Next Article in Journal
Lethal Devotion in the Tropics: A Systematic Review of Forensic and Criminological Insights into the Jonestown Event
Previous Article in Journal
Repeated Blunt-Force Trauma in an Elderly Male: An Atypical Intimate Partner Homicide Case Involving a Female Partner
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forensic Sciences
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/forensicsci6020047
forensicsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preliminary Construction and Validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in a Sample of Male University Students

by
Silvia Polver
1,2,
Andrea Bobbio
3 and
Alessandro Angrilli
1,*
1
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy
2
Groupe de Recherches sur l’Analyse Multimodale de la Fonction Cérébrale, Unité Mixte de Recherche 1105, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Université de Picardie, 80054 Amiens, France
3
Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forensic Sci. 2026, 6(2), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6020047
Submission received: 27 February 2026 / Revised: 16 May 2026 / Accepted: 20 May 2026 / Published: 27 May 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Stalking is a well-established and studied crime in the forensic field. Nevertheless, research on the psychological aspects of stalking behaviors remains limited due to the lack of specific assessment tools. This two-phase research project aims to propose and validate a new instrument—the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)—to identify the possible latent psychological dimensions characterizing early stalking tendencies. Methods: During the first phase of questionnaire development, a thematic focus group comprising five psychologists generated 55 items. These items underwent preliminary screening with a sample of 85 students to assess clarity and redundancy; this process addressed semantic issues and resulted in a revised 48-item version. In the second validation phase (Study 1), the 48-item SAQ was administered to a sample of 349 male students whose demographic profiles matched those typically associated with potential stalkers; following this, 15 items were retained. In Study 2, the 15-item SAQ was cross-validated on an independent sample of 380 male students. To assess its validity, correlations were analyzed with a battery of personality inventories, including the LSRP, ECR-R, AQ, PESES, SRSS, RelRQ, ASI-S, and BIDR-6. Results: Following item and factor analyses, a model comprising two latent factors—Insistence (SAQ-INS) and Exaggerated Jealousy (SAQ-EXJ)—and 15 indicators emerged. Internal consistency was robust, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. In Study 2, as hypothesized, SAQ-EXJ correlated positively with anger and hostility (AQ) and with antisocial and impulsive traits (LSRP-F2), although these associations were modest (r = 0.30). Among the significant Pearson’s correlations, three were found to be substantial (r > 0.50): specifically, those between the SAQ and anxious attachment style (ECR-Ranx), relational rumination (RelRQ), and sexism (ASI-S). Conclusions: In conclusion, the final SAQ structure revealed two primary factors—Insistence and Exaggerated Jealousy—that account for stalking as a continuous construct. These factors demonstrated significant associations with several critical personality traits. The final questionnaire comprises 24 items, including nine fillers; consequently, it is efficient to administer and suitable for both research and psycho-educational interventions among adolescents and other potentially vulnerable populations.

1. Introduction

Stalking can be defined as a pattern of unwanted, intrusive, and repeated behaviors directed toward a specific individual that induces fear and distress [1,2].
Despite commonalities across legal frameworks, a universal and standardized definition of intrusive behaviors remains elusive, and conviction rates for stalking offenses remain consistently low [3]. Stalking consists of a constellation of diverse attitudes and behaviors, which do not necessarily manifest together or concurrently. The most frequently implemented persecutory behaviors include: hyper-intimacy (e.g., persistent unwanted affection and constant messaging); mediated contact (e.g., insulting or demanding messages); interactional contact (e.g., unwanted physical appearances); surveillance (e.g., monitoring the victim’s movements and frequenting their usual locations); invasion (e.g., covertly obtaining private information or unauthorized photography); harassment and intimidation (e.g., involving third parties to contact the victim); coercion and threats (e.g., sending threatening communications); and aggression or violence (e.g., physical restraint) [4,5]. Most stalking victims are subjected to intense jealousy, including the use of disparaging epithets and behaviors designed to make them feel inferior or worthless [4]. Empirically, victims who experience surveillance behaviors report being subjected to significantly higher levels of violence [4,6]. Generally, jealousy has been identified as a predictor of abusiveness within couples and appears to play a significant role in stalking by predicting intrusive behaviors [7].
Individuals who stalk ex-intimate partners tend to exhibit greater violence toward their victims than those who stalk strangers or acquaintances [7,8,9]. This finding highlights a notable discrepancy in victim perception; past research indicates that individuals are more likely to label a behavior as stalking when the perpetrator is a stranger, despite national surveys consistently showing that ex-partners pose a significantly higher risk [9]. Consistent with these findings, a comprehensive study on stalking prevalence in Italy estimates that 31.5% of women aged 16 to 70 have experienced some form of partner or ex-partner violence in their lifetime. Within this context, 5.6% of calls to support services were specifically related to seeking assistance for persecutory behaviors [5]. Stalking perpetration exhibits a marked gender imbalance; males accounted for 85.9% of perpetrators, compared to 14.1% for females. In 70% of cases, persecutory behavior occurred more than once a week; these behaviors persisted for several months following a breakup in 58.8% of instances and for over a year in 20.4% of cases [5]. However, regarding gender distribution, some surveys report comparable rates of intimate partner violence and stalking perpetration between males and females [10,11]. However, these reports may be biased by a failure to define the broader context of the violence. While situational violence is consistently reported as being equally distributed across genders, violence within the framework of coercive control is disproportionately perpetrated by males [11]. It can be argued that the same applies to stalking, as coercive control represents one of the foundational pillars of stalking behavior.
Within this framework, stalking has been conceptualized as an operating mechanism rooted in dysfunctional or insecure attachment behaviors [7]. The victim’s attempts to terminate the relationship often trigger intense anger and escalated relationship pursuit, fueled by the perpetrator’s fear of abandonment and heightened rejection sensitivity [12,13]. When attempts at relational closeness are frustrated, pursuers tend to engage in rumination—a tendency that typically escalates over time. These ruminative thoughts contribute to the amplification of negative affect, particularly concerning feelings of jealousy, anger, and shame [14]. Moreover, perpetrators may rely on socially accepted beliefs suggesting that victims implicitly enjoy the attention, further motivating their persistence [15]. In this context, stalking behaviors are often conflated with courtship and perceived as flattering. This stems from a widespread romanticized narrative where the pursuit of a reluctant woman by a persistent man is ultimately rewarded. Traditional gender-role stereotypes may exacerbate these distorted perceptions, providing a social justification for intrusive behavior [2,16].
The legal assessment of stalking behavior is typically based on an ex-post evaluation close to or after a crime commitment, but often the legal acknowledgment of a stalking action occurs quite late and is not able to prevent injury or the death of the victims. For this reason, it would be worthwhile to assess perpetrators’ psychological profile, thus allowing the identification of behavioral traits distinguishing individuals at risk, before they commit stalking crimes [9]. Even more important, such a tool facilitates the assessment of stalking risk within community samples—such as high school students—thereby enabling the design, implementation, and evaluation of targeted psycho-educational interventions.
To date, inconsistent definitions and measurements plague stalking research [17]. Consequently, the standardization and operationalization of stalking constructs are of paramount importance. Stalking measures must undergo rigorous validation and reliability testing, with items grounded in established empirical research [18]. Nevertheless, direct questions on self-reported stalking perpetration pose some challenges, since the tendency to exhibit a positive self-image may render answers unreliable [19]. In addition to the scarcity of specialized tools, most existing measures of related constructs possess adequate face validity but frequently lack comprehensive data on criterion, divergent, or convergent validity [19]. Furthermore, it is particularly valuable to examine subclinical tendencies in the general population. While these may not constitute stalking behavior per se, they help characterize the psychosocial contexts in which such behaviors are likely to emerge or be socially normalized. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis that the variability in stalking manifestations can be effectively captured through a reduced set of latent and transversal dimensions, representing the core features of the phenomenon. Drawing from the existing literature, we hypothesized a three-factor structure comprising: pervasive control, inappropriate romantic pursuit, and exaggerated jealousy. The first dimension is designed to capture the tendency to exert coercive control, whether implicit or overt, over a partner’s behaviors and daily habits. The second dimension focuses on the employment of inappropriate strategies to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with a reluctant partner. The third dimension assesses obsessional jealousy, a trait often associated with the escalation toward psychological or physical aggression and assault. Finally, our measure was designed to be subtle, to discourage responses guided by social desirability. Given that national statistics on stalking in Italy (ISTAT 2012–2024 [5]) indicate that 74% to 76% of victims are women—a rate that has remained stable over the last decade—and that perpetrators are male in the vast majority of cases (97%), we opted to begin our validation process by targeting the gender most representative of stalking perpetration in the Italian context.
Subsequently, we describe the methodological procedures and analytical steps that led to the initial validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) within a sample of Italian male university students.

