6
Comparison of Rape and Sexual
Assault Across Data Sources
The sources of data on sexual victimizations discussed in this report have different foci, use different methodologies, and provide different results. At this point, definitive conclusions regarding which data source produced the most accurate estimates of rape and sexual assault would be useful. However, the panel acknowledges that it cannot scientifically make such conclusions in this report. The first barrier to such conclusions: the panel focused on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and not the other sources. It examined the NCVS under the structure of total survey error (Chapters 7, 8, and 9), and these analyses allowed the panel to draw conclusions and make recommendations regarding the NCVS. The panel did not provide the same deliberative focus on each of the other sources of data, in part because of limited time and resources. Thus we know a good deal about the potential errors in the NCVS and much less about the potential errors in the other sources. Specifically, this does not mean that the other sources have fewer potential errors, only that these errors are not analyzed in this report. A second barrier: the target populations and definitional constructs (of what was being measured) are inconsistent across sources. It is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Third, only the NCVS and the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provided estimates over time, with the other sources providing estimates only for specific (and different) points in time. Thus, the complexity of different concepts, measurement approaches, and timing made definitive comparisons very problematic, and the panel did not have the time and resources available to attempt such a task.
With that said, a better understanding of the differences between these
sources and their measurement approaches can lead to improvements in the measurement of rape and sexual assault on Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys. Therefore, this chapter, drawing on Appendix D and Bachman (2012), summarizes and highlights what the panel learned from the comparisons among the five surveys and one administrative source covered in this report.
1. UCR summary system (ongoing),
2. NCVS (ongoing),
3. National Women’s Study (NWS) (1989-1990),
4. National Violence Against Women Study (NVAWS) (1995),
5. National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV) (1997), and
6. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (2010, and perhaps ongoing).
Our comparisons are discussed in terms of five factors: the definitions used for rape and sexual assault; context in which data are collected; target population, sampling frame, and sample size; data collection mode, response rates, and adjustments for nonresponse; and the resulting measures of victimization.
The definitions used for rape vary, sometimes substantially, among the six data sources (see Table 6-1). The table also shows whether the source collected information on attempted rape and other forms of sexual assaults as well as rape.
The UCR definition (used through 2012) is clearly the most restrictive. It restricts rape counts to male on female attacks with penile-vagina penetration. Attempted rapes are counted, but all other forms of sexual victimizations are included in a general “assault” category. The revised definition, scheduled for implementation in 2013, will provide a broader base for reports of rape and attempted rape. This change should result in a larger number of crimes being counted as rape and fewer crimes being counted in the “assault” category. Importantly, the UCR only measures incidents reported to police. This is an important difference with the other data sources, and the new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) definition will not change this difference.
The NCVS has a broader definition of rape. It includes male and female victims and offenders. It includes penetration (vaginal, anal, and oral) by penis, other body parts, and other objects. It also separately measures attempted rape and a fairly wide range of sexual assaults, including verbal
TABLE 6-1 Definitions of Rape and Sexual Assault, by Data Source
Data Source | Basic Description | Estimates |
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Summary Reporting System |
Rape includes only male offenders and female victims, with penile penetration of a vagina. Attempted rape is counted separately. Other forms of sexual assault are included in a general category of assault and not summarized separately or with rape. An updated definition has been developed and was scheduled to be used beginning January 2013. The updated definition covers male and female victims and penetration with other (than penis) body parts and objects. It covers anal penetration and oral penetration by a sex organ. The definitional change does not change sexual assault, which is still included in the general category of assault. |
Rape and attempted rape. Does not include other forms of sexual assault. |
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) |
Rape includes psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). It also includes incidents in which the penetration is by a foreign object. It includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. |
Measures rape, attempted rape, and a wide category of sexual assault. |
|
Sexual assault included in this category includes a wide range of victimizations that are separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such behavior as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. |
|
National Women’s Study (NWS) |
Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the woman’s consent, involved use of force or threat of force, and involved sexual penetration of victim’s vagina, mouth, or rectum. The NWS results included only female victims and measured prevalence rather than the number of incidents. |
Measures rape. Does not measure attempted rape or other forms of sexual assault. |
Data Source | Basic Description | Estimates |
National Violence Against Women Study (NVAWS) |
Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent and that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both attempted and completed rape. |
Measures rape and attempted rape. Does not measure other forms of sexual assault. |
National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV) |
Rape is unwanted completed penetration by physical force or the threat of physical force. Penetration includes penile-vaginal, mouth on the victim’s genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal, digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal. |
Measures rape and attempted rape, as well as various forms of sexual assault. |
|
Attempted rape is the unwanted attempted penetration by force or the threat of force. |
|
|
Threat of rape is the threat of unwanted penetration with force and threat of force. The NCWSV results include only female college students as victims. |
|
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) |
Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm. It includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types: completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol-or drug-facilitated penetration. |
Measures rape and attempted rape, as well as various forms of sexual assault. |
|
Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using his or her fingers or an object. |
|
|
Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using his or her fingers or an object. |
|
SOURCES: Data from Black et al. (2011); Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.-b); Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004); Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2000); Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour (1992); Tjaden and Thoennes (2000).
