The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Reducing Sexual Revictimization: A Field Test 

with an Urban Sample 

Author(s): Robert Davis ; Pamela Guthrie ; Timothy Ross ; 

Chris O’Sullivan 

Document No.: 216002 

Date Received: October 2006 

Award Number: 2002-WG-BX-0008 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
REDUCING SEXUAL REVICTIMIZATION: 

 A FIELD TEST WITH AN URBAN SAMPLE

Report to the 

National Institute of Justice 

By 

Vera Institute of Justice 

(Robert Davis, Pamela Guthrie, and Timothy Ross) 

Safe Horizon 

(Chris O’Sullivan) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
ABSTRACT 

Women who become victims of sexual assault are at much higher risk than other women 

of being victimized again. Research has suggested that psychological processes initiated 

by sexual victimization, especially in childhood and adolescence, result in behaviors that 

can increase victims’ exposure to potential offenders and make them more vulnerable to 

the tactics of the offenders they encounter. 

The Vera Institute of Justice in partnership with Safe Horizon and the Center for Sexual 

Assault and Traumatic Stress at the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical 

Center developed a brief training to help sexual assault survivors reduce the risk of 

further assault. The workshop was developed from material that showed promise in 

reducing revictimization in a sample of college women. Using information gained from 

in-depth interviews with 33 sexual assault survivors of multiple sexual assaults in New 

York and Seattle, the material was adapted for urban women. 

Eighty-four previously victimized women (who were receiving or had recently received 

counseling in regard to their sexual assaults) were randomly assigned to participate in the 

risk reduction workshop or to a control condition in which they did not receive the 

training. Both groups were assessed on measures that included knowledge of sexual 

assault risk factors, confidence in handling risky situations, attributions for past 

victimizations, PTSD, behavior in dating situations, and sexual victimization. The 

assessments were conducted prior to the workshop and again six months later. Results 

indicated that the workshop was not effective in reducing revictimization over the next 

six months. Further inspection revealed that the women who participated in the 

workshop did not gain in awareness of risky situations or reduce self-blame for prior 

victimizations at follow-up, the primary means through which a reduction in 

revictimization was hypothesized to occur. 

2

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTRODUCTION 

One of the most fruitful areas of research in criminology today is work on repeat 

victimization. Findings are that a small percentage of the population experiences a 

relatively large proportion of all crime and that one of the strongest predictors of 

victimization is previous victimization (see, for example, Hindelang et al., 1978; 

Sorenson, Siegel, Golding & Stein, 1991; Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000; Menard, 

2000). This pattern of repeated victimization is not news to those who work with victims 

of domestic violence: it is commonly believed that repeat abuse by an intimate partner is 

not only possible but likely. More surprisingly, research has shown that victims of other 

types of crimes are also at high risk of revictimization: robbery victims have a nine times 

greater chance of being robbed again than non-victims, and burglary victims have a four 

times greater risk of another burglary (Canada Solicitor General, 1988; National Board 

for Crime Prevention, 1994). 

The most significant aspect of the work in repeat victimization is the implication 

that it may be, in part, preventable. The British have pioneered programs in working with 

victims of burglary, domestic violence, auto theft, and hate crimes to reduce the 

likelihood of a recurrence. These programs have incorporated a model of interaction 

between research and practice. In crimes ranging from burglary to domestic violence to 

racial violence, researchers have forged alliances with law enforcement authorities to 

define problems and assess the results of interventions (for reviews, see Davis, Maxwell, 

and Taylor, in press; Pease, 1998; Pease and Laycock, 1996; Farrell, 1995). 

Indications are that such programs can not only reduce the chances of 

3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
revictimization for individuals but also lead to significant decreases in overall crime rates 

(see Davis, Taylor, & Titus, 1997 for a discussion). In this country as well, field tests 

have lent some empirical support to the idea that interventions with robbery, burglary, 

and assault victims can reduce repeat incidents (Davis & Smith, 1994; Weisel, Clarke & 

Stedman, 1999). 

Sexual Assault Revictimization 

The highest revictimization rate for crimes other than domestic violence is found 

among sexual assault survivors who, according to one study, stand a 35 times greater 

chance of sexual assault than non-victims (Canada Solicitor General, 1988; National 

Board for Crime Prevention, 1994). Indeed, a meta-analysis by Roodman & Clum (2001) 

found a moderate effect size (.59) for revictimization, and noted that between 15% and 

79% of women sexually abused in childhood were raped as adults. Most studies, 

however, find that women who have been raped before the age of 18 have double the risk 

of being raped in adulthood as do women with no history of rape. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 

2006). Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal (2001) reviewed 90 studies of adult revictimization 

among child sexual abuse survivors and found an average of 2.5 times the revictimization 

rate of women who had not been abused in childhood. Some studies that have examined 

more discretely the age at which the child was victimized have found victimization in 

adolescence to be a stronger predictor of sexual assault in adulthood than victimization in 

childhood, although childhood victimization is associated with a higher likelihood of 

victimization in adolescence; those women who were victimized in childhood and 

adolescence faced the highest risk (Siegal & Williams, 2003; Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & 

Layman, 1993). 

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The fact that individuals with a history of sexual abuse in childhood and/or 

adolescence are at increased risk of sexual assault is recognized by psychological service 

providers and researchers. Indeed, at least five recent reviews have been devoted to the 

topic (Classen, et al., 2005; Messman-Moore & Long, 2003; Arata, 2002; Breitenbecher, 

2001; Roodman & Klum, 2001). In the introduction to a special issue of the journal 

Child Maltreatment (February, 2000) devoted to child sexual abuse, Daniel Smith notes 

the need for explanatory models of repeat victimization. Smith lauds the development of 

scientific approaches to the cycle of repeat victimization and the development of more 

complex models that link the effects of the initial assault on victims’ cognitions and 

behavior to increased vulnerability. 

The correlation between childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual victimization 

has been established in numerous empirical studies. The studies in this literature can 

generally be divided into those using clinical samples (e.g., Classen, Field, Koopman, 

Nevill-Manning, & Spiegel, 2001; West, Williams, & Siegel, 2000; Collins, 1998; Kluft, 

1990; Briere & Runtz, 1986); convenience samples (e.g., Irwin, 1999); community 

samples (e.g., Raghavan, Bogart, Elliott, Vestal, & Schuster, 2004; Messman-Moore & 

Long, 2002; Fergussen, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1997; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass., 1992; 

Siegel, Sorenson, Golding, Burnam & Stein, 1987); college samples (e.g., Himelein, 

1995; Gidycz, Hanson, & Layman, 1995); and special populations (e.g., Merrill, et al., 

1999; Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999). 

The majority of studies, however, focus on college and clinical samples in which 

minority women are underrepresented (Siegel & Williams, 2003). This sampling bias is 

a serious weakness in the effort to understand revictimization because there is some 

5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
research indicating that African American and American Indian women are at greater risk 

of sexual victimization than other ethnic groups (Classen et al., 2005). Therefore, many 

researchers consider studies employing community samples the most useful because they 

are most representative of society. Research with community samples, however, often 

suffers from low participation and retention rates (Muelenhard, Highby, Lee, Bryan, & 

Dodrill, 1998). 

Regardless of the type of sample used, findings are remarkably consistent in that 

women who suffer child sexual abuse and women who are sexually assaulted as teens or 

adults are at far higher risk for sexual victimization than are women with no history of 

sexual abuse. In addition, the severity of childhood sexual abuse (the use of force and 

threats, and whether there is penetration), longer duration of the abuse, and closeness of 

the relationship between victim and offender are associated with higher risk of 

revictimization (for a review see Classen et al., 2005). In describing the breadth and 

depth of disruption due to child sexual abuse, Noll (2005) has characterized victims as 

being removed from the normal workshop of development and placed on a trajectory of 

lower academic performance and poor physical and mental health. 

Some of the most rigorous research on sexual revictimization, as well as 

evaluation of interventions to reduce revictimization, has been done by Gidycz and her 

associates. In a short-term prospective study of women in college, Gidycz and colleagues 

(1993) found that fully 18% experienced some form of sexual coercion within only nine 

weeks of the baseline measure. Using path analysis, they found that childhood sexual 

abuse predicted adolescent and adult sexual abuse, and that those who had experienced 

rape or attempted rape in adolescence (since age 14) were twice as likely to be sexually 

6

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
assaulted within the nine–week follow up period. Conducting follow up at three-month 

intervals over nine months in a 1995 study (Gidycz, Hanson, & Layman), the results were 

even more dramatic. Those who had a history of sexual abuse in childhood or 

adolescence sexual abuse experienced twice the rate of sexual assault during the initial 

three-month follow up period. Data from the next two follow-up periods illustrated the 

immediate impact of a recent assault and the multiplying effects of repeat victimization: 

Those who experienced abuse during the first three months of the study experienced three 

times the rate of sexual abuse during the second three months, and those who were 

abused during the second three months experienced twenty times more sexual abuse 

during the third three months. 

Models of Revictimization 

Psychological processes. Numerous studies have documented the fact that sexual 

abuse in childhood and in adulthood has serious and lasting psychological consequences. 

Long term psychological correlates of childhood sexual abuse include depression, 

suicidality, sexual dysfunction, self-mutilation, chronic anxiety, post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), dissociation (the sense that one is separate from one’s body or feelings, 

so that threatening and distressing events are not experienced directly, but as though 

observed), memory impairment, and somatization , i.e., anxiety manifested in physical 

symptoms, such as gastrointestinal distress, headaches, etc. (see Goodman, Koss, & 

Russo, 1993, and Resick, 1993 for reviews). Impairment in interpersonal functioning has 

been documented as well (Briere & Runtz, 1986; Classen, et al., 2001). 

A number of models have been proposed to explain how psychological processes 

triggered by sexual assault increase risk of future victimization. Most of this work has 

7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
been specifically developed to explain what happens to children when they are sexually 

abused, but much of it applies equally well to adult victims of sexual assault. 

Browne and Finkelhor (1986) developed a comprehensive “traumogenic” model 

to explain how early sexual abuse may increase the odds of abuse later in life through 

four dynamics. First, Browne and Finkelhor postulate that, through “traumatic 

sexualization,” child sexual abuse results in the association of sex with affection or 

attention, thereby promoting promiscuity or compulsive sexual behavior. Second, 

Browne and Finkelhor hypothesize that feelings of betrayal lead to a strong need to reestablish trust in others, but poor judgment about which individuals are trustworthy. 

Third, they believe that abuse leads to powerlessness, similar to the concept of learned 

helplessness described by Seligman (1975) in regard to depression and Walker, (1979) in 

regard to battered women. The sense of powerlessness inhibits victims from asserting 

themselves in rebuffing unwanted sexual advances. Fourth, in a process that Browne and 

Finkelhor term “stigmatization,” victims of sexual abuse develop a negative self-image 

that may lead to substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, or even criminal activity. 

Other researchers have applied attribution theory to explain repeat sexual 

victimization. For example, Gold, Sinclair and Balge (1999) proposed that internal, 

stable and global attributions about child sexual abuse (i.e., the child believes the abuse 

was due to an unchangeable characteristic of herself that will affect other areas) may 

produce distress, substance abuse, or high risk sexual behavior. Arata (2000) found that 

both PTSD and self-blame predicted revictimization of child sexual abuse survivors in a 

large sample of undergraduates. Irwin (1999) found that victims of child abuse who 

“positively reappraised” their abusive experiences had a lower revictimization rate and 

8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
were better able to cope with new dangerous situations. 

Behavioral changes. To explain how psychological changes triggered by sexual 

abuse increase future risk of sexual assault, the internal changes in how victims view 

themselves and the world must be linked to changes in their behavior. For example, it 

has been suggested that emotional avoidance, a common outcome of sexual abuse, may 

encourage victims to adopt behaviors that suppress intense emotional memories 

associated with abuse (Polusny & Follette, 1995). Some of these behaviors, such as 

substance abuse or compulsive sexual behavior increase the risk of future sexual assault 

(Briere & Runtz, 1987). 

As proposed by Grauerholz (2000), vulnerability to re-assault can result from 

victim behavior that increases the possibility of contact with potential perpetrators and 

increases the likelihood that a potential perpetrator will act in an aggressive manner. 

Messman-Moore and Long (2003) elaborated on this idea in their two-part “ecological” 

model of sexual revictimization. The first part of their model is a straightforward 

application of routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Fattah (1991, 1993) has 

argued that particular persons run a greater risk of becoming victims because of choices 

they make or are forced into by circumstances in the areas of lifestyle, friends, and places 

frequented. The result is that some individuals have a higher likelihood than others to 

cross paths with persons with the motivation to engage in criminal behavior. According 

to Messman-Moore and Long, early sexual victimization may promote substance abuse 

and consensual sexual behavior with multiple partners, which increase the likelihood that 

victims will come into contact with potential perpetrators later in life. 

The second part of Messman-Moore and Long’s model posits that psychological 

9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
and social vulnerability among victims of child sexual abuse (e.g., decreased awareness 

of danger, lack of assertiveness) are picked up on by potential offenders. Once in a 

vulnerable situation with a potential offender, victims of sexual abuse may not have the 

awareness of danger, confidence, or assertiveness to end the encounter safely. 

What is the empirical evidence for a connection between behavioral changes due 

to child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization? Dating back to the 1980s, research has 

demonstrated consistently that substance abuse and a greater number of sex partners are 

more prevalent among victims of child sexual abuse than among other women (e.g., Koss 

& Dinero, 1989; Mandoki & Burkhart, 1989; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). 

A number of studies have found that alcohol or drug abuse increases risk of 

sexual assault. Messman-Moore and Long (1999) found that women who abuse alcohol 

were 2.7 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-drinkers or light drinkers, 

and women who abused drugs were 3.2 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than 

those who did not abuse drugs. Similarly, a longitudinal study of urban women, 

predominantly low-income and black, found that alcohol problems increased the risk of 

adult sexual victimization 2.5 times (Siegel & Williams, 2003). Using the National 

Women’s Study, Kilpatrick et al. (1997) found the highest revictimization rate among 

those who had experienced a prior assault and who abused drugs. These findings held 

true for adolescent girls as well, according to the National Longitudinal Study of 

Adolescent Health (Raghavan et al., 2004). 1 

1 However, while it is well-established that (a) child sexual abuse survivors are more likely than those not 

abused to receive a diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse and (b) alcohol or drug abuse leads to higher risk of 

sexual victimization, it is not necessarily true that substance abuse explains much or all of the higher rate of 

adult victimization among victims of child sexual abuse. A study that specifically tested statistically for a 

mediating role of alcohol in the relationship between child sexual abuse and revictimization failed to 

confirm the link (Mayall & Gold, 1995). 

10

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Many studies have found that adult survivors of child sexual abuse begin 

engaging in consensual sex at a younger age, have more sexual partners, have more shortterm sexual relationships, and have sex with casual acquaintances more often than 

women who were not sexually abused in childhood (Wyatt, 1988; Zeigler, et al., 1991; 

Rodriguez et al., 1992). Wyatt (1993) found that the more severely women were sexually 

abused as children, the more frequently they had sex in adulthood. Prostitutes and 

“exotic dancers” have notoriously high rates of childhood sexual abuse histories (Ross, 

Anderson, Herbert & Norton, 1990). Many studies, including well-designed longitudinal 

studies, have linked frequent consensual sex with different partners to an increased risk of 

repeat sexual assault (e.g., Messman-Moore & Long, 2002; Arata, 2000; Himelein, 

1995). However, while it may seem logical that more sexual partners increases the 

chance of unwanted sexual contact, the relationship is not completely clear. Some welldesigned studies found only a weak or inconsistent relationship between number of 

partners and adult sexual victimization (Siegel & Williams, 2003; Gidycz, et.al., 1995). 

According to Messman-Moore and Long (2003), once potential victims and 

offenders have crossed paths, the psychological processes triggered by past 

victimizations may make victims of sexual assault more vulnerable than others.. Victims 

who suffer low self-esteem and feel powerless to control their lives may fail to take 

normal safety precautions or to resist trespasses by others (Friedman & Tucker, 1997; 

Finkelhor & Browne, 1985; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass 1992). They may find it difficult 

to say no or may accept victimization as part of a relationship (Classen, Field, et. al., 

2001). Greene and Navarro (1998) found that low levels of assertiveness in sexual 

situations predicted revictimization during a three-month follow-up and Classen, et al. 

11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
(2001) found that women who were revictimized were more likely to describe themselves 

as non-assertive and overly nurturing. 

In addition, PTSD and dissociation can inhibit women’s ability to recognize and 

act on relevant danger cues (Casey & Nurius, 2005; Sandberg, Matorin, & Lynn, 1999; 

Wilson, Calhoun, & Bernat, 1999; Cloitre, Scarvalone, & Difede, 1997; Herman, 1992; 

Chu & Dill, 1990), and at least one study found that childhood abuse survivors who 

suffered from PTSD were more likely to be revictimized (Sandberg, Matorin, & Lynn, 

1999). Wilson, Calhoun and Bernat (1999) found that repeat victims listening to a 

depiction of an unfolding acquaintance rape scenario in a laboratory study were slower 

than non-victims to decide whether a situation was dangerous or not. Meadows, Jaycox, 

and Foa (1996) found that women who had been raped repeatedly had higher levels of 

dissociation and lower risk recognition (according to raters’ assessments of their rape 

narratives) than women raped once. Differences between the two groups disappeared 

when scores on a test of dissociation were controlled; suggesting that poor risk 

recognition was a function of dissociation. 

In a follow-up study, Meadows, Jaycox, Orsilla, and Foa (1997) found that sexual 

assault victims were slower to respond to potential danger cues in narratives about malefemale encounters than non-sexual assault victims. In general, victims indicated that they 

would leave a situation after physical contact was made while non-victims tended to 

indicate that they would leave before physical contact was made. Similar slowing of 

women’s ability to detect potential danger in situations may be exacerbated by alcohol or 

drug use which, as we have noted, is more common among repeat victims of sexual 

assault. 

12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sexual Assault Prevention2 and Risk Reduction Programs 

A number of therapies have been shown to be effective in helping sexual assault 

survivors recover psychologically, and are in common use. These include cognitive 

processing therapy (Deblinger, Stauffer, & Steer, 2001; Resick & Schnicke, 1992); 

feminist therapy (Morgan & Cummings, 1999); and exposure therapy (Foa, et. al., 1999; 

Tarrier, Pilgrim & Sommerfield, et al., 1999). These therapies aim to reduce PTSD, 

depression, anxiety, and phobias, but are not specifically designed to reduce the 

likelihood of revictimization – although to the extent treatment resolves PTSD, 

dissociation, low self-esteem and self-medication, they may ultimately reduce 

vulnerability. 

In fact, although sexual assault has one of the highest revictimization rates of any 

crime, there have only recently been efforts to develop intervention programs to reduce 

behavioral risks of survivors. In part, this gap may be due to reluctance to entertain the 

idea that survivors may be able to exercise some control over their risk of revictimization. 

Some advocates reasonably object to the implication that victims somehow cause the reassaults and point out that only the potential perpetrator can truly prevent a sexual assault 

from taking place. We acknowledge this truth. Yet while the criminal justice system 

attempts to thwart perpetrators, there are few programs that seek to train survivors on 

how to avoid risk 

Our research indicates that Gidycz and her colleagues were the first to design and 

evaluate a non-therapeutic intervention to address repeat sexual assault victimization. 

2 We prefer the term “avoidance” instead of “prevention.” Victims avoid rape but do not prevent the rapist 

from attacking someone else. However, in order to remain consistent with the literature on similar 

intervention programs, we use the terms “prevention” and “risk reduction” in this report. 

13

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Hanson and Gidycz (1993) initially designed an educational program for college women 

that, in a single session, covered myths and facts about rape, rape avoidance strategies, 

dating behaviors associated with sexual assault and sexual communication – as is typical 

of rape awareness programs offered for incoming college students. After completing a 

baseline questionnaire, 360 undergraduate women were randomly assigned to an 

intervention group and a control group. Nine weeks later, the researchers found that the 

program reduced assaults (using a broad definition) among women without sexual assault 

histories, but had no protective effects for previously victimized women. 

Following up on this study, Gidycz added to the rape education program elements 

specifically addressing the higher risk of previously victimized women (Hanson, 

Breitenbecher & Gidycz, 1998). The program, still one session in length, included 

discussion of the reasons for repeat victims’ increased vulnerability, extra precautions 

that previously victimized women could take in high risk situations, and the 

blamelessness of previously victimized women. Again, college women were randomly 

assigned to treatment or control conditions. This time, no beneficial effect of the 

program was found among either the previously victimized or the non-victims. A third 

attempt (Gidycz, Lynn et al., 2001) showed somewhat more promising results. The 

intervention was modified again, extended to two two-hour sessions. Measures were 

taken at two follow-up intervals, including a two-month follow-up and a six-month 

follow-up, a longer interval than had been used previously. The authors did not find a 

main effect of the program on revictimization at six months, but did find a complicated 

three-way interaction effect indicating a reduction in revictimization at six months for 

women who went through the intervention, but only if they had been moderately 

14

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
victimized at the two-month assessment. Finally, Gidycz, Layman, et.al. (2001) found no 

reduction in victimization from a one-hour psychoeducational session on rape facts and 

myths. 