2. Plan of Studies

The research project involved the development and initial validation of the SAQ, a process structured into two distinct phases and two validation studies. During the initial construction phase, items were generated through a focus group comprising five experts specializing in psychobiology, clinical, personality, forensic, and social psychology. During this initial construction phase, a pilot survey was conducted with a mixed-gender group of university students to evaluate the appropriateness, clarity, and redundancy of the items, while gathering qualitative feedback and suggestions. Subsequently, Study 1 aimed to establish a robust preliminary version of the SAQ using a sample of male university students. Finally, Study 2 was designed to confirm the factorial structure and reliability of the scale, as well as to assess convergent validity by correlating SAQ scores with relevant psychological traits.
The overall research project was approved by the Ethics Committee for Psychological Research at the University of Padova (Protocol N.4896).

3. Phase 1—Questionnaire Construction

3.1. Item Generation

For item creation, we started with a thorough analysis of the literature to identify the hypothesized characteristics comprising early stalking behaviors [7,8,9,13,14]. This led to the categorization of three broad, parsimonious, related to each other but distinct features, namely: Insistence, referring to the context of coercive control; Inappropriate Courtship, referring to the devious justifications of stalking behaviors as romantic pursuit leading to hyper-intimacy behaviors, and Exaggerated Jealousy, referring to possessiveness and aggressive reactions in the face of (imagined) rejection.
Coherently, several items about these separate characteristics were generated. To do so, we organized two thematic focus groups in series with 5 psychologists, and we derived a 55-item questionnaire divided into three factors: Insistence (INS, n = 22), Inappropriate Courtship (INAC, n = 19), and Exaggerated Jealousy (EXJ, n = 14). All the most common stalking behaviors, as reported in the literature and previously discussed, were included as items. We completed the list by adding 9 fillers, reaching an overall pool of 64 items (see Table A1, Appendix A). The response scale was set to a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 = absolutely in disagreement to 5 = absolutely in agreement.

3.2. Questionnaire Screening

To assess potential issues regarding items’ lack of clarity, redundancy, or syntactic and/or lexical complexities, we administered the 64 items to a group of 85 people, both males (n = 15) and females (n = 70) students (Mean age = 23.04 years, SD = 2.31), enrolled in a Psychology course at the University of Padova. After informed consent and filling in the questionnaire, participants were invited to write, on a separate sheet, comments on questionnaire issues, especially notifying a list of redundant or unclear items.
We collected and discussed their comments and revised the items accordingly. As a result, 7 items were discarded: 5 from the Insistence factor and 2 from the Inappropriate Courtship factor (i.e., Items 3, 14, 15, 26, 30, 49, 58; see Table A1, Appendix A).

4. Phase 2—Validation of the SAQ

4.1. Study 1. Test of Factorial Structure and Reliability Estimates

4.1.1. Participants

We referred to a convenient sample of male undergraduate students since research has shown that prevalence rates of stalking behaviors are higher in persons aged 18 to 24 years [13]. This relationship is not solely due to data achieved from college samples but appears to be largely accountable to the effects of age and household income [17]. We referred only to male participants due to the proposed gender imbalance in stalking perpetration [11]. Moreover, we decided to focus only on heterosexual participants, since stalking in LGBTQ+ individuals is still not well described. For example, it remains unclear whether victims of LGBTQ+ stalking are experiencing a domestic crime, a hate crime, both, or neither [20,21,22].
Participants were recruited during their classes at the University of Padova, thanks to the collaboration of colleagues from different Faculties. They were given a link to access the anonymous and structured online questionnaire, which was composed of the pilot study-revised 48 SAQ items, plus the 9 filler items and a few socio-demographic questions (i.e., age and course of study). To encourage participation, which was voluntarily, two randomly extracted participants were rewarded with a €100 prize. Participants approved a written online informed consent in which the main aim of the study was generically described as validation of a measure assessing attitudes towards romantic relationships. After completion, they received a quick and complete debrief and were given the researchers’ contacts so that they could be informed about the research results at the end of data collection.
Participants of Study 1 were 349 male students; the mean age was 21.38 years (SD = 2.3); 242 participants attended bachelor’s degrees, and 107 were studying to obtain master’s degrees. Most participants were enrolled in the Faculty of Engineering (n = 206, 58.02%); then, the Faculty of Chemistry (n = 38, 10.70%), the Faculty of Mathematics (n = 24, 9.41%), and the Faculty of Materials Science (n = 15, 5.88%).

