Table 3.

Meta-Analytic Results of Within-Group Sexual Threat–Related Bias Among Sexually Victimized Participants (k = 13 Outcomes).

Study	n	g	95% CI	p	FV	RP	VS	G	Age	P	Pub
Bush (1999)	62	.07	[0.31, 0.52]	.61	—	—	—	1	22.52	2	1
Cassiday et al. (1992)	24	.50	[0.09, 0.92]	.02	—	—	2	9	32.17	1	2
Field et al. (2001)	51	.55	[0.26, 0.85]	.00	—	—	—	1	38.40	1	2
Freeman and Beck (2000)	33	.40	[0.05, 0.75]	.02	—	—	—	1	13.98	1	2
Garcia (2006)	37	.08	[−0.24, 0.39]	.64	—	—	—	1	18.68	1	1
Klewchuk et al. (2007)	21	.83	[0.35, 1.31]	.01	—	—	—	9	40.80	1	2
Lambourn-Kavcic (1998)	20	.60	[0.14, 1.05]	.01	—	—	2	1	35.70	1	1
Martinson et al. (2013)	66	.58	[0.32, 0.84]	.00	—	—	—	9	21.97	1	2
McNally et al. (2000)	15	.20	[−0.28, 0.69]	.41	—	—	—	1	48.00	1	2
Patriquin et al. (2012)	94	.42	[0.21, 0.63]	.00	—	—	—	1	18.84	1	2
Pineles et al. (2009)	46	.17	[−0.12, 0.45]	.25	—	—	—	1	46.91	3	2
Sawhney (2002)	44	1.38	[0.97, 1.79]	.00	—	—	2	1	35.63	1	1
Waller and Ruddock (1995)	54	.69	[0.40, 0.99]	.00	—	—	—	1	25.00	1	2

Note. n = number of participants in subsample; g = Hedge’s g (effect size); CI = confidence interval; p = p value; FV = age first victimized; RP = relationship to perpetrator; VS = victimization severity; G = gender of sample; Age = mean age of sample; P = paradigm; Pub = publication type. Dashes indicate that moderator variable could not be computed.