Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Assessing the Reliability of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport Among Spanish-Speaking Athletes

Altmetrics

Downloads

76

Views

54

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

31 July 2024

Posted:

01 August 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse in school sport, specifically from coaches to their athletes remains a concerning and pervasive issue. In an attempt to better understand and prevent specific coach-behaviours associated with such sexual misconduct, researchers have developed the Sexual Violence Questionaire in Sport. While the reliability of this measurement tool has been tested in anglo-saxon cultural contexts, it is not known whether the questionnaire is applicable to other cultural contexts. A sample of 146 (52 female, 94 male) Bachelor students from a university in the Basque Country participated in this cross cross-sectional study. The questionnaire was administered twice over a two-week period to assess test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of the Sexual Violence Questionaire in Sport was high, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.891 for perceptions and 0.813 for experiences across all participants. Gender-specific analysis showed similar reliability, with females having slightly lower alpha values for perceptions. Significant differences between test and retest were found (10 from perceptions 2 from experiences). However, Cohen’s Kappa analysis showed significant agreement across all items. In conclusion, the study highlights the questionnaire’s overall reliability and suggests its effectiveness as a tool for measuring sexual violence in sports within the Spanish context. Nonetheless, the findings of this study underscore the need for further research to enhance the instrument's stability and to better understand gender differences in perceptions and experiences of sexual violence in sports contexts.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Gender and Sexuality Studies

1. Introduction

The prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse in sport, has now been extensively documented and reported within academic research [1]. Young athletes in particular are at a great risk of being victims of sexual violence at this age, unacceptable behavior is often accepted as part of the sports culture [2]. In a study involving of 10000 athletes from 6 European countries, it was found that 35% and 20% of athletes had experienced non-contact sexual violence and contact violence respectively before the age of 18 [3]. There are several reasons that make it difficult to identify sexual violence behaviours, including the normalisation of physical contact, the intense relationships between coaching staff and athletes, and the diversity of leadership styles [4]. It is also important to note that sexual violence in sport can consist of overt sexual behavior, such as rape, or less obvious behavior, such as non-contact verbal sexual harassment [3]. Understanding the relationship between sport participation and sexual violence behaviors could be crucial for prevention, as recent studies confirm the existence of risk and protective factors associated with sexual violence in sport [5,6].
Interpersonal sexual violence in sport can be perpetrated by other athletes or by adults in a position of power in the sports context [3]. Coaches are amongst those who are in authoritative roles and are perceived as predominant figures by young athletes. Due to the complex and complicated relationships they have with their athletes female coaches can indeed be common perpetrators [7,8,9,10]. Coaches are in a position of trust and power over young athletes [11,12] and play a key role in the lives of young athletes. Indeed, they can provide young athletes with supportive relationships, based on trust and closeness, as well as. However, close relationships and the creation of strong emotional bonds can be a trigger for sexual violence to occur [13,14]. One aspect or risk factor of the coach-athlete relationship is the potential for role ambiguity where appropriate and inappropriate behaviors are not clearly defined, due to the time spent by both parties in and out of the sporting environment [15,16]. In addition, a coach’s role often involves physical contact in ways that can be instructional (e.g., teaching a start from a swimming pool) or non-educational (e.g., sharing space during a training camp or championship) [17,18]. The literature also addresses other characteristics of the coach-athlete relationship that can significantly increase the likelihood of sexual violence to occur between a coach and athlete, including athlete dependency, age differences, and the drive for success [19,20,21].
Due to the challenges and the grey area in determining what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse in sport, it is suggested that it is important to clearly determine what appropriate and inappropriate coaching behaviours should look like or take place within the coach-athlete relationship [22]. One of the first retrospective questionnaires on sexual violence in sport, called the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport, was designed and developed to identify different types of coach behaviours susceptible to leading to sexual violence towards athletes [21]. Specifically, the questionnaire was first used to measure student athletes’ perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment in sport. Although subsequent questionnaires on sexual violence in sport have been developed, the inclusion of a section specifically addressing perceptions of behaviors and the coach-athlete relationship enables us to explore the nuanced areas of violence in sports. Consequently, understanding these different perceptions of sexual harassment and abuse is crucial for identifying gray areas where athletes’ perspectives are essential to consider [23].
The cultural factor also plays an important role in how certain athletes perceive and process sexual violence [24]. For example, existent studies confirm these cultural variations, concluding that Israeli students considered more behaviors as inappropriate compared to American students and that Indian athletes classified more actions as sexual violence compared to European and North American students, while the perceptions of the Danish athletes were similar to those of the North American students [20].
The suitability of the questionnaire of sexual violence [21] was also considered after introducing small modifications, translated it into Catalan and Spanish [25]. This was done after analyzing the content in a previous pilot study with participants sharing the same characteristics. However, given the cultural differences identified in other studies and the fact that the questionnaire was initially developed in English and adapted to this cultural context, and considering that no reliability analysis was conducted for the Spanish version, this study aimed to analyze the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire on sexual harassment in sports, originally designed and developed in English [21] and later adapted to Spanish/Catalan [25].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 146 students from the Bachelor of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences (CAFYD) at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) participated in this study [female: n = 52 (35.6%); 20.3 ± 1.9 years; male: n = 94 (64.4%); 21.2 ± 2.3 years]. A convenience sample was used, driven by the crucial need of raising awareness of sexual harassment and abuse in sport among these student-athletes, as they are and will continue to be responsible for the sports programs, clubs, and federations of the Autonomous Community. Before administering the questionnaire, all participants were informed of the objectives of the study, as well as the research procedure, and the possible risks. Their participation was voluntary, and they signed an informed consent form. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Research of the University of the Basque Country (M10/2022/110).

2.2. Procedure

In order to analyze the reliability of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport, a cross-sectional study design was carried out. The questionnaires were administered in person, during the month of April 2022. Responses were collected 2 weeks apart between the first (Test) and second (re-Test) administration. To maintain anonymity while also being able to match the questionnaires from Test with the re-Test ones a coding system was used. Participants were asked to provide the first letter of their name and the town they lived in and four digits of their phone number.

