Healthy Relationships Training Study: Comparing the Efficacy of a Mindfulness-Based Skills Training to a Psychoeducational Intervention at Reducing Dating Violence on College Campuses
Phase: NA
Conditions: Dating Violence
Sponsor: Kent State University

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Healthy Relationships Training Study: 
A Comparison of Interventions to Reduce Dating Violence on College Campuses 
ID: 17-547 
May 10, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Objectives 
Dating violence on college campuses is prevalent and problematic. Although existing 
psychoeducational programs successfully increase college students’ knowledge about dating 
violence and change their attitudes towards dating violence, it is unclear if these programs are 
successful in changing actual behavior. Indeed, it is probable that college students do not have 
the skills needed to prevent their own perpetration of dating violence. One essential skill to 
prevent perpetration in the college context is effective emotion regulation skills, as many college 
students experience emotionally charged states and may use dating violence as an unhealthy 
avenue for emotion regulation (Eckhardt & Parrott, 2017; Mason & Smithey, 2012; Okuda et al., 
2015). One avenue for teaching college students healthy emotion regulation is through 
mindfulness-based skills training, which numerous dating violence researchers advocate for 
(Barnes et al., 2007; Elmquist et al., 2016; Leisring, 2013; Shorey, Febres, Brasfield, & Stuart, 
2011; Shorey et al., 2014).  
Thus, the purpose of this study was to create and implement a mindfulness-based skills 
training (MBST) intervention to teach students how to regulate their emotions when resolving 
conflict with their romantic partners. The efficacy of the MBST intervention at reducing dating 
violence perpetration was compared to a psychoeducational intervention (“active control”).  
Aims and Hypotheses  
Aim 1. To assess the effectiveness of the psychoeducational intervention at changing 
attitudes towards dating violence. As a manipulation check, we investigated whether 
the psychoeducational intervention improved attitudes towards dating violence. We 
hypothesized that the participants in the psychoeducational intervention would show an 
improvement in attitudes towards dating violence (specifically, they would show a 

decrease in attitudes that condone dating violence) from baseline (before the 
intervention) to follow-up (after the intervention).  
Aim 2. To assess the effectiveness of the MBST intervention at increasing 
mindfulness skills. As a manipulation check, we investigated whether the MBST 
intervention improved mindfulness skills. We hypothesized that participants in the MBST 
intervention would increase mindfulness skills from baseline (before the intervention) to 
follow-up (after the intervention). Specifically, we hypothesized that participants in the 
MBST intervention would increase their ability to observe, describe, accept without 
judgment, and act with awareness. 
Aim 3. To assess the effectiveness of the MBST intervention at improving emotion 
regulation. As a manipulation check, we investigated whether the MBST intervention 
improved emotion regulation. We hypothesized that participants in the MBST 
intervention will improve emotion regulation skills from baseline (before the 
intervention) to follow-up (after the intervention). Specifically, we hypothesized that 
participants in the MBST intervention would improve their emotional awareness, 
emotional clarity, acceptance of emotional responses, impulse control, access to emotion 
regulation strategies, and ability to engage in goal-directed behavior.  
Aim 4. To evaluate the effectiveness of the MBST intervention (treatment) and 
psychoeducational intervention (active control) at reducing the perpetration of 
dating violence (physical, sexual, and psychological).  
Aim 4a. To assess the effectiveness of the psychoeducational intervention at 
reducing the perpetration of dating violence. Before comparing the effectiveness of the 
interventions against one another, we first planned to assess each intervention 

individually. We hypothesized that the psychoeducational intervention would reduce 
dating violence perpetration (physical, psychological, and sexual) from baseline (before 
the intervention) to follow-up (after the intervention); however, given the evidence that 
psychoeducational interventions are largely ineffective we did not expect the reduction to 
be statistically significant. 
Aim 4b. To assess the effectiveness of the MBST intervention at reducing the 
perpetration of dating violence. We hypothesized that the MBST intervention would 
significantly reduce dating violence perpetration (physical, sexual, and psychological) 
from baseline (before the intervention) to follow-up (after the intervention). 
Aim 4c. To assess the effectiveness of the MBST intervention compared to a 
psychoeducational intervention (active control) at reducing the perpetration of 
dating violence. We hypothesized that the MBST intervention will be more effective at 
reducing dating violence perpetration (physical, sexual, and psychological) as compared 
to the psychoeducational intervention.  
Methods 
Participants 
100 participants were recruited through Kent State University’s online subject pool. 
Sample size was determined using G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Ninety-
one participants completed the initial baseline assessment, and three participants were excluded 
from the rest of the study for not meeting inclusion criteria (see below; 2 indicated being single, 
1 indicated being married). Thus, this study reports on the remaining 88 participants’ data.  
To be eligible, participants were required to be over the age of 18, in a current dating 
relationship (of 6 months or longer) and were required to confirm that they had not been 