4.1.2. Data Analysis

To identify problematic items, skewness and kurtosis were scrutinized for all items. Subsequently, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed, applying the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method with the oblimin rotation, since the latent factors were expected to be correlated. Cronbach’s alpha was adopted as a reliability estimate. Filler items were not considered in these analyses, which were carried out on the 48 items aimed at individuating the three main dimensions of early stalking tendencies (i.e., Insistence, Inappropriate Courtship, and Exaggerated Jealousy).
All analyses were conducted with R 4.3.3 using the psych package [23].

4.1.3. Results

The seven items which showed issues concerning skewness and/or kurtosis indices (which are acceptable if they both fall within ±2.0 cut-off point; e.g., [24]) were deleted from the item pool: 4 belonged to the Exaggerated Jealousy factor, 2 to the Insistence and 1 to the Inappropriate Courtship factors (i.e., Items n. 4, 7, 21, 28, 45, 48, 54; see Table A1, Appendix A).
Regarding the output of the EFA, the first three-factor solution was sub-optimal. Specifically, we observed that several items belonging to either the Insistence or the Inappropriate Courtship factors presented with weak loading (i.e., lower than 0.40), or loaded on both factors (i.e., cross-loadings). Moreover, Cattell’s scree test suggested limiting the extraction to only two factors. Altogether, we deemed it appropriate to opt for a simpler two-factor solution.
The analysis was repeated, imposing the extraction of only two factors, that is, one resulting from the merging of the Insistence and the Inappropriate Courtship factors, which maintained its overwhelming Insistence connotations and therefore was not renamed, and one standing for the Exaggerated Jealousy content. After a check on the factors’ theoretical standings, we removed additional 21 items showing low loadings on the two factors structure (i.e., Items 1, 8, 13, 17, 18, 24, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63; see Table A1, Appendix A).
Then, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out starting from the variance-covariance matrix and with the ML method. Eventually, to improve model fit, it was necessary to delete 5 more items (i.e., Items 2, 11, 19, 32, 59; see Appendix A), due to both low factor loadings or cross-loadings, and the indications coming from the inspection of modification indices (if higher than 3.84; e.g., [25]). In sum, this led to a final SAQ structure of 15 items, of which 8 belonged to the Insistence factor and 7 to the Exaggerated Jealousy factor (see Table A1, Appendix A). The final SAQ also includes the 9 fillers; therefore, its overall administration is very fast.
Altogether, we observed a good model fit (e.g., [26]) as shown by the following indices: χ2(89) = 183.09, p ≅ 0.00, χ2/df = 2.06, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI: 0.04, 0.07), CFI = 0.98, and SRMR = 0.05. Factor loadings are presented in Appendix A. The correlation between the two latent factors (ϕ) was equal to 0.64, while Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Insistence and the Exaggerated Jealousy factors were 0.78 and 0.85, respectively. The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the SAQ was 0.87.

4.1.4. Discussion—Study 1

For the development of the SAQ, we began with an in-depth examination of the existing literature regarding both stalking behaviors from a forensic perspective and related, broader psychological concepts such as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), sexism, and personality traits that might precipitate the occurrence of full-blown stalking. We consulted such a wide range of literature to capture the primary clinical, personality, and socio-psychological correlates that may represent competing risk factors for these behaviors. Indeed, as previously stated, the ultimate objective of the SAQ is to identify individuals potentially at risk in order to implement interventions designed to prevent the occurrence of stalking behaviors. The 55 SAQ items (9 of which were fillers) were developed through focus groups comprising experts (Construction phase); subsequently, all items were subjected to both appropriateness and clarity checks via a student screening of the questionnaire.
In the second phase (Study 1), 355 male participants were recruited to test the initial questionnaire’s theorized factorial structure. The combination of results from item analysis, EFA, and CFA guided the selection of a robust and parsimonious two-factor model featuring 15 indicators: Insistence (8 indicators) and Exaggerated Jealousy (7 indicators). Albeit not explicitly hypothesized at the outset of the study, this is nonetheless consistent with the reviewed literature, as insistence-related behaviors and inappropriate courtship strategies shared a common denominator that can be more easily summarized with “persistence of unwanted behaviors”, so we kept the short descriptor Insistence. In support of this, several inappropriate courtship items included in the final questionnaire did fall in this category-factor: it is the case, for instance (see Table A1, Appendix A), of the item n. 2 (“Even though she doesn’t care about it, I insist a lot on giving a goodnight kiss”)or item n. 12 (Usually, all women are flattered by persisting courtships). Consequently, the two factors were merged in one descriptor termed “Insistence”. In line with this, it has been reported that stalking behaviors consist of two factors: one captures control, surveillance, and insisted-interactional contact (the latter potentially taking the form of hyper-intimacy, wherein normal romantic courtship behaviors are pushed to an extreme); the other captures dimensions of harassment, intimidation, coercion, threat, invasion, aggression, and violence [19].
Altogether, the SAQ appeared to be a practical tool, characterized by acceptable levels of both structural validity and reliability.

4.2. Study 2: Re-Test of Factorial Structure and Reliability of the SAQ, and Correlation with Related and Validated Personality Traits

4.2.1. Participants

As in Study 1, we had the opportunity to recruit another group of male heterosexual students belonging to the University of Padova. Three hundred and eighty participants were administered both the previously validated 15-item SAQ (plus the 9 filler items; in total, 24 items) and all questionnaires selected to assess its validity. The mean age of the sample was 21.89 years (SD = 2.66, range 18–39); 275 participants attended a bachelor’s degree, while 105 attended a master’s degree course. All participants were enrolled in scientific themes. Most participants came from the Faculty of Engineering (n = 186, 54.06%), the Faculty of Psychology (n = 44, 12.79%), the Faculty of Informatics (n = 26, 7.55%), and the Faculty of Mathematics (n = 12, 3.48%).

4.2.2. Methods

The second study aimed to support the conclusions of Study 1 as regards the factorial structure and reliability of the SAQ and to investigate the relationships between individual scores on indicators of early stalking tendencies and scores of other well-known and validated personality and behavioral measures.
We did not make stringent hypotheses as concerns the strength of the tested relationships, but we postulated only the expected direction (i.e., positive or negative). The SAQ is a newly devised and preliminary measure aiming to contribute to filling a gap in the literature regarding the conceivable empirical investigation of the early sets of characteristics that might lead, after repeated stressors, to the enactment of full-blown stalking behaviors. However, our expectation as regards SAQ composite scores was to find, in a male student community sample, low levels of early stalking tendencies or behaviors.