2.2. Instrument

The Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport previously validated and used in other studies [21,25] seeking to gain the study participants’ perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment in sport. In this study we used the Spanish translation of the questionnaire [25] although the translation into Basque was also carried out. Similarly to this study, the current study used a sample of students studying a sport related degree to ensure the comprehensibility and appropriateness of the items. The pilot test confirmed the need to reformulate some terms in the Basque language in order to improve comprehension (e.g., “pinches” or “diminutives”).
The questionnaire was divided into three sections. In the first section, perceptions of sexual harassment were collected in relation to 24 items about the coach behaviors. The unit of measurement for the perceptions was a scale: 0 = I’m not sure if the behavior is sexual violence, 1 = the behavior doesn’t constitute sexual violence at all, 2 = maybe it is, 3 = the behavior is almost certainly constitutes sexual violence, and 4 = the behavior is almost certainly sexual violence. The second section collected respondents’ experiences of the same 24 behaviors. Again, a different scale was also used: 0 = I’m not sure, 1 = it has never happened to me, 2 = yes, sometimes, 3 = yes, often and 4 = not to me, but to a colleague, yes. Both perceptions and experiences are grouped into different categories: behaviors related to sports instruction, behaviors not related to sports instruction, but contextually dependent on it, sexist behaviors, and physical contacts and verbal approaches. Finally, the third section was added to collect both independent variables and demographic data such as age, university degree, sport practiced, number of hours of sport per week and level of competition, among others.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The results are presented as frequencies and percentages. The Cronbach’s alpha test was used to analyze internal consistency, while the Wilcoxon statistic was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the test and the re-test in each item of the perceptions/experiences. On the other hand, the Cohen’s Kappa analysis was used to analyze the concordance of the responses in each item. In this study, the interpretation of the scores is based on the classification system developed by [26]: scores of 0.09 indicate very poor agreement, scores of 0.01 - 0.20 indicate poor agreement, scores of 0.21- 0.40 indicate fair agreement, values of 0.41 - 0.60 moderate agreement, scores 0.61- 0.80 indicated substantial agreement, and scores 0.81 - 1.00 indicate almost perfect agreement. The analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., version 26.0, Chicago, IL, USA). Significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Internal Consistency of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport

The internal consistency of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport was α = 0.891 for perceptions and α = 0.813 for experiences for all participants (see Table 1). In the case of females, the value of Cronbach’s alpha value of perceptions was slightly lower than that of males (α = 0.872 vs 0.891, for females and males, respectively), while the value of experiences was slightly higher (α = 0.839 vs 0.791, for females and males, respectively). It can be noted that the internal consistency of the questionnaire was good in all cases.

3.2. Perceptions and Experiences of All Participants

For perceptions, significant differences between test and re-Test were found for 10 of the 24 items (see Table 2). Similarly, in the case of experiences, significant differences between test and re-Test were in 2 of the 24 items (see Table 3). However, the Kappa index shows that agreement was significant for all items in the perceptions (range = 0.16 – 0.57, from mild to moderate agreement; p < 0.05). In the analysis, all items showed significant agreements with slightly higher values than in the perceptions (range = 0.37 – 0.61, from fair to substantial agreement; p < 0.05).

3.3. Perceptions and Experiences in Female Athletes

In contrast to the results obtained for the whole sample, in the case of females, significant differences between the Test and re-Test were only found in 4 out the 24 items in relation to perceptions (see Table 4). In the case of experiences, significant differences between the Test and re-Test were found only in item 11 (see Table 5). For both perceptions and experiences, Cohen’s Kappa indicated that agreement was significant for all items, except for item 24. The rest of the agreement values range from slight to substantial (range = 0.06 – 0.67; p < 0.05) for perceptions and from fair to substantial (range = 0.28 – 0.79; p < 0.05) for experiences.

3.4. Perceptions and Experiences in Male Athletes

For males, significant differences were found in 7 out of 24 items, a higher number than compared to females (see Table 6). However, as with females, there was only one significant difference between the test and the re-Test, but in this case, on item 9 (see Table 7). For both perceptions and experiences, Cohen’s Kappa indicated that agreement was significant for all items, although the values of agreement ranged from slight to substantial (range = 0.18 – 0.65; p< 0.05) for perceptions and from fair to substantial (range = 0.33 – 0.65; p < 0.05) for experiences.

4. Discussion

This study evaluated the reliability of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport among Spanish-speaking athletes. Assessing the reliability of this questionnaire is essential to ensure its applicability in other cultural contexts, specifically in Spanish context. The reliability of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport was analyzed in previous studies (e.g., 21,27,28) showing internal consistency values above 0.65 and below 0.90. These results are in line with those obtained in the present study, where the internal consistency of the questionnaire in Spanish and Basque was slightly higher in both languages (α > 0.791 for both perceptions and experiences in girls and boys). Regarding the reproducibility of the questionnaire, although some significant differences were observed between the test and the re-Test, (10 items in perceptions and 2 items in experiences) a significant agreement was observed with a slight to moderate agreement in perceptions and slightly higher from a fair to substantial agreement in experiences.
Sexual violence in the context of sport can be perpetrated or experienced by both male or female, regardless of the type of sport [3]. Nevertheless, it can be hypothesized that the perceptions and experiences of men and women are different, which may affect the reliability of the questionnaire. Regarding the internal consistency of the questionnaire, the results were higher than α > 0.791 for both perceptions and experiences in the whole sample, as well as for the female and male gender, indicating good values of internal consistency. Furthermore, the questionnaire can be reliable for both girls and boys, with very small differences between the two genders (Perceptions: α=0.872 vs 0.891; Experiences: α = 0.839 vs 0.791, for girls and boys respectively). These values were higher than those previously obtained in the first validation study α > 0.65 [21] and similar to those obtained in another study [28], which recorded values between α=0.77 and 0.89 for the different dimensions of the questionnaire in the perceptions section. These values show similarities with the reference literature in our context; however, it is necessary to carry out this analysis when using the instrument in different or new contexts.
Following established guidelines [29], which indicate that the test-re-Test is one of the most rigorous ways of measuring the reliability of the instrument over time, a comparative and concordance analysis was chosen. In the analysis with all the participants, significant differences were observed between the Test and the re-Test were observed for 10 of the 24 items, but for experiences on the other hand, the number of items showing significant differences was only two. This trend was also observed for the female gender (differences in 4 items for perceptions and 1 item for experiences) and for the male gender (differences in 7 items for perceptions and 1 item for experiences) where more differences were observed for perceptions than for experiences. The analysis shows that the instrument seems to be less reliable for perceptions. It is difficult to compare the data obtained because no studies were found that carried out a reproducibility analysis. However, in this study, the differences observed, especially in perceptions, may be due to obtaining fewer than five data points in an area, which could affect the results [30]. Additionally, perceptions do not have as much stability over time as experiences can demonstrate. This is because, as indicated different authors, [1,31] perceptions of behaviors related to sexual violence in sport may change over time depending on the different sporting situations and levels of sport and how this change; even athletes may be more accepting of violence in more serious sporting situations, while experiences remain constant over time. However, the instrument has been shown to be reliable for experiments, although further studies are needed to analyse the stability of the instrument over time.
The differences in several items of the reproducibility analysis differ from those observed in the reliability analysis, where the Kappa index showed significant agreement for all items in perceptions and experiences, although the range of agreement was from slight to substantial agreement. In the case of girls, there is no significant agreement on item 24, either in perceptions or experiences (it proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges). As explained earlier, the fact that there is very little data in some responses may have affected the results. However, for the rest of the items, the agreement was significant with slight and substantial agreement in perceptions and experiences. As with the female gender and in the total sample, the reliability of the questionnaire showed significant agreement for all items, with values ranging from mild to substantial for both perceptions and experiences. Despite the differences in the comparative analysis of the Tes-re-Test, significant concordance relationships were also observed, albeit with low values in most cases. Further research is therefore needed in this area.
Reliability studies tend to assume that if the samples used have an equal number of boys and girls, the overall result when comparing the instruments could be valid for both genders, so several questionnaires have been validated with an exclusively female sample (e.g., 32), however , this is somewhat questionable, as there are really few studies that have attempted to evaluate the reliability of questionnaires for both genders [34]. In this study, the internal consistency values for men are similar to those for women with α = 0.891 for perceptions and relatively lower for experiences, with a value of α = 0.791. As in the case of women and in the sample, there were again significant differences in 8 items (7 perceptions + 1 experience. With regard to the reliability of the instrument, Kappa shows significant agreement for all items, with values ranging from mild to substantial (0.18– 0.65; p < 0.05) for perceptions and from fair to substantial (0.33 – 0.65; p < 0.05) for experiences. These values determine the reliability and temporal stability of the instrument, although they are relatively lower than those obtained with the instrument validated to measure the harassment in team sports [35].
This study is not without its limitations: 1) the number of participants in the study, 2) the distribution of the sample according to gender (92 vs. 54), 3) although the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport was anonymized, it was given in person, so it is possible that some participants gave socially desirable or biased answers, and this they could have influenced the results, especially in terms of perceptions.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the reliability of the Sexual Violence in Sport Questionnaire, showing a solid internal consistency across the sample and in gender segmentations. Gender-segmented analysis provides a deeper understanding of perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment in sport. Although half of the perceptions items do not appear to be stable over time, the experiences are stable over time, both in the sample as a whole and when differentiated according to gender. The Cohen’s Kappa analysis suggests concordance between responses at different times, which reinforces the validity of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport as a measurement tool. Despite these limitations, the results support the usefulness and reliability of the Sexual Violence Questionnaire in Sport and highlight the need for further research to analyze the reliability of the instrument on the basis of different population types.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., A.I. and O.U. methodology, A.S., A.I. and O.U.; software, A.S. and A.I. ; validation, A.S., A.I and O.U.; formal analysis, A.S. and A.I.; investigation, A.S., LM.Z. and O.U.; resources, A.S, J.B. and O.U..; data curation, A.S. and A.I ; writing—original draft preparation, A.S., A.I and O.U.; writing—review and editing, LM.Z. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