diagnosed with psychopathology (Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 
Borderline Personality Disorder). At baseline, participants did not differ between assigned 
treatment groups based on age, ethnicity, gender, depression, anxiety, externalizing behavior 
problems, or substance use.  
Furthermore, only one member of the dating couple could participate in the study.  To 
address issues surrounding contamination, participants were reminded throughout the course of 
the study that they could not discuss the intervention with anyone (except their romantic partner) 
until the end of the study.   
Data collection was conducted online (except for the first two homework assignments 
which were handed in using paper copies, used for compliance data; see Data and Safety 
Monitoring Plan for details surrounding homework collection). Participants were asked to 
complete online surveys in private, though they could choose where that was (e.g., dorm room or 
elsewhere). The actual intervention took place on Kent State University’s campus, specifically 
classrooms in Kent Hall (rooms 60, 102, 145, and 167). This study was approved by Kent State 
University’s Institutional Review Board.  
Trial design 
 This study utilized a two-armed, parallel-design. The allocation ratio was 1:1. The 
treatment group was the MBST intervention and the active control group was the 
psychoeducational intervention.  
Participants were recruited to complete a baseline assessment, an intervention portion 
(consisting of three 50-minute sessions with homework in-between sessions), a seven-day daily 
diary, and a follow-up assessment. All participants completed the initial baseline assessment the 
fourth week of classes. During this assessment, data was collected on demographics, dating 

violence (during the past month), emotion regulation, mindfulness skills, attitudes condoning 
dating violence, and other potential covariates (relationship length, relationship satisfaction, 
externalizing behavior problems, anxiety, depression, substance use, use of mindfulness practices 
in the past month, social desirability). 
Following this baseline assessment, participants were randomized into either (1) the 
MBST intervention or (2) the psychoeducational intervention. Each intervention consisted of 
three 50-minute sessions that occurred during the sixth, seventh, and eighth week of the 
semester. In-between sessions all participants were asked to complete homework. Homework 
assignments were turned in the following week, with the final homework assignment being 
completed online as part of the first daily diary (since participants did not meet physically the 
week following the final session). There were two semesters of data collection total. All 
intervention sessions occurred at the same time (6:00 – 6:50 PM) on Tuesday nights. Conditions 
were counter balanced with graduate students leading the sessions, social support of groups, and 
homework. We attempted to counter balance based on room location, but the availability of 
rooms changed between semesters. However, no treatment condition was given in the same room 
twice and rooms were selected to be as similar as possible (number of desks, void of windows, 
etc.).  
The week following the final intervention session, participants completed a seven-day 
daily diary assessment. During this assessment, participants in the MBST intervention were 
asked to report whether they had used any of the skills learned in the intervention (see below for 
detailed information on skills), and to describe what happened when they used the skill(s) (who 
they were with, if it helped, etc.). To balance the conditions, participants in the psychoeducation 
intervention were asked to indicate whether they had seen any examples of dating abuse in the 

media that day. If they had, they were asked to describe who the victim, target, and bystanders 
were in each example.  
Eleven weeks after the baseline assessment, all participants completed the follow-up 
assessment. During this assessment, participants completed another battery of assessments. Self-
reported data was collected on dating violence (during the last month), attitudes condoning 
dating violence, emotion regulation, and mindfulness skills. The entire protocol carefully 
followed the CONSORT statement guidelines.  
Interventions  
Mindfulness-Based Skills Training (MBST) intervention. Some traditional 
mindfulness-based interventions teach mindfulness through the practice of meditation. However, 
the goal of this intervention was to teach students how to be mindful in a specific situation: when 
resolving conflict with their romantic partners. Thus, this intervention took a more “mindfulness 
applied” approach. The previously mentioned skills of observing one’s own internal experiences 
and sensations, accepting one’s own internal experience without judgment, being able to describe 
one’s experience by putting it into words, and acting with awareness were still the basis for this 
intervention. However, these skills were taught in a “user-friendly” format that is specific to the 
context of resolving conflict with one’s romantic partner. This format helped students learn how 
to mindfully become aware of when they were experiencing emotionally charged states, how to 
calm themselves down through mindful breathing, to put their experience into words, and to act 
with awareness as they communicated with their partners in a healthy and mindful way. The 
skills followed the “ABCDE” acronym. ABCDE stands for awareness, breathing, checking in 
with your feelings and thoughts, describing your experience, and expressing what you want to 
change. A variety of skills taught in the ABCDE intervention (paced breathing, observing 