Yeater and O’Donohue (2002) developed a three-component workshop, including 

rape facts and myths, risk factors, and response strategies. Women exposed to a one-hour 

workshop scored significantly better on a post-test measure than control subjects. The 

study found, however, that subjects in the educational treatment required more than one 

exposure to reach a high level of mastery of the material. This study did not include an 

assessment of revictimization. 

The most successful risk reduction program was described by Marx, Calhoun, 

Wilson, and Meyerson (2001). The authors conducted a field test of a two-session risk 

reduction program using a sample of college women with sexual assault histories. The 

program was based on the protocol developed by Gidycz and her associates, including 

increasing knowledge about sexual assault, teaching strategies to thwart unwanted sexual 

advances, promoting assertiveness and the development of communication skills, and 

altering dating behaviors known to put women at elevated risk for assault. The program 

developed by Marx, et al. included an additional component of risk recognition, based on 

the findings that women with histories of multiple sexual assaults are slower to recognize 

risk cues than other women. Thus, the Marx, et al. protocol included training on 

recognizing danger in male-female interactions. The researchers randomly assigned 66 

women to receive the prevention protocol or not. At the end of two months, the women 

who participated in the prevention program were significantly less likely to be raped 

(although there was no reduction in overall revictimization), showed improvement in 

15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
psychological adjustment, and showed greater self-efficacy in risky sexual situations 

relative to control participants. 

Testing a New Intervention 

This body of work on sexual assault revictimization shows the importance, but 

also the difficulty, of designing special interventions for women once victimized who are 

most at risk of suffering a future victimization. Evaluations of the small number of recent 

attempts to design programs to cut the risk of revictimization were inconsistent. But the 

success of the Marx, et al. study suggested that it might be possible to reduce 

significantly women’s risk with just a brief intervention. 

However, no intervention that we are aware of had been designed and tested using 

an urban sample with diverse socioeconomic and racial characteristics. All of the field 

tests of programs to reduce the likelihood of repeat sexual assault victimization had been 

done using samples of college students, relatively homogeneous with respect to age, 

socioeconomic status, education, and race. Moreover, the kinds of incidents in which 

these study subjects had been involved in were primarily “date rape” situations. We 

attempted to build on the pioneering work of Gidycz and Marx by developing a program 

to reduce repeat sexual victimization in a sample of urban women who were receiving 

counseling from crime victim treatment programs. This sample would inevitably be 

diverse with respect to age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. 

In several respects, the challenges of devising a program for survivors in the 

community were even more daunting than designing a program for a campus community. 

We expected to encounter a greater diversity of victimizing situations, ranging from 

acquaintance rape to stranger rape. We expected that there would be issues of drug and 

16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
alcohol abuse that make women especially vulnerable to a new assault. In a diverse 

urban sample, we expected there might be a higher rate of abuse of street drugs, possibly 

prostitution and lower functioning individuals than sexual assault survivors who manage 

to stay in college. But in other respects, there were fewer obstacles to devising a protocol 

for a revictimized community population. We would be working with women already in 

counseling who had made the decision to seek help and had made a commitment to 

making changes that would improve their situation. Our intervention was intended to 

serve as an adjunct to counseling or therapy: While the survivor was receiving help in 

resolving the trauma caused by repeat victimization, the risk-reduction intervention 

constructed and piloted in this project addressed more practical day-to-day issues of 

safety and survival during the recovery process. Our goal was to develop an intervention 

that would be analogous to safety planning for battered women, and one that could be 

used by sexual assault counselors as an adjunct to psychological counseling. 

Targeting the prevention program to a population currently in counseling made 

practical sense: These are victims who are motivated to change their lives. Testing the 

protocol only on victims in counseling admittedly limited the generalizeability of results, 

but it limited them to a population of victims most likely to participate in such a program. 

Our purpose here was in applied science -- developing a program that would work and 

would be used. Administering a risk reduction program to victims who are in counseling 

targets a population likely to take advantage of such a program, and it targets them at a 

time when they are likely to be open to making changes in their lives. In this respect, we 

were mimicking the successful British model of revictimization prevention where victims 

are approached at the time they seek services. Developing an intervention for victims 

17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
seeking services also served another important purpose: Clinicians who work with the 

multiply victimized report that continued victimization does not allow the client to heal 

and disrupts the client’s ability to pursue counseling. If we could create a successful 

prevention protocol, it would aid in creating a safe space for survivors to address 

underlying trauma in counseling. 

18

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
METHOD 

The field test was implemented as a randomized experiment. The design called 

for recruitment of 90 sexual assault victims receiving services from Safe Horizon in New 

York and 30 victims receiving assistance from Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. 

Half of the eligible candidates were to be randomly assigned to participate in a four-hour 

workshop on avoiding sexual assault while the others were to be assigned to a control 

condition that did not receive the training. Both groups were scheduled to participate in a 

baseline assessment battery administered in person. After completion of the assessment, 

those assigned to the experimental condition were to begin the workshop. Researchers 

contacted women in both groups six months later for a second assessment, this time 

conducted over the phone. 

The Sites 

The project was conducted at Safe Horizon in New York City and at Harborview 

Medical Center in Seattle. The decision to have two study sites was primarily pragmatic. 

Although the sexual assault programs in both cities serve large client populations, neither 

was sufficient by itself to meet the recruitment demands of the field test. The programs 

used a similar approach, each offering crisis response and counseling. The crisis response 

model used by both programs involved 1-3 sessions designed to provide information, 

support, an opportunity to express feelings about the assault, and assistance in making 

plans for safety, reporting, obtaining social support, and treatment. Crisis response also 

included material assistance such as emergency financial aid, help filing compensation 

applications, and relocation assistance. Based on the numbers of adult sexual assault 

19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
survivors served by both programs, researchers decided to allocate 3⁄4 of the participants 

from Safe Horizon and 1⁄4 from Harborview. 

The client populations of the two programs were complementary. Safe Horizon’s 

clients are primarily Black (36%) and Latina (26%). In contrast, a majority of 

Harborview clients are White (59%), although Harborview also has many non-white, 

non-Hispanic clients. The average age of adult clients in both programs is mid to late 

20s, but each included a range of client ages that extended to their 60s. 

The Workshop in Avoiding Revictimization 

The workshop adapted the program developed by Marx, et al. (2001). Their 

program consisted of two two-hour sessions intended to (a) increase knowledge of 

situations likely to lead to sexual assault, (b) teach communication skills and practical 

strategies for avoiding unwanted sexual contact, (c) teach recognition of risky 

interpersonal situations, and (d) teach assertiveness in social situations. 

Components of the program used by Marx include presentation by a group leader 

and discussion of characteristics of sexual offenders, situational and personal risk factors 

for sexual victimization, and common post-assault reactions and feelings. Marx also used 

a videotape developed by Hanson and Gidycz (1993) depicting situational variables (e.g., 

alcohol consumption, nonassertive behavior) conducive to sexual assault. Participants 

were encouraged to discuss factors in the film that promoted sexual assault and to suggest 

alternative scenarios that would reduce risk levels. Participants were asked to fill out a 

worksheet listing the perpetrator, situational, and personal risk factors associated with 

their own victimizations. These were discussed within the group and participants were 

invited to suggest strategies to reduce risk should they find themselves in similar 

20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
situations in the future. Participants were also presented with several hypothetical highrisk situations and asked to formulate solutions to avoid victimization. Finally, 

participants were taught assertiveness skills using a covert modeling procedure. 

Since the Marx et al. protocol was designed to reduce the risk of campus 

acquaintance rape, we needed to adapt it for an urban context and a non-student 

population. For that modification, we needed to gain a better understanding of the 

situations and dynamic interactions that lead to sexual assaults of adult women living 

outside an institutional setting. Therefore, prior to designing the intervention, we 

conducted in-depth interviews with 33 women who had experienced multiple sexual 

assaults (“Phase I interviews”). The women, recruited from rape crisis programs at Safe 

Horizon, Harborview Medical Center and other hospitals in New York and Seattle, and 

from advertisements, were diverse with respect to age, ethnicity, education, and 

socioeconomic status. Most of the women in the sample of 33 were assaulted by 

someone they knew casually, but usually not by someone they had been dating. 

The themes that emerged from the Phase I interviews -- early sexual abuse, low 

self esteem, manipulation by the rapist, and alcohol or drug abuse -- echoed the research 

done with child sexual abuse survivors attending college and the assumptions behind the 

Marx, et al. workshop. The interviews strongly suggested that in the situations that 

resulted in an assault, the women often granted a high level of trust quickly to the 

assailant. The women then found themselves in situations with men who were not 

trustworthy (and, in fact, who preyed on that trust) and cut off from help from others. 

The trust was related to the connections the assailant had with a trusted friend of the 

victim: perpetrators were often friends of boyfriends, classroom acquaintances, cousins of 

21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
friends, or otherwise tangentially connected to the victim’s social network. The Phase I 

interviews suggested that, although the root causes of sexual assault may be best thought 

of within the context of the ways gender shapes power in relationships and that blame for 

sexual assault rests squarely with the perpetrator, there are actions that individual women 

might take within this context to reduce their particular risk levels (For the Phase I 

interview instrument and an example of some of the analysis of those interviews, see 

Appendix A). 

The workshop was developed and shaped using information from three sources: 

1) the intervention developed by Marx and those developed previously by Gidcyz; 2) the 

Phase I in-depth interviews with survivors of multiple sexual assaults; and 3) the 

literature on specific vulnerabilities of sexual assault survivors that are associated with 

repeat victimization. The material was also influenced by the research on and work with 

offenders conducted by two members of the research team, and consultant Amy 

Weintraub’s long experience directing a crime victim treatment program at Harlem 

Hospital. The directors of the sexual assault programs at three hospitals in New York 

City (St. Luke’s Roosevelt, St. Vincent’s, and Long Island College Hospital) reviewed 

the initial draft intervention at the early stages and at a later stage an abbreviated staging 

of the intervention was reviewed by the sexual assault program director and sexual 

assault counselors at Safe Horizon. (For brief biographies of staff involved in the 

research and intervention design see Appendix H). 

Marx’s intervention provided the organization of the two-day workshop and the 

basis of exercises used in the intervention. The literature (reviewed earlier in this report) 

was especially informative about the psychological and behavioral vulnerabilities of 

22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
sexual assault survivors. Specific empirically established vulnerabilities include PTSD 

and dissociation; internal attributions for previous assaults; impairments of judgment 

around trustworthiness of others; substance abuse; multiple sexual partners; and 

impairment of the ability to recognize danger (e.g., Messman-Moore & Long, 2003; 

Casey & Nurius, 2005; Sandberg, et al., 1999; Wilson, et al. 1999; Arata, 2000; 

Grauerholz, 2000). To address these factors, the workshop discussed these vulnerabilities 

and offered particular strategies and training to attempt to counteract them or work 

around them. 

The Phase I interviews with survivors drawn from the same population as the 

participants in the experiment provided information about the situations in which the 

assaults occurred and where the victims were encountering the men who assaulted them. 

That is, the many interventions developed for college students focused on parties, illicit 

drinking, and perpetrators who were other students. To adapt the intervention for an 

adult population, we needed to know the role of alcohol, the situations associated with 

assaults that survivors might want to avoid, and the general identify of the offenders. 

From the Phase I interviews, we learned that alcohol consumption by the victim or 

offender was sometimes but not usually associated with the assaults; that the assaults 

often took place in the offender’s home or the victim’s, where they were alone through a 

change in circumstances. Victims sometimes disclosed their previous sexual abuse in 

order to elicit protective reactions from a male friend – only to find that this strategy 

backfired. The offenders were most often male friends and acquaintances, although there 

were instances of ex-boyfriends, dates, and a customer. The abuser, it seemed, frequently 

gained the victim’s trust and sympathy through a series of manipulative steps, then used 

23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
that trust to isolate the victim, then frequently insisted on sex as an entitlement or as 

something the victim “owed” the offender as a result of her own actions, and often used 

physical force when insistence did not succeed. We observed that the offender thus 

typically modified the situation and redefined the reality of the relationship and the 

meaning of the victim’s actions or inaction. 

As an organizing framework, we observed that the material could be categorized 

into three themes: the sexually aggressive man who crosses the line to abuse and assault 

(including perpetrator characteristics, tactics, and behavioral warning signs); the situation 

(which is usually modified and manipulated by the aggressor); and the victim’s 

vulnerabilities that may hamper her ability to recognize and resist the tactics (such as the 

offender crossing boundaries), and her ability to escape unwanted and dangerous 

situations (for example, because of dissociation and tonic immobility). This framework 

allowed the facilitators to reinforce the role of the perpetrator in planning and creating the 

situation, and exploiting the vulnerabilities. 

The resulting workshop, like Marx’s intervention, consisted of two two-hour 

sessions conducted in small groups of 3-5 women over successive days, and used lecture, 

discussion, and exercises. 

Modules included: 

DAY ONE 

 Welcome 

o Explanation of the nature and purpose of the course 

o Setting norms and rules for the workshop 

o Trust building exercise 

o A note about “freezing” and affirmation of participant’s past appropriate 

responses 

24

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 Introduction 

o Definitions of sexual assault, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact 

o It is never your fault 

o Frequency of sexual assault 

o Vulnerability factors 

 (Effects on adults of sexual assault, especially in childhood and 

adolescence -- psychological changes, lifestyle changes) 

 The sexually abusive man 

o Lack of empathy; rigid gender roles 

o Planning and intentions 

o Characteristics (persistent, controlling, disparaging of women, angry, 

emotionally abusive) 

 Tactics 

o Psychological abuse 

o Manipulation and emotional abuse (invasive questions, overly flattering, 

inappropriate touching) 

o Coercion and physical abuse (force, disabling, overpowering, threats) 

 Changing the scene 

o Isolation 

o Wearing down your resistance (promising, coaxing, forcing, seeming 

harmless) 

o Crossing the line (Jekyll to Hyde; throwing you off balance) 

 Gender and vulnerability 

o Socialization of girls; pleasing men 

o Prior abuse (issues of drinking and drugs; self-blame; depression; need for 

approval; setting boundaries and trust; self-protection and self care; low 

self-esteem): causes and consequences 

o Boundaries: definition, setting protective boundaries 

 The first session ended with instructions on the Risk Factors Worksheet 

DAY TWO 

 Review of Risk Factors Worksheet 

 Drawing the line 

 Tuning into instincts 

 Discussion/exercise: what does it look like when male strangers cross the line? 

Male friends or co-workers? Male acquaintances and dates? Boyfriends and 

husbands? 

 Strategies for avoiding unwanted sexual experiences 

o Caveats: no strategy works all the time; situations and people are different; 

it is never a woman’s fault if a man made the choice to commit a sexual 

assault 

o Pre-emptive strategies: know what you want; trust your instincts; shift the 

blame back where it belongs 

o Voice: say what you want, repeat it, name his behavior 

o Leave, let others know, stall, fight back 

25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
o Practice: instructor reads scenarios for different relationships; participants 

propose strategies; group reviews and critiques possible defensive actions 

 Conceptual framework for workshop: Predator-Context-Victim Model 

This framework posits that assaults are the product of motivated predators 

experienced in shifting the context by isolating victims or encroaching on their 

personal space and victims who often have had childhood experiences that impede 

their recognition of contextual shifts and ability to extricate themselves from 

situations as they are unfolding. The instructors covered in detail: 

o Perpetrator/predator characteristics 

o Situational factors/contextual shifts 

o Victim vulnerability 

 Recognizing discomfort 

Participants were instructed about warning signs that situations are turning 

dangerous and taught to trust and act on their instincts. 

 Strategies for getting out of situations once a rape scenario has begun to unfold 

Although the aim of the workshop was to help victims recognize and avoid 

potentially dangerous men and situations, sometimes no amount of avoidance can 

prevent a rape scenario from unfolding. This section of the workshop presented 

results of research on the effects that fighting back, screaming, fleeing, reasoning, 

and other strategies have upon completion of rape and injury to victims. 

 Risk Factors Worksheet: Crossing the line exercise and homework (see Appendix 

B). 

The second session consisted of review, vignette exercise, and discussion: 

 Review of first session 

 Risk factors worksheet review 

 Vignette exercise (see Appendix C) 

Participants were presented with a series of vignettes based on the qualitative 

interviews, and were asked to (a) define the problem, (b) generate possible 

responses/solutions, (c) discuss pros and cons of responses suggested. 

 Assertiveness training 

26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Women assigned to the control group continued to receive counseling from Safe 

Horizon or Harborview (if applicable), but did not participate in the intervention. They 

received the same assessment battery at the same points as workshop participants, and 

received the same stipends upon completion of the two assessments. 

Recruitment and Subjects 

Our original intent was to recruit participants from among clients 18 years of age 

or older who were receiving or had received counseling for sexual assault at Safe Horizon 

or Harborview Medical Center. During the intake period, counselors at both locations 

were to screen their clients for repeat victimization and offer those clients who had 

experienced two or more incidents of sexual assault the opportunity to take part in the 

pilot. The names of those who expressed interest were given to research staff to contact 

and schedule an appointment for administration of informed consent and the baseline 

assessment. Volunteers were told that they would receive $75 upon completion of an 

initial assessment (controls) or the workshop (intervention group), and another $75 after a 

follow-up interview to be conducted six months later. 

Recruitment through the counselors proved to be slow, and it became clear that 

the sources of intake needed to be expanded. Cooperation was secured from rape crisis 

programs at local hospitals, clinics, and shelters in New York City. In addition, ads were 

placed on the Internet and in a local New York newspaper. Part of the difficulty in 

recruitment stemmed from the strict inclusion criteria of the study. Participants needed to 

have experienced either childhood sexual abuse or more than one sexual assault after the 

age of 18 and to have received counseling within the past two years for the sexual 

assaults. Additionally, we could not recruit from programs for individuals with 

27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
addictions, psychosis, eating disorders, or borderline personality disorder, populations 

which are known for often having histories of sexual assault. A number of participants 

that responded to our advertisements and flyers, along with potential referrals from 

clinicians, were disqualified because of these factors (for a discussion of issues related to 

working with a community sample of multiply assaulted women, see Appendix G). 

In all, 61 participants were recruited in New York and 23 in Seattle. Of the 84 

participants, 29 were current or former clients of Safe Horizon’s or Harborview’s sexual 

assault programs, and 21 were referred to the study by similar rape crisis programs at 

New York City hospitals. Fifteen were recruited through the advertisements (all were 

screened for treatment for sexual assault and severe symptoms), and the remainder from 

shelters and referrals from participants recruited through other means (snowball). Thus, 

60 percent were recruited directly from sexual assault programs, as planned. 

Women who participated in the field test were well educated. Fully 82 percent 

had completed a high school degree, and 28 percent had a college degree or more. 

Twenty-eight percent were employed full time, another 16 percent were employed parttime, and another 10% were students. Of the remainder, 10 percent were disabled, 5 

percent were homemakers, and 31 percent were unemployed. The largest proportion of 

participants (43%) identified as Black. Thirty-five percent identified as White, 15 

percent as Hispanic, with small numbers of Asian or other ethnic affiliations. Eighteen 

percent of subjects were married or engaged; 24 percent were divorced, separated, or 

widowed; and 58 percent had never been married. The average age of subjects was 36.8 

years. 

The median number of different forms of sexual abuse the women reported 

28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
having ever experienced was five. One in three women reported an incident of sexual 

abuse during the six months before the baseline assessment. The most common forms of 

unwanted sexual contact reported by participants were fondling or intercourse as a result 

of being overwhelmed by continual arguments and pressure and intercourse as a result of 

threats or physical force Eighty-three percent of the women reported having been 

victimized as children (age 12 or under). A majority of the victims of child sexual abuse 

reported having been victimized on five or more occasions. Eighty-percent of the sample 

reported having been victimized as a teenager, and over a third of those victimized as 

teens were victimized on five or more occasions. 

We noted substantial differences between the women recruited at the two sites 

(see Table 1). Compared to New York subjects, those recruited in Seattle were 

significantly more likely to be white and young (mean age = 31.0 for Seattle subjects, 

compared to 39.1 for New York recruits). Seattle participants were also more likely to 

have post-high school education and to be employed, although these differences did not 

reach statistical significance. These data indicate that the Seattle site did add 

substantially to the diversity of the sample, as we had hoped in planning the study. 

Table 1: Demographic Differences According to Study Site 

New York 

(n=61) 

Seattle 

(n=23) 

Total 

(N=83) 

Post-high school 

education 

55% 70% 59% 

Employed full or 

part-time 

40% 52% 43% 

Married now or 

previously

 48%* 26% 42% 

Proportion white 23%** 65% 35% 

Over 35 years old 62%** 26% 52% 

* p < .10 

** p < .05 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Assignment Process 

At the point that they agreed to participate in the study, subjects were to be 

randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. Each site used different 

randomization procedures. Seattle researchers spread out cards face down on a table. 