Funding

“This research received no external funding”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Research of the University of the Basque Country (M10/2022/110).

Informed Consent Statement

“Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.”

Data Availability Statement

If necessary, you can contact the authors to obtain it.

Conflicts of Interest

“The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

References

  1. K. Fortier, S. Parent, and G. Lessard, ‘Child maltreatment in sport: smashing the wall of silence: a narrative review of physical, sexual, psychological abuses and neglect’, Br. J. Sports Med., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 4–7, Jan. 2020. [CrossRef]
  2. W. Tschan, Professional sexual misconduct in institutions: Causes and consequences, prevention and intervention. in Professional sexual misconduct in institutions: Causes and consequences, prevention and intervention. Cambridge, MA, US: Hogrefe Publishing, 2014, pp. xvi, 216.
  3. M. Hartill et al., ‘CASES: General Report. The prevalence and characteristics of interpersonal violence against children (IVAC) inside and outside sport in six European countries’, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://figshare.edgehill.ac.uk/articles/report/CASES_General_Report_The_prevalence_and_characteristics_of_interpersonal_violence_against_children_IVAC_inside_and_outside_sport_in_six_European_countries/17086616/1.
  4. S. Parent and K. Fortier, ‘Comprehensive Overview of the Problem of Violence Against Athletes in Sport’, J. Sport Soc. Issues, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 227–246, 2018. [CrossRef]
  5. M. L. Mountjoy and E. Verhagen, ‘“#BeTheChange”: the responsibility of sports medicine in protecting athletes from harassment and abuse in sport’, BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med., vol. 8, no. 1, p. e001303, 2022. [CrossRef]
  6. N. Sarwar, ‘Factors influencing sexual harassment behavior in sports environment: Evidence from Pakistan’, Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 837078, Nov. 2022. [CrossRef]
  7. M. Hartill, ‘The Sexual Abuse of Boys in Organized Male Sports’, Men Masculinities - MEN MASC, vol. 12, pp. 225–249, 2009. [CrossRef]
  8. S. Johansson, ‘Coach–athlete sexual relationships: if no means no does yes mean yes?’, Sport Educ. Soc., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 678–693, Sep. 2013. [CrossRef]
  9. S. Kim, D. P. Connaughton, and D. P. Hedlund, ‘Youth Sport Coaches’ Perceptions of Sexually Inappropriate Behaviors and Intimate Coach-Athlete Relationships’, J. Child Sex. Abuse, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 397–417, May 2023. [CrossRef]
  10. S. Kirby, L. Greaves, and O. Hankivsky, The Dome of Silence: Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Sport. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2000.
  11. T. Leahy, ‘Editor’s note: Understanding and preventing sexual harassment and abuse in sport: Implications for the sport psychology profession’, Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 351–353, Jan. 2008. [CrossRef]
  12. T. Vertommen, ‘Interpersonal violence against children in sport in the Netherlands and Belgium’, Child Abuse, 2016.
  13. J. Alexandre, C. Castro, M. Gama, and P. Antunes, ‘Perceptions of Sexual Abuse in Sport: A Qualitative Study in the Portuguese Sports Community’, Front. Sports Act. Living, vol. 4, p. 838480, 2022. [CrossRef]
  14. S. Bermon et al., ‘Lifetime Prevalence of Verbal, Physical, and Sexual Abuses in Young Elite Athletics Athletes’, Front. Sports Act. Living, vol. 3, p. 657624, 2021. [CrossRef]
  15. M. Burke, ‘Sexual harassment in sport: Impact, issues and challenges’, J. Philos. Sport, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 97–100, 2003. [CrossRef]
  16. M. Hartill and M. Lang, ‘Reports of child protection and safeguarding concerns in sport and leisure settings: an analysis of English local authority data between 2010 and 2015′, Leis. Stud., vol. 37, no. 05, pp. 1–21, 2018. [CrossRef]
  17. C. Brackenridge and K. Fasting, ‘The Grooming Process in Sport: Narratives of Sexual Harassment and Abuse’, Auto/Biography, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 33–52, 2005.
  18. Stirling and G. Kerr, ‘Sport Psychology Consultants as Agents of Child Protection’, J. Appl. Sport Psychol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 305–319, 2010. [CrossRef]
  19. K. Fasting, C. H. Brackenridge, and N. Knorre, ‘Performance level and sexual harassment prevalence among female athletes in the Czech Republic’, Women Sport Phys. Act. J., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 26–32, 2010. [CrossRef]
  20. J. Toftegaard-Nielsen, ‘The Forbidden Zone. Intimacy, Sexual Relations and Misconduct in the Relationship between Coaches and Athletes’, Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 165–182, 2001. [CrossRef]
  21. K. A. E. Volkwein, F. I. Schnell, D. Sherwood, and A. Livezey, ‘Sexual Harassment in Sport Perceptions and Experiences of American Female Student-Athletes’, Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 283–295, 1997. [CrossRef]
  22. V. Roberts, V. Sojo, and F. Grant, ‘Organisational factors and non-accidental violence in sport: A systematic review’, Sport Manag. Rev., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 8–27, 2020. [CrossRef]
  23. É. Marsollier, D. Hauw, and F. Crettaz von Roten, ‘Understanding the Prevalence Rates of Interpersonal Violence Experienced by Young French-Speaking Swiss Athletes’, Front. Psychol., vol. 12, p. 726635, Dec. 2021. [CrossRef]
  24. Gurvinder Kalra and Dinesh Bhugra, ‘Sexual violence against women Understanding cross-cultural intersections’, vol. 55, no. 3, 2013. [CrossRef]
  25. M. Martín Horcajo and A. Juncà Pujol, ‘El acoso sexual en el deporte: el caso de las estudiantes-deportistas del grado de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte de Cataluña’, Apunts Educ. Física Deport., no. 114, pp. 72–81, 2014. [CrossRef]
  26. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, ‘The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data’, Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, Mar. 1977. [CrossRef]
  27. N. Fejgin and R. Hanegby, ‘Gender and cultural bias in perceptions of sexual harassment in sport’, Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 459–478, 2001. [CrossRef]