feelings, observing thoughts, decentering) are used in a variety of other skills trainings such as 
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Linehan, 2014; 
Luoma, Hayes, & Walser, 2007). An advanced PhD student led the sessions, but the curriculum 
is designed so that anyone (teacher, staff member, etc.) can deliver it. Below is a brief 
description of what was included in each session (see appendices for detailed training manual).  
Session 1. At the beginning of the session, students were informed that they would be 
learning skills to improve the quality of their romantic relationships. Specifically, they would be 
learning skills to manage conflict in their relationships. Students briefly discussed unhealthy 
tactics (e.g., calling your partner names, hitting your partner) versus healthy tactics (e.g., 
remaining calm, using your words to communicate) for managing conflict in romantic 
relationships. During this portion, participants were purposely given some overlapping 
information from the psychoeducational intervention to address possible demand characteristics 
(e.g., examples of unhealthy tactics such as “calling your partner names” and being told that 
these unhealthy tactics can lead to anxiety and depression). Following that, they were informed 
that sometimes people use unhealthy tactics in their romantic relationships when they are 
“overtaken” by emotions. They were then told that the purpose of the intervention is to give them 
the skills they need to go from automatically reacting to consciously responding during conflict 
with their partners. They were then introduced to the first skill: awareness. This skill taught them 
how to observe their own internal experiences and sensations (in the specific context of conflict 
with their romantic partner). They were informed that if they can become aware of their bodies 
responding to emotionally charged states, it can serve as a warning sign that they might be in 
danger of engaging in unhealthy tactics. After learning about “awareness” they had a chance to 
practice it. They were then introduced to the breathing skill which helps them to calm down after 

they have noticed that they are getting overwhelmed with emotions. Specifically, they learned 
about the benefits of paced breathing (a technique where the exhale is longer than the inhale) and 
were given time to practice it. After a brief review of the A and B skills, students were given 
their homework (to practice awareness and breathing, and to fill out a worksheet about their 
experience practicing those skills). 
 Session 2. At the beginning of the session, students briefly discussed their reactions to 
last week’s homework. After reviewing the A and B skills, they were introduced to the C skill: 
checking in with their feelings and thoughts. This skill taught them how to accept their own 
internal experience without judgment and to describe their experience by putting it into words. 
They were informed that checking in with their feelings and thoughts would help them gain 
clarity and insight into the emotions they feel, as well as any thoughts surrounding those 
emotions. They were instructed to curiously ask themselves “What am I feeling?” and to answer 
it as if they were observing themselves from a distance. They were informed that this practice 
(which captures decentering) would help them to see the situation more objectively and would 
give their feelings less power over them. Indeed, observing and labeling feelings in this way 
decreases the intensity and duration of the emotions. They were given examples of how to check 
in with their feelings and then were given time to practice. Then they extended the practice to 
thoughts that they might be having using the same mindset (nonjudgmentally observing, as if 
from a distance). They were asked to observe their thoughts by making statements such as “I had 
the thought that my partner didn’t care about me” instead of “My partner didn’t care about me.” 
They were given examples of how to check in with their thoughts, and then were given time to 
practice. Students then briefly reviewed the ABC skills and were given their homework (to 

continue practicing awareness and breathing, but to also check in with their feelings and thoughts 
at least three times that week and to complete a worksheet about it).   
Session 3. At the beginning of the session, students briefly discussed their reactions to 
last week’s homework. After reviewing the A, B, and C skills, they were introduced to the D 
skill: describing their experience. Like the C skill, the D skill also taps into the skill of being able 
to describe their experience by putting it into words, but this time they were describing it to their 
partners (instead of themselves). Furthermore, they were taught to do this by acting with 
awareness. They were informed of the importance of describing their experience to their partner, 
since it is impossible for their partners to know what they are thinking and feeling. They were 
informed that “describing your experience” would help their partners to understand the issue at 
hand so they could address it effectively. They were told that when they are describing their 
experience they should (1) describe what sparked the conflict (focusing on behaviors), (2) 
describe the thought they had (while remaining objective and calm), and (3) describe how it 
made them feel (while remaining objective and calm). Examples were given and students had the 
chance to practice.  
Next, they were introduced to the E skill: expressing what they want to change. They 
were instructed to try and act with awareness as they communicate with their partners. They 
were told that the goal is to clearly communicate what they want to change moving forward. 
They were instructed to do this with awareness by focusing on specific behaviors, being 
reasonable, respectful, calm, and focusing on the issue at hand (remaining in the present). They 
were be told to remain open to their partner’s thoughts and feelings and to be open to 
compromise. They then worked through examples. Students reviewed all the ABCDE skills and 
were given their homework (to continue with the ABC skills, but to also describe their 

