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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: An Evidence-Based Review of Sexual Assault 

Preventive Intervention Programs 

Author(s): Shannon Morrison, Jennifer Hardison, Anita 

Mathew, Joyce O’Neil 

Document No.: 207262 

Date Received: October 2004 

Award Number: 2002-WG-BX-0006 

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. 
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.

September 2004 

An Evidence-Based Review of Sexual Assault 

Preventive Intervention Programs 

Technical Report 

Prepared for 

National Institute of Justice 

810 Seventh Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Prepared by 

Shannon Morrison, Ph.D.

Jennifer Hardison, M.S.W.

Anita Mathew, M.P.H.

 Joyce O’Neil, M.A.

RTI International

Health, Social, and Economics Research

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

NIJ Grant Number: 2002-WG-BX-0006 
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.
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.

CONTENTS

Section Page 

List of Exhibits .................................................................... v

Abstract ......................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Purpose of SAPI Evidence-Based Review .................... 1

1.2 Overview of Report Chapters ............................................ 3

2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................ 5

2.1 Prevalence and Consequences of Sexual Violence ............................ 5

2.2 SAPI Strategies and Programs ........................................... 6

2.3 Effectiveness of SAPI Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 9

2.4 Methodological Weaknesses of SAPI Evaluation Research ................... 13

3.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 17

3.1 Evidence-Based Review Methodology .................................... 17

3.1.1 Strengths of Evidence-Based Reviews .............................. 18

3.1.2 Challenges of Evidence-Based Reviews ............................. 19

3.2 RTI’s Review Protocol ................................................ 19

3.2.1 Use of Expert Consultants ....................................... 20

3.2.2 Development of a Review Team .................................. 20

3.2.3 Parameters of the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 20

3.2.4 Inclusion Criteria .............................................. 21

3.2.5 Literature Search ............................................... 22

3.2.6 Article Screening Process ........................................ 23

3.2.7 Data Abstraction and Quality Assessment .......................... 24

3.3 Data Analysis ........................................................ 28

4.0 RESULTS ................................................................. 29

4.1 Descriptive Information ............................................... 29

4.1.1 Target Population .............................................. 30

4.1.2 Study Design .................................................. 30

4.1.3 Study Retention Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 31

4.1.4 Study Quality .................................................. 31

4.1.5 Outcome Measures ............................................. 32

4.1.6 Instruments ................................................... 32

4.1.7 SAPI Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 33

4.2 Synthesis of Evidence of SAPI Effectiveness . . . ........................... 34

4.2.1 Approach to Synthesizing Findings ................................ 34

4.2.2 Results of Synthesis ............................................ 37

4.3 Summary ........................................................... 38

5.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................... 63

iii 
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.

CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page 

5.1 Overview ........................................................... 63

5.2 Summary of Key Findings .............................................. 63

5.3 Limitations of This Review ............................................. 64

5.4 Recommendations for Future Research ................................... 65

5.4.1 Program Development .......................................... 65

5.4.2 Evaluation .................................................... 68

5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 70

REFERENCES ................................................................... 73

Appendixes 

A Expert Consultants ..................................................... A-1

B Literature Search Databases and Search Terms ............................... B-1

C List of Articles and Their Corresponding Article Number . . .................... C-1

D Data Abstraction Forms ................................................. D-1

E Evidence Tables – General Population ...................................... E-1

F SAPIs for Individuals with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... F-1

G Evidence Tables – Individuals with Disabilities . . . . . .......................... G-1

H SAPI Author Suggestions ................................................ H-1

iv 
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.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Number Page 

1 Summary of Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ES-10

2.1 Summary of Methodological Issues in SAPI Evaluation Research . . . . . . .............. 16

4.1 Summary of Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 39

4.2 Instruments/Scales Used in SAPI Studies ....................................... 41

4.3 SAPI Study Summary ........................................................ 46

4.4 Study-Specific Descriptive Information ......................................... 53

4.5 Summary of Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 61

5.1 Summary of Author Suggestions ............................................... 71

F-1 Study-Specific Descriptive Information for Studies for Individuals 

with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ F-12

F-2 Summary of Study Characteristics for Studies for Individuals with Disabilities . ....... F-14

v 
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.
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 

Sexual violence is a major public health and social problem in the United States and 

worldwide. Unfortunately, little is known about the effectiveness of sexual assault preventive 

interventions (SAPIs) in deterring future sexual violence. To bring forth more systematic and wellinformed studies, it is essential for researchers to know which SAPIs have been evaluated and the 

results of these evaluations. In response to this need, RTI International performed an evidencebased review of SAPIs, documented what is known about SAPI evaluation research, identified 

significant gaps, and provided recommendations for future sexual assault prevention practice and 

research. 

This systematic, comprehensive literature review of English-language articles (within and 

outside the United States) evaluating SAPIs generated study-specific descriptions as well as summary 

information on a variety of study characteristics. In conducting this review, RTI followed the 

rigorous methodology developed by three organizations recognized internationally for facilitating 

evidence-based reviews. 

A total of 59 studies were reviewed for this report, including 9 studies that reported 

evaluation results of SAPIs focusing on individuals with disabilities. The data provided in the 

summary descriptions of the SAPI studies highlight the methodological diversity across the studies. 

Although this diversity precluded a rigorous meta-analysis of the findings, the results of RTI’s 

analytic strategy indicate that 14 percent of the studies reported positive intervention effects at posttest or follow-up and 80 percent reported mixed results. The methodological limitations evident in 

the field of SAPI research should be kept in mind, along with other sources of bias previously 

mentioned; however, these findings suggest that the majority of SAPIs produce some positive 

attitudinal and behavioral change among program participants and that very few of the programs 

appear to adversely affect these outcomes. 

vii 
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.
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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background 

Sexual violence is a major public health and social problem in the United States and 

worldwide. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), 1 in 6 women 

and 1 in 33 men have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 2000). The long-term negative consequences often associated with sexual violence 

demand that effective prevention programs be developed (Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999), and sexual 

assault preventive interventions (SAPIs) targeting male and female adults and children may help 

deter this violence. In the past 20 years, numerous published studies have evaluated SAPIs; 

however, evidence supporting the effectiveness of these programs remains weak and is sometimes 

contradictory. To produce more systematic and well-informed studies, it is essential that researchers 

know which SAPIs have been evaluated and the results of these evaluations; this need called for a 

rigorous, systematic review of the effectiveness and applicability of evaluated SAPIs. 

In an effort to make a significant contribution to the prevention of sexual assault, NIJ 

awarded a grant to RTI International in 2002 to conduct an evidence-based review of SAPIs. 

Accordingly, between October 2002 and April 2004, RTI conducted such a review, documented 

what is known about SAPI evaluation research, identified significant gaps, and highlighted areas for 

future research. 

SAPI Strategies and Programs 

Although some sexual assault prevention strategies are promising, very few have been 

evaluated (World Health Organization, 2002). These strategies include 

• skill-building through reproductive health promotions that include gender aspects

and violence prevention,

• programs that work with families throughout child development, 

• work at the community level with men to change concepts of masculinity, and 

ES-1 
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.

• work in school environments promoting equitable gender relations. 

The majority of preventive interventions focus on college students. Although college-based 

rape prevention programs vary in their implementation strategies and measures of effectiveness, 

these programs commonly include components such as 

• providing information on the prevalence of sexual assault, 

• challenging rape myths and sex-role stereotypes, 

• identifying risk-related behaviors, 

• increasing empathy for rape survivors, 

• providing information on the effects of rape on victims, and 

• providing lists of victim resources (Brecklin & Forde, 2001). 

School-based populations have also been a focus of sexual violence prevention efforts. 

Middle and high school programs, which are similar to college programs but are tailored for a 

younger audience, commonly include components such as 

• identifying, clarifying, and challenging societal portrayals of male and female roles; 

• identifying and modulating intrapersonal and interpersonal stressors; 

• promoting coping strategies that dissuade the use of alcohol and drugs; 

• challenging the use of violence as a means of conflict resolution; 

• recognizing the early warning signs of violence; 

• correctly identifying and interpreting verbal, physical, and sexual aggression as such

and not as love; and 

• developing strategies for disengagement from problematic relationships, including

identifying and alerting a trusted adult (parent, relative, teacher, coach, religious

leader, health professional) and options for legal recourse (Cohall, Cohall, Bannister

& Northbridge, 1999). 

Evidence of a strong SAPI-specific theoretical framework is lacking; the majority of SAPIs 

do not clearly rely on a theory-based foundation, and those that do so cite a variety of theories. 

Recent published reviews of evaluations of college rape prevention education programs suggest 

ES-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.

positive effects (i.e., moderate reductions in rape myths and rape-supportive attitudes), but the use 

of different measures of change makes it difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of such 

programs (Bachar & Koss, 2001; Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Flores & Hartlaub, 1998; Breitenbecher, 

2000). The effects of dating violence prevention programs targeting adolescents are frequently 

measured by changes in attitude, knowledge, and, less commonly, behaviors and behavioral 

intentions. Wekerle and Wolfe’s (1999) review of six adolescent dating violence programs found 

that all programs reported significant desired changes in attitudes concerning dating aggression, 

knowledge of myths about abuse of women, and behavioral intentions in hypothetical conflict 

situations. In O’Leary, Woodin, and Fritz’s (in press) review of relationship violence programs, 

positive significant changes in knowledge about dating violence and myths surrounding partner 

abuse were found across most programs. Three studies (Foubert, 2000; Gray, Lesser, Quinn, & 

Bounds, 1990; Jaffe, Sudermann, Reitzel, & Killip, 1992) reported significant positive changes for 

behavioral intention in hypothetical conflict situations. 

Study Methodology 

All systematic literature reviews share a fundamental aim: to gather, summarize, and 

integrate empirical research to help people understand the evidence (The Campbell Collaboration, 

2001). This study’s rigorous methodology specifically conforms to the scientific techniques and 

guidelines offered by three groups that have gained international recognition for their role in 

facilitating systematic literature reviews of effectiveness evidence: the Guide to Community Preventive 

Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations, developed by the Task Force on 

Community Preventive Services (TFCPS) (Briss et al., 2000); the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, 

published by the Cochrane Collaboration (Alderson, Green, & Higgins, 2003); and the CRD Report 

Number 4, developed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York 

(Khan, ter Riet, Glanville, Sowden, & Kleijnen, 2001). 

ES-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.

In compliance with the methodologies outlined by these groups, RTI included the following 

tasks in this evidence-based review of SAPIs: 

• Development of a review protocol 

• Use of expert consultants in the field of violence against women 

• Development of a review team 

• Systematic search for and retrieval of articles presenting evaluations of SAPIs 

• Selection of SAPIs to be evaluated 

• Development of data abstraction and quality assessment instruments 

• Data abstraction and study quality assessment 

• Synthesis of abstracted information and drawing of conclusions 

• Generation of recommendations 

RTI used the following inclusion criteria for this evidence-based review: 

• SAPI evaluation 

• English-language publication 

• Publication dates between 1990 and June 2003 

• Peer-reviewed journal, book chapter, or government report (dissertations excluded) 

• Primary or secondary preventive intervention/program 

• Adolescent or older target population 

• Inclusion of outcome measures 

• Pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design 

To identify the greatest number of SAPI evaluation publications within the scope of the 

inclusion criteria, RTI conducted an exhaustive search of the literature. A total of 67 articles 

(representing 59 studies)1

 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the data abstraction process 

1 Because the unit of analysis for abstraction was the study rather than the article, multiple articles reporting on 

the same study were combined for abstraction. 

ES-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.

(see appendix C). The article selection process allowed for a thorough screening and took into 

consideration expert panel and RTI team suggestions. 

A three-tiered review process was employed to abstract data from the articles and ensure a 

thorough assessment: two reviewers from the RTI team separately recorded detailed information 

for each article, and any discrepancies were reconciled by a third reviewer. All three reviewers 

independently assessed study quality. Two standardized forms, one for data abstraction and one for 

quality rating, were used to review each article. The data abstraction form, which was used to 

classify information from each article, included sections for descriptive information about the 

population and setting, study design and sample, and the preventive intervention. The form also 

included sections for recording the study measures, instruments, and results, and the final section 

included space to indicate the quality score (from the quality rating form) and the major strengths 

and weaknesses of both the study and the article. 

Quality was assessed using a separate form specifically designed to evaluate the information 

entered on the data abstraction form. The quality score assigned to each study reflects many of the 

study design characteristics described in this chapter, as well as the extent to which descriptive 

information was provided. Each article was given three quality rating scores: one to assess the 

study description, one to assess the study design, and a total score (the sum of the study description 

and study design scores). The total score was then divided by the number of possible points to 

determine the percentage score. 

Highlights of Findings 

Summary Characteristics 

The majority of studies (64 percent, n=32) in this review included both male and female 

participants. Approximately 18 percent (n=9) of the SAPIs were administered to a female-only 

audience, and 18 percent (n=9) to a male-only audience. Seventy percent (n=35) of the programs 

targeted the college population, 16 percent (n=8) targeted high school, 8 percent (n=4) targeted 

ES-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.

middle school, and only 6 percent (n=3) targeted community or combined college and community 

populations. 

The most common type of study design found was a nonequivalent comparison group 

(34 percent, n=17), followed by experimental (28 percent, n=14), randomized treatment comparison 

group (22 percent, n=11), and pre-test/post-test (16 percent, n=8). Approximately 19 percent (n=8) 

of the studies had a sample of fewer than 100 subjects, and 26 percent (n=11) had baseline sample 

sizes greater than 500. In addition to conducting a post-test, 38 percent (n=19) conducted a followup assessment. 

Post-intervention follow-up periods ranged from less than 1 week to 4 years after 

completion of the program. Nineteen out of 50 studies had follow-up periods of less than 1 month. 

Study retention rates (at both post-test and follow-up) ranged from 31 percent to 100 percent. At 

post-test, 17 (out of 27) of the studies had retention rates greater than 75 percent; at follow-up, 7 

(out of 19) studies had retention rates greater than 75 percent. 

For the quality scores, the upper limit (number of points) for the denominator was 85. 

Percentages were used to provide a standard metric for comparison across studies. Among the 

studies, the quality score totals ranged from 32 to 91 percent, with an average quality score of 60 

percent. Fourteen of the studies had quality score totals below 50 percent (low); 24 had scores 

between 50 and 69 percent (medium); and 12 had scores greater than or equal to 70 percent (high). 

Approximately 58 percent (n=29) of the studies solely measured changes in knowledge 

and/or attitudes. Many of the studies (26 percent, n=13) included both behavioral and 

nonbehavioral outcome measures; one study assessed only behavioral outcomes. Approximately 86 

percent (n=43) of the studies used knowledge and/or attitudes as an outcome measure, 24 percent 

(n=12) of the studies used victimization, 12 percent (n=6) used perpetration, 14 percent (n=7) 

measured dating behavior, and 20 percent (n=10) measured skills and/or strategies gained as a result 

of the intervention. 

ES-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.

A wide range of instruments was used to measure outcomes. Many of the instruments were 

used only once across the studies; however, a few instruments were used in more than one study. 

The most commonly used instruments (including modified versions) were (1) Rape Myth 

Acceptance Scale, (2) Sexual Experiences Survey, (3) Adversarial Sexual Beliefs, and (4) Acceptance 

of Interpersonal Violence. Several studies (n=16) used author-designed, unnamed measures. 

Numerous curriculum components (topics included in the intervention) and presentation 

modes (types of instruction and/or demonstration) were found across the studies. Most 

interventions covered several curriculum topics, which ranged from information on 

acquaintance/date rape to characteristics of offenders. The curriculum topics covered most 

frequently were (1) rape myths, (2) acquaintance/date rape information, (3) statistics on rape, and 

(4) prevention skills (e.g., risk reduction, protective skills). As with curriculum topics, most 

interventions utilized more than one mode of presentation, the most common being didactic 

presentations, discussions (including structured discussions), and videotapes. 

Synthesis of Evidence 

Although a meta-analysis yielding an estimate of the overall change in attitude, knowledge, 

or behavior is intuitively appealing, several substantial challenges precluded this approach: 

• diversity and number of curriculum components included in the interventions; 

• variability in the mode of presentation and length of interventions; 

• variability in study design; 

• diversity of instruments and outcome measures used to assess intervention effects,

with inconsistency in the operationalization and time frame of the outcome

measures;

• lack of data provided within the studies to create a common outcome measure; 

• variability in post-intervention follow-up durations and retention rates within these

follow-up periods; and

• variability in analytic strategies used and actual statistics reported. 

ES-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.

Many studies employed statistical analyses that determined the significance of the 

intervention effect by using multiple strategies at multiple follow-up periods or among multiple 

intervention groupings or population subgroups. The synthesis approach used here involved 

categorizing the SAPI studies into four groups: those reporting an intervention effect that was (1) 

positive, (2) mixed, (3) null, or (4) negative. In this synthesis, studies were considered to have a 

positive intervention effect if all the results (at post-test and follow-up) of each outcome reported in 

the article were statistically significant in the desired direction (i.e., the intervention group showed 

greater knowledge/attitude or behavioral change, either in comparison with a control group or from 

pre- to post-test), and none of the results were either null or statistically significant in an undesired 

direction (either in comparison with a control group or from pre- to post-test). Studies were 

classified as having a mixed intervention effect if results across different outcomes (e.g., knowledge 

and dating behavior) or within the same outcome (e.g., subscales of one instrument or across 

different instruments measuring the same outcome) were both positive and null/negative. Studies 

were classified as having a null intervention effect if none of the results reported in the study were 

statistically significant. Studies were classified as having a negative intervention effect if all of the 

results reported in the article were statistically significant in an undesired direction (i.e., the 

intervention group agreed more with rape myths, either in comparison with a control group or from 

pre- to post-test). The classification of studies into these three categories was based on the statistical 

tests reported in the evaluation. 

Below and in exhibit 1 are highlights from the data synthesis results: 

• Fourteen percent (n=7) of the studies included in this review were categorized as exclusively 

demonstrating positive intervention effects (regardless of the study design, follow-up period, 

retention rate, and quality score). All of these studies used knowledge/attitude as the sole 

outcome and targeted the college and community populations. 

• Eighty percent (n=40) of the studies were categorized as demonstrating mixed results, and 6 

percent (n=3) reported a null intervention effect. 

ES-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.

• Twenty-four percent (n=7) of the results for studies using only knowledge/attitude 

outcomes were positive, and none were null. 

• Nine percent (n=1) of the results for the victimization outcome were positive; 33 percent 

(n=2) of the results for the perpetration outcome were positive; and 29 percent (n=2) of the 

results for the dating behavior outcome were positive. 

• All the studies in which the results were null used an experimental design. Seventy-nine 

percent (n=11) of the studies with an experimental design reported mixed results; none of 

these studies reported overall positive results. 

• Ninety-one percent (n=10) of studies using a randomized comparison group design reported 

mixed results, and nine percent (n=1) reported positive results. Seventy-six percent (n=13) 

of the studies with a nonequivalent comparison group design reported mixed results, and 24 

percent (n=4) reported positive results. Seventy-five percent (n=6) of the studies with a prepost design reported mixed results, and 25 percent (n=2) reported positive results. 

• Fourteen percent (n=3) of the studies with 75 percent or greater study retention rates at 

post-test reported positive results; no studies with a follow-up retention rate of 75 percent or 

greater resulted in an overall positive intervention effect. 

• Twenty-one percent (n=4) of studies with a follow-up period of less than 1 month had an 

overall positive intervention effect; no studies with a follow-up period of greater than 

4 months had an overall positive intervention effect. 

• Fifty-seven percent (n=4) of studies reporting only positive intervention effects received low 

quality scores. 

• All the studies (n=3) with null intervention effects received high quality scores. No studies 

with high quality scores were categorized as having overall positive intervention effects. 

• Approximately 17 percent (n=4) of the studies using follow-ups reported positive results at 

post-test and null results at follow-up, indicating that the positive effects of the intervention 

diminished over time. 

ES-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.

Exhibit 1. Summary of Intervention Effects 

Set of Studies 

Type of Intervention Effect 

Positive Mixed Null 

% (n) % (n) % (n) 

Total (n=50) 14(7) 80(40) 6 (3) 

Subset of studies using only knowledge/attitude outcomes 24(7) 76(22) 0 

(n=29) 

Subset of studies using victimization as an outcome* (n=11) 9(1) 36(4) 55(6) 

Subset of studies using perpetration as an outcome* (n=6) 33(2) 17(1) 50(3) 

Subset of studies using dating behavior as an outcome* 29(2) 14(1) 57(4) 

(n=7) 

Subset of studies using: 

– experimental design (n=14) 0 79 (11) 21 (3) 

– randomized comparison (n=11) 9 (1) 91(10) 0 

– nonequivalent comparison (n=17) 24 (4) 76 (13) 0 

– pre-post (n=8) 25 (2) 75 (6) 0 

Subset of studies with study retention rates: 

– at post-test 

greater than 75 (n=21) 14 (3) 81(17) 5 (1) 

– at follow-up 

greater than 75 (n=6) 0 67(4) 33 (2) 

Subset of studies with follow-up period: 

– less than 1 month (n=19) 21 (4) 79 (15) 0 

– 1–3 months (n=17) 18(3) 82 (14) 0 

– greater than 4 months (n=12) 0 83 (10) 17 (2) 

Subset of studies with quality score: 

– less than 50 (n=14) 29 (4) 71 (10) 0 

– 50–69 (n=24) 13 (3) 87 (21) 0 

– 70–100 (n=12) 0 75 (9) 25 (3) 

Note: Studies were classified as having a positive effect if all of the statistically significant findings for the type of 

outcome (e.g., attitude/knowledge or behavioral outcomes) were positive and none were negative. Studies were 

classified as having mixed effects if there were both positive and null (or negative) statistically significant 

findings. Studies were classified as having a negative effect if at least one of the statistically significant findings 

was negative. Studies were classified as having a null effect if none of the findings were statistically significant 

(either in a positive or negative direction). No studies were classified as having a negative effect. 

* These results represent only the behavioral outcomes; some of these studies also used knowledge/attitude and

 skills/strategies outcomes for which the results could have differed. 

ES-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.

Summary 

The data provided in the summary descriptions of the SAPI studies included in this 

evidence-based review highlight the methodological diversity across the studies, which precluded a 

meta-analysis of the findings. However, the results of the review indicate that 14 percent of the 

studies reported positive intervention effects at post-test or follow-up and 80 percent reported 

mixed results. 

Conclusions 

The review highlighted many programmatic, research, and evaluation needs that must be met 

to advance the field of sexual assault prevention. Described below are some of the major challenges 

facing the development and evaluation of SAPIs and recommendations for future research in the 

field. 

Program Development Recommendations 

• In general, evaluations of interventions with younger populations are needed; programs that 

target young people for intervention provide opportunities for primary prevention. 

• Most of the interventions were universal interventions; that is, they were delivered to an entire 

population regardless of risk factors. Although this is an excellent way to provide basic 

information to a large population, other forms of interventions that target individuals who 

are considered to be at risk for sexual violence may be needed. The combination of 

universal and selective interventions may further advance the prevention of sexual violence. 

• The role of gender and its effect on the success of the programs needs to be further 

explored. A number of studies provide evidence for gender-specific programming. 

Additionally, when the audience is younger and the curriculum content is more focused on 

healthy relationship, than on avoiding rape, mixed gender groups may be more appropriate. 

• Most SAPIs are school based. Schools have limitations, however, as some students, 

particularly those most at risk, may not be accessible by schools, and some students may 

have difficulty becoming engaged in any school-based activities. Programs that utilize other 

venues to reach youth, such as families, community-based organizations, religious 

institutions, and media may provide access to a broader range of adolescents, and may offer 

different ways to engage individuals in SAPIs. 

• There is a significant need to develop and evaluate programs that meet the needs of

individuals from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds.

ES-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.

• Because most curricula used in SAPIs are not theory-based, it is difficult to replicate 

programs. It would be useful to develop curricula based on one or more theoretical 

frameworks to address sexual prevention efforts in a more systematic and comprehensive 

manner. 

• Perhaps sexual violence should be considered part of the constellation of adolescent risk 

behaviors that includes delinquency, aggression, school failure, and substance use, so that 

prevention for sexual violence would focus on the risk factors common to all risk behaviors. 

A general curriculum focusing on healthy youth development could help reduce sexual 

violence and could be used in place of (or in addition to) a specific sexual violence 

prevention program that is initiated at about the time teens started dating. 

• Organizations that implement SAPIs may not have the expertise or the resources to conduct 

controlled evaluations of new (or existing) programs, yet such evaluation is critical for 

advancement of the field. At a minimum, programs should be encouraged to conduct selfevaluations. 

Evaluation Recommendations 

• Researchers need to expand their use of outcome measures, with special attention given to 

reliability, validity, and psychometric properties. 

• There is a need for further research that examines the differences between the intensity of 

the interventions (e.g., one session versus multiple sessions) and compares the effectiveness 

of various intervention styles, curricula, presenters, and settings. It would be extremely 

useful to identify which elements of an intervention are most useful in effecting change. 

• Measuring abusive behavior in the context of an evaluation of an adolescent-focused SAPI is 

made difficult by the lack of standardized instruments for adolescents. The cognitive, 

emotional, and psychological development of adolescents must be taken into account in 

developing measures of sexual violence. 

• Most SAPI evaluations focus on knowledge and attitudes as the primary outcome, but this 

focus is problematic for several reasons. Attitudes and knowledge may be more susceptible 

than measures of behavior to socially desirable responding, and changes in attitudes may be 

limited by ceiling or floor effects, as many students may not be willing to endorse attitudes in 

support of sexual violence (especially severe forms). Further, changes in attitudes and 

knowledge may or may not result in changes in behavior. More research is needed to 

understand the causal relationship between attitudes and behavior, including whether 

changes in attitudes lead to corresponding changes in behavior. 

• To determine whether SAPIs result in significant, lasting changes, longer follow-up periods 

are needed. Longitudinal studies are very effective for examining the relationship between 

history of sexual victimization and program effectiveness. 

Although some of SAPI studies reported positive findings for knowledge, attitude, and/or 

behavioral outcomes, and most of the studies reported mixed results, these findings should be taken 

ES-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.

as tentative given the diversity of the studies, their methodological problems, and the fact that not all 

SAPI studies were included. The great variability in study design, sampling, attrition, and 

measurement precluded synthesis across studies. This review demonstrated that many challenging 

research questions and issues are yet to be addressed, most notably the need for improved measures 

and the development and evaluation of SAPIs for diverse populations. 

ES-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.
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.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Purpose of SAPI Evidence-Based Review 

Sexual violence is a major public health and social problem in the United States and 

worldwide. Sexual violence is defined as “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted 

sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic a person’s sexuality, using coercion, threats of harm 

or physical force, by any person regardless of relationships to the victim, in any setting, including but 

not limited to home and work” (World Health Organization [WHO], 2002). Similar to the WHO 

definition, for this report the term sexual violence includes both rape and sexual assault. Rape means 

forced or coerced penetration—vaginal, anal, or oral; sexual assault means other forced or coerced 

sexual acts not involving penetration (Crowell & Burgess, 1996). According to the National 

Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men have been the victim of 

an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The severe physical 

and mental effects of rape and sexual assault on victims and the larger community have been well 

documented (WHO, 2002; Crowell & Burgess, 1996; Jenny et al., 1990; Beebe, 1991; Koss & Oros, 

1991; Gomme, 1986; Smith, 1989; Kirchoff & Kirchoff, 1984; Van Dijk, 1978; Softas-Nall, Bardos, 

& Fakinos, 1995; Kilpatrick et al., 1985; Burnam et al., 1988; Winfield, George, Swartz, & Blazer, 

1990; DeLahunta & Baram, 1997). To address this issue in the United States, Congress passed the 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, 1994) as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act, and President Clinton established the Office on Violence Against Women in the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The long-term negative consequences often associated with sexual violence require the 

development of effective prevention programs (Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999), and sexual assault 

preventive interventions (SAPIs) targeting male and female adults and children may help deter this 

violence. Although many programs throughout the United States provide SAPIs, little is known of 

1
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.

their effectiveness in increasing the public awareness of sexual violence and in reducing sexual 

assault. In the past 20 years, numerous published studies have evaluated SAPIs, but evidence 

supporting the effectiveness of these programs remains weak and is sometimes contradictory. 

Additionally, most programs are conducted without an empirical evaluation component and rarely 

use an experimental or quasi-experimental design (Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993). Those programs 

that do conduct evaluations are often difficult to compare, because different outcomes have been 

measured in different ways and at different times (Crowell & Burgess, 1996). Some program 

evaluations report significant positive outcomes in attitudinal changes and increased knowledge 

about sexual violence; others do not. In addition, many of the theoretical advances in this area have 

yet to be used when planning preventive interventions. Preventive interventions often operate from 

narrow theoretical frameworks, which tend to limit both creativity and effectiveness (Bachar & 

Koss, 2001). There is a paucity of published evaluations of prevention programs targeting special 

and minority populations such as non-Whites, persons with disabilities, prisoners, prostitutes, and 

the homeless. Further study and evaluation of prevention efforts is essential in improving 

prevention and treatment services and ultimately reducing sexual violence. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is committed to the prevention of sexual violence as 

evidenced by its stated “high-priority goals” in the area of violence and victimization, which include 

developing knowledge of strategies to prevent sexual assault, as well as through the work of the 

Violence Against Women and Family Violence Research and Evaluation programs. In an effort to 

make a significant contribution to the prevention of sexual assault, NIJ awarded a grant to RTI 

International to conduct an evidence-based review of SAPIs. Accordingly, between October 2002 

and April 2004, RTI conducted such a review, documented what is known about SAPI evaluation 

research, identified significant gaps, and highlighted areas for future research. 

Systematic literature reviews have gained increased attention in recent years because of 

interest in evidence-based policy and practice in public services (Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000) and 

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.

evidence-based crime prevention (Sherman et al., 1997). In addition to providing the foundation for 

the development of intervention and practice guidelines, an evidence-based review serves an 

important role in identifying areas for continued research, as well as gaps in knowledge that may 

become the basis for future funding priorities. Systematic reviews differ from traditional literature 

reviews in their adherence to a specific methodology that seeks to minimize bias and errors (Khan, 

ter Riet, Glanville, Sowden, & Kleijnen, 2001). The use of rigorous methods for locating, 

appraising, and synthesizing evidence from evaluation studies reduces errors in how information is 

collected and interpreted and therefore reduces the likelihood that recommendations reflect only 

selected information or a limited point of view. By delineating the strengths and limitations of 

current research methods and findings in a systematic fashion, evidence-based reviews create 

opportunities to improve the quality of the research and, ultimately, the quality of treatment and 

preventive interventions. The information presented in this report will assist NIJ in becoming better 

informed about effective SAPIs, including the types of interventions that have been evaluated, the 

quality of existing evaluation research, and the gaps in knowledge. 

1.2 Overview of Report Chapters 

This report discusses the study design and findings in detail. Chapter 2 provides background 

information on the prevalence and consequences of sexual assault, prevention and intervention 

approaches to sexual assault, current knowledge on the effectiveness of SAPIs, and methodological 

weaknesses of evaluations of these interventions. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used for this 

study, including the use of expert consultants, the search for and selection of studies, the data 

abstraction process, and data analysis. The results of this evidence-based review are presented in 

Chapter 4. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, outlines the limitations of this review, and provides 

recommendations for future sexual assault prevention practice and research. 

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.
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.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Prevalence and Consequences of Sexual Violence 

Measuring the prevalence of sexual assault is challenging; most studies focus on rape and not 

on the broader issue of sexual assault, and varying definitions and operationalization of terms, as 

well as the stigmatization associated with reporting, result in prevalence rates of sexual violence that 

vary significantly. It is estimated that less than half (48 percent) of all rapes and sexual assaults are 

reported to the police (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). According to the National College 

Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study, less than 5 percent of completed or attempted rapes 

were reported to law enforcement officials (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). In the National 

Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) conducted from 1995 to 1996, both men and women 

were asked about their experiences with violent victimization. Results indicated that 1 in 6 women 

(17 percent of the women surveyed) and 1 in 33 men (3 percent of the men surveyed) experienced 

an attempted or completed rape as a child and/or adult (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). An earlier rape 

prevalence study predicted a 46 percent probability for a woman to be a victim of an attempted or 

completed rape (Russell & Howell, 1983). 

Rapes are most often categorized into two groups: those committed by a stranger and those 

committed by someone known to the victim. According to findings from the NVAWS, women 

most often report being raped by people known to them, primarily a current or former husband, 

cohabitating partner, or date (76 percent); followed by an acquaintance, such as a friend, neighbor, 

or coworker (17 percent). Younger women appear to be at the greatest risk. The NVAWS found 

that more than half (54 percent) of female rape victims were victimized before the age of 18, and 32 

percent were victimized between the ages of 12 and 17 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The NCWSV 

study estimated that between 20 and 25 percent of college women experience completed or 

attempted rape during their college years (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). 

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.

Sexual violence can have severe consequences for the victim, both physically and 

psychologically, resulting in numerous health problems. Physical consequences of sexual violence 

include unwanted pregnancy; gynecological complications such as vaginal bleeding, fibroids, chronic 

pelvic pain, and urinary tract infections; and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including 

HIV/AIDS (World Health Organization[WHO], 2002). Research suggests that between one-third 

and one-half of rape victims sustain physical injuries as a result of rape (Beebe, 1991; Koss & Oros, 

1991), and up to 43 percent of victims contract STDs (Jenny et al., 1990). Psychological 

consequences include anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, 

depression, alienation, sexual dysfunction, aggression (DeLahunta & Baram, 1997), post-traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts and behaviors (WHO, 2002). These symptoms can 

persist for many years. Survivors evaluated long after their assaults were more likely to receive 

several psychiatric diagnoses, including major depression, alcohol abuse and dependence, 

generalized anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD than their counterparts without a 

history of assault (Kilpatrick et al., 1985; Burnam et al., 1988; Winfield, George, Swartz, & Blazer, 

1990). 

Sexual violence affects the larger community as well. Expended resources and the loss of 

productivity due to fear and injury result in significant costs to society (Crowell & Burgess, 1996). 

Several studies indicate that women curtail their activities because of their fear of rape (Gomme, 

1986; Smith, 1989; Kirchoff & Kirchoff, 1984; Van Dijk, 1978; and Softas-Nall, Bardos, & Fakinos, 

1995) and that women’s work performance suffered up to 8 months post-victimization (Resick, 

Calhoun, Atkeson, & Ellis, 1981). 

2.2 SAPI Strategies and Programs 

Sexual violence treatment interventions are most often divided into individual and 

community-level interventions. Individual interventions, such as counseling, focus on the 

individual, whereas community-level interventions represent more system-oriented interventions, 

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.

such as criminal justice reforms and rape crisis centers. Individual-level interventions seek to 

ameliorate the consequences of individual victimization; community-level interventions seek to 

change systems’ responses to victims (Crowell & Burgess, 1996). Although these treatment services 

are necessary and effective in supporting victims through the recovery process, researchers and 

practitioners continue to emphasize the need for interventions that focus on the prevention of 

sexual assault. 

The public health perspective classifies most preventive interventions into three types: 

primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention aims to reduce the number of new 

cases, secondary prevention aims to lower the prevalence, and tertiary prevention aims to decrease 

the resulting disability. Most sexual assault prevention efforts have focused on secondary and 

tertiary prevention among victims, resulting in very little focus on prevention among perpetrators 

(WHO, 2002). 

Several promising strategies to decrease the prevalence of sexual assault have been developed, 

though very few have been evaluated (WHO, 2002). These strategies include 

• skill-building through reproductive health promotion that includes aspects of gender

and prevention of violence,

• programs that work with families throughout children’s developmental stages, 

• work at the community level with men to change concepts of masculinity, and 

• work in school environments promoting equitable gender relations. 

The majority of preventive interventions focus on college students. In 1994, the National 

Association of Student Personnel Administrators mandated rape prevention and education on 

college campuses receiving Federal funding (Heppner, Humphrey, Hildebrand-Gunn, & Debord, 

1995). As a result of this mandate, many universities established rape prevention–education 

programs (Berg, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999; Lonsway, 1996). College-based rape prevention 

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.

programs vary in their implementation strategies and measures of effectiveness. Program content, 

however, often includes components such as 

• providing information on the prevalence of sexual assault, 

• challenging rape myths and sex-role stereotypes, 

• identifying risk-related behaviors, 

• increasing empathy for rape survivors, 

• providing information on the effects of rape on victims, and 

• providing lists of victim resources (Brecklin & Forde, 2001). 

Programs targeting men typically have goals different from those of programs targeting women, in 

that men’s programs strive to prevent perpetration, whereas women’s programs strive to reduce risk. 

Although coeducational programs exist, it is difficult to attain these mutually exclusive goals without 

polarizing program participants (Bachar & Koss, 2001). Men may perceive mixed-gender programs 

to be accusatory and threatening (Ring & Kilmartin, 1992), or these programs may offer 

inappropriate information for men, resulting in a less effective and potentially detrimental message. 

For example, women often learn that rape and date rape occur frequently and that most rapes go 

unreported to the police, and they learn ways to avoid risky situations. If men receive this same 

information, they may learn that rape is common (i.e., “normal”), that if they do commit rape it is 

unlikely they will be caught, and that it is a woman’s fault if she is raped because she put herself in a 

risky situation (Schewe & O’Donohue, 1993). This backlash effect suggests that gender-specific 

programs may be more appropriate in achieving these two different goals in the prevention of sexual 

violence. 

Younger school-based populations have also been a focus of sexual violence prevention 

efforts. Programs designed for middle and high school audiences address factors common to 

college programs but at a level that is more developmentally appropriate for school-aged youth and 

teens. Program components commonly include 

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.

• identifying, clarifying, and challenging societal portrayals of male and female roles; 

• identifying and modulating intrapersonal and interpersonal stressors; 

• promoting coping strategies that dissuade the use of alcohol and drugs; 

• challenging the use of violence as a means of conflict resolution; 

• training to recognize the early warning signs of violence; 

• correctly identifying and interpreting verbal, physical, and sexual aggression as such

and not as love; and 

• developing strategies for disengagement from problematic relationships, including

identifying and alerting a trusted adult (parent, relative, teacher, coach, religious

leader, health professional) and options for legal recourse (Cohall, Cohall, Bannister,

& Northbridge, 1999).

2.3 Effectiveness of SAPI Programs 

According to one review of college-based SAPIs, virtually all evaluations report favorable 

outcomes (Breitenbecher, 2000). The effectiveness of SAPIs is difficult to determine however, 

because a strong, SAPI-specific theoretical framework is lacking and a variety of measures are used 

to measure change. The majority of SAPIs do not clearly rely on a theory-based foundation; those 

that do so cite a variety of theories. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) 

and Eagly and Chaiken’s (1992) model of attitude-change are examples of theories used generally in 

educational interventions that have been applied to SAPI programs. These theories suggest that 

education can change rape-supportive attitudes and that attitude change will lead to decreased sexual 

aggression (Brecklin & Forde, 2001); but this assumption remains largely untested (Repucci, Land, & 

Haugard, 2001). 

Recent published reviews of evaluations of college rape prevention education programs 

(Bachar & Koss, 2001; Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Flores & Hartlaub, 1998; Breitenbecher, 2000; 

Yeater & Donohue, 1999) suggest positive effects (i.e., moderate reductions) in rape myths and 

rape-supportive attitudes, but the use of different measures of change makes it difficult to assess 

overall effectiveness of such programs. Bachar and Koss reviewed 15 studies targeting college 

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.

students; 8 of these studies were administered to mixed-sex audiences, 4 to all-male audiences, and 3 

to female-only audiences. Results of the mixed-sex interventions indicated that some programs 

demonstrated reduction in rape myths and rape-supportive attitudes immediately following the 

intervention and for short periods afterward (Frazier, Valtinson, & Candell, 1994; Lanier, Elliott, 

Martin, & Kapadia, 1998; Rosenthal, Heesacker, & Neimeyer, 1995), whereas other studies were 

able to demonstrate these changes only immediately after the intervention; the positive results 

disappeared over time (Anderson et al., 1998; Heppner, Neville, Smith, Kivlighan, & Gershuny, 

1999). 

Similar findings were evident in Brecklin and Forde’s (2001) more rigorous review of 43 

studies that included both published studies and dissertations. Results indicated that male and 

female participants in mixed-gender groups experienced less attitude change than did men in singlegender groups. Interventions targeting men demonstrated mixed success in addressing rapesupportive attitudes, rape-myth acceptance, rape empathy, rape-supportive behaviors, and other 

outcomes. Longer follow-ups were associated with less attitude change, and more comparisons 

within studies were related to weaker effect sizes. Additionally, larger sample sizes were associated 

with smaller effect sizes because of the difference in statistical power between large and small 

studies (i.e., small samples tend to detect only large effect sizes, whereas large samples can detect 

smaller effect sizes). One evaluation included in this review reported successful declines in 

behavioral intent to rape and rape-myth acceptance; however, these effects were measured only 

immediately after intervention (Foubert & McEwen, 1998). Another evaluation measured decreases 

in post-intervention rape-supportive attitudes over a 5-month period and found that 39 percent of 

the participants rebounded to pre-intervention levels (Heppner et al., 1999). 

Flores and Hartlaub’s (1998) meta-analysis included 15 evaluations of preventive 

interventions designed for a male-only college audience. The study found no direct relationship 

between the type (e.g., lecture, workshop, video, brochure, or combination of two or more formats) 

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.

or length of the intervention and the effectiveness of the program in reducing rape-myth acceptance. 

A significant contrast was found between the effects immediately following the intervention and 

those that occurred 4 to 6 weeks after the intervention, suggesting that the positive effects of the 

interventions did not last. 

Breitenbecher (2000) reviewed 38 studies published between 1967 and 1999 of SAPIs for 

college students. The review provides a detailed analysis of constructs of prevention programs and 

their effects in modifying rape-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Findings suggest that 

SAPIs are effective in producing short-term, favorable attitude change, but again, most longer-term 

studies find that the effects diminish over time. Behavioral change, often measured by self-reported 

behaviors, produced mixed, nonsignificant positive effects. 

In Yeater and O’Donohue’s (1999) review of college-based SAPIs, several weaknesses 

became evident across the majority of the studies. Yeater and O’Donohue noted that the majority 

of the SAPIs they reviewed focused on changing attitudes and rarely examined reduction in the 

actual prevalence of sexual assault. This conclusion was supported by the most consistent finding 

across all studies, with the exception of one (Hanson & Gidycz, 1993), that interventions were not 

effective in decreasing the rates of sexual assault. 

The effects of dating violence prevention programs targeting adolescents are frequently 

measured by changes in attitude, knowledge, and less commonly, behaviors and behavioral 

intentions. Wekerle and Wolfe’s (1999) review of six adolescent dating violence programs found 

that all programs reported significant desired changes in attitudes concerning dating aggression, 

knowledge of myths about abuse of women, and behavioral intentions in hypothetical conflict 

situations. Both didactic and interactive methods were implemented across all the studies, and two 

of the six studies reported fewer offending behaviors at post-test. 