4.2.3. Measures and Hypotheses

All measures were administered in a pseudo-random order to clusters of participants; the 15-item SAQ was always presented first to avoid dragging unwanted effects from the other questionnaires, while the other measures were presented randomly. As for Study 1, participants were not told the main aim of the questionnaire, but they were quickly debriefed after completion, and they were all given the contact information of the researchers so that they could request information about the research results of data collection. Again, to encourage participation, which was still on a voluntary basis, two randomly extracted participants were rewarded with a €100 prize.
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)
The LSRP [27] measures psychopathy traits in the general population referring to a 1 to 4 Likert scale (from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”) and it is comprised by two factors: Factor 1, measuring primary psychopathy traits (16 items, alpha = 0.51), and Factor 2 measuring secondary psychopathy traits (10 items, alpha = 0.57). Primary psychopathy is characterized by callous and unemotional behaviors; as such, we hypothesized a negative relationship with scores of our questionnaire, due to individuals with stalking tendencies being characterized by high negative emotionality and impulse-driven behaviors. We chose to focus only on the two separate factors and not on the total of the LSRPS since, even if correlated, these factors measure two distinct personality patterns.
We expected to find a positive relationship between the SAQ and Factor 2 of the LSRPS, which measures high impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and high negative emotionality levels typical of secondary psychopathy (H1).
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)
The AQ [28] measures the personality trait of aggression and its four hypothesized dimensions: physical (9 items) and verbal aggression (5 items), anger (7 items), and hostility (8 items) (alpha, considering all items = 0.63). The response scale is a 5-point Likert scale going from “least” to “most” characteristic measuring the instrumental, affective, and cognitive components of aggression. For our study, we used an ad hoc translation of the AQ, since the questionnaire is still not validated in Italian samples.
We expected to find a positive relationship with the SAQ due to the reported sensitivity of stalkers to environmental stressors and their high anger and proneness to act on negative emotionality after perceived provocations (H3).
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R)
The ECR-R [29] is constituted by two factors measuring Anxious (18 items, alpha = 0.61) and Avoidant (18 items, alpha = 0.61) attachment styles in adult romantic relationships. The response scale ranged from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“more often”).
Since an anxious attachment style is concerned with the fear of abandonment by romantic partners and hyper-vigilance regarding rejection, we hypothesized a positive relationship with our questionnaire (H4). Moreover, since an avoidant attachment style corresponds to feeling uncomfortable with closeness and being reluctant to get close to others, we hypothesized a negative relationship between this factor and our questionnaire (H5).
Perceived Empathic Self-Efficacy Scale—Adult (PESES)
The PESES [30] is an Italian-developed 12 items questionnaire measuring one’s perceived capability to sense another person’s feelings and need for emotional support, to discern emotional expressions, to experience emotions from another person’s perspective, to respond with empathy to others’ distress and misfortune, and to be sensitive to how one’s actions affect others’ feelings (alpha = 0.62). The scale ranges from 1 (completely not able) to 5 (completely able).
In this case, we expected a negative relationship between this scale and the SAQ (H7) as stalkers usually do not take the victim’s perspective and lack empathy.
State Self-Esteems Scale (SSES)
The SSES [31] is a measure of self-esteem encompassing three correlated dimensions, namely Performance (6 items), indexing the level of perceived worthiness of one’s own performances; Social (4 items), measuring the level of feeling self-consciousness, perceived foolishness, or embarrassment about individuals’ public selves; and Appearance (4 items), focusing on the level of perceived physical attractiveness (alpha considering all items = 0.63). The response scale is a 6-point Likert-type one, ranging from 1 = absolutely in disagreement to 6 = absolutely in agreement.
We expected to find a negative relationship between the three scores of the SSES and the SAQ (H8), since a distorted perception and a lack of confidence in one’s social feeling, coupled with reduced self-esteem, may impact one’s romantic relationships, fueling fear of abandonment.
Relational Rumination Questionnaire (RelRQ)
The RelRQ [14] is a community-validated questionnaire composed of three factors reflecting the related themes of rumination about beginning a relationship (5 items), rumination about an established relationship (6 items), and rumination about ex-partners and break-ups (5 items) (alpha, considering all items = 0.57). A 0 (“never”) to 4 (“almost always”) Likert-type response scale is used to collect individual answers. An ad hoc translation of the questionnaire was carried out due to the lack of Italian validation.
Given that stalking behaviors are a subcategory of IPV, and the RelRQ aims to evaluate IPV-related behaviors, we indeed expected to find a positive relationship with the SAQ (H9).
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory—Short Version (ASI-S)
To assess ambivalent sexism, we used the 21-item Italian-validated version of the ASI questionnaire [32]. The ASI measures, through a 0 to 5 (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) Likert-type response scale, two constructs, namely benevolent and hostile sexism. Hostile sexism encompasses beliefs of discrimination toward women (6 items), while benevolent sexism is a set of interrelated sexist attitudes that ‘positively’ and stereotypically depict women in restricted roles (6 items). Other than computing a score for the two subscales, items can be averaged to create a total score (alpha, considering all items = 0.53).
We expected a positive relationship between the overall ASI-S and our measure (H10).
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding—Short Version (BIDR 6)
As a control measure for social desirability confounds, we used the Italian version of the BIDR 6 [33]. The scale captures both Impression management (IM, 8 items, alpha = 0.80) and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE, 8 items, alpha = 0.85) tendencies, and answers are scored on a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 = absolutely in disagreement to 6 = absolutely in agreement. Presenting ourselves as people indulging in behaviors showing insistence or exaggerated jealousy, also in high stalking individuals, should not be seen as socially desirable; thus, we expected a low to a non-significant relationship with the SAQ, otherwise, the construct validity of the scale would be threatened (H11).
At the end of the questionnaire, some additional socio-demographic information was requested.
Concerning the above described questionnaires, it is necessary to highlight that, while Cronbach’s alpha above 0.60 is generally considered acceptable for exploratory research (e.g., [34,35]), we observed suboptimal reliability for certain measures in our sample, specifically the LSRP and ASI-S. These scales capture attitudes and behaviors that vary considerably across genders; thus, the low reliability observed may stem from the fact that these instruments were originally validated on mixed-gender samples [25,26,30], whereas our study relied exclusively on male participants. Future research should aim to corroborate these findings and address this limitation by ensuring more targeted validation).

4.2.4. Data Analysis

A CFA on the SAQ was performed (variance-covariance matrix, ML method), following the two-correlated factor solution that emerged from Study 1. Then, reliability estimates were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for all measures. Data analysis was conducted via R 4.3.3 software and the psych package [23].