threats. It reports separate estimates of rape and sexual assault, and also reports the two categories together. When comparing data from the NCVS with other sources, one has to decide which of the NCVS’s numbers to use.
The NWS used the term “forcible rape.” It included much of the broader set of penetration victimizations by force or threat of force included in the NCVS definition of rape. The study’s estimates did not include attempted rape or other forms of sexual assault. The estimates it produced were more narrowly focused than the NCVS because its target population was only adult women.
The NVAWS measured victimizations of both male and female adults. The definition of rape included penetration and attempted penetration (vaginal, oral, and anal) by force or threat of force. It did not cover other forms of sexual assault.
The NCWSV targeted only college women. Thus, sexual victimizations against men and against women not in college were not included. The study measured 12 different types of victimization (see Table 5-2 in Chapter 5). Completed rape included penetration (vaginal, oral, and anal) by force or threat of force.
The NISVS measures both completed and attempted rape as defined by penetration with use or threat of physical force. It attempts to measure victimizations of both adult males and females. However, because of limited sample size in the first (2010) survey, estimates were published only for females. It extends the definition of rape to include penetration when the victim was unable to consent by being drunk, high, drugged, or passed out.
The panel next compared the above definitions with the commonalities of legal definitions we found across jurisdictions and presented in Chapter 2. Table 6-2 provides a summary of this comparison. Across the sources, there was less uniformity among the data sources regarding the inclusion of nonpenetration sexual assault and in gender restriction. The NISVS was the only source that specifically included alcohol-and drug-facilitated penetration as part of forced sexual activities. The panel identified this as a missing component to the NCVS definition (see Recommendation 10-7).
The context of a survey is very important to both response rates and to the quality of responses that are received. A simple change in context can make a big difference. For example, when the National Survey of Drug Abuse changed its name to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, reported drug use increased (Office of Applied Studies, 2003). Context can be established in a number of ways, including the prior questions in a questionnaire (Holyk, 2008, p. 42):
The term context effect refers to a process in which prior questions affect responses to later questions in surveys. Any survey that contains multiple questions is susceptible to context effects. Context effects have the potential to bias the thinking and answers of survey respondents, which reduces the accuracy of answers and increases the error in survey measurement.
In comparing the overall context of data sources for measurements of rape and sexual assault, two sources focus specifically on crimes: the UCR and the NCVS. The UCR summarizes “crimes known to police”—those that are both reported to and recorded by police. The NCVS’s goal is to measure the victimization rate by type of crime. The NCVS is a national crime survey, and the questionnaire asks many questions about different types of crimes as well as the well-being of victims.
The other four sources (NWS, NVAWS, NCWSV, and NISVS) do not frame the survey around/on criminal victimization. They focus instead on the situations in which the respondent may have experienced nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact. These surveys also collect additional information about the respondent’s well-being.
The panel believes that survey context is likely a major contributor of differences in the estimates of rape and sexual assault between the several sources.
TARGET POPULATION, SAMPLING FRAMES, AND SAMPLE SIZE
Target Populations and Sampling Frames
The target populations for the six surveys are different, with resulting effects on the estimates. The NWS targeted adult (18+ years) women and made no estimates for men. The NCWSV targeted a narrower group of women, only those attending college. The NVAWS and the NISVS both targeted adult (18+ years) men and women. However, the NISVS only published estimates (12-month prevalence) of rape and attempted rape for women for its first implementation (in 2010). The NCVS targets both men and women with a broader age range (12+ years).