The cards were evenly split to represent risk reduction training or control conditions. The 

interviewer picked a card to assign each participant to a condition and then threw the card 

out, considering that space filled. At Safe Horizon, researchers reached into an envelope 

and selected one of two pieces of paper marked either “control” or “intervention” and 

discarded the slip or were assigned by a coin toss. Later, participants were assigned to 

conditions using the random number generator application on the Microsoft Excel 

program. 

In all, 46 victims were assigned to the experimental condition and 38 to the 

control condition. However, there were multiple exceptions to the assignment process. 

In seven cases of women living in emergency domestic violence shelters, researchers bypassed the assignment process to put the women into the risk reduction group. Because 

they were sharing a house and in some cases were sharing a room, we felt there would be 

contamination if some were assigned to the control and some were assigned to the 

intervention. Only three of these women were retained at follow-up. In addition, two 

cases were randomly assigned to the control group but received the intervention. They 

were invited to the intervention at the last minute when two women who were scheduled 

for the final workshop cancelled their appointments. Four cases were assigned to the 

intervention group, but missed the sessions. 

Differences by Case Assignment 

30

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
We observed some differences between subjects assigned to the two treatment 

groups in terms of demographic characteristics (see Table 2). Differences were 10 

percentage points or less in regard to education, marital status, and race. Women who 

were assigned to the intervention group and participated in the study were more likely to 

be unemployed than women in the control group (62% compared to 50%), but this 

difference did not reach statistical significance. We did find a significant difference by 

age: A larger proportion of women in the intervention group were over 35 years of age 

(mean age 39.4 years for women in the treatment group compared to 33.7 years for 

women in the control group).3 

Table 2: Demographic Differences According to 

Experimental Assignment 

Intervention 

Group 

(n=46) 

Control 

Group 

(n=38) 

Post-high school 

education 

56% 63% 

Employed full or 

part-time 

38% 50% 

Married now or 

previously 

47% 37% 

Proportion white 31% 40% 

Over 35 years old 61% 42%*

 * p < .10 

Assessments 

Assessments were conducted before the workshop and again six months after 

intake. For control group participants, the baseline administration of the assessment 

battery was conducted at the Safe Horizon research office or at the Harborview sexual 

3 F[1,79]=5.52, p<.02. Women randomly assigned to the intervention group may have had more difficulty 

adapting their schedules to the workshops, conducted on two successive evenings in New York, if they 

were employed or had young children. Therefore, there may have been differential attrition from the 

experimental group as compared to the control group. 

31

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
assault program office. For the follow-up interview, participants were offered the option 

of returning to the office or completing the assessment by telephone. 

Success in conducting follow-up interviews 

Overall, 84 percent of study participants were contacted and agreed to participate 

in the follow-up interview. (This retention rate actually exceeded the expectation of 75 

percent in the project proposal.) Seattle participants had a somewhat higher follow-up 

rate (91%) than New York participants (87%). Researchers were also somewhat more 

successful completing follow-up assessments with control cases (90%) than with 

experimental cases (80%). Neither differences in follow-up rates by city nor differences 

by treatment condition approached statistical significance.4 

The follow-up interviews, designed to be conducted six months after the 

intervention or baseline interview, in fact occurred fairly close to the target dates. The 

mean time between baseline and follow-up interviews was 219 days, and the median was 

212 days. (These figures are based on just 40 victims for whom interview dates were 

available.) Although victims in the control group received follow-up assessments 

somewhat later on average than victims in the experimental group (238 days compared to 

203 days), the difference did not approach statistical significance5. 

Women who participated in the follow-up interview were more likely to have 

continued their education past high school than those who did not participate (see Table 

3). Women who participated in the follow-up were also somewhat more likely to be 

currently or previously married and somewhat less likely to be White, compared to 

women who did not participate. 

4 Chi-square [1] = 1.30, n.s. for differences by treatment condition 

5 F[1,38]=0.85, ns. 

32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 3: Demographic Differences According to 

Follow Up Status

Follow-up obtained 

(n=71) 

No follow-up obtained 

(n=13) 

Post-high school 

education 

63%* 39% 

Employed full or 

part-time 

43% 46% 

Married now or 

previously 

46% 23% 

Proportion white 33% 46% 

Over 35 years old 53% 46% 

* p < .10 

 Assessment Instruments 

The battery for both baseline and follow-up assessments included measures of 

sexual assault knowledge, attributions for a prior assault in adulthood (NY sample only), 

behavior in dating situations, confidence in avoiding re-assault, post-traumatic stress 

disorder, and sexual revictimization. In addition, the baseline assessment included 

measures of alcohol consumption and tonic immobility, or the extent to which victims 

felt immobilized during a sexual assault: 

(a) Alcohol consumption 

The measure of alcohol consumption used in the study was developed from the 

alcohol use AUDIT. The AUDIT is a commonly-used scale for identifying 

problem drinkers or persons at risk of developing a problem (Babor, et al., 

1989). Three items were adapted for use in the current study. (Administered at 

baseline assessment only.) 

(b) Tonic immobility 

The Tonic Immobility Scale (Heidt, Marx, & Forsyth, in press) was developed 

as a measure of paralysis (e.g., inability to move or scream, trembling, 

dissociation) that victims may experience during a serious violent crime. Marx 

and his associates have demonstrated that the scale is a good predictor of 

recovery from sexual assault. The scale has a reliability coefficient of 0.94. 

The instructions for the scale indicate that answers should apply to the most 

recent sexual assault as an adult. In practice, however, if there had been no 

adult assault, most interviewers administered the scale to women who were 

33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
victimized in their teens. We used Marx’s scoring to produce an overall 

measure of tonic immobility. (Administered at baseline assessment only.) 

(c) Knowledge of sexual assault risk factors 

This assessment was based on Hanson and Gidycz’s (1993) Sexual Assault 

Awareness Survey, adapted to our training materials. The resulting scale was 

designed to measure subjects’ knowledge of sexual assault and situations 

leading up to it. Typical of items included in the scale are: “Heavy use of 

alcohol is associated with acquaintance rape.” Subjects respond to items in a 

true-false format. 

Since the revisions were extensive, we examined the new scale for cohesion. It 

turned out that the scale was not as cohesive as we would have liked. 

Subjecting the 14 items to a principal components analysis, we found that first 

factor accounted for just 18% of the variance. The initial reliability for the 

scale (alpha coefficient) was just 0.46. Using a backward elimination 

procedure, we reduced the scale to seven items.6 That scale had an alpha 

coefficient of 0.66. There were no gains in reliability with smaller versions of 

the scale, so we used the seven-item scale in our analyses. (Administered at 

baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

(d) Attributions 

Attributions for the most recent assault (extent to which women blame 

the assault on their behavior in the situation, their own character, or 

external factors), were assessed using the Sexual Assault Rating Scale 

(Arata, 1994; 1999). Attribution theory primarily distinguishes between 

internal and external attributions for the causes of events, and also 

between controllable and uncontrollable causes. Characterological and 

behavioral attributions are both internal, but the first is not controllable 

and the second is controllable. Reliability coefficients for the scales are 

0.78 for characterological self-blame and 0.72 for behavioral selfblame. To the extent that the intervention increased behavioral 

attributions and decreased characterological attributions, we would 

expect that more effective rape-avoidance strategies might be adopted. 

(Administered at baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

(e) Self-efficacy 

Research has indicated that higher self-efficacy among sexual abuse 

survivors is negatively correlated with revictimization (Cotney, 1997; 

Leonard, 1992). Participants rated their confidence that they could 

ward off unwanted sexual behavior using three items derived from a 

scale developed by Hall (1989). The three items included confidence in 

6 Item #s 2-5,7,8,and 11; see Appendix C. 

34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
regard to recognition of danger, ability to control a situation where a 

man was trying to manipulate her, and ability to avoid sexual assault. 

Although items on Hall’s original version are rated using a 7-point 

Likert scale, the items used in the current study were open-ended 

questions, scored from 0 to 3. 

Scores on the confidence scale at the baseline assessment ranged from 0 

to 9, the maximum possible score. We computed a reliability statistic 

for the confidence measure at the baseline assessment. It was low, with 

an alpha coefficient of 0.58. With three items, however, we did not 

have the option of creating a more cohesive scale from a subset of 

items. (Administered at baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

(f) Risky Behaviors 

This scale, adapted to suit our sample from the Dating Behavior Survey 

(Hanson & Gidycz, 1993), assessed the frequency with which women 

engaged in behaviors associated with risk of sexual assault (or with 

protective actions – 2 items are reverse-scored) in dating situations 

within the past six months (e.g., drug and alcohol consumption, 

spending time alone with a man she had just met, and assertiveness in 

the face of abuse or unwanted sexual advances). In the 14-item scale, 

six of the items were essentially the same as in the original scale and 

eight were newly created. Typical of items included in the scale were, 

“The first few times we went out, we spent time alone together in a 

place where no one else was present.” 

We administered the scale only to women who had dated a man within 

the past six months. This excluded at least two-thirds of the sample 

both at baseline and follow-up assessments. Women weren’t dating 

men for a number of reasons: some were married or involved in longterm relationships with men, whereas others dated women or avoided 

dating entirely. 

A principal components analysis on the revised scale did not indicate a 

strong factor structure. The first factor extracted accounted for 23 

percent of the variance, and the alpha coefficient for the scale was just 

0.42. Backward elimination of items resulted in a scale that included 

11 of the original 13 items, and a reliability coefficient of 0.51. 

(Administered at baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

(g) PTSD Symptomology 

PTSD symptoms were measured using the Trauma Symptom Checklist 

(TSC-33) developed by Briere and Runtz (1989). The TSC-33 consists 

of 33 symptom items, each rated for frequency of occurrence on a four35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
point scale. Combinations of the items are summed to produce an 

overall score and five symptom subscales. The subscales include 

Dissociation, Anxiety, Depression, Post-Sexual Abuse Trauma, and 

Sleep Disorder. The reliability coefficient for the whole scale is 0.89. 

Reliability on the subscales range from 0.66 to 0.75. Briere and Runtz 

reported the mean total score for sexually abused women to be 39.97. 

(Administered at baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

(h) Sexual Victimization 

Sexual victimization was assessed using the Sexual Experiences Survey 

(Koss, et. al., 1987). The SES is a self-report measure that describes 

various degrees of unwanted sexual behavior. Items range from 

fondling and kissing to attempted rape and rape. For each item 

endorsed, subjects were asked to indicate frequency of occurrence. The 

scale has an internal consistency of 0.74. 

We constructed two measures by summing the number of incidents 

reported lifetime (on separate scales for children, adolescents, and 

adults) and the number of incidents reported over the past six months. 

(Administered at baseline and follow-up assessments.) 

A copy of the assessment instrument is included in Appendix E. 

RESULTS 

In this section, we compare women assigned to the intervention group with 

women assigned to the control group on measures taken at the baseline and follow-up 

assessments. We begin by analyzing differences between groups prior to the workshop 

and then turn to changes from baseline to follow-up assessments and effects of the 

intervention on the outcome measures. 

Although there were deviations from the random assignment process, we 

nonetheless chose to analyze cases according to the treatment to which subjects were 

assigned as the primary analytic approach. The temptation in field tests is to compare 

only those who complete treatment (and therefore get the full “dosage”) to a comparison 

36

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
group. Even though “crossovers” result in loss of statistical power when “analyzing as 

randomized,” this approach is most frequently recommended in both the criminal justice 

literature and the medical literature on clinical trials (e.g., Weinstein & Levin, 1989; 

Armitage, 1996). The alternative (analyzing cases according to the actual treatment they 

receive) runs a serious risk of defeating the purpose of randomizing in the first place, i.e., 

creating groups of cases equivalent prior to treatment. In our study, one of the exceptions 

to the assignment process was created when women who were assigned to the 

experimental condition did not show up for the workshop and therefore had the same 

experience as women in the control group. The other occurred when two women 

assigned to the control condition were asked if they could come to an intervention 

because of two last minute cancellations from women scheduled to receive the training. 

Neither of these reasons for exceptions could be construed as random. Therefore, 

analyzing according to treatment received would compromise the integrity of the design. 

Sherman (1992) proposed following the “analyze as randomized” dictum as long as the 

proportion of treatment crossovers does not exceed the proportion of cases with negative 

outcomes. If we take revictimization as our major outcome measure, then the proportion 

of crossovers (11%) in our study is well below the rate of revictimization (about 28%). 

We also include at the end of the results a table that shows a reanalysis of the data 

according to treatment actually received by the women in the study. In this analysis, we 

also controlled for baseline scores, with the exception of the Dating Behavior Survey, 

which could not be controlled for given the small number of completed instruments. It 

turns out that the results are consistent no matter whether cases are analyzed as assigned 

or according to treatment received. 

37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Baseline Scores 

The measures administered at the baseline interview were adopted to serve one of 

two purposes: one set was associated with risk factors for revictimization. These scales 

were included as control measures (i.e., perhaps the intervention would be less protective 

for those with specific heightened vulnerabilities, although the intervention was designed 

with the intent of making all victims safer); and others were designed as pre- post 

measures and were given at baseline for the purpose of comparison with outcome 

measures six months after the intervention, as well as for comparison between control 

and experimental groups. 

Risk factors for revictimization 

The first set of measures we will describe are those that the literature shows are 

associated with a higher risk of victimization, or that might interfere with learning or 

adopting the risk reduction strategies offered in the course. 

Alcohol Use 

The Alcohol Use Audit was administered only at the baseline assessment. Nearly 

a third of the sample (32%) had scores of zero on the alcohol use measure, indicating that 

they did not drink at all. The average score on the scale was quite low, with a median of 

2.0 (mean = 2.8) out of a maximum possible score of 12. Differences between women in 

the experimental and control conditions did not approach statistical significance either 

using a dichotomous prevalence measure or a measure of the total score over the three 

component items (see Appendix F). 

Tonic Immobility 

On the tonic immobility measure, scores ranged from 13 to 59 out of a possible 

38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
60. The median score was 37.0 (mean = 36.3, sd = 10.9). Individual items with scores of 

4 or above (out of a possible 6) included “Extent to which you felt panic during your 

most recent adult experience of unwanted sexual activity” (mean = 4.76), “Degree to 

which you felt frozen or paralyzed during the event” (mean = 4.56), and “Extent to which 

you felt detached from yourself (that is, mentally removed from your body) during the 

event” (mean = 4.21). The differences between experimental and control participants on 

the TIS were minimal, and did not approach statistical significance (see Appendix F). 

However, the mean score of 36.3 in our sample is comparable to the mean Marx and 

colleagues reported for inpatients with a history of childhood sexual abuse (34.3), higher 

than that for undergraduate students (25.9), and much higher than their mean for nonabused women (16.3). 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Symptomology 

Baseline scores on the Traumatic Symptom Checklist ranged from 0 to 70 on the 

overall scale (mean = 32.39, s.d. = 16.65) ; 0 to 16 on the anxiety subscale (mean = 6.75, 

s.d. = 4.16); 0 to 20 on the depression subscale (mean = 9.45, s.d. = 4.56); 0 to 14 on the 

dissociation subscale (mean = 5.26, s.d. = 3.38: 0 to 12 on the sleep disturbance subscale 

(mean = 5.74, s.d. = 3.32); and 0 to 16 on the trauma subscale (mean = 6.13, s.d. = 3.58). 

Differences between women assigned to the experimental condition and women assigned 

to the control condition did not approach statistical significance for the overall scale or 

any of the subscales (see Appendix F). 

Outcome Measures Administered at Baseline 

These measures were administered at baseline to assess equivalence of 

experimental and control groups and for pre-post comparisons within groups, and again 

39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
at follow-up to assess the impact of the intervention as well as the validity issue of 

history, or change over time regardless of treatment. 

Sexual Assault Awareness 

Awareness of sexual assault definitions, situations, and risk factors was assessed 

with the revised sexual assault awareness survey (SAAS). On the reduced 7-item scale, 

the possible range of scores was 0-7. At the baseline assessment, the scores ranged from 

a low of 2 to a high of 7, with a median of 4.8 (mean = 5.0, s.d. = 0.93). Since the 

individual scale items were true/false, these average scores indicate that participants 

already knew an average 5 of 7 possible answers, even before the intervention. The 

differences between experimental and control subjects on this scale at the baseline 

assessment were minimal and did not approach statistical significance (see Appendix F). 

Confidence in Difficult Situations 

Scores on the confidence scale at the baseline assessment ranged from 0 to 9, the 

maximum possible score. The median score was 5.5 (mean = 5.6, s.d. = 2.32). At the 

baseline assessment, the experimental and control subjects differed significantly in 

confidence scores at the .04 level (see Appendix F). Women assigned to the control 

condition (mean score = 6.0) exhibited greater confidence than women assigned to the 

intervention group (mean score = 5.3). 

 Attributions 

We had only 32 valid cases at the baseline assessment as this scale was used only 

in New York due to IRB delays in Seattle. Initially this measure was administered at 

both baseline and follow up, but a decision was later made to only administer the test at 

follow up. Scores on the two subscales ranged from 10-35 for the behavioral blame 

40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
subscale (mean = 24.2, s.d. = 7.0) and from 14-37 for the characterological blame 

subscale (mean = 24.8, s.d. = 7.2). At the baseline assessment, participants assigned to 

the control condition had significantly higher behavioral self-blame scores than women 

assigned to the experimental condition (see Appendix F). Participants assigned to the 

control group were also somewhat more likely than those assigned to the intervention to 

blame their character for the assault. This difference was marginally significant. 

 Dating Behavior 

The range for the revised Dating Behavior Survey (DBS) at baseline was 0 to 9 

with a mean of 4.23 and standard deviation of 2.00. However, just 22 women completed 

the scale at the baseline assessment. Women assigned to the control condition had 

significantly higher scores at the baseline assessment than women assigned to the 

experimental condition (see Appendix F). 

 Sexual Experiences 

Baseline scores on the SES, representing lifetime sexual abuse, ranged from 1 to 

18; our sample had a mean of 10.51, with a standard deviation of 4.09. Differences 

between women assigned to the experimental condition and women assigned to the 

control condition were minimal (see Appendix F). Due to the small number of cases and 

the large number of dependent variables, we did not have enough power to rerun analyses 

using different developmental periods or severity of abuse instead of six month follow up 

scores and thus cannot comment on the role of age and/or severity of assault in 

revictimization. 

Outcomes at the Six-Month Follow-Up 

41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The baseline results indicated a number of differences between women assigned 

to experimental and control conditions both on demographic measures and scale scores. 

Women assigned to the control condition were, on average, several years younger than 

women assigned to the intervention group. Women assigned to the control group were 

also more likely to engage in risky dating behavior, and were more likely to blame their 

behavior and less likely to blame their character for being assaulted. Finally, women 

assigned to the control group were more optimistic about being able to avoid or handle 

difficult situations in the future, perhaps reflecting the fact that they were more likely to 

think that their behavior rather than their character was to blame for their assault(s). 

Outcomes at the Six-Month Follow-Up 

The finding of significant differences between treatment groups prior to the 

intervention is quite unusual for a randomized experiment. It likely reflects the fact that 

the random assignment process was compromised in some cases.7 In addition, those who 

were randomly assigned to the experimental condition but were unable to devote two 

evenings to the workshop (because of child care responsibilities or other time constraints) 

were forced to drop out of the study, whereas those with the same time constraints 

assigned to the control condition were able to schedule a one hour interview at their 

convenience, and complete the follow-up by telephone. Also, differences are more 

likely to be seen when sample sizes are small, as was the case in this field test. The 

baseline differences mean that it is important to control for initial scores on scales (as 

7 There were thirteen exceptions to the assignment process. In seven cases referred by shelters, women 

were assigned to the intervention because they all lived together and there was concern women might 

discuss material learned in the workshop. Of these seven women, four missed the intervention and were 

reassigned to the control group. Two cases were randomly assigned as controls but received the 

intervention when other women failed to show up. Four cases were assigned to the intervention group, but 

missed the sessions. 

42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
well as age) in conducting analyses of outcome measures. 

The preferred way to test for treatment effects on multiple outcomes is through a 

multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test, which tests for effects of dependent 

measures simultaneously. One advantage of using MANOVA over individual tests of 

significance is that the test adjusts for the possibility that, when running multiple tests of 

significance, a result may be found to be statistically significant just by chance because 

many tests are being run. However, the small sample size precluded use of MANOVA. 

So instead, our strategy was to use individual ANOVA tests. We considered 

using repeated measures tests that would have included factors representing both 

assigned condition and time (baseline or follow-up assessment) in addition to age as a 

covariate (since we found that participants assigned to the intervention were significantly 

older than women in the control group). More covariates would have been useful given 

deviations from the random assignment process, but the sample size would not 

accommodate additional factors. Using the repeated measures models, we would judge 

the intervention to be a success if the time by treatment interaction was statistically 

significant, i.e., if the women assigned to the prevention workshop improved from 

baseline to follow-up assessment relative to women assigned to the control group. 

In the end, however, we opted for an ANOVA model that included three factors: 

Assigned treatment, baseline score on the measure used as the criterion in each analysis, 

and age. When there are just two time points, this model is similar conceptually to a 

repeated measures ANOVA. But, since this model does not include interaction terms, the 

number of factors tested is fewer than in a repeated measures model, an important 

consideration with the small sample size we were working with. 

