Psychometric Properties of the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire, Version 2: Evidence for a Two-Factor Model

Anthony N. Reffi · Caitlin M. Pinciotti · Holly K. Orcutt

15 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Interpersonal Violence

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies Child Abuse and Trauma Military, Security, and Education Studies

Abstract

Institutional betrayal reflects the failings of a trusted institution to prevent or respond appropriately to negative experiences. Following sexual assault, survivors who encounter institutional betrayal may experience greater distress and poorer functioning. The current study sought to assess the construct validity of the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire, Version 2 (IBQ.2) and evaluate its factor structure. Survivors of sexual assault ( N = 426) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk and completed various questionnaires related to mental health, disclosure and assault characteristics, world beliefs, and rape myth adherence. The IBQ.2 demonstrated convergent validity with disclosure to formal support providers, assault severity, turning against reactions, and beliefs about self-control, and evidenced discriminant validity with disclosure timing, rape myth adherence, and beliefs about randomness and controllability of outcomes. Notably, the IBQ.2 was unrelated to measures of distress, including symptoms of stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, providing mixed evidence for the IBQ.2’s construct validity. Confirmatory factor analyses failed to replicate the single-factor model of institutional betrayal found in a previous study, and, instead, suggested a two-factor structure of the IBQ.2 that delineates between the promotion of and response to sexual victimization. Post hoc analyses revealed that only one of the two factors (Response to Sexual Victimization) evidenced convergent and discriminant validity largely consistent with the single-factor model. The novelty of these relationships and factor structure of the IBQ.2 found in the current study warrants replication in future research.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 1999Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives 2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1995The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories 1996Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.2005The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS‐21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample 2015The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM‐5 (PCL‐5): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation 2006Scale Development Research

Cited by

2021Assessing Institutional Betrayal Among Female Veterans Who Experienced Military Sexual Trauma: A Rasch Analysis of the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire.2

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.