Barth, Derezotes, and Danforth’s (1991) review of high-school-level abuse prevention 

programs in California identified similar findings regarding attitude and behavior change. The 

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.

authors noted that, in general, all programs aimed to increase knowledge, but fewer programs helped 

students examine ways to change their attitudes, skills, and behaviors so that they are less likely to 

abuse or become abused. Among the programs reviewed, those involving role-playing as a method 

of instruction on how to avoid or escape date rape were shown to be the most effective in reducing 

the incidence of sexual assault. However, although watching role-playing demonstrations was 

common across the programs reviewed, students rarely had the chance to role-play themselves. The 

authors also noted that although the presenters were knowledgeable about the resources available to 

victims of abuse, such as self-help groups and counseling, they were less knowledgeable about what 

occurs after the reporting of abuse and neglect, such as investigations, decision-making, and services 

of the formal child welfare system. As a result, students may not have comfortable disclosing abuse 

to presenters. The authors also acknowledged that time constraints tend to be the major limiting 

factor in overall effectiveness of the programs. Ongoing abuse prevention efforts through existing 

school curricula should be integrated in younger grades and continue through high school to 

provide ongoing reinforcement of core prevention concepts, attitudes, skills, and behaviors as 

children develop. 

In O’Leary, Woodin, and Fritz’s (in press) review of relationship violence programs, positive 

significant changes in knowledge about dating violence and myths surrounding partner abuse were 

found across most programs. Three studies (Foubert, 2000; Gray, Lesser, Quinn, & Bounds, 1990; 

Jaffe, Sudermann, Reitzel, & Killip, 1992) also reported significant positive changes in behavioral 

intention in hypothetical conflict situations. However, the long-term effectiveness of these 

programs has yet to be established. Behavioral change was assessed in three of the studies reviewed, 

but effectiveness was evident only across the short-term in two studies (O’Leary, et al., in press). 

The Safe Dates Project was effective in decreasing the frequency of physical abuse and use of 

threatening behaviors; however, no significant changes in victimization were evident at short-term 

(1-month) or at long-term (1-year) follow-up (Foshee, 1998; Foshee, et al., 2000). 

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.

SAPI effectiveness still remains unclear because of several factors. The most notable finding 

across the reviews presented is that positive changes demonstrated at post-intervention are often not 

maintained across the long-term. Further, programs tended to focus more on increasing knowledge 

and changing attitudes regarding sexual assault, and did not demonstrate positive behavioral change. 

Further research, in consideration of both these issues and the methodological weaknesses discussed 

in the following section, is necessary to advance the field and provide conclusive results regarding 

effectiveness. 

2.4 Methodological Weaknesses of SAPI Evaluation Research 

Several methodological challenges face researchers and practitioners in the field of sexual 

assault prevention research (see exhibit 2.1 at end of chapter). There has been extensive discussion 

of issues related to study design and sampling, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, 

timing of assessments, and definitions of success, most of which has centered on college-based 

programs. Some of these methodological weaknesses are summarized below. 

Issues related to sampling techniques often pose challenges to researchers in the field of 

sexual assault because individuals who volunteer to participate in the study are often not 

representative of the general population, nor are they necessarily at elevated risk for victimization or 

perpetration of sexual assault. The majority of studies low-risk subjects who would already exhibit 

favorable scores prior to the intervention (Schewe & O'Donohue, 1993). Additionally, the majority 

of subjects tend to be white, resulting in findings that are not necessarily applicable to non-white 

subjects (Heppner et al., 1999). 

The timing of assessments can also lead to problems when measuring effectiveness. Demand 

characteristics, cues that indicate the hypothesis of the study to the subjects and influence their 

response, can occur when a post-test is scheduled too closely to the intervention. As a result, 

participants become aware of the purpose of the study and respond to questions in a socially 

desirable manner. Sensitization effects, another phenomenon associated with participants 

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.

responding in a socially desirable manner, occur when pretesting has an influence on post-test 

responses and can also affect the reliability of the results (Breitenbecher, 2000). Furthermore, 

although most studies conduct follow-up assessments over the short term, most studies fail to 

evaluate how long attitudinal and behavioral effects last by conducting follow-up assessments over 

the long term (Yeater & O'Donohue, 1999). 

Characteristics of the intervention can also present methodological challenges to SAPI 

research. It has been noted that most prevention education programs lack theoretical grounding, 

overemphasize content, are out of date with current research, and, as noted above, fail to target 

high-risk groups (Bachar & Koss, 2001). Furthermore, despite numerous evaluations, it has not 

been empirically established that gender-specific programs can accomplish the mutually exclusive 

goals of rape prevention and rape avoidance/resistance education. Furthermore, most studies 

cannot determine which program module resulted in the change in effect size, thus making it 

difficult to determine which factors account for specific attitudinal or behavioral change (Bachar & 

Koss, 2001). 

The validity and reliability of outcome measures are also questionable in sexual assault 

prevention research. For example, rape-myth acceptance scales may be weak measures because 

individual items represent more than one idea, items are outdated, and definitions of rape myths 

vary (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994, 1995). A common reliability issue involves studies utilizing 

self-report as an outcome source. Factors such as social desirability (often addressed by masking the 

purpose of the research), faking, and other test-taking biases make self-report measures unreliable 

assessments of change (Schewe & O'Donohue, 1993). Additionally, the difficulty in assessing rape 

proclivity presents challenges in measuring effectiveness of SAPI programs. Measuring change in 

rape-related attitudes (i.e., rape-myth acceptance) assumes that changes in these variables in the 

desired direction lead to a decrease in the incidence of rape. Although there are correlations 

between rape-supportive attitudes and sexually aggressive behavior (Koss & Leonard, 1984), 

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.

attitudes they are just one determinant of sexually assaultive behavior and are not yet established as a 

predictor of rape-related behaviors (Bachar & Koss, 2001; Schewe & O'Donohue, 1993). 

Definitions of success used in reporting results also pose a challenge. Researchers often 

discuss statistical significance and ignore clinical significance, implying that statistically significant 

decreases in rape-myth acceptance among large sample sizes lead to clinical decreases (incidence of 

rape). The measurement error of the scale (i.e., Burt's Rape-Myth Acceptance) and the standard 

deviations of the reported means do not indicate a direct relationship between these scales and 

incidence of rape (Schewe & O'Donohue, 1993; Yeater & O'Donohue, 1999). Conclusions 

regarding decreases in victimization and/or perpetration may therefore be premature, given that a 

direct relationship between decreases in measures of rape acceptance and behavioral changes has yet 

to be demonstrated. 

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.

Exhibit 2.1 Summary of Methodological Issues in SAPI Evaluation Research 

Methodological Issue Common Approach Approach Limitations 

Study population/sample/ 

scope of evaluation 

Convenience sample May not be representative of those at 

high risk for perpetrating sexual 

violence or being victimized 

Samples not diverse Not generalizable to other populations 

(e.g., ethnic/racial minorities, 

gay/lesbian/transgender) 

Majority college students Not generalizable to other age groups; 

does not reach segment of population 

that is not in school 

Intervention characteristics Dual goal of rape prevention and rape 

avoidance 

Mixed-gender programs may provide 

inappropriate risk reduction 

information for perpetrator/victim 

Individual modules of intervention Cannot determine which module to 

evaluated together attribute attitude and/or behavior 

change 

Absence of theoretical grounding Difficult to replicate effectiveness 

without framework to follow 

Outcome measures Rape myth scales have questionable 

validity 

Individual items representing more than 

one idea, outdated items, and varying 

definitions of rape myths 

Variety of measures, including authordesigned scales Psychometric properties not established 

Source of outcome data Most studies use self-report as a Studies relying only on victim and/or 

measure of change perpetrator reports face serious 

problems with social desirability 

Timing of follow-up Timing may indicate to participants the 

purpose of the study 

Sensitization to the issue of sexual 

assault 

Short follow-up 

Leads to demand characteristics: 

participants are aware of the 

relationship between the intervention 

and the assessment, and may respond in 

a socially desirable manner 

Pretesting can affect how participants 

respond to post-test, masking the effect 

of the intervention 

Studies with short follow-up durations 

cannot determine potential long-term 

effects 

Definition of success Most studies measure rape-related and No clear evidence that knowledge or 

gender stereotype attitudes and attitudes lead to behavioral change (i.e., 

knowledge change decreased perpetration or victimization) 

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.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Evidence-Based Review Methodology 

The need for scientifically sound recommendations in public health, education, social 

welfare, and crime and justice has led to the popularity of evidence-based reviews. This study 

employed a rigorous methodology that paralleled the scientific techniques and guidelines offered by 

three notable groups that have gained international recognition for their important role in facilitating 

the production of and access to systematic literature reviews of effectiveness evidence. The Guide to 

Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations, developed by the 

Task Force on Community Preventive Services (TFCPS) (Briss et al., 2000); the Cochrane Reviewers' 

Handbook, published by the Cochrane Collaboration (Alderson, Green, & Higgins, 2003); and the 

CRD Report Number 4, developed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University 

of York (Khan et al., 2001), provided a framework for the development of the review protocol for 

this evidence-based review. 

The guidelines promoted by TFCPS, the Cochrane Collaboration (and sibling organization 

the Campbell Collaboration), and CRD provide a methodological foundation for obtaining and 

assessing the best available empirical evidence to support decision making and set standards that will 

ultimately improve the availability and quality of health-related, educational, and social interventions. 

Recommendations derived from these reviews are based on systematically collected and detailed 

information, which reduces potential biases and reveals limitations and uncertainties in available 

data, thereby creating opportunities to improve the quality of research and stimulate studies that will 

close important research gaps (Briss, Brownson, Fielding, & Zaza, 2004). Although the approaches 

developed by TFCPS, the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, and CRD differ in their scope 

and focus, all follow similar strict guidelines for planning and conducting the systematic review and 

reporting and disseminating the evidence-based findings. The overall aim and basic guiding 

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.

principles of all systematic literature reviews are the same: to gather, summarize, and integrate 

empirical research to help people understand the evidence (The Campbell Collaboration, 2001). 

Adherence to the methodologies offered by these groups was ensured by including the 

following tasks in our evidence-based review of SAPIs: 

• Development of a review protocol 

• Use of expert consultants in the field of violence against women 

• Development of a review team 

• Systematic search for and retrieval of articles presenting evaluations of SAPIs 

• Selection of SAPIs to be evaluated 

• Development of data abstraction and quality assessment instruments 

• Data abstraction and study quality assessment 

• Synthesis of abstracted information and drawing of conclusions 

• Generation of recommendations 

3.1.1 Strengths of Evidence-Based Reviews 

The importance of evidence-based reviews lies in their attempt to present unbiased 

reviews of, and recommendations for, important public health and social interventions. As 

mentioned above, the strength of evidence-based reviews rests with the scientifically rigorous 

approach to screening, reviewing, and assessing evaluation data across many areas of interest and 

importance to the public (Farrington & Petrosino, 2001). By reducing errors in both the collection 

and interpretation of data (due to independent abstractors following a standardized protocol), 

stronger and more accurate recommendations can be made (Briss et al., 2000). Such 

recommendations can lead to the adoption of valid and meaningful interventions. 

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.

3.1.2 Challenges of Evidence-Based Reviews 

All evidence-based reviews face inherent challenges. For example, by developing 

inclusion criteria, which are a necessary albeit limiting factor, the scope of documents might be 

biased. One inclusion criterion common to evidence-based reviews is limiting the literature to 

English-language publications, which results in a review of fewer publications with a limited 

perspective. Additionally, evaluations on the same topic are often difficult to compare because 

different outcomes have been measured in different ways and at different times (Crowell & Burgess, 

1996). Inconsistent use of outcome measures also poses significant problems when attempting to 

synthesize findings and provide recommendations. Other challenges include varying follow-up 

periods, difficulties in capturing the context of treatment, and measurement of treatment fidelity 

(i.e., determining the extent to which a particular intervention was delivered as intended). Even with 

these caveats, however, an evidence-based review provides the best hope for scientifically sound 

recommendations to the field. 

3.2 RTI's Review Protocol 

A review protocol establishes the scope and methods to be used for the review and helps 

ensure that the review process is “well-defined, systematic, and as unbiased as possible” (The 

Campbell Collaboration, 2001, p. 1). The methods for all major elements of the protocol—the 

identification of expert consultants and RTI review team members; the parameters and inclusion 

criteria; literature search and article-screening strategies; data abstraction and quality assessment 

procedures, including instrument development; and plans for synthesizing the evidence—were 

outlined at the beginning of the project. As expected, however, the protocol evolved throughout 

the course of the review as the methods were refined. The methods used in this review were chosen 

to (1) obtain and use the best available empirical evidence to support decision making regarding 

SAPIs, (2) set standards that will improve the availability and quality of evidence of the preventive 

interventions over time, (3) make recommendations on promising SAPIs without requiring 

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.

unobtainable data quality, (4) balance the need for a consistent approach throughout the process 

with the need to have an appropriate and feasible evaluation approach across subjects, and (5) cope 

with constraints on time and resources (Truman et al., 2000). 

3.2.1 Use of Expert Consultants 

To assist in the development and implementation of this evidence-based review, three 

established professionals in the field of violence against women served as expert consultants. The 

experts provided guidance on major project tasks, which included determining the scope of the 

review; developing and piloting the review instruments; and reviewing preliminary findings, 

including drafts of the executive summary and final report. (See appendix A for a list of the expert 

consultants.) 

3.2.2 Development of a Review Team 

Staff from RTI were identified to develop the review protocol, conduct the literature 

search and article screening, develop the data abstraction instruments, complete the data abstraction 

forms, and synthesize the findings. Members of the RTI team provided the knowledge and diverse 

research-based backgrounds typically seen in evidence-based review teams. The RTI team members 

had expertise in community violence prevention programs and violence against women. In addition, 

the RTI team had extensive experience in conducting evidence-based reviews through the 

RTI–UNC Evidence-Based Practice Center and other evidence-based reviews, including a review of 

Batterer Intervention and Prevention Programs (funded by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention [CDC]). 

3.2.3 Parameters of the Review 

Parameters were established initially to help define and focus this evidence-based 

review. Literature from two recently completed relevant studies conducted by RTI for CDC and an 

initial literature search (also conducted by RTI) of electronic databases provided a foundation for 

assessing the overall body of literature on SAPI evaluations. To facilitate the important and 

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.

necessary decision-making process regarding the scope of the review, evaluation studies were 

grouped by target population, type of intervention, level of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, or 

tertiary), and outcomes measured. The quantity and quality of published review articles on 

prevention programs for certain target populations were also considered. Based on this preliminary 

scan of the literature and discussions with the expert panel, the inclusion criteria were further refined 

and finalized. 

3.2.4 Inclusion Criteria 

Inclusion criteria were established to focus the literature review. SAPI articles 

included only those that were published in English between 1990 and June 2003.2 Restricting the 

literature to roughly the past decade, a common practice in evidence-based reviews, ensures that the 

included articles reflect the most recent work in a field (even though some methodologically 

rigorous and groundbreaking studies published before or after the cut-off date may not be 

represented in the review). Additionally, the publications must have appeared in a peer-reviewed 

journal, book chapter, or government report (dissertations were not included). The publications 

must have included an evaluation of a primary or secondary SAPI targeting populations of 

adolescent age or older that included, but was not limited to, measures of attitude, knowledge, 

behavior, victimization, and perpetration. The final criterion was that the evaluation must measure 

intervention effects using a pre-test/post-test design or between-group differences design. 

2

One article published in 2004 (a follow-up assessment of an included study) was included. 

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.

Inclusion Criteria 

C SAPI evaluations 

C English-language publication 

C Publication dates between 1990 and June 2003 

C Peer-reviewed journal, book chapter, or government report 

C Primary or secondary preventive intervention/program 

C Adolescent or older target population 

C Inclusion of outcome measures 

C Pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design 

While conducting the literature review, RTI identified a gap in SAPI research: a dearth of 

evaluations that targeted special and minority populations, as well as adolescents. To address this 

gap, groups were included in the final literature search. Additionally, evaluations of interventions 

designed to prevent dating violence, which commonly address partner violence more generally, were 

included if the intervention specifically included a component on sexual violence. Publications that 

focused on sex offender treatment, formative program evaluations, interventions targeting 

elementary school–aged populations, training interventions for professionals (i.e., service providers, 

teachers, physicians), and child abuse prevention and treatment interventions, though important to 

sexual violence prevention, were beyond the scope of this review. 

3.2.5 Literature Search 

An exhaustive search of the literature was conducted to fully capture sexual assault 

evaluation publications within the scope of the inclusion criteria. A rigorous, unbiased search 

strategy is crucial because the validity of the review findings is directly related to the 

comprehensiveness of the search used to identify the relevant studies. This thoroughness is a key 

factor that distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional reviews (Khan et al., 2001). 

As mentioned above, two previously conducted literature searches were utilized to initially 

assess the body of literature on rape and dating violence prevention and to assist in the development 

of the inclusion criteria (Morrison et al., 2003; Igoe, Pettibone, & RTI International, 2002). In 

addition, two literature searches were conducted utilizing electronic databases and a set of search 

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.

terms specific to this review. The first SAPI literature search was conducted in November 2002; the 

second search was conducted in June 2003, after the inclusion criteria were finalized and modified to 

include under-studied populations. 

Databases and Search Terms 

The electronic databases that were searched included Applied Social Sciences Index and 

Abstracts, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, EMBASE, Education Abstracts, ERIC, MEDLINE, 

Mental Health Abstracts, NCJRS, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social SciSearch, and 

Sociological Abstracts. 

Search terms were identified based on the inclusion criteria for this review. Different search 

criteria were used to search different databases to best utilize the controlled vocabulary available 

from each of the databases. In general, the search terms used in the literature searches included 

keywords to describe the sexual offender, sexual offense, and victim; interventions and prevention 

programs; and evaluation and program effectiveness. To learn more about prevention efforts 

directed toward under-studied populations, key search terms specific to three groups (special 

populations/individuals with disabilities, minorities, and adolescents) were included in the final 

search of electronic databases to ensure their inclusion. (See appendix B for a complete list of 

databases and specific search terms.) 

3.2.6 Article Screening Process 

A total of 67 articles representing 59 distinct studies (see appendix C) met the criteria 

and were included in the data abstraction process.3 The study selection process allowed for a 

thorough screening and took into consideration expert panel and RTI team suggestions. Abstracts 

returned by the literature searches were screened by the RTI team to determine whether they met 

the inclusion criteria; if they did, full documents were retrieved. When an abstract did not provide 

3

 Because the unit of analysis for abstraction was the study rather than the article, multiple articles reporting on 

the same study were combined for abstraction. 

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.

sufficient information to determine inclusion, the full article was retrieved for further examination. 

Articles that ultimately met the inclusion criteria were reviewed using the data abstraction method; 

those that did not were eliminated. In addition, the bibliographies of all included articles, as well as 

relevant review articles, were carefully examined as an additional measure to ensure that all articles 

meeting the inclusion criteria were located. 

3.2.7 Data Abstraction and Quality Assessment 

Extracting the data from the included articles, recording detailed information about the 

study on which the article was written, and assessing the quality of the study were the major 

endeavors of this evidence-based review. The process yielded organized data for assessing and 

summarizing the overall body of SAPI evidence. To ensure thorough assessment of articles, we 

used a three-tiered review process: two reviewers from the RTI team separately recorded detailed 

information for each article, and any discrepancies were reconciled by a third reviewer. All three 

reviewers independently assessed study quality. 

Development of Data Abstraction and Quality Rating Forms 

Two standardized forms, a data abstraction form and a quality rating form, were used to 

review each article selected for inclusion. The TFCPS data abstraction form served as the primary 

model for the data abstraction instrument developed for this study (Zaza et al., 2000); the quality 

rating form reflected a combination of the TFCPS quality items and the items used by the 

RTI–UNC Evidence-Based Practice Center. The abstraction form, its corresponding key, and the 

quality rating form were modified by the RTI team with guidance from the expert consultants to 

more accurately capture issues relevant to the evaluation of SAPIs. (See appendix D for samples of 

the data abstraction form, key, and quality rating form.) 

Data Abstraction Form and Key. The data abstraction form was used to classify and 

organize information provided in each article. The sections of the form parallel the “key 

components of data extraction forms for effectiveness studies” discussed by Khan and colleagues 

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.

(2001), which include general information, study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. 

More specifically, data recorded on the form included descriptive information about the population 

and setting (i.e., location of study, study eligibility criteria, population characteristics), study design 

and sample (i.e., study groups, sample sizes, study participation rates, methods, and time points of 

data collection), and the preventive intervention (i.e., setting, delivery mode, duration, theoretical 

basis, curriculum content, program implementer, culturally specific elements, and intervention 

exposure). Also on the form were sections in which the study measures, instruments, and results 

were recorded. The final section of the form included a place to indicate the quality score (tallied 

from the quality rating form; see below) and the major strengths and weaknesses of both the study 

(e.g., pertaining to design, sampling, measures) and the article (e.g., contents, clarity, presentation of 

information). 

A corresponding key, with definitions of each of the elements to be included on the data 

abstraction form, was developed to ensure consistency in the information recorded on the form. In 

addition to the data abstraction form, separate forms were used to record any discrepancies in the 

primary and secondary reviewers' independent reviews of the article(s) and the resulting resolutions. 

Quality Rating Form. Quality was assessed using a separate form specifically designed to 

evaluate the information entered on the data abstraction forms. For each article, three quality rating 

scores were given: one to assess the study description; one to assess the study design; and the total 

score, a sum of the study description and study design scores. Study description refers to the level of 

detail provided in the articles regarding study population, intervention characteristics, and outcome 

measures (4 items; 25 possible points). Study design refers to the research design used in the 

evaluation, sample size, duration of follow-up, retention rates, measures of program fidelity, and 

outcome variables (10 items; 70 possible points). The total quality score for a study was calculated 

by totaling the subscores and then dividing by the total number of possible points. 

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.

For this review, the original upper limit (number of points) for the denominator was 95. 

Some articles, however, had a lower denominator because an item on the quality rating score did not 

apply. For example, the item relating to the intervention retention rate was not relevant to studies 

that evaluated an intervention that had only one session. Therefore, this item was not used in the 

calculation of the quality score. A preliminary analysis of the quality rating scores resulted in the 

elimination of two questions (that addressed intervention retention rate and program fidelity) 

because a large number of the studies evaluated interventions that were only one session. The 

greatest number of points that a study could receive was therefore reduced to 85. In reporting the 

total quality score and the subscores for study design and description, percentages were used to 

provide a standard metric for comparison across studies. 

Pilot Testing of the Data Abstraction and Quality Rating Forms. Toward the final 

stages of the instrument development process and prior to the commencement of data abstraction, 

the RTI team piloted the forms to ensure that they accurately captured all data elements and that the 

data elements were interpreted the same and were completed consistently by different members of 

the team. Team members completed two rounds of pilot testing in which they each abstracted data 

and rated the quality of the same article. This pilot testing also served, in part, as training for the 

reviewers. 

Data Abstraction Process 

As noted above, the review system involved a three-tiered data abstraction process that 

included a primary, secondary, and tertiary review of the article(s) for each study. Each article was 

reviewed by three members of the RTI team. The primary reviewer recorded all classifying 

information about the intervention and evaluation on the data abstraction form and completed a 

quality rating form. Following this review, the secondary reviewer reviewed the article(s) after 

which he or she examined the completed primary data abstraction form against the article(s), making 

modifications and noting discrepancies on the form, which was then saved as the Secondary Review 

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.

Form (so as to retain the original data in addition to the modifications suggested by the secondary 

reviewer). The secondary reviewer then completed the quality rating form, independent of the 

primary reviewer's assessment. Following completion of the quality rating form, the secondary 

reviewer compared his or her rating with that of the primary reviewer, thus ensuring an independent 

rating of quality for each article or set of articles. All discrepancies between the primary and 

secondary reviews were listed by the secondary reviewer on a separate Secondary Reviewer 

Discrepancies Form. The primary and secondary reviewers then met to discuss their independent 

reviews of the article(s). Resolutions and outstanding discrepancies were noted on the discrepancies 

form, and the secondary data abstraction form was further modified to reflect all decisions and 

modifications to the forms between the two reviews. 

All completed forms (the revised secondary data abstraction form, both primary and 

secondary reviewers' quality rating forms, and the discrepancies form) were then passed to the 

project director, who completed the final, tertiary abstraction. The tertiary abstraction process 

included an independent review of the article(s) and quality assessment; a review of the primary and 

secondary data abstraction and quality forms and the decisions made between the two reviews; 

resolution of any discrepancies that had not been resolved (e.g., in a situation in which the primary 

and secondary reviewers derived disparate study retention rates for a particular study, the tertiary 

reviewer would make a determination of the appropriate retention rate to record, using the original 

article and in consultation with the primary and secondary reviewers); and completion of the final 

data abstraction form and quality rating form for each study. 

3.3 Data Analysis 

An evidence table (see appendix E) was created for each of the studies included in the 

review. Each evidence table presents a concise summary of intervention characteristics, 

methodological details, and statistical results. 

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.

The evidence tables were used to describe and summarize the entire pool of studies. Several 

key intervention and methodological characteristics were divided into meaningful categories, which 

allowed a tally of characteristics across articles. The characteristics and categories identified included 

the following: 

Study population characteristics 

• target population (middle school, high school, college, and community) 

• gender (males only, females only, both males and females)

Study design characteristics

• baseline sample size 

• study design (experimental, nonequivalent comparison group, randomized comparison 

group, and pre-/post-test) 

• post-intervention follow-up period (less than 4 weeks, 1 to 3 months, 4 to 6 months, greater 

than 6 months) 

• study retention rates at post-test and follow-up periods (less than 50 percent, 50 to 75 

percent, greater than 75 percent) 

• outcome measures (attitude, knowledge, behavior, victimization, and perpetration)

Intervention characteristics

• format (curriculum components) 

• delivery mode (format of presentation) 

• duration (number of sessions and total number of contact minutes)

Study quality

• quality score of low (less than 50 percent), medium (50 to 69 percent), or high (70 percent or 

greater) 

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.

4.0 RESULTS 

This chapter describes in detail the studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this 

evidence-based review. Study-specific descriptions, as well as summary information about the pool 

of eligible studies on a variety of key study characteristics, are presented. In addition, the chapter 

reports the results of RTI's synthesis of the individual study results and conclusions about the 

overall effects of SAPI programs. The review included a total of 59 studies (representing 67 

articles). Fifty studies reported evaluation results of SAPIs that focus on the general population, and 

9 studies (12 articles) reported results of SAPIs that focused on individuals with disabilities. Because 

the interventions and study designs of these articles differ from the studies of the general 

population, the results for these studies are presented separately. See appendix F for a discussion of 

the results of the synthesis of the studies on individuals with disabilities and appendix G the 

corresponding evidence tables. 

4.1 Descriptive Information 

Appendix E contains the findings for the general population in evidence tables. The 

standardized evidence table format includes (1) a detailed description of the study population and 

setting; (2) study design characteristics; (3) intervention characteristics; (4) outcomes measured; (5) a 

summary of the results; and (6) the quality scores. Summary information about these 50 studies is 

presented in exhibit 4.1 (at the end of this chapter), which shows the number and percentage of 

studies with particular population and study design characteristics. 

In the abstraction of the studies, RTI recorded information about a variety of population 

characteristics, including participants' age, gender, educational background, victimization, sexual 

activity, criminal history, ethnicity, and any other demographics reported in the study article. In 

addition, information was obtained on the target population's school level (where applicable). 

Summarizing population characteristics across the pool of studies proved challenging because many 

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.

studies did not report the population characteristics of interest, and the ones that did used diverse 

variables and units of measurement. 

4.1.1 Target Population 

RTI was able to summarize characteristics of the target population including gender of 

the SAPI participants (i.e., whether the intervention included only males, only females, or mixed 

gender groups), participant group (e.g., school level) and ethnicity. As shown in exhibit 4.1, the 

majority of studies (64 percent, n=32) in this review included both male and female participants. 

Approximately 18 percent (n=9) of the SAPIs were administered to a female-only audience and 18 

percent (n=9) to male-only audiences. Seventy percent (n=35) of the programs targeted the college 

population, 16 percent (n=8) targeted high school, 8 percent (n=4) targeted middle school, and only 

6 percent (n=4) targeted college and/or community populations. Additionally, although the data are 

not shown in exhibit 4.1, all of the studies in which ethnicity and/or race was reported were 

conducted among populations that were predominantly white (60 percent or more). It is important 

to note that only one study meeting the criteria for this review was conducted outside of the United 

States, in southwestern Nigeria (article #80). 

4.1.2 Study Design 

The studies were classified into four primary types of study designs: 

C experimental: random assignment to a treatment and control (no treatment) group; 

C randomized treatment comparison group: random assignment to two or more treatment 

groups (but no nontreatment control group); 

C nonequivalent comparison group: nonrandom assignment to a treatment and control (no 

treatment) or comparison (other treatment) group; and 

C pre-test/post-test only: no control or comparison group but measured change over time in 

the treatment group. 

The most common type of study design found was a nonequivalent comparison group 

(34 percent, n=17), followed by experimental (28 percent, n=14), randomized treatment comparison 

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.

group (22 percent, n=11), and pre-/post- (16 percent, n=8). Substantial variability in sample sizes at 

baseline was evident across the studies, with total sample sizes ranging from 7 to 1,958 participants. 

Approximately 19 percent (n=8) of the studies had a sample of fewer than 100 subjects, and 26 

percent (n=11) had baseline sample sizes greater than 500. In addition to a post-test, 38 percent 

(n=19) of the studies conducted a follow-up assessment. Post-intervention follow-up periods 

ranged from less than 1 week to 4 years after completion of the program. Approximately 40 percent 

(n=20) of the studies had follow-up periods of less than 1 month. 

4.1.3 Study Retention Rates

 Exhibit 4.1 also reports study retention rates, which reflect the proportion of baseline 

subjects who participated in the post-test and follow-up data collection periods. Study retention 

rates (at both post-test and follow-up) ranged from 31 to 100 percent. At post-test, 17 (out of 27) 

studies had retention rates had retention rates greater than 75 percent; at follow-up, 7 (out of 19) 

studies had retention rates greater than 75 percent. 

4.1.4 Study Quality 

The quality score assigned to each study reflects many of the study design 

characteristics described in this chapter, as well as the extent to which descriptive information was 

provided in the articles. Among the studies, the quality score totals ranged from 32 to 91 percent, 

with an average quality score of 60 percent. Approximately 28 percent (n=14) of the studies had 

quality score totals below 50 percent (low), as shown in exhibit 4.1; 48 percent (n=24) had scores 

between 50 and 69 percent (medium); and 24 percent (n=12) had scores 70 percent or greater (high). 

In addition to the total quality score, subscores for study description and study design were created 

and are presented at the study level in the evidence tables (see appendix E). The average study 

design quality subscore across the studies was 52 percent, and the average study description quality 

subscore was 80 percent. 

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.

4.1.5 Outcome Measures 

A variety of outcome measures were used in these studies, including 

knowledge/attitudinal changes, victimization, perpetration, dating behavior, and skills/strategies 

learned. Because many of the instruments that were used to measure knowledge were also used to 

measure attitudes, these outcomes were combined into a singular outcome measure for this review. 

The outcome of victimization and perpetration assesses whether any sexual, physical, or 

psychological abuse was experienced or committed during or after the intervention. Dating 

behavior was measured through questions that assessed communication skills, conflict, violence, and 

other behaviors that are associated with acquaintance rape. Some of the studies included outcomes 

that assessed skills/ strategies gained as a result of the intervention. These included non-behavioral 

assessments of assault-related cognitions and behavioral intentions. Other outcomes were found in 

the studies but either were not a direct measure of the intervention (e.g., media consumption) or had 

results that were not tested for statistical significance. 

Approximately 58 percent (n=29) of the studies solely measured changes in knowledge 

and/or attitudes. Many of the studies (26 percent, n=13) included both behavioral and 

nonbehavioral outcome measures, whereas only 1 study assessed only behavioral outcomes. 

Approximately 86 percent (n=43) of the studies used knowledge and/or attitudes as an outcome 

measure, 24 percent (n=12) of the studies used victimization, 12 percent (n=6) used perpetration, 14 

percent (n=7) measured dating behavior, and 20 percent (n=10) measured skills and/or strategies 

gained as a result of the intervention (see exhibit 4.1). 

4.1.6 Instruments 

A wide range of instruments were used to measure outcomes. Exhibit 4.2 provides a 

list of all of the instruments used by the studies of the general population included in this 

evidence-based review and their corresponding outcome measure(s). Many of the instruments were 

used only once across the studies; however, a few instruments were used in more than one study. 

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.

The most commonly used instruments (or modified version of that instrument) include (1) Rape 

Myth Acceptance Scale, (2) Sexual Experiences Survey, (3) Adversarial Sexual Beliefs, and (4) 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence. Several studies (n=16) also included author-designed, 

unnamed measures. 

4.1.7 SAPI Characteristics 

RTI also examined several key SAPI characteristics such as curriculum components, 

mode of presentation (e.g., didactic, videotape, workshop, role-play), and length of program. 

Exhibit 4.3 provides study-specific information on these key SAPI characteristics (for the complete 

list of studies and their corresponding article number, please refer to appendix C). In developing 

this table, RTI identified patterns across the studies. Components of the curricula were included in 

the table if they were mentioned in at least five studies. Those that were mentioned with less 

frequency are listed as footnotes to the table. Similarly, the mode of presentation and target 

population were presented based on frequency within the studies. 

Numerous curriculum components (topics included in the intervention/program curricula) 

and presentation modes were found across the studies. Curriculum topics ranged from information 

on acquaintance/date rape to characteristics of offenders. Most interventions covered several topics 

in the curriculum. Exhibit 4.3 provides a list of all of the curriculum components that were found in 

the studies included in this review. The curriculum topics covered most frequently were (1) rape 

myths, (2) acquaintance/date rape information, (3) statistics on rape, and (4) prevention skills (i.e., 

risk reduction, protective skills). The intervention presentation mode refers to the type of 

instruction and/or demonstration used in the program. As with curriculum topics, most 

interventions utilized more than one mode of presentation, the most popular being didactic 

presentations, discussions (including structured discussions), and videotapes. Other less commonly 

reported modes of presentation included workshops, theatrical presentations, and worksheets. 

Incentives for participation in the intervention were reported in 10 of the studies. 

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.

The length of the programs ranged from 1 to 32 sessions, with an average of 4 sessions. 

Because the overall program duration varied markedly among the studies, intervention duration was 

operationalized as the total number of contact minutes (i.e., the number and duration of sessions). 

Across the studies, contact minutes ranged from 7 to 2,880. Some studies (n=10) did not report 

sufficient information to calculate contact minutes. The average number of contact minutes was 

100; however, most interventions held sessions that lasted for 60 minutes. 

4.2 Synthesis of Evidence of SAPI Effectiveness 

4.2.1 Approach to Synthesizing Findings 

In addition to documenting study-specific and summary information about the pool of 

studies, one of the goals of this evidence-based review was to develop an approach to synthesizing 

the evidence for SAPI effectiveness. A meta-analysis yielding an estimate of the overall change in 

attitude, knowledge, or behavior is intuitively appealing, but the following substantial challenges 

precluded this approach: 

• diversity and number of curriculum components included in the interventions 

• variability in the mode of presentation and length of interventions 

• variability in study design 

• diversity of instruments and outcome measures used to assess intervention effects with 

inconsistency in the operationalization of the outcome measure and in the time frame 

in which the outcome is measured 

• lack of data provided within the studies to create a common outcome measure 

• variability in both the post-intervention follow-up durations and retention rates within 

these follow-up periods 

• variability in the analytic strategies used and the statistics reported. 

Although previous researchers have conducted formal meta-analyses of SAPI evaluations 

(Anderson, Cooper, & Okanura, 1997; Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Flores & Hartlaub, 1998), the issues 

listed above were found to be too limiting because RTI's review included a large, diverse sample of 

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.

studies. RTI therefore adopted a different approach to synthesize the findings, accommodating the 

high degree of variability in the various statistical procedures used for determining the significance 

of the intervention effect that RTI observed in the studies included in this review. A categorical 

indicator of whether each study reported a positive, mixed, null, or negative intervention effect for 

the outcome measure was created. For reporting purposes, both the number and percentage of 

studies reporting positive, mixed, and null intervention effects are presented in the results table (see 

exhibits 4.4 and 4.5). None of the studies reported only negative results. 

Many studies determined the significance of the intervention effect using multiple strategies, 

at multiple follow-up periods, or among multiple intervention groupings or population subgroups. 

The synthesis approach used here involved categorizing the SAPI studies into four groups: those 

reporting an intervention effect that was (1) positive, (2) mixed, (3) null, or (4) negative. In this 

synthesis, studies were considered to have a positive intervention effect if all the results (at post-test 

and follow-up) of each outcome reported in the article were statistically significant in the desired 

direction (i.e., the intervention group showed greater knowledge/attitude or behavioral change, 

either in comparison with a control group or from pre-test to post-test), and none of the results were 

either null or statistically significant in an undesired direction (either in comparison with a control 

group or from pre- to post-test). Studies were classified as having a mixed intervention effect if 

results across different outcomes (e.g., knowledge and dating behavior) or within the same outcome 

(e.g., subscales of one instrument or across different instruments measuring the same outcome) were 

both positive and null/negative. Studies were classified as having a null intervention effect if none 

of the results reported in the study were statistically significant. Studies were classified as having a 

negative intervention effect if all of the results reported in the article were statistically significant in 

an undesired direction (i.e., the intervention group agreed more with rape myths, either in 

comparison with a control group or from pre- to post-treatment). The division of the studies into 

these four categories was based on the results of the statistical tests reported in the evaluation. 

35
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.

These included a variety of approaches, such as the p value estimate for intervention status as a 

predictor, the group-by-time interaction effect in ANOVA models, t-tests for differences in means, 

chi-square tests for differences in proportions, and related statistics. 

Several caveats in using this approach should be noted. First, the diversity of the studies 

included in the review precludes the ability to provide conclusive evidence of effectiveness. Second, 

the current synthesis approach does not estimate the magnitude of the intervention effect (i.e., the 

percentage change in attitude, knowledge, and/or behavior); it simply summarizes the proportion of 

studies reporting a significant effect. Third, dissertations were excluded from this review, resulting 

in a bias toward publications; studies reporting significant results are more likely to have been 

submitted and published. Finally, the synthesis strategy adopted in this study is likely to 

overestimate the number of studies that truly observed a significant intervention effect, partly 

because often only p values for significant findings are reported. Although subject to some degree 

of bias, this approach is advantageous because it allows for the inclusion of many studies (unlike 

more quantitative techniques such as meta-analysis, which typically result in the exclusion of many 

studies because of insufficient reporting or excessive heterogeneity among the pool of studies). 

To increase the strength of its synthesis approach, RTI examined the number and 

proportion of studies that were classified as positive, mixed, and null under varying conditions that 

further categorize the studies (see exhibit 4.5). Specifically, the results for the outcomes are broken 

down for the following categories: (1) type of outcome, (2) type of study design, (3) study retention 

rates, (4) follow-up period, and (5) quality score. 

4.2.2 Results of Synthesis 

Exhibit 4.4 presents an abridged study-specific description of the target population, 

curriculum, study design, baseline sample size, study retention rates, outcome measures, quality 

score, and results. It provides a snapshot of each of the studies and clearly shows the diversity of 

the interventions, study designs, and results. There were no meaningful patterns found across the 

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.

selected characteristics. However, it is important to note that three studies had null outcomes, and 

all three targeted female-only college (or college and community) populations. 

As shown in exhibit 4.5, 14 percent (n=7) of the studies were categorized as exclusively 

demonstrating positive intervention effects (regardless of the study design, follow-up period, 

retention rate, and quality score). All of these studies used knowledge/attitude as the sole outcome 

and targeted the college and community populations. Eighty percent (n=40) of the studies were 

categorized as demonstrating mixed results, and 6 percent (n=3) reported a null intervention effect. 

As noted earlier, the results are further broken down into study subsets which are also presented in 

exhibit 4.5. Twenty-four percent (n=7) of the results for studies using only knowledge/attitude 

outcomes were positive, and none were null. Nine percent (n=1) of the results for the victimization 

outcome were positive; 33 percent (n=2) of the results for the perpetration outcome were positive; 

and 29 percent (n=2) of the results for the dating behavior outcome were positive. All of the studies 

in which the results were null used an experimental design. Seventy-nine percent (n=11) of the 

studies with an experimental design reported mixed results; none of these studies reported overall 

positive results. Ninety-one percent (n=10) of the studies using a randomized comparison group 

design reported mixed results, and 9 percent (n=1) reported positive results. Seventy-six percent 

(n=13) of the studies with a nonequivalent comparison group design reported mixed results, and 

24 percent (n=4) reported positive results. Seventy-five percent (n=6) of the studies with a 

pre-test/post-test design reported mixed results, and 25 percent (n=2) reported positive results. 

Fourteen percent (n=3) of the studies with 75 percent or greater study retention rates at 

post-test reported positive results; no studies with a follow-up retention rate of 75 percent or greater 

resulted in an overall positive intervention effect. Additionally, 21 percent (n=4) of studies with a 

follow-up period of less than 1 month had an overall positive intervention effect, and no studies 

with a follow-up period of greater than 4 months had an overall positive intervention effect. 

Fifty-seven percent (n=4) of studies reporting only positive intervention effects received low quality 

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.

scores. All of the studies (n=3) with null intervention effects received high quality scores. There 

were no studies with high quality scores that were categorized as having overall positive intervention 

effects. Although not reported in exhibit 4.5, it is important to note that approximately 17 percent 

(n=4) of the studies using follow-ups reported positive results at post-test and null results at the 

follow-up, indicating that the positive effects of the intervention diminished over time. 

4.3 Summary 

The data provided in the summary descriptions of the SAPI studies included in this 

evidence-based review highlight the methodological diversity across the studies, which precluded a 

rigorous, quantitative synthesis of the findings. However, the results of RTI's analytic strategy 

indicate that 14 percent of the studies reported positive intervention effects at post-test or follow-up 

and 80 percent reported mixed results. Although the methodological limitations evident in the field 

of SAPI research should be kept in mind, along with other sources of bias previously mentioned, 

these findings suggest that the majority of SAPIs produce some positive attitudinal and behavioral 

change among program participants and that very few of the programs appear to adversely affect 

these outcomes. The following chapter provides further interpretation of the results, discusses 

limitations of this review, and identifies research gaps in the field. 

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.

