Psychometric Properties of the SEQ-W Scale: An Instrument for the Estimation of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Method
2.1. Participants
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Instruments
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Scales
3.2. Structural Validity
3.3. Internal Consistency
3.4. Concurrent and Discriminant Validity
3.5. Empirical Validity
4. Discussion
4.1. Practical Implications
4.2. Limitations
4.3. Future Lines of Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baker, C. N. (2007). The emergence of organized feminist resistance to sexual harassment in the United States in the 1970s. Journal of Women’s History, 19(3), 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortina, L. M. (2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas: Development of an instrument. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- da Silva Fonseca, T., Portela, A. V. M., de Assis Freire, S. E., & Negreiros, F. (2018). Assédio sexual no trabalho. Ciencias Psicológicas, 12(1), 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diez-Canseco, F., Toyama, M., Hidalgo-Padilla, L., & Bird, V. J. (2022). Systematic review of policies and interventions to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace in order to prevent depression. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment at work and victimization of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 578–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). Military Psychology, 11(3), 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (2000). General health questionnaire (GHQ). nferNelson. [Google Scholar]
- Gutek, B. A., Murphy, R. O., & Douma, B. (2004). A review and critique of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Law and Human Behavior, 28, 457–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karami, A., Spinel, M. Y., White, C. N., Ford, K., & Swan, S. (2021). A systematic literature review of sexual harassment studies with text mining. Sustainability, 13(12), 6589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardo, E., & Bustelo, M. (2022). Sexual and sexist harassment in Spanish universities: Policy implementation and resistances against gender equality measures. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCann, D. (2005). Sexual harassment at work: National and international responses. International Labour Office. [Google Scholar]
- Merkin, R. S. (2012). Sexual harassment indicators: The socio-cultural and cultural impact of marital status, age, education, race, and sex in Latin America. Intercultural Communication Studies, 21(1), 154–172. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Bilbao, J., & Fidalgo, M. (1995). Job satisfaction: Overall job satisfaction scale. Centro Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. [Google Scholar]
- Riddle, K., & Heaton, K. (2023). Antecedents to sexual harassment of women in selected male-dominated occupations: A systematic review. Workplace Health & Safety, 71(8), 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-López, M. D. P., & Dresch, V. (2008). The 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): Reliability, external validity, and factor structure in Spanish population. Psicothema, 20(4), 839–843. [Google Scholar]
- Soler-Sánchez, M. I., Meseguer de Pedro, M., García Izquierdo, M., & Hidalgo Montesinos, M. (2010). Validation of the Einarsen and Raknes mobbing behaviors questionnaire in a sample of the fruit and vegetable sector. Ansiedad y Estrés, 16(2), 151–162. [Google Scholar]
- Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Women UN. (2019). Handbook: Addressing violence and harassment against women in the world of work. UN Women Headquarters. [Google Scholar]
- Women UN. (2020). Sexual harassment in the informal economy: Farmworkers and domestic workers. UN Women Headquarters. [Google Scholar]
f (%) | M (DT) | R | |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 33.9 (10.5) | [21–75] | |
Genre | 120 (100) | ||
Nationality | |||
European | 81 (67.5) | ||
South America | 39 (32.5) | ||