The sampling frames were different for different sources. Three surveys (NWS, NVAWS, and NISVS) are based on geographically spread random digit dialing (RDD) frames. The RDD frames cover only U.S. households that have telephones. It is important to consider whether this undercoverage is serious. The NWS and the NVAWS were conducted between 1989 and 1995. The 1990 census showed that 5.2 percent of U.S. households had no telephones. The percentage was above 10 percent in five states.1 The next
____________
1Arkansas, 10.9 percent; Kentucky, 10.2 percent; Mississippi, 12.6 percent; New Mexico, 12.4 percent; West Virginia, 10.3 percent.
TABLE 6-2 Comparing Definitions Used for Rape with Commonalities Found Across Jurisdictional Legal Codes
Commonalities | Comparison with Definitions Used by Data Sources |
Victimization not restricted by gender. Both male and female victims and offenders. |
The UCR definition is currently restricted by gender. The updated definition is not. |
Rape involves a broad range of penetrations. |
The UCR definition is currently restricted to penile penetration of a vagina. The updated definition is not. The NCVS, NWS, NCWSV, NVAWS, and NISVS include a broad range of penetrations. |
Purpose is for sexual arousal or degradation. |
This is not a specifically stated component of the definitions of any of the sources but probably does not need to be. In legal statutes, this is used to distinguish assaults from such things as medical exams. |
Use of force or threat of force against the victim or another person. |
Consistent for all sources. |
Lack of consent or lack of capacity to consent. |
Lack of consent is consistent for all sources. The NISVS specifically includes questions related to the lack of capacity to consent due to alcohol and/or drug use. |
Sexual assault includes a fairly wide range of victimizations that involve unwanted non-penetration sexual contact. |
The UCR includes sexual assault with other types of assault and does not have a separate category. |
NOTES: Commonalities described in Chapter 2. NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey, NCWSV = National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, NISVS = National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, NVAWS = National Violence Against Women Study, NWS = National Women’s Study, UCR = Uniform Crime Reports.
SOURCES: Data from Black et al. (2011); Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.-b); Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004); Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2000); Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour (1992); Tjaden and Thoennes (2000); Tracy et al. (2012).
census, in 2000, showed the percentage of households without telephone was only 2.4 percent of households, but the same five states still lagged in coverage (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).2 Thus, there is some concern about coverage in these two surveys for poorer households (the ones that generally lack telephones) in those states, but the potential coverage error is small enough that it was unlikely to have much effect on the estimates.
In more recent years, there has been an increase in the percentage of cell-phone-only households (with cell phones but no landline), from approximately 3 percent in 2003 to 34 percent in 2012 (Blumburg and Luke, 2012). The overall trend to cell phones instead of landlines is significant (Hall, Carlson, and CyBulski, 2011, p. 2):
This drastic change in cell phone usage has significantly affected the coverage of surveys that use random digit dialing sampling. Because of this trend in cell phone usage over the last decade, using only a landline-based RDD sample results in reducing the coverage of the population.
Responding to these changes, the NISVS augmented its RDD sample of landline phone numbers to include a cell phone sample. In 2011, only about 2 percent of U.S. households had no telephone, landline, or cell phone (Blumburg and Luke, 2012).
Two of the studies reviewed by the panel relied on cluster sampling. Sampling for the NCWSV involved two stages of selection. The first stage frame was a list of academic institutions stratified by total student enrollment and institution location, and the second stage was a list, for the selected institutions, of women enrolled in the fall of 1996.
The sample design for the NCVS begins with a selection of primary sampling units (PSUs) from the Census Bureau, and then uses the Master Address File supplemented with the New Building Permits frame and the Group Quarters frame (see Chapter 4 for more details).
The UCR data come from an administrative source (voluntary reports from law enforcement agencies); they are not based on a random sample.
Sample Size
Table 6-3 displays information on sampling frames and sample sizes. The sample size for the NCVS is substantially larger than for the other surveys. Its sample size has fluctuated with annual budget changes over the past years: the smallest number of interviews was 134,041 in 2005, and the largest number was 181,205 in 1994.
The NWS interviewed 4,008 women, approximately 4 percent of the
____________
2Arkansas, 5.4 percent; Kentucky, 4.7 percent; Mississippi, 6.5 percent; New Mexico, 5.7 percent; West Virginia, 4.7 percent.
people interviewed in the 1990 NCVS (95,000 interviews). The sample size for the NCWSV was approximately the same as the NWS, with 4,446 interviews. However, the NCWSV was targeting a much smaller population. The sample size for the NVAWS was 16,000 interviews, and the sample size for the NISVS was 18,049 interviews. Thus, the sample size for these two surveys were only about 11 percent of the sample size for the 2011 NCVS. Smaller sample sizes are a particular problem when measuring a low incidence event, such as rape. For example, the NVAWS, with a sample size of about 16,000, found only 24 women and 8 men who reported having been raped. And the NISVS was unable to publish estimates of male victimizations because of the small number of reported victimizations.