43

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
For two of the scales – the measures of attributions and behavior in dating 

situations, the Ns were too small even to use the ANCOVA models with three predictors. 

Therefore, we used simpler, but less informative, tests (see below). All of the scales 

conformed to a multivariate normal distribution, appropriate to an ANOVA model.8 The 

significant exception was the revictimization measure, which showed substantial 

skewness since two in three subjects had not experienced any victimization between 

baseline and follow-up assessments. For that test, we used a negative binomial model. 

Sexual Assault Awareness 

One of the immediate effects that we expected of the intervention was an increase 

in knowledge of sexual assault issues. The mean number of correct answers on the 

SAAS at the six-month follow-up (4.2) was actually lower than the baseline mean score 

of 5.0 (see Figure 1). The decline between pre and post scores attained a high degree of 

statistical significance (t[83] = 2.95, p = .004). 

8 The distributions of the knowledge of risk factors and confidence measures were somewhat skewed and 

the characterological attribution and PTSD dissociation subscales did not meet the assumption of 

homogeneity of variances. Data transformations (log and reciprocal) corrected these problems, but 

produced the same outcomes as analyses on the untransformed data. Consequently, only the results based 

on the raw data are reported here. 

44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The figure does not show any relative improvement of the treatment group. This 

was confirmed in the ANCOVA test (see Table 4). In the ANCOVA, the effect of 

experimental treatment did not approach statistical significance, nor did the effects of the 

baseline knowledge scores or age. 

Table 4: Treatment Effects on Knowledge of Risky Situations 

Figure 1: Knowledge of Risky Situations 

4 

4.5 

5 

5.5 

1 2 

Time 

Me

a

n

control 

experimental value 

F Significance 

Age 0.80 .37 

Baseline knowledge 2.17 .15 

Assigned treatment 0.49 .49 

Model R-square = 0.05 

Confidence in Difficult Situations 

If the workshop was effective, one of the other immediate results would be that 

participants would have greater confidence in handling difficult situations. Mean scores 

six months after the baseline measure had increased from 5.5 at the baseline assessment 

to 6.14 (see Figure 2). However, the difference between the two waves did not approach 

statistical significance (t[55] = -0.91, n.s.). 

45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 2: Confidence Scale 

5.2 

5.4 

5.6 

5.8 

6 

6.2 

6.4 

6.6 

1 2 

Time 

Me

a

n

control 

experimental 

Although Figure 2 suggests that the difference between groups narrowed from 

first to second assessments, the ANCOVA in Table 5 does not indicate an effect of the 

prevention workshop, nor did the effect of age approach significance. The baseline 

confidence measure was significantly correlated with confidence at the six-month followup. 

Table 5: Treatment Effects on Confidence Scale 

F Significance 

Age 0.09 .77 

Baseline confidence 10.07 .00 

Assigned treatment 0.19 .73 

Model R-square = 0.17 

Attributions 

The intervention was also intended to affect participants’ attributions about their 

sexual assault. In particular, it was expected that – if the intervention was effective – 

workshop participants would be more likely to attribute the assault to something they did, 

or behavior that could be changed, than to unchangeable characteristics. Six months after 

46

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
the baseline measure, behavioral and characterological attributions were significantly 

lower than at the baseline assessment. For the behavioral attribution subscale, the followup mean was 19.9 compared to baseline mean of 23.4 (t[23] = 2.48, p = .02). For the 

characterological subscale, the follow-up mean was 18.7 compared to a baseline mean of 

23.7 (t[23] = 3.31, p = .003): See Figures 3a and 3b. 

Figure 3a: Behavioral Attributions 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

1 2 

Time 

Me

a

n

control 

experimental 

Figure 3b: Characterological Attributions 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

1 Time 2

Me

an 

control 

experimental 

47

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The figures do not show a reduction of differences between treatment and control 

groups following the intervention for either the behavioral or characterological attribution 

measures. We had just 24 cases that received both baseline and follow-up versions of 

the attributions subscales -- not enough to conduct the same ANCOVA test that we used 

with most of the other outcome measures. We substituted a single factor ANOVA based 

on change scores – the differences for each subject between the follow-up and baseline 

scores on the attribution scales. The results in Table 6 confirmed the conclusion that 

there was no effect of the prevention workshop on either attribution measure. 

Table 6: Treatment Effects on Attribution Change Measures 

F Sign. 

Behavioral attributions 0.07 .79 

Assigned treatment 

 Model R-square = 0.00 

Characterological attributions 0.77 .39 

Assigned treatment 

 Model R-square = 0.03 

Dating Behavior 

One of the key results that a successful intervention would produce would be 

more cautious behavior in interactions with potential rapists. However, the baseline 

assessment included just 22 subjects that completed the revised Dating Behavior Survey 

at baseline and 24 that completed the DBS at follow-up. Figure 4 indicates that, while 

control cases had higher scores on this measure at the baseline assessment, the scores had 

narrowed by the follow-up assessment. This would not indicate a positive effect of the 

prevention program. Again, the problem with these outcome measures developed for 

college students is that they had less relevance to the lives of most women in our sample, 

who were not dating or were not dating men. 

48

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 4: Dating Behavior 

2 

2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

5 

5.5 

1 2 

Time 

Me

a

n

control 

experimental 

Just 12 subjects completed the survey at both times. Therefore, it was not 

possible to compute change scores for this measure (or a repeated measures ANOVA), as 

we had done for the attribution scales. Instead, we conducted a one-way ANOVA 

examining differences between treatment groups only at the six-month follow-up. The 

one-way analysis of variance did not reveal any significant differences between treatment 

groups at the follow-up assessment (see Table 7). 

Table 7: Treatment Effects on Dating Behavior 

F 

with 

df=1,23 

Sign. 

Assigned treatment 0.01 .92 

Model R-square = .00 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Symptomology

 A number of the PTSD symptoms declined between the baseline and follow-up 

assessments six months later. Figure 5 shows that significant reductions occurred in the 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
total score (t[63] = 2.35, p = .02). Similar declines occurred on the anxiety subscale 

(t[65] = 2.17, p = .03); and on the dissociation subscale (t[65] = 2.83, p = .01). No 

significant changes occurred in the depression, trauma, or sleep disturbance subscales. 

Figure 5: Overall PTSD Measure 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

1 2 

Time 

Me

a

n

control 

experimental 

We ran ANCOVAs for the overall scale and the five subscales. We found a 

significant effect of treatment for the sleep disturbance subscale. While the same trends 

were evident for the other post-traumatic stress subscales, no other differences 

approached statistical significance (see Table 8). For each of the PTSD subscales, the 

baseline score was highly correlated with the follow-up score. Although we initially 

intended to control for PTSD symptomology scores as moderators of sexual assault, we 

did not have enough cases to conduct such analysis. 

50

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8: Treatment Effects on Post-Traumatic Stress 

Total Sleep 

Disturbance 

Anxiety Depression Dissociation Trauma 

F p.. F p. F p. F p. F p. F p. 

Age 1.20 .28 0.22 .64 0.01 .92 0.46 .50 2.31 .13 0.44 .51 

Baseline 

score 

22.80 .00 51.49 .00 30.93 .00 11.61 .00 35.49 .00 24.03 .00 

Assigned 

treatment 

1.69 .20 7.10 .01 0.11 .75 1.97 .17 0.97 .33 1.02 .32 

Model Rsquare 0.33 0.50 0.34 0.21 0.45 0.31 

51

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sexual Experiences 

The ultimate benefit of the sexual assault workshop would be a reduction in 

revictimization, as measured by the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES). Between baseline 

and follow-up assessments, slightly more than one in four (28%) of women reported an 

incident of sexual abuse. This victimization rate is just slightly lower than the 

victimization rate reported within six months before the baseline interview. Figure 6 

indicates that trends in the proportion of women experiencing sexual victimization did 

not vary according to treatment group. 

Figure 6: Sexual Victimization 

20% 

22% 

24% 

26% 

28% 

30% 

32% 

34% 

1 2 

Time 

Proportion

control 

experimental 

The finding of no difference in proportion of victimizations was confirmed in a 

logistic regression analysis (see Table 9). Neither the effect of treatment nor age 

approached statistical significance. Four women experienced forcible rape, and fourteen 

women reported engaging in some type of sexual activity because they were 

“overwhelmed by continual arguments and pressure;” and in both circumstances women 

were split evenly between the experimental and control groups. 

52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 9: Treatment Effects on Revictimization Rates (logistic regression) 

Exp (B) Sign. 

Age 0.97 .31 

Baseline victimization 1.03 .64 

Assigned treatment 1.05 .93 

Nagelkerke R-square=0.03 

We conducted a second multivariate test, this time on the frequency of new 

victimizations instead of the dichotomized dependent variable (see Table 10). This test, 

using a negative binomial model, reinforced the finding of no effect of the intervention. 

In this model, we did find that both age and victimization for the six months preceding 

the baseline assessment predicted victimization between baseline and follow-up 

assessments. 

Table 10: Treatment Effects on Revictimization Frequencies 

(negative binomial regression) 

Coefficient (b) b/std error Sign. 

Age -0.72 2.31 .04 

Baseline Victimization 0.32 2.04 .06 

Assigned treatment -0.26 -0.63 .57 

Model chi-square = 9.76 

Outcomes at Follow-Up According to Treatment Received 

We argued earlier for analyzing cases according to the condition to which they 

were assigned, rather than the treatment that they actually received. Having found 

essentially no effect of the intervention, it seemed prudent to re-analyze the data 

according to the treatment actually received. It seemed unlikely that six cases that did not 

53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
receive the assigned treatment would have a substantial effect on the results. 9 But, to be 

sure, we redid all analyses in a fashion identical to the results presented above, this time 

using the treatment received as the independent variable. The results, presented in 

Appendix G, are identical to the original analyses: The only one of the 12 measures for 

which treatment was significantly related to outcomes was the sleep disturbance subscale 

of the trauma symptom measure. None of the other scales approached statistical 

significance. 

Testing the Assumptions of the Intervention 

Even though the intervention did not produce the desired effects, it still is of 

interest to know whether some of the assumptions behind the program model were valid. 

If the assumptions are supported, then one can infer that the failure to find an effect of the 

program was due to weaknesses in the implementation. In that case, it might be fruitful 

to attempt to develop a better program based on the same principles. However, if the 

assumptions behind the program model are not supported, then a new theory basis for 

developing an intervention – a new understanding of risk factors for sexual 

revictimization -- would have to be developed, 

The literature upon which we based the program model suggests that behaviors 

such as alcohol abuse and risky behavior in dating situations are directly related to the 

likelihood of sexual revictimization. There are also suggestions in the literature that high 

levels of PTSD inhibit women’s ability to recognize and act on relevant danger cues and 

therefore are associated with a higher likelihood of revictimization. The program 

curriculum sought to test whether increasing awareness of sexual assault risk factors and 

9 Of the thirteen participants that were not randomly assigned, four did not complete follow up measures, 

two of which were women who were assigned to receive the intervention but did not attend. 

54

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
dangerous predatory behavior, increasing self-efficacy, and shifting attributions from 

immutable characterological causes to mutable behavioral causes could change the odds 

of sexual revictimization. 

In Table 11 below, we present correlations between risk factors measured at the 

baseline assessment with whether or not women were revictimized six months later. 

Because of the very small Ns for these measures, we cannot know whether these findings 

are statistically reliable. If the patterns in the table remained with a larger sample size, 

they are suggestive. 

The table indicates that three factors at the baseline assessment predicted the odds 

of revictimization. They were the risky dating behavior scale and both the behavioral and 

characterological self-blame scales. As predicted, there were indications that higher 

incidence of risky dating behavior and higher levels of characterological self-blame were 

associated with higher likelihood of revictimization. Contrary to expectations, higher 

levels of behavioral self-blame were also associated with greater likelihood of 

revictimization. No association with revictimization was observed for prior 

victimization, whether it was in childhood, in the teen years, in the six months prior to the 

baseline assessment, or over the lifetime. The same was true for knowledge of sexual 

assault risk factors, alcohol use, PTSD, or self-efficacy measures. 

Table 11: Testing Assumptions of the Program Model 

Factor Correlation 

Risky dating behavior 0.38 

Behavioral attributions 0.51* 

Characterological attributions 0.33 

Knowledge of risk factors 0.00 

Self efficacy -0.12 

Alcohol use 0.12 

PTSD 0.05 

Childhood sexual victimization 0.06 

55

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Teen sexual victimization 0.14 

Lifetime sexual victimization -0.07 

Six-month victimization 0.17 

p = .01 

We had originally intended to construct a multivariate model of revictimization. 

However, that proved impossible since the only measures associated with elevated odds 

of revictimization were the attribution scale and risky dating behavior scale, both of 

which had too much missing data (more than two-thirds of the cases) to use for this 

purpose. 

The results do not provide strong support for the basis for the program model. 

High levels of risky dating appear to be positively related to revictimization as the 

program model assumed. However, due to missing data, this conclusion is based on a 

minority of the sample and may not be statistically reliable. The assumption that 

behavioral self-blame would lead to lower rates of revictimization was not borne out and, 

in fact, self-blame was associated with significantly higher risk of revictimization. 

Women’s Evaluation of the Prevention Workshop 

We asked women who had been through the workshop to tell us what they 

thought of it at follow-up. A series of three questions was asked on 14 of the follow-up 

assessments for women who had participated in the intervention. The first question 

asked whether participants had learned anything in the workshop that was useful in their 

lives. Twelve of the 14 women answered in the affirmative. One woman said that the 

workshop had taught her how men try to take control verbally. Another participant felt 

that the workshop had made her aware that there are many ways that people can be 

abusive, “He is not supposed to tell me what to wear or where to go.” However, there 

were other women who, even though they liked the workshop, did not seem to have 

56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
retained anything concrete after six months. One woman said that she remembered 

feeling that the workshop had given her useful insights, but now six months later, she 

couldn’t recall any. Another woman said that, although she couldn’t pick out one thing 

in particular, she thought of herself “differently now – more positive and more 

confidence in myself.” 

The second evaluation question asked women whether there was anything in the 

workshop that was not useful or didn’t apply to their lives. Only one of the 14 women 

recalled something that they didn’t find relevant. She did not like that men “were being 

depicted as monsters,” and felt that they should have been portrayed with more empathy. 

The final evaluation question asked whether there had been anything in the 

workshop material that women had initially found challenging but later realized made 

sense. Five of the 14 women who completed this section of the assessment said, “Yes.” 

In her answer, one woman said that the workshop had taught her the importance of 

trusting someone new gradually. The other four women who answered affirmatively did 

not identify anything specific: As one said, “Everything was just helpful. [The 

workshop] made me stronger.” 

The responses to the workshop evaluation questions suggest that participants 

enjoyed the workshop, and that it was a positive emotional experience. But the responses 

reinforce the quantitative analysis of the outcome measures by suggesting that they did 

not retain specific information on reducing risk. 

57

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Discussion 

The six-month follow-up assessment did not yield any convincing evidence that 

the workshop in sexual assault risk reduction had an effect. Out of 12 outcome variables, 

just one showed a statistically significant effect of the intervention, a result that could 

well be attributed to chance given the number of tests we ran. 

There were some more favorable trends among the women assigned to the 

workshop. Women assigned to the intervention group tended to improve relative to the 

control group on measures of post-traumatic stress from the baseline to the follow-up 

assessment. This trend was observed for each of the five subscales and for the overall 

post-traumatic stress measure, but did not approach statistical significance except on the 

sleep disturbance subscale. Similarly, women assigned to the treatment group improved 

relative to controls on the measure of confidence in their ability to handle potentially 

dangerous situations, but again, the narrowing in scores for the two groups was not close 

to attaining statistical significance. 

In spite of these favorable trends, there is little reason to think that the 

intervention reduced repeat victimization. There are five measures that are arguably the 

most important to testing the effects of the intervention. The measure of sexual assault 

knowledge is the key proximate measure since the workshop is essentially educational in 

nature, seeking to give women a better understanding of sexual assault risk factors. 

Shifting attributions for assaults from one’s character to one’s behavior is an essential 

step in realizing that women can alter their risk by how they act in the world. More 

cautious behavior in encounters with men is the means through which the workshop 

58

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
hoped to lower participants’ risk of being assaulted again. The most significant ultimate 

measure is, of workshop, revictimization. 

On none of these critical measures was there a suggestion of an effect of the 

workshop. Curiously, knowledge scores for both groups were lower on the follow-up 

than the baseline assessment, perhaps because by this time they had been out of treatment 

at the rape crisis program from which they were recruited. Without an increase in 

knowledge of risk factors, it would be hard to argue that the intervention could affect any 

of the other key measures of women’s attributions, behavior, and revictimization. 

Why Did the Intervention Show No Effect? 

First, let us consider the possibility that the intervention was successful, but we 

simply could not detect it with the methods we used. The study did suffer from 

limitations that could have obscured effects even if the intervention were successful. The 

intended sample size of 120 cases was small, but designed to be sufficient to detect a 

moderate effect size with a good degree of statistical power. The power considerations 

were based on the Marx, et al. study, the most recent similar field test at the time this 

study was designed. However, the actual sample size attained was only 82, substantially 

less than the target. Even more significantly, the attribution and dating behavior 

measures were administered to small subsets of the 82 women, rendering these measures 

far less sensitive than they would have been had they been available for the entire sample. 

Most of the outcome measures were designed for college students and simply did not 

apply to our population very well. Either the measures were skipped for women to whom 

they did not apply (the Dating Behavior Survey) or they were modified and suffered from 

59

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
loss of reliability and validity. Note, also, that most of these studies of interventions with 

college students who had been previously victimized showed no effect of brief 

interventions. The only study that did show a positive effect showed that effect only for 

rape, not other forms of victimization. We did not test separately for rape because the 

number of women who experience rape was, fortunately, too low to conduct an analysis.. 

A post-intervention assessment administered immediately after completion of the 

prevention workshop might have detected how well participants absorbed the material. 

Researchers and clinicians feared, however, that an immediate assessment following the 

second evening of the two hour workshop would prove too demanding on the participants 

and might keep the participants out later at night than was comfortable for them. 

Furthermore, as Morrison et al. (2004), in their review of the effectiveness of sexual 

assault prevention programs, point out, immediate post-tests following too closely after 

the intervention may show ephemeral effects and demand characteristics. They 

recommend, and decry the absence of, longer follow up assessments: “most studies...fail 

to evaluate how long attitudinal and behavioral effects last by conducting follow-up 

assessments over the long term” (p. 14). 

It would have been interesting to know, however, whether there might have been 

an effect of the intervention on knowledge of risk factors that faded over time by 

conducting an assessment a month after the intervention. If we had found that result, it 

would imply different strategies for designing a more successful version of the workshop. 

That time period might not have allowed for measurement of revictimization, but could 

have allowed for measurement of knowledge and attitudes. If the material was absorbed, 

but only temporarily, then a more successful workshop might include “refresher” 

60

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
sessions. Without the intermediate assessment, we do not know whether the material was 

absorbed and lost, or never absorbed at all. 

These measurement shortcomings notwithstanding, the absence of an effect on 

critical measures makes it reasonable to conclude that the workshop did not produce the 

intended effect of changing the way the women approached risky situations. This result 

could indicate implementation problems or that the design was inappropriate for this 

population. We were unable to observe workshop sessions because the facilitators were 

concerned that the presence of a researcher in such a small group would make women 

uncomfortable or inhibit their participation. As such, treatment fidelity was not measured 

or compared across sites. 

Additionally, there were some differences between our intervention and the one 

used by Marx et al. (2001) that might have mitigated the effectiveness of the program. 

Our groups were comprised of 3-5 individuals, whereas Marx had 5-10 participants per 

group. The opportunity to learn among a larger group of women might have made the 

sessions feel more like an educational workshop as intended and less like group 

therapy—a distinction that needed to be gently reinforced by the workshop facilitators on 

occasion. It is also possibly that a larger group may have made clear to the participants 

that their situation is not uncommon, thus further underscoring the importance of 

developing proactive risk reduction strategies. 

Survivors also might be more amenable to listening to a peer who has lived 

through a similar experience than two counselors using a more educational approach. 

Perhaps a facilitating team comprised of a counselor and a survivor would have balanced 

such alternating needs. 

61

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Alternatively, there is also the possibility that the smaller group size interfered 

with the lessons of the workshop itself. “Advice giving” by participants was a problem 

that the facilitators sought to control, especially when it came from a different model of 

risk reduction (such as 12-step programs), as well as individuals disclosing current and 

past trauma that impeded delivery of the information and risked traumatizing other 

participants. Because of the small size of the group, it was difficult to keep a didactic 

focus and the women spent more time on self-disclosure than would have been possible 

in a larger workshop. Additionally, the time spent recounting past experiences may have 

raised feelings of sadness or anxiety that compromised women’s ability to fully absorb 

the content of the workshop. . 