Exhibit 4.1 Summary of Characteristics 

Characteristic Number of Studies Percentage of Studies*

Population 

Gender 

Mixed gender groups (n=50) 32 64% 

Females only 9 18% 

Males only 9 18% 

Participant group (n=50) 

Middle school 4 8% 

High school 8 16% 

College/university 35 70%

College/community or community 3 6% 

Study Design 

Type of study (n=50) 

Experimental 14 28% 

Randomized comparison 11 22% 

Non-equivalent comparison group 17 34% 

Pre-post 8 16% 

Baseline sample size (n=43) 

Fewer than 100 8 19% 

100–299 15 35% 

300–500 9 21% 

Over 500 11 26% 

Study post-test/follow-up period (n=50) 

Immediately or less than 1 month 20 40% 

1–3 months 18 37% 

4–6 months 5 10% 

Greater than 6 months 7 14% 

Study retention rates 

Post-Test 

(27 reported rates out of 44 with post-test)

 Less than 50% 4 15% 

50–75% 6 22% 

Greater than 75% 17 63% 

Follow-Up

 (19 reported rates out of 25 with follow-up) 

Less than 50% 7 37% 

50–75% 5 26% 

Greater than 75% 7 37% 

Quality score (%) (n=50) 

<50 (low) 14 28% 

50–69 (medium) 24 48% 

70–100 (high) 12 24% 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.1 (continued) 

Characteristic Number of Studies Percentage of Studies*

Study Design (cont.) 

Outcome measures (n=50)** 

Only knowledge/attitude 29 58% 

Both behavioral and nonbehavioral 13 26% 

Only behavioral 1 2% 

Behavioral 

Victimization 12 24% 

Perpetration 6 12% 

Dating behavior 7 14% 

Nonbehavioral 

Knowledge/attitude 43 86% 

Skills/strategies 10 20% 

* Because of rounding, some of the percentages may not total 100.

** Many studies used more than one outcome measure; therefore the total percentage exceeds 100.

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.

Exhibit 4.2 Instruments/Scales Used in SAPI Studies 

Type of Measure/Instrument 

Number 

of Studies Article Number 

Behavioral Outcome Measures 

Behavior 

Dating Behavior Survey 4 5, 6, 20, 21 

Perpetration and/or victimization 

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory 1 54 

Child Sexual Abuse Questionnaire 3 4, 5, 6 

Conflicts Tactics Scale—Modified 1 25 

Sexual Experiences Survey (including modified versions) 14 4, 5, 6, 15/79, 19, 

20, 21, 23, 25, 38, 

59, 60, 67, 68 

Unnamed instrument 2 41, 58 

Perceptions of the accuracy of communications regarding sexual 

intentions in dating situation [Sexual miscommunication] 

Sexual Communication Survey (including modified versions) 5 5, 6, 20, 21, 60 

Nonbehavioral Outcome Measures 

Attitude/Knowledge/Beliefs 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence 9 30, 31, 35, 38, 53, 

59, 64, 67, 68 

Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale 1 33 

Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (including modified versions) 11 10, 18, 24, 30, 31, 

35, 38, 55, 58, 59, 

64, 67 

Acquaintance Rape Scenarios 1 36 

Attitudes toward Date Rape (including modified versions) 33, 70 

Attitudes toward Rape Scale 1 1, 8 

Attitude toward Women Scale (including modified versions) 4 8, 19, 36, 46 

Attitudes toward Sexual Behavior 1 18 

Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale 1 64 

College Date Rape Attitudes Survey 1 28 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.2 (continued) 

Type of Measure/Instrument 

Number 

of Studies Article Number 

Nonbehavioral Outcome Measures (cont.) 

Date Rape Vignette 1 38 

Forcible Date Rape Scale 1 46 

Gender Role Conservatism Scale 1 10 

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale 2 32, 33 

Rape Attitude Scale 1 41 

Rape-Blame Scale—Modified 1 10 

Rape Empathy Scale 4 19, 20, 36, 59 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (including modified versions) 22 1, 3, 10, 15/79, 

16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 

24, 30, 31, 35, 36, 

38, 53, 55, 58, 64, 

67, 68, 69 

Rape-Supportive Attitudes Survey (including modified version) 2 30, 31 

Scale for the Identification of Acquaintance Rape Attitude 1 23 

Severity of Violence Against Women Scale—Sexual Violence 1 23 

Subscale 

Sexual Conservatism Scale 3 18, 30, 31 

Sex Role Stereotyping (including modified versions) 5 18, 35, 38, 67 

Survey on Sexual Attitudes of Teenagers 1 9 

Teen Life Relationship Questionnaire 1 41 

Victim Evaluation Questionnaire (including modified versions) 1 32 

Youth Dating Violence Survey 1 41 

Unnamed instrument 12 18, 25, 29, 34, 37, 

38, 39, 44, 49, 55, 

67, 68 

Sexual assault awareness 

Sexual Assault Awareness Survey 2 5, 21 

Sexual Assault Knowledge Survey 2 4, 6 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.2 (continued) 

Type of Measure/Instrument 

Number 

of Studies Article Number 

Nonbehavioral Outcome Measures (cont.) 

Emotions 

Affective Adjective Checklist 1 64 

Anxiety and depression 

Mood Scale 1 59 

Multiple Affective Adjective Checklist—Subscales 1 68 

Behavioral Intent 

Behavioral Intent to Rape 2 15/79, 16 

Behavioral Indices of Change- Modified 1 23 

Likelihood of Raping Scale 2 59, 67 

Likelihood of Sexually Abusing (modified version of Likelihood 1 59 

of Raping Scale) 

Qualitative Assessment 1 33 

Self-efficacy Rating 1 60 

Unnamed instrument 1 32, 61 

Behavioral indicators 1 22 

Knowledge, attitude and behavioral intent 

Rape Conformity Assessment 1 64 

College Date Rape Attitude and Behavior Survey– Modified 1 69 

Victim/witness of violence 

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire – short form 1 54 

Recognition of coercive or consenting situations 

Comprehension of Consent/Coercion Measure 1 22 

Dating competence 

Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire 1 54 

Risk perception of personal and others’ experience of sexual 

aggression 

Risk Perception Survey 1 6 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.2 (continued) 

Type of Measure/Instrument 

Number 

of Studies Article Number 

Both Behavioral and Nonbehavioral Outcome Measures 

Attitude, beliefs, victimization, perpetration, communication, help 

seeking, and awareness of services 

CDC’s Compendium of Measures 1 11/12/13/14/73 

Knowledge, attitude, and dating behavior 

London Family Court Clinic Questionnaire on Violence in 1 27 

Intimate Relationships 

Knowledge, attitude, and victimization 

Unnamed instrument 1 80 

Other 

Components necessary for Central Route Change to occur 

Assessment of Central Route Change Mechanisms 1 24 

Conformity to group norms 

Conformity Measure 1 59 

Social influence 

Counselor Rating Form (including retitled version, Speaker 2 22, 24 

Rating Form) 

Perception of experiences 

Guided Inquiry 1 24 

Degree of annoyance in interpersonal relationships 

Hostility Subscale of Symptom Checklist 90—Revised 1 54 

Motivation/information processing/attitude change 

Elaboration Likelihood Model Questionnaire 2 22, 23 

State Measure of Central Route Processing 1 17 

Enjoyment of tasks requiring cognitive effort 

Need for Cognition Scale 1 67 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.2 (continued) 

Type of Measure/Instrument 

Number 

of Studies Article Number 

Other (cont.) 

Socially desirable responses 

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale—Short Form 1 64 

Socially Desirable Response Set 5 1 22 

Media consumption 

Mass Media Consumption Questionnaire 1 68 

Psychological functioning 

Response Latency Measure 1 60 

Parental drinking 

Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test—Modified 1 54 

Impact of program on psychological symptoms 

Symptom Checklist 90—Revised 1 60 

Thought assessment following stimulus 

Thought Listing 2 22, 24 

Impact of abuse and trauma 

Trauma Symptom Checklist 40 1 54 

Adjustment problems 

Youth Self-Report—Problem Section 1 54 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 SAPI Study Summary 

Article Number 

I n t e r v e n t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 1 0 1 1 * 1 5 * 1 6 1 7 

CURRICULUM 

COMPONENT * * * * * NR * * * * * 

Definition of rape x x x x x x 

Rape myths x x x x x x 

Acquaintance/date rape 

information x x x x x x 

Statistics (e.g., prevalence) x x x x x x 

Information on rape (facts) x x x 

Sources of information/resources x 

Communication skills x x x x 

Societal attitudes toward rape x x 

Gender role socialization x x x x x x 

Prevention skills/risk 

reduction/protective skills x x 

Survivor’s experiences/trauma x x 

Assisting a survivor x x x x x 

Characteristics of offenders x 

Influence/role of alcohol 

MODE OF PRESENTATION * * * * * 

Didactic x x x3 x x x x x 

Videotape (movie)/slides x1 x x x1 x x x 

Discussion (incl. structured disc) x1,2 x x x x x1,2 x x x 

Brochure/leaflets x x 

Theatrical presentation (including 

vignettes) x2 x x x 

Worksheets/questionnaires x 

Role-play 

INCENTIVES/PENALTIES x 

LENGTH OF 

INTERVENTION 0 

No. of sessions 1 NR 1 NR 1 NR 1 1 10 1 1 1 

Duration of session(s) in minutes 60 NR 60 NR 90 NR 45 25 450* 60 60 60 

Period (time from first session to 

last session B [in days]) 1 NR 1 NR 1 NR 1 1 0 1 1 1 

TARGET POPULATION 

High school x x* 

College students x x x x x x x x x* x 

Community population x x 

GENDER 

Male x x x x x x x x x 

Female x x x x x x x x 

* See corresponding article number in exhibit key. (continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 (continued) 

Article Number 

Intervention Characteristics 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 

CURRICULUM 

COMPONENT * * * * * * * * * * 

Definition of rape x x x x 

Rape myths x x x x 

Acquaintance/date rape 

information x x x x x x x x 

Statistics (e.g., prevalence) x x x x x x x 

Information on rape (facts) x x x x 

Sources of information/resources x x x x x x 

Communication skills x x 

Societal attitudes toward rape x 

Gender role socialization x 

Prevention skills/risk 

reduction/protective factors x x x x x x 

Survivor’s experiences/trauma x x x x x 

Assisting a survivor x x 

Characteristics of offenders x x x 

Influence/role of alcohol x x 

MODE OF PRESENTATION * * 

Didactic x x x x2 x x x x x1,2 x 

Videotape (movie)/slides x x x2 x x x x2 x 

Discussion (incl. structured disc) x x x x x1,2 x x x x 

Brochure/leaflets x 

Theatrical presentation (including 

vignettes) x x1 x 

Worksheets/questionnaires x x x 

Role-play x x 

INCENTIVES/PENALTIES x x x 

LENGTH OF 

INTERVENTION * 

No. of sessions 1 1 1 NR 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 

Duration of session(s) in minutes 120 60 180 NR 90 270 60 180 180 60 7 50 

Period (time from first session to 

last session [in days]) 1 1 1 NR 1 14 1 1 x 1 NR 1 

TARGET POPULATION 

High school x* x x* 

College students x* x x x x x* x* x x 

Community population 

GENDER 

Male x x x x x x x x x 

Female x x x x x x x x x x x 

* See corresponding article number in exhibit key. (continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 (continued) 

Article Number 

I n t e r v e n t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 1 4 4 4 6 4 9 

CURRICULUM 

COMPONENT * * * * * * * * * 

Definition of rape x x x x 

Rape myths x x x x x x x x 

Acquaintance/date rape 

information x x x x x x 

Statistics (e.g., prevalence) x x x x 

Information on rape (facts) x x x x 

Sources of information/resources x x x x x 

Communication skills x x 

Societal attitudes toward rape x x x 

Gender role socialization x x 

Prevention skills/risk 

reduction/protective behaviors x x x x x x x 

Survivor’s experiences/trauma x 

Assisting a survivor x x 

Characteristics of offenders x x 

Influence/role of alcohol x x x x 

MODE OF PRESENTATION * * * * 

Didactic x x x x x x x x 

Videotape (movie)/slides x x x1 x 

Discussion (incl. structured disc) x x x x x x x x x 

Brochure/leaflets x2 

Theatrical presentation (including 

vignettes) 

Worksheets/questionnaires x 

Role-play x x x x 

INCENTIVES/PENALTIES x x N N 

LENGTH OF 

INTERVENTION 

No. of sessions 1 1 32 5 4 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 5 

Duration of session(s) in minutes NR 120 2880 300 260 60 60 60 45 90 50 301 

102 90 

Period (time from first session to 

last session [in days]) 1 1 120 5 10 1 1 1 1 77 1 1 28 

TARGET POPULATION * 

High school x* x x* 

College students x* x x x x x x x* 

Community population 

GENDER 

Male x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Female x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

* See corresponding article number in exhibit key. (continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 (continued) 

Article Number 

I n t e r v e n t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 4 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 8 0 

CURRICULUM 

COMPONENT * * * * * * * * * * * 

Definition of rape x x 

Rape myths x x x2 x x2 x x 

Acquaintance/date rape 

information x x x x x x 

Statistics (e.g., prevalence) x x x 

Information on rape (facts) x x2 x x x x 

Sources of information/resources x x x 

Communication skills x x2 x x x2 x 

Societal attitudes toward rape x x x 

Gender role socialization x x x 

Prevention skills/risk 

reduction/protective behaviors x x x x x x 

Survivor’s experiences/trauma x x1 

, 

2 x1,2 

Assisting a survivor 

Characteristics of offenders x 

Influence/role of alcohol 

MODE OF PRESENTATION * * * * * * 

Didactic x x x1 x x x 

Videotape (movie)/slides x x1 x x x1,2 x1,2,3 x1,2 

Discussion (incl. structured disc) x x x1,2 x x x x1,2 x2 x 

Brochure/leaflets x 

Theatrical presentation (including 

vignettes) x2 x 

Worksheets/questionnaires x x1,2,3 x 

Role-play x x x x x 

INCENTIVES/PENALTIES x x x1,2 x x 

LENGTH OF 

INTERVENTION 

No. of sessions 29 18 NR 11 

NR2 1 2 NR 112 1 NR NR 1 6 

Duration of session(s) in minutes NR 120 NR 601 

NR2 45 240 NR 6012 60 NR NR 71 

NR2 1440 

Period (time from first session to 

last session [in days]) 98 120 NR 1 1 3 NR 112 1 NR NR 1 153 

TARGET POPULATION * 

High school x* 

College students x x x* x* x x* x x x x x* 

Community population x 

GENDER 

Male x x NR x x x x x x x x 

Female x x NR x x x x x x 

* See corresponding article number in exhibit key.

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 Key and Supplemental Intervention Information 

11* – study includes articles 11, 12, 13, 14, and 73 

15* – study includes articles 15 and 79 

x

x

x1 = treatment 1 

2 = treatment 2 

3 = treatment 3 

NR not reported 

Article No. and Additional Curriculum Components 

1 – both interventions presented the same information 

3 – destructive effect of victim blaming responses on survivors, influence of media; providing feedback 

4 – rape is a community issue affecting all men and women 

5 – the role of psychological effects of sexual victimization experiences in putting women at risk for future sexual 

victimization 

6 – psychological barriers to resistance in sexual assault and threatening situations 

9 – lack of communication, lack of respect for women; peer pressure among men; aggression among men; situations 

that provide opportunities 

10 – two interventions presenting the same information 

11 – defining caring relationships; images of relationships; equal power through communication; how we feel and deal 

15 – help change societal norms that condone rape 

16 – showed a man being raped, urged participants to confront rape jokes and the abuse of women; included 

component where women’s common reactions to rape were compared to an aversive male-as-victim scenario 

18 – providing feedback 

23 – definition of consent; affective change; providing feedback 

24 – impact of rape 

25 – risks and consequences of sexual assault, on-the-spot counseling available during breaks, guide to recognizing and 

coping with anger, steps for controlling anger, verbal aggression 

27 – myths and facts about wife assault; students developed a school action plan to address the problem of family 

violence; disclosure skills 

28 – importance of respecting limits; men are concerned about rape 

29 – distinguish self-control or control over one’s environment from abusive control of other people; forms of control 

and rejecting some forms; establish rights of each partner in a dating relationship; respect for the other’s rights; 

responsibility for abuse must not be attributed to the victim but rather to the perpetrator 

31 – responsibilities of sororal and fraternal members to provide positive leadership; help and protect each other. Legal 

and social responsibilities of Greek organizations 

32 – single-sex groups: females discuss vulnerability factors, victim blame; males participate in an exercise designed to 

spark discussion around the issue of consent, and they share strategies for intervention in an ambiguous date rape 

scenario involving friends or roommates 

33 – increase understanding of oppression and how it relates to sexual assault/abuse; take a personal inventory of 

contributions to the rape culture and explore alternative ways to behave; gain an understanding of the dynamics of rape 

trauma syndrome; acquire facilitation skills necessary to provide workshops and other presentations on acquaintance 

rape to other students; enhance self-confidence in public speaking situations; and build leadership skills 

34 – discussion of violence in society and in relationships, and the role of self-esteem in interpersonal violence. 

Recognizing physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Role of power and control in abuse relationships; characteristics of 

strong and weak relationships; building strong relationships; parent orientation 

35 – beliefs, attitudes, and expectations that contribute to coercive behavior; building positive social skills 

38 – arguments in favor of rejecting interpersonal violence, adversarial sexual beliefs; induce central route attitude 

change; enhance participants’ motivation and ability to think about the arguments; stress the negative intrapsychic and 

social consequences of accepting interpersonal violence 

39 – male responsibility in preventing sexual assault; legal consequences of rape 

41 – information on sexual harassment, physical violence dynamics; consequences of using violence in interpersonal 

relationships 

49 – assertiveness skills; gender differences in the interpretation of verbal and nonverbal communication; 

revictimization; psychological consequences of victimization; self-esteem developed; characteristics of healthy sexual 

relationships; self-defense training 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 Key and Supplemental Intervention Information (continued) 

53 – intimacy, identity, reproduction, anatomy and physiology, conception and pregnancy, the sexual response cycle, 

masturbation, homosexuality, heterosexuality, sexual dysfunctions, oppression, misuse and abuse, jealousy, AIDS, 

contraception, and venereal disease; sexual oppression 

54 – identify abusive behavior across various domains with a particular focus on power dynamics; visited a chosen 

agency; development of a fund-raising or community awareness project 

55 – providing feedback 

58 – miscommunication that can lead to acquaintance rape; identifying behaviors that may have contributed to the 

situation (forced sex); change those behaviors 

59 – treatment group – depictions of victims or child sexual abuse and sexual harassment; imagine how a woman might 

feel before, during, and after being sexually assaulted; guided through scenarios in which they imagined themselves as 

victims of a rape 

60 – relapse-prevention approach including problem solving, coping-skills training, assertiveness training, situational 

and personal risk factors for sexual victimization, post-assault reactions, covert modeling 

61 – risk-taking behavior; nonverbal message; how the opposite sex views them; expectations 

64 – treatment 1 – asked men to imagine how a woman might feel before, during, and after a sexual assault; legal 

consequences of rape; treatment 2 – targeted dysfunctional cognitions; replace with accurate beliefs about rape and 

consenting sex 

67 – persuasive communication focusing on intrapsychic negative consequences of accepting interpersonal violence, 

adversarial sexual beliefs; focused on social sanctions associated with accepting those beliefs 

68 – treatment 1 – prepared videotape on sexual violence that would inform male adolescents of myths promulgated by 

the mass media about sexual violence; utilize critical viewing skills; subject was videotaped reading his essay aloud; 

evaluated how useful the videotaped essays would be as a high school media-education video; consequences for victim 

and perpetrator; treatment 2 – reread essays about sexually violent media written by group members (did not videotape 

them); discussed essays and usefulness in teaching high-school students about sexually violent media; consequences for 

victim and perpetrator; treatment 3 – essays written to critically evaluate television as an entertainment medium; viewed 

a video playback of themselves reading their essays; consequences for victim and perpetrator 

69 – rape treatment; incorporates males in the process of intervention 

80 –definition, types, and consequences of VAW, HIV/AIDS prevention, assertiveness skills, care and support of 

victims of violence, setting up small-scale enterprises, and educational opportunities 

Article No. and Target Population 

11 – 8th and 9th graders 

16 – fraternity pledge class 

18 – must have been a member of a fraternity or sorority 

23 – white participants must have been a member of a fraternity; black participants were recruited from entire pool of 

black male university students 

24 – students enrolled in First Year Experience class (approximately 10% of the first-year class enrolls each year) 

25 – 11th graders 

29 – 10th graders 

31 – students belonging to a fraternity or sorority 

34 – students in grades 6, 7, and 8 

35 – mostly 10th graders 

39 – 10th to 12 graders 

41 – 7th graders 

49 – female college students who scored in the upper 20% on a questionnaire that measured risk characteristics, such as 

depression, alcohol use in dating, sexual liberalism, consensual sexual experience, prior sexual victimization in dating, 

and child sexual abuse 

54 – adolescents who were at risk of developing abusive relationships on the basis of their history of maltreatment – 

referrals received from participating Child Protective Services 

55 – 10th graders 

59 – men who scored high on the Likelihood of Sexually Abusing Scale (both high and low scorers were chosen for notreatment control groups) 

60 – women who had a history of sexual victimization after the age of 14 

64 – men who scored high on the Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale 

80 –young female hawkers who trade in one of six motor parks 

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.

Exhibit 4.3 Key and Supplemental Intervention Information (continued) 

Article No. and Mode of Presentation: 

1 – two intervention groups 

8 – three intervention groups 

10 – two intervention groups; Treatment two included workshop 

11 – poster contest 

15 – workshop 

16 – workshop 

22 – two intervention groups 

25 – students’ choice of 2 workshops for a total of 2 available ones 

29 – two intervention groups; writing a letter (treatment group 2) 

34 – experiential exercises 

41 – experiential exercises, modeling 

46 – two intervention groups 

49 – exercises 

52/71 – computer-based; classroom posters and coloring sheets 

54 – guest speaker, visits to community agencies, and a social action project in the community 

55 – writing examples, comments, index cards and posters 

58 – two interventions 

60 – covert modeling 

64 – behavioral exercise (both treatment groups) 

69 – interactive drama program 

80 –stories, songs, and case scenarios 

Article No. and Length of Intervention 

1 – duration same for both interventions 

11 –Differences in implementation times: 10 days; 20 days; 5 days; 450 minutes includes didactic presentations only 

22 – duration same for both interventions 

52
53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 Study-Specific Descriptive Information Post- Intervention Article No.* Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

1 College RM, AR, SP, Randomized 215 Post: 100% Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed IR, CS, PS comparison FU (7 wks): : gender 75% FU: Null 3 College and RM, IR, SR, Nonequivalent 100 Post: 38% Know/attitude Post Positive 

community SA, GR, SE, comparison FU (2 m): 55% : mixed gender AS FU: Positive 4 College female only DR, RM, SP, GR Experimental 275 FU (7 m): 82% Know/attitude Victimization FU: Positive: K/A Null: Victim. 

5 College RM, AR, SP, Experimental 406 FU (9 wks): Know/attitude FU: Null for all 

female only IR, PS Unknown Victimization outcomes Dat behavior 6 College and DR, RM AR, Experimental 117 FU (7 m): 80% Know/attitude FU: Null for all 

community SP, GR Victimization outcomes female only Dat behavior 

8 College 

males only 

Not reported Nonequivalent 

comparison 

866 Post: 40% Know/attitude Post 

: 

Mixed‡ 

9 High 

school 

AR, GR Pre-test/posttest 378 FU (7 wks): 31% Know/attitude FU: Mixed† 

mixed gender 

10 College DR, RM, AR, Randomized 582 Post: 82% Know/attitude Post Mixed‡ 

mixed SP comparison : gender 
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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

11, 12, Middle AR, AS, CO Randomized 1,965 Post: 97% Know/attitude Post Positive: K/A 13, 14, school comparison FU1 (1 yr): 96% Victimization : Null: Victimiz. 73 mixed FU2 (4 yrs): Perpetration Positive: Perpe

gender 48% Dat behavior FU1 : Positive: K/A Positive: Dat b

FU2 Positive: Victim : Positive: Perpe

15, 79 College DR, SP, CS, Experimental 217 Post: 67% Know/attitude Post Positive: K/A 

male only SA, AS FU (7 m): 67% Skills/strat : Positive: S/S Perpetration Null: Perpet. FU: Positive: K/A Positive: S/S Null: Perpet 16 College male only DR, CS, GR, AS Nonequivalent comparison 114 Post: 68% FU (2 m): 68% Know/attitude Post : Mixed† 

FU: Null 

17 College DR, CS, GR, Randomized 155 Post: 97% Know/attitude Post Positive: K/A 

male only SE, AS comparison Skills/strat : Mixed: S/S† 

18 College AR, SR, PS Nonequivalent 192 Post: 59% Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed comparison FU (1 m): 49% : gender FU: Null 

19 College DR, RM, AR, Nonequivalent 1,136 FU (9 wks): Know/attitude FU: Mixed: K/A‡ 

mixed SP, IR, SR, PS, comparison 97% Victimization Null: Victimiz gender SE Perpetration Null: Perpetrat 

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.
56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

20 College AR, SP, IR, Experimental 762 Post (2 m): 98% Know/attitude Post Null for all 

female only PS, SE FU (6 m): 80% Victimization : outcomes Dating behav FU: Null for all outcomes 21 College female only RM, AR, SP, SR, PS Nonequivalent comparison 360 FU (9 wks): 96% Know/attitude Victimization FU: Mixed: K/A‡ Mixed: Victim† 

Dating behav Positive: Datin

behavior 22 College DR, RM, AR, Randomized 294 Post: 88% Know/attitude Post Mixed: K/A‡ 

mixed SP, SR, CS, comparison FU (5 m): 52% Skills/strat : Mixed: S/S‡ gender GR, PS FU: Mixed: K/A‡ Mixed: S/S‡ 23 College male only DR, RM, AR, SP, IR, SE, AS Randomized comparison 119 Post: 48% FU (5 m): 48% Know/attitude Post : Mixed† 

FU: Mixed† 

24 College SR, SE Pre-test/post- 305 Post: 84% Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed test FU (2 m): 84% : gender FU: Null 

25 High 

school mixed gender 

IR, SR, AS Pre-test/posttest 325 Post: 47% FU (6 wks): 

38% 

Know/attitude Victimization Perpetration 

Post : 

Mixed: K/A‡ 

Null: Victimiz Null: Perpetrat 

FU: Mixed: K/A‡ 

Null: Victimiz Null: Perpetrat 

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.

57 
58

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

27 High Not reported Pre-test/post- 737 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed: K/A† 

school test Dating beh : Mixed: Dat behmixed gender FU: Mixed: K/A† Mixed: Dat beh

28 College CS, SE, CO, Randomized 436 Post: 100% Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed IA comparison : gender 29 High school mixed AR Randomized comparison 517 Post (1 m): 100%` Know/attitude Post : Mixed† 

gender 30 College DR, AR, SP, Randomized 821 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed‡ 

mixed SR, SA, PS, comparison : gender SE, CO 31 College RM, AR, IA Nonequivalent 1457 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed‡ mixed comparison : gender 

32 College DR, AR, SP, Nonequivalent 361 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed: K/A†, ‡‡ 

mixed SR, PS, AS comparison Skills/strat : gender FU: Mixed: S/S† 

33 College RM, IR, SR, Nonequivalent 170 Post: Unknown Know/attitude Post Positive: K/A 

mixed SA comparison FU (2 yrs): 39% Skills/strat : Positive: S/S gender FU: Null: K/A 
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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

34 Middle school SR, CS Experimental 802 Post: 55% Know/attitude Post : Mixed† 

mixed gender 35 High school AR, PS Experimental 547 Post: 84% Know/attitude Post : Mixed‡ 

mixed gender 36 College DR, RM, AR, Randomized 166 Post: 91% Know/attitude Post Mixed‡ mixed SP, IR, SR, PS, comparison : gender CO, IA 37 High school mixed DR, RM, SP, SR, SA, GR, PS, SE Nonequivalent comparison NR Post: unknown Know/attitude Post : Mixed† gender 38 College RM Nonequivalent NR Post: unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed†, ‡ mixed comparison : gender 

39 High 

school mixed gender 

RM, IR, SA, PS, AS 

Pre-test/posttest NR Post: unknown (253 pre- and 

post-tests completed 

Know/attitude Post 

: 

Mixed† 

41 Middle GR Nonequivalent 66 Post: 59% Know/attitude Post Mixed‡ 

school comparison FU (6 m): 45% : mixed gender FU: Positive 

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.

60 
61

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

44 College DR, RM, PS, Nonequivalent 376 Post: 92% Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed IA comparison : gender 46 College AR Nonequivalent NR Post: unknown Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed comparison (89 completed : gender pre and posts)` 49 College RM, AR, SP, Pre-test/post- 7 Post: 86% Know/attitude Post Positive 

female only IR, CS, PS, test : CO, IA 53 College GR Nonequivalent NR Unknown Know/attitude Post Positive 

mixed comparison : gender 54 Middle school mixed RM, SR, CS, SA, PS, SE Nonequivalent comparison 191 Post: 83% FU (16 m): unknown Victimization Perpetration Dating beh Post : Positive: Victim Positive: Perpe

Null: Dat beh 

gender FU: Positive: Victim Positive: Perpe

Null: Dat beh 

55 High 

school mixed gender 

RM, SP, IR, PS Pre-test/post 

test 

NR Post: unknown 

(698 completed pre- and posts-) 

Know/attitude Post 

: 

Positive 
62

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

58 College AR, PS Experimental NR Post: unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed†, ‡ 

mixed FU (2 wks): : gender unknown 54 completed pre and posts) FU: Mixed†, ‡ 59 College male only RM, IR, CS, SE Experimental 216 Unknown Know/attitude Skills/strat Post : Mixed: K/S‡ Mixed: S/S† 

60 College DR, AR, SP, Experimental 66 FU ( 2 m): 92% Victimization FU: Mixed: Victim† 

female only SR, CS, PS, Skills/strat Mixed: S/S† CO 61 College female only RM, AR, SP, CS Randomized comparison 70 Post: 100% Skills/strat Post : Mixed† 

64 College RM, CS, SE Experimental 102 Post: 73% Know/attitude Post Mixed: K/A‡ 

male only FU (2 wks): Skills/strat : Mixed: S/S‡ 74% FU: Mixed: K/A‡ Mixed: S/S‡ 

67 College 

male only 

RM, SA, GR Experimental 75 Post: 81% Know/attitude 

Skills/strat 

Post : 

Mixed: K/A‡ 

Mixed: S/S† 

68 College 

male only 

RM, AR, IR, SA, GR 

Experimental 48 Post: 83% Know/attitude 

Perpetration 

Post : 

Null: K/A Mixed: Perpet† 

69 College IR, PS Experimental 60 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed: K/A‡ 

mixed Skills/strat : Mixed: S/S† gender 
63

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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. Exhibit 4.4 (continued) Post- Intervention Article No. Target Populatio n Curriculum** Study Design Baseline Sample Size and Follow-Up (FU) Retention Rate Outcome Measures Results by Time and Outcome 

70 College AR, IR Nonequivalent 96 Unknown Know/attitude Post Mixed† 

mixed comparison : gender 80 Communit AR, DR, IR, Pre-test/post- 364 Unknown Know/attitude Post Positive: K/A 

y female SR, PS test Victimization : Mixed: Victim† only Note: Studies were considered to have a positive intervention effect if all the results reported in the article were statistically significant in th

the intervention group showed greater knowledge/attitude or behavioral change, either in comparison with a control group or from 

none of the results were either null or statistically significant in an “undesired” direction (either in comparison with a control group 

Studies were classified as having a mixed intervention effect if results across different outcomes (e.g. knowledge and dating behavior

outcome (e.g. subscales in one instrument or across two or more instruments measuring the same outcome) are both positive and nwere classified as having a null intervention effect if none of the results reported in the study were statistically significant. * See Appendix C for study references. ** Includes all curriculum components reported. Abbreviations refer to the following: AR: Acquaintance/date rape information AS: Assisting a survivor CO: Characteristics of offenders CS: Communication skills DR: Definition of rape 

GR: Gender role socialization IA: Influence/role of alcohol IR: Information on rape (facts) RM: Rape myths SA: Societal attitudes toward rape SE: Survivor’s experiences/trauma SP: Statistics (prevalence, etc.) SR: Sources of information/resources PS: Prevention skills/risk reduction/protective behaviors 

† refers to mixed results within subscales of one instrument ‡ refers to mixed results across two or more instruments 
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.

Exhibit 4.5 Summary of Intervention Effects 

Set of Studies 

Type of Intervention Effect 

Positive Mixed Null 

% (n) % (n) % (n) 

Total (n=50) 14(7) 80(40) 6 (3) 

Subset of studies using only knowledge/attitude outcomes 24(7) 76(22) 0 

(n=29) 

Subset of studies using victimization as an outcome* (n=11) 9(1) 36(4) 55(6) 

Subset of studies using perpetration as an outcome* (n=6) 33(2) 17(1) 50(3) 

Subset of studies using dating behavior as an outcome* 29(2) 14(1) 57(4) 

(n=7) 

Subset of studies using: 

– experimental design (n=14) 0 79 (11) 21 (3) 

– randomized comparison (n=11) 9 (1) 91(10) 0 

– nonequivalent comparison (n=17) 24 (4) 76 (13) 0 

– pre-post (n=8) 25 (2) 75 (6) 0 

Subset of studies with study retention rates: 

– at post-test 

greater than 75 (n=21) 14 (3) 81(17) 5 (1) 

– at follow-up 

greater than 75 (n=6) 0 67(4) 33 (2) 

Subset of studies with follow-up period: 

– less than 1 month (n=19) 21 (4) 79 (15) 0 

– 1–3 months (n=17) 18(3) 82 (14) 0 

– greater than 4 months (n=12) 0 83 (10) 17 (2) 

Subset of studies with quality score: 

– less than 50 % (n=14) 29 (4) 71 (10) 0 

– 50–69 % (n=24) 13 (3) 87 (21) 0 

– 70–100 % (n=12) 0 75 (9) 25 (3) 

Note: Studies were classified as having a positive effect if all of the statistically significant findings for the type of 

outcome (e.g., attitude/knowledge or behavioral outcomes) were positive and none were negative. Studies were 

classified as having mixed effects if there were both positive and null (or negative) statistically significant 

findings. Studies were classified as having a negative effect if at least one of the statistically significant findings 

was negative. Studies were classified as having a null effect if none of the findings were statistically significant 

(either in a positive or negative direction). No studies were classified as having a negative effect. 

* These results represent only the behavioral outcomes; some of these studies also used knowledge/attitude and

 skills/strategies outcomes for which the results could have differed. 

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.
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.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 Overview 

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for this evidence-based review of SAPI 

evaluations, documenting what is known about SAPI evaluation research, identifying significant 

gaps, and highlighting areas for future research. The audience for this report includes researchers, 

service providers, and policy makers. This chapter presents a summary of key findings, limitations 

of this evidence-based review, and areas for future research. 

5.2 Summary of Key Findings 

A total of 59 studies (representing 67 articles) were reviewed for this report. The 9 studies 

(12 articles) that reported evaluation results of SAPIs focusing on individuals with disabilities are 

discussed separately in appendix F. Of the 50 SAPI studies that focused on the general population, 

the majority targeted college students (70 percent), and 64 percent of the studies included both male 

and female participants. The most common type of study design was a nonequivalent comparison 

group (34 percent), and 49 percent of the studies involved a follow-up assessment in addition to a 

post-test, with the majority of these studies (76 percent) conducting the follow-up within 3 months 

of the completed intervention. A variety of outcome measures were used, with the majority of the 

studies (58 percent) solely measuring changes in knowledge and/or attitudes. Twenty-six percent of 

the studies included both behavioral and nonbehavioral outcomes. The majority of studies (46 

percent) received medium quality scores. 

The large variation in curriculum components, mode and length of interventions, study 

design, instruments and outcome measures, post-intervention follow-up durations, retention rates, 

analytic strategies, and statistical reporting across studies limited RTI's ability to conduct a 

quantitative meta-analysis. Instead, RTI adopted a unique approach to examining the program 

effect by classifying studies as positive, mixed, null, or negative under varying conditions that 

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.

grouped the studies into subsets based on type of outcome, study design, retention rates, follow-up 

period, and quality score. Under the most liberal conditions (any single finding that the SAPI 

demonstrated a positive intervention effect), 90 percent of studies were classified as positive. 

However, only 14 percent of the studies reported positive effects for all outcomes. Approximately 

80 percent of the studies reported mixed intervention effects (both positive and null [or negative] 

results at post-test or follow-up across different outcomes or within the same outcome), and 6 

percent reported solely null intervention effects. None of the studies that reported only positive 

intervention effects included behavioral outcomes. 

5.3 Limitations of This Review 

Although this review’s methodology allowed for data collection across a variety of 

evaluations, the inclusion criteria naturally resulted in limitations. As one example, only studies 

published from 1990 to June 2003 were reviewed. It is unclear whether the studies included in this 

review represent the universe of SAPIs; it is probable, however, that they under-represent new or 

innovative programs, which are not likely to have been evaluated. In addition, evaluations of some 

programs may have been conducted but not published in a format that the search criteria would 

recognize. For example, because dissertations were not included in this review, evaluations of 

innovative SAPIs may have been omitted. Additionally, studies reporting significant results are 

more likely to have been submitted and published, resulting in publication bias. 

Inconsistent use of outcome measures also poses significant problems when attempting to 

synthesize findings and provide recommendations. The synthesis of findings did not estimate the 

magnitude of the intervention effect but instead summarized the proportion of studies reporting a 

significant effect. It is likely therefore that this evidence-based review overestimated positive effects; 

many studies included multiple measures, and studies were classified as having an overall positive 

effect if at least one of the effects was positive (and none negative). In addition, the method 

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.

adopted for this review excluded all qualitative studies, as their design is not suited for an 

evidence-based review. 

5.4 Recommendations for Future Research 

Limitations aside, the review highlighted many programmatic, research, and evaluation needs 

that must be met to advance the field of sexual assault prevention. Some of the major challenges 

facing the development and evaluation of SAPIs are described below, as are recommendations for 

future research in the field. This discussion is divided into challenges related to program 

development and those related to evaluation; it is important to note, however, that programmatic 

and evaluation issues are intertwined. 

When abstracting article data for the evidence-based review, RTI reviewed author 

suggestions. Exhibit 5.1 provides a summary of the salient suggestions gleaned from the articles 

reviewed. Appendix H provides a more detailed list of the suggestions and specific 

recommendations offered by the authors in research design, evaluation measures, intervention 

characteristics, and curriculum. 

5.4.1 Program Development

Target Population

In general, evaluations of interventions with younger populations are needed; 

programs that target young people provide opportunities for primary prevention. Unfortunately, 

most published studies use college samples, in part because many researchers who produce 

publications are university based, making college samples more convenient. Another reason college 

students are more frequently studied is that gaining informed consent from people younger than 18 

is difficult, and parents may be reluctant to consent for their children to participate in a study on 

sexual assault. 

In addition, most of the interventions were universal interventions; that is, they were 

delivered to an entire population regardless of risk factors. Although this is an excellent way to 

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.

provide basic information to a large population, interventions targeting individuals who are 

considered at risk for sexual violence may be needed. Numerous risk factors could be used to target 

individuals who may be at risk for perpetrating or being a victim of sexual abuse, including 

individuals who were sexually or physically abused or neglected as children, individuals who 

witnessed partner or sexual abuse at home, and individuals who use alcohol and/or drugs. The 

combination of universal and selective interventions may further advance the prevention of sexual 

violence. 

Another important issue facing SAPIs is the role of gender and its effect on program 

success. For example, it has not been empirically established that programs targeting male-only 

audiences can accomplish the mutually exclusive goals of rape prevention and rape 

avoidance/resistance education (Bachar & Koss, 2001). As discussed in chapter 2, a number of 

studies provide evidence for gender-specific programming. Additionally, when the audience is 

younger and the curriculum content is focused more on healthy relationships than on avoiding rape, 

mixed gender groups may be more appropriate. 

Intervention Setting 

Most SAPIs, including the majority of studies included in this review, are school 

based. Although school settings provide access to a large number of students and may therefore be 

ideal for universal interventions, they do have limitations. Some students, particularly those most at 

risk, may not be accessible, and some students may have difficulty becoming engaged in any 

school-based activities. Programs that utilize other venues to reach youth, such as families, 

community-based organizations, religious institutions, and media, may provide access to a broader 

range of adolescents and may offer different ways to engage them in SAPIs. More research is 

needed to explore other venues and to determine which venues work best for which kinds of 

prevention activities. This is an especially important question as more selective prevention programs 

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.

are developed, because the youth included in selective prevention programs may be particularly hard 

to reach. 

Culturally Specific Programs 

The abstraction process revealed only one study that reported a culturally relevant 

intervention. In general, there is a significant need to develop and evaluate programs that meet the 

needs of individuals from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds. Foshee et al. (1996) identified a 

higher prevalence of sexual violence among non-White adolescents than among White adolescents, 

which supports the need for program development in this area. This lack of culturally specific 

SAPIs is consistent with the lack of culturally specific programs in other violence-prevention 

literature (e.g., batterer intervention, dating violence). 

Program Content/Context 

The studies reviewed here showed considerable variability in the theoretical models 

used to guide the curricula, with several studies not discussing any theoretical model. It is difficult 

to replicate their programs without a framework to follow. Therefore, it would be useful to develop 

curricula based on one or more theoretical frameworks to address sexual prevention efforts in a 

more systematic and comprehensive manner. Perhaps sexual violence should be considered part of 

the constellation of adolescent risk behaviors including delinquency, aggression, school failure, and 

substance use, which are found to co-occur in adolescents (Jessor & Jessor, 1977) and have similar 

development trajectories (Duncan, Duncan, Biglan, & Ary, 1998). If sexual violence were 

considered among them, sexual violence prevention efforts could address risk factors common to all 

risk behaviors. General prevention programs focused on healthy youth development, conducted in 

place of (or in addition to) programs more specifically focused on sexual violence prevention, could 

be effective in reducing sexual violence. Assessing the effect of such general prevention programs 

on adolescent sexual violence, with and without the integration of more specialized components, 

will be an important step in understanding and preventing sexual violence. 

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.

Need for Evaluation 

Program development also faces the need for evaluation. Organizations that 

implement SAPIs may not have the expertise or the resources to conduct controlled evaluations of 

new (or existing) programs, yet such evaluations are critical for advancement of the field. At a 

minimum, programs should be encouraged to collect data for self-evaluation. For example, pre- and 

post-program data can be collected on attitudes and behaviors, and qualitative data can be collected 

on successful and unsuccessful program aspects. Such data can inform program development and 

would also provide hypotheses for researchers. 

5.4.2 Evaluation

Measurement

The challenges that SAPI evaluations face in measuring effectiveness are often 

related to measurement sources, instruments, and determining specific outcomes. In general, 

outcome measures should be updated and improved, with special attention given to reliability, 

validity, and psychometric properties. Further research could examine differences among outcomes 

for interventions of varying intensity (e.g., one session versus multiple sessions) and could compare 

the effectiveness of various intervention styles, curricula, presenters, and settings. It would also be 

useful to identify which elements of an intervention are most successful in effecting change. 