The UCR is essentially a census of all police reports from approximately 18,000 participating jurisdictions, which covers approximately 90 percent of all jurisdictions. It has no incident-level or individual-level records. Coverage in metropolitan areas is slightly higher than in rural areas. These police reports are widely believed to be missing a substantial percentage of the rapes and sexual assaults that occur, as much as 65-80 percent.
DATA COLLECTION MODE AND RESPONSE RATES
Data collections for all five surveys are interviewer administered and rely heavily on telephone interviewing. Beyond that generality, however, there are differences (see Table 6-3). The NCVS is an ongoing panel survey, with selected households in the survey for 3 years. This is different from the other surveys. The NCVS begins with a presurvey letter and an in-person visit for wave 1. It uses telephone interviews, conducted by the field representatives, for other waves if feasible (see Chapter 4). The NCWSV also began with a presurvey letter so that the telephone interview that followed was not based on a cold contact. The others (NWS, NVAWS, and NISVS) were all RDD surveys with a cold initial contact from a centralized telephone facility.3 All interviews used computer-assisted interviewing technology. This discussion is not relevant for the UCR, which uses administrative data.
Nonresponse can affect both survey estimates and their estimated variances. For a survey, nonresponse bias is dependent on both the size of the nonresponse and to the extent differences exist between respondents and nonrespondents regarding important variables being measured in the survey. Because of these potential effects, response rate has been one indicator used to assess survey quality.
The rates for the data sources discussed in this chapter varied consider-
____________
3The NISVS was able to match 50 percent of its landline sample with addresses. These households were sent an advance letter.
TABLE 6-3 Sampling Information, Data Collection Mode and Response Rates, by Data Source
Data Source | Year | Sampling Frame | |||||||
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Summary Reporting System | Since 1929 | Police reports | |||||||
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) | Annually since 1991 Predecessor survey since 1972 | 2-stage cluster sample, with area-based PSUs. Addresses sampled from the Census Bureau’s Master Address File, the new building permits frame, and the group quarters frame Target—males and females 12+ years | |||||||
National Women’s Study (NWS) | 1989-1990 | RDD: 2-stage sample, with primary stage geographic areas within the United States; 2nd stage a random digit dialing using landline frame within selected geographic areas | |||||||
National Violence Against Women Study (NVAWS) | Nov 1995 through May 1996 | RDD: National random digit dialing (landline) sample, selected within census regions | |||||||
National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV) | 1996-1997 | 2-stage sample, with primary stage stratified list of 2- and 4-year colleges; 2nd stage a sample of women enrolled in fall 1996 | |||||||
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) | 2010 | RDD: Random digit dialing using both landline and cell phone frames | |||||||
aSample size—individuals interviewed.
bResponse rate calculated based on AAPOR Standard 4.
cThe participation rate for the NVAWS was calculated by dividing the number of completed interviews (including those that were screened out because they were ineligible) by the total number of completed interviews, screened-out interviews, refusals, and terminated interviews (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000, p. 4).
Sample Sizea | Data Collection Mode | Response Rates | |||||||
100% from participating 18,000 jurisdictions | Administrative records | NA | |||||||
n = 143,122 individuals interviewed, male and female, 12+ years, from 79,802 households (2011) | Interviewer administered. In-person interview on first and last waves. Telephone interview on other waves, to the extent feasible | 2011—88% for individual respondents | |||||||
n = 4,008, female only, 18+ years | Interviewer administered with cold telephone contact on wave 1, with subsequent waves also administered with telephone interview | 34% response rateb 85% participation rate | |||||||
n = 16,000, male and female, 18+ years | Interviewer administered with cold telephone contact | 34% response rateb 72% participation rate for females and 69% participation rate for malesc | |||||||
n = 233 institutions n = 4,446 female college students | Interviewer administered. Presurvey letter followed by telephone interview | 67% response rate,b with 86% participation rate | |||||||
n = 18,049 (2010), male and female, 18+ years | Interviewer administered with cold telephone contact | 2010—34% response rate | |||||||
NOTE: AAPOR = American Association for Public Opinion Research, PSUs = primary sampling units.