experiences to their partners and to express what they want changed at least twice that week and 
to complete a worksheet about it).   
Psychoeducational intervention. The Love is Not Abuse (LINA) curriculum (Liz 
Claiborne Education Development Center (n.d.)) was used as the psychoeducational treatment. 
The curriculum was created in conjunction with a variety of organizations (e.g., Break the Cycle, 
the National Network to End Domestic Violence). The curriculum can be modified depending on 
the time frame available; each section can be used on its own, or different pieces of information 
from each section can be put together to be conducted in just one session. The selected materials 
covered (a) what dating abuse1 is (b) the pattern of abuse and (c) technology and dating abuse. 
The curriculum is interactive and includes handouts, activities, and discussion. Materials were 
selected based on what could feasibly be implemented within three 50-minute sessions. Portions 
that were excluded are as follows: a portion that informs students how they can intervene to help 
a friend or family member who is being abused, a portion that informs students how they can 
intervene to help a friend or family member who is abusing, discussing obstacles that young 
adults face in seeking help (e.g., not wanting to lose social status that might come with the 
relationship), reading a poem about the cycle of dating abuse to identify phases in the cycle, and 
discussing password-sharing and sexting as ways students use to show intimacy and trust in a 
relationship. An advanced PhD student lead the sessions, but the curriculum was designed so that 
anyone (teacher, staff member, etc.) would be able to deliver it. Below is a description of what 
was included in the intervention (see appendices for full intervention materials) 
Session 1. During the first session (What is Dating Abuse?), students were introduced to 
the program and were given ground rules for the session (e.g., no question is stupid or wrong; no 
                                                          
1 Here, we use the term “abuse” as that is the terminology used in the LINA program. While “dating violence” is 
used throughout the paper, we maintain the word “abuse” in order to maintain the program’s fidelity.   

put downs are allowed). Then students were introduced to what dating abuse is and they 
identified the different forms of dating abuse after reading a narrative script of two individuals in 
an abusive relationship. Students were given definitions for the roles of the abuser, target, and 
bystander. Finally, there was a discussion of ways to increase their own safety in a dating 
relationship. At the end of the session students were given their homework assignment (to define 
the different types of dating abuse, to give examples, and to identify examples of dating abuse 
they have seen in the media).  
Session 2. During the second session (The Pattern of Abuse in Dating Violence & 
Abuse), students discussed the pattern of abuse that occurs in some (but not all) dating 
relationships. They read a text that illustrated the phases of dating abuse and were asked to 
identify key components of the different phases. They also identified possible warning signs in 
dating relationships. At the end of the session students were given their homework assignment 
(to define the different stages in the cycle abuse, to explain each stage in their own words, to 
define warning signs in a relationship, and to provide examples).  
Session 3. During the final session (Technology and Dating Abuse), students discussed 
how abuse can manifest itself through technology. They read a text that illustrated dating abuse 
through technology and were asked to identify key components of the phases of abuse (but this 
time including the use of technology). Then students reviewed steps to take to help a friend 
dealing with digital dating abuse. Finally, students reviewed steps for increasing their safety in 
abusive dating relationships and were given information on resources on and near campus.  
Measures  
Baseline: Potential covariates.  

Age, ethnicity, and relationship length. Participants self-reported their age, ethnicity, 
and length of relationship using a Sociodemographic Questionnaire (SDQ).  
Relationship satisfaction. To assess relationship satisfaction, participants completed the 
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988). This measure asked participants to 
answer seven questions on a five-point Likert scale. Example items include “How well does your 
partner meet your needs?”, “How good is your relationship compared to most?”, and “How often 
do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?” Negative items were reverse scored, and a 
total unitary score was created by averaging all items such that higher scores indicate more 
satisfaction in the relationship. This measure demonstrates adequate test-retest reliability (α = 
0.85) as well as concurrent and discriminant validity (Hendrick, 1998).  
Externalizing behavior problems, anxiety, depression, substance use. We assessed 
externalizing behavior problems, anxiety, depression, and substance use because they are all risk 
factors for the perpetration of dating violence (see Capaldi et al., 2012 for a review). To do this, 
we used the Adult Self-Report (ASR; Achenbach & Resclora, 2003). This self-report measure 
assessed psychological functioning using two broadband scales: externalizing behavior problems 
and internalizing behavior problems. Within each broadband scale are narrowband scales. For 
this study, we utilized the broadband externalizing behavior problems scale which contains 35 
items that assess aggressive behavior (e.g., “I get in many fights”), rule-breaking behavior (e.g., 
“I use drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine) for nonmedical purposes”), and intrusive behavior 
(e.g., “I am louder than others”). We also utilized narrowband scales from the internalizing 
behavior scale to measure anxiety and depression. The anxiety subscale contained seven items 
(e.g., “I worry a lot”). The depression subscale contained 122 items (e.g., “I cry a lot”). Items 
                                                          
