The Sexual Harassment in Higher Education Institutions Scale<\/strong> (known by its Spanish acronym ASIES<\/em>, Escala de Acoso Sexual en las Instituciones de Educaci\u00f3n Superior<\/em>) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Paz Guarderas and colleagues (2023)<\/a>. The instrument was engineered to assess the prevalence, manifestations, and frequency of gender-based interpersonal victimization and sexual harassment within university environments. Administered across higher education sectors comprising undergraduate and postgraduate students, faculty members, administrative staff, and service personnel, the ASIES operationalizes academic sexual harassment through a comprehensive 21-item framework. These items evaluate experiences across four distinct yet hierarchically unified behavioral dimensions: Non-Verbal Harassment<\/em> (conductas no verbales), Verbal Harassment<\/em> (conductas verbales), Physical Harassment<\/em> (conductas f\u00edsicas), and Coercion Behaviors \/ Academic Blackmail<\/em> (conductas de coerci\u00f3n y chantaje sexual). Items are scored along an authentic 5-point frequency continuum ranging from 1 (Nunca<\/em> \/ Never) to 5 (Siempre<\/em> \/ Always), capturing longitudinal behavioral incidence within campus ecosystems.<\/p>\n Psychometric evaluation of the ASIES in an extensive Ecuadorian multi-provincial sample (covering six provinces) demonstrated robust structural integrity and psychometric defensibility. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated a hierarchical structural equation model comprising four first-order latent factors subordinated to a general second-order sexual harassment construct, exhibiting exemplary goodness-of-fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .99, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .99, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .075, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .018 (90% CI [.014, .022]). Internal consistency reliability, estimated using McDonald’s hierarchical and categorical omega (ω), reached .85 for the global composite scale, with individual first-order subscale coefficients ranging from .53 to .76. The instrument addresses a critical void in Latin American forensic, organizational, and educational psychometrics, equipping institutional researchers, human rights committees, and academic policy makers with an empirically validated diagnostic tool to identify subtle, hostile-environment, and quid pro quo sexual harassment dynamics<\/span>.<\/p>\n sexual harassment, higher education, ASIES scale, psychometrics, campus victimization, gender-based violence, academic climate, quid pro quo harassment, confirmatory factor analysis, Latin America psychometrics<\/p>\n The Acoso Sexual en las Instituciones de Educaci\u00f3n Superior Scale<\/em> (ASIES) was conceived, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by an interdisciplinary team of behavioral scientists, clinical psychologists, and human rights researchers in Ecuador:<\/p>\n Sexual harassment within tertiary education represents a profound violation of human rights, an impediment to educational access and occupational advancement, and a primary driver of psychological trauma, academic attrition, and occupational burnout. Historically, empirical research addressing sexual harassment in Latin American academic institutions has been curtailed by the lack of psychometrically sound, culturally grounded diagnostic instruments. Many previous institutional investigations utilized unstandardized, ad-hoc single-item surveys or unvalidated translations of North American questionnaires (such as the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire<\/a>; SEQ) that frequently failed to reflect the bureaucratic hierarchy, cultural idiosyncrasies, normalization of micro-aggressions, and distinct socio-legal frameworks characteristic of Latin American universities.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the ASIES scale is to provide an empirically derived, linguistically authentic, and structurally robust measurement tool specifically calibrated for the university context. The ASIES addresses several clinical, epidemiological, organizational, and theoretical needs:<\/p>\n The psychological construct captured by the ASIES is conceptualized as an unwanted, non-reciprocal, gender- or sex-based behavioral imposition within the higher education sphere that compromises the dignity, psychological integrity, safety, and academic or occupational standing of an individual. Rooted in contemporary psychometric theory and gender studies, sexual harassment is operationalized not as an isolated aberrant incident, but as a spectrum of power-laden micro- and macro-aggressions that manifest across four interrelated behavioral domains:<\/p>\n This dimension encompasses uninvited visual, gestural, environmental, and technological behaviors that convey a sexualized or objectifying meaning without physical touch or spoken dialogue. In academic spaces, non-verbal harassment serves to establish an atmosphere of surveillance and discomfort. Examples operationalized within the ASIES include persistent lascivious, intimidating, or leering glances directed toward a person’s body (Item 1); obscene, sexually suggestive, or vulgar hand and facial gestures (Item 2); unnecessary spatial proximity, physical cornering, or the deliberate invasion of intimate proxemic space with sexual intent (Item 3); the uninvited and non-consensual display or exposure to pornography, sexually explicit media, or erotic materials (Item 4); and unwanted digital contact via social networks, instant messaging platforms, or corporate email persisting after the recipient has communicated disinterest (Item 5). In psychometric terms, non-verbal indicators capture the initial boundary-testing tactics frequently utilized by perpetrators within asymmetric institutional relationships.