  28. Y. Vanden Auweele et al., ‘Unwanted sexual experiences in sport: Perceptions and reported prevalence among flemish female student-athletes’, Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 354–365, 2008. [CrossRef]
  29. L. N. Robins, ‘Epidemiology: reflections on testing the validity of psychiatric interviews’, Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 918–924, Sep. 1985. [CrossRef]
  30. Matas A, ‘Diseño del formato de escalas tipo Likert: estado de la cuestión’, Rev. Electrónica Investig. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, 2018. [CrossRef]
  31. T. Limpo and S. Tadrist, ‘Measuring Sports’ Perceived Benefits and Aggression-Related Risks: Karate vs. Football’, Front. Psychol., vol. 11, p. 625219, Jan. 2021. [CrossRef]
  32. S. Parent, ‘Development and intial factor validation of the Violence Toward Athletes Questionnaire (VTAQ) in a sample of young athletes’, Soc. Leis., 2019. [CrossRef]
  33. Kozee Holly, Tylka Tracy, and Denchik Angela, ‘Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale’, Psychol. Women Q., vol. 32, no. 2. [CrossRef]
  34. D. Martínez-Gómez et al., ‘[Reliability and validity of the PAQ-A questionnaire to assess physical activity in Spanish adolescents]’, Rev. Esp. Salud Publica, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 427–439, 2009. [CrossRef]
  35. Román J and Guillén F, ‘Construcción y validación de un cuestionario para medir el bullying entre iguales en los deportes de equipo’, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 2016.
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha values according to gender.
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha values according to gender.
Total Women Men
Item Test Percep Re-Test Experi Test Percep Re-Test Experi Test Percep Re-Test Experi
1 0.892 0.808 0.858 0.832 0895 0.788
2 0.892 0.808 0.860 0.832 0.896 0.788
3 0.886 0.809 0.867 0.834 0.885 0.791
4 0.896 0.813 0.862 0.842 0.899 0.789
5 0.890 0.812 0.867 0.829 0.892 0.798
6 0.886 0.810 0.864 0.848 0.887 0.779
7 0.882 0.802 0.861 0.831 0.882 0.777
8 0.883 0.799 0.865 0.834 0.881 0.767
9 0.879 0.807 0.863 0.831 0.878 0.789
10 0.891 0.804 0.866 0.837 0.892 0.776
11 0.890 0.803 0.866 0.839 0.890 0.774
12 0.891 0.800 0.866 0.839 0.891 0.769
13 0.890 0.803 0.860 0.837 0.891 0.776
14 0.885 0.807 0.868 0.830 0.884 0.792
15 0.884 0.809 0.860 0.839 0.886 0.787
16 0.886 0.811 0.876 0.837 0.883 0.786
17 0.886 0.803 0.868 0.827 0.885 0.785
18 0.881 0.801 0.867 0.824 0.880 0.784
19 0.883 0.800 0.873 0.825 0.881 0.780
20 0.887 0.797 0.879 0.825 0.884 0.771
21 0.884 0.802 0.869 0.830 0.882 0.779
22 0.885 0.810 0.872 0.836 0.884 0.789
23 0.886 0.805 0.870 0.829 0.885 0.789
24 0.887 0.810 0.874 0.834 0.886 0.789
Total 0.891 0.813 0.872 0.839 0.891 0.791
Percep = perceptions of sexual harassment; Experi = Sexual Harassment Experiences
Table 2. Perceptions of whole sample in the Test – Re-test.
Table 2. Perceptions of whole sample in the Test – Re-test.
Not at all Possibility Constitutes With complete certainty I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 78 (54.5%) 60 (42.0%) 3 (2.8%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.1%) 0.612 0.57*
81 (55.9%) 60 (41.4%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%)
Touches shoulder when waving 97 (67.8%) 41 (28.7%) 4 (2.8%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.0%) 0.776 0.56*
97 (66.9%) 43 (29.7%) 4 (2.8%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%)
Kiss on the cheek 8 (5.6%) 62 (43.7%) 46 (32.4%) 26 (18.3%) 4 (2.8%) 0.286 0.28*
6 (4.2%) 72 (50.0%) 46 (31.9%) 20 (13.9%) 2 (1.4%)
Hug when you win 93 (65.5%) 44 (31.0%) 3 (2.1%) 2 (1.4%) 4 (2.8%) 0.018* 0.28*
78 (53.5%) 55 (38.5%) 6 (4.2%) 4 (2.8%) 3 (2.0%)
He comes very close when he instructs 26 (18.2%) 98 (68.5%) 16 (11.2%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.0%) 0.214 0.43*
30 (20.5%) 96 (67.6%) 13 (9.2%) 3 (2.1%) 4 (2.7%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 46 (32.4%) 79 (55.6%) 15 (10.6%) 2 (1.4%) 4 (2.7%) 0.528 0.30*
43 (29.9%) 84 (58.3%) 12 (8.3%) 5 (3.5%) 2 (1.4%)
Invite the athlete to eat 26 (18.4%) 91 (64.5%) 21 (14.9%) 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.4%) 0.001* 0.31*
22 (15.2%) 86 (58.6%) 26 (17.9%) 12 (8.3%) 1 (0.7%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 22 (15.5%) 85 (59.9%) 30 (21.1%) 5 (3.5%) 4 (2.7%) 0.001* 0.16*
13 (9.0%) 83 (57.2%) 32 (22.1%) 17 (11.7%) 1 (0.7%)
Invite the athlete to your home 9 (6.3%) 65 (45.5%) 49 (34.3%) 20 (14.0%) 3 (2.0%) 0.778 0.41*
11 (7.5%) 64 (43.8%) 46 (31.5%) 25 (17.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 78 (53.5%) 55 (38.5%) 9 (6.3%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.0%) 0.016* 0.40*
61 (43.0%) 69 (48.6%) 10 (7.0%) 2 (1.4%) 4 (2.7%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 86 (60.1%) 49 (34.3%) 8 (5.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.0%) 0.039* 0.43*
74 (51.4%) 61 (42.4%) 6 (4.2%) 3 (2.1%) 2 (1.4%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 69 (50.0%) 59 (42.8%) 10 (7.2%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (5.5%) 0.006* 0.28*
60 (41.7%) 63 (43.8%) 19 (13.2%) 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.4%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 89 (61.8%) 45 (31.3%) 8 (5.6%) 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.4%) 0.003* 0.28*
68 (47.9%) 57 (40.1%) 13 (9.2%) 4 (2.8%) 4 (2.7%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 14 (9.9%) 68 (47.9%) 49 (34.5%) 11 (7.7%) 4 (2.7%) 0.552 0.23*
15 (10.3%) 71 (49.0%) 42 (29.0%) 17 (11.7%) 1 (0.7%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 21 (15.3%) 80 (58.4%) 26 (19.0%) 10 (7.3%) 9 (6.1%) 0.534 0.31*
20 (13.9%) 79 (54.9%) 33 (22.9%) 12 (8.3%) 2 (1.4%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 8 (5.7%) 16 (11.3%) 47 (33.3%) 70 (49.6%) 5 (3.4%) 0.041* 0.31*
8 (5.6%) 23 (16.0%) 60 (41.7%) 53 (36.8%) 2 (1.4%)
Pinch the athlete 13 (9.4%) 56 (40.3%) 52 (37.4%) 18 (12.9%) 7 (4.8%) 0.341 0.21*
15 (10.5%) 61 (42.7%) 52 (36.4%) 15 (10.5%) 3 (2.0%)
Massages your back 16 (11.4%) 59 (42.1%) 43 (30.7%) 22 (15.7%) 6 (4.1 %) 0.279 0.32*
12 (8.4%) 76 (53.1%) 38 (26.6%) 17 (11.9%) 3 (2.0%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 6 (4.1%) 23 (15.9%) 52 (35.9%) 64 (44.1%) 1 (0.7%) 0.995 0.29*