Furthermore, Marx et al. (2001) gave women a worksheet where they were asked 

to identify the malleable risk factors from their own assaults and then discussed them in 

class. The fact that women had to closely examine their own personal risk factors and 

then talk publicly in the group about other strategies they could have used then, and could 

use now, might have made the intervention more salient for women. Reflecting on a 

personal experience is different from using an example from someone else’s life that then 

becomes abstract in learning new behaviors and applying them to your daily life. The 

concern of the sexual assault program staff involved in reviewing drafts of the 

intervention precluded giving an exercise that forced participants to consider alternative 

behaviors which, the exercise suggested, might have helped them avoid their previous 

assaults. The program staff felt that this exercise as originally designed would increase 

the feelings of self-blame that are already a problem among sexual assault survivors. 

Marx’s exercise, however, if it had been included, might have further driven home the 

62

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
message that changes in individual behavior can alter personal outcomes. 

The other possibility is that the concept of a psycho educational workshop itself is 

flawed. Recently published research suggests that brief educational formats may not be 

sufficient to change the ability to identify and respond to risky social situations. Yeater 

and Donohue (2002) found that it took longer than they expected to train college women 

to a pre-set criterion in a workshop with material similar to the material we used. It took 

most women more than one session to master the material. This finding confirms the 

absence of an increase in knowledge of risky situations after brief training in this study, 

and may suggest that lengthier class time is needed for participants to master the lessons 

of the workshop. This explanation makes sense: the increased risk faced by the women in 

our study resulted in part from their experiences and psychological development over 

many years. Expecting a substantial impact from a few hours of training after a lifetime 

of sexual abuse is overly optimistic. 

Yeater and Donohue also question whether an “information-processing model of 

social competence” is a valid approach to altering the processes involved in sexual 

victimization. In other words, it may be that a model that promotes learning is not 

sufficient to bring about significant behavioral change. A fair reading of the studies on 

workshops to reduce risk of sexual victimization does not give reason for optimism. It is 

true that Marx, et al. (2001) did find an effect. But four other studies in the literature and 

this one did not find any consistent effect of an education-based approach on 

victimization. 

We worked with a population of women who were considerably older than the 

typical college student, who had less freedom to make choices about living situations. 

63

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Although our sample was well educated, a number of women were experiencing severe 

problems. Many of the women were unemployed, some were in abusive relationships, 

and others had recently left abusive relationships and were living in emergency shelters at 

the time of the baseline interview. Some participants were so traumatized by their 

previous assaults that they rarely leave their apartments. Indeed, one participant is unable 

to enter a room with unknown men present. Participants may not have had the capacity at 

this time to integrate the lessons of the workshop into their daily lives, or could have had 

more immediate concerns to address such as finding childcare, medical treatment, an 

apartment, or a job. 

 Furthermore, although the original intent was to recruit the sample from among 

women in sexual assault counseling – presumably a more stable population that has a 

higher capacity to translate cognitive information into changes in behaviors -- these 

sources actually contributed 60 percent of the overall sample10. Although other 

participants received treatment within the last few years, the number of women currently 

in therapy is unclear since it was not measured. Women recruited through ads may have 

been more motivated by the financial incentive. 

If we accept the premise that a degree of emotional stability may be a prerequisite 

to absorbing the cognitive content of a risk reduction workshop, then the question 

becomes what that means for intervening with victims of sexual assault. It may suggest 

that brief educational workshops are appropriate only for women who are stable, 

10 In this regard, our experimental design was problematic: some of the counselors were only willing to 

refer clients to the study (and some of the potential participants were only willing to consent) if they could 

be guaranteed they would get the intervention. They saw the intervention as a possible help to them, but 

the assessment without the intervention as a possible harm. Therefore, the experimental design may have 

eliminated some of the most motivated women. 

64

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
functioning well, and thus able to make changes in their lives and behaviors. The key 

then becomes developing ways to assess the appropriate levels of stability and social 

functioning. This would imply that future studies should use stricter criteria in screening 

participants to ensure that they are at a place in their lives where they have the time and 

resources to enroll in a risk reduction workshop, and recruitment should stress the 

benefits of participation over monetary incentives. 

For victims who do not yet have the capacity or circumstances to absorb the 

lessons of a risk reduction course or to translate information into changes in behavior, 

intensive therapy may be necessary to bring about stability. So, in a sense, we have come 

full circle, initially arguing for a brief prevention workshop as a way to keep women safe 

while they undergo intensive therapy and concluding that therapy may often be needed to 

prepare women to benefit from a prevention workshop. There is clearly a role for both 

approaches: the key is to figuring out how to make them complement each other in the 

most advantageous way. Finally, we should keep in mind that most studies have not 

found an effect of brief interventions for child and adolescent sexual abuse survivors. 

The Marx et al. study that this research adapted did find an effect that applied only to 

rape, not other sexual violence, and it has not been replicated. 

Some of the lessons we may take from this study are that more attention needs to 

be paid to learning principles, including the role of repetition; that we need better 

measures of sexual assault attitudes, knowledge and experiences that are not normed on 

college students; and that we need more effective interventions for women who are in 

intimate partner relationships or co-parenting with abusers. A conclusion that calls for 

more research is trite. While this study showed an example of an intervention that did not 

65

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
impact the likelihood of future victimization, there is little empirical research illustrating 

how to accomplish this goal. One firm conclusion that this study reached is that multiple 

sexual assaults have devastating psychological consequences for victims. Learning more 

about how to prevent such events from happening remains a moral imperative. 

66

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES 

Ageton, S.S. (1983). Sexual assault among adolescents. Lexington, MA: Lexington 

Books. 

Arata, C. M. (1999). Coping with rape: The roles of prior sexual abuse and attributions 

of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 62-78. 

Arata, C. M. (2000). From child victim to adult victim: A model for predicting sexual 

assault. Child Maltreatment, 5, 28-38. 

Arata, C.M. (2002). Child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization. Clinical 

Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 135-164. 

Armitage, P. (1996). The design and analysis for clinical trials. In S. Ghosh & C. R. Rao 

(Eds.), Design and Analysis of Experiments (Vol. 13, pp. 1-30). Handbook of 

Statistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 

Babor, T.F., de la Fuente, J.R., Saunders, J., & Grant, M. (1989). The alcohol use 

identification test: guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva, Switzerland: 

World Health Organization. 

Bachar, K. JU., & Koss, M. P. (2000). From prevalence to prevention: Closing the gap 

between what we know about rape and what we do. In C. M. Renzetti, R. K. Bergen, 

& J. L. Edelson (Eds.), Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Breitenbecher, K.H. (2001). Sexual revictimization among women: a review of the 

literature focusing on empirical investigations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 

415-432. 

Breitenbecher, K. H., & Gidycz, C. A. (1998). An empirical evaluation of a program 

designed to reduce the risk of multiple sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 13, 472-488. 

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. R. (1986). Suicidal thoughts and behaviors in former sexual 

abuse victims. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 413-423. 

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. R. (1989). The trauma symptom checklist (TSC-33): Early data 

on a new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 151-163. 

Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the 

research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66-77. 

Canadian Urban Victimization Survey Bulletin No. 10. (1988). Multiple victimization. 

Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General. 

Casey, E.A. & Norius, P.S. (2005). Trauma exposure and sexual revictimization risk. 

Violence Against Women, 11, 505-530. 

Chu, J.A., & Dill, D. L. (1990). Dissociative symptoms in relation to childhood physical 

and sexual abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 887-892. 

Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity 

approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. 

67

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Classen, C., Field, N.P., Koopman, C., Nevill-Manning, K, & Spiegel, D. (2001). Interpersonal problems and their relationship to sexual revictimization among women 

sexually abused in childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 495-509. 

Classen, C.C., Palesh, O.G., & Aggarwal, R. (2005). Sexual revictimization: A review 

of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6, 103-129. 

Cloitre, M., Scarvalone, P., & Difede, J. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder, self and 

interpersonal dysfunction among sexually revictimized women. Journal of Traumatic 

Stress, 10, 437-452. 

Collins, M.E. (1998). Factors influencing sexual victimization and revictimization in a 

sample of adolescent mothers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 3-22. 

Daniels, J.W. & Murphy, C.M. (1997). Stages and processes of change in batterers'

 treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 4, 123-45 

Davis, R.C. & Brickman, E. (1996). Supportive and unsupportive aspects of the behavior 

of others toward victims of sexual and non-sexual assault. 250-262. 

Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C.D. & Taylor, B.G. (in press). Preventing repeat incidents of 

family violence: analysis of data from three field experiments. Journal of 

Experimental Criminology. 

Davis, R. C., & Smith, B., (1994). Teaching victims crime prevention skills: Can 

individuals lower their risk of crime? Criminal Justice Review, 19, 56-68. 

Davis, R.C., Taylor, B.G., & Titus, R. (1997). Victims as agents: Implications for victim 

services and crime prevention. In R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio, & W.G. Skogan (Eds.), 

Victims of crime. (pp. 167-182). (2nd Edition) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Deblinger, E., Stauffer, L.B., & Steer, R.A. (2001). Comparative efficacies of supportive 

and cognitive behavioral group therapies for young children who have been sexually 

abused and their nonoffending mothers. Child Maltreatment, 6, 332-343. 

Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing repeat victimization. In M. Tonry & D.P. Harrington, 

(Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Crime and 

justice: A review of research. 19, 469-534. 

Fattah, E.A. (1991). Understanding Criminal Victimization. Scarborough, Ontario: 

Prentice Hall Canada. 

Fattah, E.A., 1993. The Rational Choice/Opportunity Perspectives as a Vehicle for 

Integrating Criminological and Victimological Theories. In Clarke, R.V. and M. 

Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice. New Brunswick, NJ: 

Transaction Publishers. 

Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Lynskey, M. (1997). Childhood sexual abuse, 

adolescent sexual behaviors, and sexual revictimization. Child Abuse and Neglect, 

21, 789-803. 

Finkelhor, D. & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A 

conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 530-541. 

68

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Finkelhor, D. (1997). The victimization of children and youth: Developmental 

victimimology. In R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio, & W.G. Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime. 

(pp. 86-107) (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Finkelstein, M. (2003). Researchers work to curb repeat sexual assault. Just ‘Cause 

(Newsletter for Staff and Alums of the Vera Institute of Justice), 10(3), 3. 

Foa, E. B., Dancu, C. V., Hembree, E. A., Jaycox, L., Meadows, E., & Street, G. P. 

(1999). A comparison of Exposure therapy, stress inoculation training, and their 

combination for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder in female assault victims. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 194-200. 

Friedman, L.N. & Tucker, S.B. (1997). Violence prevention through victim assistance: 

Helping people escape the web of violence. In R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio, & W.G. 

Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime (pp. 183-193). (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Gidycz, C. A., Coble, C. N., Latham, L. & Layman, M.J. (1993). A sexual assault 

experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences: a prospective analysis. 

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17,151-168. 

Gidycz, C. A., Hanson, K., & Layman, J. L. (1995). A prospective analysis of the 

relationships among sexual assault experiences: An extension of previous findings. 

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 5-29. 

Gidycz, C.A., Layman, M.J., Rich, C.L., et al. (2001). An evaluation of an acquaintance 

rape prevention program: Impact on attitudes, sexual aggression, and sexual 

victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1120-1138. 

Gidycz, C.A., Lynn, J.L., Rich, C.L., Marioni, N.L., Loh, C., Blackwell, L.M., Pite, R., & 

Pashdag, J. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction program: A 

multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1073­

1078. 

Gidycz, C., Lynn, S., Dowdall, C., Marioni, N., Loh, C., & Pashdag, J. (1998, August). 

The Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program. American 

Psychological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco. 

Gold, S. R., Sinclair, B. S., & Balge, K. A. (1999). Risk of sexual revictimization: A 

theoretical model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 457-470. 

Goodman, L.A., Koss, M.P., & Russo, N.F. (1993). Violence against women: Physical 

and mental health effects. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2, 79-89. 

Grauerholz, L. (2000). An ecological approach to understanding sexual revictimization: 

linking personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors and processes. Child 

Maltreatment, 5, 5-17. 

Hall, R.L. (1989). Self-efficacy ratings. In D.R. Laws (Ed.), Relapse and prevention 

with sex offenders (pp. 137-146). New York: Guilford Press. 

Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993) Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention 

program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1046-1052. 

69

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books. 

Himeline, M.J. (1995). Risk actors for sexual victimization in dating: A longitudinal 

study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 31-48. 

Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An 

empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: 

Ballinger Publishing. 

Irwin, H.J. (1999). Violent and nonviolent revictimization of women abused in 

childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1095-1110. 

Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., & Best, C. L. A two-year 

longitudinal analysis of the relationships between violent assault and substance use in 

women (1997). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834-847. 

Kluft, R.P. (1990). Incest and subsequent sexual revictimization: The case of therapist 

patient sexual exploitation, with a description of the sitting duck syndrome. In R.P. 

Kluft (Ed.), Incest-related syndromes of adult psychopathology (pp. 263-287). 

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. 

Koss, M.P. & Dinero, T.E. (1989). Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual 

victimization among a national sample of college women. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 57, 242-250. 

Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C., & Winiewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and 

prevalence of sexual victimization in a national sample of higher education students. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. 

Marx, B.P., Calhoun, K.S., Wilson, A.E., & Meyerson, L.A. (2001). Sexual 

revictimization prevention: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and 

 Clinical Psychology, 69, 25-32. 

Marx, B.P. & Gross, A.M. (1995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. 

Behavior Modification, 19, 451-463. 

Murphy, C.M. & Baxter, V.A. (1997). Motivating batterers to change in the treatment 

context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 417-422 

Heidt, J., Marx, B.P., & Forsyth, J.P. (in press). Tonic immobility and child sexual 

abuse: a preliminary report evaluating the sequela of rape-induced paralysis. 

Behaviour Research and Therapy. 

Mandoki, C.A. & Burkhart, B.R. (1989). Sexual victimization: Is there a vicious cycle? 

Violence and Victims, 4, 179-190. 

Mayall, A. & Gold, S.R. (1995). Definitional issues and mediating variables in the 

sexual revictimization of women sexually abused as children. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 10, 26-42. 

Meadows, E.A., Jaycox, L.H., Orsilla, S.M., & Foa, E.B. (1997 November). The impact 

of assault on risk recognition in ambiguous situations. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Miami Beach, FL. 

Meadows, E.A., Jaycox, L.H., Webb, S., & Foa, E.B. (1996, November). Risk 

70

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
recognition in narratives of rape experiences. In S. Orsillo & L. Roemer (Chairs), 

The use of narrative methodologies to explore cognitive and emotional dimensions 

among women with posttraumatic stress disorder. Symposium conducted at the 30th 

annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New 

York. 

Menard, S. (2000). The 'normality' of repeat victimization from adolescence through 

early adulthood. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 543-574. 

Merrill, L.L. et al. (1999). Childhood abuse and sexual revictimization in a female navy 

recruit sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12(2), 211-225. 

Messman, T. L., & Long, P. J. (1996). Child sexual abuse and its relationship to 

revictimization in adult women: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 16, 397­

420. 

Messman-Moore, T. L., & Long, P. J. (November, 1999). Alcohol and substance abuse 

and dependence as factors in the revictimization of community women. Presented at 

the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Messman, T. L., & Long, P. J. (2002). Alcohol and substance abuse disorders as 

predictors of child to adult sexual revictimization in a sample of community women. 

Violence and Victims, 17, 319-340. 

Messman, T. L., & Long, P. J. (2003). The role of childhood sexual abuse sequelae in 

the sexual revictimization of women: an empirical and theoretical reformulation. 

Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 537-571. 

Messman-Moore, T. L., Long, P. J., & Siegfried, N. J. (2000). The revictimization of 

child sexual abuse survivors: An examination of the adjustment of college women 

with child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and adult physical abuse. Child 

Maltreatment, 5, 18-27. 

Morgan, T., & Cummings, A. L. (1999). Change experienced during group therapy by 

female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling and Clinical 

Psychology, 67, 28-36. 

Morrison, S., Hardison, J., Mathews, A. & O’Neil, J. (2004). An Evidence-Based 

Review of Sexual Assault Preventive Intervention Programs. Technical Report 

submitted to NIJ. NCJRS 207262. 

Muehlenhard, C.L., Highby, B.J., Lee, R.S., Bryan, T.S., & Dodrill, W.A. (1998). The 

sexual revictimization of women and men sexually abused as children: A review of 

the literature. Annual Review of Sex Research, 177-204. 

Muehlenhard, C.L. & Linton, M.A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in the dating 

situation: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186­

196. 

National Board for Crime Prevention. (1994). Wise after the event: Tackling repeat 

victimization. London: Home Office. 

71

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
National Institute of Justice and Office for Victims of Crime (1997). A report of the 

victim needs strategic planning meeting. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

Noll, J.G. (2005). Does childhood sexual abuse set in motion a cycle of violence against 

women? What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 20, 455-462. 

O'Sullivan, C. S. (1998). Ladykillers: Similarities and divergences of masculinities in 

gang rape and wife battery. In L. Bowker (Ed.), Masculinities and Violence. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 82-110. 

O'Sullivan, C. S. (1993). Fraternities and the rape culture. In E. Buchwald, P. R. 

Fletcher, & M. Roth (Eds.), Transforming a Rape Culture. Minneapolis: Milkweed. 

O'Sullivan, C. S. (1991). Acquaintance gang rape on campus. In A. Parrot & L. 

Bechhoffer (Eds.), Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime. NY: Wiley. 

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (1983). Learned helplessness and victimization. 

Journal of Social Issues, 2, 103-116. 

Polusny, M. A., & Follette, V. M. (1995). Longterm correlates of child sexual abuse: 

Theory and review of the empirical literature. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 

4, 143-166. 

Raghavan, R., Bogart, L.M., Elliott, M.N., Vestal, K.D., & Schuster, M.A. (2004). 

Sexual victimization among a national probability sample of adolescent women. 

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 225-232. 

Resick, P.A. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 8, 223-255. 

Resick, P., & Schnicke, M. K. (1992). Cognitive processing therapy for sexual assault 

victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 748-756. 

Rodriguez, w., Ryan, S. W., Vande Kemp, H. & Foy, D. W. (1997). Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder in adult female survivors of child sexual abuse: A comparison study. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 53-59. 

Roodman, A.A. & Clum, G.A. (2001). Revictimization rates and method variance: a 

meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 183-2004. 

Ross, C. A., Anderson, G., Heber, S. & Norton, G. R. (1990). Dissociation and abuse 

among multiple personality patients, prostitutes and exotic dancers. Hospital and 

community psychiatry, 41, 328-330. 

Sandberg, D.A., Matorin, A.L., & Lynn, S.J. (1999). Dissociation, posttraumatic 

symptomatology, and sexual revictimization: A prospective examination of mediator 

and moderator effects. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 127-138. 

Seligman, M.E. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San 

Francisco: Freeman. 

Siegel, J.M., Sorenson, S.B., Golding, J.M., Burnam, M.A. & Stein, J.A. (1987). The 

prevalence of childhood sexual assault: The Los Angeles epidemiologic catchment 

area project. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 1141-1153. 

72

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Siegel, J.A. & Williams, L.M. (2003). Risk factors for sexual victimization of women. 

Violence Against Women, 9, 902-930. 

Smith, D. W. (2000). Introduction to focus section on repeat victimization: The study of 

repeat victimization is coming of age. Child Maltreatment, 5, 3-4. 

Sorenson, S.B., Siegel, J.M., Golding, J.M., & Stein, J.A. (1992). Repeated sexual 

victimization. Violence and Victims, 6, 299-308. 

Tarrier, N., Pilgrim, H., Sommerfield, C., Faragher, B., Reynolds, M., Graham, E., & 

Barrowclough, C. (1999). A randomized trial of cognitive therapy and imaginal 

exposure in the treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 13-18. 

Weisel, D. L., Clarke, R. V., & Stedman, J. R. (1999). Final Report submitted to the 

National Institute of Justice for grant no 96-IJ-CX-0042 (Tech. Rep. No. NCJ 

193808). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) (171) 

West, C.M., Williams, L.M., & Siegel, J.A. (2000). Adult sexual revictimization among 

black women sexually abused in childhood: A prospective examination of serious 

consequences of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5, 49-57. 

Wilson, A. E., Calhoun, K. S., & Bernat, J. A. (1999). Risk recognition and traumarelated symptoms among sexually revictimized women. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 67, 705-710. 

Wittebrood, K. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization during one’s life 

course: The effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 91-122. 

Wyatt, G. E. (1988). The relationship between child sexual abuse and adolescent sexual 

functioning in Afro-American and White American women. Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences. 

Wyatt, G. E. (1993, November). Lessons from Jamaica. Paper presented at the 

Population Council Meeting, Sexual Coercion and Reproductive Health, New York 

(UN). 

Wyatt, G. E., Guthrie, D., & Notgrass, C. M. (1992). Differential effects of women’s 

child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 60, 167-173. 

Yeater, E.A. & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual revictimization: The relationship among 

knowledge, risk perception, and ability to respond to high-risk situations. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1135-1144. 

Zierler, S., Feingold, L., Laufer, D., Velentges, P., Kantorwitz-Gordon, S. B., & Mayer, 

K. (1991). Adult survivors of child sexual abuse and subsequent risk of HIV 

infection. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 572-575. 