<\/p>\n The verbal dimension captures spoken, written, or auditory acts that inject unwanted sexualization, objectification, or gender-based denigration into educational and workplace dialogues. Verbal harassment within academia frequently blurs the boundaries between informal collegiality and predatory behavior, often dismissed by perpetrators as “humor” or “compliments” (piropos). The ASIES operationalizes this dimension via items measuring sexist jokes, unsolicited remarks, or intrusive evaluations concerning personal bodily appearance and clothing choices (Item 6); indiscreet, boundary-crossing inquiries regarding the target’s intimate, private, or sexual history (Item 7); explicit insults, denigrating commentary, and micro-invalidations targeting biological sex, gender expression, or sexual orientation (Item 8); repeated, unwelcome invitations for dates, private outings, or romantic encounters following unambiguous rejection (Item 9); the dissemination of malicious sexual rumors, defamation, or reputational assaults through campus networks (Item 10); and suggestive acoustic emissions such as sexually connoted whistles, heavy breathing, or bodily sounds (Item 11).<\/p>\n The physical dimension evaluates tangible, non-consensual bodily contact occurring within physical university spaces, fieldwork environments, academic conferences, or institutional events. These acts violate bodily autonomy and personal physical integrity. In the ASIES framework, physical harassment includes deliberate, non-accidental body rubbing or brushing up against an individual without consent (Item 12); unsolicited grabbing, touching, fondling, pinching, or embracing of bodily regions (Item 13); non-consensual kissing or attempted mouth-to-mouth or bodily kissing (Item 14); deliberate physical cornering or obstruction of doorways, corridors, or pathways with sexual overtones (Item 15); physical entrapment, forcible restraint, or the use of bodily strength or intimidation to compel submission to sexual conduct (Item 20); and explicit attempts at sexual assault or completed rape perpetrated within university grounds or at university-affiliated off-campus activities (Item 21).<\/p>\n This dimension operationalizes the quintessential formal institutional abuse of authority, commonly recognized in labor and educational law as quid pro quo<\/em> sexual harassment. In higher education, the hierarchical disparity between professors and students, senior advisors and doctoral candidates, or supervisors and service personnel creates structural vulnerabilities. The ASIES assesses psychological pressure, persistent demands, or conditional arrangements requiring affective or sexual capitulation in exchange for academic benefits or employment retention (Item 16); direct or covert institutional threats of disciplinary sanctions, loss of employment, contract termination, failing grades, or vindictive academic reprisals following rejection of romantic or sexual propositions (Item 17); explicit or implicit promises of preferential treatment, grade inflation, scholarship awards, thesis advancement, institutional promotions, or academic awards linked to sexual cooperation (Item 18); and emotional blackmail coupled with the blatant abuse of hierarchical institutional authority to force intimate proximity (Item 19).<\/p>\n The structural and conceptual architecture of the ASIES is anchored at the convergence of three foundational frameworks in clinical psychology, organizational sociology, and feminist jurisprudence:<\/p>\n The pioneering theoretical formulation of Louise Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988, 1995)<\/a> posited that sexual harassment is not an undifferentiated behavioral mass, but rather a tripartite hierarchical construct encompassing: (a) Gender Harassment<\/em> (verbal, non-verbal, and visual hostile behaviors designed to insult, degrade, and enforce sex-role conformity); (b) Unwanted Sexual Attention<\/em> (unreciprocated, non-consensual sexual advances, touching, and persistent pursuit); and (c) Sexual Coercion<\/em> (the classic quid pro quo conditioning of evaluations, professional advancement, or educational survival on sexual favors). The ASIES adapts this foundational architecture to Latin American institutional ecology by disaggregating Fitzgerald’s dimensions into four behaviorally granular spheres: separating non-verbal and purely verbal intrusions, delineating escalating physical violations, and isolating overt structural and academic coercion.<\/p>\n Complementing individualistic psychological paradigms, the ASIES incorporates Organizational Tolerance and Power-Dependency Theories<\/em>. Higher education institutions are inherently vertical, patriarchal, and meritocratically stratified systems. Faculty evaluate students, tenured professors sit on review boards deciding the promotion of junior colleagues, and administrative hierarchies control the contracts of precarious support workers. Within this framework, sexual harassment is understood not as an expression of biological libido, but as an exertion of power designed to maintain dominance, enforce social control, and exploit systemic dependency. By evaluating institutional blackmail and academic conditioning, the ASIES reflects how administrative power differentials amplify the coercive potential of interpersonal interactions.