TABLE 2.
Experts’ assessment of the case scenarios.
| Scenarios | Pertinence | Representativeness | Ambiguity | Comprehension | Clarity | ||||
| % | n | M (SE) | n | M (SE) | n | M (SE) | n | M (SE) | |
| RMV (single witness) | 94.5 | 10 | 3.89 (1.45) | 8 | 4.22 (0.88) | 15 | 4.83 (0.38) | 15 | 4.83 (0.38) |
| RMV (several witnesses) | 94.5 | 10 | 3.89 (1.45) | 8 | 4.22 (0.88) | 14 | 4.78 (0.43) | 15 | 4.83 (0.38) |
| RFV (single witness) | 94.5 | 10 | 3.89 (1.45) | 8 | 4.22 (0.88) | 14 | 4.78 (0.43) | 15 | 4.83 (0.38) |
| RFV (several witnesses) | 94.5 | 10 | 3.89 (1.45) | 8 | 4.17 (0.92) | 14 | 4.78 (0.43) | 13 | 4.83 (0.38) |
| IPVAW (single witness) | 100 | 16 | 4.78 (0.73) | 10 | 4.44 (0.70) | 15 | 4.83 (0.38) | 14 | 4.72 (0.57) |
| IPVAW (several witnesses) | 100 | 16 | 4.78 (0.73) | 12 | 4.61 (0.61) | 16 | 4.89 (0.32) | 16 | 4.83 (0.51) |
| SHW (single witness) | 94.5 | 13 | 4.65 (0.70) | 14 | 4.76 (0.56) | 17 | 5.00 (0.00) | 16 | 5.00 (0.00) |
| SHW (several witnesses) | 100 | 14 | 4.67 (0.68) | 15 | 4.78 (0.55) | 18 | 5.00 (0.00) | 18 | 5.00 (0.00) |
| STH (single witness) | 100 | 16 | 4.83 (0.51) | 14 | 4.78 (0.43) | 18 | 5.00 (0.00) | 16 | 4.89 (0.32) |
| STH (several witnesses) | 100 | 16 | 4.83 (0.51) | 14 | 4.78 (0.43) | 18 | 5.00 (0.00) | 16 | 4.89 (0.32) |
RMV, robbery – male victim; RFV, robbery – female victim; IPVAW, intimate partner violence against women; SHW, sexual harassment at work; STH, street harassment. M, estimated mean; SE, standard error.