8 (5.5%) 19 (13.0%) 57 (39.0%) 62 (42.5%) 1 (0.7%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 6 (4.1%) 11 (7.5%) 36 (24.7%) 93 (63.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0.722 0.24*
7 (4.8%) 7 (4.8%) 42 (29.0%) 89 (61.4%) 1 (0.7%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 5 (3.4%) 8 (5.5%) 22 (15.1%) 111 (76.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.111 0.28*
7 (4.8%) 5 (3.4%) 35 (24.0%) 99 (67.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 5 (3.4%) 3 (2.1%) 16 (11.0%) 122 (83.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0.008* 0.46*
5 (3.4%) 6 (4.1%) 29 (19.9%) 106 (72.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 5 (3.4%) 6 (4.1%) 16 (11.0%) 119 (81.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0.155 0.35*
6 (4.1%) 2 (1.4%) 31 (21.2%) 107 (73.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 5 (3.4%) 1 (0.7%) 5 (3.4%) 135 (92.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0.006* 0.31*
6 (4.1%) 0 (0.0%) 19 (13.0%) 121 (82.9%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test; Not at all: The behavior does not constitute sexual harassment at all; Possibility: The behavior may constitute sexual harassment; It constitutes: The behavior constitutes sexual harassment; With complete certainty: You believe with complete certainty that the behavior constitutes sexual harassment
Table 3. Experiences of whole sample in the Test – Re-test.
Table 3. Experiences of whole sample in the Test – Re-test.
It’s never happened to me Ever Often Not me, others do I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 14 (9.6%) 77 (52.7%) 53 (36.3%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.267 0.40*
9 (6.2%) 78 (53.4%) 58 (39.7%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Touches shoulder when waving 9 (6.2%) 65 (44.5%) 69 (47.3%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.0%) 0.094 0.37*
5 (3.4%) 84 (57.5%) 56 (38.4%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the cheek 115 (79.3%) 26 (17.9%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) 0.209 0.61*
107 (73.8%) 34 (23.4%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%)
Hug when you win 10 (6.9%) 47 (32.4%) 86 (59.3%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%) 0.376 0.49*
11 (7.6%) 51 (35.2%) 82 (56.6%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%)
He comes very close when he instructs 45 (32.4%) 68 (48.9%) 23 (16.5%) 3 (2.2%) 7 (4.8%) 0.558 0.43*
44 (30.6%) 70 (48.6%) 27 (18.8%) 3 (2.1%) 2 (1.4%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 45 (31.3%) 79 (54.9%) 16 (11.1%) 4 (2.8%) 2 (1.4%) 0.630 0.50*
47 (32.2%) 79 (54.1%) 16 (11.0%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to eat 93 (64.6%) 38 (26.4%) 9 (6.3%) 4 (2.8%) 2 (1.4%) 0.807 0.52*
94 (65.3%) 40 (27.8%) 6 (4.2%) 4 (2.8%) 2 (1.4%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 99 (68.8%) 34 (23.6%) 7 (4.9%) 4 (2.8%) 2 (1.4%) 0.903 0.50*
101 (70.1%) 32 (22.2%) 6 (4.2%) 5 (3.5%) 2 (1.4%)
Invite the athlete to your home 122 (84.7%) 16 (11.1%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.1%) 2 (1.4%) 0.239 0.48*
116 (80.0%) 23 (15.9%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 13 (9.2%) 73 (51.4%) 53 (37.3%) 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.4%) 0.088 0.52*
20 (13.7%) 73 (50.0%) 51 (34.9%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 12 (8.5%) 70 (49.6%) 57 (40.4%) 2 (1.4%) 6 (4.1%) 0.033* 0.55*
14 (9.7%) 80 (55.6%) 48 (33.3%) 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.4%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 47 (33.1%) 71 (50.0%) 24 (16.9%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.7%) 0.055 0.46*
37 (25.7%) 77 (53.5%) 30 (20.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.4%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 37 (25.7%) 75 (52.1%) 31 (21.5%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 0.789 0.36*
35 (24.3%) 80 (55.6%) 29 (20.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.4%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 78 (56.1%) 49 (35.3%) 6 (4.3%) 6 (4.3%) 8 (5.4%) 0.653 0.51*
73 (51.4%) 60 (42.3%) 2 (1.4%) 7 (4.9%) 5 (3.4%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 87 (62.6%) 40 (28.8%) 4 (2.9%) 8 (5.8%) 7 (4.8%) 0.631 0.44*
93 (65.0%) 37 (25.9%) 6 (4.2%) 7 (4.9%) 4 (2.7%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 106 (74.1%) 30 (21.0%) 3 (2.1%) 4 (2.8%) 3 (2%) 0.989 0.56*
104 (74.3%) 28 (20.0%) 3 (2.1%) 5 (3.6%) 6 (4.1%)
Pinch the athlete 118 (83.1%) 17 (12.0%) 1 (0.7%) 6 (4.2%) 4 (2.7%) 0.708 0.46*
117 (82.4%) 19 (13.4%) 1 (0.7%) 5 (3.5%) 4 (2.7%)
Massages your back 98 (68.5%) 37 (25.9%) 1 (0.7%) 7 (4.9%) 3 (2 %) 0.512 0.54*
98 (68.1%) 39 (27.1%) 2 (1.4%) 5 (3.5%) 3 (2.0%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 114 (78.6%) 21 (14.5%) 4 (2.8%) 6 (4.1%) 1 (0.7%) 0.172 0.51*
111 (78.2%) 27 (19.0%) 4 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.7%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 112 (81.2%) 14 (10.1%) 5 (3.6%) 7 (5.1%) 8 (5.4%) 0.418 0.47*
118 (83.7%) 12 (8.5%) 5 (3.5%) 6 (4.3%) 5 (3.4%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 132 (91.7%) 4 (2.8%) 2 (1.4%) 6 (4.2%) 2 (1.4%) 0.355 0.38*
135 (92.5%) 4 (2.7%) 3 (2.1%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 141 (96.6%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0.414 0.69*
140 (96.6%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 140 (95.9%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.334 0.57*
140 (95.9%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 142 (97.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0.194 0.42*
143 (97.9%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test
Sometimes: Yes. ever
Often: Yes. often
Table 4. Female Perceptions in the Test – Re-test.
Table 4. Female Perceptions in the Test – Re-test.
Not at all Possibility Constitutes With complete certainty I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 24 (49.0%) 24 (49.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (5.9%) 0.796 0.41*
27(52.9%) 22 (43.1%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Touches shoulder when waving 32 (65.3%) 16 (32.7%) 1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.8%) 0.316 0.61*