2 The depression subscale contains 14 items, but we had to exclude two items (“harms self” and “thinks suicide”) 
per our Institutional Review Board’s request. Thus, our scale contained only 12 items.  

were assessed on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very 
often or often true). Additionally, to assess substance use we used items that assess how many 
times per day they used tobacco in the past six months, how many days they have been drunk in 
the past six months, and how many days they used drugs in the past six months. A total score 
was computed by averaging raw scores for tobacco use, alcohol use, and drug use. This self-
report measure is widely used to assess psychopathology and substance use and has 
demonstrated adequate reliability and validity (Achenbach & Resclora, 2003).  
Attitudes condoning dating violence. To assess attitudes condoning dating violence, 
participants completed the Intimate Partner Violence Attitudes Scale-Revised (IPVAS-R; 
Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008). This measure asks participants to indicate how 
strongly they agree or disagree with a series of 17 statements on a five-point Likert scale (1 = 
Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). There are three subscales: abuse (e.g., “During a heated 
argument, it is okay for me to bring up something from my partner’s past to hurt him or her”), 
control (e.g., “It is okay for me to tell my partner not to talk to someone of the opposite sex”), 
and violence [e.g., “It would never be appropriate to hit or try to hit one’s partner with an object” 
(reverse scored)]. A total score was derived by averaging all items. Higher scores indicate 
attitudes that condone dating violence. This measure demonstrates adequate test-retest reliability 
as well as concurrent and predictive validity (Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008). This 
scale was assessed at baseline (potential covariate) and at follow-up as an outcome measure 
(manipulation check, Aim 1). 
Use of mindfulness practice. To assess how familiar participants were with mindfulness-
based practices, we assessed how often they engaged in a variety of practices over the past 
month. For example, participants were asked “Have you ever practiced meditation?” If they 

indicate they had, they were then asked, “How many times in the past month have you practiced 
meditation?” We used this format to assess use of meditation, yoga, and deep breathing. 
Social desirability. To assess social desirability (which may impact participants’ self-
reporting biases), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was used (Crowne & Marlowe, 
1960). Participants were asked to quickly respond to 33 True/False item such as “Before voting I 
thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates” and “If I could get into a movie 
without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it” (reverse scored). Every time a 
participant indicated “true”, his/her score increased by one point. All items were summed, with 
higher scores indicating a greater concern with social approval. This scale demonstrates good 
internal consistency and (α = 0.88) test-retest reliability over a one-month period (α = 0.89) 
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).  
Intervention Sessions: Homework/Compliance. 
MBST intervention. To assess compliance with the intervention, we collected data on 
whether participants in the MBST condition completed and handed in their homework. For the 
MBST intervention, 24 participants attended every single session and completed every single 
homework assignment.  
Psychoeducational intervention. To assess compliance with the intervention, we 
collected data on whether participants in the psychoeducational condition completed and handed 
in their homework. For the psychoeducational intervention, 26 participants attended every single 
session and completed every single homework assignment. 
Daily Diary: Application of Knowledge and Skills.  

MBST intervention group’s use of ABCDE skills. To assess if participants were using 
the skills taught in the intervention, participants were asked every day for seven days about 
whether they used the A, B, C, D, and/or E skill.  
Psychoeducational intervention group’s identification of dating abuse. To 
counterbalance the time spent completing daily diaries, the psychoeducational intervention group 
also completed a seven-day daily diary that asked whether they had seen examples of dating 
abuse in the media and to describe who was the bystander, target, and abuser in each example. 
See appendix for full survey.  
Follow-up: Outcome variables. 
Dating violence. The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI, 
Wolfe et al., 2001) was used to assess dating violence perpetration. This measure assesses dating 
violence that has occurred over the past month. There are five subscales that assess physical 
abuse, sexual abuse, verbal or emotional abuse (to assess psychological dating violence), 
threatening behavior, and relational aggression. There are also 10 items that assess conflict 
resolution behaviors to add balance. The CADRI has demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, 
and inter-partner agreement (Wolfe et al., 2001) and has been used in college samples in 
previous works (e.g., Roudsari, Leahy, & Walters, 2009; van Dulmen, Mata, & Klipfel, 2012). 
This measure was also used at baseline (to control for initial levels of dating violence).  
 
