Psychometric Properties of the Sexual Services Acts Materials for Pay (SSAMP) Index: Identifying the Virtual, In-Person, and Material Sex Trades for Financial Compensation

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant Demographics and Characteristics.

Characteristic	Undergraduate (N=544)	%	Graduate (N=331)	%
Year in School
First year	435	80.0%
Second year	77	14.2%
Third year	24	4.4%
Fourth year and beyond	8	1.5%
Master’s			158	47.7%
PhD			162	48.9%
Another graduate program			11	3.3%
Full-Time Student	539	99.1%	289	87.3%
First-Generation Student
Yes	100	18.4%	93	28.1%
No	432	79.4%	232	70.1%
Unsure	12	2.2%	6	1.8%
	(N = 544)		(N =320)
Race
White	362	66.5%	199	62.2%
Black/African-American	22	4.0%	5	1.6%
American Indian/Alaskan	8	1.5%	6	1.9%
Asian	102	18.8%	86	26.9%
Multiracial or another race	48	8.8%	24	7.5%
Hispanic/Latino/a/x	64	11.8%	21	6.3%
Gender
Woman	320	58.8%	182	56.9%
Man	216	39.7%	115	35.9%
Nonbinary/Gender Queer	7	1.3%	23	7.2%
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual	456	84.8%	206	62.2%
Bisexual	45	8.3%	49	14.8%
Gay/Lesbian	6	1.1%	11	3.3%
Pansexual, Queer, Other	34	6.3%	51	15.4%
Relationship Status
Single	370	68.1%	118	37.0%
Married/Partnered	173	31.9%	201	63.0%
Have a Disability	27	5.0%	31	9.7%
Pell Grant Recipient	116	21.3%	66	19.9%
Experienced Homelessness	10	1.8%	10	3.1%
Difficulty Paying for Basic Needs
Never	237	43.6%	172	52.0%
Sometimes	104	19.1%	116	35.0%
Often/Always	21	3.9%	32	9.7%

Note: Any demographic characteristic with less than five participants was not included in this table. *only 320 participants completed race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, relationship status, disability status, Pell grant recipient status, homelessness, and difficulty paying for basic needs in the graduate sample because these items were asked after the sex trading items and some participants had dropped out of the survey at that point.

Table 2. Sex trading, type, items and prevalence rates of undergraduate and graduate students who report participating in the sex trades at baseline and follow-up.

Type	Sex Trading Item	Time 1		Time2
		Undergrad (N = 544)	Grad (N = 331)	Undergrad (N = 360)	Grad (N = 187)
Materials
	Sold sexual items or fluid	4.0% (22)	3.0% (10)	1.4% (5)	2.1% (4)
Virtual	Sent or posted nude photos	3.1% (17)	9.1% (30)	3.6% (13)	10.7% (20)
	Sexted/phone sex	3.5% (19)	6.0% (20)	1.9% (7)	6.4% (12)
	Online sexual companionship	0.6% (3)	1.8% (6)	0.8% (3)	2.1% (4)
	Filmed yourself online	0.7% (4)	2.7% (9)	1.5% (4)	1.1% (2)
	Any virtual item	5.5% (30)	11.2% (37)	6.6% (24)	13.4% (25)
In-Person
	Danced or stripped	0.4% (2)	0.9% (3)	0.6% (2)	1.1% (2)
	In-person date or sugaring	2.0% (11)	8.8% (29)	0.6% (2)	7.0% (13)
	Sexual contact, no intercourse	0.7% (4)	3.3% (11)	0.8% (2)	4.8% (9)
	Oral, vaginal, anal intercourse	0.9% (5)	4.2% (14)	0.8% (3)	3.7% (7)
	Any in-person	3.3% (18)	11.8% (38)	2.5% (9)	10.7% (20)
Any
	Endorsed any item	11.0% (60)	18.1% (60)	7.7% (28)	17.6% (33)

Table 3. Comparison between single item and SAAMP index.

