LOL so much for objective analysis. This was deleted, as well as another comment which did not match the social justice narrative:

Ms. Abrams' claim that the Wapo's recent survey is „better data on sexual assault“ is unscientific and biased. This poll only samples 1053 people and the estimated response rate is only 8-10%. The problem of selection bias in such a politically controversial „social justice“ poll with such a tiny response rate is probably huge and cannot be compensated for. In contrast, the DOJ NCVS has an individual response rate of 88% and a sample size several orders of magnitude larger. It is also a government database which is about crime in general, and the selection biases are much less political. The NCVS measures a rate of sexual assault among this demographic which is over an order of magnitude lower than the Post-Kaiser poll indicates.

The conclusion of the NAS panel that the NCVS most likely underestimates sexual assault is also unscientific and biased. On page 91 of the report, they acknowledge that they did not examine the methodologies of other studies in detail, but then on page 106 they conclude that it is „highly likely“ that NCVS „is underestimating.“ The panel also concludes that all known studies which use the new, more detailed questions have severe response rate and/or sample size and/or sample randomness problems. The panel simply assumes that the NCVS question succinct and legal wording („forced or coerced sexual activity“) causes false negatives when it is also possible that it causes false positives.

The fact is, no study currently exists using the new questions which also has the necessary sample size and response rate to be believable.