Mindfulness skills. To assess mindfulness skills, participants completed the Kentucky 
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004). This measure has a total of 
39 items with four subscales that map onto our conceptualization of mindfulness: observing (e.g., 
I notice when my moods begin to change), describing (e.g., I’m good at finding the words to 
describe my feelings), accepting without judgment [e.g., I criticize myself for having irrational or 

inappropriate emotions (reverse scored)], and acting with awareness (e.g., When I’m doing 
something, I’m only focused on what I’m doing, nothing else). Participants rated each statement 
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never or very rarely true, 5 = almost always or always true). Items 
that describe the absence of the component of mindfulness were reverse scored. This scale has 
demonstrated good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity (Baer et al., 2004). 
Mindfulness skills were also assessed at baseline (to control for initial levels of mindfulness 
skills). These scales demonstrated fair to good internal consistency for observing at baseline (α = 
0.80) and follow-up (α = 0.90), describing at baseline (α = 0.88) and follow-up (α = 0.84), 
accepting without judgment at baseline (α = 0.86) and follow-up (α = 0.93), and acting with 
awareness at baseline (α = 0.76) and follow-up (α = 0.73).  
Emotion regulation. We assessed emotion regulation using the Difficulties in Emotion 
Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). This scale asked participants to indicate how 
often a series of items applies to them (36 items total), rated on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never, 
2 = sometimes, 3 = about half of the time, 4 = most of the time, 5 = almost always). The six 
subscales are: lack of emotional awareness [e.g., “When I’m upset, I take time to figure out what 
I’m really feeling” (reverse scored)], lack of emotional clarity (e.g., “I have difficulty making 
sense out of my feelings”), nonacceptance of emotional responses (e.g., “When I’m upset, I 
become angry with myself for feeling that way”), impulse control difficulties (e.g., “When I’m 
upset, I lose control over my behaviors”), limited access to emotion regulation strategies (e.g., 
“When I’m upset, believe that wallowing in it is all I can do”), and difficulties engaging in goal-
directed behavior (e.g., “When I’m upset, I have difficulty thinking about anything else”). Higher 
scores indicate more difficulties with emotion regulation. Emotion regulation was also assessed 
at baseline (to control for initial levels of emotion regulation).    

Potential contamination. At the end of the study, all participants were asked whether 
they spoke to other students about their treatment condition (yes/no). Four participants indicated 
they discussed their treatment condition with other students.  
Potential threat to non-independence of data. Participants were also asked to indicate 
whether their romantic partner participated in the same research study (yes/no).  No participants 
indicated that their partner also participated in the study.   
Participants’ belief about treatment assignment.  At the end of the study, all 
participants were asked whether they believed they were in the treatment group or the control 
group.  
Analysis Plan  
Preliminary analyses. We first conducted bivariate analyses to investigate whether 
participants who dropped out of the study differed from those who remained in the study on key 
characteristics. To do this, we created a variable that indicated whether a participant had dropped 
out of the study and used that variable to investigate associations with age, ethnicity, relationship 
length, relationship satisfaction, externalizing behavior problems, anxiety, depression, substance 
use, attitudes condoning dating violence, use of mindfulness, and social desirability at baseline. 
If the drop out variable was associated with any of the potential covariates, we included the 
covariate(s) in all subsequent analyses.  
We then investigated the associations between potential covariates and each individual 
outcome. If a potential covariate was significantly associated with an outcome (p < .05), we 
included it in subsequent analyses. For example, we first investigated whether “attitudes 
condoning dating violence” at follow-up (IPVAS – R, Aim 1 outcome) was associated with age, 
ethnicity, relationship length, relationship satisfaction, externalizing behavior problems, anxiety, 