SOURCES: Data from Black et al. (2011); Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.-b); Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004); Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2000); Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour (1992); Tjaden and Thoennes (2000).
ably. The NCVS has both the largest sample size and the highest response rate, 88 percent. The NCWSV achieved a modest response rate of 67 percent. RDD surveys invariably have lower response rates because of “screen outs” needed to obtain a qualified respondent and the effect of cold calling. The three RDD surveys (NWS, NVAWS, and NISVS) had similar response rates—NWS, 34 percent; NVAWS, 34 percent; NISVS, 34 percent—all substantially lower than that achieved by the NCVS and the NCWSV. Cooperation rates (which are calculated once a qualified respondent is reached) were higher in each of these three surveys.
MEASURES OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The number of rapes and sexual assaults from the four surveys and the UCR are shown in Figure 6-1.4 One only has to look at the graphic to understand that these data sources are both measuring different things and measuring things differently. Table 6-4 shows the estimates of number of rapes from all six sources. Table 6-5 shows estimates for females aged 18+ only. The lowest 12-month estimate for rape is measured by the UCR. This is not surprising because the UCR has the most restrictive definition of rape and only measures rapes (and attempted rapes) that are known to the police. Therefore, the UCR is assembled in ways that make it vulnerable to major undercounting.
The estimates from the NISVS are the largest. It is important to note that the NISVS published 12-month prevalence numbers and only for women: if the 12-month estimates were of incidents and for all adults, then the numbers would be even larger. The number of females raped or sexually assaulted (adult females only) estimated by the NISVS is 5 times larger than the number of incidents measured by the NCVS (including series victimization) for rape and sexual assault for females (age 12+) in 2010, twice as large as the prevalence number estimated by the NWS (adult females, completed rape only in 1990),5 and 30 percent greater than measured by the NVAWS (both male and female adults, completed and attempted rape but no other forms of sexual assault in 1995). This differential between the NISVS and the other surveys is surprising. The definitions are not identical, but they are roughly consistent. The NISVS, along with the NWS and NVAWS, used RDD survey designs. All three of these surveys had the same response rate, 34 percent.
The panel attempted to look at confidence intervals for comparisons
____________
4The rates from the NCWSV are excluded because the survey covered only a small at-risk population—college women.
5However, the NISVS prevalence estimate for completed rape only (620,000—see Table 5-4) is close to the NWS estimate of incidents of completed rape for adult women (683,000).
FIGURE 6-1 Number of rapes, by data source.
NOTES:
• NWS and NISVS estimates are for adult (18+) women only.
• NWS and NISVS estimates are prevalence rates and not incidence rates.
• NWS estimates do not include attempted rape or other sexual assaults.
• NCVS estimates are for rape and sexual assault, ages 12+ years.
• UCR estimates are for rape and attempted rape that are known to police (no age limit).
Estimates from the NCWSV are specifically for college women and thus not comparable to the others and not included in this figure. NCS = National Crime Survey, NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey, NCWSV = National College Women Sexual Victimization Study, NISVS = National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Study, NVAWS = National Violence Against Women Study, NWS = National Women’s Study, UCR = Uniform Crime Reports.
SOURCES: Panel-developed graphic using data from Black et al. (2011); Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012a, n.d.-a); Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.-c); Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2000); Kilpatrick, Edmunds and Seymour (1992); and Tjaden and Thoennes (2000).
as well as the point estimates described above. This attempt was somewhat unsatisfying because we were unable to obtain standard errors from the NWS or the NISVS.6 Rand and Rennison (2005) compared the NVAWS with the NCVS, and we extracted the NVAWS standard errors from that journal article. For 1995, the NCVS estimate of the number of rapes and sexual assaults for adult women was 403,735, including series victimization
____________
6The NISVS published standard errors for their lifetime prevalence rates but not for the 12-month prevalence rates, which were needed for our comparisons.
