reporting outcomes, implementing substance use amnesty policies) may be promising institution-level interventions to increase formal reporting of SV among student-athletes. More research is needed to understand preference heterogeneity between students and generalize these findings to broader student populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Sexual violence (SV) is prevalent among US college athletes, but formal reports are rare. Little is known about adaptations to institution-level reporting policies and procedures that could facilitate reporting.
METHODS
We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey with 1004 student-athletes at ten Division I NCAA member institutions to examine how attributes of the reporting system influence the decision to formally report SV to their institution. Changes in utility values were estimated using multinomial logistic regression and mixed multinomial logistic regression. Importance scores were compared to understand student-athlete preferences.
RESULTS
In order of relative importance, the two attributes most preferred by student-athletes were higher probabilities of students perpetrating SV being found in violation of code of conduct policies (relative importance score = 33), and the availability of substance use amnesty policies (relative importance score = 24). Student-athletes with prior SV experiences were more likely to opt out of formally reporting in the DCE paired choice, had lower estimated utility values for all attributes, and had less between-person heterogeneity. While anonymous reporting and survivor-initiated investigations were preferred by student-athletes on average, there was considerable valuation heterogeneity between student-athletes (sizeable deviations from mean estimated utilities). These two attributes also varied in relative importance; anonymous reporting had higher relative importance after interacting levels with prior SV experiences and competitive status, but lower relative importance after interacting levels with whether a student-athlete played on men's or women's sports teams.
CONCLUSIONS
Changes to reporting policies and procedures (e.g., transparency about SV reporting outcomes, implementing substance use amnesty policies) may be promising institution-level interventions to increase formal reporting of SV among student-athletes. More research is needed to understand preference heterogeneity between students and generalize these findings to broader student populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36336752
doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00600-z
pii: 10.1007/s40271-022-00600-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
77-88Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Harps S, Townsend R, Thomas G, Lee H, Kranz V, Herbison R, Madden K (2020) Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. American Association of Universities, pp 1–433. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf
Moylan CA, Javorka M, Bybee D. Campus-level variation in the prevalence of student experiences of sexual assault and intimate partner violence. J Soc Soc Work Res. 2019;10(3):397–421. https://doi.org/10.1086/704543 .
doi: 10.1086/704543
Centers for Disease Control. Preventing sexual violence. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html . Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
Basile KC, DeGue S, Jones K, Freire K, Dills J, Smith SG, Raiford JL. STOP SV: a technical package to prevent sexual violence. Atlanta, GA: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-prevention-technical-package.pdf .
Adhia A, Ellyson AM, Kroshus E. Prevalence and reporting of sexual violence among undergraduate student-athletes: a multi-state study. J Interpers Violence. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221081936 .
doi: 10.1177/08862605221081936
Wiersma-Mosley KN, Jacquelyn D, Jozkowski K. A brief report of sexual violence among universities with NCAA Division I athletic programs. Behav Sci Basel. 2019;9(17):1–7.
McCray KL. Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence: a review of literature and recommendations for future study. Trauma Violence Abus. 2015;16(4):438–43.
doi: 10.1177/1524838014537907
Young BR, Desmarais SL, Baldwin JA, Chandler R. Sexual coercion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate athletes, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women. 2017;23(7):795–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216651339 .
doi: 10.1177/1077801216651339
Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice. 2000. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf
Fisher BS, Daigle LE, Cullen FT, Turner MG. Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: results from a national-level study of college women. Crim Justice Behav. 2003;30(1):6–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802239161 .
doi: 10.1177/0093854802239161
Sabina C, Ho LY. Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma Violence Abus. 2014;15(3):201–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322 .
doi: 10.1177/1524838014521322
Mennicke A, Bowling J, Gromer J, Ryan C. Factors associated with and barriers to disclosure of a sexual assault to formal on-campus resources among college students. Violence Against Women. 2021;27(2):255–73.
doi: 10.1177/1077801219889173
Solstad GM. Reporting abuse in sport: a question of power? Eur J Sport Soc. 2019;16(3):229–46.
doi: 10.1080/16138171.2019.1655851
Brackenridge C, Bishop D, Moussali S, Tapp J. The characteristics of sexual abuse in sport: a multidimensional scaling analysis of events described in media reports. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;6(4):385–406.
doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671881
Kroshus E, Baugh CM, Stein CJ, Austin SB, Calzo JP. Concussion reporting, sex, and conformity to traditional gender norms in young adults. J Adolesc. 2017;54:110–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.002
Loya RM. The role of sexual violence in creating and maintaining economic insecurity among asset-poor women of color. Violence Against Women. 2014;20(11):1299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214552912 .
doi: 10.1177/1077801214552912
Loya RM. Rape as an economic crime: the impact of sexual violence on survivors’ employment and economic well-being. J Interpers Violence. 2015;30(16):2793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554291 .
doi: 10.1177/0886260514554291
Fisher BS, Peterson S, Cantor D. Victims’ use of resources, evaluation of resources, and reasons for not using resources. 2016. p. 1–279.