depression, substance use, attitudes toward dating violence, use of mindfulness, and social 
desirability at baseline. If “attitudes condoning dating violence” was associated with any of the 
covariates, we controlled for them in my Aim 1 analyses. We then repeated for the rest of the 
aims (Aim 2; each subscale of mindfulness skills, Aim 3; each subscale of emotion regulation; 
Aim 4; dating violence)3.  
Furthermore, we investigated differences between treatment groups based on age, gender, 
attitudes, mindfulness skills, emotion regulation, and levels of dating violence perpetration at 
baseline for descriptive purposes.  
Aim 1. To assess whether participants in the psychoeducational intervention improved 
their attitudes condoning dating violence [IPVAS – R] (a manipulation check), we examined 
mean differences using a paired t-test with covariates in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). This 
technique also allows us to use the FIML estimator within Mplus and to intercorrelate covariates 
(e.g., anxiety and depression). Please note this analysis only included participants who were 
assigned to the psychoeducational intervention (and did not include those in the MBST 
intervention). Please note that a decrease in means indicates improvement, as higher scores on 
the IPVAS – R indicate attitudes that condone dating violence. 
Aim 2. To assess whether participants in the MBST intervention improved their 
mindfulness skills (a manipulation check), we examined mean differences paired t-test with 
covariates. These tests compared the means of mindfulness skills at baseline to the mean of 
mindfulness skills at follow-up, controlling for covariates identified in preliminary analyses. 
Please note this analysis only included participants who were assigned to the MBST intervention 
                                                          
3 One potential concern with this analysis plan is that covariates depend on the outcome of interest, so differences in 
results may be due to differences in covariates included. To address this, we ran analyses with and without the 
unique covariates; findings remained the same.  

(and did not include those in the psychoeducational intervention). Tests were run individually for 
all four subscales [observing (KIMS – OB), describing (KIMS – DE), acting with awareness 
(KIMS – AW), acceptance without judgement (KIMS – AC)].  
Aim 3. To assess whether participants in the MBST intervention improved their emotion 
regulation (a manipulation check), we examined mean differences using paired t-tests with 
covariates. These tests compared the means of emotion regulation subscales at baseline to the 
mean of emotion regulation subscales at follow-up, controlling for covariates identified in 
preliminary analyses. Please note this analysis only included participants who were assigned to 
the MBST intervention (and did not include those in the psychoeducational intervention). Tests 
were run individually for all six subscales (lack of emotional awareness [DER – EA], lack of 
emotional clarity [DER – EC], nonacceptance of emotional responses [DER – NE], impulse 
control difficulties [DER – IC], limited access to emotion regulation strategies [DER – ER], and 
difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior [DER – DE]). Please note that a decrease in 
means indicates improvement, as higher scores on the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale 
indicate more problems with emotion regulation.  
Aim 4a. To assess whether participants in the psychoeducational intervention reduced 
dating violence perpetration from baseline (before the intervention) to follow-up (after the 
intervention) we examined paired t-tests with covariates. These tests compared the mean of 
dating violence perpetration at baseline to the mean of dating violence perpetration at follow-up, 
controlling for covariates identified in preliminary analyses. Please note this analysis only 
included participants who were assigned to the psychoeducational intervention (and did not 
include those in the MBST intervention). Please also note analyses were run separately for each 
type of dating violence (physical, sexual, psychological).  

Aim 4b. To assess whether participants in the MBST intervention reduced psychological 
dating violence perpetration from baseline (before the intervention) to follow-up (after the 
intervention) we examined mean differences using paired t-tests with covariates. These tests 
compared the mean of dating violence perpetration at baseline to the mean of dating violence 
perpetration at follow-up, controlling for covariates identified in preliminary analyses. Please 
note this analysis only included participants who were assigned to the MBST intervention (and 
did not include those in the psychoeducational intervention). Please also note analyses were run 
separately for each type of dating violence (physical, sexual, psychological). 
Aim 4c. We used a regression framework to investigate the effectiveness of the MBST 
intervention at reducing dating violence perpetration as compared to the psychoeducational 
intervention. We chose to run my analyses within a regression framework in Mplus as this 
allowed for intercorrelations among predictors (e.g., anxiety and depression were included as 
covariates so we could account for their intercorrelation) and the use of FIML to handle missing 
data. We used dummy coding to create a variable to differentiate treatment groups. Within a 
regression framework, we used this dummy-coded variable to predict our outcome (dating 
violence). We controlled for baseline levels of dating violence perpetration and included other 
covariates based on preliminary analyses. This analysis, as compared to the analyses for Aims 1 
– 3, included participants from both groups. Please also note analyses were run separately for 
each type of dating violence (physical, sexual, psychological). 
Intent to treat analyses. As guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 
(CONSORT; Schulz, Altman, & Moher, 2010), the number of participants in each group were 
analyzed according to the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle. ITT is a collective strategy for design, 
conduct, and analysis in which all participants who are randomized to a group are treated as if 