33 (64.7%) 15 (29.4%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Kiss on the cheek 2 (4.1%) 23 (46.9%) 17 (34.7%) 7 (14.3%) 3 (5.9%) 0.867 0.30*
1 (2.0%) 27 (54.0%) 15 (30.0%) 7 (14.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Hug when you win 36 (72.0%) 13 (26.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0.060 0.25*
29 (59.2%) 16 (32.7%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (5.8%)
He comes very close when he instructs 5 (9.8%) 36 (70.6%) 7 (13.7%) 3 (5.9%) 1 (1.9%) 0.029* 0.51*
8 (16.3%) 35 (71.4%) 4 (8.2%) 2 (4.1%) 3 (5.8%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 13 (26.5%) 30 (61.2%) 5 (10.2%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (5.9%) 0.637 0.46*
15 (29.4%) 28 (54.9%) 4 (7.8%) 4 (7.8%) 1 (1.9%)
Invite the athlete to eat 4 (8.3%) 35 (72.9%) 8 (16.7%) 1 (2.1%) 4 (7.7%) 0.058 0.27*
5 (9.6%) 33 (63.5%) 7 (13.5%) 7 (13.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 4 (8.3%) 31 (64.6%) 11 (22.9%) 2 (4.2%) 4 (7.8%) 0.043* 0.67*
3 (5.8%) 30 (57.7%) 10 (19.2%) 9 (17.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to your home 1 (2.0%) 19 (38.0%) 22 (44.0%) 8 (16.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0.449 0.39*
1 (1.9%) 20 (38.5%) 20 (38.5%) 11 (21.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 27 (54.0%) 19 (38.0%) 3 (6.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.8%) 1.000 0.40*
26 (52.0%) 21 (42.0%) 2 (4.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 32 (65.3 %) 15 (30.6%) 2 (4.1%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.8%) 0.225 0.43*
30 (58.8%) 19 (37.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (1.9%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 25 (53.2%) 19 (40.4%) 3 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (9.6%) 0.071 0.29*
22 (44.0%) 22 (44.0%) 4 (8.0%) 2 (4.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 34 (66.7%) 14 (27.5%) 2(3.9%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0.275 0.26*
30 (60.0%) 17 (34.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (4.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 3 (5.9%) 22 (43.1%) 23 (45.1%) 3 (5.9%) 1 (1.9%) 0.053 0.27*
4 (7.8%) 16 (31.4%) 22 (43.1%) 9 (17.6%) 1 (1.9%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 3 (6.3%) 34 (70.8%) 9 (18.8%) 2 (4.2%) 4 (7.7%) 0.394 0.21*
4 (7.8%) 31 (60.8%) 10 (19.6%) 6 (11.8%) 1 (1.9%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 1 (2.0%) 1 (2.0%) 21 (42.9%) 26 (53.1%) 3 (5.8%) 0.536 0.37*
1 (2.0%) 5 (9.8%) 19 (37.3%) 26 (51.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Pinch the athlete 2 (4.3%) 20 (42.6%) 19 (40.4%) 6 (12.8%) 5 (9.8%) 0.340 0.22*
5 (10.0%) 19 (38.0%) 21 (42.0%) 5 (10.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Massages your back 3 (6.0%) 18 (36.0%) 19 (38.0%) 10 (20.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0.064 0.26*
4 (8.0%) 29 (58.0%) 7 (14.0%) 10 (20.0%) 2 (3.8%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 1 (1.9%) 2 (3.8%) 20 (38.5%) 29 (55.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.463 0.28*
2 (3.8%) 3 (5.8%) 20 (38.5%) 27 (51.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.8%) 10 (19.2%) 39 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.825 0.06*
1 (1.9%) 2 (3.8%) 11 (21.2%) 38 (73.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 8 (15.4%) 43 (82.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0.506 0.13*
1 (1.9%) 2 (3.8%) 7 (13.5%) 42 (80.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 3 (5.8%) 48 (92.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0.236 0.45*
1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (13.5%) 44 (84.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (15.4%) 44 (84.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1.000 0.31*
1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.5%) 45 (86.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 52 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0.020* 0.00
1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (9.6%) 46 (88.5%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test; Not at all: The behavior does not constitute sexual harassment at all; Possibility: The behavior may constitute sexual harassment; It constitutes: The behavior constitutes sexual harassment; With complete certainty: You believe with complete certainty that the behavior constitutes sexual harassment
Table 5. Female experiences in the Test – Re-test.
Table 5. Female experiences in the Test – Re-test.
It’s never happened to me Ever Often Not me, others do I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 2 (3.8%) 33 (63.5%) 16 (30.8%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.637 0.44*
2 (3.8%) 30 (57.7%) 20 (38.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Touches shoulder when waving 1 (1.9%) 27 (51.9%) 23 (44.2%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.074 0.37*
1 (1.9%) 34 (65.4%) 17 (32.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the cheek 32 (61.5%) 19 (36.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.763 0.68*
31 (59.6%) 20 (39.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Hug when you win 2 (3.9%) 18 (35.3%) 31 (60.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 1.000 0.46*
2 (3.9%) 18 (35.3%) 31 (60.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%)
He comes very close when he instructs 19 (41.3%) 17 (37.0%) 9 (19.6%) 1 (2.2%) 6 (11.5%) 0.796 0.60*
19 (38.0%) 20 (40.0%) 11 (22.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 17 (32.7%) 24 (46.2%) 9 (17.3%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.671 0.47*
14 (26.9%) 31 (59.6%) 5 (9.6%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to eat 34 (65.4%) 13 (25.0%) 4 (7.7%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.685 0.46*
35 (68.6%) 13 (25.5%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 38 (73.1%) 11 (21.2%) 2 (3.8%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.717 0.42*
41 (80.4%) 7 (13.7%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (2.0%)
Invite the athlete to your home 43 (82.7%) 7 (13.5%) 1 (1.9%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.496 0.64*
45 (86.5%) 6 (11.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 3 (6.1%) 26 (53.1%) 19 (38.8%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (5.8%) 0.248 0.57*
