A review and critique of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ).

This paper reviews and critiques the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), "... a self-report inventory representing the first attempt to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment in a manner that met traditional psychometric standards" (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995, p. 427). Widely used by its developers and others as a measure of sexual harassment, the SEQ is not a finished product, has a number of problems, and has weak psychometric properties. Because of inconsistencies (e.g., in time frame, number of items, wording of items), the SEQ lacks the advantages of standardized measures, such as the ability to assess changes over time. It defines sexual harassment very broadly, having the effect of distorting findings about sexual harassment. Most importantly, it is not clear what or whose definition of sexual harassment the SEQ assesses.

Explaining sexual harassment judgments: looking beyond gender of the rater.

In two decades of research on sexual harassment, one finding that appears repeatedly is that gender of the rater influences judgments about sexual harassment such that women are more likely than men to label behavior as sexual harassment. Yet, sexual harassment judgments are complex, particularly in situations that culminate in legal proceedings. And, this one variable, gender, may have been overemphasized to the exclusion of other situational and rater characteristic variables. Moreover, why do gender differences appear? As work by Wiener and his colleagues have done (R. L. Wiener et al., 2002; R. L. Wiener & L. Hurt, 2000; R. L. Wiener, L. Hurt, B. Russell, K. Mannen, & C. Gasper, 1997), this study attempts to look beyond gender to answer this question. In the studies reported here, raters (undergraduates and community adults), either read a written scenario or viewed a videotaped reenactment of a sexual harassment trial. The nature of the work environment was manipulated to see what, if any, effect the context would have on gender effects. Additionally, a number of rater characteristics beyond gender were measured, including ambivalent sexism attitudes of the raters, their judgments of complainant credibility, and self-referencing that might help explain rater judgments. Respondent gender, work environment, and community vs. student sample differences produced reliable differences in sexual harassment ratings in both the written and video trial versions of the study. The gender and sample differences in the sexual harassment ratings, however, are explained by a model which incorporates hostile sexism, perceptions of the complainants credibility, and raters' own ability to put themselves in the complainant's position (self-referencing).

Utility of retrospective pretest ratings of patient satisfaction with health status.

Outcomes assessment is often difficult to accomplish in evaluation research studies in situations where the gathering of pretest data is impossible or prohibitively expensive. The purpose of this longitudinal study was to investigate the substitutability of retrospective pretest ratings for actual pretest ratings in indexing change in patient satisfaction with health status. The sample consisted of 251 women receiving medical treatment for breast cancer enrolled in the Self-Help Intervention Project (SHIP). ANOVA, ordinary least-squares regression, and pooled time-series regression analysis revealed that retrospective assessments were not significantly different from their prospective counterparts in means and variances and that they differed from current assessments taken at the same time (p<.01). In addition, prospective assessments emerged as a significant independent predictor of corresponding retrospective scores (p<.01), accounting for up to 30% of the recall scores. These findings have implications for inclusion of retrospective pre-post comparisons in outcomes evaluation research.