they complied with their assigned treatments (Gupta, 2011). Most likely, not all participants will 
comply with their assigned treatments and missing data will be an issue. To ensure a 
conservative estimate of treatment effects (and to avoid confounds of patient characteristics with 
treatment allocation) ITT analyses were used. We planned to report information on participants 
who deviated from their random allocation treatment, but no participants deviated into another 
group. We also reported information on missing data. Specifically, according to CONSORT 
guidelines we reported “numbers analysed” (number of participants included in each analysis 
and whether the analysis was by original assigned groups; Schulz, Altman, & Moher, 2010, p. 
727).  
Missing data. We used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) to handle missing 
data. FIML is superior to other traditional approaches, such as listwise deletion, as it uses all 
available information in all observations instead of deleting observations due to missing values 
(Muthén & Muthén, 2007). Furthermore, as described above, we conducted analyses to 
investigate if participants who dropped out of the study differed systematically from those who 
remained in the study. Key characteristics were identified and were controlled for in all analyses.   
Randomization. Following baseline data collection, all participants were randomly 
assigned (see information on blinding below) to either the MBST intervention or the 
psychoeducational intervention. Randomization represents best practices in research and aims to 
ensure that each participant is no more likely than the next to be assigned to a particular group. 
Specifically, we used restricted random allocation to ensure equally-sized groups. To do this the 
lab coordinator gave the co-PI fake participant IDs for the semester in an excel spreadsheet (e.g., 
a list of 50 participants with IDs such as 134, 258, 250, 350). The co-PI randomly selected half 
of the fake participant IDs to be assigned to one group and another half to be assigned to the 

other group. The co-PI then gave the list back to the lab coordinator who paired the fake 
participant IDs with the real participant IDs. The lab coordinator then randomly assigned each 
group to a condition. This procedure was repeated for each semester. The co-PI did not see any 
real participant IDs until all data collection was completed and the co-PI did not know which 
participant IDs or numbers corresponded to which treatment group until all analyses were 
finished.    
Blinding. While randomization is one important step in minimizing bias, randomization 
alone does not solve all issues of bias. Another important factor to consider is blinding, which 
refers to “the concealment of group allocation from one or more individuals involved in 
a…randomized controlled trial.” (Karanicolas, Farrokhyar, & Bhandari, 2010, p. 345) If a 
member of the research team (who is also aware of the hypotheses) knows which participants are 
assigned to which groups, it can lead to bias throughout the process. For example, a researcher 
may treat an individual in one treatment group (in this case, the MBST intervention) differently 
as compared to a participant in another group (the psychoeducational intervention) and this 
might influence the participants to behave in a way that is in line with the researcher’s 
hypotheses during assessments. Bias can also be introduced later on in the research process 
during data analysis. If a researcher knows which group is hypothesized to perform better, the 
researcher may selectively report results of statistical tests. Therefore, it is critical to blind the 
researchers throughout as much of the process as possible. 
To reduce bias, a few steps were taken (some of which were already mentioned above). 
First, the co-principal investigator did not see any participant names/emails throughout the data 
collection process. All participants completed assessments online using their email addresses. A 
separate researcher (lab coordinator) downloaded the data and assigned participant IDs to the 

participants based on their email addresses. The lab coordinator then deleted the email addresses 
from the data files before the co-principal investigator ever had a chance to look at them. The co-
principal investigator then randomized participants’ fake IDs using excel (see process described 
above). Following that, the co-principal investigator gave the lab coordinator the list of fake 
participant IDs who have been assigned to equal groups. The lab coordinator then paired the fake 
IDs with the real IDs and randomly assign groups to treatment conditions. The values of 
corresponding conditions were not be shown to the co-principal investigator until all data has 
been collected and all analyses have been conducted. Additionally, the lab coordinator sent and 
responded to all participant emails as to keep the co-principal investigator blind during this 
process as well (since IDs were matched to email addresses). The same process for deleting 
email addresses and assigning participant IDs was conducted at follow-up.  
During the actual intervention, the co-principal investigator was not allowed to handle 
any intervention materials, as to keep her blinded from IDs. However, as the co-principal 
investigator was part of the actual intervention it must be acknowledged that she was not fully 
blinded throughout this process.  
During data analysis, precautions were made to keep the co-principal investigator blind 
as well. As stated above, all analyses were determined a-priori. Therefore, the co-principal 
investigator could not selectively test and/or report analyses but reported as stated in the 
document. As previously mentioned, when running analyses with the dummy coded variables the 
co-principal investigator did not know which number corresponded to which treatment group. 
The value of the groups was not revealed to her until all analyses were conducted.