73

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A 

Phase I Interview Instrument & Sample Analysis 

Phase One Interview Instrument 

QUESTIONS FOR SEXUAL REVICTIMIZATION IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS 

INTRODUCTION/PREAMBLE: 

Before we begin the interview, do you have any further questions about the 

consent form? 

I remind you that we are tape recording this interview. You don’t have to 

answer any question that you don’t want to and can stop the interview altogether at 

anytime. If you want to pause the tape or take a short break, just let me know. If 

you start feeling upset, there is a counselor on hand to help you out. Please let me 

know as soon as you feel you might need to talk to her. It is really important that 

you are truthful in answering the questions that you do choose to answer. If you feel 

that you can’t be truthful, then please skip the question. 

In this interview, I will be asking you some questions about your experience 

of sexual assault and about the person who sexually assaulted you. How would you 

like me to refer to this person during the interview (by name or first initial, as “the 

man who assaulted you,” some insulting term, etc.)? Please understand that the 

following questions about your relationship to X, the circumstances surrounding the 

assault, and your leisure activities are designed to help us understand risk factors. 

In no way do they reflect on you or imply you have any responsibility for what X did 

to you. Rather, they are to help us understand people who are sexually abusive and 

how they operate. 

Note to interviewer: For participants who experienced more than one assault at age 

15 or older, we will ask them about their two most recent assaults. We will first ask 

them questions 1-16 regarding the earlier assault. We will then repeat questions 1-16 

regarding the most recent assault before continuing with the remainder of the 

questions (#17 to the end). 

I. Sexual Assault(s) 

Knowledge of Assailant 

1. Did you know the man who assaulted you prior to the assault? (If no, skip to 

question number 4.) If yes, what was your relationship to him? 

Seen him before 

Acquaintance 

74

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Co-worker/classmate 

Authority figure (boss, teacher, minister, friend of parents, etc.) 

Friend 

Partner/Ex-partner 

Relative 

How well did you know him, and how did you feel about him? (Probe for the nature of 

the relationship: Did she know his first and last name, did they have friends in common, 

did her family know him, how long had she known him?) 

2. (If not a former partner or partner) – Had he shown interest in you? (Was he 

“after” you? Had he “come on” to you?) If so, how was he pursuing you? 

(Tried to meet you alone? Had he called you? Talked to others about you?) 

3. Was there anything about the man who assaulted you that concerned you 

before the assault? (Had he done anything in the past or that evening/day to 

make you uncomfortable? Did he have a reputation that you knew about? 

What kind of reputation? Probe for history of violence.) 

Location/Physical Setting 

4. Please describe where the assault took place. (Probe for indoors/outdoors, 

public/private area, type of place – e.g., your home, his home, home of mutual 

friends; bar; park, roof, street.) 

5. What were you doing? (Walking home, meeting friends, hanging out...) 

What was he doing? Do you know how X ended up in the same place where 

you were? 

6. Tell me about your use of drugs or alcohol immediately before the assault. (If 

she used, probe for quantity of drugs and alcohol and type of drug; was this 

more than she was used to? Had she used this type of drug before or was this 

the first time she had tried it? Was she intoxicated? Who gave her the drugs or 

alcohol – did X have anything to do with supplying them?) 

7. Tell me about X’s/his use of drugs or alcohol. (Probe for how she knew if 

drugs or alcohol were being used, how she could tell if the man who assaulted 

her was intoxicated or not, if she knows who provided him with drugs or 

alcohol.) 

Social Context 

8. Who were you with before the assault? (Probe for alone or with others; 

men/women, older, younger, etc.) 

9. Who was he with before? (Probe for alone or with others.) 

75

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10. What relationship did you have with others in the area? (Probe for friends or 

acquaintances of either hers or the offender’s.) What were they like? Had 

they been drinking or using drugs? Do you know if any of them had a 

criminal history or had been in trouble with the police (been arrested, charged 

with crimes, or convicted, or served time in jail)? 

Events immediately preceding and during the assault 

11. Who may have witnessed or been aware of the assault? (Probe for relationship 

of possible witnesses to her or to the man who assaulted her.) What was the 

behavior of any others who may have been around during the assault? 

12. What went on between you and X immediately before the assault? (Probe for 

remarks he made to her, conversation they had, his mood before the assault; 

how much attention was he paying to her, anything he did to her, was he 

touching her?) 

13. What did he do just before the assault? (Probe: Did you suddenly find 

yourself alone with him, for example? How did that happen?) 

14. At any point, did you feel you might be in danger? If so, when did you know 

you were going to be sexually assaulted? (Probe for use of physical force, 

threats, verbal persuasion or other forms of coercion.) 

15. A. Do you recall whether you said anything to him during the assault? What, 

if anything, did he say to you? (Probe for what words were exchanged, if and 

how she tried to resist, how he responded to her words or actions.) 

B. How about immediately after the assault? 

16. A. What were you feeling or thinking during the assault? (Probe for emotions 

or lack of emotions, fear, anger, confusion. Particularly probe for traumatic 

stress and dissociation responses: did you feel numb, like you weren’t really 

in your body or you were just watching?) (Be open to the possibility that she 

doesn’t remember anything, was drugged or inebriated and go on to B.) 

B. How about immediately after the assault? 

For second assault after 15, return to Q1. 

76

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
II. Everyday Life and Routines 

Exposure to risky situations 

The next set of questions is about your living situation and everyday routines and how 

you spend your free time. Again, I want to remind you that we are asking these questions 

not so much to find out about your habits and living situation, but to find out about 

sexually abusive men and where a woman might encounter them. The following 

questions refer to the time of the most recent assault. 

17. Tell me what your neighborhood was like. (Probe for how safe she felt, how 

familiar she was with her neighborhood and surrounding areas, criminal 

activity that may have occurred there.) 

Has this changed since the assault? 

18. Tell me about your home and home life at the time of the assault. Did you 

live alone or with others? If others, who? Were there people you were not 

related to in your household? How old were they? Were there often people 

who didn’t live there hanging around or staying over? Were there parties? 

Did people who lived in your household drink or use drugs? Did you feel safe 

there? Has this changed 

Has this changed since the assault? 

19. A. Where did you go around the city on a regular basis at the time of the 

assault? (Probe for work, school, family visits, friends, entertainment, 

shopping or doctor, daycare, etc...) What boroughs or neighborhoods did 

you travel to? 

B. When did you make these trips – what time of day or night? What time 

did you usually get home on a weeknight? On a weekend? 

C. How did you usually get to these places? (Probe for walking or public 

transportation, if she used different ways depending on where she is going 

and time of day or night, how she traveled if alone or with others, did she 

ever feel unsafe while traveling around?) 

Has this changed since the assault? 

77

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Now I am going to ask you about how you spent your free time at the time of the 

assault? 

20. Tell me about your experiences hanging out with friends. (Probe for a few 

specific occasions. Who were they? Was it a big group or a small group? 

Mixed group or mostly women or mostly men? Were there people in the 

group you didn’t know? Where do you usually hang out with friends? What 

do you do? Did she drink? Use drugs? Become intoxicated? Were others 

she was with drinking, using illegal drugs, intoxicated or carrying weapons? ) 

Has this changed after the assault? 

21. IF BARS/CLUBS NOT COVERED IN 20: Tell me about your experiences in 

bars or social clubs at the time of the assault. Who did you go with? How long 

did you stay? Did you go from one to another or stay in one the whole night? 

(Probe for a few specific stories, why she went, whether she went alone or with 

others, if she used drugs or alcohol, if she became intoxicated, if others she was 

with were intoxicated or carrying weapons.) 

Has this changed after the assault? 

22. IF PARTIES NOT COVERED IN 20: Tell me about your experiences at parties. 

How often did you go to parties at the time of the assault? How well did you 

know the person who gave the party? How long did you stay at the party? How 

big was it? Did you go with people? Did you leave with the same people or other 

people? (Probe for a few specific stories, why she went, how often she went 

alone or with others, if she used drugs or alcohol, if she became intoxicated, if 

weapons were present, if others she was with were intoxicated or carrying 

weapons.) 

Has this changed after the assault? 

III. Relationships and encounters 

23. PREAMBLE: Now I am going to ask you some personal questions – about 

your sex life. Remember that you can decline to answer any question that 

makes you uncomfortable. Also, remember that we are asking these 

questions not to find out about you, really, but to find out about sexually 

abusive men and how you might have been exposed to them – how they find 

their victims. 

How many consensual sexual partners did you have in the six months prior to the 

assault? That is, how many different people did you have sex with when you chose to 

be sexual with them? (Probe for how she met them, whether she knew anything 

78

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
about them, how they spent early times out together.) 

How many consensual partners did you have in the past six months? 

IV. Friends’ social life 

Now I’d like to ask you the last few questions again but about a woman you feel close to 

who is 18 years old or older and that you hung out socially with at the time of the assault. 

I don’t want to know who they are specifically, but it should be someone you spend 

social time with. What is that person’s first initial? How much time did you spend with 

her on a weekly basis? 

24. Tell me about how much time she spends hanging out with friends. What do 

they usually do? Where does she spend time with her or his friends? Does she 

usually drink or use drugs? Does she get drunk or high? What do you know 

about her friends? Do they have a criminal history that you know of? (Have they 

been in trouble with the police, arrested, charged with crimes, or convicted, or 

served time in jail?) Has she been a victim of violent crime? Does she carry a 

weapon? 

25. IF BARS/CLUBS NOT COVERED IN 24: Tell me about how often your friend 

goes to bars or clubs. Whom does she/he go with? How long does she/he stay? 

Does she/he go from one to another? Does she/he leave with the same people 

she/he went with or others? (Probe for a few specific stories, why she/he would 

go, how often she/he went alone or with others, if she/he used drugs or alcohol, if 

she/he became intoxicated, if others she/he was with were intoxicated or carrying 

weapons.) 

26. IF PARTIES NOT COVERED IN 24: Tell me about your friend and parties. 

How often did you think she/he goes to parties? Does she/he go to parties given 

by people she/he doesn’t know? How long does she/he stay at parties? Does 

she/he go with people? Does she/he leave with the same people or other people? 

(Probe for a few specific stories, if she/he used drugs or alcohol, if she/he became 

intoxicated, if weapons were present, if others she/he was with were intoxicated 

or carrying weapons.) 

27. How many consensual sexual partners do you think this friend has had in the past 

six months? That is, how many different people did she/he have sex with? 

(Probe for relationship to each of them, how well she/he knew them. Were any of 

these partners people she/he “picked up” at bars or parties?) 

Are you still close with this friend? If yes, skip to question 32. If no, ask questions 

28-32. 

Now, I would like you to think of another woman friend you spend a lot of time with 

now. This person must be 18 or over. What is this person’s first initial? About how 

much time do you spend with her, on a weekly basis? 

79

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28. Tell me about how much time she or he spends with friends. What do they 

usually do? Where does she/he spend time with her/his friends? Does she/he 

usually drink or use drugs? Does she/he get drunk or high? What do you know 

about her or his friends? Do they have a criminal history that you know of? 

(Have they been in trouble with the police, arrested, charged with crimes, or 

convicted, or served time in jail?) Has he or she been a victim of violent crime? 

Does he or she carry a weapon? 

29. IF BARS/CLUBS NOT COVERED IN 24: Tell me about how often your friend 

goes to bars or social clubs. Whom does she/he go with? How long does she/he 

stay? Does she/he go from one to another? Does she/he leave with the same 

people she/he went with or others? (Probe for a few specific stories, why she/he 

would go, how often she/he went alone or with others, if she/he used drugs or 

alcohol, if she/he became intoxicated, if others she/he was with were intoxicated 

or carrying weapons.) 

30. IF PARTIES NOT COVERED IN 24: Tell me about your friend and parties. 

How often did you think she/he goes to parties? Does she/he go to parties given 

by people she/he doesn’t know? How long does she/he stay at parties? Does 

she/he go with people? Does she/he leave with the same people or other people? 

(Probe for a few specific stories, if she/he used drugs or alcohol, if she/he became 

intoxicated, if weapons were present, if others she/he was with were intoxicated 

or carrying weapons.) 

31. How many consensual sexual partners do you think this friend has had in the past 

six months? That is, how many different people did she/he have sex with? 

(Probe for relationship to each of them, how well she/he knew them. Were any of 

these partners people she/he “picked up” at bars or parties?) 

V. Services received 

32. Please tell me about services you have received in relationship to sexual assault or 

other trauma or psychological issues. (Probe for: crisis counseling, group or 

individual therapy, psychotropic medication, treatment by psychiatrist, 

psychologist, clinical social worker; length and timing of therapy; treatment for 

alcohol or drug abuse.) 

VI. Open-ended 

33. What would you say to a woman who has been sexually assaulted to help her 

avoid another assault? If you were in charge of a program to help women who 

were sexually assaulted avoid additional victimization, what would you include? 

80

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34. Is there anything else that we haven’t covered that you think would be important 

for us to know about the assault? 

81

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The interviews conducted in Phase I examined in detail the events leading up to 

survivors’ sexual assaults, their relationships with their assailants, their reactions during 

the assault, as well as information about dating, friends, and recreational activities. 

Researchers used the information gathered in these interviews to adapt the intervention 

for an urban population, focusing primarily on the events and circumstances that took 

place just prior to the assault itself. Although these interviews typically lasted for about 

90 minutes and the transcripts of each interview fall between 20-40 pages, the chart 

below focuses specifically on the situational and environmental factors that researchers 

used to look for patterns in assault histories. All interviews took place in New York, 

except for those that have a case number ending in “S,” in which case they occurred in 

Seattle. “V” stands for victim and “P” stands for perpetrator. 

Case 

number 

Relationship Violence 

history 

Drug/alcohol 

use 

How was victim 

isolated? 

Bystanders 

present? 

Force /Coercion 

used 

Victim 

reaction 

1 Stranger unknown V was “a little 

intoxicated’ 

Attacked in hall outside 

her apartment 

No one in hall Perpetrator may 

have had knife 

Victim 

blacked out 

2 Boyfriend Violent 

with 

Victim, 

criminal 

history 

Perpetrator was 

“on drugs” 

Perpetrator and others 

accosted Victim when 

she was coming out of 

store and took her to a 

park 

Yes, outside 

store 

Physical force, 

stick 

Tried to get 

help from 

people on 

street 

4 Sister’s 

boyfriend 

Known 

DV & 

criminal 

history 

Both drinking, 

V was 

“wasted” 

V went from porch to 

bedroom to sleep 

Sister in house Perpetrator 

overpowered 

Victim 

Said no 

repeatedly 

5 Friend of a 

friend 

Unknown P gave V 

“medicine” for 

cold. V was 

“woozy” 

V invited P to dorm 

room when everyone 

else at dance 

None Some physical 

force, plus 

“persuasion and 

coercion” 

Unsure, 

thinks she 

may have 

screamed 

6 Two friends Both had 

had 

trouble 

with law 

P drank, V did 

pot. None were 

high 

V invited Ps to dorm 

room. Flirtatious talk 

got out of control 

Probably others 

in dorm 

Groping, fondling Tried to fight 

them off; 

screamed, ran 

out of room. 

Ps fled 

7 Stranger Unknown None V grabbed walking to 

bus stop, pulled into 

isolated place 

Houses 

apparently 

nearby 

Threat to kill Unsure of 

reaction. P 

fled when 

bystanders 

approached 

8 Boyfriend Unknown None P invited V to his 

house. No one else 

home 

None P overpowered V V said “stop”, 

yelled, pushed 

P 

10 Father Had 

assaulted 

V before 

P was drinking P called her into his 

room 

7 year old sister 

was home 

Groped, ripped off 

shirt 

V told him to 

stop, ran out 

of the room 

2-S Friend Unknown V,P, & friend 

all drinking. V 

“passed out” 

Incident took place at 

P’s home. Friend left 

after V passed out 

Friend left 

before incident 

V unconscious V 

unconscious 

3-S Seen at school Unknown None V went to P’s home on 

errand for friend 

None P dragged V 

upstairs , held her 

down 

V asked P to 

stop 

6-S Stranger Unknown Interviewer did 

not ask 

P accosted V in hall of 

restaurant, pulled her 

into bathroom 

People in 

restaurant, but 

not bathroom 

P pushed V into 

stall, groped her 

V fled from 

bathroom 

82

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Case 

number 

Relationship Violence 

history 

Drug/alcohol 

use 

How was victim 

isolated? 

Bystanders 

present? 

Force /Coercion 

used 

Victim 

reaction 

7-S V was P’s 

babysitter 

Unknown None V & P alone in house, 

maybe with young kids. 

P called V into his room 

No adults in 

house 

P grabbed V, 

forced himself on 

V 

V asked P to 

stop 

9 Stranger Unknown V & P both 

“high” on crack 

P invited V into his van, 

drove her to alley 

5-6 men 

standing on 

corner 

P beat, stomped V V screamed. 

Bystanders 

didn’t help, 

but P took off 

11 Spouse & 

friend 

Spouse 

was 

violent, 

DV 

history & 

previous 

murder 

All three were 

“high” on drugs 

V was home alone with 

P’s 

None V was taken by 

surprise, afraid to 

stop because 

spouse might get 

violent (had in the 

past) 

Felt very 

upset and bad 

about it for 

days 

12 Stranger Unknown None P picked up V hitching, 

2 others joined him in 

car 

No one other 

than Ps in apt 

Ps carried V up to 

apt, pulled gun 

V screamed, 

tried to con P, 

reasoned with 

P 

13 Friend unknown None P invited V to go to apt 

after group outing 

No one in apt Flirtation began, P 

wouldn’t let V 

leave 

Tried to 

leave, ran out 

once he 

climbed off of 

her 

14 Knew V’s 

friend/ 

customer 

unknown None V went to P’s hotel 

room with her friend 

V’s friend P talked about sex, 

got on top of V 

V started 

crying 

16 Co-worker Unknown None V invited to P’s apt No one else in 

apt 

Sitting on bed 

kissing, P kept 

going after V said 

no 

V said no 

17 School 

acquaintance 

Unknown V “tipsy” from 

6 beers. Also, P 

drugged her 

Incident took place at 

outdoor party at 

someone’s home 

Partygoers 

present 

P undressed V, got 

on top of her 

V told P to 

stop, called 

for help, tried 

to fight back 

20 Stranger Unknown None V attacked in empty 

subway station 

None P pushed V against 

wall, fondled her 

V said stop. 

P ran off. 

83

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B 

RISK FACTORS WORKSHEET 

Dealing with men who cross the line 

(To be completed at the end of Day 1) 

I want to do an exercise with you to think about how to apply some of the ideas we talked 

about in today’s session to situations that come up in your life. I want you to think about 

a dating or sexual situation with a man in which you felt uncomfortable or felt things 

were going wrong and you weren’t sure how to get out of the situation. 

Do you have a situation in mind? 

(1) In the situation you’ve picked, can you write down on the worksheet what he did that 

made you uncomfortable? Did it change how you felt about him or how you saw him? 

(2) What was there about the situation that made it unsafe for you? Did he change the 

situation so that it became risky? 

(3) Given what we have talked about over these two hours, what might work? Or what 

might not work? What are alternative responses? Please try to think of all the possible 

options you might have in this kind of situation. 

(Lead a discussion of participants’ responses to each of the three areas, encouraging 

creative problem-solving actions.) 

84

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CROSSING THE LINE WORKSHEET

(1) Observations about the man who made you uncomfortable. How did he cross the 

line? What did he do that made you uncomfortable? How did your perception of 

him change? 

(2) Observations about the situation. What about the situation made it unsafe? Did 

he change the setting or scene? Did he persuade you to go somewhere or do 

something that made the situation riskier? 

(3) Observations about your responses and alternatives. What did you think and what 

did you do when you become uncomfortable? What are all the possible 

responses? 

85

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX C 

VIGNETTE EXERCISE 

FACILITATORS: (Do not give this document to participants.) These stories are based 

on some of the Phase 1 interviews. Identifying details have been removed, and a few of 

the facts have been changed. In the intervention, in order to steer the conversation away 

from judging or blaming survivors, we do not tell the participants that these are actual 

encounters that preceded sexual assaults. The purpose of this exercise is to give 

participants the opportunity to analyze risky situations, identify the three factors that go 

into a sexual assault, brainstorm possible strategies women might use to avoid assault, 

and role-play these strategies. This exercise should be used at the end of Day 2 of the 

intervention. Facilitators should use at least one or two stories in each category: 

stranger, acquaintance, and partner. 

INSTRUCTIONS TO READ ALOUD:

 “Now we will read some short descriptions of encounters between a woman and a man. 

We are going to analyze them by talking about the three factors that go into a sexual 

assault: 1) a sexually abusive man, 2) a risky scenario, and 3) a vulnerable woman.” 

“We are going to talk about 

1) the man’s behavior and how he changes the scenario to make it dangerous. 

2) Next, we are going to think of possible strategies that a woman might use in these 

situations. 

3) Finally, we are going to role-play the encounters, using the different strategies we 

have identified.” 

Stranger: 

1. A woman has just visited some friends and is on her way home, walking toward the 

bus stop. A man is there, but she can’t see him before she is very close to him. He asks 

her for a light. There aren’t a lot of other people around. 