Measuring abusive behavior in the context of an evaluation of an adolescent-focused SAPI is 

made difficult by the lack of standardized instruments for adolescents. Typically, instruments that 

have been developed for adult relationship violence are adapted for use, but the performance of 

these instruments in adolescent populations is unknown. Instruments could perform differently 

because of differences in how adults and adolescents interpret questions, or because of differences 

in the nature of adult versus adolescent relationships. The cognitive, emotional, and psychological 

development of adolescents must be taken into account in developing measures of sexual violence. 

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.

Outcomes 

Another challenge in evaluating SAPIs is identifying which outcomes indicate 

program success. Most SAPI evaluations focus on knowledge and attitudes as the primary outcome, 

but this focus is problematic for several reasons. First, changes in attitudes may be limited by ceiling 

or floor effects, as many students may not be willing to endorse attitudes in support of sexual 

violence (especially severe forms), thus limiting the extent to which changes can be found. Second, 

measures of attitudes and knowledge may be more susceptible to socially desirable responding than 

are behavioral measures. Finally, and most importantly, changes in attitudes and knowledge may or 

may not result in behavioral changes. More research is needed to understand the causal relationship 

between attitudes and behavior, including whether changes in attitudes lead to corresponding 

changes in behavior. For instance, more studies should include behavioral outcomes such as sexual 

aggression and victimization and further monitor sexual assault statistics, such as prevalence rates of 

date rape at universities. 

Follow-Up Period 

To determine whether SAPIs result in significant, lasting changes, longer follow-up 

periods are needed. Longitudinal studies are very effective for examining the relationship between 

history of sexual victimization and program effectiveness. Longitudinal and prospective studies that 

track subjects over a specified period of time, linking childhood and adolescent experiences with 

behavior during the college years, allow researchers to identify causal factors related to sexual 

revictimization and perpetration (Yeater & O'Donohue, 1999). Unfortunately, these studies require 

a significant amount of time, money, and human resources, which many researchers lack. 

5.5 Conclusion 

This review sought to examine evaluations of primary and secondary SAPIs, identify 

significant gaps, and provide recommendations for future research. Although some of the SAPI 

studies reported positive findings for knowledge, attitude, and/or behavioral outcomes, and most of 

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.

the studies reported mixed results, these findings should be taken as tentative given the diversity of 

the studies, their methodological problems, and the fact that not all SAPI studies were included. 

The great variability in study design, sampling, attrition, and measurement precluded synthesis across 

studies. This review demonstrated that many challenging research questions and issues are yet to be 

addressed, most notably the need for improved measures and the development and evaluation of 

SAPIs for diverse populations. 

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.

Exhibit 5.1 Summary of Author Suggestions 

Challenge Suggestion 

Research Design Longer follow-up periods 

Increases in sample size 

Replication (including assessment of intervention in different settings) 

Use more sophisticated statistical tools 

Increase understanding of past victimization’s relationship to program 

effectiveness 

Evaluation Measures Expand narrow focus on knowledge and attitudes as primary outcome 

(at least include a measure of both attitude/knowledge and behavioral 

outcomes) 

Include behavioral measures, specifically measures of sexual aggression 

and victimization 

Access annual prevalence rates of date rape at universities 

Closely monitor sexual assault statistics 

Examine the use of sexual assault counseling programs 

Improve knowledge/attitude measures 

Update outdated instruments 

Increase reliability 

Expand the measures being used 

Obtain information on problem-solving skills and conflict 

tactics 

Provide developmentally sensitive skills measures 

Measure exposure to family and community violence 

Add measures of knowledge regarding abuse of women, 

factual information about rape, and risk recognition 

Improve the psychometric qualities of instruments 

Intervention Characteristics/ 

Content/Curriculum Diversify target population 

Increase programming for minority groups, victims, women 

who are at greatest risk for becoming victims, rape-tolerant 

and sexually aggressive groups, community women 

(continued) 

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.

Exhibit 5.1 (continued) 

Challenge Suggestion 

Intervention Characteristics/ 

Content/Curriculum (cont.) Assess impact of various modes of presentation 

All-male vs. all-female vs. mixed audiences 

Multimedia theatrical performance vs. other formats 

Verbal vs. visually oriented formats 

Timing of intervention 

Introduce programming at younger age 

Increase length and frequency of programming 

Increase use of theory-based interventions

Integrate topics into curricula: structural and interpersonal inequality,

societal and cultural influence, gender, and control theories

Increase personal and cultural relevance of program/topic

Ensure program presenters are perceived as helpful and interested

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.

REFERENCES 

Alderson, P., Green, S., & Higgins, J.P.T. (Eds), Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.1 [updated 

December 2003]. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm (accessed 

31st January 2004). 

Anderson, L.A., Stoelb, M.P., Duggan, P., Hieger, B., Kling, K.H., & Payne, J.P. (1998). The 

effectiveness of two types of rape prevention programs in changing the rape supportive 

attitudes of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 131-142. 

Anderson, K.B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward 

tape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315. 

Bachar, K., & Koss, M.P. (2001). From prevalence to prevention: Closing the gap between what 

we know about rape and what we do. In C. Renzetti, J. Edleson, and R.K. Bergen (Eds.), 

Sourcebook on Violence Against Women (pp. 117-142). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Barth, R. P., Derezotes, D. S., & Danorth, H. E. (1991). Preventing adolescent abuse. Journal of 

Primary Prevention, 11, 193-205. 

Beebe, D.K. (1991). Emergency management of the adult female rape victim. American Family 

Physcician, 43, 2041-2046. 

Berg, D.R., Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape prevention education for men: The 

effectiveness of empathy-induction techniques. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 

219-234. 

Brecklin, L.R., & Forde, D.R. (2001). A meta-analysis of rape education programs. Violence and 

Victims, 16(3), 303-321. 

Breitenbecher, K.H. (2000). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of prevention enough? 

Applied and Preventive Psychology, 9, 23-52. 

Briss, P.A., Brownson, R.C., Fielding, J.E., & Zaza, S. (2004). Developing and using the guide to 

community preventive services: Lessons learned about evidence-based public health. Annual 

Review of Public Health, 25, 281-302. 

Briss, P.A., Zaza, S., Pappaioanou, M., Fielding, J., Wright-De Aguero, L., Truman, B.I., Hopkins, 

D.P., Mullen, P.D., Thompson, R.S., Woolf, S.H., Carande-Kulis, V.G., Anderson, L., 

Hinman, A.R., McQueen, D.V., Teutsch, S.M., Harris, J.R., & The Task Force on 

Community Preventive Services (2000). Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community 

Preventive Services—Methods. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(1S), 35-43. 

Burnam, M.A., Stein, J.A., Golding, J.M., Siegel, J.M., Sorenson, S.B., Forsythe, A.B., & Telles, C.A. 

(1988). Sexual assault and mental disorders in a community population. Journal of Personality 

and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217-230. 

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.

Cohall, A., Cohall, R., Bannister, H., & Northridge, M. (1999). Love Shouldn't Hurt: Strategies for 

Health Care Provider to Address Adolescent Dating Violence. Journal of American Medical 

Women's Association, 54(3), 144-148. 

Crowell, N.A., & Burgess, A.W. (Eds.), (1996). Understanding Violence Against Women. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 

Davies, H.T.O., Nutley, S.M., & Smith, P.C. (Eds.), (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and 

practice in public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. 

DeLahunta, E.A., & Baram, D.A. (1997). Sexual assault. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 40(3), 

648–60. 

Duncan, S.C., Duncan, T.E., Biglan, A.., & Ary, D. (1998). Contributions of the social context to the 

development of adolescent substance use: A multivariate latent growth modeling approach. 

Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 50, 57-71. 

Eagley, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace 

Janovich. 

Farrington, D.P., & Petrosino, A. (2001, November). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and 

Justice Group. ANNALS, AAPSS, 578, 35-49. 

Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Publication No. 

NCJ 182369. Available from: URL: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf or 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/svcw.txt. 

Flores, S.A., & Hartlaub, M.G. (1998). Reducing rape-myth acceptance in male college students: A 

meta-analysis of intervention studies, Journal of College Student Development, 39, 438-448. 

Foshee, V.A., Bauman, K.E., Greene, W.F., Koch, G.G., Linder, G.F., & MacDougall, J.E. (2000). 

The Safe Dates Program: One-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 

90(10), 1,619-1,622. 

Foshee, V.A. (1998). Involving schools and communities in preventing adolescent dating abuse. In 

X. B. Arriaga, S. Oskamp (Eds), Addressing community problems: Psychological research and 

interventions (pp. 104-129). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Foshee, V.A., Linder, G.F., Bauman, K.E., Langwick, S.A., Arriaga, X.B., Heath, J.L., McMahon, 

P.M., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates Project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, 

and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39-47. 

Foubert J.D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on fraternity men's 

attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of American College Health, 48(4), 158-163. 

Foubert, J.D., & McEwen, M.K. (1998). An all-male rape prevention peer education program: 

Decreasing fraternity men's behavioral intent to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 

548-556. 

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.

Frazier, P., Valtinson, G., & Candell, S. (1994). Evaluation of a coeducational interactive rape 

prevention program. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(2), 153-158. 

Gomme, I.M. (1986). Fear of crime among Canadians: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 14, 249-258. 

Gray, M. D., Lesser, D., Quinn, E., & Bounds, C. (1990). The effectiveness of personalizing 

acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of vulnerability and on reducing 

risk-taking behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 217-220. 

Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1046-1052. 

Heppner, M.J., Neville, H.A., Smith, K., Kivlighan, D.M., & Gershuny, B.S. (1999). The differential 

effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology, 46, 16-26. 

Heppner, M.J., Humphrey, C.F., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T.L., & DeBord, K.A. (1995). The differential 

effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology, 42, 508-518. 

Igoe, J., Pettibone, K., & RTI International. (2002). Evaluability Assessment of The Rape 

Prevention and Education Grant Program: Task Four: Final Literature Review. Atlanta, 

GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Contract No.: 200-2001-0123. 

Jaffe, P.G., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip, S.M. (1992). An evaluation of a secondary school 

primary prevention program on violence in intimate relationships. Violence and Victims, 7(2), 

129-146. 

Jenny, C., Hooton, T.M., Bowers, A., Copass, M.K., Krieger, J.N., Hiller, S.L., Kiviat, N., & Corey, 

L. (1990). Sexually transmitted diseases in victims of rape. The New England Journal of 

Medicine, 322, 713-716. 

Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. 

New York: Academic Press. 

Khan, K.S., ter Riet, G., Glanville, J., Sowden, A.J., & Kleijnen, J. (Eds.), (2001, March). Undertaking 

Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or 

Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd Edition). 

Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E., Veronen, L.J., Amick, A.E., Villeponteaux, L.A., & Ruff, G.A. 

(1985). Mental health correlates of criminal victimization: A random community sample. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 866-873. 

Kirchoff, G., & Kirchoff, C. (1984). Victimological research in Germany–Victim surveys and 

research on sexual victimization. In R. Block (Ed.), Victimization and Fear of Crime: World 

Perspectives (pp. 57-64). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

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.

Koss, M.P., & Oros, C. (1991). The Rape Victim: Clinical and Community Interventions. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Koss, M.P., & Leonard, K.E. (1984). Sexually aggressive men: Empirical findings and theoretical 

implications. In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression 

(pp. 213-232). New York: Academic Press. 

Lanier, C.A., Elliot, M.N., Martin, D., & Kapadia, A. (1998). Evaluation of an intervention to 

change attitudes toward date rape. Journal of American College Health, 46, 177-180. 

Lonsway, K.A. (1996). Preventing acquaintance rape through education: What do we know? 

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 229-265. 

Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A 

theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711. 

Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1994). Rape myths. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164. 

Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S.R., O'Neil, J.A., Nesius, A.M., & Mathew, A. (2003). 

Evidence-Based Review of Batterer Intervention and Prevention Programs: Final Report. Atlanta, GA: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control. CDC Contract No. 200-96-0511, Task Order No. 12. 

O'Leary, K.D., Woodin, E.M., & Fritz, P.T. (in press). Can we prevent the hitting? Implications for 

the prevention of partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma. 

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. 

Berkowtiz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, 123-205). Sand Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. 

Reppucci, N.D., Land, D., & Haugaard, J.J. (2001). Child sexual abuse prevention programs that 

target young children. In P. K. Trickett & C. Schellenbach (Eds.), Violence against children in 

the family and the community (pp. 317-337). Washington, DC: American Psychological 

Association. 

Resick, P.A., Calhoun, K.S., Atkeson, B.M., & Ellis, E.M. (1981). Social adjustment in victims of 

sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 705-712. 

Ring, T.E., & Kilmartin, C. (1992). Man to man about rape: A rape prevention programs for men. 

Journal of College Student Devlopment, 33, 82-84. 

Rosenthal, E.H., Heesacker, M., & Neimeyer, G.J. (1995). Changing the rape-supportive attitudes 

of traditional and nontraditional male and female college students. Journal of Counseling 

Psychology, 42, 171-177. 

Russell, D., & Howell, N. (1983). The prevalence of rape in the United States revisited. Signs, 8(4), 

688-695. 

Schewe, P., & O'Donohue, W. (1993). Rape Prevention: Methodological Problems and New 

Directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 667-682. 

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.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J.E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.D. 

(1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Smith, S.J. (1989). Social relations, neighborhood structure, and the fear of crime in Britain. In D. 

Evans and D.T. Herbert (Eds.), The Geography of Crime (pp. 1-23). London, England: 

Croom-Helm. 

Softas-Nall, B., Bardos, A., & Fakinos, M. (1995). Fear of rape: Its perceived seriousness and 

likelihood among young Greek women. Violence Against Women, 1(2), 174-186. 

The Campbell Collaboration. (2001). Guidelines for the Preparation of Review Protocols (Version 1.0: January 

1, 2001). Available online: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/Fraguidelines.html 

[Accessed October 30, 2002]. 

Tjaden P, & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of 

Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. National Institute of Justice and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention Grant No.93-IJ-CX-0012. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against 

Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. National Institute of 

Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Research in Brief. 

Truman, B.I., Smith-Akin, C.K., Hinman, A.R., Gebbie, K.M., Brownson, R., Novick, L.F., 

Lawrence, R.S., Pappaioanou, M., Fielding, J., Evans, C.A., Guerra, F.A., Vogel-Taylor, M., 

Mahan, C.S., Fullilove, M., & Zaza, S. (2000). Developing the Guide to Community 

Preventive Services—Overview and Rationale. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(1S), 

18-26. 

U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). Criminal Victimization 2000: Changes 1999–2000 with trends 

1993–2000. Results from the National Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Publication No. NCJ 187007. 

Van Dijk, J.J. (1978). Public attitudes toward crime in the Netherlands. Victimology, 3, 265-273. 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). (1994). P.L. 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902; 42 U.S.C. 13701. 

Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D.A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and 

emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435-456. 

World Health Organization. (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: WHO. 

Winfield, I., George, L.K., Swartz, M., & Blazer, D.G. (1990). Sexual assault and psychiatric 

disorders among a community sample of women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 335-341. 

Yeater, E.A., & O'Donohue, W. (1999). Sexual assault prevention programs: Current issues, future 

directions, and the potential efficacy of interventions with women. Clinical Psychology Review, 

19, 739-771. 

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.

Zaza, S., Wright-De Aguero, L.K., Briss, P.A., Truman, B.I., Hopkins, D.P., Hennessy, M.H.,Sosin, 

D.M., Anderson, L., Carande-Kulis, V.G., Teutsch, S.M., Pappaioanou, M., & Task Force on 

Community Preventive Services. (2000). Data collection instrument and procedure for 

systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 18(1S), 44-74. 

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.

Appendix A

Expert Consultants
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.
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 

Expert Consultants 

Mary Koss, Ph.D. 

Professor of Public Health, Family and Community Medicine, Psychiatry and Psychology 

College of Public Health, University of Arizona in Tucson 

Sandra Martin, Ph.D. 

Professor of Public Health 

Department of Maternal and Child Health 

School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Margaret Zahn, Ph.D. 

Program Director and Deputy Research Director 

RTI International 

A-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.

Appendix B

Literature Search Databases and Search Terms
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.
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

Electronic Databases 

Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts TM, produced by Bowker-Saur, United Kingdom 

Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, produced by ProQuest Information and Learning, Ann Arbor, 

MI 

EMBASE® (formerly Excerpta Medica), produced by Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam 

Education Abstracts, produced by The H.W. Wilson Company, Bronx, NY 

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), produced by the U.S. Department of 

Education, Washington, DC 

MEDLINE®, produced by the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD 

Mental Health Abstracts, produced by the IFI CLAIMS (R) Patent Services, Wilmington, DE 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), produced by the National Institute of 

Justice, Rockville, MD 

PsycINFO®, produced by the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 

PubMed, produced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), Bethesda, MD 

Social Sciences Abstracts, produced by The H.W. Wilson Company, Bronx, NY 

Social SciSearch®, produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Philadelphia, PA 

Sociological Abstracts, produced by Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Bethesda, MD 

Search Terms 

Note that an asterisk (*) represents a wildcard to capture all forms of a key word 

Search 1 

1. dating or courtship or romance or couples or intimate partner* or boyfriend* or girlfriend* 

2. 1 AND (battered female* or emotional abuse or physical abuse or sexual abuse or violence or 

rape) 

3. 2 AND (prevent* or intervention* or program development or evaluat* or test or analysis or 

reviewed or assessment* or study or effective* or outcome* or meta-analysis or efficacy or 

recidivism or evidence based). 

Search 2 

Rape OR sex * assault * OR sex * offen * OR sex * crim * OR sex * violen * OR sex * predat * OR sex 

* abus * OR sex * perpetrat * 

AND 

Prevent * OR control * OR educat * OR risk reduction * OR reduc* risk * 

AND 

evaluat * OR assess * OR performance measure * OR data collect* 

B-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.

AND 

PY=1990:2001 

November 2002 

Rape OR sex* assault* OR sex* offen* OR sex* crim* OR sex* violen* OR sex*predat* OR sex* abus* 

OR sex* perpetrat* 

AND 

Prevent* OR control* OR educat* OR risk reduction* OR reduc* risk* or risk management OR 

program OR intervention 

AND 

evidence based OR outcome* OR recidivism OR analysis OR effect* OR evaluat* OR assess* OR 

performance measure* OR data* collect* 

June 2003 

SET 1:

Rape OR sex* assault* OR sex* offen* OR sex* crim* OR sex* violen* OR sex* abus* OR dat*

violen* OR acquaintance rape

AND

Prevent* OR control* OR educat* OR risk reduction* OR reduc* risk*

AND

evaluat* OR assess* OR performance measure* OR data collect* OR evidence based OR test or

analysis OR study effectiveness OR outcomes OR meta analysis OR efficacy OR recidivism

AND

Effect* OR Intervention* OR Victim*

AND 

Adolesc* OR Middle School* OR High School* OR Teen* OR Youth* OR Ages 12-17* 

AND 

Disab* OR Mental* Retard* OR Handicap* OR Learning Defic* 

AND 

Rac* OR Ethnic* OR Minorit* OR Immigrant* OR Cultur* 

OR gay or lesbian

OR African-American OR Black 

OR Latinos* OR Latinas* OR Hispanic*

OR Asian*

OR Native American* OR American Indian* 

B-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.

Appendix C

List of Articles and Their Corresponding Article Number
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.
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

Articles Meeting Inclusion Criteria for Evidence-Based Review of SAPIs

 Article 

Number Article 

1 Anderson, L., Stoelb, M. P., Duggan, P., Hieger, B., Kling, K. H., & Payne, J. P. 

(1998). The effectiveness of two types of rape prevention programs in changing the 

rape-supportive attitudes of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 

39(2), 131-142. 

3 Black, B., Weisz, A., Coats, S., & Patterson, D. (2000). Evaluating a 

psychoeducational sexual assault prevention program incorporating theatrical 

presentation, peer education, and social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(5), 

589-606. 

4 Breitenbecher, K. H., & Scarce, M. (1999). A longitudinal evaluation of the 

effectiveness of a sexual assault education program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

14(5), 459-478. 

5 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(4), 472-488. 

6 Breitenbecher, K. H., & Scarce, M. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a 

sexual assault education program focusing on psychological barriers to resistance. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(5), 397-407. 

8 Earle, J. P. (1996). Acquaintance rape workshops: Their effectiveness in changing the 

attitudes of first-year college men. NASPA Journal, 34, 2-18. 

9 Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion attitudes among high 

school students: The influence of gender and rape education. Youth and Society, 23(2), 

229-250. 

10 Fonow, M. M., Richardson, L., & Wemmerus, V. A. (1992). Feminist rape education: 

Does it work? Gender & Society, 6(1), 108-121. 

11 Foshee, V. A. (1998). Involving schools and communities in preventing adolescent 

dating abuse. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds). Addressing community problems: 

Psychological research and interventions (pp. 104-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued)

 Article 

Number Article 

12 Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, 

J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates Project: Theoretical 

basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39-47. 

13 Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, 

G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates: An adolescent dating violence prevention 

program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45-50. 

14 Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & 

MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe Dates Program: One-year follow-up results. 

American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1619-1622. 

15 Foubert, J. D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on 

fraternity men's attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of American College 

Health, 48(4), 158-163. 

16 Foubert, J. D., & Marriot, K. A. (1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer education 

program on men's belief in rape myths. Sex Roles, 36(3-4), 259-268. 

17 Foubert, J. D., & McEwen, M. K. (1998). An all-male rape prevention peer education 

program: Decreasing fraternity men's behavioral intent to rape. Journal of College 

Student Development, 39, 548-556. 

18 Frazier, P., Valtinson, G., & Candell, S. (1994). Evaluation of a coeducational 

interactive rape prevention program. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(2), 

153-158. 

19 Gidycz, C. A., Layman, M. J., Rich, C. L., Crothers, M., Gylys, J., Matorin, A., & 

Jacobs, C. D. (2001). An evaluation of an acquaintance rape prevention program: 

Impact on attitudes, sexual aggression, and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 16(11), 1120-1138. 

20 Gidycz, C. A., Lynn, S. J., Rich, C. L., Marioni, N. L., Loh, C., Blackwell, L. M., 

Stafford, J., Fite, R., & Pashdag, J. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk 

reduction program: A multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

69(6), 1073-1078. 

21 Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention 

program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1046-1052. 

22 Heppner, M. J., Humphrey, C. F., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T. L., & DeBord, K. A. (1995). 

The differential effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and 

knowledge. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 508-518. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued)

 Article 

Number Article 

23 Heppner, M. J., Neville, H. A., Smith, K., Kivlighan, D. M., & Gershuny, B. S. 

(1999). Examining immediate and long-term efficacy of rape prevention 

programming with racially diverse college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 

16-26. 

24 Heppner, M. J., Good, G. E., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T. L., Hawkins, A. K., Hacquard, 

L. L., Nichols, R. K., DeBord, K. A., & Brock, K. J. (1995). Examining sex 

differences in altering attitudes about rape: A test of the elaboration likelihood 

model. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 640-647. 

25 Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Krans, T. S., & Lavigne, S. E. (1998). 

Antiviolence education in high schools: Implementation and evaluation. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 726-742. 

27 Jaffe, P. G., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip, S. M. (1992). An evaluation of a 

secondary school primary prevention program on violence in intimate relationships. 

Violence and Victims, 7(2), 129-146. 

28 Lanier, C. A., Elliott, M. N., Martin, D. W., & Kapadia, A. (1998). Evaluation of an 

intervention to change attitudes toward date rape. Clinical and Program Notes. 

Journal of College Health, 46(4), 177-180. 

29 Lavoie, F., Vezina, L., Piche, C., & Boivin, M. (1995). Evaluation of a prevention 

program for violence in teen dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 

516-524. 

30 Lenihan, G. O., Rawlins, M. E., Eberly, C. G., Buckley, B., & Masters, B. (1992). 

Gender differences in rape supportive attitudes before and after a date rape 

education intervention. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 331-338. 

31 Lenihan, G. O., & Rawlins, M. E. (1994). Rape supportive attitudes among Greek 

students before and after a date rape prevention program. Journal of College Student 

Development, 35(6), 450-455. 

32 Lonsway, K. A., & Kothari, C. (2000). First year campus acquaintance rape 

education. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(3), 220-232. 

33 Lonsway, K. A., Klaw, E. L., Berg, D. R., Waldo, C. R., Kothari, C., Mazurek, C. J., 

& Hegeman, K. E. (1998). Beyond “no means no”: Outcomes of an intensive 

program to train peer facilitators for campus acquaintance rape education. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 73-92. 

34 Macgowan, M. J. (1997). An evaluation of a dating violence prevention program for 

middle school students. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 223-235. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued)

 Article 

Number Article 

35 Pacifici, C., Stoolmiller, M., & Nelson, C. (2001). Evaluating a prevention program 

for teenagers on sexual coercion: A differential effectiveness approach. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 552-559. 

36 Pinzone-Glover, H. A., Gidycz, C. A., & Jacobs, C. D. (1998). An acquaintance rape 

prevention program: Effects on attitudes toward women, rape-related attitudes, and 

perceptions of rape scenarios. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 605-621. 

37 Proto-Campise, L., Belknap, J., & Wooldredge, J. (1998). High school students 

adherence to rape myths and the effectiveness of high school rape-awareness 

programs. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 308-328. 

38 Rosenthal, E. H., Heesacker, M., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1995). Changing the 

rape-supportive attitudes of traditional and nontraditional male and female college 

students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 171-177. 

39 Smith, P., & Welchans, S. (2000). Peer education: Does focusing on male 

responsibility change sexual assault attitudes? Violence Against Women, 6(11), 

1255-1268. 

41 Weisz, A. N., & Black, B. M. (2001). Evaluating a sexual assault and dating violence 

prevention program for urban youths. Social Work Research, 25(2), 89-100. 

44 Schwartz, M. D., & Wilson, N. (1993). We're talking but are they listening? The 

retention of information from sexual assault programming for college students. Free 

Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 21, 3-8. 

46 Nelson, E. S., & Torgler, C. C. (1990). A comparison of strategies for changing 

college students' attitudes toward acquaintance rape. Journal of Humanistic Education 

and Development, 29, 69-85. 

49 Himelein, M. J. (1999). Acquaintance rape prevention with high-risk women: 

Identification and inoculation. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), 93-96. 

53 Dallager, C., & Rosen, L. A. (1993). Effects of a human sexuality course on attitudes 

toward rape and violence. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 193-199. 

54 Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. 

(2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome 

evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279-291. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued) 

Article 

Number Article 

55 Wright, V., Akers, S. W., Rita, S. (2000). The Community Awareness Rape Education 

(CARE) program for high school students. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 26(2), 

182-185. 

58 Forst, L. S., Lightfoot, J. T., & Burrichter, A. (1996). Familiarity with sexual assault 

and its relationship to the effectiveness of acquaintance rape prevention programs. 

Journal of Contemporary Clinical Justice, 12(1), 28-44. 

59 Schewe, P. A., & O'Donohue, W. (1993). Sexual abuse prevention with high-risk 

males: The roles of victim empathy and rape myths. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 

339-351. 

60 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(1), 25-32. 

61 Gray, M. D., Lesser, D., Quinn, E., & Bounds, C. (1990). The effectiveness of 

personalizing acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of vulnerability 

and on reducing risk-taking behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 217-220. 

64 Schewe, P. A., & O'Donohue, W. (1996). Rape prevention with high-risk males: 

Short-term outcome of two interventions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(5), 455-471. 

67 Gilbert, B. J., Heesacker, M., & Gannon, L. J. (1991). Changing the sexual 

aggression-supportive attitudes of men: A psychoeducational intervention. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology, 38, 197-203. 

68 Linz, D., Fuson, I. A., & Donnerstein, E. (1990). Mitigating the negative effects of 

sexually violent mass communications through preexposure briefings. Communication 

Research, 17, 641-674. 

69 Schultz, S. K., Scherman, A., & Marshall, L. J. (2000). Evaluation of a 

university-based date rape prevention program: Effect on attitudes and behavior 

related to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 193-201. 

70 Harrison, P. J., Downes, J., & Williams, M. D. (1991). Date and acquaintance rape: 

Perceptions and attitude change strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 

131-139. 

73 Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & 

Suchindran (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates Program and a 

Booster in Preventing and Reducing Adolescent Dating Violence Victimization and 

Perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619-624. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued) 

Article 

Number Article 

79 Foubert, J. D. (2001). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on 

fraternity men's attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. In D.K. Wysocki (Ed.), 

Readings in Social Research. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

80 Fawole, O. I., Ajuwon, A. J., Osungbade, K. O., & Faweya, O. C. (2003). 

Interventions for Violence Prevention among Young Female Hawkers in Motor 

Parks in South-Western Nigeria: A Review of Effectiveness. African Journal of 

Reproductive Health, 7(1), 71-82. 

(continued) 

C-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.

Appendix C (continued)

Articles of Evaluations of SAPIs for Individuals with Learning Disabilities 

Article 

Number Article 

47 Miltenberger, R. G., Roberts, J. A., Ellingson, S., Galensky, T., Rapp, J. T., Long, E. 

S., & Lumley, V. A. (1999). Training and generalization of sexual abuse prevention 

skills for women with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(3), 

385-388. 

48 Lumley, V. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Long, E. S., Rapp, J. T., & Roberts, J. A. (1998). 

Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention program for adults with mental retardation. 

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(1), 91-101. 

52 Lee, D., McGee, A., & Ungar, S. (2001). Effectiveness of a computer-based safety 

program for children with severe learning difficulties. Child Abuse Review, 10, 198-209. 

56 Khemka, I. (2000). Increasing independent decision-making skills of women with 

mental retardation in simulated interpersonal situations of abuse. American Journal of 

Mental Retardation, 105(5), 387-401. 

57 Haseltine, B., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1990). Teaching self-protection skills to persons 

with mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95(2), 188-97. 

71 Lee, D., McGee, A., & Ungar, S. (1998). Issues in the development of a 

computer-based safety programme for children with severe learning difficulties. Child 

Abuse Review, 7, 343-354. 

72 Lee, Y. K., & Tang, C. S. (1998). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention program 

for female Chinese adolescents with mild mental retardation. American Journal of 

Mental Retardation, 103(2), 105-116. 

74 Singer, N. (1996). Evaluation of a self-protection group for clients. The British Journal 

of Developmental Disabilities, (42)82, 54-62. 

75 Warzak, W. J., & Page, T. J. (1990). Teaching refusal skills to sexually active 

adolescents. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, (21)2, 133-139. 

76 Foxx, R. M., & McMorrow, M. J. (1984). Teaching social/sexual skills to mentally 

retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(1), 9-15. 

77 Foxx, R. M., & Faw, G. D. (1992). An eight-year follow-up of three social skills 

training studies. Mental Retardation, 30(2), 63-66. 

78 Foxx, R. M, & McMorrow, M. J. (1985). Teaching social skills to mentally retarded 

adults: Follow-up results from three studies. The Behavior Therapist, 8, 77-78. 

C-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.

Appendix D

Data Abstraction Forms
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.

SAPI Data Abstraction Form 

Author/s: Year: 

Title: Article Number:

Primary Reviewer: Secondary Reviewer:

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Study Design: Setting: 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Author-reported: Duration: 

Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: 

Population Type: 

Delivery Mode: 

Population Characteristics: Comparison Group Type(s): 

Age:

Curriculum/Content: 

Sex: Sampling Frame Size: Education: Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Program Implemente

Ethnicity:

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Culturally Specific: Participation Rates): 

Sexually Active:

Assessment of Expos

Victimization: Time Points of Data Collection: 

Intervention Retentio

Criminal History:

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Other: 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Page 1 of 2 
Measures Results 

Quality Score: Major Strengths:

 Study: Article: 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: Article: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Quality 

Page 2 of 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.

Key to Data Abstraction Form 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Focus on describing baseline data Study Design: One of four design types: Experimental, Pre- Setting: Where the intervention waLocation: Where was the study done? Post, Randomized Comparison, and Nonequivalent program; Training classroom adjace

Overall setting, including place (city, Comparison (quasi-experimental). Duration: Time period; Duration; Ftown, state, region of country) and Author-reported: Design type as identified by the 12 11⁄2 hour sessions over a 6 week population density (urban, suburban, author, if reported. sessions over a 12 week period). rural). Intervention Group Type(s): Number and type of Theory/Model: Did the authors dStudy Eligibility Criteria: Criteria used individuals who make up study intervention group (e.g., 7th theoretical basis(es), or constructs u

for inclusion/exclusion of participants in grade students who received parental consent to participate in developed? If so, provide as much the study. the prevention program.). Include how participants were identify the relevant theory. Population Type: Audience of the recruited and how they were assigned to intervention. Delivery Mode: Instruction; Small 

prevention program (i.e. preschool, Comparison Group Type(s): Number and type of videos; Large media – tv, radio, newelementary, middle school, high school, individuals who make up study comparison group (e.g., 7th playing; Providing feedback; Therapcollege, victim, offender). grade students from the same school who did not receive Curriculum/Content: Name; AuthPopulation Characteristics: Include parental consent). Describe intervention for this group (if not Information included in curriculum 

breakdown of treatment and comparison a true control group). Include how participants were recruited Materials provided to participants; Pgroup for each of the following:. and how they were assigned to comparison. help participants acquire knowledge 

Age: Range, mean in years. Sampling Frame Size: The total number of individuals attitudes and behavior). Sex: M/F, include distribution if considered eligible for the study. Record for both Program Implementer: Who deliv

provided. intervention and comparison groups. professional, volunteer, peer); How 

Education: Current level of education, Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): The total assigned; Include information such 

include grades and years. number of individuals who initially consented to participate in implementer. Include type of organiza

Race/Ethnicity: Include distribution study. Rate refers to the % of the study sampling frame intervention (i.e., directly interacted 

if provided. members who initially agreed to participate in study (baseline not organizations that might have p

Sexually Active: Yes/no. sample size/sampling frame size). Record for both support). Victimization: Prior sexual assault intervention and comparison groups. If pretest is different Culturally Specific: How were ove

victimization if provided. from baseline, report both. implementers culturally specific? 

Criminal History: Criminal history - Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Assessment of Exposure: How di

sexual assault or otherwise. Rates): The total number of individuals retained in study exposure to the intervention actuall

Other (i.e. disability, substance sample at each post-test and follow-up time points, as of exposure variable (i.e., how outco

abuse, etc.): Any other information applicable. Rate refers to the % of baseline study participants example: resource utilization, observgiven, particularly on disability & who participated in the subsequent data collection time point. questionnaire, record review, other) substance abuse. Record for both intervention and comparison groups. intervention. If only one-time inter

Time Points of Data Collection: The points at which data were collected (e.g., first day of intervention, last day of intervention, 6 months). Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Methods by which 

and settings in which data were collected at each time point (e.g.. Self administered pencil and paper questionnaire conducted in school room in which intervention was 

Intervention Retention Rate: The intervention participants who ultim

only one-time intervention, it is noOther: (e.g., program was implemen

component health risk behavior mo

Page 1 of 3 
Population and Setting Intervention 

delivered). 

Measures Results 

Include the name of the scale/measure used, description, and Knowledge: Change in knowledge (i.e. good touch/bad 

touch, awareness of rape myths) and attitudes.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test, 

and/or follow-up. 

Attitudes:

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test, 

and/or follow-up 

Victimization: Whether or not the participants have 

been known to be victimized post-intervention. 

Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test, 

and/or follow-up. 

Perpetration: If examining perpetrators, measures of this 

behavior.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test, 

and/or follow-up 

Other Measures: Any other measures that are not listed 

previously (including intervening variables, control variables, and explanatory variables). Include control variables if specified.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test, 

and/or follow-up 

Primary Measures: 

For each applicable primary outcome below, describe results for each group and outcome measure and indicate whether or not it is significant and what statistical period, as applicable. Knowledge: Include significant changes in knowledge within and between groups. Attitudes: Include significant changes in attitude within and between groups. Victimization: Include significant findings on Perpetration: Include significant findings on perpetration (post treatment) within and between groups. Other Measures: Describe any significant secondary results of interest that were reported. Describe results for each group and outcome measure and indicate whether or not it is report the results for each time period, as applicable. 

- any variable being used to explain or 

Control variables - variables that were not controlled for in the analysis that were different among the 2 groups being Explanatory Variables - any variable that effects the outcomes on the dependent variable Attendance/treatment completion: Include significant findings for attendance/treatment completion within and between groups. 

Quality Score: Record Major Strengths: Rec

 Study:

 Article: 

Major Weaknesses: Rweaknesses.

 Study: 

Article: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Design and Sample 

Study Quality 

number of questions asked (if not entire scale). 

measures were used. Also report the results for each time victimization (post treatment) within and between groups. significant and what statistical measures were used. Also Intervening variablesrelated to an outcome (i.e. demographic and other variables to explain results). compared (i.e race/ethnicity, gender, etc.) 

Page 2 of 3
Measures Results 

Other: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Quality 

Page 3 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. Secondary Reviewer Discrepancies Form Author/s: Year: Title: Article Number: Primary Reviewer: Secondary Reviewer: Discrepancies Between Primary and Secondary Reviewers Quality Scores: Issue(s): 1. 2. 3. Resolution(s): 1. 2. 3. QRF Issues: 

Unresolved Issues: Other Comments: 

Page 1 of 1 
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. Tertiary Reviewer Discrepancies Form Author/s: Year: Title: Article Number: Primary Reviewer: Secondary Reviewer: Tertiary Reviewer: Unresolved Issues: Resolution to Unresolved Issues: Other Comments: 

Page 1 of 1 
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.

Article # ______________ 

Completed by ______________ 

Quality Rating Form 

Points 

(circle 1) 

Section 1. Article Quality (25 points) 

1. Was the study population described? (Select yes if full sample [e.g. both

intervention and comparison group, if applicable] are well-described) 

(a) No 0 

(b) Yes 5 

2. Did the authors specify the sampling frame (universe of selection) and

study inclusion (eligibility) criteria? 

(a) No 

(b) Either sampling frame or study inclusion criteria only 

(c) Both sampling frame and study inclusion criteria provided 

0 

3 

5 

3. Was the intervention described? 

3a. Intervention setting 

(a) No 

(b) Yes 

0 

2 

3b. Intervention duration 

(a) No

(b) Yes 

0 

2 

3c. Intervention theory/model 

(a) No 

(b) Yes 

0 

2 

3d. Intervention format/delivery mode

 (a) No 0

 (b) Yes 2 

3e. Intervention curriculum/content

 (a) No 0

 (b) Yes 2

 4. Was the measurement of the outcome variables described? 

(a) No 0 

(b) Yes 5 

Section 2. Study Design (40 points) 

5. What was the study design? 

(a) Pre-post (i.e. repeated measures of the treatment group) 3 

(b) Non-equivalent comparison group design (i.e., study included a

control or comparison group, but subjects were not randomly assigned

to groups) 

5 

Page 1 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.

Points 

(circle 1) 

(c) Randomized comparison group design (i.e., study involved

comparisons between two or more treatment groups and subjects

were randomly assigned to groups) 

7 

(d) Experimental design (i.e., a true control group was included, and

subjects were randomly assigned to groups) 

10 

6. Does the comparison group appear to be comparable to the intervention

group or were potential differences between groups (confounders)

controlled for statistically? 

(a) None or not reported 0 

(b) Yes 5 

7. What was the final total sample size (intervention and comparison

combined)?

(a) less than 100 0 

(b) 100-400 3 

(c) More than 400 5 

8. What was the duration of follow-up (time after completion of intervention)? 

(a) Immediately after intervention (less than 1 month) 0 

(b) 1 - 3 months 3 

(c) 4 - 6 months 7 

(d) More than 6 months 10 

9. What was the study participation retention rate (all groups combined)? 

(a) Less than 60% or not reported 

(b) 60-80% 

(c) More than 80%

0 

3 

5 

10. What was the intervention participation retention rate (intervention group 

only)? 

(a) Less than 60% or not reported 

(b) 60-80% 

(c) More than 80%

0 

3 

5 

Section 3. Measurement and Analysis (25 points) 

11. Did the authors attempt to measure program fidelity? 

(a) No or not reported 0 

(b) Yes 5 

Page 2 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.

Points 

(circle 1) 

12. Did the outcome variables include ... 

(a) Knowledge and/or attitudes about sexual assault 

(b) Skills/strategies in preventing/coping with sexual assault 

(c) Victimization and/or disclosure 

(d) Perpetration 

(e) Other behaviors 

(Specify:____________________________________) 

(f) Both behavioral and non-behavioral 

3 

5 

7 

7 

7 

10 

13. Were the outcome variables valid (i.e., citations or discussions included

justifying why the use of the particular measure is valid)? 

(a) No or not reported 

(b) Partially 

(c) Yes 

0 

3 

5 

14. Did the authors conduct statistical testing? 

(a) No or not reported 0 

(b) Yes 5 

Section 4. (5 points) 

15. Did the study contain any other major weaknesses/sources of bias?

(Possibly develop list of issues.) 

(a) Yes (specify)_____________ 0 

(b) No 5 

Subtotal for study description - section1 

Subtotal for study design - sections 2-4 

Total 

?/25 (__%)

?/70 (__%)

?/95 (__%) 

Comments from Reviewer: 

Summary of Author suggestions for future research and practice 

Notes 

Question 8: Use the last group that completes the follow-up.

Question 9: All participants who completed the last time point of data collection.

Question 10: Intervention group participants who completed the intervention (not necessarily completed follow-up). If

intervention occurred only once, then mark this question as ‘not applicable.’

Question 12: A-B are non-behavioral; C-E are behavioral. If only one outcome variable is specified, give the rating

that corresponds with the variable. If more than one variable within either the non-behavioral or behavioral category

is specified, give the highest rating possible for that category. If at least one variable from each category is

specified, give the rating (g)/10 points.

Question 13: If only some (but not all) of the outcome variables are validated and/or the instrument was validated on

a different po4ulation then give the rating of (b)/3 points.

Question 14: If t-tests, chi-square, multiple regression, or other multivariate analyses were conducted, then mark

YES; if only descriptive or univariate analyses are conducted, mark NO.

Page 3 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.

Appendix E

Evidence Tables – General Population
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.
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.

Author/s: Anderson, Stoelb, Duggan, Hieger, Kling, and Payne 

Title: The Effectiveness of Two Types of Rape Prevention Programs in Changing the Rape-Supportive Attitudes of College Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Mid-sized, Midwestern Public University 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Undergraduate students 

enrolled in a Psychology of Human Development Course Population Type: College males and females 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: 18 to 42 years old with mean age of 20 Sex: Female n=143 (66%) 

Male n=72 (34%) 

Education: 95 freshmen; 66 sophomores; 42 juniors; 

12 seniors 

Race/Ethnicity: 90% Caucasian Sexually Active: Not reported 

Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

52% (n=111) knew rape victim 42% (n=90) previously exposed to rape prevention program 

Study Design: Randomized nonequivalent comparison 

(randomized by class section)

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): Participants were 

undergraduate students enrolled in 10 sections of a psychology course. Each course section was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions, a video and structured discussion, a talk show formatted intervention, or a comparison group. Comparison Group Type(s): Participants were 

undergraduate students enrolled in 10 sections of a psychology course. Each course section was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions, a video and structured discussion, a talk show formatted intervention, or a comparison group. Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

215 undergraduates with 100% participation 2 intervention groups: video intervention n=68 (31.6%); talk show intervention n=70 (32.6%) a comparison group n=77 (35.8%) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 215 for post test (100% 

participation); 7 week follow-up n=161 with 75% retention rate (video intervention n=53; talk show intervention n=58; control group n=50)—however there was a discrepancy between this number (215) reported in the text and numbers reported in Tables 1and 2 for preand post-test by instruments used (210). It is assumed that approximately 5 students did not complete one or more of the surveys pre- and post-, but a clear explanation is not provided about differences in pre-test and post-test sample size for each measure. 