4.2.5. Results

CFA results supported the good data-fit for the SAQ two-correlated factor model: χ2(89) = 196.69, p ≅ 0.00, χ2/df = 2.21, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI: 0.05, 0.07), CFI = 0.96, and SRMR = 0.06. The correlation between the two latent factors was equal to 0.63. Factor loadings are summarized in Appendix A.
Cronbach’s alpha for the Insistence (INS, α = 0.74), the Exaggerated Jealousy (EXJ, α = 0.82), and the SAQ total (α = 0.84) factors were acceptable.
Correlations were computed considering both factors (SAQ-INS, SAQ-EXJ) and the SAQ total score. All correlation values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the False Discovery Rate (FDR; [34]). First, the influence of social desirability was investigated by analyzing the correlation of SAQ-INS, SAQ-EXJ, and SAQ-total with the two dimensions of the BIDR 6 short version. Correlations were very weak, when significant, and negative for both the total of the BIDR 6 (SAQ-EXJ: r = −0.14, p < 0.05) and the IM subscale (SAQ-total: r = −0.12, p < 0.05; SAQ-EXJ: r = −0.13, p < 0.05). Thus, the validity of the SAQ seemed not to be threatened by a social desirability bias.
Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients between SAQ-INS, SAQ-EXJ, SAQ-total, and the other measures considered.

4.2.6. Discussion—Study 2

Overall, the theoretical range of composite scores for SAQ-INS (8 items), SAQ-EXJ (7 items),and SAQ-total (15 items) was 0–40, 0–35, and 0–75, respectively. Therefore, as expected, it is possible to conclude that, in our convenience sample, which belongs to the general non-clinical population, early stalking tendencies were very low (Table 1).
Correlations between the SAQ and the LSRP indicate that stalking tendencies may represent a similar yet distinct construct from overall psychopathic tendencies, particularly regarding the primary psychopathy traits measured by Factor 1 of the LSRP, which is characterized by emotional detachment. Indeed, for Factor 1, only very weak correlations were observed. However, when considering Factor 2 of the LSRP (secondary psychopathy), we found slightly higher correlation ranges, particularly with the SAQ-EXJ factor. This is noteworthy as it suggests that individuals characterized by exaggerated jealousy may be especially prone to enacting the impulsive and destructive behaviors typical of secondary psychopathy, such as antisocial behavior.
Regarding the AQ, we again observed a weak positive relationship, which was relatively stronger with the SAQ-EXJ factor. This aligns with the expectation that exaggerated jealousy correlates with the hostility and verbal or physical aggression measured by the Aggression Questionnaire. Regarding attachment styles, we found a positive relationship between the SAQ and the Anxiety subscale of the ECR. This is particularly noteworthy, as stalking traits may be interpreted as being associated with fear of abandonment and insecurity—variables that could potentially serve as antecedents or important factors leading to stalking behaviors. By contrast, only very weak relationships were found between the Avoidant subscale of the ECR and the SAQ total score, as well as its subscales (SAQ-EXJ and SAQ-INS). More specifically, the correlations between the Avoidant subscale and both the SAQ-total and SAQ-INS did not reach statistical significance. Thus, anxious attachment, rather than avoidant attachment, appears to better correlate with and explain the SAQ scores.
Regarding self-esteem (SSES), results showed a weak negative correlation between the SSES total score and both the SAQ-total and the SAQ-EXJ subscale. The association between the SAQ-INS and the SSES did not reach statistical significance. This is consistent with our previous discussion, as low self-esteem and high levels of attachment anxiety may trigger a profound fear of abandonment, leading to the possessiveness and controlling behaviors typical of stalking. Moreover, the presence of low self-esteem combined with a lack of trust toward women may, in a sense, serve to justify the enactment of such behaviors by these individuals. This interpretation is supported by the moderate correlation found between the SAQ and the ASI-S sexism subscale.
Indeed, we observed a moderate positive correlation between the SAQ and the RelRQ, an instrument specifically designed to assess broad-spectrum IPV behaviors. Notably, the weaker correlation with the RelRQ pertains to the SAQ-INS factor. This relatively lower association suggests that while stalking behaviors are part of the broader construct of IPV, they constitute a distinct and significant category within the wider spectrum of relational violence.
Finally, we did not find significant relationships between the PESES and the SAQ. We initially hypothesized that high stalking traits would be negatively correlated with empathy, as such individuals often lack empathy and compassion toward others, particularly toward their partners. This lack of correlation may be due to the restricted variance of empathy scores within our student sample—a variance that would likely be broader in a clinical or forensic sample of actual stalkers.
Results from Study 2 supported the goodness-of-fit of the two-factor model (comprising the 8-item Insistence and 7-item Exaggerated Jealousy subscales), aimed at assessing potential stalking traits and their sub-domains, as previously identified in Study 1. Furthermore, the findings provided evidence regarding the psychological patterns and variable combinations that may characterize potential stalking perpetrators. In these individuals, jealousy, impulsivity, possessiveness, rumination, and the need to control the partner may serve as potential correlates of stalking perpetration. More specifically, aggressive acts stemming from relational rumination cycles can be interpreted as attempts to re-establish control over negative emotions triggered by a biased perception of the partner’s actions. Potential stalkers are often characterized by marked relational instability; consequently, a partner’s attempt to end the relationship may trigger anger fueled by an underlying fear of abandonment. In fact, anxious attachment patterns appear to be central in individuals with stalking tendencies. The prominent role played by anxious styles, as opposed to dismissive ones, provides further evidence that the fear of rejection and the need for control—which may lead to outbursts of anger—are core features of potential stalkers [3,6,13]. Additionally, the endorsement of negative gender stereotypes, leading to biased impressions of the opposite sex, may further justify the enactment of stalking behaviors [15].

5. General Discussion

The two-phase research project described in the present paper was conducted on two samples of Italian male university students and aimed to develop and validate a new instrument: the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). The initial model proposed three distinct factors: (1) Exaggerated Jealousy, (2) Insistence, and (3) Inappropriate Courtship. Following the first validation phase, the three-factor model was refined into a two-factor structure. The third factor, Inappropriate Courtship, was not eliminated but rather merged with Insistence, which was retained as the overarching label for the combined dimensions. Thus, the latent psychological dimensions characterizing early stalking tendencies emerged as Insistence (SAQ-INS, 8 items) and Exaggerated Jealousy (SAQ-EXJ, 7 items). Through a fruitful combination of an extensive literature review and both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the 15-item SAQ was successfully developed. The second confirmatory phase supported the SAQ’s factorial structure and reliability; furthermore, its correlations with selected personality inventories (i.e., LSRP, ECR-R, AQ, PESES, SRSS, RelRQ, ASI-S, and BIDR-6) provided meaningful information regarding its construct validity. The final version of the SAQ consists of 24 items, 9 of which serve as fillers. This streamlined format allows for rapid administration, making it particularly suitable for both research purposes and social or psycho-educational interventions targeting adolescents and other potentially vulnerable populations.

