Expanding the Sexual Experiences Survey to Include Technology Facilitated Sexual Exploitation

ABSTRACT

The Sexual Experiences Survey is the most widely used measure of sexual assault victimization and perpetration among college students. To improve comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, the current revision of the victimization items of the SES (SES-V; Koss et al., 2024) included the addition of a module focusing on Technology Facilitated Sexual Exploitation (TFSE). The current paper outlines why the inclusion of items related to TFSE was necessary, and describes the development of the items making up this module of the SES-V. The module consists of 10 items that map onto seven domains: receipt of sexual materials, target of unwanted sexual comments, threatened sharing of sexually explicit images, actual sharing of sexually explicit images, target of sexual solicitation, threatened sharing of images of sexual exploitation, and actual sharing of images of sexual exploitation. Consistent with how the other types of sexual exploitation are assessed in the SES-V (Koss et al., 2024), respondents indicate how many times they have experienced these events since their 14th birthday and use an 11-point response format ranging from 0 to 10 or more times per experience. The addition of the new module on TFSE to the SES-V will ensure researchers assess both in-person and cyber modalities of sexual exploitation.

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) is the most widely used measure of sexual assault victimization and perpetration among college students. The measure was first developed in 1982 (Koss & Oros, 1982) and underwent revision in 2007 (Koss et al., 2024). Now, 15 years later, the SES Collaboration Revision Team revised the victimization items of the SES again (SES-V) to improve its comprehensiveness and inclusiveness (Koss et al., 2007). One type of sexual victimization that was not assessed in the 2007 SES version is technology facilitated sexual exploitation (TFSE; also known as cyber sexual violence, sexual cyberbullying, nonconsensual image sharing, revenge porn, or technology-facilitated sexual violence). Ehman and Gross (2019, p. 80; see also Ehman & Gross, 2022) defined cyber sexual violence or TFSE as “any sexually aggressive or coercive behaviour facilitated through the use of electronic media (i.e., text messages, social networking sites, cell phone applications, etc.).” The expansion of the SES to include TFSE allows for a more comprehensive assessment of sexual experiences that occurred without permission, particularly given changes in the use of digital technology that have occurred since 2007. Importantly, before 2007, only one article existed focusing on cyber sexual violence (Shim, 2002). The new measure will allow for determining the co-occurrence of in-person and TFSE, as well as if there are different risk factors and consequences of these types of sexual exploitation. Widespread adoption of the SES-V with the addition of TFSE has the potential to enhance our understanding of sexual exploitation. It will provide a consistent way to assess sexual victimization and will allow for comparisons across different types of samples and time periods and enable aggregation of findings across studies.¹

The current paper focuses on TFSE, also known as cyber sexual exploitation, and the items assessing this form of sexual exploitation that were added in the revision of the SES. To understand why it was necessary to include items related to TFSE, we begin with a discussion of the widespread use of digital technology. We then define and examine prevalence rates and outcomes of TFSE. We then list the items that are included in this module of the SES-V along with the origins of these items.²

Use of Digital Technology

There has been a substantial increase in digital technology and social media use, particularly among young people. In a report by the Pew Research Center, 96% of young people ages 18 to 29 reported that they owned a smartphone (Perrin, 2021); 84% of individuals in this same age range use at least one form of social media (“Social Media,” 2021). The most often used forms of social media among 18- to 29-year-olds, according to the Pew Report, are YouTube (95%), Instagram (71%), Facebook (70%), Snapchat (65%), and TikTok (48%) (“Social Media,” 2021). Among teens 13 to 17, 95% report owning a smartphone, 90% a desktop or laptop, and 80% a gaming console (Vogels et al., 2022). Among this same group, 97% of teens said they use the Internet daily, with 46% saying they use it almost constantly (Vogels et al., 2022). Qualitative research indicates that, among young people, there is not a clear division between their online and offline social networks (Boyd, 2014). Technology allows young users to remain in nearly constant contact with their offline network (Boyd, 2014). The widespread use of technology and the increasing number of digital capabilities, such as the ability to alter pictures and videos, opens up the range of possibilities by which behaviors such as TFSE can occur.