Marital status | |||
Married | 40 (33.6) | ||
With partner | 21 (17.6) | ||
Single | 52 (43.7) | ||
Others | 6 (5.0) | ||
Studies | |||
Unqualified | 2 (1.7) | ||
Primary | 4 (3.3) | ||
Secondary | 27 (22.5) | ||
University students | 87 (72.5) | ||
Type of contract | |||
Indefinite | 70 (58.3) | ||
Temporary | 45 (37.5) | ||
Others | 5 (4.2) | ||
Type of shift | |||
Morning or afternoon | 33 (27.5) | ||
Morning and afternoon | 67 (55.8) | ||
Others | 20 (16.7) | ||
Type of company | |||
Public | 30 (25) | ||
Private | 90 (75) | ||
Position in the company | |||
Management | 18 (15) | ||
Intermediate control | 23 (19.2) | ||
Technician | 79 (65.8) | ||
Seniority in the company | 6.01 (6.42) | [0–30] | |
Seniority in the position | 4.01 (4.37) | [0–21] | |
Days of sick leave | 3.01 (12.6) | [0–120] | |
Capacity | 8.89 (1.42) | [1–10] | |
Physical Demand | 4.33 (0.65) | [1–5] | |
Psychological Demand | 4.13 (0.76) | [1–5] |
l | M (DT) | Md (RIC) | Min | Max | Bias | Kurtosis | SH-W | Effect Floor | Effect Ceiling | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SEQCAXD | 8 | 8.72 (2.53) | 8 (0.0) | 8 | 25 | 4.84 | 25.0 | 0.318 *** | 83.3% | 0.8% |
SEQASXD | 8 | 10.7 (4.56) | 8 (3.0) | 8 | 33 | 2.42 | 6.50 | 0.649 *** | 50.8% | 0.8% |
SEQ_T | 16 | 19.4 (6.40) | 16.5 (4.0) | 16 | 53 | 2.83 | 8.95 | 0.594 *** | 50% | 0.8% |
NAQ.APD | 13 | 16.4 (4.17) | 15 (5.0) | 13 | 38 | 2.44 | 8.94 | 0.759 *** | ---- | ---- |
NAQ.ATD | 10 | 16.3 (6.55) | 15 (8.0) | 10 | 39 | 1.56 | 2.57 | 0.838 *** | ---- | ---- |
NAQ_T | 23 | 32.8 (10.0) | 30 (12.0) | 23 | 77 | 1.83 | 4.92 | 0.836 *** | ---- | ---- |
SATLIND | 7 | 36.0 (9.51) | 37 (13.0) | 11 | 49 | −0.794 | 0.097 | 0.934 *** | ---- | ---- |
SATLEXD | 8 | 41.2 (8.73) | 42 (11.0) | 20 | 56 | −0.446 | −0.314 | 0.973 *** | ---- | ---- |
SATLA_T | 15 | 77.2 (17.6) | 78 (22.0) | 35 | 105 | −0.605 | −0.113 | 0.957 ** | ---- | ---- |
BIETR_T | 12 | 21.8 (6.22) | 6.22 (8.0) | 12 | 42 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.95 *** | ---- | ---- |
Factor I | Factor II | Uniqueness | |
---|---|---|---|
Item 1 | 0.821 | 0.278 | |
Item 2 | 0.957 | 0.153 | |
Item 3 | 0.913 | 0.249 | |
Item 4 | 0.582 | 0.571 | |
Item 5 | 0.661 | 0.258 | |
Item 6 | 0.557 | 0.536 | |
Item 7 | 0.485 | 0.525 | |
Item 8 | 0.809 | 0.273 | |
Item 9 | 0.591 | 0.633 | |
Item 10 | 0.618 | 0.295 | |
Item 11 | 0.828 | 0.386 | |
Item 13 | 0.506 | 0.516 | |
Item 14 | 0.722 | 0.421 | |
Item 15 | 0.926 | 0.156 | |
Item 16 | 0.763 | 0.330 | |
Item 17 | 0.990 | 0.104 |
α | IC | ω | IC | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SEQCAXD | 0.91 | [0.88–0.93] | 0.92 | [0.77–0.97] |
SEQASXD | 0.90 | [0.87–0.92] | 0.91 | [0.85–0.94] |
SEQ_T | 0.92 | [0.89–0.93] | ----- | ------ |
NAQAPD | 0.80 | [0.75–0.84] | 0.83 | [0.65–0.90] |
NAQATD | 0.89 | [0.86–0.92] | 0.90 | [0.84–0.93] |
NAQ_T | 0.91 | [0.89–0.93] | ----- | ------ |
SATLAIND | 0.92 | [0.90–0.94] | 0.92 | [0.87–0.95] |
SATLAEXD | 0.86 | [0.82–0.89] | 0.87 | [0.80–0.91] |
SATLA_T | 0.94 | [0.92–0.95] | ----- | ------ |
BIETR_T | 0.89 | [0.86–0.92] | 0.90 | [0.86–0.93] |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(2) | 0.77 *** | ||||||||
(3) | 0.90 *** | 0.97 *** | |||||||
(4) | −0.64 *** | −0.77 *** | −0.76 *** | ||||||
(5) | −0.59 *** | −0.72 *** | −0.71 *** | 0.87 *** | |||||
(6) | −0.63 *** | −0.77 *** | −0.76 *** | 0.96 *** | 0.97 *** | ||||
(7) | 0.49 *** | 0.56 *** | 0.56 *** | −0.62 *** | −0.53 *** | −0.59 *** | |||
(8) | 0.35 ** | 0.25 * | 0.28 * | −0.25 * | −0.30 *** | −0.27 * | 0.19 * | ||
(9) | 0.52 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.50 *** | −0.42 *** | −0.36 *** | −0.40 *** | 0.28 ** | 0.58 *** | |
(10) | 0.51 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.49 *** | −0.41 *** | −0.37 *** | −0.40 *** | 0.27 ** | 0.63 *** | 0.99 *** |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(2) | 0.77 *** | |||||
(3) | 0.09 | −0.00 | ||||
(4) | −0.10 | 0.07 | −0.09 | |||
(5) | 0.03 | 0.10 | −0.03 | 0.53 *** | ||
(6) | −0.08 | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.58 *** | 0.63 *** | |