	Any Sex Trading			Virtual Sex Trading			In-Person Sex Trading
Blum Item*	Yes	No	φ	Yes	No	φ	Yes	No	φ
Undergraduates Time 1 (N = 167)
Yes	4	1		2	2		2	3
No	13	148	0.14	9	157	0.34	4	157	0.34
Undergraduates Time 2 (N = 270)
Yes	4	1		3	2		3	2
No	18	246	0.36	14	250	0.30	4	260	0.50
Graduates Time 1 (N = 293)
Yes	14	1		12	3		10	5
No	31	243	0.05	15	259	0.57	20	254	0.43
Graduates Time 2 (N = 187)
Yes	17	1		13	5		15	3
No	15	152	0.67	11	156	0.58	5	162	0.77

Blum item was only given to 167 undergraduate students at Time 1.

“Any Sex Trading” “Virtual Sex Trading” and “In-Person Sex Trading” are taken from SAAMP.

Table 4. Item communalities, factor loadings, and residual correlations for exploratory factor analysis.

			Residual Correlations
Item	Communalities	Factor Loadings	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.Sold sexual items or fluid	.35	.59	.049	.044	.08	−.09	−.16	−.09	−.16	−.16
2.Sent or posted nude photos	.38	.62	–	−.05	−.06	−.04	−.04	−.13	−.10	−.13
3.Sexted/phone sex	.37	.61		–	−.07	−.08	−.13	−.05	−.14	.02
4.Online sexual companionship	.69	.83			–	−.01	−.03	−.09	−.06	−.11
5.Filmed yourself online	.82	.91				–	.001	−.04	.06	−.07
6.Danced or stripped	.57	.75					–	−.07	.006	−.10
7.In-person date or sugaring	.59	.77						–	.008	.01
8.Sexual contact	.73	.85							–	−.006
9.Intercourse	.41	.64								–

Table 5. Sex trading, type, items and prevalence rates of undergraduate and graduate students who reported considering sex trades at baseline and follow-up.

Type	Sex Trading Item	Time 1		Time 2
		Undergrad (N = 484)	Grad (N = 271)	Undergrad (N = 332)	Grad (N = 154)
Materials
	Sold sexual items or fluid	12.2% (59)	29.5% (80)	9.9% (33)	28.6% (44)
Virtual
	Sent or posted nude photos	19.4% (94)	32.5% (88)	15.4% (51)	35.5% (55)
	Sexted/phone sex	13.8% (67)	23.6% (64)	12.0% (40)	21.9% (34)
	Online sexual companionship	4.1% (20)	16.2% (44)	3.6% (12)	18.2% (28)
	Filmed yourself online	9.1% (44)	15.1% (41)	9.3% (31)	16.1% (25)
	Any virtual item	26.0% (126)	40.6% (110)	21.1% (70)	41.3% (64)
In-Person
	Danced or stripped	13.8% (67)	11.8% (32)	11.4% (38)	11.7% (18)
	In-person date or sugaring	14.6% (71)	25.1% (68)	12.0% (40)	31.6% (49)
	Sexual contact	11.6% (56)	12.2% (33)	9.0% (30)	12.9% (20)
	Intercourse	10.1% (49)	10.7% (29)	10.2% (34)	11.0% (17)
	Any in-person	29.5% (143)	31.4% (85)	25.3% (84)	39.4% (61)
Any
	Considered any item	38.8% (188)	48.7% (132)	33.4% (111)	51.0% (79)

All questions asked participants to respond to a Likert scale with the following response options: never, occasionally, sometimes, often, very often.

Table 6. Reasons for deciding not to engage in sex trading among undergraduate and graduate students who considered sex trading.

Item	Undergraduate (N = 188)	Graduate (N = 132)
Did not want to put in time or effort	52.1%	43.9%
Had another job or way to make money	58.0%	50.0%
Was not offered enough money	6.4%	6.1%
Worried about stigma	34.6%	54.5%
Worried about being scammed or blackmailed	52.1%	56.8%
Felt dirty or ashamed	58.5%	40.9%
Did not want friends, family, partners to know	63.3%	68.9%
Did not want employers or schools to know	53.2%	64.4%
Worried about impact on self-esteem	39.9%	27.3%
Worried about legality	33.0%	35.6%
Did not know how to start	27.7%	48.5%
Another reason	2.2%	7.6%