TABLE 6-4 Estimates of Number of Rapes and Sexual Assault by Year, by Source
Source | |||||||||
Year | Gender of Victim | UCR | NCVS | ||||||
No Seriesa | Seriesb | NWS | NVAWS | NISVS | |||||
1990 | Fc | 102,555 | 106,000 | NA | 683,000d | ||||
All | 130,260 | NA | |||||||
1991 | All | 106,593 | 174,000 | NA | |||||
1992 | All | 109,062 | NA | NA | |||||
1993 | All | 106,014 | 521,223 | 898,239 | |||||
1994 | All | 102,216 | 443,509 | 674,291 | |||||
1995 | All | 97,470 | 363,527 | 563,249 | 987,362 | ||||
1996 | All | 96,252 | 307,100 | 437,198 | |||||
1997 | All | 96,153 | 311,110 | 553,523 | |||||
1998 | All | 93,144 | 332,500 | 391,101 | |||||
1999 | All | 89,411 | 383,170 | 591,460 | |||||
2000 | All | 90,178 | 260,950 | 366,747 | |||||
2001 | All | 90,863 | 248,250 | 476,578 | |||||
2002 | All | 95,235 | 247,730 | 349,805 | |||||
2003 | All | 93,883 | 198,850 | 325,311 | |||||
2004 | All | 95,089 | 209,880 | 255,769 | |||||
2005 | All | 94,347 | 190,592 | 207,760 | |||||
2006 | All | 92,757 | 260,940 | 463,598 | |||||
2007 | All | 90,427 | 248,277 | 248,277 | |||||
2008 | All | 90,479 | 203,830 | 349,691 | |||||
2009 | All | 89,241 | 125,910 | 305,574 | |||||
2010 | Fc | 253,555 | 1,270,000e | ||||||
All | 84,767 | 188,380 | 268,574 | ||||||
2011 | All | 243,803 | |||||||
NOTES: NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey, NISVS = National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, NVAWS = National Violence Against Women Study, NWS = National Women’s Study, UCR = Uniform Crime Reports.
aSeries victimizations are excluded.
bIncludes series victimizations up to 10 incidents.
cFemale adults.
dPrevalence estimate for completed rapes only; does not include attempted rape or other forms of sexual assault.
ePrevalence estimate (number of victims) rather than the number of victimizations.
SOURCES: Panel-developed table using data from Black et al. (2011, 2012a, n.d.-a); Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012a, n.d.-a); Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.-c); Fisher, Cullen, and Turner(2000); Kilpatrick, Edmunds and Seymour(1992); and Tjaden and Thoennes (2000).
TABLE 6-5 Estimates of Number of Rapes and Attempted Rapes of Females, 18 Years of Age and Older for Selected Years, by Source
Source | |||||||||
NCVSb | |||||||||
Year | UCRa | No Series | Series | NWSc | NVAWSd | NISVSe | |||
1990 | 102,555 | 106,000 | NA | 683,000 | |||||
1995 | 97,470 | NA | 403,735 | 876,064 | |||||
2010 | 85,593 | NA | 209,740 | 1,270,000 | |||||
NOTES: These numbers represent the most consistent comparison that the panel was able to identify. Even so, they have differences, which are listed below. NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey, NISVS = National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, NVAWS = National Violence Against Women Study, NWS = National Women’s Study, UCR = Uniform Crime Reports.
aUCR Forcible rape and attempted rapes known to police. Includes females, all ages.
bNCVS Rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault, for 1990 only, includes females ages 12+ years. For 1996 and 2010, includes females, 18+ years.
cNWS Forcible rape only. Does not include attempted rape. Count of victims rather than victimizations.
dNVWS Forcible rape and attempted rape.
eNISVS Rape and attempted rape. Count of victims rather than victimizations.
SOURCES: Data from Black et al. (2011); Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991, 1996, 2011, n.d.-a); Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.-c); Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour (1992); Tjaden and Thoennes (2000).
(see Table 6-5). The standard error was 41,643.7 The 95 percent confidence interval was [322,115, 485,355]. The NVAWS estimate of the number of forcible rapes and attempted rapes was 876,064. The NVAWS had a much smaller sample size than did the NCVS, and as expected, its standard error was much larger: 467,098. The 95 percent confidence interval for the NVAWS estimate was [–39,448, 1,791,576]. Thus the 95 percent confidence interval for the NCVS was contained completely within the 95 percent confidence interval for the NVAWS. Rand and Rennison (2005) made a similar finding, with no statistical difference in those estimates.
In reviewing all of this material, the panel thinks that it is highly likely that the NCVS is underestimating rape and sexual assault. The panel, with limited resources, was not able to measure the extent of such an undercount, but the pattern is one that shows lower estimates of rape and sexual
____________
7This is the standard error for estimate of rape and sexual assault for all women. The panel did not have the actual standard error for women 18 years of age and older.
assault in the NCVS than the estimates published from the other surveys.8 Thus, the panel looked in more detail at the error profile of the NCVS to better understand procedures that might be contributing to this undercount. This analysis is contained in Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
____________
8This was the case even though these other surveys were often more restrictive in what they measured, such as focusing on adults only, or women only, or not including attempted rape or other forms of sexual assault.