2. A woman is visiting some friends. When she’s walking with a group of them, one of 

her friends points out a man who is walking by and casually introduces him to the group. 

A little later, the woman is heading home, and the man is coming out of a store. He asks 

her to hold the door of his building for him. 

86

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Acquaintance/Friend/Date/Co-worker: 

1. A woman is at home when her sister’s boyfriend comes over and brings liquor. A 

neighbor comes over, too. The woman’s sister isn’t there. The woman, her sister’s 

boyfriend, and the neighbor all sit on the porch and drink. The woman’s sister’s 

boyfriend touches the woman’s leg a couple of times. 

2. A woman goes to a concert with her ex-boyfriend and another male friend of theirs 

whom the woman had hooked up with a few weeks before. First, the new guy starts 

kissing her. She isn’t comfortable kissing him in front of her ex, and she tells him she 

isn’t into it. Then, the two men start joking about which one is going to sleep with the 

woman. After that, the two men say they want a threesome. 

3. A woman’s friends are all out at a party, but she is home with the flu. Her best 

friend’s ex-boyfriend comes over and brings some medicine that makes her woozy. He 

begins telling her that his parents don’t love him and have abandoned him, and she is so 

beautiful, and... 

4. A woman is at a nightclub with some female friends. They are all drinking and having 

fun. A man comes over and asks the woman to dance. They dance all night, talk in the 

corner, really hit it off, and he seems like a perfect gentleman. He asks her if she wants 

to go to his house. The two of them leave together. She isn’t sure if she is going to go all 

the way, and she makes it known to him because she is seeing somebody. He says, “We 

can just talk, whatever.” At his apartment, he makes it known that he wants to have sex. 

She tells him, “I don’t know you like that.” She isn’t sure. To her, the main problem is 

that he doesn’t have any condoms. She tells him they would need protection, and he tells 

her he doesn’t use condoms. They are about to have sex, and she tells him to get a 

condom. Then he says, “I’m clean; it doesn’t matter if we have a condom.” 

5. A woman knew this guy in high school. He really liked her, but he was a real 

doormat, and he tried too hard. She told him she wouldn’t go out with him until he got 

some self-respect. Seven years later, he is back in town and begs her to give him another 

chance. They go out to dinner. They were going to see a movie, but he says there aren’t 

any movies he likes in the theater. So they rent one. They go back to his place, which is 

way out of town. She doesn’t know how to get there. When they are watching the 

movie, he keeps staring at her, and he keeps getting closer and closer. Soon, he is all 

over her. 

6. A woman and her co-workers and all hang out together. There is one man who is after 

her. He is polite but too persistent. She isn’t interested in him in that way. He always 

sits next to her and tries to hold her hand. After a few months, he asks her over to his 

house. They watch TV with his roommate. He shows her the rest of his house. They sit 

on his bed and look at pictures. He starts kissing her, and she doesn’t want him to. 

7. A male acquaintance tells a woman that he wants her to have sex with his friend, that 

87

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
she could earn some money that way. She says she doesn’t want to, and he keeps 

bringing it up, saying that she is stupid not to do it. 

8. A male neighbor is hitting on a woman, and she isn’t interested. He keeps saying that 

he knows that she is giving it to other guys, and why doesn’t she want to give it to him? 

9. A woman is working at Coney Island and meets this guy who is her co-worker. They 

date for a while and then break up. Then her friend starts dating him, and they all hang 

out sometimes. One time they are at the female friend’s house, all of them drinking. The 

female friend goes out to get some more liquor, so the woman and her ex-boyfriend are 

alone in the apartment. He tells her that he wants to get back together, and she says she 

doesn’t want to. He keeps saying he wants to get back together. He won’t drop it, and he 

starts trying to kiss her. 

10. A woman goes to a house party with a group of friends. They are all drinking, and 

she feels drunk. She starts feeling pretty tired, like she wants to lie down. Then she 

notices that this guy is staring at her, looking at her up and down. 

11. A woman’s car is in the autobody shop for some repairs. She goes to the autobody 

shop to check on her car, and the shop owner seems to be the only one there. He is 

talking with her, trying to flirt with her. She gets in her car, and then he gets in, too. 

12. A woman is with some co-workers and a male acquaintance at a diner. After they are 

done eating, the male acquaintance asks the woman if she wants to see his apartment, 

which is right next door. Everyone else goes home, and she goes to his apartment. He is 

flirting. He gets her on the bed between him and the wall. 

Male Partner/Boyfriend/Husband: 

1. A woman’s boyfriend and friends of his come over while she is cleaning, and she 

accidentally hits her boyfriend with a mop. He gets really angry at her, as if she had done 

it on purpose. He starts chasing her. 

2. A woman and her husband have parties at their apartment with some other people. He 

begins telling her to have sex with the other men to get drugs. 

3. A woman is pregnant, and her doctor says that she should take it easy, rest, lie down 

often, and not have sexual intercourse for the last several weeks of the pregnancy. Her 

husband is okay with that at first. Then, he starts getting pushy and talking about how his 

needs aren’t being met. 

4. A woman’s husband was abusive to her. She divorced him, and they now live in 

different boroughs. Lately, he’s been contacting her and trying to get her to come over to 

his house. 

88

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX D 

BASELINE ASSESSMENT BATTERY 

Interviewer(s): Participant ID #: 

Date: Referral source: 

Condition: E C T1 T2 City: NY Seattle 

I. DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND 

What is your age? _______ years 

What is your date of birth? __________________ 

What is your current marital status? 

 Single 

 Married 

 Common Law 

 Divorced 

 Separated 

What is your current employment situation? (check all that apply) 

 Employed, full-time 

 Employed, part-time 

 Homemaker 

 Seasonal/temp worker 

 Looking for work 

 Unemployed 

 Student 

 Disabled 

What is the highest level of education you have completed? 

 8th grade or less 

 Some high school 

 High school graduate/GED 

 Some college or vocational school 

 College graduate (BA/BS) 

 Graduate/professional school 

89

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
How do you identify yourself in terms of race and ethnicity? CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY 

 African descent/African American 

 European descent/White 

 Latina/Hispanic 

 Asian/Pacific Islander (China, Thailand, Philippines, etc.) 

 Middle Eastern (Arab, Israeli) 

 South Asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) 

 American Indian or Alaskan native 

 Other: ________________________________________ 

90

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
II.Attitudes, Beliefs, Experiences 

A. REVISED S. A. A. SURVEY – True False 

DIRECTIONS: Please indicate whether each of the following items is true or false. 

1. Heavy alcohol use is associated with acquaintance rape. 

 a) True b) False 

2. Women are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger than by someone they know. 

 a) True b) False 

3. Rapists usually have a certain look about them. 

 a) True b) False 

4. It’s rape only if a woman physically resists. 

 a) True b) False 

5. Women who dress suggestively are at greater risk for rape than women who dress 

conservatively. 

 a) True b) False 

6. If you are attacked by your date, it’s safer just to go along with it. 

 a) True b) False 

7. Women stand a greater chance of being raped if they “sleep around.” 

 a) True b) False 

8. If a woman is unconscious and a man has sex with her, it is not considered rape. 

 a) True b) False 

91

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9. Men who rape tend to think that women who have been drinking are sexually 

‘available.’ 

 a) True b) False 

10.A woman can be raped by her husband. 

 a) True b) False 

11.Women whose friends “sleep around” are more likely to be raped. 

 a) True b) False 

12.Rapists are more likely than other men to make sexist remarks or condone violence 

toward women. 

 a) True b) False 

13. Women who have been sexually assaulted have a greater chance of being 

assaulted in the future than do other women. 

 a) True b) False 

14.Men who rape tend to be overly persistent, always seeming to want things their 

own way. 

 a) True b) False 

II. B. DATING BEHAVIOR SURVEY(R) 

DIRECTIONS: The following questions refer to relationships with men you have 

gone out with or been involved with in the past six months. Please indicate whether 

each of these situations has happened to you with a man during that time. 

Screening Questions: 

A. Have you been in a monogamous relationship for longer 

than the past 6 months? Yes F No •Ȁ

If yes, skip this questionnaire (go to section III). If no, go to B. 

B. Have you dated or socialized with a particular man or men in the past 6 

months? Yes F No • 

If yes, please complete this questionnaire. If no, go to C. 

C. Do you avoid dating or going out with men for safety reasons? Yes F No • 

Please skip the rest of this questionnaire and go to section III. 

92

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 1. The first few times we went out, he got drunk or high. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

2. The first few times we went out, I got drunk or high. 

a. Never happened in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

3. The first few times we went out, we spent time alone together in a place where no one 

else was present. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

4. The first few times we went out, we spent part of the time fooling around or 

having sex. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

5. The first few times we went out, I tried to do something that included other people. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

6. Before I went out with a man for the first time, I tried to find out something about 

 him.

93

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

7. I left a party or bar with a man I met there. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

8. I went out with a man who had a bad reputation. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

9. I continued to go out with a man who was abusive toward me. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

10. I went out with a man who hangs out with a crowd that gets into trouble. 

a. Never happened in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

11. I allowed a man to touch me when I really didn’t want him to because I was too 

uncomfortable to tell him to stop or I wanted him to like me. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

12. I allowed a man to touch me when I really didn’t want him to because I was afraid of 

94

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
__________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________ 

what he 

 might do. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

13. I went with a man to his apartment, my apartment or somewhere similar alone 

with him but I wasn’t interested in having sex with him. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

14. In response to unwanted touching by a man, I was assertive, clearly stating in some 

way that I did not want what he was doing. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months 

b. Yes Î How many men did this happen with? ____ one ____ two-three ____ four 

or more 

15. I have been in sexually uncomfortable situations where I found certain strategies to be 

effective in attempting to avoid assault. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months. 

b. Yes Î Which strategies? 

16. I have been in sexually uncomfortable situations where I found certain strategies to 

be ineffective in attempting to avoid assault. 

a. Never happened with any man in the past 6 months. 

b. Yes Î Which strategies? 

95

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
III. Sexual Assault History: Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood (SES) 

In the following two questions, we want to know about your sexual assault experiences in 

childhood or adolescence. 

3⁄4 Please include any time you were forced, intimidated (by someone in authority, for 

example), persuaded, or threatened to engage in sexual activity that you did not want. 

3⁄4 It doesn’t matter whether you resisted, spoke out or took actions to avoid this person 

– just whether this is something you did not choose to do or would not have chosen to 

do. 

A. Childhood 

Q1. During your childhood, did you ever experience any unwanted sexual contact (age 

12 and under)? By this I mean fondling, kissing, petting, attempt at sexual 

intercourse, or sexual intercourse. 

Yes___ No___ 

If yes, continue to Q1a-Q1d. 

a. About how many times did it happen (age 12 and younger)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

b. Please check the general nature of the contact (check all that apply): 

__ fondling or groping, 

__made you touch their genitals, 

__pornographic photos or videos taken, 

__ attempted penetration 

__ penetration of any kind 

c. Was the perpetrator a ___ child ___ teen-ager or ___ 

adult 

d. Did you know the person(s) involved? Yes___ No___ 

If yes, please specify your relationship with the assailant(s) (e.g., parent, 

step-parent or parent’s partner, uncle, friend of family, sibling or sibling’s friend, 

someone in neighborhood, teacher or coach or other authority figure, 

etc.)____________________________ 

B. Adolescence 

Q2. As a minor teenager, between the ages of 13 and 17, did you ever experience any 

unwanted sexual contact? By this I mean fondling, kissing, petting, attempt at sexual 

intercourse, or sexual intercourse. 

Yes___ No___

If yes, continue to Q2a-d. 

96

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
a. About how many times did it happen (age 13 to 17)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

b. Please check the general nature of the contact (check all that apply): 

__ fondling or groping, 

__made you touch their genitals, 

__pornographic photos or videos taken, 

__ oral sex performed on you 

__ forced you to perform oral sex 

__ attempted intercourse or other penetration 

__ intercourse 

__ other penetration (fingers, objects, etc.) 

c. Was the perpetrator a ___ teen-ager ___ adult 

e. Did you know the person(s) involved? Yes___ No___ 

If yes, please specify your relationship with the assailant(s) (e.g., parent, stepparent or parent’s partner, uncle, friend of family, sibling or sibling’s friend or 

partner, your friend or acquaintance, someone in neighborhood, teacher, boss, or 

other authority figure, etc.) ____________________________ 

97

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
C. Adulthood 

Sexual Experiences Survey - F (Adult) 

1. From age 18 on, have you ever given into sex play (fondling, kissing or petting, 

but not intercourse) when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by 

continual arguments and pressure? 

NO go to question 2 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

1a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

1b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

2. From age 18 on, have you ever had sex play (fondling, kissing, petting, but not 

intercourse) when you didn’t want to because someone used a position of 

authority (boss, teacher, supervisor, camp counselor) to make you? 

NO go to question 3 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

2a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

2b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

3. From age 18 on, have you ever had sex play (fondling, kissing, petting, but not 

intercourse) when you didn’t want to because someone threatened or used some 

degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make 

you? 

NO go to question 4 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

3a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

3b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

************************************************************************

98

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
******** 

The following questions are about sexual intercourse, including vaginal, oral or anal 

intercourse. By vaginal intercourse we mean penetration of the woman’s vagina, no 

matter how slight, by a penis. By oral or anal intercourse, we mean putting his penis in 

your mouth or rectum. Ejaculation is not required. When you see the words “sexual 

intercourse,” please use this definition. 

************************************************************************

******** 

4. From age 18 on, has someone attempted sexual intercourse (got on top of you, 

attempted to insert his penis) when you didn’t want to by threatening to use some degree 

of force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) but intercourse did not occur? 

NO go to question 5 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

4a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

4b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

5. From age 18 on, has someone attempted sexual intercourse (got on top of you, 

attempted to insert his penis) when you didn’t want to by giving you alcohol or drugs, but 

intercourse did not occur? 

NO go to question 6 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

5a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

5b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

6. From age 18 on, have you ever given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to 

because you were overwhelmed by continual arguments and pressure? 

NO go to question 7 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

6a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

6b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

99

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7. From age 18 on, have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to 

because someone used a position of authority (boss, teacher, supervisor, camp counselor) 

to make you? 

NO go to question 8 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

7a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

7b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

8. From age 18 on, have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to 

because someone gave you alcohol or drugs? 

NO go to question 6 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

8a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

8b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

9. From age 18 on, have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to 

because someone threatened or used some degree of force (twisting your arm, holding 

you down, etc.) to make you? 

NO (you have completed this questionnaire) 

YES answer next two questions (Circle correct response) 

9a. About how many times has it happened (from age 18 on)? 

1 2 3 4 5 or more 

9b. How many times has this happened in the past six months? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 

========================= End of Section 3, Sexual Assault History - One 

more section 

100

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
SEXUAL ASSAULT ATTRIBUTION RATING SCALE 

I am going to ask you a series of questions about your thoughts and feelings related to the sexual assault(s) 

you have experienced. If any of these questions make you feel uncomfortable, you do not have to answer 

them. If you want to take a break or stop altogether, please let me know. Do you have any questions before 

we begin? 

In the past six months, I have had these thoughts or feelings about the assault(s). 

Neve 

r 

Rarel 

y 

Some 

times 

Often Declined 

1. I thought that I did not resist enough. 1 2 3 4 -1 

2. I thought that I trusted people too much. 1 2 3 4 -1 

3. I felt that I put myself in a situation I couldn’t get out of. 1 2 3 4 -1 

4. I thought: There are never any people around when you 

need them. 4 3 2 1 -1 

5. I felt that I got what I deserved. 1 2 3 4 -1 

6. I thought that I have bad luck. 1 2 3 4 -1 

7. I thought that sexually abusive men target the most 

vulnerable women and children. 4 3 2 1 -1 

8. I have felt that I am a bad person. 1 2 3 4 -1 

9. I thought that it is unsafe for a woman or girl to go 

anywhere by herself. 1 2 3 4 -1 

10. I felt that I couldn’t take care of myself. 1 2 3 4 -1 

11. I thought that I was somewhere I shouldn’t have been. 1 2 3 4 -1 

12. I thought that I made a rash decision. 1 2 3 4 -1 

13. I thought that people don't want to get involved. 4 3 2 1 -1 

14. I thought to myself, I must have been stupid. 1 2 3 4 -1 

15. I thought that I was a poor judge of character. 1 3 3 4 -1 

16. I thought that I could have screamed for help. 1 2 3 4 -1 

17. I felt that I did not trust my instincts at the time. 1 2 3 4 -1 

18. I thought that I was the victim type. 1 2 3 4 -1 

19. I thought that I was too impulsive. 1 2 3 4 -1 

20. I thought that I was not assertive enough. 1 2 3 4 -1 

21. I thought that this world is filled with emotionally 

disturbed people. 1 2 3 4 -1 

22. I thought: I did not know how to say “no.” 1 2 3 4 -1 

23. I thought that I am a careless person. 1 2 3 4 -1 

24. I thought that sexually abusive men deliberately create 

dangerous situations. 4 3 2 1 -1 

101

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
______________________________________________________________________ 

25. I felt that a man who assaulted me was not responsible 

because he was drunk or high. 1 2 3 4 -1 

26. I felt that a sexually aggressive man knows how to 

keep me off balance. 4 3 2 1 -1 

27. I thought that it was my fault if I got hurt because 

others were able to manipulate me. 1 2 3 4 -1 

28. I thought that the person or people who abused me are 

100% responsible for what happened. 4 3 2 1 -1 

29. I thought that the man or men who assaulted me 

deliberately planned to abuse me. 4 3 2 1 -1 

IV. Past and Future 

TIS 

The following questions pertain to some reactions that you may have had during the most recent 

episode AS AN ADULT (age 18 or older) when you were coerced or forced to engage in an 

unwanted sexual activity without your consent. Please answer the following questions by 

circling the number that corresponds to the most accurate response about your reactions during 

the unwanted sexual episode. There are no right or wrong answers. 

1. Rate the degree to which you froze or felt paralyzed during your most recent adult experience 

of unwanted sexual activity. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

not at all frozen completely frozen 

or paralyzed or paralyzed 

2. Rate the degree to which you were unable to move even though not restrained during your 

most recent adult experience of unwanted sexual activity. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

could move could not

freely move at all 

3. Rate the degree to which your body was trembling/shaking during the event.

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

shaking no shaking 

a lot at all 

102

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4. Rate the degree to which you were unable to call out or scream during the event. 

 (skip this question if your mouth was covered during assault) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

could scream could not 

freely scream at all 

5. Rate the degree to which you can remember the details of the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

can remember Unable to remember 

vividly at all 

6. Rate the degree to which you felt numb or felt no pain during the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

could not could feel 

feel any pain pain very clearly 

7. Rate the degree to which you felt cold during the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

did not feel felt extremely

cold at all cold 

8. Rate the extent to which you felt feelings of fear/panic during the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 felt extreme felt absolutely

 fear or panic calm 

9. Rate the extent to which you feared for your life or felt as though you were going to die. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

absolutely no extreme 

fear for my life fear for my life 

10. Rate the extent to which you felt detached from yourself (that is, mentally removed from 

your body) during the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

No sense of extreme sense of 

detachment from myself detachment from myself 

11. Rate the extent to which you felt detached from what was going on around you (that is, 

mentally went to another place) during the event. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

extreme No sense of 

detachment detachment from surroundings 

103

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12. Rate the extent of your feelings of guilt/shame following your most recent sexual experience. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

extreme no shame or guilt 

shame or guilt 

13. Have you experienced any of the above symptoms during a sexual assault prior to your most 

recent one [Include only experiences that occurred AS AN ADULT (age 18 or older)]? � Yes � No 

If yes, please use the list below to indicate which symptoms you have experienced before: 

Felt frozen or paralyzed � Yes � No 

Unable to move, though not restrained � Yes � No 

Body was trembling/shaking � Yes � No 

Unable to call out or scream � Yes � No 

Details of the event(s) are clear � Yes � No 

Felt numb or felt no pain � Yes � No 

Felt cold � Yes � No 

Felt extreme fear or panic � Yes � No 

Feared for your life � Yes � No 

Believed you were going to die � Yes � No 

Felt detached from yourself � Yes � No 

Felt detached from your surroundings � Yes � No 

Felt guilt/shame� Yes � No 

Could fight/resist during assault(s) � Yes � No 

Alcohol Use (AUDIT) 

Item Never 

Monthly 

or less 

2-4 

times a 

month 

2-3 

times a 

week 

4 or more 

times a 

week 

1 How often do you have a 

drink containing alcohol? 0 1 2 3 4 

1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 to 9 

10 or 

more 

2 How many drinks containing 

alcohol do you have on a 

typical day when you are 

drinking? 0 1 2 3 4 

104

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Never 

Less 

than 

monthly Monthly Weekly 

Daily or 

almost 

daily 

3 How often do you have six 

or more drinks on one 

occasion? 0 1 2 3 4 

Confidence about the Future 

How confident are you that you can identify a man’s manipulative behavior that may 

precede sexual abuse? Please explain. 

How confident are you that you could get out of a situation where a man has taken 

control in a way you don’t want? Please explain. 

How likely do you think it is that you will be a victim of sexual assault by someone you 

know in the next year? Please explain. 