6. Limitations and Future Studies

Although the factorial structure received acceptable empirical support in the two distinct convenience samples of male university students used in this study, sample sizes were sufficient for our aim, and since goodness-of-fit indices were not particularly high in either group, we cannot rule out the possibility that analytical strategy, along with sample-specific optimization or partial overfitting, may have affected our results. Furthermore, we recruited people who, although falling within the critical age range for the onset of stalking behaviors, are not representative of the general population. Consequently, further studies involving larger and more heterogeneous samples, such as women and LGBTQ+ individuals who may engage in stalking behaviors, are needed to confirm the robustness of the SAQ’s two-factor model. Expanding the scope of the instrument in this manner will be crucial for ensuring its cross-group validity and clinical utility in a wider range of interpersonal contexts.
We must emphasize that the focus on a male-only sample was deliberate and aligned with the preliminary nature of the instrument, intended as an initial step toward a broader validation process. This decision was also informed by forensic and legal evidence in Italy, where approximately 75% of stalking victims are women—a figure that has remained stable over the years (ISTAT, 2012–2024: [5])—and the vast majority of convicted offenders (97%) are men. However, evidence from other countries suggests that stalking is increasingly prevalent among women; for instance, estimates in the United States indicate that approximately 1 in 5 women and 1 in 10 men have experienced or engaged in stalking behaviors [36]. This significant discrepancy between Italian and U.S. data likely stems from differing definitions of stalking. While our data reflect statistics from official legal charges related to enacted violence, U.S. statistics often encompass stalking behaviors in a broader sense—including controlling behaviors—that frequently do not result in legal action. Indeed, prior research suggests significant gender differences in stalking patterns and motivations: male adolescents are more likely to target ex-intimate partners, whereas female stalkers more frequently pursue estranged friends or acquaintances, reflecting distinct motivational profiles [37]. Consequently, further investigation into female stalking perpetration and broader gender differences warrants close attention in future studies. However, despite the discrepancies among diverse legal and clinical classifications of the crime, we contend that our measure provides a promising starting point for assessing stalking tendencies in a replicable manner within young populations, such as adolescents and students, as well as in non-forensic samples [19]. Indeed, identifying latent stalking traits and their incidence in high-risk populations—such as those in critical developmental stages or socio-economically disadvantaged urban areas—would facilitate the implementation of early, effective psycho-educational interventions and the monitoring of risk evolution over time.
Another acknowledged limitation of our research is that the SAQ was neither developed nor tested on actual stalkers. To establish criterion validity, the questionnaire must be validated using samples of individuals with a documented history of stalking, as well as across different age groups. Future research should also examine the instrument’s performance in diverse cultural contexts, such as those of other European countries.

7. Conclusions

The Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) initially validated in this study represents, to our knowledge, the first instrument designed to identify the latent psychological traits characterizing early stalking tendencies. Although developed using samples of male university students, this tool provides a novel framework defined by two latent dimensions—Insistence and Exaggerated Jealousy—without requiring explicit disclosure of previous stalking-related behaviors. This tool is well-suited for cost-effective psychological examination of individuals potentially exhibiting stalking-related tendencies, facilitating the prevention of related offenses. This is particularly relevant in the current era, where societal and technological shifts are reshaping interpersonal communication, making privacy violations, unwanted contact, and coercion increasingly easy to perpetrate. Crucially, the SAQ targets the psychological precursors of full-blown stalking without relying on the assessment of overt aggression, which often emerges too late for effective violence prevention [38].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.; methodology, A.A., A.B., and S.P.; software, S.P. and A.B.; formal analysis, S.P. and A.B.; investigation, A.A., A.B., and S.P.; resources, A.A.; data curation, S.P. and A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P. and A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.A., A.B., and S.P.; supervision, A.A.; project administration, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The investigation was carried out in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1975, revised in 2013). Furthermore, the study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Psychological Research at the University of Padova (approval Code: 4896, approval date: 10 July 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because of their use for ongoing prosecution studies. Access to datasets upon qualified requests should be directed to the corresponding author (A.A.).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. List of all items and the two phases after which inconsistent items were deleted.
Table A1. List of all items and the two phases after which inconsistent items were deleted.
Initial Item Pool (55), Plus The Fillers (9)Phase 1Phase 2—Study 1Phase 2—Study 2
Deleted After Item’s Screening (7)Deleted After Item Analysis (Skewness and Kurtosis) (7)Deleted After EFA (21)CFA. Insistence (INSf), Factor Loadings (8)CFA. Exaggerated Jealousy (EXJf), Factor Loadings (7)CFA. Insistence (INSf), Factor Loadings (8)CFA. Exaggerated Jealousy (EXJf), Factor Loadings (7)
(1) If my girlfriend were to leave me, I think I could commit some extreme gestures. (EXJ) *
(2) Even though she doesn’t care about it, I insist a lot on giving a goodnight kiss. (INAC)
(3) If my girlfriend were to leave me, I would try to write to people near her to reach her. (INS)*
(4) It is right to make sure that one’s girlfriend is faithful by checking all her messages. (EXJ) *
(5) Women fancy chivalry. (Filler)
(6) I think it’s very romantic to go out for dinner on the first date. (Filler)
(7) If you really love someone, it is right never to accept no as an answer. (INAC) *
(8) I firmly believe that women refuse romantic overtures only to play hard to get. (INAC) *
(9) I become really jealous if I think about the person I like talking with other boys. (EXJ) 0.58 0.75
(10) I get annoyed if my girlfriend doesn’t tell me everything she does. (EXJ) 0.60 0.48
(11) I think it’s really romantic to often show up at night in front of the house of the person I like, without her knowing. (INAC)
(12) Usually, all women are flattered by persisting courtships. (INAC) 0.50 0.65
(13) If I hear that the person I like will participate in an event, I will do everything to be there too. (INS) *
(14) One of the best ways to win back a woman is to make sure to meet her frequently. (INS)*
(15) Even if my girlfriend says she doesn’t love me, I strive to catch positive signs to keep fighting for her. (INS)*
(16) If I were to discover that my girlfriend cheated on me, I would get really annoyed. (Filler)
(17) I demand that my girlfriend keep secrets from me. (EXJ) *
(18) I think it’s very romantic to leave anonymous messages to the person I like.
(INAC)		 *
(19) I try to understand the tastes of the person I like so that I can give her things anonymously and impress her. (INAC)
(20) I think it’s very romantic to buy a woman a lot of things even if she apparently refuses. (INAC) 0.45 0.41
(21) If my girlfriend were to leave me, I could threaten her to remain together. (EXJ) *
(22) I sometimes think that all the other boys are interested in my girlfriend, and she does nothing to let them know she’s already taken.(EXJ) 0.63 0.60
(23) If I notice that other men are interested in the person, I like I try to make my presence known. (Filler)
(24) Women like it when their man controls them, even if they don’t admit it. (INS) *
(25) When women say “no”, they often mean “yes”. (INAC) 0.54 0.66
(26) I try to sit behind the person I like during lectures to see who she’s chatting with so that I can learn something about her. (INS)*
(27) I take note of the habits of the person I like so that I can see her (INS) 0.42 0.33
(28) When I find my girlfriend’s phone busy, I get suspicious. (EXJ) *
(29) If I were to notice that my girlfriend plans to leave me, I would do anything to get her back. (INAC) 0.52 0.43
(30) I think it’s a romantic gesture to often wait outside my girlfriend’s workplace/place of study, even if she says she doesn’t like it.
(INAC)		*
(31) If my girlfriend were not to answer my texts for days, I would get really worried. (Filler)
(32) I think it’s better to buy girls some drinks to get them turned on. (INAC)
(33) I happen to get really annoyed with my girlfriend because she doesn’t understand that, if I’m jealous, it’s for her good. (EXJ) 0.74 0.46
(34) It doesn’t matter if the person I like is already taken if I think it’s true love. (INAC) *
(35) I get anxious if I think about what my girlfriend might be doing in my absence. (EXJ) 0.74 0.72
(36) When I like someone, I have the constant need to know what she’s doing. (INS) *
(37) I’m not intimidated by rejections because I know that women like to be wooed. (INAC) 0.67 0.56
(38) If my girlfriend goes out often without me, I insist until she gives me an explanation.(INS) *
(39) I often get annoyed with my girlfriend because she doesn’t understand how much I care about us. (EXJ) 0.52 0.49
(40) I think that chance encounters are excellent opportunities to get to know each other. (Filler)
(41) I think that the person I like should appreciate my efforts to contact her. (INAC) *
(42) If I notice that my girlfriend is emotionally distant, I try to understand at all costs whatthe problem is(INS) *
(43) If my girlfriend goes out with a male friend, I don’t trust what she might do. (EXJ) 0.76 0.62
(44) I think it’s nice to take pictures with my girlfriend to commemorate the small things. (Filler)
(45) To prevent my girlfriend from leaving me, I’m willing to make scenes in public. (EXJ) *
(46) I find that looking for an initial skin ship is essential, even if she tries to avoid it. (INAC) 0.59 0.47
(47) I think that a greeting from the person I like is a sure sign of her interest in me. (INAC) *
(48) If I spot the person I like around the city, I try to follow her to know what she likes to do. (INS) *
(49) There are no limits when trying to win back your girlfriend. (INS)*
(50) I sometimes think that only I know what’s best for my girlfriend. (INS) *
(51) I frequently check the last access of the person I like on social networks. (INS) *
(52) If I see that my girlfriend is not aware of her problems, I think it’s my right to intervene. (INS) *
(53) I think it’s my right to intervene in the social life of my girlfriend. (INS) *
(54) If I find the person I like in a bar, I don’t give up until I get to buy her a drink. (INS) *
(55) I think that, in a relationship, it is enough to have one another and that external relations are overrated. (INS) *
(56) If my girlfriend were to leave me, I would feel a strong desire to make her pay. (EXJ) *
(57) In romance, you must know what you want. (Filler)
(58) I think it’s really romantic to insist on walking women home even if they refuse. (INAC)*
(59) If I notice that the person I like is talking with someone, I try to eavesdrop. (INS)
(60) Even if she doesn’t respond, I insist on trying to communicate with the person I like. (INS) *
(61) I think that girls don’t appreciate enough the care I have for them. (INAC) *
(62) I try to catch even the slightest sign of encouragement in order to continue the courtship. (INAC) 0.67 0.41
(63) It is right to insist a long time with your ex to straighten things up. (INS) *
(64) I would like it if the person I like thought of me as much as I think of her. (Filler)
Note: EFA = Exploratory Factor Analysis; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis; INS = Insistence domain; INAC = Inappropriate Courtship domain; EXJ = Exaggerated Jealousy domain; INSf = Insistence factor; EXJf = Exaggerated Jealousy factor. Factor loadings are referred to CFAs. Items that showed factor loading lower than 0.40 were removed, and therefore their coefficients are not reported. Asterisks indicate deleted items.

References

  1. Spitzberg, B.H.; Cupach, W.R. The Dark Side of Relationship Pursuit: From Attraction to Obsession and Stalking; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dunlap, E.E.; Lynch, K.R.; Jewell, J.A.; Wasarhaley, N.E.; Golding, J.M. Participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychol. Crime Law 2015, 21, 234–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bendlin, M.; Sheridan, L.; Johnson, A. Stalking Recidivism: A Comparison of Operational Definitions. J. Interpers. Violence 2020, 37, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dardis, C.M.; Ahrens, C.; Howard, R.L.; Mechanic, M.B. Patterns of Surveillance, Control, and Abuse Among a Diverse Sample of Intimate Partner Abuse Survivors. Violence Against Women 2020, 27, 15–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. ISTAT [Italian National Institute of Statistics]. IlNumero Delle Vittime e le Forme Della Violenza (2012–2024). 2025. Available online: https://www.istat.it/statistiche-per-temi/focus/violenza-sulle-donne/il-fenomeno/violenza-dentro-e-fuori-la-famiglia/il-numero-delle-vittime-e-le-forme-di-violenza (accessed on 13 February 2026).
  6. Ornstein, P.; Rickne, J. When Does Intimate Partner Violence Continue After Separation? Violence Against Women 2013, 19, 617–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Douglas, K.S.; Dutton, D.G. Assessing the link between stalking and domestic violence. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2001, 6, 519–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Björklund, K.; Häkkänen-Nyholm, H.; Sheridan, L.; Roberts, K.; Tolvanen, A. Latent profile approach to duration of stalking. J. Forensic Sci. 2010, 55, 1008–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. White, E.; Longpré, N.; Stefanska, E.B. Stalking Behaviors Presented by Ex-Intimate Stalkers: A Victim’s Perspective. J. Interpers. Violence 2020, 37, 7–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jackson, M.A.; Sippel, L.M.; Mota, N.; Whalen, D.; Schumacher, J.A. Borderline personality disorder and related constructs as risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2015, 24, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Johnson, M.P.; Leone, J.M.; Xu, Y. Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence in General Surveys: Ex-Spouses Required. Violence Against Women 2014, 20, 186–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dutton, D.G.; Saunders, K.; Starzomski, A.; Bartholomew, K. Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 24, 1367–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reilly, M.E.; Hines, D.A. Distress Tolerance as a Mediator of the Association Between Borderline Personality Symptoms and Obsessive Relational Intrusion: An Exploratory Analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 2017, 35, 3833–3848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Senkans, S.; McEwan, T.E.; Skues, J.; Ogloff, J.R.P. Development of a Relational Rumination Questionnaire. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2016, 90, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McKeon, B.; McEwan, T.E.; Luebbers, S. “It’s Not Really Stalking If You Know the Person”: Measuring Community Attitudes That Normalize, Justify and Minimise Stalking. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 2015, 22, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yanowitz, K.L.; Yanowitz, J.L. The Role of Gender in the Generation of Stalking Scripts. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nobles, M.R.; Cramer, R.J.; Zottola, S.A.; Desmarais, S.L.; Gemberling, T.M.; Holley, S.R.; Wright, S. Prevalence rates, reporting, and psychosocial correlates of stalking victimization: Results from a three-sample cross-sectional study. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2018, 53, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fox, K.A.; Nobles, M.R.; Fisher, B.S. Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2011, 16, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McEwan, T.E.; Simmons, M.; Clothier, T.; Senkans, S. Measuring stalking: The development and evaluation of the Stalking Assessment Indices (SAI). Psychiatry Psychol. Law 2020, 28, 435–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Harvey, S.; Mitchell, M.; Keeble, J.; Nicholls, C.M.; Rahim, N. Barriers Faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in Accessing Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment, and Sexual Violence Services—Executive Summary. 2014. Available online: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-07/140604-barriers-faced-lgbt-accessing-domestic-abuse-services-summary-en.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2026).
  21. Langenderfer-Magruder, L.; Walls, N.E.; Whitfield, D.L.; Kattari, S.K.; Ramos, D. Stalking Victimization in LGBTQ Adults: A Brief Report. J. Interpers. Violence 2020, 35, 1442–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Longobardi, C.; Badenes-Ribera, L. Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships and The Role of Sexual Minority Stressors: A Systematic Review of the Past 10 Years. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2017, 26, 2039–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Revelle, W. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Version = 1.7.8. 2017. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (accessed on 13 February 2026).
  24. Ryu, E. Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behav. Res. Methods 2011, 43, 1066–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hoyle, R.H. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  27. Levenson, M.R.; Kiehl, K.A.; Fitzpatrick, C.M. Assessing Psychopathic Attributes in a Noninstitutionalized Population. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 68, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Buss, A.H.; Perry, M. The Aggression Questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 63, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Busonera, A.; San Martini, P.; Zavattini, G.C.; Santona, A. Psychometric properties of an Italian version of the experiences in close relationships-revised (ECR-R) scale. Psychol. Rep. 2014, 114, 785–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Caprara, G.V.; Gerbino, M.; Delle Fratte, A. Autoefficaciainterpersonale [Interpersonal self-efficacy]. In La Valutazione dell’Autoefficacia [Self-Efficacy Evaluation]; Caprara, G.V., Ed.; Erickson: Trento, Italy, 2001; pp. 5–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bobbio, A. Relation of physical activity and self-esteem. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2009, 108, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rollero, C.; Glick, P.; Tartaglia, S. Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 21, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bobbio, A.; Manganelli, A.M. Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus’ BIDR 6. Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 18, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang Kudon, H.; Zhu, S.; Chen, B.; Breiding, M.J.; Leemis, R.W.; Zhang, X.; Schwank, A.; Basile, K.C. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2023/2024 Intimate Partner Violence Data Brief. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, 2026. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/media/pdfs/intimatepartnerviolence-brief.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2026).
  37. Purcell, R.; Pathé, M.; Mullen, P. Gender differences in stalking behaviour among juveniles. J. Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2010, 21, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sheridan, L.; Scott, A.J. Perceptions of harm: Verbal versus physical abuse in stalking scenarios. Crim. Justice Behav. 2010, 37, 400–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients (n = 344).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients (n = 344).
MeasureM (SD)SAQ-EXJ
7.12 (5.12)		SAQ-INS
20.98 (8.09)		SAQ-Tot
30.10 (11.53)
LSRP-F131.25 (8.21)0.19 *0.22 *0.24 *
LSRP-F220.91 (4.11)0.32 **0.12 *0.25 *
AQ68.26 (16.01)0.33 **0.16 *0.27 **
ECR-R Av43.23 (17.27)0.20 *−0.060.07
ECR-R Anx63.41 (19.27)0.64 **0.40 **0.60 **
PESES44.27 (7.34)−0.030.030.00
SSES53.76 (11.02)−0.24 *−0.04−0.16 *
RelRQ32.57 (11.60)0.60 **0.36 **0.54 **
ASI-S44.06 (19.08)0.45 **0.60 **0.60 **
Note. SAQ-EXJ = Stalking Assessment Questionnaire—Exaggerated Jealousy factor; SAQ-INS = Stalking Assessment Questionnaire—Insistence factor; SAQ-Tot = Stalking Assessment Questionnaire—Total score; LSRP-F1 = The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale—primary psychopathy traits;LSRP-F2 = The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale—secondary psychopathy traits; AQ = The Aggression Questionnaire; ECR-R Av = The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised—Avoidant factor; ECR-R Anx = The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised—Anxious factor; PESES = The Perceived Empathic Self-Efficacy Scale—Adult; SSES = The State Self-Esteems Scale; RelRQ = The Relational Rumination Questionnaire; ASI-S = The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory—Short version. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. The other correlation coefficients are available on request.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Polver, S.; Bobbio, A.; Angrilli, A. Preliminary Construction and Validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in a Sample of Male University Students. Forensic Sci. 2026, 6, 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6020047

AMA Style

Polver S, Bobbio A, Angrilli A. Preliminary Construction and Validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in a Sample of Male University Students. Forensic Sciences. 2026; 6(2):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6020047

Chicago/Turabian Style

Polver, Silvia, Andrea Bobbio, and Alessandro Angrilli. 2026. "Preliminary Construction and Validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in a Sample of Male University Students" Forensic Sciences 6, no. 2: 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6020047

APA Style

Polver, S., Bobbio, A., & Angrilli, A. (2026). Preliminary Construction and Validation of the Stalking Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in a Sample of Male University Students. Forensic Sciences, 6(2), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci6020047

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop