Introduction
Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, and Martin (2009) – affiliated with Ohio and North Carolina universities as well as with the RTI International multidisciplinary research institute in North Carolina – embarked on a cross-sectional survey of undergraduate women. The research team had an express interest in linking sexual assault on women with extenuating circumstances such as use of force, alcohol and drug abuse.
The lead authors, Krebs and Lindquist, both possess doctorate degrees. Neither are listed in the official expert roster of RTI, with which they claim affiliation. However, the former claims Senior Research Social Scientist status at the Institute, with special interests in juvenile justice/delinquency, adult offenders and inmates, substance abuse policy, and epidemiology. On the other hand, Lindquist pursues post-Doctoral Fellow research on nutrition, unrelated to the thrust of the study in question.
The title of the report published in the Journal of American College Health was clear enough but erred on the side of being tendentious and long. One suggests that “…Before and Since Entering College” could have been just accurately supplanted with “…in Adolescence.” On the other hand, the Abstract was clear enough and conformed to the usual standards of concise abstracts in ordinary professional journals.
Statement of the Problem
Krebs et al. (2009) articulate the problem as a “very high” incidence of sexual assault on college women, aggravated by use of force, and abuse of alcohol and narcotics on the part of the victims. The researchers cite prior evidence that a preponderance of rape victims were intoxicated or had consumed drugs. Other evidence had come from a longitudinal study that one in 30 women had experienced rape while being so intoxicated they could not have possibly given consent. Further, anecdotal evidence motivated the authors to quantify the incidence of “drug-facilitated sexual assault” (DFSA), whether narcotics were taken voluntarily or forced. It is the latter dichotomy, certainly narrow enough, that defines the purpose of the Campus Sexual Assault Study, of which this article is one report/offshoot.
Literature Review
The literature review makes use of quite recent studies, is clear and concise enough for the stated purpose, and does identify both what is known and unknown. The oldest research cited (the College Alcohol Study or CAS) started in 1997 but, being longitudinal, results were published only starting 2002. Proceeding in deductive fashion, the research team first drew on the lessons of the 2005 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, apparently the first to establish the link between the experience of sexual victimization and being under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drugs at the time. Next, the CAS was cited for extending learning to the claim of being so intoxicated that female victims could not possibly have given consent to the sex act.
A third, published in 2003 and subsequently validated by the same research team, suggested that adult women in Buffalo (NY) had experienced unwanted sex from either voluntary or forced consumption of alcohol and narcotics. All three are, of course, relevant to the purpose of the Campus Sexual Assault study. Still, the authors opted for brevity over discussing other study findings that they conceded were relevant to the research undertaken.
Study Framework or Theoretical Perspective
The researchers concede no study framework or theoretical perspective, other than implicitly preferring a feminist lens to circumscribe their analysis of sexual assault in college. In essence, the implied framework is that women share no blame for sexual victimization since they are forced, drugged or made drunk and hence, cannot possibly have given legal consent. Moreover, the research team dismisses male victimization out of hand even though they acknowledge it exists.
Research Objectives and Hypotheses
The researchers did not explicitly identify the research questions, research objectives, or hypotheses but one infers that the research questions have to do with
- what is the prevalence of concluded sexual assault among women in college?
- how has this changed compared to pre-college years?
- what is the extent of alcohol and illegal drug abuse concurrent with sexual assault? and,
- what is the relative prevalence of voluntary versus forced abuse of alcohol and narcotics?
Clearly, all these research questions are logically related, at least from the feminist perspective the authors take. In turn, the crucial alternate hypothesis is “forced intake of alcohol and/or narcotics explains unwanted sexual intercourse better than voluntary consumption.”
Definition of Variables
The central dependent variable is “nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact” covering the entire range from kissing, fondling, rubbing up in suggestive ways even when fully clothed, oral sex, sexual or anal penetration with a penis, finger or other object. Going by the feminist construct that informs the study, experience of sexual abuse prior to college may well turn out to be a precipitating factor, if not a true independent variable. However, this is subject to more stringent analysis than is provided in the article under review. In turn, the specified independent variables are
- personal history of substance abuse;
- inflicted physical force or the threat of it (but, for some reason, excluding the intimidation of merely being together in private, i.e. a closed and locked room from which neither party seemed able to, or desirous of, leaving); and
- being incapacitated by virtue of being asleep or passed out from having drunk alcohol or taken drugs.
These variables were clearly defined since separate follow-up questions were posed to establish whether incapacity was due to drinking or taking drugs, although the latter focused on “…having been given a drug without your knowledge or consent” (Krebs et al., 2009, p. 647).
Research Design
Besides the aforementioned cross-sectional nature of the study, the research approach relied entirely on a Web-based survey. The researchers did not acknowledge any threats to validity at all. Given the haziness of the cause-and-effect relationships the authors pose, validity might have been strengthened by choosing qualitative, in-depth interviews or a retrospective study of those reporting rape and willing to undergo clinical examination for the same.
The Population Sample
The population sample was defined as female university undergraduates, aged 18 to 25 and enrolled at least three-quarters time. This is an all-encompassing definition of the problem population.
The Sample and Setting
The actual sample was drawn from two state universities, one in the Midwest and the second in the South. The net usable base amounted to 5,646 students, clearly unassailable for purposes of obtaining a low standard error of estimate. On the other hand, response rates severely biased the sample towards White students, which the researchers claimed to have corrected with a generalized exponential model.
Measurement Strategies
To the extent that the measurement strategy employed a structured questionnaire and contacted the entire female student body of both universities, the approach is credible. This is not to say a Web-based survey is necessarily reliable since such remote methods are fertile grounds for dissembling one way or another. In any case the research team did not address reliability and validity. Finally, the procedures may have been ethical in the broad sense of giving students leeway to participate or not but one must question by what right psychological research seeks to invade this most intimate aspect of life for an adult female.
Statistical Procedures
The authors were content to stay with the most rudimentary data analyses possible: frequency counts, descriptive statistics and Pearson’s χ. Only one power analysis was presented. To their credit, however, the authors presented the principal findings clearly.
Interpretation
In general, the interpretation of findings is heavily skewed towards absolving women of blame, even if they voluntarily abuse alcohol and drugs. The researchers acknowledge solely the limitation that the sample may not be representative of students in private colleges and universities. Strictly speaking, therefore, the results are not generalizable.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study and Report
The study fails to account for the relationship between the victim and the male perpetrator. It would certainly increase the reader’s understanding of the circumstances of completed sexual assault to know whether perpetrators were preponderantly new acquaintances at the party or other social gathering where alcohol and narcotics were abused, from the victim’s close circle of friends, or a boy friend. In fact, the authors do not report the role of family members in college-age sexual assaults, something that the literature suggests is often to be expected.
Unwanted sexual experiences at the hands of teachers and administrative staffers is likewise glossed over. Perhaps this is because the power imbalance that imbues assault by family members and academic personnel does not meld neatly with the framework of DFSA. As well, the authors fail to explain how college-age women can have alcohol and narcotic drug intake physically forced on them.
Finally, the feminist perspective is once again evident in the assigning of blame purely to male perpetrators. By focusing purely on penile penetration, the researchers ignore the possibility of unwanted lesbian touching, seduction and assault.
Impact on Nursing Practice
This has no impact on nursing practice beyond volunteer participation in education campaigns to warn about the dangers of abusing alcohol and narcotics. It goes without saying that women of college age are perfectly aware about the risk they face of molestation and sexual assault.
References
Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal Of American College Health, 57 (6), 639 – 647.