Setting: Unclear if pre

classroom. Sections of Duration: 1 hour for eintervention. For the talk show intervprovided. The number the video intervention. Theory/Model: This 

that has found a linear cas adversarial sex beliefagainst women, and likefindings that interactive attitudinal change. Delivery Mode: Two 

structured discussion anmock talk show and qufrom the audience Curriculum/Content: developed to test the efpresentation versus a mshow). Both interventiacquaintance rape and rissues included national to friends about rape, aand women. The talk stalk show and panel disencouraged to ask queswhereas the video interincluded an introductiovideo, and a structured 

Assigned roles and 

interventions were followas presented to each gTrained raters used a chcovered within both int

E-1
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Time Points of Data Collection: Program Implementer: Pre-test for all groups before interventions counseling graduate stuPost-test 4 weeks after pre-test, immediately following interventions; a 2nd year intervention (or for control, at the same time that licensed psychologist hintervention groups took post-test) Each received 6 monthFollow-up 7 weeks after post-test university counseling ce

outreach team. 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self-administered survey. Not clear if this occurs during a Culturally Specific: Nclass period/room or elsewhere. Also unclear how the 7-week follow-up was administered. Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Measures Results Study Quality Knowledge: Not reported Primary Measures: Quality Score: 

Total: 48/85 (56%) 

Time Points of Measurement: Knowledge: Description: 21/25 (84

Design: 27/70 (45%) 

Attitudes: Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA; Burt, 1980) 19 items -Both RMA and ATR-R showed significant decrease in Major Strengths:designed to measure general adherence to a number of mean attitudes from pre-test to post-test within both Study: rape acceptance myths (Likert-type scale) intervention groups. -Uses 2 intervention anAttitudes Toward Rape Scale Revised (ATR-R; Harrison -The video intervention group had significantly lower random assignment 

et al., 1991) 25 items. Measures 4 perceptions: 1- severity RMA and ATR-R scores at post-test compared with the -Has post-test and 7-wand 2- prevalence of rape, 3- degree to which women are comparison group and talk show group reported -Uses multivariate reperesponsible for rape, and 4- frequency of false reports significantly lower ATR-R scores compared to the (Likert-type scale) comparison group. (More positive attitudes) Article: 

-There were no significant differences between the -Provides good descrip

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test, intervention and comparison groups at the 7-week follow- substantive area and ra

and 7-week follow-up up. -Provides good descrip

-There were no significant differences found between the during the intervention

Victimization: Not reported two intervention groups at post-test or follow-up.

Major Weaknesses:

 Time Points of Measurement: Victimization: Study: 

-No measures of know

Perpetration: Not reported Perpetration: -Author notes that one 

reliability but lacks vali

Time Points of Measurement: Other Measures: 

E-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.

Measures Other Measures: Demographic information sheet with 

age, gender, year in school, place of residence, and marital status; question of whether they knew someone who was a victim of rape; and question of the number of rape 

awareness programs they had previously attended

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test, 

and 7-week follow-up 

Results 

-Females reported significantly lower scores on ATR-R at 

pre-test, post-test, and follow-up compared to males -Females reported significantly lower scores on RMA at 

pre-test -No interaction effects for gender and treatment group, suggesting that intervention was equally effective for both males and females -Those who knew a person who was a victim of rape reported significantly lower rape supportive attitudes on the RMA at pre- and post-test and on the ATR-R at pretest, post-test, and follow-up compared with participants 

who did not know anyone with this type of experience.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other:

Study Quality 

Article: 

- Collected data on expprogramming, but provvariable -Inconsistent data in Tfollow-up sample size -Lacks full description and where/how survey 

E-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.

Author/s: Black, Weisz, and Coats 

Title: Evaluating a Psychoeducational Sexual Assault Prevention Program Incorporating Theatrical Presentation, Peer Education, and Social Work 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Wayne State University community in 

Michigan. Urban Study Eligibility Criteria: the program was available to 

the greater metropolitan Detroit community but specifically targeted the Wayne State University community. Population Type: University students (61% of 

intervention sample), faculty, parents, and community residents. Population Characteristics:

 Age: mean of 31.1 years (intervention)

 mean of 32.4 years (comparison)

 Sex: 

intervention - 73 (73%) female; 25 (25%) male; 2 (2%) missing data comparison - 49 ( 77%) female; 15 ( 23%) male

 Education: University students in intervention group: 

22% were graduate students; 78% were undergraduate students (no further information provided)

 Race/Ethnicity: 69 (69%) European descent; 11 

(11%) African American; 9 (9%) Asian American; 6 (6%) other; 5 (5%) missing data (intervention)

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

56 reported never having been married; 25 reported they were presently married (intervention) 

Study Design: Non-equivalent Comparison

 Author-reported: quasi-experimental pre-test, posttest, follow-up group design 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

150 university students, faculty, parents, and community members (92 students [61%], 58 other) 100 participated in evaluation Comparison Group Type(s): 64 students from 3 social work classes at Wayne State University Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

100 (67% of 150) (intervention) 64 (rate Not reported) (comparison) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post: n=38 intervention (38%) Follow-up: n=32 intervention (32%); 

n=59 comparison (92%) 

Time Points of Data Collection: Upon arrival at performance for half of the first evening’s performance attendees and all of the second evening’s performance attendees; immediately following the performance for entire sample; and 2 months following performance for sample willing to participate. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported 

Setting: Not reported 

Duration: Not report

approximately 1 hour) Theory/Model: peer 

Delivery Mode: Mult

performance, and focuCurriculum/ContentFrom the play “Hold Hadapted by Emily NortBegan with multimedia and pictures from magillustrated how society rape. Followed by theatrical portraying scenes in whassaulted addressing thassociated with sexual vvictims and potential pvictim blaming responsassault, sensitive responinfluence of media on gmyths. Each vignette wshowing how not to resupportive responses. Focus groups: questionemotional response to Written resource materProgram Implemente

from student applicatiotraining session and wo17 hours over an 8-weeA local community sexidea and format for the training to the peer edu

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

intervention) 

Measures Knowledge: Revised Rape Myth Acceptance Scale 

24 items, 4 sub-scales; Newman and Colon (1994); developed from earlier rape myth scales 

Time Points of Measurement:: pre-, post-, follow-up 

Attitudes: Revised Rape Myth Acceptance Scale 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, follow-up 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures: Knowledge and Attitudes: 

The 17 people who took the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up had significantly better post-test and follow-up scores compared to the pre-test scores. There was no significant difference between post-test and follow-up scores. Participant follow-up scores were significantly better than comparison group scores. The 38 people who completed the pre-test and post-test had significantly better post-test scores. For the 24 people who completed only the pre-test and follow-up scores, there was no significant difference between the two tests. For both males and females, mean scores changed significantly from pre-test to post-test but not significantly from pre-test to follow-up. Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 51/85 (60%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 32/60 (53%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

-multivariate analysis u-Uses a comparison gro-Used pretest scores to Revised Rape Myth Accep

 Article: 

-Provides detailed descMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-Low study retention ra- no significant differenstatus were reported becomparison groups, hocomprised social work intervention group was residents) and 2 out of for comparison inclusio(whereas 78% of studeundergraduates)

 Article: 

-No discussion of data - numbers in tables do 

E-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.

E-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.

Author/s: Hanson and Scarce Title: A Longitudinal Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Sexual Assault Program 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Midwestern university Study Design: Experimental Design Setting: Presented to g

on a college campus. 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Responded to an ad in the Author-reported: Not reported 

university paper or flyer posted on campus. Women had Duration: 1-hour to complete both sessions of the program, Intervention Group Type(s): Participants were female implementation and a 7-month follow-up to be included college undergraduate students who responded to an ad in Theory/Model: It wain analysis. the university paper or a flyer posted on campus various issues related to 

describing a research project investigating sexual effects of sex-role socia

Population Type: Females from a university community 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: 72% 18-21 (28% Not reported)

experiences among women. These women were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. Comparison Group Type(s): Participants were female 

on men’s and women’s situations, would lead to victimization. 

college undergraduate students who responded to an ad in Delivery Mode: Lectu

Sex: 100% female the university paper or a flyer posted on campus discussion. 

describing a research project investigating sexual 

Education: 84% undergraduate students (16% Not experiences among women. These women were Curriculum/Content: 

reported) randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. prevalence of sexual ass

existence of rape myths

Race/Ethnicity: 84% Caucasian (16% Not reported) Sampling Frame Size: Not reported socialization practices t

environment; and a six-

Sexually Active: Not reported Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): emphasizes rape as an a

275 participated in baseline: humiliating and degradi

Victimization: treatment = 132 affecting all men and w- 75% victimized after the age of 14 and prior to the control = 143 

intervention. Program Implemente

- 19% reported some form of childhood sexual abuse Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and participated in extensiv

before the age of 14 Participation Rates): 224 returned for 7-month followup (81.5%); number for control and treatment Not Culturally Specific: N

Criminal History: Not reported reported separately 

Assessment of Expos

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not Time Points of Data Collection: 

reported Baseline: first day of intervention Intervention Retentio

Follow-up: 7-month follow-up at the end of the academic year Other: Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self-report 

measures administered during the initial session and at 7-month follow-up. 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge: Sexual Assault Knowledge Survey (SAKS; Breitenbecher and Scarce, 1999) consists of 20 multiple choice self-report items and 1 true/false item.. Questions ask about prevalence, negotiation of consent about sexual behaviors, legal definition of rape, percentage of rapes reported to police, sex-role forces that promote rape, and rape myths.

 Time Points of Measurement: Baseline (pre-test) 

and 7-month follow-up 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Child Sexual Abuse Questionnaire (CSAQ; 

Finkelhor, 1979) consists of 8 self-report items (y/n) on various childhood sexual experiences up to the age of 14. Considered to be abusive if met one or both criteria: (1) perpetrator was at least 5 years older than the victim and 

(2) some form of force or coercion was used. Victims 

were grouped into 1 of 5 categories: (1) no CSA, (2) childhood exhibitionism, (3) childhood fondling, or (4) childhood attempted rape, (5) childhood rape 

Time Points of Measurement: Baseline only Modified Sexual Experiences Survey assesses sexual victimization after age 14. Modified version of Sexual 

Experiences Survey (SES) to make it more gender neutral. Consists of 9 yes/no questions. Grouped into 1 of 4 categories: (1) sexual contact, (2) sexual coercion, (3) attempted rape, or (4) rape 

The initial assessment of CSAQ and SES were used to 

create a sexual victimization history variable. This was a dichotomous variable grouping women as victims or nonvictims. 

Participants’ responses to the SES at follow-up were used to create a variable assessing victimization between baseline and follow-up. This was a dichotomous variable 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Treatment and control group did not 

significantly differ at baseline. However at follow-up women in the treatment group demonstrated greater knowledge, [F(1,223)=26.81, p<.00] 

There were no significant differences on knowledge 

based on history of victimization. 

Attitudes: Victimization: Prior to baseline, 75% (N=169) of the 

women were victims; 33% (N=74)of the women were victimized between baseline and follow-up. Loglinear analysis indicated that the program was unsuccessful in reducing victimization among program participants. This did not differ in regard to victimization history. Women with victimization histories were more likely to be victimized during follow-up [G2 (N=224)=3.17, p=.53]

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 74/85 (87%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 53/60 (88%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examined victimizati

and its relationship to i

- 7-month follow-up - High study participati- Random assignment

 Article: 

- Reliability provided fo- Author notes good psvictimization measures Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Small sample size pro- Short duration of inte

 Article: 

- Size of sampling fram- Likely that those who completed intervention

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality grouping women as victims or non-victims. 

Time Points of Measurement: Baseline and followup. 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Demographic Survey (age, race, sexual 

orientation, and socio-economic status). 43% of women indicated that they had dated men casually; 41% indicated that they were in a long-term, monogamous relationship with men.

 Time Points of Measurement: initial session only 

E-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.

Author/s: Breitenbecher and Gidycz Title: An Empirical Evaluation of a Program Designed to Reduce the Risk for Multiple Sexual Victimization 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large, midwestern university Study Design: Experimental Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: College women who signed Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Not reporte

up to participate in a study described as an “investigation of sexual experiences among college women.” Intervention Group Type(s): 211 college women who Theory/Model: Not r

signed up to participate in a study described as an 

Population Type: College women “investigation of sexual experiences among college Delivery Mode: Video

women.” Subjects randomly assigned to treatment or provision of informatio

Population Characteristics: control group. 

Age: 73% were 18-19 years old Curriculum/Content: Sex: 100% female

 Education: College students Race/Ethnicity: 95% Caucasian Sexually Active: Not reported

Comparison Group Type(s): 195 college women who 

signed up to participate in a study described as an “investigation of sexual experiences among college women.” True control group, no treatment provided. Subjects randomly assigned to treatment or control group. Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

by Hanson and GidyczProgram providing info- prevalence of sexual a- completion and discuWorksheet. Authors adsexually assaulted in the sexually assaulted in the - viewing of a video thaacquaintance rape follo

Victimization: Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): authors added question

Childhood victimization (CSAQ results): 88% reported 406 women (participation rate not calculated since woman in the video had 

no child sexual victimization; 2% reported childhood sampling frame not provided). past, how might it have exhibitionism; 7% reported childhood fondling; 2% situation?” Program adreported childhood attempted rape; and 2% reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and participants’ suggestionchildhood rape. Participation Rates): 406 - cannot determine highlighted the role of c

participation rate; not clear if findings were reported only initial) sexual victimizat

SES - 39% reported no adolescent sexual victimization; for those who completed baseline and post-test at risk for future sexual 21% reported unwanted adolescent sexual contact; 12% - discussion of the psycreported adolescent sexual coercion; 7% reported Time Points of Data : victimization experiencadolescent attempted rape; and 22% reported adolescent Baseline: Initial assessment at the beginning of the risk for future victimizarape. academic quarter - viewing of a second v

follow-up: at the end of the quarter (9 weeks later). - the provision of the R

Composite score (combined responses on the CSAQ and Information Sheet (adaSES from baseline) - classified women into one of the Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self-report includes information on following categories: 1. Non-victims, 2. Victims or measures, location and format Not reported. assault. Authors added participants who had experienced either contact child been sexually assaulted sexual abuse or adolescent sexual assault. Women who thoughts and behavior reported noncontact abuse were not included. Findings: aware of.” 35% of the participants were considered to be nonE-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention victims and 65% were considered to be victims. Program Implemente

Criminal History: Not reported Culturally Specific: N

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Assessment of Expos

98% heterosexual 98% single Intervention RetentioNote: measured religion and income but findings Not Other: reported 

Measures Knowledge: Sexual Assault Awareness Survey (SAAS) -designed by Hanson and Gidycz (1993); assesses participants’ general level of sexual assault awareness, as well as the accuracy of this information. Higher scores are indicative of good general awareness about the problem of sexual assault. 

Time Points of Measurement: Baseline and followup 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Child Sexual Abuse Questionnaire (CSAQ) -

(originally developed by Finkelhor, 1979) assesses history of child sexual victimization (various childhood sexual experiences); 8-item scale; self-report

 Time Points of Measurement: baseline 

Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) - assesses sexual victimization experiences that occurred after the age of 14 (originally developed by Koss and Oros (1982) and is capable of identifying hidden rape victims; 10-items 

Time Points of Measurement: baseline and followup 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Overall, results indicate that the program was not effective in reducing the incidence of sexual assault among participants, or in altering dating behaviors, sexual communication, or sexual assault awareness. Furthermore, the ineffectiveness of the program was unrelated to participants’ histories of sexual assault.

 Knowledge: SAAS - Women with histories of sexual 

victimization scored higher (indicating greater sexual assault awareness) than women without histories of sexual victimization [F(1, 402) =7.72, p=.01]. Women in the treatment group scored higher than women in the control group [F(1, 402)=22.23, p=.00]. Women, regardless of victimization or experimental condition, scored higher at follow-up than at initial assessment [F(1, 402)=20.25, p=.00]. There were no other significant effects. There was no experimental condition by time of measurement interaction. Results suggest that the riskreduction program did not affect participants’ sexual assault awareness and further suggests that increases in sexual assault awareness were not related to sexual assault history or participation in the risk-reduction program.

 Attitudes: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 62/85 (73%) Description: 17/25 (68Design: 45/60 (75%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examines sexual victi

future sexual victimizat

- Examines interaction 

dependent variable sex

- measured differences 

 Article: 

- Describes limitations 

recommendations for f

- Identifies gaps in the in the field - Good background infstudy (high rates of sexwith a history of sexual Major Weaknesses:

 Study: No long-term 

intervention.

 Article: 

E-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.

Measures Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Dating Behavior Survey (DBS) - designed 

by Hanson and Gidycz (1993); assesses the frequency with which participants engaged in certain dating behaviors shown in the literature to be associated with acquaintance rape. Items reflect situational factors such as drug and alcohol consumption, isolation of incident site, and the man’s initiating and paying all the expenses of a date; 7-point Likert-type scale. 

Time Points of Measurement: baseline and follow-up Sexual Communication Survey (SCS) - designed by Hanson 

and Gidyz (1993); assesses participants’ perceptions of the accuracy of their communications regarding sexual intentions in a dating situation; 7-point Likert-type scale. Higher scores are indicative of increased incidence of perceived sexual miscommunication. 

Authors substantially revised instrument for this study. Original items have been reworded to make them more easily understandable; 12 new items were added.

 Time Points of Measurement: baseline and followup.

Results Study Quality 

- No description of wh

 Victimization: SES - 22% were considered to be length of time. 

victims of some sort of sexual victimization during the follow-up period, 78% were considered to be non-victims. - No information on pr

sessions 

Log linear analysis with backward procedure: women with histories of sexual victimization were more likely to be victimized during the follow-up period than women without histories of victimization, regardless of experimental condition. Thus, the risk-reduction program was unsuccessful in reducing the incidence of sexual assault among program participants.

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: DBS - ANOVA was performed on the 

DBS - (women who reported they did not date were not included in analysis); performed to identify effect of sexual victimization history and experimental condition on DBS -results indicate that at both times of the assessment, women with histories of sexual victimization scored higher (more risk-related behaviors) than non-victims indicating no significant effect of the intervention [F(1,329)=16.9, p=.00]. There were no other significant effects. The absence of a significant experimental condition by time of measurement interaction suggests that the risk-reduction program did not affect participants’ self-reported dating behaviors. And the findings also suggest that the effectiveness of the program in altering dating behaviors did not differ as a function of participant’s victimization histories. 

SCS -women who reported they did not date were not included in the analysis. Women with histories of sexual 

victimization scored higher on this measure (i.e, reported greater experience of perceived sexual miscommunication) than women without at both times of measurement (ANOVA)[F(1, 334)=23.01, p=.00]. However, regardless of victimization history or experimental condition, women scored lower at the time of follow-up (no significant intervention effects) [F(1, 334)=58.72, p=.00]. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

The absence of a significant experimental condition by time of measurement interaction suggests that the riskreduction program did not affect participants’ selfreported communication. Furthermore, these findings suggest that the effectiveness of the program in altering sexual communication did not differ as a function of participant’s victimization histories.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

E-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.

Author/s: Breitenbecher and Scarce 

Title: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Sexual Assault Education Program Focusing on Psychological Barriers to Resistance 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: large, midwestern university community 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Being a woman who 

responded to advertisements in the university newspaper and flyers posted at various locations on campus describing a research project investigating “sexual experiences among women” Population Type: Women 

Population Characteristics: (reflects those women who 

completed both pre-test and follow-up)

 Age: majority were 18- to 21-year-olds - 72% Sex: 100% female Education: majority were undergraduate students -

85%

 Race/Ethnicity: majority were Caucasian - 81% Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: 

Child Sexual Abuse Questionnaire (CSAQ) (see description 

below): 76% of the women reported no childhood sexual victimization; 7% reported childhood exhibitionism; 12% reported childhood fondling, 3% reported childhood attempted rape, and 2% reported childhood rape. Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (see description below): 

reflects victimization that occurred between the age of 14 and the time of participation in the initial session: 32% of the women reported no victimization, 14% reported unwanted sexual contact; 11%reported sexual coercion; 18% reported attempted rape; and 26% reported rape.

 Criminal History: Not reported 

Study Design: Experimental

 Author-reported: women were randomly assigned to 

either the treatment or control condition Intervention Group Type(s): 

n=67; women who volunteered to participate were randomly assigned to intervention Comparison Group Type(s): n=50; women who volunteered to participate were randomly assigned to control group Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

N = 117; rate not available Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 94/117 = 80% Time Points of Data Collection: pre-test: immediately before intervention (early in the 1997-1998 academic year). follow-up: 7 months after intervention (end of the 1997-1998 academic year) Methods/Setting of Data Collection: paper and pencil tests; location Not reported 

Setting: Location Not 

Duration: one 90-minTheory/Model: Based 

Scarce (1999), which wconducted by Norris, NPremise is that the cognby women during sexuaact as psychological barare associated with projstrategies to sexual aggrand jokingly telling man Since such indirect resiswith completed attacksconsidered to be an impDelivery Mode: Didac

a vignette describing a smembers were asked to response strategies to recompleted assault. The for discussions. Program presented to w30; small group discussiwomen. Compensated with a smCurriculum/Content: following: the prevalenpopulations, the existensex role socialization prsupportive environmenrape emphasizing rape humiliating and degradiaffecting all men and wof sex role socialization 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

men’s and women’s beh

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): situations. Focus was o

- 96% were single issue of stranger rape w- majority were heterosexual - 94% - 48% of the women indicated that they dated men Focused on psychologicasually assault-threatening situa- 37% indicated that they were involved in long-term, monogamous relationships with men Program Implemente- 20% had participated in sexual assault prevention training prior to participation in the initial session Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Sexual Assault Knowledge Survey (SAKS) 

(Breitenbecker and Scarce, 1999): covers such areas as the following: statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault, including acquaintance rape, among college women; the negotiation of consent with regard to sexual behaviors; the legal definition of rape; the percentage of rapes reported to the police; sex role socialization forces that promote a rape-supportive environment; and the existence of rape-supportive myths. Modified - slightly shortened (6 items deleted); 15 items used

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and followup 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: 

Child Sexual Abuse Questionnaire (CSAQ) (Finkelhor 1979) 

- assessed sexual victimization that occurred prior to age14. Eight-item, self-report measure of various childhood 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Overall: the results of the current investigation do not provide support for the effectiveness of the sexual assault education program. The program was not successful in influencing any of the outcome variables measured, including incidence of sexual assault, knowledge about sexual assault, dating behaviors, sexual communication, perception of risk (both to self and to others) of experiencing sexual aggression, resistance strategy, selfblame, disclosure of the experience to a friend or family member, and reporting of the assault to the police or campus security.

 Knowledge: 

SAK: results indicate a significant main effect for time of measurement, such that participants demonstrated better knowledge about sexual assault at the time of the followup session than at the time of the initial session (p<.00). 

The absence of interactions involving Experimental condition and/or Sexual Victimization History indicates that participants’ improvements on this measure were 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 62/85 (73%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 41/60 (68%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- used a number of me- length of follow-up (7 

 Article: 

- clear and well-written Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- modification to survethey retain their psycho- do not know who the 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality sexual abuse experiences. Based on responses, unrelated to participation in the education program or participants were classified into one of four levels of child sexual victimization history.sexual abuse severity.

 Attitudes:

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test 

Victimization: 

Sexual Experiences Survey- Modified: modified version of the SES: (reflects sexual victimization that occurred during Sexual Experiences Survey (SES); modified to make the the 7-month follow-up period) 67% of the women items gender neutral so that they could reflect coercive reported no sexual victimization; 6% reported unwanted sexual experiences between members of the same sex. sexual contact; 15% reported sexual coercion; 9% Original SES developed by Koss et al. (1987). Nine-item reported attempted rape; and 3% reported rape. survey reflects various degrees of sexual victimization and is capable of identifying hidden rape survivors. Loglinear analysis indicated that the best-fitting model Participants were categorized according to the more included one two-way effect: Sexual Victimization History severe level of sexual victimization that they reported. by Sexual Victimization During the Follow-up Period. 

The results of this analysis suggest that women with 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and follow- histories of sexual victimization were more likely to be 

up victimized during the follow-up period than women 

without histories of sexual victimization.; 26% of the 

Perpetration: Not reported women without histories of sexual victimization were 

victimized during the follow-up period while 36% of the 

Time Points of Measurement: women with histories of sexual victimization were 

victimized during the follow-up period. This suggests that 

Other Measures: the sexual assault education program was unsuccessful in 

Demographic survey: assessed such variables as age, reducing the incidence of sexual assault among program race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. participants. Furthermore the (in)effectiveness of the 

program in this regard did not differ as a function of the 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test victimization histories of participants (i.e., there was no 

three-way effect for Sexual Victimization History by 

Previous prevention training: asked if participants had Experimental Condition by Sexual Victimization During previous sexual assault prevention training; yes/no the Follow-Up Period).question

 Perpetration: 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test 

Other Measures: 

Dating Behavior Survey (DBS): designed by Hanson and DBS: Results indicate that there were no statistically Gidycz (1993) to assess the frequency with which reliable effects for this instrument. Thus, participants’ participants engaged in certain behaviors shown in the scores on this measure were unrelated to sexual literature to be associated with acquaintance rape, such as victimization history, participation in the education situational factors (drug and alcohol consumption, program, or time of measurement. isolation of incident site); Likert-type scale. Modified to make the items gender neutral and to omit the phrase “on SCS: Results indicate a significant main effect for time of 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality the first few dates” from all items. measurement, such that participants reported fewer 

instances of perceived sexual miscommunication at the 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and follow- time of the follow-up session than at the time of the initial 

up session (p<.00). However, the absence of interactions 

involving Experimental Condition and/or Sexual 

Sexual Communication Survey (SCS): designed by Victimization History indicates that participants’ Breitenbecher and Gidycz (1998) to assess participants’ improvement on this measure were unrelated to perceptions of the accuracy of their communications with participation in the education program or sexual regard to sexual intentions in a dating situation. Typical victimization history. of the items included in the scale: “do you ever end up having vaginal intercourse with your partner when you RPS: results indicate that there were no statistically reliable don’t really want to, not because you feel forced or effects in either ANOVA. Thus, participants’ perceptions coerced, but because of some other concern (such as of risk of personal experience and others’ experience of wanting your partner to like you or being too sexual aggression were unrelated to sexual victimization embarrassed to talk about it?”); 7-point Likert-type scale. history, participation in the education program, or time of Modified to make the items gender neutral. measurement. 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and follow- Additional assault-related cognitions and behaviors: examined for 

up women who were victimized during the follow-up period 

only (n=63). Results indicate that the treatment and 

Risk Perception Survey (RPS): composed of items control groups did not differ with respect to resistance developed by Norris and colleagues (Norris et al., 1996; strategy, self-blame, disclosure to a friend or family Norris et al., 1997). Two subscales: the personality member, or reporting of the assault to the police or subscale assesses participants’ perceived risk of personal campus security. No participants in either experimental experience of sexual aggression and the Others subscale group reported that they had sought professional which assesses participants’ perceived risk of other’s counseling or crisis intervention services related to an experience of sexual aggression; 7-point Likert-type scale. assault that occurred during the follow-up.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and follow- Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

up 

Other: 

Additional assault-related cognitions and behaviors: included 

questions on resistance strategy, self-blame, disclosure of the experience to a friend or family member, reporting of the assault to the police or campus security, and use of crisis center or professional counseling services. Participants were asked to consider their most serious unwanted sexual experience during the specified period of time (pre-test or follow-up).

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and followup 

E-17
Measures Results 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Quality 

E-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.

Author/s: Earle Title: Acquaintance Rape Workshops: Their Effectiveness in Changing the Attitudes of First Year College Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group design Setting: Not reported 

4 small, private, residential colleges in the Northeast 

Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Not reporte

Study Eligibility Criteria: 

4 colleges were part of a random telephone survey of 50 Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: colleges and universities in the Northeast and were There were 3 treatment groups (1 treatment condition at Literature review providselected based upon the programs they had in place, the each of the 3 colleges). Treatment 1 used a small group the link between attitudtiming of programs, and their willingness to participate in setting, with only men participating, facilitated by peers, rape. However, there ithe study. Individual students participated on voluntary with an interactive format; Treatment 2 used a small i.e. effectiveness of mobasis. group setting, with both men and women participants, in attitudes. Data from first-year male students participating in sexual facilitated by professional staff, in a discussion format; violence prevention programming at the 4 colleges was and Treatment 3 used a large coed group setting Delivery Mode: used. facilitated by a professional, and used a lecture format. Three intervention grouNote: Earle did not implement the program, but utilized group setting, with only data from surveys completed prior to and following Comparison Group Type(s): peers, with an interactivprogramming. First year college males from a different college who small group setting, wit

received no sexual violence prevention program. participants, facilitated 

Population Type: discussion format; and First-year college males Sampling Frame Size: group setting facilitated 

Not reported lecture format. 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Most were 18-19 Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Curriculum/Content: 

17 years - 3.1% 866 students completed a pre- and/or post-test (1213 18 years - 52.4% total surveys completed). 347 completed both the pre- Program Implemente19 years - 32.9% and post-tests and yielded usable data, yielding a Peers for Treatment 1 a20 years - 5.9% completion rate of surveys at 40%. and Treatment 3. 

$21 years - 4.9%

 Sex: 100% male 

(although there were female program participants, only 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Pre and Post= 347 (Tx1=157, tx2=70, tx3=43, and 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

men were included in analysis) control = 77) 

40% participation rate Intervention Retentio

Education: All 1st year college students

 Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

Time Points of Data Collection: The pre-test was completed in the middle of the 1991 fall 

Other: 

semester. One month later 3 of the 4 colleges 

Sexually Active: Not reported implemented a single intervention, and post-tests were 

administered immediately following the program. The 

Victimization: Not reported 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

comparison group took the post-test 1 month after the 

Criminal History: Not reported administration of the pre-test. All 4 groups participated in 

the study at the same time during the academic year. 

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 60.3% 

claimed never to have participated in previous rape Methods/Setting of Data Collection: prevention programming The method of survey administration appears to be paper 

and pencil, but it is Not reported. The pre-test was collected in a residence hall meeting convened by resident assistants. It is not clear where the intervention and the post-test were administered. 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Attitudes Toward Rape Scale (ATR; Barnette and Field, 1977) is a 25-item scale that reflects societal attitudes toward rape (6-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) Attitudes Towards Women Scale Simplified (ATW-S; Nelson, 

1988). This 22-item scale measures attitudes toward rights and roles of women.

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pre-test midway through the 1st semester and the posttest immediately after the intervention. 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

Treatment Group 1 reported significantly different scores from those of the comparison group in terms of AWS-S (from conservative-sexist attitudes to a more liberal attitude about traditional home and work roles of women). 

Treatment Group 1 also had significant differences on the ATR scale regarding ‘Motives for Rape’, with a positive change in attitude. Treatment Group 3 reported significantly less liberal attitudes on the ATR factor ‘Severity of the Crime’ compared to all other groups. 

Victimization: Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 60.3% reported that they had never participated in a previous acquaintance rape prevention program. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 31/85 (36%) Description: 10/25 (40Design: 21/60 (35%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Assesses 3 types of in

group. 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-The type of treatmenaccurate assessment of change. For example, Tgroup size, peer facilitathe effectiveness of thithere would need to be one aspect, such as use For each of the treatmefactors that distinguish allow the researcher frefactor or another. -There is no assessmenbetween the treatment 

 Article: 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality Added to instruments: Attendance/Treatment Completion: -Does not provide eno-Social Security number Attendance was voluntary, but no data were provided. what was done during -Age not know what the pro-Previous participation in an acquaintance rape program. Other: retention rates for each 

Time Points of Measurement:

E-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.

Author/s: Feltey, Ainslie, and Geib Title: Sexual Coercion Attitudes Among High School Students: The Influence of Gender and Rape Education 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Mmid-sized, Midwestern metropolitan area Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: sample generated from Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 45 minutes, 

teachers and students from urban, suburban, and rural high schools who called the local YWCA Rape Crisis Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Study Program to request a speaker on the topic of date rape "experimental" group (n=118) “a subgroup of the gender is a significant dprevention (DRP) sample” that answered survey before and after rape; women are usually 

intervention. perpetrators; female vic

Population Type: high school patriarchal social order 

Comparison Group Type(s): dominance and socializ

Population Characteristics: "control" group (n=260) completed the pretest only. 

Age: 14-19 (mean of 16.5 years) Delivery Mode: lectur

Sampling Frame Size: 

Sex: 65% female; 35% male

 Education: Not reported Race/Ethnicity: 71% white Sexually Active: over half (no exact number given); 

20% have been sexually involved with another person when they did not really want to (involuntarily sexual -68% females, 57% males); 1/3 of subjects that reported unwanted sexual activity had intercourse at least once when they did not want to.

N = 378 (generated from teachers and students from urban, suburban, and rural high schools) Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): N = 378 Post-Test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post: N = 118 Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test: administered to each class a day or 2 prior to intervention 

Curriculum/Content: Study focus: Perceptiounder certain conditionCurriculum content: Gthrough adolescence) abehavior to underscore extension of current sex causes of date rape/sexteenagers. Focuses on of respect for women, (aggression among men, opportunities (i.e. atmo

Victimization: Not reported Post-test: 6 weeks after intervention Program Implemente

the local YWCA Rape C

Criminal History: Not reported Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

Not reported (classroom) Culturally Specific: N

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Paper and pencil questionnaire administered and collected 

59 % Protestant by the researchers Assessment of Expos81% mother in labor force in a traditional, female-dominated occupation Intervention Retentio

E-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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: "A Survey on Sexual Attitudes of Teenagers" 

Demographic characteristics, in/voluntary participation in various levels of sexual activity (4 items), 17 items to elicit attitudes about the acceptability of sexual coercion under specific circumstances (sexual coercion attitude (SCA) situation) 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Knowledge:

 Attitudes: 

Before intervention: Gender strongest significant relationship with each of the dependent variables - confirms assertion that men are more likely than women to support sexually coercive behaviors. Age also significant explanatory variable in all situations except for when female fights back. Older subjects were less likely to support sexually coercive behavior in all situations. After intervention: Sex (gender) was significant only when there is the opportunity for sexual activity to occur (male assumption that female should be sexually available if she goes to his house when his parents aren't home, for example) and for level of relationship (males more likely to find sexual coercion acceptable when couple is in a legal or pre-legal relationship). Respondents who had experienced unwanted sexual activity were more likely to support coercion under the conditions of a woman fighting back and when money is spent on a date. Age was leading significant explanatory variable for blaming attitudes (younger students were more likely to support coercion when behavior of female was called into question. Age was second leading variable when money is spent, there is opportunity, and the level of relationship is considered. Comparing before and after results: Males were far more likely to support coercive behavior for all measures of potential rape circumstances, even controlling for other possible factors before DRP. Substantial decrease in the influence of gender on coercive attitudes after intervention except when there was an opportunity for sexual activity and when there was an established relationship. Age retained its significance as the second leading predictor of attitudes about sexual coercion after the DRP 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 38/85 (45%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 17/60 (28%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

-Uses multivariate analy

 Article: 

-Provides strong ration-Provides thorough disfindings/suggestions fointerventions Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-No comparison group -Not all subjects were o-No long-term follow-uintervention) - Validity of measures n

 Article: 

-No discussion of limit

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

when money is spent, blaming attitudes, opportunity, and relationship. Most significant variable explaining attitudes was unwilling sexual experience. Average scores for each SCA situation substantially decrease after intervention. Conclusions: Intervention decreased the influence of gender on attitudes supporting sexually coercive behavior; age and adolescent sexual experiences may be critical foci for future educational efforts; students that have experienced unwanted sexual activity may need individual counseling. Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Fonow, Richardson, and Wemmerus Title: Feminist Rape Education: Does It Work? 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, OH, Study Design: Randomized comparison group design Setting: The intervent

urban population density. discussion sections in a 

Author-reported: Solomon four-group design 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Enrollment in any of the 14 Duration: 25 minutes 

sections of introductory sociology (Sociology 101) at Intervention Group Type(s): Sociology 101 students OSU. The option not to participate was given. were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Theory/Model: This 

Strategy 1: seeing the video of a live workshop that has found evidence 

Population Type: College students Strategy 2: attending a live workshop. adversarial sexual belief

and the impact of femin

Population Characteristics: Comparison Group Type(s): Sociology 101 students strategies on American 

Age: 88% were 23 years old or younger were randomly assigned to a control group, receiving no 

education (intervention). Delivery Mode: The f

Sex: 319 women (55%), 263 men (45%) video of a live rape-edu

There was no difference in standard demographic or intervention group atte

Education: At least some college education attitudinal data among students enrolled in the different workshop. 

sections (assigned section by registrar; basic education 

Race/Ethnicity: 86% white, 10% black, and 4% other requirement, therefore students represented general Curriculum/Content: 

minorities university population of students that took such courses). contained the same con

fictitious rape scenario, 

Sexually Active: Not reported

 Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 92% 

had never been married; 25% still lived with parents, 46% lived in dormitories, fraternities, or sororities, and 25% lived in their own apartments. 

Sampling Frame Size: N=582 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

582 undergraduates with 100% participation. The total number of individuals retained in the study sample is n=582. Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post-test sample size, n=476 (workshop = 153; video = 149; comparison = 174) Time Points of Data Collection: Students were precritique all the rape myt

they presented statistics incidence of rape on cohome, acquaintance rapand reporting and convcontravene the myths. offered with 6 points (rhumiliates women; rape issue; rape affects all wodiscussion was encouraParticipants in the contand the opportunity to 

tested before receiving intervention, and post-tested 3 at a later date. weeks later. There was one pre-tested group and one nonpre-tested Program Implementegroup for each of the 3 conditions (intervention 1, 2, and were implemented by acontrol). A total of 299 students were pre-tested. workshop facilitator. 

Culturally Specific: N

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: The setting for Assessment of Expos

all data collection was in a classroom. All instruments were self-administered questionnaires. Intervention Retentio

Other: Not reported 

Measures Knowledge: The rape-myth scale contained 9 items that 

were adopted or modified from Burt (1980) about rape vulnerability, who rapes, rape location, the relationship between rapist and the rape survivor, racism, and the reasons for rape.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test and post-test. 

Attitudes: The rape-blame scale contained five items adopted and modified from Resick and Jackson (1981) that measured the extent to which the victim was blamed for her own rape. These items measured the extent to which the respondent believed a woman’s dress, dating habits, drinking, or past sexual history accounted for the rape. 

The adversarial sexual belief scale was a 6-item scale that 

contained measures adopted and modified from Burt (1980). It measured the extent to which heterosexual relationships were viewed as exploitative and the extent to which force and coercion were viewed as legitimate ways to gain compliance in intimate relations. 

The gender-role conservatism scale contained 7 items adopted 

and modified from Burt (1980) that measured the extent to which traditional cultural stereotypes were applied to dating, marriage, careers, and social customs.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test and post-test 

Victimization: Not reported 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Knowledge and Attitudes: 

Pre-test - At pre-test, students disagreed with rape myths more

than agreed with them.

- Women held fewer false beliefs (scored lower on rape

myth scale) than men 

- Despite rejection of some of the myths, almost none of

the students conceptualized rape as a social-control issue.

- Students tended to not blame the victim and to reject

adversarial sexual beliefs.

- Significant gender differences were found with men morelikely than women to accept rape myths, to blame thevictim, to have adversarial sexual beliefs, and to haveconservative gender-role attitudes.- There were significant correlations between the scales. 

Acceptance of rape myths was strongly related to thetendency to blame the victim, to conservative gender-rolebeliefs, and to adversarial sexual beliefs. Post-test 

- There were no interactions between pre-test and the kind

of education intervention given to the students. Thestudents that were pre-tested had fewer false beliefs aboutrape myths than those who were not pre-tested regardlessof type of intervention (video, workshop, no education). The administration of the pre-test served as education initself; effect, although not powerful, was discernable.

- Both educational (video and workshop) significantly

affected students’ knowledge and attitudes about rapemyths. The two types of interventions were equallyeffective. Students who received either intervention hadlower rape-myth scores than the students that were given

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 63/85 (74%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 38/60 (63%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Used 2 interventions assignment. - Controlled for confourandomizing Solomon Stanley, 1963). These ecampus that might senmaturational effects of sensitizing effects of haabout rape attitudes, pofrom using different fastatistical artifacts, loss other forms of bias. - Pre-tested half of samresult of the instrumen

 Article: 

- Provides good descripMajor Weaknesses:

 Study:

 Article: 

- Lacks discussion for capproach. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: no education or just the pre-test. - Did not specifically d

- Type of intervention had significant effect on 3 of 9 sizes. Numbers report

Perpetration: Not reported items on rape-myth scale: interventions increased the - Did not discuss partic

students’ agreement that the rapists know their victims, 

Time Points of Measurement: that rapes are more likely to occur in the victims’ own 

homes, and that rape is a form of social control over 

Other Measures: Not reported women. 

- Neither intervention changed students’ knowledge or 

Time Points of Measurement: attitudes on rates of cross-race rapes although curriculum 

explicitly addressed this. - Gender was not a salient factor in the effectiveness of the education, both men and women learned equally from the interventions. However, the differences found at pre-test continued after the intervention - women continued to have lower rape-myth acceptance scores than men. 

Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: #11 - Foshee, V. A. #12 - Foshee, Linder, Bauman, Langwick, Arriaga, Heath, McMahon, and Bangdiwala #13 - Foshee, Bauman, Arriaga, Helms, Koch, and Linder #14 - Foshee, Bauman, Greene, Koch, Linder and MacDougall #73 - Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Linder, Benefield, and Suchindran Year: #11 - 1998; #12 - 1996; #

Title: (#11) Involving Schools and Communities in Preventing Adolescent Dating Abuse Article 

Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Location: Johnston County, NC; a primarily rural county 

with aprx 82,000 residents. Study Eligibility Criteria: Students enrolled in the 8th 

or 9th grade in 14 public schools on Sept 10, 1994 and 

obtained parental consent Population Type: Middle school/adolescents 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: 12 to 17 years X = 13.9 years Sex: #11 50.4% female, 49.6% male #14 - at one year follow-up, 51.2% female, 48.8% male Education: 8th and 9th grade (numbers Not reported).