Technology Facilitated Sexual Victimization Defined

This increased use of digital technology, while advantageous in many ways, is often accompanied by negative behaviors. One of these negative behaviors is cyberbullying, or bullying through the use of electronic communication technologies, such as the Internet or cellular phones (Kowalski et al., 2012; P. K. Smith et al., 2008). Cyberbullying can take a number of different forms including sending offensive, rude, and insulting messages; distributing and posting derogatory information about another person; posting or sending digitally altered photos; impersonating another person and sending offensive messages; and tricking someone into revealing embarrassing information and then forwarding that information to others (Kowalski et al., 2012, 2014).

More recently, cyberbullying has been extended to include the application of the aforementioned behaviors to the distribution of or threats to share information of a sexual nature (e.g., Clevenger et al., 2017). As noted above, this is referred to as cyber sexual violence or TFSE. Among the behaviors explicated by Ehman and Gross (2022) as constituting cyber sexual violence or TFSE were electronically sending nude images or messages without consent; forcing someone to share explicit photos of themselves when they didn’t want to; threatening to share or actually sharing electronically sexually explicit images that another person did not want shared; and posting sexual comments on another person’s social media when they did not want them to.

Situated within the three-dimensional model outlined by Koss et al. (2024; see also Anderson et al., 2024), TFSE is best characterized as low in bodily invasiveness because it occurs in the virtual as opposed to the non-virtual world. It is also characterized as low pressure because physical force is not used. Finally, TFSE is moderate in social tolerance. While sharing and communicating online is certainly a normative activity, getting others to share sexually explicit pictures of themselves and then sharing those pictures with others to whom they were not meant to be shared is not.

Prevalence of TFSE

Although variable, the prevalence of TFSE is moderate to high across studies. In an examination of digital harassment and abuse, of which TFSE is a facet, Powell and Henry (2019) found that, across all types of TFSE examined, 62% of respondents reported having experienced at least one of the victimization behaviors in their lifetime. Additionally, respondents aged 18 to 24 were the most likely to experience digital harassment and abuse, including cyber sexual violence, with 72% indicating they had experienced at least one form of TFSE. Of the 2,956 adults ages 18 to 54 in Australia assessed by Powell and Henry, 29% indicated a lifetime prevalence of receiving unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, e-mails, or text messages; 21% experienced repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or via e-mail or text message; 16% received sexually-based offensive or degrading messages, comments, or other content; and 10% received threats to post nude or seminude images online or have them sent to others. Supporting this, a study of 470 college freshmen in the United States found that 11% were victims of revenge porn, with most of these victims being female (Branch et al., 2017). Among 480 undergraduate students, 20% indicated that their romantic partner had tried to coerce them into sexting; 19% indicated they had engaged in sexting when they didn’t want to (Drouin et al., 2015).

Lenhart et al. (2016) conducted phone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3,002 Americans aged 15 and older who use the Internet. Three percent of respondents indicated that someone had threatened to share a nude or nearly nude image of them online without their permission to harm or embarrass them; 2% indicated that someone had actually shared the image. The probability of this happening was higher among younger respondents compared to those who were older. Among internet users 15 to 29 years of age, 7% reported threats of nonconsensual image sharing compared to 2% of respondents aged 30 and older. Younger respondents were also more likely than older participants to report the actual sharing of images that they did not want shared (5% vs 1%). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents were much more likely to report being victims of nonconsensual image sharing, with 15% reporting that someone had threatened to share a nude or nearly nude image of them and 7% saying someone had actually done so (Lenhart et al., 2016).

Eaton et al. (2017) similarly conducted a national survey, examining the experiences of 3,044 Americans with cyber sexual victimization. Almost 13% of the respondents indicated that someone had threatened to share (5%) or had shared (8%) a sexually explicit image of them online without their consent. In a study of teen dating violence, 26% of those who were in a dating relationship reported cyber dating victimization (Zweig et al., 2013). Cyber sexual victimization was one of the most common forms: 7% said their partner had sent them unwanted texts/e-mails asking them to engage in sexual acts; 7% said their partner had pressured them to send a sexual/naked photo of themselves; 4% said their partner sent them unwanted sexual photos or naked photos of himself or herself; 6% said their partner posted embarrassing photos or other images of them online (Zweig et al., 2013).

As with research on other misuses of digital technology such as cyberbullying (Kowalski et al., 2014), discrepancies in prevalence rates across studies may stem, in part, from methodological issues. These include features of the sample (e.g., age, sex), the number of items constituting the measure of TFSE (single-item vs. multi-item), the time span during which the behavior occurred (e.g., lifespan, previous six months, since age 14), as well as the criteria used to determine that TFSE has occurred (e.g., a single instance versus 2–3 times or more). These methodological issues highlight the need for a uniform measure of TFSE that researchers can use across studies.

Outcomes

The literature on cyberbullying victimization has been consistent in showing a range of negative outcomes, including anxiety (Fahy et al., 2016; Jenaro et al., 2021), depression (Hu et al., 2021), suicidal ideation (Baiden & Tadeo, 2020; Zaborskis et al., 2019), substance use (Graham & Wood, 2019), academic problems (Gardella et al., 2017), as well as somatic symptoms (Herge et al., 2016). Not surprisingly, similar outcomes have been observed following TFSE victimization, including both psychological as well as physical symptomatology (e.g., Eaton et al., 2017; Gassó et al., 2020; McGinley et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2011). For example, nationally representative, longitudinal data from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence revealed similarities in the mental health and behavioral consequences of online sexual harassment and non-sexual cyberbullying (Copp et al., 2021). Further, results from this study suggested that those who experienced both types of victimization suffered more negative mental health and behavioral consequences than those who experienced only one type (Copp et al., 2021).

Other research also sheds light on the impact of experiencing TFSE. For example, victims of TFSE report higher levels of depression (e.g., Cripps & Stermac, 2018; Drouin et al., 2015; Holladay et al., 2021; McGinley et al., 2016; K. Smith et al., 2018), anxiety (e.g., Cripps & Stermac, 2018; Drouin et al., 2015; McGinley et al., 2016), lower self-esteem (K. Smith et al., 2018), higher levels of stress (Cripps & Stermac, 2018; Drouin et al., 2015), greater PTSD (Cripps & Stermac, 2018; Holladay et al., 2021), higher levels of delinquency (Mitchell et al., 2011), greater marijuana use and alcohol consumption (McGinley et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2011), emotion dysregulation (Holladay et al., 2021), and even loss of employment (Citron & Franks, 2014) compared to nonvictims. Among sexual minority adolescents, TFSE was associated with an approximate two-fold increased risk for suicide ideation and attempts (Srivastava et al., 2022). In cases of revenge porn, images or videos of victims are often posted alongside their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses (Clevenger et al., 2017). Specifically, according to the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (2018), over 50% of people who had sexually explicit images shared without their consent had their names accompanying the images. Calls and visits from total strangers who view the images of videos lead victims to experience anxiety and panic attacks (Citron & Franks, 2014).

Not surprisingly, the emotional reactions to TFSE can be intense and may include shame (Ehman & Gross, 2019; Walker & Sleath, 2017), anger (Branch et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2015), and low self-esteem (K. Smith et al., 2018). The publicity of sexual cyberbullying may increase feelings of shame among victims (Ehman & Gross, 2019; Sourander et al., 2010). In one study, among victims of revenge porn, 54% reported anger at the person who shared an explicit photo without consent; 33% reported anger at themselves for initially sharing the photo with the perpetrator (Branch et al., 2017). Both men and women report digital harassment and abuse as moderately, very, or extremely upsetting, with significantly more women (56%) viewing the experience this way compared to men (36%) (Powell et al., 2015).

Some authors (e.g., Drouin et al., 2015) have noted that the trauma experienced following sexting coercion (i.e., being forced or coerced into sexting when the person did not want to) was greater than that following physical sexual coercion. One reason for this may be the permanency and publicity of shared images on the Internet. In addition, revenge porn and other forms of TFSE may be correlated with increased chances of being sexually victimized offline. For example, DeKeseredy et al. (2019) found that college students who received unwanted sexual images or messages were 3.4 times more likely to report having been sexually assaulted offline than respondents who had not received the unwanted sexual messages or images.

Origins of the TFSE Items

Given the increase in digital technology and social media usage, particularly among younger people (Auxier & Anderson, 2021; Perrin, 2021; Vogels et al., 2022), sexual victimization and perpetration via these modalities have also increased (Ehman & Gross, 2019; Powell & Henry, 2019). Consequently, researchers have called for more research on how in-person and cyber victimization are related. Testing this empirical question is contingent on having adequate measurement of both in-person and technology facilitated experiences. Thus, researchers also have called for more comprehensive measures of victimization and perpetration that include multiple items assessing both in-person and cyber modalities, as well as specific types of behaviors across these modalities. Considering this call, in the current revision of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES-V), the revision team determined that the inclusion of items pertaining to TFSE was necessary. In developing the module on TFSE, we reviewed items from other scales that measured similar types of constructs. Sometimes multiple studies used a variant of the item adapted for inclusion in the SES-V. In consultation with the entire SES revision team, the two authors selected 10 items to be included in the SES-V cyber module.

As shown in Table 1, the 10 items mapped onto seven domains: receipt of sexual materials (items 6 and 7 on the SES-V); target of unwanted sexual comments (item 8); threatened sharing of sexually explicit images (item 9); actual sharing of sexually explicit images (item 10), target of sexual solicitation (items 11–13); threatened sharing of images of sexual exploitation (item 14); and, actual sharing of images of sexual exploitation (item 15). Consistent with how the other types of sexual exploitation are assessed in the SES-V (Koss et al., 2024), respondents indicate how many times they have experienced these events since their 14th birthday, and use an 11-point response format ranging from 0 to 10 or more times per experience. A more detailed explanation of the reasons for this response format can be found in Koss et al. (2024).

Table 1. TFSE items, domains, scoring categories, and correspondence to key papers.

Domain	# in TFSE module	# in overall SES-V	Scoring category	Item text	Correspondence to key papers or comparison measures (not including earlier versions of SES)
Receipt of Sexual Materials	1	6	TFSE- communication	Someone sent me sexual materials electronically (by e-mail, text, or social media) such as pictures, jokes, or stories without first asking if it was okay.	Ehman and Gross (2022); Powell and Henry (2019); Zweig et al. (2013); Zweig et al. (2014)
Receipt of Sexual Materials	2	7	TFSE- communication	Someone continued to electronically send me sexual materials after I asked them to stop.	Ehman and Gross (2022); Powell and Henry (2019); Zweig et al. (2013); Zweig et al. (2014)
Target of Unwanted Sexual Comments	3	8	TFSE-image	Someone posted sexual comments about me online without first asking if it was okay.	Ehman and Gross (2022); Borrajo et al. (2015); Finkelhor et al. (2000); Powell and Henry (2019); Watkins et al. (2018); Ybarra et al. (2007); Zweig et al. (2013)
Threatened Sharing of Sexually Explicit Images	4	9	TFSE-image	Someone threatened to send nude or seminude photos or intimate videos of me to others or posted them online without first asking if it was okay.	Ehman and Gross (2022); Powell and Henry (2019); Zweig et al. (2013)
Actual Sharing of Sexually Explicit Images	5	10	TFSE-image	Someone sent nude or seminude photos or intimate videos of me to others or posted them online without first asking if it was okay.	Borrajo et al. (2015); Cripps and Stermac (2018); Ehman and Gross (2022); Powell and Henry (2019); Zweig et al. (2013)
Target of Sexual Solicitation	6, 7, 8	11, 12, 13	TFSE- communication	Someone tried to get me to talk about sex online when I did not want to. Someone asked me online for sexual information about myself when I did not want to tell. Someone asked me to do something sexual online when I didn’t want to.	Finkelhor et al. (2000); Watkins et al. (2018) Finkelhor et al. (2000); Watkins et al. (2018) Finkelhor et al. (2000); Ybarra et al. (2007); Zweig et al. (2013);
Threatened Sharing of Images of Sexual Exploitation	9	14	TFSE-image	Someone threatened to post online or send others an image or video of an unwanted sexual experience that happened to me.	Cripps and Stermac (2018); Powell and Henry (2019)
Actual Sharing of Images of Sexual Exploitation	10	15	TFSE-image	Someone posted online or sent an image or video of an unwanted sexual experience that happened to me.	Powell and Henry (2019)

The items included in the TFSE module are representative of cyber sexual victimization experiences. The 10 items, however, are not exhaustive of all forms that this type of sexual exploitation could take.

The first two items assess the degree to which participants have been sent sexual messages electronically (by e-mail, text, or social media such as pictures, jokes, or stories) without first being asked if it was okay, and the extent to which this has occurred repeatedly after the sender was asked to stop. As shown in Table 1, these items were modified from a number of sources, including Ehman and Gross’s (2022) Sexual Strategies Scale Cyber (“sending/receiving unsolicited nude photos”), Zweig et al.’s (2013) Sexual Cyber Dating Abuse Scale (“Sent me sexual photos or naked photos of himself or herself that he/she knew I did not want;” see also Zweig et al., 2014), and Powell and Henry (2019; “Sent me unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or text messages”) (see also National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008). Two items focus on someone threatening to post or actually posting nude or seminude photos or videos to others or online without first asking if it was okay. These items were also adapted from Ehman and Gross (2022; “threatening to/being threatened to distribute nude photos of a partner to others”), Zweig et al. (2013; “Threatened me if I did not send a sexual or naked photo of myself”), and Powell and Henry (2019; “Nude or semi-nude image posted online/sent onto others without permission”). An additional item focused on the posting of sexual comments about the victim online without first asking if it was okay (see e.g., Borrajo et al., 2015; Ehman & Gross, 2022; Finkelhor et al., 2000; Powell & Henry, 2019; Zweig et al., 2013, 2014). In their research on cyber dating abuse, Watkins et al. (2018) used a similar item: “Posted a sexually suggestive message or picture to my partner’s online profile that she or he did not want”). Ehman and Gross (2022) also used a similar item on the Sexual Strategies Scale – Cyber: “making/receiving sexually explicit comments on a social media site”). Three items assess unwanted Internet sexual solicitation and were based on work by Finkelhor et al. (e.g., Finkelhor et al., 2000; “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to;” “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions?;” see “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to do”; also Watkins et al., 2018; Wolak et al., 2006; Ybarra et al., 2007). Two items adapted from Powell and Henry (2019; “Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience threat to post online/send onto others;” “Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience posted online/sent to others”) and Cripps and Stermac (2018; Sexual assault image distribution) examine the extent to which someone had threatened to post or send an image or video of an unwanted sexual experience that happened to the respondent or the extent to which someone had actually posted or sent such an image or video.

A principal axis factor analysis (direct oblimin rotation) conducted on data (N = 460; 47% women; 67% heterosexual; 66% White) described in (Anderson et al., 2024) revealed two factors that defined the 10 items assessing TFSE in the SES-V. Items 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 loaded on a factor labeled technology facilitated sexual communication (see Table 1). Items 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 loaded on a factor labeled technology facilitated sexual image exploitation (see Table 2). The two factors correlated .47 with each other. Table 3 presents the intercorrelations of the 10 items. The coefficients ranged from .57 to .88 for the items within the communication factor and from .39 to .66 for the items within the sexual image factor.

Table 2. Factor analysis of technology facilitated sexual exploitation items.

Item	Communication	Sexual Images
Someone sent me sexual materials electronically (by e-mail, text, or social media, such as pictures, jokes, or stories without first asking if it was okay.	.65
Someone continued to electronically send me sexual materials after I asked them to stop.	.67
Someone tried to get me to talk about sex online when I didn’t want to.	.94
Someone asked me online for sexual information about myself when I did not want to tell.	.94
Someone asked me to do something sexual online when I did not want to.	.87
Someone posted sexual comments about me online without first asking if it was okay.		.56
Someone threatened to send nude or seminude photos or intimate videos of me to others or post them online without first asking if it was okay.		.74
Someone sent nude or seminude photos or intimate videos of me to others or posted them online without first asking if it was okay.		.65
Someone threatened to post online or send others an image or video of an unwanted sexual experience that happened to me.		.86
Someone posted online or sent an image or video of an unwanted sexual experience that happened to me.		.75

Table 3. Inter-correlations of technology facilitated sexual exploitation items.

	Communication Factor					Sexual Image Factor
	Item 6	Item 7	Item 11	Item 12	Item 13	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 14	Item 15
Item 6	1.00
Item 7	.58	1.00
Item 11	.57	.63	1.00
Item 12	.60	.65	.81	1.00
Item 13	.59	.64	.81	.88	1.00
Item 8	.36	.49	.41	.41	.43	1.00
Item 9	.31	.44	.37	.40	.37	.56	1.00
Item 10	.28	.40	.37	.37	.35	.54	.58	1.00
Item 14	.25	.34	.28	.30	.28	.46	.66	.49	1.00
Item 15	.17	.23	.18	.21	.21	.39	.47	.50	.63	1.00

Bolded correlations are for items within each subscale.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Using the TFSE Victimization Module

Although the addition of the TFSE victimization module increases the comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the SES-V, there are limitations attached to the module. For example, the 10 items that were selected are not exhaustive of all forms of TFSE. For example, more interactive forms of TFSE that can occur in virtual reality and gaming environments are not included in the current module. Furthermore, unlike other modules in the SES-V, the forms that TFSE take are likely to change as rapidly as technology changes. In addition, our factor analysis was based on a single sample, highlighting the need for future research using this module with a focus on psychometrics. It also remains unclear without additional research how the TFSE precisely maps onto the three-dimensional framework outlined in detail in (Koss et al., 2024).

Although years of research on cyberbullying have provided a solid foundation for investigations into TFSE victimization, much remains to be learned about this topic specifically. For example, although research has shown traditional bullying victimization and cyberbullying victimization to be moderately to highly correlated with one another (Kowalski et al., 2014; Olweus, 2013), we do not know as much about how in-person and TFSE victimization are related. Existing research suggests that TFSE victimization increases the likelihood of sexual victimization offline (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Ehman & Gross, 2022), but more research is needed in this area examining whether all forms of TFSE victimization are related to offline victimization as well as the direction of this relationship. In a scoping study conducted to systematically review the published literature on cyber interpersonal violence among youth, results suggested that cyber interpersonal victimization should be thought of as a multidimensional construct with both sexual and nonsexual components, and that cyber violence represents an extension of face-to-face violence (Machado et al., 2022). Relatedly, the observed relationship between TFSE victimization and other forms of cyber victimization (e.g., Copp et al., 2021), such as cyberbullying, suggests that school administrators, employers, and mental health professionals who become aware that their students/employees/clients have experienced one form of victimization should inquire about other forms of victimization as well.

Future research also should examine the shared and unique risk factors and consequences for TFSE victimization and in-person sexual victimization. For example, does being in a gender or sexual minority group connote the same or greater risk for experiencing TFSE as it does for in-person sexual victimization? Relatedly, additional research is needed to further explicate the gendered nature of TFSE victimization. Are gender differences and the pattern of these differences a function of the age of the respondents or the country of origin of the respondents (Walker & Sleath, 2017)? Adequate measurement of both in-person and cyber experiences are critical to answering these questions.

Specific to the TFSE module discussed in this paper, future research is needed investigating its psychometric characteristics. The results of the factor analysis suggest that the TFSE consists of two subscales. Future research with other types of samples should confirm this factor structure. As noted in Koss et al. (2024), scoring for each of the factors in this module is determined by a score greater than 0 on any item within that subscale. However, future research should also consider not just whether the behavior occurs but also the frequency with which it occurs, in which case continuous scores would be created. Although we believe that TFSE victimization maps onto the three-dimensional model of sexual exploitation presented by (Koss et al., 2024) by being low in bodily invasiveness, low in pressure, and moderate in social tolerance, this has yet to be empirically tested. We also do not know how TFSE victimization as measured by the current module compares to other forms of victimization along the three dimensions. These are empirical questions that will depend on researchers using the TFSE victimization module in the SES-V and determining the validity and reliability of different scoring approaches.

Conclusion

The increased use of digital technologies in recent years necessitated research examining the relationship between in-person and TFSE victimization. It also increased the need for research on shared and unique risk factors and outcomes associated with in-person and TFSE victimization. Testing empirical questions related to these research areas is contingent on having adequate measurement of both offline and online sexual victimization experiences. Thus, it is imperative to have comprehensive measures of sexual exploitation that include items for assessing both in-person and cyber modalities of sexual exploitation as well as specific types of behaviors across these modalities. The SES-V, with the inclusion of the TFSE module, is one such measure.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Because the module assessing TFSE is new to the SES-V, this paper differs a bit from the other papers in this special issue, each of which presents a revision of an existing module.

2. Previous versions of the SES have assessed both victimization and perpetration. The papers in this special issue focus just on victimization. However, the revision team is working on creating a revised perpetration version of the SES. The creation of a perpetration version of the SES is important in and of itself, but also in allowing researchers to examine prevalence and correlates of people who both perpetrate and are victims of sexual exploitation.