Allen WD. The reporting and underreporting of rape. South Econ J. 2007;73(3):623–41.
doi: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00793.x
Lee FX, Suen W. Credibility of crime allegations. Am Econ J Microecon. 2020;12(1):220–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20180231 .
doi: 10.1257/mic.20180231
Paul LA, Walsh K, McCauley JL, Ruggiero KJ, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG. College women’s experiences with rape disclosure: a national study. Violence Against Women. 2013;19(4):486–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213487746 .
doi: 10.1177/1077801213487746
Dworkin ER, Pittenger SL, Allen NE. Disclosing sexual assault within social networks: a mixed-method investigation. Am J Community Psychol. 2016;57(1–2):216–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12033 .
doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12033
Orchowski LM, Gidycz CA. To whom do college women confide following sexual assault? A prospective study of predictors of sexual assault disclosure and social reactions. Violence Against Women. 2012;18(3):264–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212442917 .
doi: 10.1177/1077801212442917
Hauber AB, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–42.
Helter TM, Boehler CEH. Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions. J Subst Use. 2016;21(6):662–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2015.1118563 .
doi: 10.3109/14659891.2015.1118563
Bridges JFP, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
Johnson FR, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Qualtrics. Conjoint analysis white paper. 2021.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 2020.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Learning of Students in college (GOALS) Survey Instrument. 2019. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/goals/2019RES_GOALS-SurveyInstrument.pdf . Accessed 5 Jan 2021.
McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete responses. J Appl Econom. 2000;15:447–70.
doi: 10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
Hensher D, Greene W. The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation (Amst). 2003;30:133–76.
doi: 10.1023/A:1022558715350
Fosgerau M, Bierlaire M. A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models. Transp Res. 2007;41:784–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.01.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2007.01.002
Revelt D, Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80:647–57.
doi: 10.1162/003465398557735
Hess S, Train K, Polak JW. On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) approach in the estimation of a Mixed Logit model for vehicle choice. Transp Res. 2006;40(2):147–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2004.10.005
van der Pol M, Ryan M. Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2014;17(2):297–301.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.11.009
Torres C, Hanley N, Riera A. How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag. 2011;62:111–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.007
Ceelen M, Dorn T, van Huis FS, Reijnders UJ. Characteristics and post-decision attitudes of non-reporting sexual violence victims. J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(9):1961–77.
doi: 10.1177/0886260516658756
Zickafoose JS, DeCamp LR, Prosser A. Parents’ preferences for enhanced access in the pediatric medical home a discrete choice experiment. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):358–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3534 .
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3534
Hess S, Palma D. Apollo: a flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. J Choice Model. 2019;32(September):100170.
doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2019.100170
Hess S, Palma D. Apollo version 0.1.0, user manual. 2019. http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com . Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
McFadden D. Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour on individuals: some recent developments. In: Hensher D, Stopher P, editors. Behavioral travel modelling. London: Croom Helm; 1978.
Johnson FR, Yang JC, Reed SD. The internal validity of discrete choice experiment data: a testing tool for quantitative assessments. Value Health. 2019;22(2):157–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVAL.2018.07.876 .
doi: 10.1016/J.JVAL.2018.07.876
Abbey A, Zawacki T, Buck PO, Clinton AM, McAuslan P. Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: what do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;9(3):271–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9
Abbey A. Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: theoretical explanations, existing evidence, and future directions. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;20(5):481–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x
Testa M. The impact of men’s alcohol consumption on perpetration of sexual aggression. Clin Psychol Rev. 2002;22(8):1239–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00204-0 .
doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00204-0
Testa M. The role of substance use in male-to-female physical and sexual violence: a brief review and recommendations for future research. J Interpers Violence. 2004;19(12):1494–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269701 .
doi: 10.1177/0886260504269701
Testa M, Livingston JA. Alcohol consumption and women’s vulnerability to sexual victimization: can reducing women’s drinking prevent rape. Subst Use Misuse. 2009;44(9–10):1349–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080902961468 .
doi: 10.1080/10826080902961468
Rosenthal M, Freyd J. Sexual violence on campus: no evidence that studies are biased due to self-selection. Dign. J Anal Exploit Violence. 2018;3(1). https://doi.org/10.23860/dignity.2018.03.01.07
Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, Walters ML, Chen J, Merrick MT. Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(8):1–18.
Franklin CA, Garza AD. Sexual assault disclosure: the effect of victim race and perpetrator type on empathy, culpability, and service referral for survivors in a hypothetical scenario. J Interpers Violence. 2018.
Donovan RA, Williams M. Living at the intersection: the effects of racism and sexism on Black rape survivors. Women Ther. 2002;25:95–105.
doi: 10.1300/J015v25n03_07
Rosenthal M, Freyd J. Sexual violence on campus: no evidence that studies are biased due to self-selection. Dign A J Sex Exploit Violence. 2018. https://doi.org/10.23860/dignity.2018.03.01.07 .
doi: 10.23860/dignity.2018.03.01.07