(7) | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.12 | −0.14 | −0.21 * | −0.05 |
(8) | −0.07 | −0.08 | 0.11 | −0.18 | −0.12 | −0.12 |
(9) | −0.05 | −0.07 | 0.10 | −0.19* | −0.15 | −0.11 |
SEQCSXD | SEASXD | SEQ_T | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M (DT) | Md (RIC) | M (DT) | Md (RIC) | M (DT) | Md (RIC) | |
Nationality | ||||||
European | 8.7 (2.6) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.9 (4.7) | 9.0 (3.0) | 19.5 (6.6) | 17.0 (4.0) |
South America | 8.9 (2.5) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.3 (4.3) | 8.0 (3.0) | 19.2 (6.1) | 16.0 (3.5) |
Marital status | ||||||
Married | 8.5 (1.9) | 8.0 (0.0) | 9.45 (2.4) | 8.0 (2.0) | 17.9 (4.1) | 16.0 (2.0) |
With partner | 8.5 (1.1) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.4 (6.6) | 9.0 (2.0) | 19.9 (7.6) | 17.0 (4.0) |
Single | 8.9 (3.2) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.4 (4.9) | 9.0 (4.3) | 20.3 (7.2) | 17.0 (6.0) |
Others | 9.7 (4.1) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.5 (3.5) | 9.5 (3.0) | 20.2 (7.4) | 17.5 (3.0) |
Studies | ||||||
Unqualified | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 16.0 (0.0) | 16.0 (0.0) |
Primary | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.0 (3.5) | 10.0 (2.0) | 19.0 (3.5) | 18.0 (2.0) |
Secondary | 8.9 (3.4) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.3 (6.2) | 9.0 (3.5) | 20.3 (8.9) | 17.0 (3.5) |
University students | 8.7 (2.3) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.5 (4.1) | 8.0 (3.0) | 19.2 (5.6) | 16.0 (4.0) |
Type of contract | ||||||
Indefinite | 8.4 (1.4) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.4 (4.0) | 8.0 (3.0) | 18.9 (4.9) | 16.5 (3.8) |
Temporary | 9.2 (3.7) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.2 (5.5) | 9.0 (4.0) | 20.5 (8.4) | 17.0 (4.0) |
Others | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 9.0 (2.2) | 8.0 (0.0) | 17.0 (2.2) | 16.0 (0.0) |
Type of shift | ||||||
Morning or afternoon | 8.8 (2.1) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.8 (5.5) | 8.0 (3.0) | 19.5 (7.0) | 16.0 (4.0) |
Morning and afternoon | 8.9 (3.0) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.1 (4.6) | 9.0 (4.0) | 19.9 (6.9) | 17.0 (4.0) |
Others | 8.2 (0.5) | 8.0 (0.0) | 9.3 (1.5) | 9.0 (2.0) | 17.4 (1.9) | 17.0 (2.0) |
Type of company | ||||||
Public | 9.0 (2.7) | 8.0 (0.0) | 11.1 (4.4) | 9.0 (4.0) | 20.1 (6.2) | 17.0 (4.0) |
Private | 8.6 (2.5) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.5 (4.6) | 8.0 (3.0) | 19.2 (6.5) | 16.0 (3.0) |
Position in the company | ||||||
Address: | 8.1 (0.2) | 8.0 (0.0) | 9.0 (1.7) | 8.0 (1.0) | 17.1 (1.8) | 16.0 (1.0) |
Intermediate control | 8.9 (3.1) | 8.0 (0.0) | 10.5 (4.2) | 8.0 (3.0) | 19.4 (6.7) | 16.0 (3.0) |
Technician | 8.6 (1.1) | 8.0 (0.0) | 12.6 (6.3) | 10.0 (9.0) | 21.1 (7.3) | 18.0 (9.0) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the University Association of Education and Psychology. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Soler-Sánchez, M.I.; López-Pina, J.A.; Meseguer-de Pedro, M. Psychometric Properties of the SEQ-W Scale: An Instrument for the Estimation of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2025, 15, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15060101
Soler-Sánchez MI, López-Pina JA, Meseguer-de Pedro M. Psychometric Properties of the SEQ-W Scale: An Instrument for the Estimation of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2025; 15(6):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15060101
Chicago/Turabian StyleSoler-Sánchez, M. Isabel, José Antonio López-Pina, and Mariano Meseguer-de Pedro. 2025. "Psychometric Properties of the SEQ-W Scale: An Instrument for the Estimation of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 15, no. 6: 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15060101
APA StyleSoler-Sánchez, M. I., López-Pina, J. A., & Meseguer-de Pedro, M. (2025). Psychometric Properties of the SEQ-W Scale: An Instrument for the Estimation of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(6), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15060101