5 (9.6%) 27 (51.9%) 19 (36.5%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 3 (6.3%) 23 (47.9%) 21 (43.8%) 1 (2.1%) 4 (7.7%) 0.206 0.64*
4 (7.8%) 27 (52.9%) 20 (39.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 13 (26.5%) 26 (53.1%) 10 (20.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.8%) 0.035* 0.47*
9 (18.0%) 24 (48.0%) 17 (34.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.9%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 12 (24.0%) 23 (46.0%) 14 (28.0%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0.297 0.36*
7 (14.0%) 27 (54.0%) 16 (32.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.8%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 24 (50.0%) 18 (37.5%) 2 (4.2%) 4 (8.3%) 4 (7.7%) 0.523 0.53*
24 (49.0%) 21 (42.9%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (8.2%) 3 (5.8%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 25 (54.3%) 13 (28.3%) 3 (6.5%) 5 (10.9%) 6 (11.8%) 0.052 0.41*
34 (69.4%) 10 (20.4%) 2 (4.1%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (5.8%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 40 (81.6%) 8 (16.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (5.8%) 0.794 0.28*
41 (85.4%) 4 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (6.3%) 4 (7.7%)
Pinch the athlete 40 (80.0%) 6 (12.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (8.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0.863 0.60*
38 (77.6%) 8 (16.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (5.8%)
Massages your back 28 (54.9%) 18 (35.3%) 1 (2.0%) 4 (7.8%) 1 (1.9%) 0.621 0.47*
31 (62.0%) 13 (26.0%) 2 (4.0%) 4 (8.0%) 2 (3.8%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 43 (82.7%) 4 (7.7%) 2 (3.8%) 3 (5.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.135 0.41*
43 (87.8%) 4 (8.2%) 2 (4.1%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.8%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 40 (85.1%) 4 (8.5%) 2 (4.3%) 1 (2.1%) 5 (9.8%) 0.832 0.55*
40 (81.6%) 6 (12.2%) 2 (4.1%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (5.8%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 46 (90.2%) 3 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (1.9%) 0.458 0.57*
47 (90.4%) 3 (5.8%) 1 (1.9%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 50 (96.2%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.317 0.79*
49 (94.2%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 49 (94.2%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.655 0.65*
49 (94.2%) 2 (3.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 51 (98.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.655 -0.01
51 (98.1%) 1 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test
Sometimes: Yes. Ever
Often: Yes. often
Table 6. Male perceptions in the Test – Re-test.
Table 6. Male perceptions in the Test – Re-test.
Not at all Possibility Constitutes With complete certainty I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 54 (57.4%) 36 (38.3%) 4 (4.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.655 0.65*
54 (57.4%) 38 (40.4%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Touches shoulder when waving 65 (69.1%) 25 (26.6%) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.809 0.53*
64 (68.1%) 28 (29.8%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the cheek 6 (6.5%) 39 (41.9%) 29 (31.2%) 19 (20.4%) 1 (1.1%) 0.211 0.27*
5 (5.3%) 45 (47.9%) 31 (33.0%) 13 (13.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Hug when you win 57 (62.0%) 31 (33.7%) 3 (3.3%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.1%) 0.114 0.29*
49 (52.1%) 39 (41.5%) 5 (5.3%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
He comes very close when he instructs 21 (22.8%) 62 (67.4%) 9 (9.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (2.1%) 0.990 0.38*
22 (23.7%) 61 (65.6%) 9 (9.7%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 33 (35.5%) 49 (52.7%) 10 (10.8%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 0.657 0.22*
28 (30.1%) 56 (60.2%) 8 (8.6%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to eat 22 (23.7%) 56 (60.2%) 13 (14.0%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0.009* 0.33*
17 (18.3%) 52 (55.9%) 19 (20.4%) 5 (5.4%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 18 (19.1%) 54 (57.4%) 19 (20.2%) 3 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0.006* 0.20*
10 (10.8%) 53 (57.0%) 22 (23.7%) 8 (8.6%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to your home 8 (8.6%) 46 (49.5%) 27 (29.0%) 12 (12.9%) 1 (1.1%) 0.880 0.41*
10 (10.6%) 44 (46.8%) 26 (27.7%) 14 (14.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 51 (54.8%) 36 (38.7%) 6 (6.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 0.003* 0.41*
35 (38.0%) 48 (52.2%) 8 (8.7%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.1%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 54 (57.4%) 34 (36.2%) 6 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.095 0.43*
44 (47.3%) 42 (45.2%) 6 (6.5%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 44 (48.4%) 40 (44.0%) 7 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.2%) 0.039* 0.27*
38 (40.4%) 41 (43.6%) 15 (16.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 55 (59.1%) 31 (33.3%) 6 (6.5%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 0.006* 0.28*
38 (41.3%) 40 (43.5%) 12 (13.0%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 11 (12.1%) 46 (50.5%) 26 (28.6%) 8 (8.8%) 3 (3.2%) 0.425 0.18*
11 (11.7%) 55 (58.5%) 20 (21.3%) 8 (8.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 18 (20.2%) 46 (51.7%) 17 (19.1%) 8 (9.0%) 5 (5.3%) 0.825 0.34*
16 (17.2%) 48 (51.6%) 23 (24.7%) 6 (6.5%) 1 (1.1%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 7 (7.6%) 15 (16.3%) 26 (28.3%) 44 (47.8%) 2 (2.1%) 0.044* 0.28*
7 (7.5%) 18 (19.4%) 41 (44.1%) 27 (29.0%) 1 (1.1%)
Pinch the athlete 11 (12.0%) 36 (39.1%) 33 (35.9%) 12 (13.0%) 2 (2.1%) 0.614 0.21*
10 (10.8%) 42 (45.2%) 31 (33.3%) 10 (10.8%) 1 (1.1%)
Massages your back 13 (14.4%) 41 (45.6%) 24 (26.7%) 12 (13.3%) 4 (4.2%) 0.882 0.36*
8 (8.6%) 47 (50.5%) 31 (33.3%) 7 (7.5%) 1 (1.1%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 5 (5.4%) 21 (22.6%) 32 (34.4%) 35 (37.6%) 1 (1.1%) 0.604 0.27*