This concludes the questionnaires. Thank you for answering our questions. Be sure 

to let the facilitator know if answering these questions has roused painful feelings and 

memories that you would like to talk to someone about. We appreciate your resilience 

and courage. 

105

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX E 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL 

PARTICIPANTS PRIOR TO TREATMENT 

Experimental 

Cases 

mean 

(sd) 

Control 

Cases 

mean 

(sd) 

Alcohol Use Audit (N=84) RANGE 

Any current alcohol use? 70% 66% 

 Total score on Alcohol Use Audit 2.89 

(2.88) 

2.74 

(2.88) 

Tonic Immobility Scale (N=61) RANGE AND CUT OFF

 Total score 36.22 

(11.86) 

36.55 

(8.96) 

Sexual Assault Awareness Survey(N=84) RANGE

 Total right answers GIVE PERCENTAGES 4.74 

(0.98) 

4.92 

(0.88) 

Confidence (N=81)

 Total score RANGE 5.32 

(2.24) 

5.97** 

(2.40) 

Dichotomous measure 69% 46%** 

Attributions (N=32) 

 Behavioral blame RANGE 21.52 

(5.00) 

 27.19** 

(7.43) 

 Characterological blame RANGE 22.75 

(6.55) 

 27.13* 

(7.44) 

Dating Behavior

 Total items endorsed OUT OF HOW MANY? 3.54 

(1.61) 

 5.22** 

(2.17) 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder give % above cut-offs 

 Total 40.17 

(21.64) 

39.97 

(19.30) 

Anxiety 8.71 

(5.77) 

8.22 

(5.89) 

Depression 10.95 

(6.03) 

11.03 

(4.78) 

Dissociation 6.93 

(4.28) 

7.03 

(4.20) 

 Sleep disturbance 6.19 

(3.58) 

6.39 

(2.88) 

 Trauma 7.60 

(4.57) 

7.31 

(3.97) 

Sexual Abuse

 Total types of abuse experienced 10.43 

(3.81) 

10.60 

(4.49) 

* p < .10 

** p < .05 

106 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX F: 

ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO TREATMENT RECEIVED

 Knowledge 

of 

risk factors 

Confidence PTSD 

total 

Behavioral 

attribution* 

Characterological 

Attribution* 

Dating 

Behavior 

SES** 

F Sign. F Sign. F Sign. F Sign. F Sign. F Sign. Exp(B) Sign. 

Age 0.33 .57 0.06 .82 1.35 .25 ---- ---- ---- 0.97 .35 

Baseline 

score 

2.63 .11 9.66 .00 20.84 .00 ---- ---- ---- 1.03 .68 

Treatment 

 received 

0.14 .71 0.01 .92 0.90 .35 0.16 .69 0.07 .80 0.46 .50 1.20 .76 

Model Rsquare 0.04 0.16 0.33 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 

* Dependent measure is change score 

** Analysis is logistic regression 

107

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX G 

Difficulties of conducting research on sexual assault with a 

traumatized community sample: Lessons learned 

Research with community samples presents unique challenges, especially when 

the study group has also endured traumatic experiences. The research team for this 

project had decades of experience in this work. Nonetheless, the team encountered a 

range of unexpectedly large or unanticipated obstacles. This appendix summarizes these 

challenges, discusses how the team sought to overcome these obstacles, and what lessons 

emerged from this process. The challenges fall into four categories: working with 

multiple Institutional Review Boards, working with a diverse population with limited 

study resources, recruiting a study group of people who have experienced severe trauma, 

and conflicts with the orientation of other treatment modalities. 

Working with Multiple Institutional Review Boards 

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are charged with ensuring that research 

studies conform to the federal regulations related to the ethical treatment of human 

subjects. IRBs at each of the three institutions (Safe Horizon, Vera, and Harborview) 

reviewed the research protocol independently. The backgrounds of IRB members, the 

processes used to review research, the schedules for meetings, and the concerns and 

conclusions of each IRB, however, differed. The uncoordinated nature of IRB reviews 

led to substantial delays in the project and altered instruments that made maintaining the 

uniformity of the research design challenging. 

 The research team understood that the project involved an extraordinarily 

vulnerable population and IRBs would scrutinize the protections researchers had 

108

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
proposed. Many safeguards were built into the research to minimize the chance of 

adverse reactions and to address such reactions should they occur. Only women 18 or 

over were allowed to participate (a requirement that reduced the number of referrals from 

Safe Horizon). Two experienced social workers who have worked with this population 

delivered the workshop to a maximum of five participants at a time. If a participant 

became upset, one social worker could work privately with her while the workshop 

continued. Research staff did not observe the intervention to avoid any discomfort their 

presence might cause. Only female project staff spoke directly with the participants— 

even for the purposes of scheduling appointments—and all had at least master’s degrees 

in social work, counseling or another relevant field. Counselors were available if the 

baseline measures or the workshop triggered distress and women were given resource 

lists containing information on books, websites, hotlines, and support groups for sexual 

assault survivors. 

As described in the body of the report, the workshop curriculum was based in the 

literature, previous interventions successful with sexual assault survivors in a college 

sample, and the in-depth interviews conducted with survivors of multiple sexual assaults 

in Phase I, not in response to IRB concerns. Still, human subjects concerns were noted in 

the context of the development of the workshop. The intervention was designed as an 

educational workshop, not group therapy. The facilitators made that distinction clear at 

the beginning of each workshop and gently reminded participants that the workshop’s 

goals were to teach material without delving into the personal experiences of each 

participant. The workshop emphasized placing blame on perpetrators, not survivors, and 

stressed that a variety of responses during a sexual assault occur, from fighting back to 

109

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
freezing up, and that all of these reactions are normal and do not in any way minimize the 

sole responsibility of the perpetrator of the attack. 

To protect human subjects further, researchers sought to recruit participants 

through existing counseling programs. A master’s level clinician conducted a screen of 

all potential participants not referred by their counselor or therapist to assess their 

appropriateness for the study before baseline measures were administered. The clinical 

screen sought to ensure that women with severe emotion problems that would put them at 

increased risk did not participate in the study, as researchers felt that exposing this group 

to any level of risk was inappropriate. All three institutions work regularly with 

vulnerable populations and standard protocols were followed concerning data storage and 

confidentiality. 

The IRBs of the three institutions came with different orientations. As a medical 

institution, Harborview’s IRB followed an approach common to clinical trials and 

consisted primarily of medical staff. They reviewed the IRB submission without the 

researchers in the room to answer questions, met once every six months, and limited 

dialogue between the IRB and the researchers. Vera’s IRB is composed primarily of 

lawyers, as much of Vera’s research focuses on areas that are connected with legal 

processes: criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare. Safe Horizon’s IRB 

consists primarily of victim assistance service providers and focuses on protecting clients. 

Their familiarity with the population and with the study staff (including the clinical 

director of the sexual assault program) gave the Safe Horizon IRB more confidence in the 

safety of participants. Vera and Safe Horizon allow researchers in their IRB meetings to 

answer questions and the meetings are scheduled as needed. 

110

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The composition and the processes of each IRB, though different, conform to 

accepted practices. However, differing and at times conflicting concerns of IRBs delayed 

the research and weakened the methodology. Changes to research protocols required by 

one IRB needed review by the other IRBs. For example, one IRBs requested changes to 

the Sexual Assault Attribution Rating Scale so that items began “I thought” instead of “I 

believe.” This IRB reasoned that asking a survivor to agree or disagree with a negative 

statement about herself could be harmful and prompt feelings of self-blame, but rephrasing the question might mitigate this effect. The validation studies of the instruments, 

however, had used the original language, not the language requested by the IRB. 

Scheduling difficulties prevented the revised instrument from being presented to one of 

the other IRBs because doing so would have delayed the study by several months and 

was not financially viable. As a result, the study instruments differed slightly at 

Harborview and Safe Horizon. 

One IRB required that only women who had received counseling be allowed to 

participate. This requirement seemed manageable at the time of the IRB meeting, as the 

researchers envisioned participants as coming primarily from counseling programs. 

When recruitment issues arose, however, the requirement further limited the research 

team’s capacity to have a large sample size. Any changes to the recruitment process 

needed IRB approval from each institution, which lengthened the study and placed 

additional demands on study resources. 

In sum, reviews by the three IRBs took 18 months to complete and involved 

multiple reviews at each institution to incorporate changes requested by other institutions. 

As originally conceived, the project timeline called for completing the study in 24 

111

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
months. Because adaptations to the protocol could take several months to implement, 

researchers faced tough choices between making adjustments to the protocol that could 

ameliorate problems in recruitment or instrumentation and completing the study on time 

and on budget. The time devoted to IRB issues also sapped resources from the remainder 

of the project. 

Readers should not interpret this explication of problems as an attack on the 

operations of IRBs. The researchers understood and supported the scrutiny that this 

project received given the delicacy of the subject matter and the experiences of the study 

group. The point is to warn future researchers that ample resources are needed when 

engaging multiple institutions with different orientations and those efforts to streamline 

the IRB review process will facilitate research. One alternative that future researchers 

might explore is an interagency IRB agreement with one IRB taking responsibility for the 

project and the others agreeing to comply with their decisions. 

Working with a Community Sample 

Part of the appeal of the project lay in the opportunity to test an intervention with 

a more diverse group than the predominantly white middle class population involved in 

previous campus-based studies. However, the diversity of the population posed 

challenges that were magnified by resource limitations. Financial constraints prevented 

non-English speaking individuals from participating in this study. We had hoped to 

conduct the workshop in Spanish, but this would have required translation of the 

intervention, the baseline and follow up measures, and additional Spanish-speaking staff 

to recruit participants and administer the instruments. The research team did not have the 

resources to cover this expense. The language constraint prevented many clients at Safe 

112

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Horizon, our primary source of participants, from participating in the study. 

The workshops were scheduled in the evening to make them as convenient as 

possible for working women. However, this time schedule posed problems for some 

participants. Other women worked in the evenings and one woman would not go out 

after dark. Though child care was provided, some women may have felt uncomfortable 

bringing children to the intervention—only one participant took advantage of this 

resource. These realities made the biggest obstacle in completing the study, recruitment, 

that much more difficult. 

Recruitment 

Identifying and recruiting women who met the study’s eligibility criteria 

presented the biggest challenge the research team faced. Though this study’s sample size 

exceeds that of most other research projects with this population, the study fell well short 

of its recruitment goals. This shortfall occurred despite employing a range of recruitment 

strategies and extending the original timeline of the project by almost two years over its 

original projection. Given other statistics that suggest that a large number of women 

experience multiple sexual assaults, how is it that the study recruited only 84 

participants? There are several answers that fall into the following categories: women 

eligible for the study that did not want to participate, resistance by counselors to 

participate in a random assignment experiment, and counselor turnover. 

The initial recruitment strategy called for Harborview and Safe Horizon 

counselors to refer women to the study. Initial discussions and the experiences of the 

research team suggested that many women in counseling fit the eligibility criteria. For 

the reasons we discuss below, it became apparent that recruitment would be more 

113

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
difficult than originally envisioned. The research team held multiple meetings with three 

hospital based crime victim treatment programs that have contact with victims of sexual 

assaults. To make recruitment more palatable to the hospitals, the researchers offered the 

hospitals an incentive for successful enrollment ($50 per person) to cover the costs of 

making the referrals. When this strategy did not produce many new recruits, the 

researchers went to an additional 14 programs where presentations were made to staff 

about the study and flyers with contact numbers were left. Despite the broad outreach, 

few women called the 800 number set up to facilitate screening of potential participants. 

In response, the researchers placed advertisements on Craig’s List and The 

Village Voice (a website and newspaper). This strategy resulted in a higher volume of 

calls, but many of the callers did not meet the eligibility requirements of the study 

because they either never received counseling for their assault or they had been 

diagnosed with a mental illness such as Bipolar Disorder or a severe case of PostTraumatic Stress Disorder. That so many women who met the eligibility criteria had not 

received counseling is both a factor to consider when planning this type of research and a 

sign that research and programs in this area are needed. 

Finally, the research team went to battered women’s shelters and other locations 

where potential participants might be directly approached. This “on the ground” strategy 

increased the sample size, but came at the price of introducing bias into our sample. 

Women in the shelter system may or may not be representative of the broader set of 

sexual assault victims this study sought to recruit. 

Why did such a diversity of tactics carried out over an extended period produce 

such a weak response? 

114

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Victim reluctance to participation 

While it is impossible to know how many potential participants saw the flyers and 

heard presentations made by Vera staff, the research team felt that the locations where 

recruiting took place were appropriate. Program staff at these locations agreed that they 

saw a substantial number of clients that met the study’s eligibility criteria. 

Instead, the researchers felt that many eligible women did not want to participate 

in a research project. Some women who initially signed up for the study decided against 

participation once they learned more about what the study entailed. Some women told 

research staff that they didn’t think they were in a place where they could participate in a 

study of this type. Other women agreed on the phone to participate but then did not keep 

their appointments for baseline measures or did not show up at the workshop. Although 

this research was grounded in the premise that women in treatment would be sufficiently 

stable, motivated, and able to participate in a risk reduction workshop, it remains unclear 

at what point in treatment survivors are comfortable engaging in this type of program. It 

is also unclear if women who did not participate after an initial interest decided against 

participating because of logistical issues, fear of research generally, or because they 

found this specific type of intervention unattractive. 

Particularly for women in emergency shelter, but also for other women in this 

population, keeping appointments is difficult. Of the eight women in the emergency 

domestic violence shelter, all of whom had been given the baseline assessment in 

advance and were scheduled to participate in an intervention in their residence, five did 

not make it to the intervention because they had been asked to leave the shelter, decided 

to go to the hospital for a voluntary procedure, or were ill. Many of the women in this 

115

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
population face immense challenges and participating in a research project is often not a 

high priority. 

Resistance from counselors 

The research team also found that while counselors supported the goals of the 

project, many felt uncomfortable with having their clients randomly assigned. 

Counselors often stated that they were willing to recommend clients but only if their 

clients participated in the workshop instead of the control group. The discomfort with 

random assignment on the part of sexual assault counselors extended across many 

programs and persisted after researchers explained the importance of random assignment 

to the counselors. Apart from the random assignment issue, other clinicians were afraid 

of compromising their relationship with their patient if she had a bad experience in the 

workshop or felt that their clients as a group were not ready to participate just yet. These 

concerns might explain the limited support the programs offered for the study. While 18 

different hospitals and counseling programs in New York City assisted with recruitment 

on some level, all but four limited their involvement to posting flyers in their waiting 

rooms and on bulletin boards. Staff at Seattle also reported reluctance among counselors 

and suggested that counselors were very conservative in their assessments of what their 

clients could safely handle. 

A common response to recruitment difficulties is to institute or increase the 

stipend paid to participants. Participating in the study required a substantial time 

commitment, potentially to participate in several hours of workshop over two days, and 

be available for follow up several months later. All three IRBs approved the $75 stipend 

given after completing the baseline instruments and an additional $75 stipend after 

116

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
completing the follow up instruments. This level of compensation is not out of the range 

of what many market research firms pay participants, but is higher than many other 

research studies. Furthermore, the stipend represented a significant amount of money for 

some participants, particularly those who were unemployed, collecting disability, or 

working part-time. 

In one case, researchers learned that a participant had told her friends about the 

study because of the stipend and coached them on the screening process. These 

participants were excluded from the study and a new screening question was added 

(“how did you hear about this study?”). Future researchers may want to place more 

emphasis on the non-financial gains of participating in this type of research or offer a 

lower level of compensation. In sum, while the research team had done some preliminary 

analysis about the feasibility of recruitment, future research should pay closer attention to 

this issue. Future funders of this type of research may want to provide resources for 

feasibility studies or allocate more resources for recruitment. 

Conflicts in treatment modalities 

The model of the workshop was not suited for all participants, particularly those 

participants who had prior experience with treatment based on conflicting theoretical 

orientations. For women who were in recovery from substance abuse—a common 

problem among sexually victimized women—the theoretical underpinnings of the 

intervention did not always mesh with those of the substance abuse treatment they 

received. This proved particularly relevant to participants who had participated in 12-step 

programs. Parts of 12-step program models place a heavy emphasis on personal 

responsibility for ones’ actions and resulting events. The workshop, however, 

117

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
emphasized that while certain behaviors increased the chances of an assault, blame for 

the assault lay solely with the assailant. Some participants with a 12-step background 

vocally disagreed with the premise of the intervention and became disruptive during the 

workshop. Although these participants had received treatment, it is clear that the type of 

treatment they were exposed to did not complement the material in the workshop. 

Conclusion 

Working with a community sample of a traumatized population poses serious 

challenges for researchers. In general, every aspect of this project took longer than 

anticipated despite the considerable experience of the team conducting this research. In 

addition to the drain on resources, working with community samples often means making 

methodological compromises that are unnecessary in more controlled conditions. 

However, these studies are critical to our understanding the effect of interventions in 

actual conditions. None of the issues we point out here should discourage future 

researchers or funders: our hope in identifying these issues is to help others anticipate 

problems and increase the quality of this vital work. 

118

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX H 

Staff and Consultant Biographies 

Rob Davis, Research Director of the Police Foundation, has conducted several major 

randomized experiments on repeat victimization. His work in this area includes articles 

in Criminology and the Journal of Experimental Criminology. He has also published 

extensively on violence against women issues and is the editor of three books on crime 

victims. 

Chris O’Sullivan, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate at Safe Horizon, is a social 

psychologist with 25 years experience conducting research on male violence and 

victimization of women. Her first experience in this field was conducting a study of 

incest for Diana H. Russell’s International Tribunal on Crimes Against Women. 

Subsequently, as director of a women’s program in a rural area, she provided rape crisis 

intervention and domestic violence services. After receiving her doctorate in 

experimental psychology, she began to study group sexual assault on campus, with a 

focus on the social dynamics of group assaults, the social context of support for sexual 

exploitation in male groups, and criminal justice procedures. She served as a consultant 

for prosecutors in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kentucky and Florida in the prosecution of 

acquaintance rape cases. Since joining Safe Horizon in 1995, her research has continued 

to examine judicial processes, but her work has focused more on intimate partner 

violence, batterer programs, and child exposure to domestic violence. She has been 

principal investigator or co-principal investigator of 10 grants from NIJ and the State 

Justice Institute. 

Lucy Berliner, M.S.W. is Director of the Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and 

Traumatic Stress, and a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Washington 

School of Social Work and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 

Timothy Ross, Ph.D., is the Director of Child Welfare, Health and Justice Program at the 

Vera Institute of Justice. For the past seven years, Dr. Ross has led several child welfare 

research projects including studies of the overlap between child welfare and juvenile 

justice, the prevalence of children in foster care whose parents are incarcerated, and how 

the police and child protective workers coordinate responses to allegations of severe 

maltreatment. Dr. Ross has also edited a book on crime mapping and taught at Hunter 

and Baruch Colleges. He has undergraduate degrees in political science from Williams 

College and the University of Kent at Canterbury, and a Ph.D. in government and politics 

from the University of Maryland. 

Pamela Guthrie, M.A., is a research analyst at the Vera Institute of Justice and is a 

doctoral student in clinical psychology at Long Island University. She is also a rape and 

domestic violence crisis counselor in the emergency room at Beth Israel Medical Center 

and runs a weekly group on relationship violence for teenage girls who have been 

119

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
arrested for prostitution. 

Michele Vigeant, LMHC, NCC, is the Program Office Director for Safe Horizon. She 

also works part time with the Safe Horizon Counseling Center where she provides 

individual trauma focused treatment to victims of crime and abuse. From 2002 to 2005, 

she was the Director of Sexual Assault and Clinical Services for Community Programs at 

Safe Horizon. In this role, she clinically supervised, supported and trained staff and 

directors of the five Community Programs of Safe Horizon and was responsible for the 

administration of the Rape Crisis Program. She has worked as a consulting therapist for 

the Staten Island Community Residential Center where she provided individual 

counseling to adolescent female survivors of sexual abuse in custody of the Office of 

Children and Family Services. Since joining Safe Horizon in 1997, she has worked 

directly with survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence and the World Trade Center 

terrorist attacks. Ms. Vigeant received her Masters in Education in Counseling 

Psychology from Teachers College, Columbia University. She is nationally certified 

through the National Board of Certified Counselors and holds a New York State license 

in Mental Health Counseling. 

The second workshop facilitator is an LMSW and trained psychotherapist who has 

worked survivors and offenders for 10 years, conducted assessments, developed 

treatment plans, developed curricula and provided training for staff who work with 

batterers, families at risk, and victims. Due to the dangerous nature of this person’s 

position, further identifying information is omitted. 

Amy Weintraub, Ph.D. is a sociologist affiliated with Columbia's School of Public 

Health, and director of the Crime Victims Treatment Program at Harlem Hospital. 

Brian Marx, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Temple University. Dr. Marx has 

thirty-seven peer-reviewed journal publications, and has co-authored a book and five 

book chapters. His research has been externally funded, with grants coming from the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research 

Foundation, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Marx has served numerous 

times as a grant reviewer for the National Institutes of Health and is a reviewer for a 

number of scientific journals. 

120

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.