<\/p>\n The conceptual framework behind the ASIES is deeply influenced by Liz Kelly’s (1988)<\/a> Continuum of Sexual Violence<\/em>. Kelly argued that pervasive, mundane, and normalized micro-intrusions (such as street harassment, leering, and sexist humor) exist along the very same behavioral continuum as physical assaults, attempted rapes, and systemic quid pro quo abuse. The ASIES operationalizes this continuum within higher education: minor, insidious behaviors (e.g., intrusive looks, sexist jokes) anchor the lower-severity spectrum of the instrument, while coercive blackmail and attempted sexual assault represent the higher-severity pole. This continuum perspective asserts that the psychological tolerance of lower-order behaviors fosters an institutional culture that enables more severe forms of violence.<\/p>\n The validation study conducted by Guarderas et al. (2023) established substantial psychometric evidence supporting the construct, structural, and content validity of the ASIES. The scale was evaluated across an extensive sample representing students, professors, and administrative\/service employees drawn from higher education centers spanning six provinces in Ecuador.<\/p>\n The scale development began with an extensive pool of potential items generated through qualitative analyses of survivor testimonials, existing international inventories, and expert reviews by clinical psychologists, human rights jurists, and specialists in gender violence. Items were rigorously scrutinized to eliminate ambiguity, avoid leading or emotionally pejorative labels, and ensure precise behaviorally anchored wording. Cognitive pre-testing confirmed that participants from diverse educational, socio-economic, and ethnic backgrounds within Ecuador clearly understood the behavioral scenarios described.<\/p>\n Construct validity was formally demonstrated via multivariate structural equation modeling. The empirical factor loadings obtained across the four latent dimensions were consistently robust and statistically significant (p<\/em> < .001). Items loaded systematically onto their designated theoretical dimensions, confirming that the questionnaire reliably taps the intended latent constructs of verbal, non-verbal, physical, and coercive harassment<\/span>.<\/p>\n As documented in the confirmatory factor analyses, the hypothesized hierarchical model demonstrated outstanding goodness-of-fit indices:<\/p>\n As explicitly noted by the original psychometric authors, the initial validation published in 2023 focused primarily on factorial, structural, and internal consistency metrics. Formal multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) evaluations assessing convergent validity (e.g., correlation with standard trauma, depressive symptomatology, or generalized anxiety scales) and discriminant validity (e.g., divergence from general non-sexual incivility or common academic stress) were not incorporated into the primary study. Furthermore, longitudinal stability (test-retest reliability) and measurement invariance across biological sex, sexual orientation, and academic role (student vs. faculty) represent priority domains for subsequent psychometric investigation.<\/p>\n Given the ordinal nature of Likert-type scales and the severe positive skewness typical of low-frequency, high-severity behavioral events (such as sexual harassment), the authors evaluated internal consistency reliability using contemporary psychometric methods rather than relying exclusively on Cronbach’s alpha, which often underestimates reliability in non-normal item distributions.<\/p>\n Internal consistency was calculated via McDonald’s omega (ω), derived from factor loadings within the structural equation framework. The reliability estimates reported by Guarderas et al. (2023) are as follows:<\/p>\n The underlying dimensionality of the ASIES was examined through a two-stage psychometric pipeline involving both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures on the Ecuadorian higher education sample.<\/p>\n In the initial exploratory phase, psychometricians examined the item pool to determine latent clustering without imposing restrictive structural constraints. The initial EFA extraction converged on a five-factor solution utilizing 16 items, accounting for approximately 33% of the cumulative variance<\/strong>. However, the authors noted that this exploratory model exhibited psychometric limitations, including an unsatisfactorily low proportion of explained variance and localized fragmentation of behavioral constructs across redundant factors.<\/p>\n To overcome the limitations of the exploratory model and test theoretically driven hypotheses regarding the organization of campus sexual harassment, the authors conducted a rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) specifying a hierarchical structural model<\/strong> consisting of four first-order factors<\/strong> subordinated to a single, overarching second-order factor<\/strong> representing General Sexual Harassment<\/em>.<\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Non-Verbal Behaviors (Conductas No Verbales)<\/h3>\n
2. Verbal Behaviors (Conductas Verbales)<\/h3>\n
3. Physical Behaviors (Conductas F\u00edsicas)<\/h3>\n
4. Coercion Behaviors \/ Academic Blackmail (Conductas de Coerci\u00f3n y Chantaje)<\/h3>\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Fitzgerald’s Tripartite Model of Sexual Harassment<\/h3>\n
Organizational Power and Asymmetric Hierarchy Theory<\/h3>\n
Feminist Epistemologies and the Continuum of Violence<\/h3>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Content and Face Validity<\/h3>\n
Construct and Structural Validity<\/h3>\n
Internal Structure Fit Metrics<\/h3>\n
\n
Limitations and Future Validity Directions<\/h3>\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
McDonald’s Categorical Omega (ω)<\/h3>\n
\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/h3>\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)<\/h3>\n