6 (6.4%) 16 (17.0%) 37 (39.4%) 35 (37.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 6 (6.4%) 8 (8.5%) 26 (27.7%) 54 (57.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0.780 0.30*
6 (6.5%) 5 (5.4%) 31 (33.3%) 51 (54.6%) 1 (1.1%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 5 (5.3%) 7 (7.4%) 14 (14.9%) 68 (72.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0.129 0.31*
6 (6.4%) 3 (3.2%) 28 (29.8%) 57 (60.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 5 (5.3%) 2 (2.1%) 13 (13.8%) 74 (78.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0.014* 0.45*
4 (4.3%) 6 (6.4%) 22 (23.4%) 62 (66.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 5 (5.3%) 6 (6.4%) 8 (8.5%) 75 (79.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.106 0.36*
5 (5.3%) 2 (2.1%) 25 (26.6%) 62 (66.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 5 (5.3%) 1 (1.1%) 5 (5.3%) 83 (88.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0.074 0.37*
5 (5.3%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (14.9%) 75 (79.8%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test; Not at all: The behavior does not constitute sexual harassment at all; Possibility: The behavior may constitute sexual harassment; It constitutes: The behavior constitutes sexual harassment; With complete certainty: You believe with complete certainty that the behavior constitutes sexual harassment
Table 7. Male experiences in the Test – Re-test.
Table 7. Male experiences in the Test – Re-test.
It’s never happened to me Ever Often Not me, others do I’m not sure Wilcoxon Kappa
Touches the shoulder while instructing 12 (12.8%) 44 (46.8%) 37 (39.4%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.303 0.39*
7 (7.4%) 48 (51.1%) 38 (40.4%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Touches shoulder when waving 8 (8.5%) 38 (40.4%) 46 (48.9%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.431 0.36*
4 (4.3%) 50 (53.2%) 39 (41.5%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the cheek 83 (89.2%) 7 (7.5%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0.105 0.48*
76 (80.9%) 14 (14.9%) 1 (1.1%) 3 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Hug when you win 8 (8.5%) 29 (30.9%) 55 (58.5%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.326 0.50*
9 (9.6%) 33 (35.1%) 51 (54.3%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
He comes very close when he instructs 26 (28.0%) 51 (54.8%) 14 (15.1%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0.578 0.33*
25 (26.6%) 50 (53.2%) 16 (17.0%) 3 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to a coffee 28 (30.4%) 55 (59.8%) 7 (7.6%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%) 0.847 0.53*
33 (35.1%) 48 (51.1%) 11 (11.7%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Invite the athlete to eat 59 (64.1%) 25 (27.2%) 5 (5.4%) 3 (3.3%) 2 (2.1%) 0.985 0.56*
59 (63.4%) 27 (29.0%) 4 (4.3%) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to dinner 61 (66.3%) 23 (25.0%) 5 (5.4%) 3 (3.3%) 2 (2.1%) 0.863 0.52*
60 (64.5%) 25 (26.9%) 5 (5.4%) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Invite the athlete to your home 79 (85.9%) 9 (9.8%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%) 0.043* 0.40*
71 (76.3%) 17 (18.3%) 3 (3.2%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Ask the athlete about her leisure time 10 (10.8%) 47 (50.5%) 34 (36.6%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%) 0.187 0.49*
15 (16.0%) 46 (48.9%) 32 (34.0%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Ask the athlete about the weekend 9 (9.7%) 47 (50.5%) 36 (38.7%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.1%) 0.083 0.50*
10 (10.8%) 53 (57.0%) 28 (30.1%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Explain your personal weekend plans 34 (36.6%) 45 (48.4%) 14 (15.1%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 0.419 0.44*
28 (29.8%) 53 (56.4%) 13 (13.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Explain what you like to do in your leisure time 25 (26.6%) 52 (55.3%) 17 (18.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.289 0.34*
28 (29.8%) 53 (56.4%) 13 (13.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Compliment the athlete’s physical appearance 54 (59.3%) 31 (34.1%) 4 (4.4%) 2 (2.2%) 4 (4.2%) 0.297 0.50*
49 (52.7%) 39 (41.9%) 2 (2.8%) 3 (3.2%) 2 (2.1%)
Speak with diminutives to the athlete 62 (66.7%) 27 (29.0%) 1 (1.1%) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0.254 0.46*
59 (62.8%) 27 (28.7%) 4 (4.3%) 4 (4.3%) 1 (1.1%)
Makes derogatory comments about women 66 (70.2%) 22 (23.4%) 3 (3.2%) 3 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0.830 0.65*
63 (68.5%) 24 (26.1%) 3 (3.3%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%)
Pinch the athlete 78 (84.8%) 11 (12.0%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%) 0.695 0.35*
79 (84.9%) 11 (11.8%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%)
Massages your back 70 (76.1%) 19 (20.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.3%) 2 (2.1%) 0.806 0.58*
67 (71.3%) 26 (27.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%)
He asks the athlete questions about her sex life 71 (76.3%) 17 (18.3%) 2 (2.2%) 3 (3.2%) 1 (1.1%) 0.648 0.54*
68 (73.1%) 23 (24.7%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%)
Stare at the athlete’s breasts or ass 72 (79.1%) 10 (11.0%) 3 (3.3%) 6 (6.6%) 3 (3.2%) 0.231 0.43*
78 (84.8%) 6 (6.5%) 3 (3.3%) 5 (5.4%) 2 (2.1%)
Shows sexual interest in the athlete 86 (92.5%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%) 4 (4.3%) 1 (1.1%) 0.631 0.27*
88 (93.6%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.1%) 3 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Kiss on the lips 91 (96.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.2%) 92 (96.8%) 0.180 0.59*
91 (97.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sex with nothing in return 91 (97.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.2%) 92 (96.8%) 0.414 0.49*
91 (96.8%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Proposes sexual relations in exchange for privileges 91 (97.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.2%) 93 (97.9%) 0.180 0.59*
92 (97.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
*P<0.05 significant differences between the Test and the re-Test
Sometimes: Yes. ever
Often: Yes often
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated