Sexual harassment and patterns of symptoms and functional abilities in a psychiatric sample of adolescents

Figures & data

Table 1. Full name of PROMIS^® measures for paediatric self-reporting and internal consistency.

Domain	Ref.	Definition	Number of items	Full name	Cronbach alpha (95% confidence interval) – this study
Anger	[45]	Anger, negative social cognitions, and efforts to control anger.	9	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Anger	0.95 (0.94–96)
Anxiety	[45]	Fear, anxiety, hyper arousal, and related somatic symptoms.	15	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Anxiety	0.94 (0.93 − 0.95)
Depressive symptoms	[45]		14	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Depressive symptoms	0.96 (0.95 − 0.96)
Family relationships	[46]		8	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.1.0 – Family relationships – Short form 8a	0.94 (0.92 − 0.94)
Fatigue	[45, 47,48]		25	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Fatigue	0.98 (0.97 − 0.98)
Pain interference	[45,48,49]		20	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Pain interference	0.97 (0.96 − 0.97)
Peer relationships	[50]		15	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.2.0 – Peer relationships	0.90 (0.88 − 0.91)
Physical activity	[48,51]		10	PROMIS Paediatric Item Bank v.1.0 – Physical activity	0.93 (0.92 − 0.94)

Table 2. Demographic data, alcohol and drug use, and diagnoses for all Respondents and subgroups of Respondents (‘Sexually Harassed’ and ‘not Sexually Harassed’).

Demographic	All	Sexually harassed	Not sexually harassed	p Value
n (%)	324 (100)	193 (59,6)	131 (40,4)
Girls, n (%)	258 (79.6)	164 (63.6)	94 (36.4)
Boys, n (%)	66 (20.4)	37 (56.1)	29 (43.9)
Age, mean (SD) years	15.7 (1.7)	15.7 (1.7)	15.6 (1.7)	.649
Born in Sweden, n (%)	305 (94.1)	181 (55.8)	124 (38.3)	−0.743
Parent/Guardian working. n (%)
Parent 1	263 (81.2)	155 (80.3)	108 (82.4)	.720
Parent 2	269 (83.0)	163 (84.5)	106 (80.9)	.073
Socioeconomic status, n (%)
Unskilled worker	26 (8.0)	19 (9.8)	7 (5.3)	.345
Skilled worker	33(10.2)	22 (11.4)	11 (8.4)
Non-manual worker	20 (6.2)	6 (3.1)	14 (10.7)
Civil servant	90 (27.8)	49 (25.4)	41 (31.3)
High-status profession	92 (28.4)	57 (29.5)	35 (26.7)
Company owner	25 (7.7)	13 (6.7)	12 (9.2)
Unknown	38 (11.7)	27 (14.0)	11 (8.4)
Frequency of alcohol consumption
Never n (%)	211 (65.1)	113 (58.5)	98 (74.8)	.002
Once a month, n (%)	76 (23.5)	52 (26.9)	24 (18.3)
2–4 times a month, n (%)	34 (10.5)	26 (13.5)	8 (6.1)
2–3 times a week, n (%)	3 (0.9)	2 (1.0)	1 (0.8)
Frequency of drug use
Never n (%)	312 (96.3)	185 (95.9)	127 (96.9)	.329
Once time a month, n (%)	7 (2.2)	4 (2.1)	3 (2.3)
2–4 times a month, n (%)	4 (1.2)	3 (1.6)	1 (0.8)
2–3 times a week, n (%)	1 (0.3)	1 (0.5)	0
Educational support
No, n (%)	137 (42.3)	83 (43.0)	54 (41.2)	.764
Yes, in one subject, n (%)	56 (17.3)	33 (17.1)	23 (17.6)
Customised school or individual programme, n (%)	131 (40.4)	77 (39.9)	54 (41.2)
Diagnoses				Chi-square
Depression and anxiety disorder (%)
Depressive disorder	45 (13.9)	35 (18.1)	10 (7.6)	.078
Anxiety disorder	37 (11.4)	21 (10.9)	16 (12.2)
Mixed depressive-anxiety disorder	15 (4.6)	12 (6.2)	3 (2.3)
Neurodevelopmental disorder (%)
ADHD	41 (12.7)	22 (11.4)	19 (14.5)	.912
ADD	20 (6.2)	9 (4.7)	11 (8.4)
Autism	9 (2.8)	4 (2.1)	5 (3.8)
Tourette’s syndrome	2 (.6)	1 (.5)	1 (.8)
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (%)	8 (2.5)	2 (1.0)	6 (4.6)
Eating disorder (%)	13 (3.1)	7 (3.6)	3 (2.3)
Transgender-related disorder (%)	3 (.9)	1 (.5)	2 (1.5)
Other (%)	4 (1.2)	1 (.5)	3 (2.3)
No diagnosis (%)	199 (61.4)	119 (61.6)	80 (61.1)

Independent sample t-tests were used to analyse demographic data.

Table 3. Differences Between the subgroups (‘Sexually Harassed’ and ‘not Sexually Harassed’) in terms of scores for all measures.

	Sexually harassed (n = 193)		Not sexually harassed (n = 131)
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	t	95% Conf. interval		p Value	Effect size Cohen’s d
						Cl^−	Cl^+
Suicidal ideation	34.98	24.24	17.92	19.44	−6.73	−22.06	−12.07	<.001	−0.76
Disturbed sleep	13.00	6.19	9.08	5.67	−5.78	−5.25	−2.58	<.001	−0.65
Depressive symptoms	29.78	13.31	21.25	13.98	−5.54	−11.55	−5.50	<.001	−0.63
Anger	16.45	9.93	10.86	7.35	−5.50	−7.59	−3.59	<.001	−0.62
Fatigue	57.97	25.97	42.86	24.89	−5.23	−20.81	−9.43	<.001	−0.59
Anxiety	26.13	13.72	18.47	13.13	−5.02	−10.67	−4.66	<.001	−0.57
Pain interference	22.66	20.91	13.51	15.04	−4.58	−13.08	−5.22	<.001	−0.49
Family relationships	19.71	7.63	22.92	6.67	3.91	1.60	4.83	<.001	.44
Alcohol consumption	0.57	0.76	0.33	0.63	−3.12	−0.39	−0.09	.002	−0.34
School problems	3.26	0.86	3.05	0.81	−2.20	−0.39	−0.02	.029	−0.25
Peer relationships	37.18	10.15	38.94	11.44	1.45	−0.62	4.14	.147	.16
Drug use	0.07	0.40	0.04	0.23	−0.89	−0.11	.04	.376	−0.10
Physical activity	15.12	9.50	15.05	9.08	−0.07	−2.15	2.01	.945	−0.01

Independent sample t-tests were used to calculate differences between the two subgroups (sexually harassed; not sexually harassed). Domains are sorted according to effect size.

Table 4. Logistic regression results for the differences between the subgroups (‘Sexually Harassed’ and ‘not Sexually Harassed’) on scores for every measure domain.

	Variables	b	Odds ratio	95% Conf. interval for odds ratio		p Value	Hosmer–Lemeshow (R^2)	Cox-Snell (R^2)	Nagelkerke (R^2)
				Cl^−	Cl^+
Model	Suicidal ideation	0.03	1.03	1.01	1.04	<.001***
	Anger	0.04	1.04	1.00	1.07	.029*
	Disturbed sleep	0.05	1.05	1.01	1.10	.024*
	Alcohol consumption	0.38	1.46	1.01	2.11	.045*
							.15	.18	.25

Logistic regression was used to calculate differences between the groups (‘Sexually harassed’ and ‘Not sexually harassed’). Variables are sorted according to the odds ratio, from large to small.

*p < = .05, **p < = .01, ***p < = .001.

Table 5. Differences in mean item score, as shown by the regression coefficient, between Respondents in the two subgroups (‘Sexually Harassed’ and ‘not Sexually Harassed’) for items.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Suicidal ideation	Nobody cares if I am dead or alive	Thoughts about how others would feel if I killed myself	Testament	Killing methods	Death wishes	Suicidal thoughts	Telling others about plans	Suicide letter	Others would be happier if I was dead	Thoughts about death	Wishing I was never born	Thoughts about dead people	Thoughts about when to kill myself	Thoughts about it being better if I wasn´t alive	Killing myself would solve my problems
Anger	Wanting to break something	Wanting to be alone because of anger	Bad mood	Enough of everything	Angry	Angry and sad	Wanting to shout at someone	Silent	Angry when things do not go my way
Disturbed sleep	Others noticing lower life quality due to disturbed sleep	Problems with early waking	Concerned about your disturbed sleep	Problems with waking up in the night	Disturbing of everyday function	Difficulties falling asleep	Dissatisfaction with your current sleep pattern
Alcohol consumption	Frequency of alcohol consumption
										B coeff. = col	≥0.20	≥0.10	≥0.01	≥ −0.10	≥ −0.20

Quinn H, Thissen D, Liu Y, et al. Using item response theory to enrich and expand the PROMIS® pediatric self report banks. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0160-x.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bevans KB, Riley AW, Landgraf JM, et al. Children’s family experiences: development of the PROMIS(®) pediatric family relationships measures. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(11):3011–3023. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1629-y.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lai JS, Stucky BD, Thissen D, et al. Development and psychometric properties of the PROMIS(®) pediatric fatigue item banks. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2417–2427. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0357-1.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rindestig FC, Wiberg M, Henje E, et al. Psychometrics of three physical pediatric item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS)®: pain interference, fatigue and physical activity. J Patient-RepOutcomes. 2020;5:105.

 Google Scholar

Varni JW, Magnus B, Stucky BD, et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS ® pediatric scales: precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(4):1233–1243. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0544-0.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dewalt DA, Thissen D, Stucky BD, et al. PROMIS pediatric peer relationships scale: development of a peer relationships item bank as part of social health measurement. Health Psychol. 2013;32(10):1093–1103. doi: 10.1037/a0032670.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tucker AC, Bevans BK, Teneralli ER, et al. Self-reported pediatric measures of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and strength impact for PROMIS: item development. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2014;26(4):385–392. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000074.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.