 Race/Ethnicity: #11 White - 75.9%, African 

American - 20.2%, Other - 3.9% #14 - at one year follow-up, 19.9% African-American (no further numbers provided)

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: 

#11 - 36.5% of females and 39.4% of men who were 

dating at baseline reported being victimized at least once. 

#14 - reports baseline victimization as 34.3% for dating 

females and 37.2% for dating males. Study 2 (#12) only reports baseline data: 

Study Design: Randomized comparison group design

 Author-reported: #11 - Experimental 

Intervention Group Type(s): (Article # 11, 12, 13) -

Treatment adolescents were exposed to the program’s school and community activities #12 N = 955 #14 - 7 treatment schools #73 - Changed to 2 treatment groups: treatment only and treatment plus booster. Comparison Group Type(s): Control adolescents were 

exposed only to the community activities. #12 N=1,010 Sampling Frame Size: 

#11,12 - 2,434 #13, 14 - 2,344 #73 - 2,342 Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

#11 and #12 - 1,965; 1965/2434 = 81% #13 and #14 - 1886; 1886/2344 = 81% #73 -1885/ 2342 = 80.5% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): #11 - 1 month follow-up = 1,909; 1909/1965=97%

 - 1 year follow-up = 1,892; 1892/1965=96% 

Setting: School and co

Duration: 

School 

1. theater production preported) 2. Ten, 45-minute sessi3. Poster contest - assigintervention Differences in school pimplementation. Some class for 10 days in a rountil 10 sessions were ca week for 10 weeks; anhalf sessions, covering 2 Theory/Model: Chan

improvements in prosobase for primary prevenactivities were expected of dating violence perpassociated with partner stereotyping, and (c) imskills. Changes in norms, gendmanagement skills may in abusive relationships relationships or to stop prevention activities ento seek help by addresswith help seeking. Cognitive factors influe

E-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. - 25.4% and 8.0% of this sample have been victims of nonsexual and sexual dating violence. - Caucasian adolescents reported less victimization of nonsexual dating violence than either African-American adolescents (p<.001) and adolescents in the “other” category (p<.05). There were no differences in sexual dating violence victimization between African-Americans and Caucasians. - Dating girls were more likely than dating boys to report sexual violence victimization (p<.001). #12: - of the dating adolescents, 35.5% (N=499) reported being a victim of at least one nonsexual dating violence act and 10.7% (n=149) reported being a victim of at least one sexual dating violence act. Represents 25.4% and 8.0% of the entire sample (dating and nondating adolescents), respectively, for nonsexual and sexual dating violence victimization. -of the dating adolescents, 19.7% (n=277) reported being a perpetrator of at least one nonsexual dating violence act, and 2.8% (n=39) reported being a perpetrator of at least one sexual dating violence act. This represents 14.0% and 2.0% of the whole sample, respectively, for nonsexual and sexual dating violence perpetration. - No gender differences in nonsexual dating violence victimization (p<.05). Dating girls were significantly 

more likely than dating boys to report perpetration of nonsexual dating violence (p<.001), but dating boys were more likely than dating girds to report sexual dating violence perpetration (p<.001) 

- Caucasian adolescents reported less victimization of 

nonsexual dating violence than either African-adolescents 

(p<.001) or adolescents in the “other” racial group category (.<.05). No differences in this type of victimization between African-American adolescents and adolescents in the “other” racial group category.

 Criminal History: Not reported 

Study Design and Sample 

#12 - 91% completed one month follow-up questionnaires (n=1788?) #13and #14 - 1700; 1700/1886=90% completed 1 month follow-up #14 - 1603/1886=85% completed 1-year follow-up (May 1996) #73 - 48.1% of 8th graders that completed baseline -

N=460 (Analysis sample represents 74.2% of baseline 8th grade 

adolescents whose parents gave consent for continued participation in the study) 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

Baseline - conducted in October 1994post-test - completed in May 1995, 1 month afterprogram activities endedFollow-up 1 - 1 year after post-test (May 1996)Follow-up 2 - 4 years after post-test (8th graders only)

#73 - Booster took place between wave 4 and wave 5 ofdata collection (year 2 and 3) follow-up:

 - 4 weeks after the mailing (wave 4) - 2 years (2 months after booster, wave 5) 

- 4 years (wave 6).

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

Data collection conducted in school through selfadministered questionnaires. Data was collected by mail from school dropouts, transfer students, and students who were absent twice during school data collection. #73 - Health educator made personal contact with the adolescent by telephone. The health educator completed a 10-page protocol to determine if the adolescent read each informational component and completed the worksheets. 

Intervention 

emphasized were belief awareness of communiWeinstein’s (1988) precDelivery Mode: (Scho

play, posters (created th

Incentives: #73 - Adohealth educator determcompleted.Curriculum/Content: School: (primary and s

• Theater production pThe play provided a mofactors influencing help • 10-session “Safe Date

Theoretically-based teasessions/ Issues presen

* defining caring relatio* defining dating abuse* why do people abuse?* how to help friends* helping friends* images of relationship* equal power through * how we feel - how we * sexual assault* summary and poster cCommunity: (secondarimprove resources availdating violence through for adolescents in viole

support groups, materiacommunity service provthe cognitive factors as

#12: crisis-line volunterespond to calls from aof adolescents in abuse at Harbor, Inc. Suppor

E-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.

Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): were initially offered on

#11 - 72% (1,405 of students completing baseline) adolescent victims of dreported that they had been on a date. transportation was prov#11 - 27.8% of the females and 15.0% of the males result these support groreported being perpetrators of partner violence at least support group was offeonce (p< .001). Inc. No transportation #11 - Most males and females reported being victimized greater than before (no by partners in grades higher than those included in the provided). sample. 

#13: Not all students c

#12(reports baseline data): exposed to the message- 14.0% and 2.0% have been perpetrators of nonsexual student was required to and sexual dating violence. her school. - Dating girls were more likely than dating boys to report perpetration of nonsexual dating violence (p<.001). #73: Booster was an 1Dating boys were more likely than dating girls to report adolescents’ homes and sexual dating violence perpetration (p<.001). educator by telephone a- Caucasian adolescents reported significantly less dating mailing. The newsletteviolence perpetration than African-American adolescents worksheets based on co(p<.001). There are no significant differences in curriculum. The health nonsexual dating violence perpetration between questions related to eacadolescents in the Caucasians and “other” categories or provided additional infobetween African-American and the ‘other” categories. followed a 10-page proAdolescents in the “other” category reported more sexual adolescent read each inviolence perpetration than Caucasians (p<.002). completed the workshe#14 - at baseline 69.5% reported dating; at 1-year follow- Program Implementeup, 74.8% of sample reported dating School: 16 teachers (10 

required health courses received 10 hours of tradating violence and the Community: 3-hour wcommunity service prov

emergency room, health line, and health departmsheriff’s deputies, and odepartments in the couwere offered to provide412) of eligible service ptraining. (Service provithey interacted with ado

E-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.

Study Design and Sample Intervention

professional activities.)Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

 #11 - Classroom attenranged from 95% to 97#12 - 3% missed sessio8,or 9; 5% missed sessiIntervention RetentioSafe Dates sessions ranOther: 

Measures 116-item questionnaire, 40 pages long; Scales described in the CDC’s Compendium of Measures (Dahlberg, L.L. et al., 1996) Knowledge: Not reported 

Attitudes: 

#11 - 4 variables measuring dating violence norms were created: 

(a) acceptance of prescribed norms (norms accepting

dating violence under certain circumstances); (b) acceptance of opposing norms (norms considering dating violence unacceptable under all circumstances); (c) perceived positive consequences of dating violence; and 

(d) perceived negative consequences of dating violence. 

Likert-type scale. Composite score created. One item was used to measure acceptance of opposing norms: “hitting a dating partner is never OK.” 

#14 - 3 variables - acceptance of dating violence (8 items), perceived positive sanctions for dating violence (3 items), and perceived negative sanction for using dating violence (3 items). 

Results 

Groups: - Primary prevention subsample - dating adolescents who 

reported at baseline that they had never been a victim or perpetrator of dating violence (N=862). 

- Secondary prevention subsample included adolescents 

who reported at baseline that they had been a victim of dating violence (N=438). 

- Perpetrators in secondary prevention subsample 

included dating adolescents who reported at baseline that they had been a perpetrator of dating violence (N=247). 

Note: (#73)- Only 8th grade students included in this 

analysis (4-year follow-up) since 9th grade students had 

already graduated from high school. 

#73: Of the 460 adolescents, 201 were in the control group, 124 were in the group that only received Safe Dates, and 135 were in the group that received Safe Dates and the Booster.

 • Only statistically significant difference between the 

baseline group and the 4-year follow-up group was gender - significantly more females (p<.01). No significant differences in predicting drop out status 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 77/85 = 91%Description: 25/25 = Design: 52/60 = 87%Major Strengths:

 Study: 

1. Examined dropouts 

significantly related in a and 1-year). 

2. Aprx 35% of classes 

monitored unannounce

3. Examined differenc

groups at baseline (no 

4. Study attrition was l5. 1-year and 4-year fo6. To assess for selecti

the total number of 8th 

questionnaires (73). 7. Extensive formative 

intervention; interventi

8. Intervention focuseprevention combining 

E-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.

Measures #11 Gender stereotyping - 11 items, such as, “swearing is 

worse for a girl than a boy” and “on a date, the boy should be expected to pay all the expenses” 

#11 Beliefs in need for help - 2 items: “teens who are victims 

of dating violence need to get help from others” and “teens who are violent to their dates need to get help from others.”

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post-test, followup 

Victimization: 

#11 - Psychological abuse victimization - measured by asking, 

“How often has anyone that you have ever been on a date with done the following things to you?” Fourteen acts were listed, such as damaged something that belonged to me, insulted me in front of others, did something just to make me jealous; response options ranged from never to very often. 

#11 - Nonsexual violence victimization - measured by asking 

respondents, “How many times has anyone that you have been on a date with done the following things to you? Only include when they did it to you first. In other words, don’t count it if they did it to you in self-defense?” Sixteen behaviors, such as slapped me, kicked me, bit me, were listed; response options ranged from 0 to 10 or more times. 

#11 - Sexual violence victimization - measured by the same 

base question as nonsexual violence victimization (see above) and the two behavioral items, “forced me to have sex” and “forced me to do other sexual things that I did not want to do.” 

Violence in the current relationship: if dating, adolescents were asked “How many times has Partner X ever used any kind of physical force against you that was not used in self-defense?” and “how many times have you used any kind of physical force against Partner X that was not used in self-defense?” Response options ranged from 0 

Results 

among groups. 

Primary Measures:

 #14 Overview of 1-year follow-up: 

- No significant interactions were seen between treatment

condition and baseline characteristics when predicting dropout status by 1-year follow-up.

 - No significant differences between treatment and

control groups on outcome, mediating, or demographic variables in any of the samples. 

- no significant differences between the treatment and

control groups in any of the behavioral outcomes 

- Primary prevention subsample: no significant differences 

were found in any of the mediating variable between treatment and control groups. 

#73 Overview of 4-year follow-up: Safe Dates reduced dating violence as many as 4 years after the program. The booster did not improve the effectiveness of Safe Dates, and in fact, adolescents exposed to Safe Dates and the booster reported significantly more psychological abuse perpetration, and serous physical and sexual victimization at follow-up then those exposed only to Safe Dates when prior involvement in those forms of dating violence was high. Prior behavior moderated some effects. “These findings suggest that implementation of the Safe Dates program to reduce dating violence in indicated but that the booster should not be used.” 

Significant treatment and control group differences were found in the expected direction in physical, serious physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization. Although prior victimization moderated program effects on physical and serious physical victimization, there were statistically significant program effects on those two victimization variables at almost all strata of prior victimization. The program was equally effective for males and females and for whites and nonStudy Quality activities. 9. Gathered data from 

who absent due to illne

 Article: #73 - description of an

Major Weaknesses: Study: 1. Findings may not be geographical area. 2. Reliance on self-rep

dating violence among 

 Article: Appears to be same sam

in each article. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality to 10 or more times. whites. The strongest program effect on perpetration was 

observed for serious victimization and physical 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post-test, follow- victimization for adolescents with prior (wave 1) physical 

up victimization. In comparison to controls, adolescents 

exposed to Safe Dates reported from 56% to 92% less 

Perpetration: dating violence victimization and perpetration at follow-#11 - Psychological abuse perpetration - measured by asking, up. 

“How often have you done the following things to Safe dates did NOT prevent psychological abuse someone you have ever had a date with” The same 14 perpetration or victimization. acts from the psychological abuse victimization (see above) were listed. The booster session did not improve the effectiveness of 

Safe Dates. In fact, adolescents exposed to Safe Dates and 

#11 - Nonsexual violence perpetration - measured by asking the booster session reported significantly more 

“How many times have you ever done the following psychological abuse perpetration and serious physical and things to a person that you have been on a date with. sexual victimization at follow-up than those exposed only Only include when you did it to him or her first. In other Safe Dates, but only when prior involvement in those words, don’t count it if you did it in self-defense.” Same forms of dating violence was high.18 behaviors as sexual violence victimization were used. 

Knowledge:

#11 - Sexual violence perpetration - measured by asking “How many times have you ever done the following Attitudes: things to a person that you have been on a date with. 1-month follow-up Only include when you did it to him or her first. In other #11 - (full sample) treatment group was less supportive of words, don’t count it if you did it in self-defense.” Same dating violence norms 18 behaviors as sexual violence victimization were used. • treatment group was less supportive of prescribed 

dating violence norms, more supportive of opposing 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post-test, follow- dating violence norms, perceived fewer positive 

up consequences from using dating violence, used more 

constructive communication skills and responses to 

Other Measures: anger, and were less likely to gender stereotype 

#11 - 4 conflict management variables: (p<.05) than control group- constructive communication skills: “During the last 6 • In primary prevention subsample - treatment group 

months, when you had a disagreement with someone, were more supportive of opposing dating violence how much of the time did you do the following things?” norms, perceived more negative consequences from Seven items, such as, told the person how I felt, tried to using dating violence, and gender stereotyped less calm down before I talked to them, were included and (p<.05) than control grouprated from 0 for never 3 for most of the time. • In victims subsample - treatment group was less 

accepting of prescribed dating violence norms, less 

- destructive communication skills - Same question as accepting of traditional gender stereotypes, and more 

constructive communication skills (see above); 5 items, aware of victim services (p<.05) than control groupsuch as, hung up the phone on them; refused to talk to • Treatment adolescents in the perpetrators subsample them about the problem. perceived more negative consequences for using 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

- constructive responses to anger - “During the last 6 months, dating violence and were more aware of services for 

when you were angry at someone, how often did you do perpetrators (p<.05) than control group or feel the following things?” Four items, such as I asked someone for advice, told the person I was angry, 1-year follow-up: were scored from 0 for never to 3 for very often. - Victims subsample: treatment group were less accepting Composite score created. of dating violence (p=.03), perceived more negative 

consequences from engaging in dating violence (p=.02), 

- destructive responses to anger - same question as constructive than control group. 

responses to anger (see above). Six items, such as I yelled - Full sample - adolescents in treatment group compared and screamed insults at the person I was mad at, I made with control group were less accepting of dating violence nasty comments about the person to others, were scored (p=.05), and perceived more negative consequences from for never to 3 for very often. Composite score created. engaging in dating violence (p=.02). #11 - Help seeking - victims of dating violence were asked, 

“Have you ever asked anyone what you should do about Victimization: the violence in your dating relationship?” 1-month follow-up 

Perpetrators were asked - “Have you ever asked anyone #11 - no significant differences were found in 

for help on how to stop using violence toward dates?” victimization by psychological abuse, nonsexual violence, 

- perpetrators were asked, “Have you ever asked sexual violence, or violence in the current relationship 

anyone for help on how to stop using violence toward between the treatment and control groups in any of the dates?” samples. (i.e. exposure to Safe Dates did NOT increase 

the likelihood that victims would stop being victimized. 

#11 - Awareness of services - subjects were asked whether Authors explanation: many adolescents dating people who 

they knew of county services for victims and perpetrators were not in the sample - in older grades. May not have of dating violence. been exposed to the intervention.) 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post-test, follow- #73 4-year follow-up: 

up Regression: Safe Dates had a significant main effect on 

sexual victimization (p=.01) but no effect on psychological abuse victimization. Effects of Safe Dates on physical and serious physical victimization were moderated by prior (wave 1) involvement with the behavior (p=.003). The Safe Dates group reported less physical abuse victimization at followup than the control group (p=.002). These differences were statistically significant only when prior physical victimization was average and high and close to significant when there was no prior physical victimization (p=.07). In all three strata of prior serious victimization, adolescents exposed only to Safe Dates reported less victimization from serious dating violence than did adolescents in the control group. These differences were statistically 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

significant when prior physical victimization was average (p=.01)and high (p=.002) and close to significant when there was no prior physical victimization (p=.07). Booster effects on victimization (compared with Safe Dates 

only) - no effects of the booster on psychological abuse 

victimization and the effects of the booster on physical, serious physical and sexual victimization were all moderated by prior (wave 4 - 2 years) victimization. When prior involvement in dating violence was high, adolescents exposed to the booster reported more serious physical and sexual victimization at follow-up than adolescents who received only Safe Dates. 

Booster to control-group comparison - No significant 

differences between the booster and control group in follow-up psychological abuse victimization. Within the strata of prior (wave 4 - 2 years) physical, serious physical, and sexual violence victimization, however the only significant differences in the booster and control groups were in serious victimization when there was no prior serious victimization and sexual victimization when there was no prior sexual victimization. In both cases, those exposed to the booster reported significantly more victimization at follow-up then controls, and in two comparisons the booster group reported significantly less victimization at follow-up than controls.

 Perpetration: 

1-month follow-up 

Full sample: #11 - 25% less psychological abuse perpetration, 60% less 

sexual violence perpetration and 60% less violence perpetration against the current dating partner was reported in treatment schools than in control schools (p<.01) - In Primary prevention subsample, the controlled analysesindicated that the treatment condition was significantly associated with a decrease in the initiation of psychological abuse perpetration Perpetrators Subsample: Perpetrator reported 27% less 

E-35
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

psychological abuse perpetration and 61% less violenceperpetration in treatment schools than in control schools.Schools activities had effects on several proposedmediating variables, with the largest effects being on datingviolence norms, gender stereotyping, and awareness ofservices, the variables targeted most heavily by schoolactivities. Mediation analysis: suggested that the effects of theschool activities on perpetration of violence towardpartners occurred primarily though change in datingviolence norms, gender stereotyping, and awareness ofservices.

4-year follow-up: Only 8th grade students included in this

analysis (4-year follow-up) since 9th grade students had

already graduated from high school.Regression: Adolescents who received only Safe Dates (no

boosters) reported perpetrating significantly less physical(p=.02), serious physical (p=.01), and sexual (p=.04) datingviolence perpetration than those in the control group. Safe Date’s effect on psychological abuse perpetration aremoderated by prior (wave 1) involvement in datingviolence (p=.02). Safe Dates plus booster was notsignificant. Booster effects - The booster did not improve theeffectiveness of Safe Dates in preventing physical, seriousphysical, or sexual dating violence perpetration, and prior (wave 4 - 2 years) involvement in psychological abuseperpetration moderated the effect of the booster onpsychological abuse perpetration.

Perpetration of psychological abuse: 

Differences between means: No significant difference.

Booster effects on perpetration- regression: The booster

did not improve the effectiveness of Safe Dates inpreventing physical, serious physical, or sexual datingviolence perpetration, and prior (wave 4 - 2 years)involvement in psychological abuse perpetrationmoderated the effect of the booster on psychological

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

abuse perpetration. Difference between means: Those adolescents high in 

prior psychological abuse perpetration who were exposed to the booster reported significantly more psychological abuse perpetration at follow-up than those exposed only to Safe Dates. 

No significant differences between the booster and control group in follow-up physical, serious physical or sexual dating violence perpetration. No significant differences between those two groups in follow-up psychological abuse perpetration in any of the strata of prior (wave 4 - 2 years) psychological abuse perpetration, thus there were no situations in which the booster group reported significantly more perpetration at follow-up than controls. Other Measures: 

1-month follow-up: 

#11 (full sample) adolescents in the treatment group weremore aware of victim and perpetrator services (p<.05)than were adolescents in the control group.- victims and perpetrators in treatment group became

significantly more aware of services than controls. 

- no group differences in help-seeking1-year follow-up: 

- Victims subsample: treatment group was more aware of 

victim services than control group (p=.05). 

- full sample - adolescents in trmt group compared withcontrol group were more aware of victim (p=.02) and perpetrator services (p=.02). 1-year follow-up: #14 Full sample: - Perpetrator subsample: trmt group reported using less 

destructive responses to anger (p=.02) than control group.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 

Classroom attendance in Safe Dates sessions ranged from 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

95% to 97%. 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Foubert 

Title: The Longitudinal Effects of a Rape Prevention Program on Fraternity Men’s Attitudes, Behavioral Intent, and Behavior (both same title) 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Mid-Atlantic public university 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Men who were members of 

all 23 fraternities at the university. Fraternities were asked whether they’d be willing to participate in the study. Population Type: College males 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: mean=20.33 years Sex: 100% male Education: April data collection

 3% - 1st year

 41% - 2nd year

 35% - 3rd year

 21% - 4th year

 Race/Ethnicity: (Experimental group)

 91% White

 2% African American 4% Asian American or Pacific Islander 2% Hispanic/Latino/Chicano 1% Other

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not applicable

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not 

reported 

Study Design: Experimental, Solomon-4 Design

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 4 of 8 fraternities that had 

volunteered to participate (n=109) were randomly assigned to intervention group; further random assignment to : 2 fraternities participated in pre- and post-test and follow-up assessments, 2 fraternities participated in post-test and follow-up assessment only (no pretest). Comparison Group Type(s): 4 of 8 fraternities that had 

volunteered to participate (n=108) were randomly assigned to comparison group; further random assignment to: 2 fraternities participated in pre-, posttest, and follow-up assessments, 2 fraternities participated in post-test and follow-up assessment only (no pretest). Sampling Frame Size: 23 fraternities 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

n=217 represents 8 fraternities (256 members total) that volunteered to participate Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Participation Rates): n=145; 66.82% 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

pre-test: immediately before intervention post-test: immediately after intervention follow-up: 7 months post-intervention Note: not clear when control group took pre- and posttest although it was at the same time as the intervention group. That is, did they take the pre- and post-tests an hour apart? Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported 

Setting: Fraternity hou

Duration: Fall semesteTheory/Model: Not r

Delivery Mode: Instru

discussion. Curriculum/Content: Survivor: What Men Can setting a nonconfrontatparticipants would be tato help them assist womexperience. Disclaimerrape definitions. Partica video (produced by thdescribing a rape situatiofficer being raped by 2 video as an act of violenofficer’s experience to trape survivors. Participon how to help a womaalso encouraged to comencounters and to help condone rape. Presentnoted statistics of sexuaProgram Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: None 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale assesses belief in 

rape myths. (Burt, 1980)

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test, 

and follow-up. 

Attitudes: Behavioral Intent to Rape assesses behavioral intent to rape (If you could be assured of not being caught or punished, how likely would you be to rape?”.) Malamuth’s (1981)

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, post-test and 

follow-up 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) asks 

respondents to indicate their most serious level of sexually coercive behavior ranging from coerced fondling to forced intercourse (Koss and Gidycz, 1985)

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, post-test and 

follow-up Note: SES modified for follow-up to reflect the time between pretest and follow-up Other Measures:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Overall: results showed that the program significantly lowered the men’s reported likelihood of raping for an academic year of 7 months. Furthermore, evidence that the program decreased the men’s belief in rape myths over a 7-month academic year was seen. However, the results of this study did not show that those who saw the program behaved differently. 

Statistically equivalent levels of rape myth acceptance were reported on the post-test and the follow-up, regardless of whether participants were pretested (indicating that rape myth acceptance was not affected by pre-testing effects.)

 Knowledge: displaying lower levels of endorsement of 

rape myths at follow-up [F(1, 141)=10.06, p=.001]. 

At both post-test and follow-up, experimental group experienced significant declines in rape myth acceptance.

 Attitudes: At both post-test and follow-up, experimental 

group experienced significant declines in likelihood of raping.

 Perpetration: No significant difference between 

experimental group and control group at follow-up [F(1, 141)=.16, p=.69). Levels of sexually coercive behavior reported by men who saw the program were statistically equivalent to those who did not see the program. 

Other Measures: Significant effects for treatment [F(3,

139) = 4.32, p<.01], for pre-testing [F(3, 139) = 2.75,p<.05].No significant differences for Treatment (times) Pretesting Interaction [F(3, 139) = 1.87, p<.05] - nodifferences reported in post-test or follow-up due to pretesting.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 65/85 (76%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 44/60 (73%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examined test-retest - high (67%) retention - Long-term follow-up

 Article: 

- Discusses strengths o- Provides suggestions Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- One-time intervention- Did not control for d

at pre-test 

E-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.

Author/s: Foubert and Marriot Title: Effects of a Sexual Assault Peer Education Program on Men’s Belief in Rape Myths 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group design Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Male members of fraternity Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 1 hour 

pledge classes that were solicited by their pledge educator and agreed to participate. Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Not r

(N=76) Three pledge classes who agreed to participate assumption is that infor

Population Type: College men and were assigned to the experimental condition personally relevant will 

(attended the program). change.) 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Experimental group M=18.8; Control group Comparison Group Type(s): Delivery Mode: Lectu

M=18.7 (N=38) Two pledge classes who agreed to participate 

were assigned to the control condition Curriculum/Content: 

Sex: 100% male Survivor (Foubert and MEducation: Not reported

 Race/Ethnicity: Experimental - “1 group participant 

was of Native American descent, the remaining experimental group participants were of Caucasian descent.” Control - “One Latino student and two Asian students were in the control group, all others were Caucasian.”

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not 

reported 

Sampling Frame Size: Six fraternity pledge classes were 

solicited for participation. Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

114 Control group: Of the 38 that agreed to participate, 34 completed a pretest (89%) Participation rate Not reported because no sampling frame size provided. Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 77 77/114=68% Experimental Group: 45 (/71) completed follow-up (63% that were pretested) Control group: 32 (/34) completed follow-up (94% that were pretested) Time Points of Data Collection: 

undergraduate peer eduThey defined rape, showraped was graphically dbetween the male victimcommon rape experienassault survivor, encourcommunication during participants to confronof women. Included co

common reactions to ramale-as-victim scenarioThe program title is a thpurposefully used to adthat men will enter with hopefully be more likely personally relevant, and attitude change. Issues workshops are covered Program Implemente

Prior to the intervention (pre-test), immediately following peer educators. the intervention (post-test), and approximately 2 months post-intervention (follow-up post-test). Control group Culturally Specific: Ncompleted the questionnaire twice, 1 month apart. Due to scheduling difficulties, the time elapsed between Assessment of Expostesting occasions for the experimental and control groups 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

differed. Intervention RetentioAll administrations occurred during the Spring 1995 the 76 that agreed to pasemester. (93%). Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported Other: 

Manual on how to train program is available fro

Measures Knowledge: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt, 1980) - 19 

items measuring extent respondents endorse beliefs such as “A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex.”; 7-point Likert scale

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test, 

and follow-up post-test. Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Experimental participants were asked whether seeing the program changed their likelihood of being sexually coercive.

 Time Points of Measurement: Not reported (assume 

post) 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Prior to the program, experimental group 

on average, disagreed with rape myths. After seeing the program, belief in rape myths sharply declined and this decrease was statistically significant. Approximately 2 months later, rape myth acceptance rose moderately. Although rape myth acceptance was significantly higher at follow-up post-test than at post-test, they still remained significantly lower at follow-up post-test than they did at pre-test. 

The pre-test means of the control and experimental group did not significantly differ. Rape myth belief was significantly lower among the experimental group at follow-up post-test than that of the control group at pretest. In addition, rape myth belief among program participants was significantly lower at post-program test than both the control group pre-test and the control group follow-up post-test. Rape myth belief in the control group unexpectedly declined on the follow-up post-test. Although program participants believed in fewer rape myths than the control group at the follow-up post-test, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Other Measures: After viewing program, 59% of participants reported that they were less likely to do something sexual with a woman that she did not want to happen. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 43/85 (51%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 24/60 (40%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

Conducted longer-term intervention).

 Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- No random selection - No assessment of gro- Different timing of f

experimental group (coeffects in the control gr

- One-time interventio

E-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.

Author/s: Foubert and McEwen Title: An All-Male Rape Prevention Peer Education Program: Decreasing Fraternity Men’s Behavioral Intent to Rape Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large, mid-Atlantic, public university Study Design: Setting: Fall semester 

Randomized comparison group houses. 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Members of 6 participating 

fraternities Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 1 hour Population Type: College men Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Elabo

Group 1: Two fraternities at a large, mid-Atlantic, public (ELM)(Petty and Cacio

Population Characteristics: university were randomly assigned to the pretested are motivated and able 

Age: M=19.9 experimental group (n=59). presented as personally 

would process the infor

Sex: 100% male Group 2: Two fraternities (at the same university) were processing. Central rou

assigned to the un-pretested experimental group (n=50). characterized by the tho

Education: 12% freshman, 42% sophomores, 25% being presented. In ma

juniors, 21% seniors Comparison Group Type(s): processing is described 

Two fraternities were assigned to the control group change, predicting later 

Race/Ethnicity: 88% White, 1% African-American, 

1% Asian American, 5% Hispanic/Latino, and 1% Other

(n=46). Participants completed the consent form, the RMA and a question measuring behavioral intent to rape 

leading towards more rarguments in subsequen

during a fraternity meeting. interventions designed 

Sexually Active: Not reported were more apt to be su

Sampling Frame Size: N = 207 central route processing

Victimization: Not reported

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Delivery Mode: Lectu

Criminal History: Not reported n=155; 75% Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): According to text, baseline n for all groups = 155 

Curriculum/Content: Survivor: What Men Can 

Participation rate = Not Applicable (because no sampling basic review of rape defframe reported). describes a male police 

After viewing the video

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and violence and draw paralParticipation Rates): For pretested experimental group, survivors. Then men w

text reports (n=59) 97%, however baseline n=59. help a woman recover fUn-pretested experimental group and control group only encouraged to communassessed at one point in time, so participation rate/follow- encounters and to help up sample sizes not applicable. condone rape. Followe

(same program as 16). and Marriott, 1996) 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

For pretested experimental group , immediately prior to the intervention and immediately after the intervention. Program Implemente

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

For the un-pretested experimental group, immediately a fraternity president) following the intervention. For the control group, assessment was conducted during Culturally Specific: Na fraternity meeting. 

Assessment of Expos

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: script followed by faciliData collection took place in each fraternity’s respective fraternity house. Intervention Retentio

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) (Burt, 1980) 

is a 19-item scale that measures the extent to which respondents endorse belief in rape myths. 7-point, Likert-type scale

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test 

Behavioral Intent to Rape (Malamuth, 1981) consists of one question asked of men: “If you could be assured of not being caught or punished, how likely would you be to rape?”

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test 

Note: the un-pretested group did not take the RMA or 

the Behavioral Intent to Rape as a pretest Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Attitudes: RMA scores significantly declined from pretest to post-test among the pre-tested experimental group 

(p<.0001). Post-program RMA significantly lower than 

untreated control group (p<.05). 

Same results were found for Behavioral Intent to Rape scores 

between pre-test and post-test (p<.01).. However, postprogram Behavioral Intent to Rape scores did not 

significantly differ from the untreated control group, although the untreated control group had slightly lower (not significant) scores than the pre-tested experimental group. 

Pretesting had no effect on the Behavioral Intent to Rape scale or the RMA scale. Both groups were statistically equivalent on both measures.

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Lower RMA scores (desired direction) were associated with higher scores on the State Measure of Central Route 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 66/85 (78%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 41/60 (68%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examines effects of pand changes to behavio- Use of ELM as a basiassessment of effect.-Measured differences Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Not generalizable to aCaucasian men in frate- No long-term follow-- Although article state

assigned to conditions, assignment since grouppretested experimentalcontrol group. 

Article: 

- Reports contradicting pretested experimental test, but participation r

E-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.

Measures Other Measures: State Measure of Central Route Processing 

(Gilbert et al., 1991) consists of 7 questions assessing how motivated they were to hear the message, whether they were able to understand the material, and how favorable their thoughts were toward the message. 17-point scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Demographic questionnaire asked respondents to report their race, year in school, and age.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test (pre-tested 

experimental group only - see article weaknesses) 

Results Study Quality 

Processing. - Reports time points 

demographics form inc

Lower Behavioral Intent to Rape scores were associated with differences among grou

higher scores on the State Measure of Central Route Processing. no differences. But wh

indicates that only the p

Demographic questionnaire - see above in “Population asked to complete the dcharacteristics”

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Frazier, Valtinson, and Candell Title: Evaluation of a Coeducational Interactive Rape Prevention Program 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: large Midwestern university Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: must be member of a Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 2 hours 

participating fraternity or sorority recruited for participation through staff advisor Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: behav

Male fraternity members and female sorority members; included modeling com

Population Type: college assignments to groups made based on the time availability 

of their organization Delivery Mode: intera

Population Characteristics: dramatization, audience 

Age: 19-27 years; M=21 Comparison Group Type(s): resources presented to 

Male fraternity members and female sorority members; 

Sex: 75 male (30 control; 45 intervention) = 40% assignments to groups made based on the time availability Curriculum/Content: 

117 female (54 control; 63 intervention) = 60% of their organization Intervention based on p

University using improv

Education: 21% freshmen; 29% sophomores; 29% Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

juniors; 21% seniors 

Race/Ethnicity: 97% Caucasian

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

total - 192 

Content: Intro given b

presentation of dramatimale and female actors

Sexually Active: Not reported

 Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

63% reported family income of $60,000 or greater 

Intervention - 108 [63 females; 45 males] (participation rate: 62% (67) intervention) Comparison - 84 [54 females; 30 males] (participation rate: 70% (59) comparison ) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 180(/192) completed pretest - 94% of total sample 104(/108) (96%) - intervention group 76(/84) (90%) - comparison group 

for feedback on how thhow the characters couprevent the rape; actors while still in character; previous scene with audwithout a rape occurrininformation on universand treatment Program goals: Decrea

both men and women t

107(/180) completed post-test [59% participation rate particular focus on encooverall (pre to post); 51 (49%) intervention; 56 (74%) between men and womcomparison] safety precautions for w89(/180) completed follow-up [49% participation rate Program Implementeoverall (pre to follow-up); 50 (48%) intervention; 39 facilitated program; ma(51%) comparison] department presented dTime Points of Data Collection: Culturally Specific: repretest - 1 week prior to program incorporated 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

post-test - immediately following intervention (intervention); same day as intervention (comparison) follow-up - 1 month after intervention (both groups) 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 3 researcher-administered questionnaires at all time points; subjective evaluations at post-test and follow-up 

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

However, author reporgroup members) that topost-test Other: 

pretest: - at sorority/fraternity houses 

post-test: - Not reported 

follow-up: at sorority/fraternity houses 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Attitudes toward sexual behavior (Vignette, then 15 items,Likert scale) Bechhofer (1990); assesses attitudes towardmale and female behaviors in a sexual encounterGender role beliefs (24 items, 3 scales)Burt (1980) measures of gender-role stereotyping (9),adversarial sexual beliefs (9), and sexual conservatism (6of10) utilizing Likert scale responsesAttitudes toward dating behavior (12 items)Designed by authors; assessed attitudes toward datingbehaviors specifically addressed in the intervention: equality and respect between men and women (4),support for assertive female communication (4), and theneed for women to use safety precautions in datingsituations (4)

 Time Points of Measurement: 

pretest; post-test, follow-up 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

• No difference between groups at pretest • At post-test, significant differences between 

intervention and comparison groups on all 3 measures 

• Intervention group endorsed less stereotypical and 

rape-supportive beliefs and attitudes. 

• Changes no longer significant at 1-month follow-up

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Intervening variables: • Group membership was only significant in predicting 

change in pretest to post-test scores on one measure (Attitudes toward dating behavior) 

• Group membership did not predict change in pretest 

to follow-up on any of the measures 

Program evaluations: overall positive. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 40/85 (47%)Description: 21/25 (84Design: 19/60 (32%)

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Used previous researcprevention intervention 

Article: 

- Good recommendatio- Good review of relevprogram evaluations an- Practical resource for 

implement/improve racampuses 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- High study attrition, t

not do multivariate anaperiods at once; had to dependent variables sep

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality Victimization:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Program evaluation - how much they learned and satisfaction utilizing Likert scale and open-ended responses.

 Time Points of Measurement: 

post-test and follow-up (intervention group only) 

• • • • • 

Most said they would recommend the program to 

others at 1-month follow-up. 

All reported learning something at post-test but 15% 

reported learning “nothing” at follow-up. 

Participants liked audience participation; thought play 

and acting were very good. 

Women reported learning to be more assertive and to 

be careful. 

Men reported learning that they should be responsible 

for their behavior and state what they want in a straightforward manner and that it was important to learn how rape affects women.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

- no random assignmen- Brief, one-time interv- low reliability of Attit

 Article: 

- Did not report interv- Did not give explanatdid not take pretest or retention rate (192 totatook pretest and numbfollowing) - No description of any - No description of how sororities) were recruite

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Gidycz, Layman, Rich, Crothers, Gylys, Matorin, and Jacobs Title: An Evaluation of an Acquaintance Rape Prevention Program 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: large university in Ohio Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Not reported Author-reported: Not reported Duration: approximat

one-time intervention 

Population Type: college Intervention Group Type(s): College students from a 

large university in Ohio. Theory/Model: Not 

Population Characteristics: utilizing social learning 

Age: 82% between the ages of 18 and 19 Comparison Group Type(s): College students from 1998 - same prevention 

Ohio who participated in a program that consisted of a investigate prospectivel

Sex: 300 males (27%); 808 females (73%) brief handout on sexual assault. perpetration and currenEducation: Not reported Sampling Frame Size: Not reported Delivery Mode: prese

Myths and Facts Works

Race/Ethnicity: 93% Caucasian; 5% African Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Comparison program: 

American; 1.3% Asian; 0.6% Hispanic; 0.1% Native 1,136 total participants American

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not 

reported 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 1,108 completed both parts of study (To be included, participants needed to attend both sessions) (participation rate: 97%) Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest - beginning of an academic quarter prior to the intervention for both groups Post-test - 9 weeks after intervention Program evaluation administered after program delivery to both intervention and control groups Data was collected over five academic quarters (approximately throughout a 2-year period) Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported 

Curriculum/Content: statistics on prevalence popular myths and factidentify behavior characexhibited by rapists, incdescribe techniques thapersonal safety and to davoid situations that co(e) identify community that assist victims of sexStatistics about pervasivcampuses and state legaparticipants then compWorksheet in which thewere either myth or facbehavioral characteristioffenders were identifieacquaintance rape situaawareness. The importemphasized. Techniquagencies assisting victimprovided with guidelinelead to rape. 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Comparison program: Program Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) (Burt, 1980), 11 items, assesses the degree to which participants endorsed rape myths

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test 

Rape Empathy Scale (RES) (Deitz and Byrnes, 1981), 19 items, assesses the degree to which participants empathized with either rape victims or the offenders

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test 

Attitudes Toward Women Scale (ATWS) (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1973), 25 items, assesses participants' attitudes regarding the rights and roles of women

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test 

Victimization: The Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss and Oros, 1982), 10 items, assess experiences of sexual aggression in men and 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge:

 Attitudes: 

(Group x Sex x Time) RES and ATWS: 

- Main effect for sex: women evidenced more empathy 

toward victims than men and more liberal attitudes toward women than men 

- No main effect for group nor any of the interactions 

were significant RMAS: 

- Main effect for sex and group: intervention group 

showed less rape myth acceptance at follow-up than comparison and men had more RM acceptance than women (Group x Perpetration History x Time) None of the interactions between past perpetration (or past victimization) and attitude change were significant 

Victimization: 

No significant difference in victimization rates due to group membership at end of quarter due to group membership for women who were raped in adolescence, had moderate victimization experiences in adolescence, or who had no victimization history 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 59/85 (69%)Description: 16/25 (64Design: 43/60 (72%)

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- large sample - Replication of Pinzo- Prospectively investigperpetration and currenMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Randomization of gr

method Not reported 

- Attempted to duplicastudy but methodology previous study, participstudy and therefore madesirably manner; and cthat in present study thassault unlike previous exposure to issue of setransmitted diseases pr

group. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality sexual victimization in women Percent of subjects victimized during quarter: 

(pretest - participants asked whether they had - Women with history of rape: 31% comp; 42% Article: 

experienced any of the items from the age of 14 until the intervention - Table 2 unclear; show

present time; post-test - participants were asked whether - Women with history of moderate victimization: 34% the total sample size re

they had experienced any of the items since the first time comp; 35% intervention - No description of set

they filled out the survey) - Women without history: 7% comp; 8% intervention

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest, post-test Perpetration: 

Men that reported history of perpetration at pretest were 

Perpetration: more likely to indicate at post-test that they had 

The Sexual Experiences Survey (see victimization, above) perpetrated sexually aggressive acts during quarter

Percent of subjects that perpetrated during quarter:

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test - Men that had previously committed rape: 17% 

- Men that had perpetrated a sexual assault other than 

Other Measures: rape: 15% 

Program evaluation form - Men without history: 6%

(Discussion) Men who reported a history of sexually

Time Points of Measurement: aggressive behavior were about 3 times more likely to 

Once - after both intervention and comparison group commit another assault than men without history. programs - no significant interaction between group membership

and perpetration - program participation is not related to perpetration during quarter. Other Measures: 

Both males and females gave more positive ratings to items that assessed how much they had learned, how much they attended to, and how helpful they perceived the program to be. They gave low ratings (not as positive) to questions that asked them about how much of the information applied specifically to them and how great their risk was either to be victimized during the course of the quarter or to perpetrate sexually aggressive acts.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: Disproportionate number of women who had 

experienced moderate sexual victimization in adolescence were in the experimental group

E-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.

Author/s: Gidycz, Rich, Loh, Lynn, Blackwell, and Stafford Title: The Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program: A Multisite Investigation 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two large universities Study Design: Experimental design Setting: Not reported 

held “at these two univ

Study Eligibility Criteria: Women from introductory Author-reported: Random assignment of participants 

psychology classes. “These women were chosen b/c they to either the risk reduction program or control group. Duration: 3- hour, onare representative of the student population and most are in the age group of individuals at the highest risk for Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: The ssexual assault.” Participants were randomly assigned to the risk reduction model emphasizing the 

program (n=395) or the control group (n=357) and coping by incorpor

Population Type: Female university students discussions. 

Comparison Group Type(s): 

Population Characteristics: Participants were randomly assigned to the risk reduction They also incorporated 

Age: program (n=395) or the control group (n=357) likelihood model (ELM

Site A Site B the health belief model 

Years 18 74% 72.9% Sampling Frame Size: Not reported with ELM, the program 

19 16.5% 16.7% route processing by inc20 5.6% 5.1% personal relevance of th21 2.3% 2.4% Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): motivating them to acti

over 21 .9% 1.3% 762 (Not reported) 

The health belief mode

Sex: 100% female Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and saliency by suggesting t

Participation Rates): taking action is a functi

Education: Site A Site B 2 month 752 (98%) or her perceived vulner

Freshmen 81.2% 71.9% 6 month 532 (80%) threat and the individua

Sophomore 14.7% 18.3% overcome the threat. Junior 3.3% 3.2% Time Points of Data Collection: Senior .9% 3.5% Pretest, 2-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up Delivery Mode: 

Multimedia interactive p

Race/Ethnicity: Methods/Setting of Data Collection: didactic presentation, fo

Site A Site B Participants filled out a pretest before the intervention plays, and concluded w

Caucasian 93.7% 64% and at 2 month and 6 month follow-ups they completed Afr Amer 3.0% 5.1% outcome measures again. Curriculum/Content: Hispanic 1.9% 6.3% Ohio Sexual Assault ReAsian or PI 1.2% 24.4% -Didactic information oNative Amer .2% .3% statistics, 

(or Alaska Native) -Videos: “I Thought It 

series of interviews with 

Sexually Active: Not reported and risk factors are high

“Sexual Assault Risk Fa

Victimization: Not reported a date rape scenario and 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Criminal History: Not reported -Role plays: model pro

been used in the date ra

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): -Handout and discussio

Site A Site B and resistance strategies 

Marital Status discussion groups 

Single 99.4% 99.5%

 Married .2 .3 Program Implemente

Separated 0 0 Female graduate studenDivorced .2 .3 supervision from the pr

implementation. 

Religious Affiliation

 Catholic 43.2% 36.0% Culturally Specific: N

Protestant 19.7 11.2

 Jewish 2.8 22.7 Assessment of Expos

Other 23.2 16.5

 None 11.1 13.6 Intervention Retentio

Family Income Other: 

<$15,000 3.0% 9.8% Fidelity: 20% of the p

$15,001-$25,000 6.0 10.1 rated by 2 graduate stud$25,001-$35,000 14.4 13.6 reflected fidelity to the $35,001-$50,000 22.1 19.9 indicated that leaders at Over $50,000 54.4 46.6 fidelity criteria for both 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

The Rape Empathy Scale (Deitz and Byrnes, 1981): 19-item scale used to assess the degree to which participants empathized with either the rape victim or the offender

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pretest, 2 months, and 6 months 

Victimization: The Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss and Oros, 1982): assessed sexual victimization history and victimizations during the follow-up periods. 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

For the Rape Empathy Scale, there was a time by group 

interaction. (p<.001). Control: Results revealed that for the control group, women who were without a victimization experience during the 2-month follow-up period had been more empathic at the beginning of the study than were women who were either moderately or severely victimized during the 2-month follow-up period. Women moderately or 

severely victimized during the 2-month follow-up were more empathic at 2- and 6-month follow-ups than they had been at the beginning of the study. No significant 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 74/85 (87%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 53/60 (88%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

-Theoretical basis -2 follow-up time poin- measured differences 

pretest variables)

 Article: 

-Good description of inunderpinning 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

differences were found for moderately or severely Major Weaknesses:

See other measures for additional questions. victimized control group women between 2- and 6-month Study: 

follow-ups. -One-time presentation 

Time Points of Measurement: Experimental: Women with severe victimization at 2-

Pretest, 2 months, and 6 months month follow-up, were less empathic at the 2- and 6-

month follow-ups than they had been at the beginning of 

Perpetration: Not reported the study, but they were more empathic at the 6-month 

follow-up than they had been at the 2-month follow-up. 

Time Points of Measurement: Severely victimized women at the 2-month follow-up were 

less empathic at the time of the 2-month follow-up 

Other Measures: assessment than were women with moderate or no 

The Dating Behavior Survey (Hanson and Gidycz, 1993): victimization during the 2-month follow-up period. At 6-assessed the frequency with which participants engaged in month follow-up there were no significant differences certain dating behaviors shown in the literature to be between severely and moderately victimized women in the associated with acquaintance rape. experimental group.Four items from the Sexual Communication Survey (Hanson Victimization: 

and Gidycz, 1993): measured participants’ perceptions of At 2 month follow-up 18% of experimental group and the accuracy of their communication in a dating situation. 21% of the control group were victimized. Those with victimization were asked to rate 2 additional At 2-month follow-up, no significant interaction was items concerning the extent to which they felt that they found between treatment condition and victimization or the offender were responsible for the assault. suggesting that the program was not effective in 

decreasing a woman’s chances of being sexually assaulted 

Program Assessment: 12 items assessing central processing following the initial follow-up period. and peripheral processing of the information presented (source not provided). At 6 month follow-up, there was a 3-way interaction 

between victimization during the 2-month follow-up, 

Time Points of Measurement: victimization during the 6-month follow-up, and treatment 

2 months, and 6 months condition, indicating that the relationship between 

treatment condition and victimization during the 6-month follow-up period was dependent on victimization status during the 2-month follow-up period. Of the women who were moderately victimized during the month follow-up period, approximately 70% of the control group women and 30% of the risk reduction group women were revictimized during the 6-month follow-up period. A significant 2-way interaction indicated that approximately 11% of women w/o a history of adolescent sexual victimization were victimized during the 6-month follow-up period, whereas 38% and 42% of women with 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

histories of moderate or severe victimization experiences, respectively were victimized during the 6-month follow-up period.

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: There were no significant main or interaction effects for the Dating Behavior Survey and the items from the Sexual 

Communication Survey. 

T-test indicated no differences in self or offender blame for women victimized during the study in either control or experimental groups. Perception of the program and sexual victimization: Bivariate analysis and odds ratios controlling for past victimization indicated for the 2-month follow-up data, participants who indicated that they learned more from the program and found the facilitators to be more helpful and interested had lower odds of being victimized than did participants who reported less positive ratings on these items. At 6-month follow-up, participants who found the facilitators to be more helpful and interested and who expressed a greater interest in the rape survivor video had lower odds of being victimized than did participants who reported less positive ratings on these items.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Authors: Hanson and Gidycz Title: Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Prevention Program Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: a large University Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Women from undergraduate Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Not reporte

psychology courses 

Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Not r

Population Type: College 181 (completed both pre and post-test) Women from 

undergraduate psychology courses who were awarded Delivery Mode: Lectu

Population Characteristics: bonus points towards their introductory psychology 

Age: 85% 18-19, 11% 20-21, 4% 22+ course grade for participation. Women participated in Incentives: participati

sexual assault prevention program. points towards their int

Sex: 100% female grade for participation. 

Comparison Group Type(s): 165 (completed both pre 

Education: 73% freshmEn, 21% sophomores, 4% and post-test) Women from undergraduate psychology Curriculum/Content: 

juniors, 1% seniors courses who were awarded bonus points towards their about the pervasiveness 

Race/Ethnicity: 94% White, 4% Black, 1% Hispanic, 

1% Asian or Pacific Islander

introductory psychology course grade for participation. Women completed outcome measures at the beginning of the academic quarter with the experimental group and at 

campuses. After the prRape Myths and Facts Wocomplete it. After com

the end of the end of the quarter (9 weeks later). viewed a video depictin

Sexually Active: Not reported acquaintance rape that Victimization: Not reported for entire sample. See 

below for additional info.

 Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

37% Catholic 26% Protestant

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

360 Participation rate not available because sampling frame Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 346 

(developed by K. HansCornell University Audcontents reflected certabeen found to be relatethe viewing of the videoquestions about possiblhave been helpful in avrape. After the discussisecond video (with the 

3% Jewish 346/360 = 96% modeled the possible p

25% Other 181 intervention; 165 comparison discussion of these pro10% None given the Preventive St

Time Points of Data Collection: (adapted from Warshaw

Family Income: below $15,000 - 4% At the beginning of the 10-week academic quarter and 9 for questions. On com$15,001 – $25,000 - 9% weeks later at the end of the academic quarter. given the names of loca$25,001 – $35,000 - 16%, additional information $35,001 – $50,000 - 27% Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Women assistance if needed. 

greater than $50,000 - 44% completed the outcome measures in groups of 

approximately 20 subjects. Program Implemente

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: An initial pilot 76 college women to asdegree of comfort that prevention program. Mmade based on their fee

Measures Knowledge: Sexual Communication Survey designed by the 

authors to assess the subjects perceptions of their own accuracy and clarity of communication regarding sexual intentions in a dating situation.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Sexual Assault Awareness Survey designed by the authors to assess the subjects’ general level of awareness of sexual assault as well as the accuracy of this information.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (Koss and 

Gidycz, 1985) 10-item self-report measure designed to reflect various degrees of sexual victimization; used to 

assess subjects’ victimization history as well as whether subjects who participated in the prevention program were less likely to be victimized over the 9-week period than subjects in the control group. The first time subjects filled out the SES they were asked they had experienced any of the victimization items after the age of 14 and before their participation in the study. At post-test, they 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Control and treatment groups did not 

differ significantly at post-test in regard to the Sexual 

Communication Survey 

Control and treatment group differed significantly with respect to knowledge regarding the problem of sexual assault at post test (p< .01), suggesting that the treatment group possessed better overall awareness regarding sexual assault than did the control at post test (as evidenced through the Sexual Assault Awareness Survey).

 Attitudes: 

Victimization: Regardless of condition, women with a 

history of sexual victimization were much more likely to report a victimization experience during the course of the quarter than were women without such a history (p< .01) (27% with history vs. 10% without history). 

A significant 3-way interaction between victimization history, experimental condition, and victimization during the course was significant (p< .05). No history treatment was compared to No history control: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 51/85 (60%) Description: 17/25 (68Design: 34/60 (57%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

– Examines effect of p

victimization. 

– Is first research attem

acquaintance rape prevbehaviors, including in

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

– Majority of measures – Reliability of author-d

communication in acquresults may reflect diffithan ineffectiveness of 

– Generalizability is lim– Reliance on self-repo

 Article: 

- Intervention not well duration. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality were asked whether they had experienced any of the Significant difference between treatment and control was sexual victimization items during the course of the found (p< .05) for subjects without a history of quarter. victimization. Subjects in the treatment condition 

reported fewer instances of sexual assault during the 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test course of the quarter than did subjects without a history of 

victimization in the control condition (6% vs. 14%), 

Perpetration: Not reported suggesting that the prevention program was effective in 

reducing the incidence of sexual assault among subjects 

Time Points of Measurement: who had not been victimized before their participation in 

this study. 

Other Measures: Dating behavior survey designed by the 

authors to assess situational variables that have been Moderate victimization treatment was compared to found to be related to acquaintance rape. Moderate victimization control; severe victimization 

treatment was compared to Severe victimization control: 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test Subjects with a history of moderate or severe victimization 

in the treatment condition did not significantly differ in instances of sexual assault during the course of the quarter than did subjects with a history of moderate or severe victimization in the control condition. These data suggest that the program was not effective in reducing the incidence of sexual assault among subjects who had experienced a moderate sexual victimization or who had been victims of a severe sexual assault before participation in the study. Perpetration: Other Measures: Dating Behavior Survey - The treatment 

and control groups differed significantly at post test (p< .05), suggesting that subjects in the treatment group reported experiencing fewer situational factors associated with acquaintance rape during the course of the quarter than did subjects in the control group (M=49.54 vs. M=50.98)

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Heppner, Humphrey, Hillenbrand-Gunn, and DeBord Title: The Differential Effects of Rape Prevention Programming on Attitudes, Behavior, and Knowledge 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: large Midwestern public university Study Design: Randomized comparison Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: students enrolled in Author-reported: Not reported Duration: both experi

introductory psychology class that consented to control intervention eacparticipation Intervention Group Type(s): presented one time. 

Didactic-video: 79 (36 female, 43 male) students 

Population Type: college Interactive drama: 85 (46 female; 39 male) students Theory/Model: Elabo

The ELM conceptualiz

Population Characteristics: Comparison Group Type(s): with the anchors being 

Age: mean 18.5 years 94 (44 female; 50 male) students the central route proces

The model suggests tha

Sex: 50% female; 50% male (author reported) Sampling Frame Size: Not reported hear a message and feel 

intervention: 126 female; 132 male: or the level is inapprop

video: 36 female, 43 male Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): to attend to peripheral interactive drama: 46 female; 39 male 294 (cannot determine overall participation rate of message, resulting in oncontrol: 44 female; 50 male students from sampling frame since the sampling frame is central route attitude ch

Not reported) thoughtfully evaluating 

Education: Not reported be good and the level to 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and to listen to the message

Race/Ethnicity: 93% Caucasian; 2% African Participation Rates): and subsequently demo

American; 2% Hispanic, Puerto Rican, or Mexican Post-test and initial follow-up: 258 (88%) change. American; 2% Asian American/Pacific Islander Behavioral check: 189 (73%) 

5 month follow-up: 133 (52%) Delivery Mode: 

Sexually Active: Not reported Interactive drama: imp

Time Points of Data Collection: participation 

Victimization: Not reported Pretest: 5-7 days prior to the intervention Didactic-video: presen

Post-test: immediately following the intervention) answer session 

Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

99% heterosexual; 1% bisexual, homosexual, or other 

Initial follow-up: 5 weeks after pretest Behavioral check via telephone: 4 months after pretest Follow-up: 5 months and 1 week after pretest Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Pretest, post-test, and follow-ups: Researcher administered inventories/Setting Not reported Behavioral check: telephone protocol 

Control: stress manage

Incentives: Participanfulfilled course requiremfirst 3 parts of the study participation in the 5-mCurriculum/Content: Interactive drama: (Gib

Specifically designed to intervention more persoportrayal of a very typic

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

situations presented via scene portrays a date thremain in character, audrewrites the script by giSecond scene is performto avoid the occurrence performance, facilitatorin didactic-video intervDidactic-video: designe

psychoeducational rape (a) didactic material on 

statistics, myths, gender and campus resources; question and answer seControl: stress manage

helping participants mainformation on how to cognitive and behaviora

Incentives: Participanfulfilled course requiremfirst 3 parts of the study participation in the 5-mProgram ImplementeInteractive drama: The 

female second-year docpsychology who were aViolence Program at a lhad been involved in raThe actors were paid prDidactic-video: male an

students in psychology the Rape Education offuniversity involved in rControl: male 2nd-year 

master’s student in couNo significant differencpresenters were found wdone using the CRF to 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) - (Burt, 1980) 19 items

designed to measure general acceptance of rape myths. 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 5-

week follow-up, 5-month follow-up 

The Comprehension of Consent/Coercion Measure (CCC) (Gibson and Humphrey, 1993) designed to assess the ability of participants to recognize situations in which a person is coerced, or conversely, provided consent to engage in sex. 2 scenarios of dates are evaluated by participants through 5 questions moderate reliability.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 5-

week follow-up, 5-month follow-up 

Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA)

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 5-

week follow-up, 5-month follow-up 

ELM Questionnaire (researcher constructed) designed to assess components necessary for central route attitude change to occur; Measures (a) the dimensions of motivation to thoughtfully hear and evaluate the message, (b) ability to think about and understand the message,

and (c) favorable thoughts about the quality of info presented; 12 items (validity, reliability confirmed) 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

There were no differences between the 2 experimental groups or between the control and each of the experimental groups on the RMA, except that men in didactic-video group scored lower than men in the control group at follow-up. 

As predicted, there was an overall rebound pattern across the 2 interventions on RMA on repeated measures at both 

follow-up points of data collection. However, there was no significant difference between the rebound patterns for the two experimental groups (it was hypothesized that all groups’ scores would drop immediately following the intervention and then rebound, however the interactive drama group’s scores would be consistently lower each time). CCC: As hypothesized, men in the interactive drama group scored the highest on the CCC (they significantly more able to differentiate consent and coercion), followed by men in the didactic-video group, followed by the control. This was not true for the women participants. No overall rebound pattern found for CCC as hypothesized, however the pattern of hypothesized means was found to have a significant linear by quadratic interaction contrast for men and women ELM and TL: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 68/85 (80%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 47/60 (78%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- random assignment- used behavioral indica- used multiple measur- 5-month follow-up - compared 2 experimecarefully designed with designed to be more enand one designed to be intervention) with cont- validated measures of 

situations in a pilot stud

- examined 2 different control group. - utilizes multiple measrange of attitudes, know- examines rebound eff

 Article: 

- clearly articulates ratio- builds on and enhanc- provides good discus

research and interventi

- describes weaknesses 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Both men and women in the interactive drama reported Major Weaknesses:

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test significantly more of the dimensions critical to central Study: 

route processing than did the other two groups (significant - lack of diversity in sam

Thought Listing (TL), Heppner et al (1988) and Heppner linear trend observed across intervention groups such that et al (1995); originally developed by Brock (1967) and the interactive drama group had the highest scores, Article: Greenwald (1968). Asks participants to record all their followed by the didactic-video group, followed by the - intervention retention thoughts that crossed their minds during the intervention control. Same pattern observed on the amount of issue- - does not report the re

relevant thinking each groups’ participants engaged in). results are presented in 

Time Points of Measurement: post-test these results) 

Victimization: 

Victimization: Not reported 

Perpetration: 

Perpetration: Not reported 

Other Measures: 

Other Measures: SDRS-5: Not reported 

The Socially Desirable Response Set-5 (SDRS-5) (Hays, CRF: Not reported Hayashi, and Stewart, 1989) is a 5-item measure of socially desirable response sets Behavioral indicators: 

Participants in the interactive drama were more likely than 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 5- either of the other 2 groups to volunteer for a rape project; 

week follow-up, 5-month follow-up reported more time thinking about the intervention, 

talking about the intervention, and telling greater numbers 

The Counselor Rating Form (CRF) (retitled “Speaker Rating of people about the intervention. Form” for this study) (Barak and LaCrosse, 1975), a 36-item, semantic differential form with 7-point bipolar Participants in the interactive drama did not express more adjectives that were developed through the use of factor likelihood of recommending this intervention to friends. analysis; designed to measure counselor’s expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness in therapy No significant differences between interventions on 

participants’ willingness to support a fee increase for rape 

Time Points of Measurement: pos-ttest prevention programming. 

Behavioral indicators Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not applicable Six behavioral indicators were used (2 during telephone call; 4 at 5-month follow-up) Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Heppner, Neville, Smith, Kivlighan, and Gershuny Title: Examining Immediate and Long-Term Efficacy of Rape Prevention Programming with Racially Diverse College Men 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large Midwestern university 

Study Eligibility Criteria: 

White participants must be a member of a fraternity (recruitment process initiated through Greek Life coordinator; fraternity presidents solicited for assistance in recruiting members of their respective members); interested participants signed up. Black participants were recruited from entire pool of Black male university students - author attended three undergraduate and one graduate fraternity chapter meeting and followed up with a personal telephone call to individuals who expressed an interest. To recruit nonfraternity men, the investigators obtained a list of Black men attending the university from the registrar’s office and randomly selected individuals to receive a phone call inviting them to participate. All participants consented to participate. Population Type: Population Characteristics:

 Age: Range 18-29; mean 20.13 years old

 Sex: 100% male 

Education: 25% freshmen; 22% sophomores; 25% 

juniors; 23% seniors; 4% graduate students

 Race/Ethnicity: 

64% White; 28% Black; 3% Asian American; 2% Latino; 3% other (university comprised predominately White students)

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported 

Study Design: Randomized Comparison Group Design 

(between 2 intervention groups)

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

White and Black males that were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: A culturally-relevant group or a ‘Color blind’ group (breakdowns for group participation were Not reported) Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable 

Sampling Frame Size: 

24 Black students enrolled in university Not reported for White fraternity members Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

119 total 18 Black men (18/24 = 75%) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 57 had pretest, post-test, and follow-up scores (p23) (48%) Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest After each of the 3 intervention modules Post-test (one week after the third intervention session) Follow-up - 5 months after the intervention Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Pretest inventories administered by research assistants at 

the weekly chapter meeting of the fraternity for White participants; Pretest packets were given to participants that were unable to complete at the time of the time of the meeting and they were asked to mail them in after they completed them. 

Setting: Room on cam

Duration: 3 sessions; 

on weekday evenings Theory/Model: Elabo

and Cacioppo, 1981 anparticipants find that threlevance to them, they the message and feel ththat the level is inapprothey are more likely to a(expertness, attractiventhe central content of thtransitory attitude chanEagly and Chaiken’s (19model suggests that attiand can only be inferreindicators that fall withiand behavioral. Delivery Mode: Lectu

Incentives: Incentives completed all required tdrinks at intervention ssession, certificates of cfraternity’s participation participating fraternitiesCurriculum/Content: 

sessions were devoted tattitude change presentEagley and Chaiken (19Session 1: cognitive chrape myths and facts quparticipant’s responses definition of rape, local consent, and the legal d

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Criminal History: Not reported The same testing packets were mailed to Black Rape” (Rape Treatmen

participants and they were asked to mail them back to the 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): researchers. classrooms on campus. Unclear if Black Session 2: affective cha

Fraternity affiliation: fraternity was administered or mailed the survey. survivors talking about All White participants were members of a predominantly effects that rape has haWhite fraternity; 58% of the Black participants were Immediately after each of the 3 intervention sessions that emotional and psycholomembers of a predominantly Black fraternity were held in a room on campus. who had assisted friendPrevious rape education attendance: Post-test and Follow-up packets were administered in a 

A little over 65% of the sample attended either no (37%) scheduled classroom on campus. Session 3: behavioral c

or one (29%) previous rape education programs; the scenarios: the first portremaining sample attended 2 (21%) or more (13%). and the second an inter

raped and goes to a maThe audience is invited suggestions of how the differently so that sexuaactors then recreated thsuggestions. The seconbehavioral training desiunderstanding of the emsurvivors and to providto intervene effectively. Program Implemente

White male who was a Education office on camboth groups. A Black mrelevant group and a Wblind group. All three f25 hours of training thaintervention and how to manner as well as how challenging questions. Culturally Specific: Researchers actively recBlack and White male pCulturally relevant contcognitive module, race-incidence and prevalencand a facts quiz. In the and White guest speakemight have played a rol

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

rape and in their recovechange module, specific recovery process of Blaculturally relevant info wmodules of the interveincreased the personal rencouraged Black, and process the message cenwas ‘color blind’ and dicontent of the intervenAssessment of ExposIntervention RetentioOther: Not reported 

Measures Knowledge and Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA; Burt, 1980) measures acceptance of rape myths. The Scale for the Identification of Acquaintance Rape Attitude (SIARA; Humphrey, 1996) 33 items that focus on acquaintance rape as opposed to rape in general and focuses on a high-risk population (college students). The scale was also designed to use a more subtle line of questioning than many of the currently used instruments. Sexual Violence Subscale of the Severity of Violence Against Women Scale (SVAWS-SV; Marshall, 1992) assess the level of seriousness that people attribute to sexual violence against women. 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

Only significant effect [using underlying construct 

‘Rejection of Rape’ scale as dependent variable] was main effect for time – all participants showed low-high-low pattern across the 3 periods (p23, 1st paragraph) Participants randomly assigned to either treatment condition were more likely to be in the improving cluster. Specifically, of the 18 participants in the improving cluster, 16 were in one of the experimental groups. When compared with control group, both experimental groups showed stable decrease in rape supportive attitudes. Some participants’ scores rebounded while others’ scores improved over the course of the intervention and remained stable at follow-up. Black participants in culturally relevant experimental group 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 55/85 (65%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 32/60 (53%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Attended to previous 

limitations in previous interventions: 

- Designed, provided a

intervention (each sessiof attitudes-cognitive, aattempt to produce lon

- Sought out diverse sa- Added culturally relevto test whether this incthe message and thus eprocess the message ce- Theoretical frameworand study - 5-month follow-up 

E-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.

Measures Perpetration: Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss and Gidycz, 1987) is 

a 10-item questionnaire designed to measure participation in a range of sexually aggressive situations.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest 

Other Measures: 

Behavioral Indices of Change (BIC; Malamuth, 1981) Modified by the authors from 2 items to 5 items to assess the likelihood of forcing a woman to do something sexual that she did not want to do, joining in a group that was doing so, using physical force or threats to obtain sex, joining a group that was doing so, and intervening if one sees a woman being sexually assaulted.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest 

Elaboration Likelihood Model Questionnaire (ELMQ; Heppner, Humphrey, et al, 1995) assesses components necessary for central route attitude change to occur. In this investigation it was used to assess the degree to which two experimental conditions were perceived as similar. Respondents rated 12 items.

 Time Points of Measurement: After each of the 3 

interventions 

Results 

scored significantly higher on the Cognitive Involvement scale than did participants in the other conditions combined (i.e., Black men in the culturally relevant group self-reported more engagement in the intervention than Black men in the color-blind intervention). 

Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

- Used more sophisticacluster analysis) than wrape education literatur- Power analysis condu

participants in each groadequate level of poser 

- Tested to see if qualitdiffered across treatmedifferences found)

 Article: 

- Clearly articulated ratievaluation design Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Attrition -- more than 

complete all 3 assessmehypotheses, prevented participants in culturalllikely to be in the “imppeers in the color-blind 

- May not be generalizafrom one university - Potential sample bias 

purpose of study) 

- Without manipulation incorporation of culturpowerful intervention - relatively low internal (SES and Presentation 

 Article: 

- Intervention retention 

participants that attend

- The number of partic6 data collection time p- Descriptions of samp

E-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.

Author/s: Heppner, Good, Hillenbrand-Gunn, Hawkins, Hacquard, Nichols, DeBord, and Broc 

Title: Examining Sex Differences in Altering Attitudes About Rape: A Test of the Elaboration Likelihood Model 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: large public midwestern university Study Design: Pre/post Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: students enrolled in First Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 1 hour 

Year Experience class (approximately 10% of first year students enrolling each year); agreed to participate and Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Elabsigned consent forms 305 first year college students enrolled in the First Year two routes of attitude c

Experience class that agreed to take part in the study The model suggests tha

Population Type: college hear a message they are 

Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable cues, such as expertnes

of the presenter. Thus, 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: mean = 17.39 years Sex: 178 females, 58% (152 final sample) 

127 males, 42% (105 final sample)

 Education: all freshmen 

lower ACT scores and slightly lower rank in high school graduating class than were reflective of total population of first year students at the university

 Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian 88.5%, African American 

7.2%, Hispanic 2.6%, Asian 1.6%

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

305 (48 didn’t fully complete questionnaires) 84% participation rate Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Not reported (but 257 were included in final analyses)  Time Points of Data Collection: pre-test: first week of semester post-test: six weeks later (immediately following intervention) Guided Inquiry was turned in 1 week following intervention follow-up: 2 months following intervention Methods/Setting of Data Collection: self-administered questionnaires 

presenter’s characteristicontent of the messageperipheral route proceswould not be expected Conversely, when peopinvolvement and are mprocess centrally. Thus or intervention itself, npowerful influence base Delivery Mode: prese

question and answer seCurriculum/Content: 

Designed to be typical ocollege campuses Included (a) didactic mthe prevalence and impRape; Rape Treatment Cstranger and acquaintanimpact of rape, (c) a bri

Program Implemente

of experience working wCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

intervention) 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Intervention Retentiointervention) Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) (Burt, 

1980) -19 items designed to measure acceptance of rape myths.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, follow-up 

Attitudes: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale (ASB) (Burt, 

1980) - 9 items assessing the expectations that sexual relationships are fundamentally exploitive. 

Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, follow-up 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Speaker Rating Form (SRF) - a slightly modified version of the Counselor Rating Form (CRF; Barak and LaCrosse, 1975), a 36-item, semantic differential form with 7-point bipolar adjectives that were developed through the use of factor analysis; designed to measure students’ views of speakers’ expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness (used to assess social influence)

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Thought Listing (TL), used to capture participants’ thoughts during presentation. Adapted from Heppner et al. (1988); originally developed by Brock (1967) to assess and categorize people’s thoughts following a particular stimulus 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: RMA: 

- Significant improvement from pretest to post-test but 

rebound of scores at follow-up (for both men and women) 

- Significant sex difference on RMA between amount of 

rebound men and women made from post-test to followup 

- Women had lower scores at pretest, post-test and followup

 Attitudes: ASB: 

- Significant improvement (both men and women) from 

pretest to follow-up (both groups showed decreased 

scores from pretest to follow-up) 

- Women were consistently lower than men on ASB - Women experienced more lasting effect at follow-up 

compared to men 

Victimization: Perpetration: Other Measures: ACRCM: - Women rated themselves as significantly more motivated to hear rape prevention message, found it more relevant personally, and the content level more appropriate than did men TL: - Women used more central route processing: Women elaborated more, produced more thoughts about the presentation and thoughts that indicated issue-relevant 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 48/85 (56%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 27/60 (45%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- intervention is theory - 2-month follow-up exin rape myths. Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

author identified: - no control group- missing data (85% usa- conclusions drawn fro

ACRCM are restricted operationalize these co

- sample consisted of fior socioeconomically d

 Article: 

- numbers are Not repo- intervention descripti

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Assessment of Central Route Change Mechanisms (ACRCM) designed to assess components necessary for central route change to occur (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986)

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Guided Inquiry (GI) - qualitative measure designed to assess how individuals perceive and make meaning from their experiences; modified version of original (Heppner, Rosenberg, and Hedgespeth, 1992), 2 questions only

thinking than did men and the thoughts produced were more personally-relevant (most frequent category of thoughts was concern or fear for self; 2nd most frequent 

category was a concern or fear for others) - Men rated themselves as less motivated, found the message less personally-relevant, produced less issuerelevant thinking (most frequent category was concern or fear for others; 2nd most frequent was concern about 

others’ perceptions of self; none of the men referred to past assault experiences) - Men and women did not differ in the number of negative thoughts they listed about the presentation SRF: 

Time Points of Measurement: post (students were 

asked to complete the form after the intervention and turn it in 1 week later) 

- There was a significantly positive correlation between men’s change scores and their ratings of the presenter’s combined expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness (not the case for women); the change that men made from pretest to follow-up on the RMA was significantly 

correlated with the peripheral source cues of the speaker (as ELM predicts, the peripheral clues were apparently 

GI: - Both men and women indicated that the video that included a segment of rape victims talking about their experience was the part of the intervention most important in helping them change attitudes about rape - Some men and women responded negatively to the question ‘What in this presentation helped you change your attitudes about rape?’, although men did over four times as often as women (almost a third of male responses were negative and sometimes hostile)

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Hilton, Harris, Rice, Krans, and Lavigne Title: Antiviolence Education in High Schools 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Not reported 

 Four high schools in central Ontario County; mixed group assemblies 

urban and rural; enrollment ranged from <400 to > 1200 Author-reported: Not reported students Duration: 1-hour asse

Intervention Group Type(s): 11th grade students from 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Grade 11 students in one of four participating high schools whose parents did not Theory/Model: Not r

participating high schools who agreed to participate and express any concern to the school regarding their child’s whose parents did not oppose their son or daughter participation after receiving a letter. 325 students Delivery Mode: Comptaking part in the education program (passive consent). completed pretest, 370 students completed post-test, 489 in teen dating relationsh

students completed follow-up, and 123 students participated in 2 worksh

Note: evaluation given only to 11th graders; other grades completed all three tests. Analysis only conducted on discussion, list of sourc

may have participated in intervention. those who completed all 3 tests. spot counseling or referPopulation Type: high school - 11th grade students Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable Curriculum/Content: 

research questionnaires 

Population Characteristics: Sampling Frame Size: relationships and attend

Age: m = 16.5 years 4 high schools ranging in size from 400 to 1200 classrooms. Then, they 

in which a sexual assaul

Sex: 50% female; 60% males Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): consequences of sexual Education: 11th grade students

N = 325 completed pretest two 1-hour workshops 

six. These workshops i

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and counselor describing ris

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: see measures section Criminal History: Not reported

Participation Rates): 123 completed all 3 tests. 

123/325 = 38% completed all 3 tests 46.5% who completed pretest completed post-test. 

325 completed pretest 370 completed post-test 489 completed follow-up 

a guide to recognizing aworkers; (3) an introduby second author; (4) idverbal aggression, by a presentation by a sheltefriend experiencing violProgram Implemente

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Time Points of Data Collection: youth workers, second 

Note: no parents returned the passive consent form pretest = 1 week before the intervention worker, and first authordenying their child’s participation. An active consent was post-test = immediately after the workshops officer and first author. used for the students in “experiences with peer violence” follow-up = 6 weeks post intervention. survey 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Administered in 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

the students’ classrooms. monitored attendance (

E-70
Population and Setting Intervention 

Other: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Design and Sample 

Intervention Retentio

Measures Knowledge: Target Item Score - 6 target items written into multiple choice format. Each item scored from 0-6. Sum of these scores equals the Target Item Score Key Points Score - each workshop presenter nominated 3 key points of information specific to his or her workshop and collaborated with authors to write multiple choice questions for each point. These scores ranged from 0-3.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, and 

follow-up. 

Attitudes: A scale measuring date rape attitudes adapted from Goodchilds et al. (1988)

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, and 

follow-up. 

Victimization Questionnaire asked about perpetration 

and victimization of physical aggression (using 10 items 

from the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (MCTS), Physical Violence subscale, and an additional item, Straus (1979, 1990) in same-sex and opposite-sex peer relationships and sexual coercion and aggression (using 8 items based on Koss and Oros, 1982) in opposite-sex peer relationships.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test, 

follow-up 

Perpetration: see victimization

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Target Item Score: At pretest only, girls scores were significantly higher on Target Item score than boys. (p<.05)

 Boys scores significantly higher at post-test than at 

pretest and at follow-up on Target Item scores. (p<.05). Girls’ scores were not significantly different from each other at the three time periods. 

Key Points Score Scores significantly increased from pretest to post-test and remained significantly higher at follow-up than at pretest 

Scores also improved for workshops not attended from 

pretest to follow-up. 

Scores did not differ from pre- to post-test but were 

significantly higher at follow-up then post-test. Were not significantly different from workshops attended at followup.

 Attitudes: 

No effect of time found on attitudes toward date rape. However, boys more likely to endorse pro-rape attitudes than girls.

 Victimization: Most students (68.5%) self-reported at 

least one act of aggression (physical or sexual) as both a victim and a perpetrator. 9.9% reported victimization only and 11.1% reported perpetration only. Compared students who reported victimization only (N=32) with those who reported perpetration only (N=36). Exclusive victims more likely to be female, have higher pretest Target Item scores and Total Key Points scores than exclusive perpetrators. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 48/85 (56%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 27/60 (45%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Controls for test-rete- Examines differences victims. - Piloted evaluation wit- Examines differences 

participated in the inter

 Article: 

Discusses potential diffMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- No comparison group - Participants not rando- No theoretical founda- “Exerted little controworkshops” - difficult interventions were

 Article: 

- No clear delineation brate, study participation 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Among victims and perpetrators who attended the intervention, there were no significant differences in attitude score change, Target Item Score change or Key Points 

Scores.

 Perpetration: 11.1% report perpetration only. 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 

Students who completed pretest but did not complete intervention had lower scores than students who did attend workshops. 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Jaffe, Sudermann,, Reitzel, and Killip Title: An Evaluation of a Secondary School Primary Prevention Program on Violence in Intimate Relationships 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: 4 high schools in large public school system in Study Design: Pre-post Setting: School audito

middle-sized city in City of London in southwestern Ontario, Canada Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 

2 schools – half-day int

Study Eligibility Criteria: students in grades 9-13 in 4 Intervention Group Type(s): auditorium presentation 

high schools that were the first schools in the system to 737 students in grades 9 to 13 in 4 high school discussion implement the intervention; subjects were selected on a (Grades 9 and 10: 338; Grades 11, 12, 13: 399; 2 schools – full-day intestratified classroom-level sampling basis to yield 1/6 Females: 358; Males: 379) samples of each of 4 high school populations Theory/Model: socia

Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable witness wife assault as c

Population Type: high school students repeat the behavior in t

Sampling Frame Size: relationships. Also exte

Population Characteristics: Not reported (students in grades 9 to 13 in 4 schools television, in videos, mo

Age: Not reported within a school system consisting of 45,000 students in 80 Feminist theory of wife 

secondary and elementary schools) throughout history, wo

Sex: 49% females (n = 358) appropriate victims of v

51% males (n = 379) Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): men has been a central 

737 (participation rate not available because sampling of the family. 

Education: grades 9-13 frame Not reported) 

grades 9 and 10: 338 students 1/6 samples of each of 4 high school populations Delivery Mode: a larggrades 11, 12, 13: 399 students and a classroom discuss

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Race/Ethnicity: sample Not reported; city population Participation Rates): Curriculum/Content: 

is predominately European/White with less than 10% of Not reported; “In particular analyses, there were slightly Myths and facts about wpopulation comprised of immigrants from over 80 ethnic lower numbers, as some students did not attend the pre- school’s auditorium pregroups and a small percentage of native/first nations or post-test, or omitted some items.” Full-day intervention inpersons Ranges from 627-684 were asked to develop a 

problem of family viole

Sexually Active: Not reported Time Points of Data Collection: were generated such as 

Pretest: 1 week prior to intervention organization of violenc

Victimization: Not reported Post-test: 1 week after intervention activities for local servic

Follow-up: 6 weeks after intervention (at 2 of the 4 

Criminal History: Not reported schools) Program Implemente

planned and implement

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Methods/Setting of Data Collection: presentation componen

The 4 schools in the study represented a cross-section of Classroom teachers administered the questionnaires (that component. locations and socioeconomic levels in the city. were coded to allow for matching of responses on Both components were Average family household income (for 1985) was $39, individual level; responses were on computer-readable knowledgeable commu975. answer sheets) speakers from commun

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

assault and treatment othe Board of Educationeffects on child witnesstheatre company; and a used by the schools. Classroom discussion ffrom counseling centerthe police, women’s sheattended a half-day trainCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: London Family Court Clinic (LFCC) 

Questionnaire on Violence in Intimate Relationships 

Constructed for study; designed to tap knowledge about wife assault, attitudes about sex roles, wife assault, and dating violence, and behavioral intentions in a number of violence-related situations. Nine items taken from Giarrusso et al. (1979) referred to excuses/justifications of date rape and six items are based on a dating verbal abuse scenario (Head, 1988). [Reliability and validity had not been extensively explored at time of study ]

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 

follow-up 

Attitudes: London Family Court Clinic (LFCC) Questionnaire on Violence in Intimate Relationships

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 

follow-up 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

At pre-intervention, the majority of students correctly 

answered 4 knowledge-based items about woman abuse. Significant sex differences were found for 16/19 of the items, with girls having more positive or pro-social attitudes. Although only small percentage of students accepted each of the excuses for forced intercourse on a date, the range was statistically significantly higher for boys (3/9 excuses were accepted more by boys than girls). 17% of males excused date rape if “She has led him on.” 

54% of students overall were aware of dating violence among people they know; significant sex differences, with more girls (60.5% vs 47.5% boys) were aware among dating violence among their acquaintances Pre to Post and Post to Follow-up 

After the intervention, significant changes were found on 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 51/85 (60%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 26/60 (43%) Major Strengths:

 Article: 

- Tables were usefulMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Instrument not valida- No control group- Specific questions abodating were not includeperceived sensitivity (p- Four knowledge itemreworded with multiple true/false format that wsuspicion that format wwell-answered even a p

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality Victimization: Not reported 22 of 48 items (at least p <.01). Article: 

• Changes in the desired direction were found on 11/48 - Description of sampl

Time Points of Measurement: for overall, 11/48 for females, 8/48 for males 

indicated. 

Perpetration: Not reported • Changes in the undesired direction were found on 

8/48 for the male group. Four items were on items 

Time Points of Measurement: about condoning excuses for rape. 

Other Measures: Post-test to Follow-up 

Majority of positive changes were maintained at the 

Behavioral Intentions: London Family Court Clinic follow-up. 

(LFCC) Questionnaire on Violence in Intimate Relationships Significant changes in undesired direction were found on 6 

items for overall group.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 

follow-up Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Behavioral Intentions: 

Pre-intervention, there were significant sex differences – a higher proportion of girls had intentions of intervening than boys.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other:

E-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.

Author/s: Lanier, Elliot, Martin, and Kapadia Title: Evaluation of an Intervention to Change Attitudes Toward Date Rape 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Private university in Texas Study Design: Randomized comparison Setting: Private univer

Study Eligibility Criteria: Incoming students of 1995 Author-reported: Randomized pre-test and post-test Duration: 1-hour 

class control group design. 

Theory/Model: Socia

Population Type: College Intervention Group Type(s): Incoming students of the components: (1) expect

1995 class who agreed after they were encouraged to observational learning, 

Population Characteristics: participate in the study. Participants were randomly (6) reinforcement. 

Age: 98.3% 17-19 years old assigned. Viewed a play which was meant to combat 

rape-tolerant attitudes and reduce the likelihood that the Delivery Mode: Play w

Sex: 48.6% male, 51.4% female students who saw it would become victims or 

perpetrators of date rape. Curriculum/Content: 

Education: 1st-year college students occurring among colleg

Comparison Group Type(s): Incoming students of the overview of characters, 

Race/Ethnicity: 1995 class who agreed after they were encouraged to promoting rape; Scene 

64.6% Caucasian participate in the study. Participants were randomly importance of commun19.3% Asian American assigned. Viewed an alternate play addressing respecting one’s chosen 9.4% Hispanic multicultural issues increase audience’s awa3.7% African American invitation to one’s hom3.0% “Other” Sampling Frame Size: 615 students Scene 4: Wes and Alisan 

rapist by testing limits; 

Sexually Active: Not reported (but was used as a Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 436 behavior; Scene 5: Rob

covariate in some analysis) with the survivor of an 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and support her decision to 

Victimization: Not reported Participation Rates): 436, 100% (only reported those Wes and Alan demonstr

who completed baseline and post-test; “a number of rape and discuss issues 

Criminal History: Not reported students refused to participate or returned incomplete responsibility of knowin

responses”) 

Other (i.e., disability, substance abuse, etc.): 97.2% Program Implemente

self-reported heterosexual Time Points of Data Collection: Immediately before students 

the intervention and immediately after. 

Culturally Specific: N

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Intervention and 

control group took place in an auditorium; setting of data Assessment of Exposcollection Not reported. 

Intervention RetentioOther: Not applicable 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: College Date Rape Attitudes Survey (CDRAS) 

(Lanier and Elliot, in press) consisted of 20 items measuring attitudes toward rape utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale. Specifically used to measure attitudes towards date rape in context of college, heterosexual dating. 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest and post-test 

Victimization: Not reported 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Knowledge: Attitudes: Mean pretest score among both groups 4.07 

on a 5-point Likert scale in which 5 represented the most desirable response. Post-test scores of intervention group (m=4.17) were significantly higher than that of the control group (m=4.08), p<.001. Gender differences: mean amount of improvement for men (.1031 units) did not differ significantly from the mean improvement by women (.1034), p>.9. Bottom quartile pretest respondents (represents those with “rape tolerant” attitudes): Mean pretest score = 3.50; Post-test scores of intervention group (m=3.73) were significantly higher than the post-test scores of the control group (m=3.51), p<.003. Scores still remained lower than the group average. - Improvement among students who had the most

rape-tolerant initial attitudes (.23 units) was substantially larger than the change noted among the remaining 3/4 of the sample (.05 units). 

Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported Other: 

Study Quality

Quality Score: 

Total: 55/85 (65%)Description: 25/25 (10Design: 30/60 (50%)

Major Strengths: 

Study: 

- Measured effect of intscored the lowest (“rap- Measured effect separ- Intervention based on 

utilized in one date rape 

- Demonstrated how spintervention were relatepost-intervention asses

Article: Detailed des

Major Weaknesses: 

Study: 

- Short follow-up - Students had low tole

intervention therefore ube effective among high

Article: Sample size 

not separated out. 

Indicate that this study myths portrayed in the in the post-intervention 

E-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.

Author/s: Lavoie, Vezina, Piche, and Boivin Title: Evaluation of a Prevention Program for Violence in Teen Dating Relationships Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two Quebec City area high schools (School S Study Design: Randomized Comparison group Setting: Classroom 

and School L) 

Author-reported: Pretest-post-test design Duration: 

Study Eligibility Criteria: 10th grade students among 2 Short program: Two cl

schools who completed both questionnaires and were Intervention Group Type(s): School L: assigned to the 150 minutes. present at the program sessions. long program. Consisted of 10th grade students at a Long program: Additio

Quebec City high school who completed both 

Population Type: High school questionnaires and was present at all the program sessions Theory/Model: Not r

(n=238). 

Population Characteristics: Delivery Mode: Short 

Age: School S: m=14 years, 11 months Comparison Group Type(s): School S: assigned to the Long program: classro

School L: m=15 years short program. Consisted of 10th grade students at a fictional letter to a hypo

Quebec City high school who completed both 

Sex: School S: 57.3% female, 42.7% male questionnaires and was present at all the program sessions Curriculum/Content: 

School L: 56.7% female, 43.3% male (n=279). Relationship” 

Short program: 1st sess

Education: 10th grade students Sampling Frame Size: Not reported control or control over 

control of other people

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): control and to denounc

n=517, 100% (only included those who completed social control and emot

Sexually Active: Not reported intervention and tests) understand the importa

dating relationships. 2n

Victimization: Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and certain rights of each pa

Participation Rates): n=517 - can’t determine because to know how to apply t

Criminal History: Not applicable only included those who completed post-test, etc. of abuse; (c) to know th

respecting the other’s ri

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Time Points of Data Collection: School S: pre-test responsibility for abuse 

Majority were French-speaking population. Schools of was 1 week before the intervention and 1 month post- victim but rather to the roughly equivalent size and their socioeconomic status intervention; School L: pre-test was 3 weeks prior to the Long program: had 2 awas equivalent. intervention and 1 month post-test. viewing film on dating v

letter to a hypothetical v

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: pencil-and-paper 

questionnaire. A detailed written prog

Program Implemente

consisting of a permaneorganization and a trainCulturally Specific: N

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: Not reported 

Measures Knowledge: 9 items from a questionnaire of 25 items 

used to measure both attitudes and knowledge (author designed).

 Time Points of Measurement: School S: pre-test 

was 1 week before the intervention and 1 month postintervention; School L: pre-test was 3 weeks prior to the intervention and 1 month post-test. 

Attitudes: 17 items from a questionnaire of 25 items used to measure both attitudes and knowledge (author designed).

 Time Points of Measurement: School S: pre-test 

was 1 week before the intervention and 1 month postintervention; School L: pre-test was 3 weeks prior to the intervention and 1 month post-test. 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: School S improved more than School L. 

Significant higher scores at post-test for both schools on 4 of the 9 items (“Most rapes committed by a person unknown to the victim,” “An equal relationship means that both partners have the same tastes and do the same things,” “A young girl cannot be sexually violent toward their partner,” “It is possible for a girl to be raped by her 

boyfriend.” School S also scored higher on an item asking rates of dating violence. School L also scored higher on “Respecting the other person in a dating relationship means never getting angry with him or her.” Means indicate that scores increased at post-test for all items except for “Respecting the other person in a dating relationship means never getting angry with him or her.” No gender differences were detected. Significant gender differences b/w schools on “Respecting the other person in a dating relationship means never getting angry with him or her,” “Most rapes committed by a person unknown to the victim,” “An equal relationship means that both partners have the same tastes and do the same things,” and “Violence stops when you break up.”

 Attitudes: School S: Post-test results were significantly 

greater than pretest scores [F (1,273)=214.30, p<.001] and girls scored higher than boys [F (1, 273) = 26.72, p<.001]. Both boys and girls improved proportionately to their pretest scores after participating in the program. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 49/85 (58%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 28/60 (47%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examined low scorerdifferences after interv- Utilized a scale specifattitudes. Major Weaknesses:

 Study: Timing of pr

differed.

 Article: 

- Only reported reliabil- Intervention retention not indicated. 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

School L: Post-test results were significantly greater than pretest scores [F (1,233)=304.51, p<.001]. Girls scored higher at both pretest and post-test, and although both improved after the program, the girls improved more than boys [F (1, 233) = 27.78, p<.001]. Significant differences between two schools [t (514) = 5.46, p<.001]. Both: Lower scorers from both schools improved on 16 of the 17 items. No significant gender by school interactions. Where differences were significant, School S scored higher than L, and girls scored higher than boys.

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Lenihan, Rawlins, Eberly, Buckley, and Masters Title: Gender Differences in Rape Supportive Attitudes Before and After a Date Rape Education Program 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Study Design: Setting: Classroom 

Mid-sized Midwestern public university Randomized non-equivalent comparisonStudy Eligibility Criteria: Author-reported: Solomon four-group design 

Duration: 50 minutes 

15 sections of an introductory health course. This course (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) with random assignment Theory/Model: Not was a part of the general education curriculum to ensure that enrolled students were representative of the overall Intervention Group Type(s): Delivery Mode: Comstudent population. Participation in the study was Random assignment to 1 of 4 groups: Group 1 pretested presentations of date ravoluntary; an info sheet that discussed voluntary nature of several day before program presentation, exposed to rape experiences by one the study and privacy was given to participants after they presentation, then post-tested 1 month after the program; completed the pretest. Group 2 was pretested and post-tested with no Curriculum/Content: 

educational intervention; Group 3 was post-tested only Ways in which men and 

Population Type: 821 college students 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Mean age 18.6 (women) and 19.2 (men)

(n=183); and Group 4 viewed the program and then was post-tested (n=193). Group composition was not well described - numbers are from tables Comparison Group Type(s): 

and national statistics odefinitions of sexual assof rape, reasons why viforced sex as rape, cultucharacteristics and attitu

Sex: 503 women (61%) ; 318 men (39%)

 Education: 

64.7% freshmen; 18.7% sophomores; 12.7% juniors; and 3.9% seniors or graduate students

 Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

Random assignment to 1 of 4 groups: Group 1 pretested several day before program presentation, exposed to presentation, then post-tested 1 month after the program; Group 2 was pretested and post-tested with no educational intervention; Group 3 was post-tested only (n=183); and Group 4 viewed the program and then was post-tested (n=193). 

victimization including the effect on her, prevesources of help. Video illustrate discussion poiwere encouraged. Program Implemente

Group composition was not well described - numbers are assault crisis counselors 

Sexually Active: Not reported from tables The man and at least 1 

Control groups received intervention after study 

Victimization: Not reported

 Criminal History: Not reported

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not 821 Intervention Retentio

reported 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Other: Participation Rates): Cannot determine from numbers 

provided. 76% of the women and 68% of the men completed both pre and post-tests 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest – Several days before intervention Post-test – 1 month following the intervention Group 1: Pretest, Intervention (no data collected), posttest; Group 2: Pretest, Post-test; Group 3: Post-test; Group 4: Intervention (no data collected), Post-test Methods/Setting of Data Collection: The survey was conducted by neutral, trained proctors at the beginning of a class period. 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Rape Supportive Attitudes Survey (RSAS; Burt, 1980; adapted by Koss et al., 1985). The 36-item survey yielded 4 scales: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (ASB), The Sexual Conservatism (SC), Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV), and Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA). Higher scores represent more 

negative attitudes on each scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pretest and post-test 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Demographic data items (age, class, race, sex, and SS#), but race was Not reported. (The use of last 4 digits of 

SS# allowed pairing of pretests and post-tests) 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

Pre-tested women in all groups scored significantly lower than men on ASB and RMA. At post-test, women in the 

pretested groups (both program-treated and untreated) reported significantly lower scores on the AIV and RMA scales; while women in the comparison groups reported significantly lower scores on the SC and ASB scales. Men from all groups did not report significant changes in scores. A 3-way ANOVA assessing post-test differences by gender, treatment and pretest exposure, indicated that both the pre-test and the actual intervention potentially had effects on changing attitudes especially on AIV and ASB. There were significant gender effects with women scoring significantly lower on the pretest compared with men and on the post-test women reported significant differences on the RMA scale. Pretesting significantly 

affected women’s scores on the ASB and SC scales. 

Two-way interactions were found for pretest by treatment on the ASB scale and for gender by pretest on the AIV 

scale. A three-way interaction was found on the AIV 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 42/85 (49%) Description: 16/25 (64Design: 26/60 (43%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

-Assessed for differencthe pre-test affected po-1 month follow-up pe-Both male and female 

 Article: 

-good description of prMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-No assessment of prostayed consistent but th-One-time presentation

 Article: 

- Lack of clarity regardi- Numbers of participa(under Table 1 nor in t- Numbers of students 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: (with surveys) pretest 

and post-test 

scale. Race and age showed no significant findings

not provided. -Does not provide scal

Victimization: Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

On-campus rape crisis center reported increased numbers of victims and significant others seeking help since intervention provided; some women victimized following intervention, sought services more quickly 

E-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.

Author/s: Lenihan and Rawlins Title: Rape Supportive Attitudes Among Greek Students Before and After a Date Rape Prevention Program 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Midsized public university Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group design Setting: Large auditori

paired organizations (on

Study Eligibility Criteria: Enrolled students belonging Author-reported: Not reported meet in smaller discussi

to sororities and fraternities 

Intervention Group Type(s): Duration: Not reporte

Population Type: college students 636 students belonging to sororities and fraternities 

participating in a mandatory date rape presentation for all Theory/Model: Not r

Population Characteristics: sorority and fraternity members. 

Age: Intervention group: Females X = 19.08

 Males X = 19.29 

Control group: Females X = 18.6

Comparison Group Type(s): 

821students at the same university enrolled in 15 sections 

Delivery Mode: Lectu

Curriculum/Content: 

Males X = 19.2 of an introductory health course. Participated in program the myths and realities 

2 years previously. responsibilities of soror

Sex: provide positive leaders

Intervention group: Females = 412, Males = 224 Sampling Frame Size: Not reported provide help and protec

Control group: n=821 (no gender breakdown reported) date rape discussed alon

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): responsibilities of Gree

Education: n=1457 their individual membe

Intervention group: 22.4% freshman, 25.0% sophomores, Control = 821 each sorority was paired 

27.5% juniors, and 18.8% seniors. Intervention = 636 provided for small grouControl group: 64.7% freshman, 18.7% sophomores, dialogue. 

12.7% juniors, and 3.9% seniors. Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Participation Rates): Program Implemente

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported 74 students eliminated from the combined groups due to was the executive direct

incomplete or spoiled forms organization. 

Sexually Active: Not reported

Intervention group 395/636 = 62.1% Culturally Specific: N

Victimization: Not reported 27.4% of women and 34.8% of men appeared for posttest (author reported) Assessment of ExposCriminal History: Not reported Attendance was recorde

Control group - Not reported 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Intervention Retentio

Time Points of Data Collection: Immediately before the intervention and 5- to 6-weeks Other: Not reported post-intervention. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Sorority and fraternity chapter meetings 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge and Attitudes: Rape Supportive Attitudes Survey (RSAS) (Burt, 1980) labeled the General Behavior Attitudes survey for the purpose of the study (total of 36 items). Consists of 4 dependent measures: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale (ASB) consists of 9-items such as “Men are out for only one thing” and “A lot of women seem to get pleasure in putting men down”; Sexual Conservatism Scale (SC) consists of 10 items such as “People should not have oral sex” and “A woman shouldn’t give in sexually to a man too easily or he’ll think she’s loose”; Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Scale (AIV) 

consists of 6 items such as “Sometimes the only way a man can get a cold woman turned on is to use force”; Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) consists of 11 items such as “Any healthy woman can successfully resist a rapist if she really wants to” and “Women who get raped while hitchhiking get what they deserve.”

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Satisfaction measure - evaluated the lecture they heard and the subsequent discussion experienced; Likert-scale

 Time Points of Measurement: 

post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

At pretest, the Greek group score significantly lower on all scales. Greek men and control group men scored similarly on the ASB scale (however, by post-test these scores 

decreased for Greek men). (Note: decrease in scores is 

desirable.) Greek women scored significantly lower than Greek men on three of the four RSAS scales. Both men and women scored similarly on the pretest SC scale. 

At post-test, sorority women’s scores on the ASB scale 

were significantly lower. Men’s scores lowered as well, but not as“dramatically”. 

Greek students in this study registered more desirable scores than a control group on the rape supportive attitudes measure. “Whether more desirable attitudes are due to social maturation, to a more enlightened campus responding to preventive education efforts over the 2 year period assessed here, or due to membership in a Greek organization, cannot be determined from this study.” However fraternity men continue to hold significantly more negative attitudes than do their sorority women counterparts. Neither the men not the women, with but one exception, made any noticeable changes of attitudes. Absolutely no change occurred in the rape myth scale or those scales measuring sexual conservatism and endorsing interpersonal violence (for men and women). There is some encouragement in the change registered in the ASB scale.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 24% of fraternity members rated lecture as very good or excellent; 4% rated as very poor 39% of fraternity members rated the joint discussion as 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 40/85 (47%) Description: 14/25 (56Design: 26/60 (43%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Large sample size - Eliminated those studgroup who later becamIn addition, those who intervention and later jselected for the interveanalysis Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Sample sizes were incdetermine exact sample - Poor attrition - Validity of measures n- Doesn’t present post-

intervention) differencediscussion, but does no

 Article:

 - Results section is bridifferences and post-te- Conclusions in results discussion section, i.e., 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

very good or excellent.; 29% rated as very poor 78% of sorority members rated lecture as very good or excellent; 4% rated as very poor 61% of sorority members rated the joint discussion as very good or excellent; 10% rated as very poor

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Attendance at 

discussion was mandatory; attendance at follow-up test was not 

Other: 

E-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. Author/s: Lonsway and Kothari 

Title: First Year Campus Acquaintance Rape Education: Evaluating the Impact of a Mandatory Intervention 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: a large Midwestern university Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group design Setting: on campus (n

Study Eligibility Criteria: Incoming undergraduates Duration: one session 

Author-reported: Not reported - divided into 3 segmen

First-year students enrolled in introductory psychology 45 minutes; 3rd - 40 minclasses were recruited to voluntarily take part in the study Intervention Group Type(s): (some of which had already attended the FYCARE Group 1: students participating in FYCARE; N=48 During the fall semesteworkshop and other whom had not). An additional workshops were implemportion of the sample was recruited directly through their Group 2: Introductory psychology students who had participation in the FYCARE workshop. The workshop participated in FYCARE; N=76 Theory/Model: Not is mandatory for all first year students at the university, however all participants were informed that their Group 4: first-year students who were contacted to Delivery Mode: lecturparticipation in the study was both voluntary and participate in a follow-up telephone survey. N=93 participation and use of anonymous. students (34 male, 45 female, and 14 for whom gender Incentives: Partial fulfiPhone interviewees were either part of the introductory was not recorded). All of the students had attended was given in exchange fpsychology class sample or randomly selected first year FYCARE by the time they were contacted for the phone students who were contacted before they were scheduled survey. Sample include students from the introductory Curriculum/Content: to attend their FYCARE workshop and asked to take part psychology sample (group 2). Rape Education (FYCAin the study. Programs, University o

Comparison Group Type(s): Has 3 distinct segments

Population Type: college students Population Characteristics: (groups 1, 2, and 3 only) Age: 17 (10.5%); 18 (80.6%); 19 (8.9%)

 Sex: 102 male (53%); 89 female(47%) Education: 1st year college students

 Race/Ethnicity: 

European American/White 72.6% African American/Black: 10% Asian American 7.4% Latina/Latino 4.7% Pacific Islander .5% Other 4.7% 

Group 3: Introductory psychology students who had NOT yet attended their scheduled FYCARE workshop; N=67 Group 5: 77 randomly selected first-year students (36 male and 41 female) who were contacted before they were scheduled to attend their FYCARE workshop. They were not involved in the questionnaire administration phase of the study. Questionnaires: 124 total participating first-year students 

(Group 1 and Group 2) that had attended the FYCARE workshop prior to completing the questionnaires (76 were assessed in the introductory psychology course and 48 students were assessed immediately following the workshop). Participants were offered partial fulfillment of a course requirement in exchange for participation in 

1- Includes discussion opertaining to criminal svideo “Playing the Gamrape scenario from the perpetrator. 2 - Participants are sepaFemales discuss vulnerameasures, and escape stand scenarios to lead than exercise designed to of consent, and they shambiguous date rape scroommates. 3 - Single sex groups reending sexual violence, and how to be supportiProgram Goals: height

the study. relevant campus service

E-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.

Population and Setting 

Sexually Active: Not reported

 Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

groups 1, 2, and 3 only: At the time of questionnaire administration, 23.8% of the students reported having participated in some form of rape education other than the FYCARE program. groups 4 and 5: 20.6% [of the 170] students interviewed by telephone indicated that they had been previously involved in some form of rape education other than FYCARE. Only 3.7% indicated that they had ever been personally involved in any rape prevention efforts other than educational workshops. 

Study Design and Sample 

Telephone interview: 93 students (Group 4) from the 

psychology class sample that had attended the workshop prior to the phone interview (34 male, 45 female, 14 no gender recorded) 

Questionnaires: 67 participating first-year students 

(Group 3) enrolled the introductory psychology course that had not yet attended the workshop. Participants were offered partial fulfillment of a course requirement in exchange for participation in the study. 

Telephone interview: 77 randomly selected first-year 

students (36 male, 41 female) (Group 5) that were contacted before they were scheduled to attend their FYCARE workshop. 

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported; however, 85% of 

all first-year students are enrolled in the intro psychology course used to obtain the study sample, the sampling is roughly representative of the university population. About 85% of all first-year students participate in the mandatory workshop. Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Questionnaires: (Groups 1, 2, and 3) N=19l 

Telephone interviews: (Groups 4 and 5) 170 total 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Groups 1, 2, 3 Post-test: - 0 to 3 weeks after workshop attendance: 40% of participants - 3 to 7 weeks after workshop attendance: 60% of participants Participation rate not available because only reported on those who competed pre- and post-test. Phone survey respondents:participation rate: not available because only reported onthose who were contacted

Intervention 

information regarding sstrategies to deter sexuamyths/common perceprape-supportive; increafor stopping rape both of their peers. Respondents that compimmediately after the wwritten and verbal debrnature of the study and community resources. the telephone interview workshop were providedescribed the nature of interview. Psychology class particinature of the study but researchers were interesdecision-making in studthe study was not maskdirectly through their wProgram Implemente

approximately 50 peer egraduate and undergradpreviously trained in a sexpressly for that purpo

Two female and two mworkshops Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

E-88
--------------------------------

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Post-test: - 4 to 6 months for those who had participated in theFYCARE program - no follow-up for phone survey respondents since they

did not complete questionnaire phase of the study and had not yet completed FYCARE 

93 (out of 143) participants from the intro psychology course sample were contacted to participate in a follow-up telephone interview during the spring semester of 1998. All had attended the workshop by the time they were called, 4-6 months following their participation in the workshop. Five respondents guessed the connection between the questionnaire administration and the telephone survey were dropped from subsequent analyses. Participation rate: 65% (93/143) not including surveys 

discarded due to study identification) 77 randomly selected first-year students were contacted 

for the follow-up telephone interview before they were scheduled to attend their workshop. 

Time Points of Data Collection: Questionnaires were 

administered during the fall semester of 1996. The participants that were recruited through the psychology course that had already participated in the workshop, completed the questionnaires either 0-3 weeks (40%) or 3-7 weeks (60%) following the workshop. The participants recruited directly through their workshop completed the questionnaires immediately following the workshop, during the same time of the semester. The participants that were recruited through the psychology course that had not attended the FYCARE workshop completed the questionnaires pre intervention. 

Telephone interviewees that were part of the psychology class sample were contacted during the Spring semester of 1998, which was 4-6 months following their participation in the workshop. The randomly-selected participants that were interviewed by phone prior to attending the workshop were assessed during the following academic year, in the fall of 1997. 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: For the psychology class participants, research materials were provided in a mixed-sex, classroom setting and facilitated by two female experimenters selected based on their experience and training with victimization issues. Questionnaires took approximately 55 minutes to complete. The participants recruited directly through their workshop were only provided the questionnaire pertaining to sexual misconduct (the case judgments), which took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Telephone survey interviewees were called at home. The telephone survey took approximately 5 minutes to complete. 

Measures Knowledge: Knowledge regarding sexual assault 

Seven multiple choice questions were adapted from the training goals of the workshop; Correct responses were summed to create a possible knowledge score of 0 to 7. Used to assess knowledge of sexual assault victimization 

and response; questions focused on the issues of statistics, the legal definition of sexual assault, and campus services.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre (for nonworkshop participants) and post (for students already 

having completed the FYCARE workshop) 

Attitudes: Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) (short form) (Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald, 1999) to assess the construct of rape myths: “attitudes and beliefs that are 

generally false yet widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women.” 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

RMA: Program impact. Across the three experimental groups (Groups 1, 2, and 3), a significant effect (one-way analysis) for rape myth acceptance was found (p<.02). Significant effects (multivariate analysis) for judgments of victim credibility in the hypothetical rape case, (p<.01) and the degree of blame attributed to the hypothetical victim (p<.03). In each case, the effect was due to the difference between students who had not yet participated in the workshop and those that were assessed immediately following the workshop. For judgments of victim credibility, an additional difference was found between workshop participants and non-participants sampled through the psychology class. Knowledge: only the level of sexual assault knowledge 

exhibited a different pattern of group difference (Groups 1, 2, and3) with one-way analysis of variance (p<.01): 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 53/85 (62%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 34/60 (57%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- assessed behavioral inAuthor reported: 

- intervention participaseparate - assessed repeated exp

FYCARE 

- used implicit program 

to assess them 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

E-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.

Measures Time Points of Measurement: pre (for non-workshop participants) and post (for students already having completed the FYCARE workshop) Case Judgments ( students were asked to read a typical campus rape scenario involving two student s who meet to study; after drinking and “fooling around on the couch,” the male student in the scenario is described as becoming aggressive and sexually assaulting the female student) Victim Evaluation Questionnaire originally developed (Wyer, Bodenhausen, and Gorman, 1985) and revised (Naber, 1991) - students were asked to complete questionnaire after reading scenario: 17 items to assess (a) perceived 

harm done to the victim, (b) victim credibility, (c) victim blame, and (d) seriousness/criminality of the act 

Time Points of Measurement: pre (for non-workshop participants) and post (for students already having completed the FYCARE workshop) Behavioral Intentions: 

Telephone Interview - Developed based on similar script 

used by Heppner, Humphrey et al (1995). Two questions recorded on a yes/no scale: ‘Would you be willing to support a student fee increase for rape prevention efforts on campus?’ ‘Would you be willing to volunteer “a couple of hours a month” to the new program if implemented?’. Also included a series of questions about their previous involvement with rape education and rape prevention activities. (Additional questions were asked for which results were not presented - see note 7.) 

Time Points of Measurement: post/follow-up (for the respondents that had attended the workshop prior to the phone survey/some of which that may have attended the workshop prior to the questionnaire administration) and pre (for the respondents that had not attended the workshop prior to the phone survey). 

Results 

knowledge levels compared across the three groups revealed that the effect was due to the difference between students who had not yet participated in FYCARE versus both the other groups. Overall, the results from the questionnaire administration suggest that a positive impact of FYCARE was evident, but that it was primarily seen in the immediate postworkshop assessment. Only the increase in sexual assault knowledge was found in the unrelated context of introductory psychology. Related exposure to rape education (Questionnaires) to explore the cumulative impact of repeated exposure to multiple rape education programs, a variable was created to ascertain whether students had been involved FYCARE and/or some previous program. In comparison with students involved only in FYCARE, individuals who participated in two educational programs viewed the victim in a hypothetical rape incident as more credible (p < .02) and less responsible (p < .03) , and they judged the event to be more serious (p < .05) . However, participation in FYCARE and additional rape education programs were statistically related: self-selection thus remains an alterative explanation for this pattern of findings in the questionnaire administration. Behavioral Intentions (and/or Attitudes): Telephone survey: compared responses between Groups 4 and 5. The majority (90.5%) of respondents indicated a willingness to support a student fee increase to support rape prevention efforts. There was a significant difference between the groups (chi-square, p<.01): 95.6% of those that had participated in the workshop prior to the survey and 85.4% who had not that had not - indicated a willingness to support a student fee increase. 

No significant differences were found between the workshop participants and those that had not participated regarding the question of whether they’d help out with a program that might be implemented (overall, 69.5% 

Study Quality 

- the 77 students that w

in the telephone survey workshop that were noadministration phase oconfound whose impacstudy present design. (

Author reported: 

- study focused on issurather than program co- did not address the ef

behavioral sexual aggreassess whether the FYCappreciable effect on rebehavior, or the experiprogram participants. 

- possible social desirabquestions to assess beh

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality Victimization: Not reported 

Perpetration: Not reported 

Other Measures: 

Demographic and background information including gender, racial/ethnic identification, personal acquaintance with a rape survivor, participation in FYCARE, participation in other rape education programs, and participation in programs addressing sexual orientation. Time Points of Measurement: administered with the questionnaires 

responded ‘yes’; 72.4% workshop; 66.2% nonparticipants). Program impact at follow-up simple t-test was conducted 

with the summed dependent variable from the telephone survey: a difference was found between workshop participants and non-participants (Groups 4 and 5)(p< .04) with a modest effect size (.32), suggesting that participation in the program only somewhat increased the support demonstrated for rape prevention efforts. Repeated exposure to rape education (Telephone survey responses) compared responses between Groups 4 and 5. Students that were exposed to both programs were more likely to support rape prevention than students that had not participated in a program at all (p< .03). There was no significant difference between students that only participated in FYCARE versus students that were exposed to both FYCARE and some additional rape prevention program. 

Other Measures: 

Variables moderating program impact (Questionnaires) 

No interaction effects were found with program participation and any of the demographic/ background characteristics. Only direct relationships were found between such background characteristics and experimental variables. For example, simple t-tests revealed that women were generally more rejecting of rape myths (p<.01) and viewed the hypothetical rape scenario as more serious/criminal/ (p < .01) and more harmful (p < .01) than did their male counterparts. Women described the victim as more credible (p < .01) , but they also characterized the victim as relatively more responsible than did their male counterparts (p < .01) . Only one variable showed an effect with regard to racial/ethnic identification: White students described the victim in the scenario as relatively more responsible than did their non-White minority peers (p < .02). Students with personal acquaintance with rape survivor viewed the scenario as more serious/criminal than their peers without such acquaintance (p < .04). And students that had 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

previously participated in a rape education program reported greater rejection of cultural rape myths than their counterparts without such prior involvement (p < .01) and also viewed the victim in the scenario as more credible (p < .03), more harmed (p < .03) , less responsible (p < .01) , and the event as more serious/criminal than did student without prior education (p < .03). Although these demographic characteristics were directly related to responses, none seemed to exert a moderating influence on FYCARE program participation as hypothesized. Other related results not included in this study: The 

university’s Office of Women’s Programs recorded at least a 100% increase in service use following the implementation of FYCARE. The university police department reported increase in the number of reported sexual assaults.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Lonsway, Klaw, Berg, Waldo, Kothari, Mazurek, and Hegman 

Title: Beyond “No means No”: Outcomes of an Intensive Program to Train Peer Facilitators for Campus Acquaintance Rape Education 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large Midwestern university 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Not reported 

Population Type: College 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Intervention: m=20.64 

Comparison: m=19.59

 Sex: Intervention: Males = 28% (n = 21)

 Females = 68% (n = 53)

 Comparison: Males = 40% (n = 38)

 Females = 60% (n = 58)

 Education: undergraduates 

Intervention: 12% freshman; 4% sophomores; 24% 3rd 

year; 55% 4th year; 4% 5th year or more. 

Comparison: 21% 1st year; 39% 2nd year; 8% 3rd year; 24% 

4th year; 8% 5th year or more.

 Race/Ethnicity: Not reported so as not to 

compromise anonymity, however the demographics of both experimental and comparison classes generally appeared to represent those of the university in that the vast majority were White/European American

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: 17% women in CARE reported 

experiences that meet the legal definition of sexual assault; An additional 6% reported experiences of attempted rape. 62% of men and 51% of women reported knowing someone who had been victimized by sexual assault. 

Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 74 undergraduates 

enrolled in the CARE class Comparison Group Type(s): 96 undergraduates; 

participated in a semester long human sexuality course. Content areas included: communication, sexual behavior, birth control, abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, premarital sex, ethics, homosexuality, marriage, parenting, sexual health, coercive sex, and sexual assault. Near the end of the semester, CARE program facilitators conducted a 1-hour rape education workshop to address topics related to coercive sex and sexual assault(post-test was administered prior to this workshop). Sampling Frame Size: 

Not reported Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 170 Intervention: 74 Comparison: 96 Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): At Follow-Up: Intervention: 43% (n=32/74) Comparison: 35% (n=34/60 that received follow-up questionnaire) Total: 39% (n=66) Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest: prior to intervention (at the beginning of their course participation on the first day of class) Post-test: immediately after (last day of class) Follow-up: 2 years later 

Setting: Classroom 

Duration: Twice a weeSpans a period of 3-4 mIntervention and compduration Theory/Model: femin

Delivery Mode: Discu

Curriculum/Content: Education (CARE). Cothat trains undergraduaworkshops for peers in many aspects of rape edassociated with desirabl“debunking rape mythoframework, generating sexuality education, and approaches. Objectives: (a) to exploacquaintance rape a reaoppression and how it rtake a personal inventoculture and explore altebecome familiar with thand confront rape mythunderstanding about thsyndrome and campus/survivors and significancommitment to the CAbuilding and cooperationecessary to provide woon acquaintance rape to confidence in public spleadership skills. Program Implemente

professional and staff m

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Perpetration: None of the men in CARE reported having perpetrated behaviors that meet the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. 

Study participants were involved in CARE in the fall semester of 1993 or the spring of 1994. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Classroom; 

Pretest attitudinal assessments presented in workbook format; video scenarios were presented to intervention group in a same sex environment and respondents were asked to provide written responses. Follow-up consisted of attitudinal measures administered via anonymous mail survey (administered by university administration to assess the attitudes of current and 

along with undergraduaassistants. Class was offered throuCommunity Health and pass/fail credit on comCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

former undergraduates toward controversial social issues; experimental measures were embedded among questions regarding race relations and sexual orientation) that was mailed 2 times to increase response rate. Phone interviews with several participants suggested that none perceived any link between the follow-up survey and prior evaluation. 

Other: Not reported 

Measures Knowledge: 

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale - 45 items assessing the acceptance of rape myths (Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald, 1993). Responses are provided on 7-point Likert scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, and followup assessments 

Attitudes: Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale - 15 items assessing beliefs about heterosexual relationships, working relationships between the sexes, platonic friendships, and societal structure (developed by Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1995 to reflect Burt’s (1980) definition of the construct of adversarial sexual beliefs). Responses provided on 7-point Likert scale 

Attitudes Toward Feminism Scale - 10 items assessing support for feminist ideals and endeavors including one 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Pre-post differences in the expected positive direction were seen on all three quantitative measures for intervention group.

 Knowledge: 

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale At pretest, intervention and comparison students did not provide responses that were significantly different. Postcourse • Change in CARE classes: After class participation 

(post-test), students report less acceptance of cultural rape myths, F (1,41) = 4.20, p<.01. Comparison of CARE and human sexuality: After class participation (post-test), students in the CARE course reported support for cultural rape myths than those in the sex education course, F (1,90) = 46.27, p<.01 

Followup: • Significant class differences remained after 2 years 

(only for this scale), indicating that students in CARE 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 53/85 (62%)Description: 20/25 (80Design: 33/60 (55%)

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Long-term follow-up - Eliminated all compo

comparison interventiobetween rape preventiosexuality education in r

- Outcome evaluation fvariables that have been (beyond rape myth acc- Examination of behav

 Article: 

E-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.

Measures item that taps subjective identification with the movement (Fassinger, 1984). Responses are scored on 7-point Likert scale

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, and followup assessments. 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Qualitative assessment (developed by Schneebaum and Fitzgerald - Reference not provided) CARE students responded to a variety of videotaped scenes portraying a heterosexual couple involved in conflict with varying levels of sexual coercion by the male. Men and women are instructed to respond based on their sex: Men respond as if they were involved in the interaction with the desire to have sex with the female character; women respond as if they were involved in the interaction and did not intend to have sex. At various points, the action in the film is stopped, and viewers are asked what they would say and do at that point in the interaction and written responses are recorded. (Not administered to comparison group) CARE students responded to 2 scenarios at pretest and 2 different scenarios at post-test; These four videos were counterbalanced for a short- verus long-term relationship and verbal versus physical coercion.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre- and post-test 

Results 

class reported less accepting of cultural rape myths that those in human sexuality course - even after an interval of 2 years had passed.

 Attitudes: 

Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale At pretest, intervention and comparison students did not provide responses that were significantly different. Postcourse • Change in CARE classes: After class participation 

(post-test), students report less endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs, F (1, 41) = 5.35, p=.00. Comparison of CARE and human sexuality: After class participation (post-test), students report, respondents in the CARE course report less endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs than those in the sex education course F (1,90) = 6.98, p<.01 

Followup: • Significant class differences did not remain after 2 

years. 

Attitudes Toward Feminism Scale Prior to class participation, CARE students reported more supportive attitudes toward the feminist movement than did human sexuality students, F(1,97) = 7.35, p=.01. Postcourse: • Change in CARE classes: After class participation 

(post-test), students report more support for the feminist movement, F (1, 41) = 16.67, p<.01. 

• Comparison of CARE and human sexuality: After 

class participation (post-test), students in the CARE class reported more support for the feminist movement than the sex education course, F (1,90) = 22.53, p<.01. 

Follow-up: • Significant class differences did not remain after 2 

years. 

Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Qualitative assessment: 

Study Quality 

- Detailed description o- Acknowledges limitatMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Based on White, middrape education - Does not address samassault - Small sample size - Many more females th- Unable to assess a maquestionnaire administrto examination of univpoint of assessment for - Perception that the ra- Limitations to use of 

 Article: 

- Sampling frame and i

not included 

- It is what time period 

assessments were done was not included in ou

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Female respondents responses to sexual advances of men characters were categorized in 6 ways: (1) direct verbal resistance, (2) direct verbal resistance, (3) indirect physical resistance, (4) indirect verbal resistance, (5) monitoring their own internal reactions, and (6) becoming more sexually involved. Pre-course: most common strategy was to directly resist male’s advances using either physical or verbal strategies Post-course assessment: • After the course, women were significantly less likely 

to report using strategies of indirect verbal resistance, X2(1) = 14.55, p<.01; indirect physical resistance, 

X2(1) = 15.77, p<.01; and internal monitoring, 

X2(1) = 

6.81, p<.01. 

• Women reported more responses of direct verbal 

resistance after the CARE course than they had before, 

X2(1) = 68.40, p<.01. 

• Only the use of direct physical coping responses 

remained unchanged after participation in CARE. 

• Following CARE, the quality of women’s responses 

appeared to take on a different quality, remaining assertive but more proactive, setting boundaries for what they thought was and was not acceptable behavior. 

Insufficient number of responses from men to warrantconclusions (only quality of responses were examined). Male respondents responses to female character’s refusalof sexual advances were characterized in 3 ways: (1)stopping physical activity, (2) persisting in his pursuit ofsex, and (3) becoming more involved in open expression/communication.Post-course assessment: • Appeared as if quality of men’s responses in 3rd 

category changed, moving beyond complimenting to concern for the female character’s feelings, thoughts and desire (demonstrating taking on greater responsibility and engaging in more open communication). 

(There is evidence that men were simply “writing the script” rather than providing their true behavioral intentions.) 

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Author/s: Macgowan Title: An Evaluation of a Dating Violence Prevention Program for Middle School Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Opa-Locka, a city in northwest Metropolitan Study Design: Experimental Setting: Classrooms 

Dade County (Miami), Florida 

Author-reported: Pretest, post-test wait-list control Duration: Five, 1-hou

Study Eligibility Criteria: group design days. 

Middle school students (6th, 7th, 8th grades) who 

1. did not have a learning disability; Intervention Group Type(s): Intact classes were Theory/Model: Not 2. had passive parental consent. assigned to either the treatment or control group. A 

matching design with randomization was constructed to Delivery Mode: teach

Population Type: middle-school students promote comparability of the treatment and control experiential exercises. 

groups. 

Population Characteristics: Curriculum/Content: 

Reflects the 440 students who completed post-test: Students exposed to curriculum Domestic Violence Inte

(Kraizer and Larson, 19

Age: range from 11 to 16 years; X=12.6 Comparison Group Type(s): Intact classes were discussion about violen

assigned to either the treatment or control group. A and the role of self-este

Sex: 247 females - 56.1% matching design with randomization was constructed to second session was focu

193 males - 43.9% promote comparability of the treatment and control sexual and emotional ab

groups. power and control in ab

Education: The fourth lesson was f

6th graders: 149 - 33.9% Students not exposed to curriculum strong and weak relatio

7th graders: 155 - 35.2% relationships based on m8th graders: 130 - 30.9% Sampling Frame Size: Not reported The last session involve

problem-solving skills, 

Race/Ethnicity: provided for the school but NOT the Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): getting help in abuse re

resulting sample: N=802 Black, non-Hispanic: 72.3% Another component of Hispanic: 18% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and orientation coordinated White 8.3% Asian American/Native Amer 1.3%

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported 

Participation Rates): 440/802 = 55% 

(were only included in the analysis because they completed at least 19 out of 22 items of both the pretest and post-test items and attended at least 4 out of the 5 sessions). 

association approximatimplementation. The pto parents, encouraging homework with their chresources for additional such as attendance, was 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Criminal History: Not reported Pretest: One-day before program was initiated Program Implemente

Post-test: Monday after the program ended 3-hour teacher training 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): the curriculum. 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

The pretest was administered on a Friday preceding the Culturally Specific: Nintervention and the post-test was administered the Monday after the program ended. Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: To ensure that 

followed, teachers were reminder of the day’s mchecklists after intervencurriculum was covered 

Measures Knowledge and Attitudes: 

A 22-item questionnaire was developed based on a curriculum (Kraizer and Larson, 1993). Composite 

measure included items related to knowledge about dating violence, attitudes about nonphysical, physical, and sexual violence, an attitudes about dealing with violence in relationships.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest and post-test 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Student ratings of the program were 

also collected.

 Time Points of Measurement: Post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge and Attitudes: 

Overall: the evidence suggested that the prevention program contributed to the differences in scores between the treatment and control groups. Did not support gender differences in outcome. 

treatment and control group post-test scores: - significant main effect for condition with the treatmentgroup scoring significantly higher than the control group (p<.001) (two-way ANCOVA) - No main grade effects (two-way ANCOVA) - no level effects- no interaction effects (two-way ANCOVA) Within treatment analysis: - no significant differences between genders and grade

levels 

- significant difference between the regular and advancedlevel students (p<.001) with the advance students scoring 

higher than regular students. 

- male advanced students scores was significantly higher

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 57/85 ( 67%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 36/60 (60%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Examined a school wminorities than previou- Controlled for signifiand control group, such - Teachers were provid

day’s material. An examintervention indicated tcovered in all classes

 Article: 

Review of previous resMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- High attrition- Lack of follow-up

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

than the male regular students scores and the female - Non-standardized meadvanced students scores - female advanced students scores were significantly higher than the scores of male regular students. The male advanced students made the highest and most significant gains within the treatment group. Measures of specific items on the measure: Overall: the students significantly improved on 6 of the 22 items, mostly within the sections on knowledge about relationship violence and attitudes about nonphysical violence. - males and females improved on the same number of items but not on the same items. - boys’ attitudes improved significantly on attitudes about forced sex. - boy’s attitudes about physical/sexual violence were lower than those of girls at both pretest and post-test.

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Students rated the program in the 

superior range

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Pacifici, Stoolmiller, and Nelson Title: Evaluating a Prevention Program for Teenagers on Sexual Coercion: A Differential Effectiveness Approach 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two high schools in a suburb of a midsize city Study Design: Experimental Setting: Health class in 

in the Pacific Northwest. per class 

Author-reported: Randomly assigned classes to either 

Study Eligibility Criteria: All students enrolled in the intervention or the control group (students had been Duration: Three 80-m

health education classes in two high schools randomly assigned to classes by school personnel using period in which student

computerized registration). called The Virtual Date. 

Population Type: Primarily 10th grader students enrolled about 20 minutes of ins

in health education classes Intervention Group Type(s): Students who volunteered Took a 10-day period in

and consented to participate and were randomly assigned 

Population Characteristics: to the intervention group N=239 Theory/Model: Auth

Control Intervention research that has establ

N=220 N=461

 Age: X=15.9yrs 15.8 (yrs)

 Sex: Female 51.8% 51.9%

 Male 48.2% 48.1%

Comparison Group Type(s): Students who volunteered 

and consented to participate and were randomly assigned to the control group N=219 (placed on wait list for the program) Sampling Frame Size: 547 students 

attitudes supportive of coercive behavior (e.g., Malamuth, 1981, 1983; Also relied on evidence supportive attitudes of (Foshee et al., 1998; Ma

Education: X=10.1 X=10.1 Tanaka, 1991). 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Race/Ethnicity: 547 = 100% Delivery Mode: Class 

Native Amer 0 1.3% video, role play and dis

Asian 1.8% 0 Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and curriculum was participAfr Amer 1.8 0 Participation Rates): delivered didactically. V

Hispanic 2.3 2.9 458 students completed both assessments = 458/547 = of each class time. PI .9 0 84% Caucasian 84.0 88.0 Students were not offerOther .9 0

 Mixed 8.7 5.0

Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test given class 

period (two days) before intervention began Post-test - class period (two days) after intervention 

Curriculum/Content: multimedia curriculum 

Sexually Active: Measured but Not reported behavior in dating situa

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Video materials include

Victimization: Not reported The pre- and post intervention questionnaires were peer discussion groups, 

administered by means of an interactive computer scenarios that were use

Criminal History: Not reported program developed as part of the curriculum. Students 

used a mouse rather than a keyboard to enter their 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): responses. Students were sent to the computer lab for The first part of the cur

the assessments in groups of 10 - the capacity of the it?”, focused on increascomputer network used in the study. coercion. The second p

Expectations,” explored 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Students completed a paper- and-pencil version of the background information questionnaire. 

feelings that contribute part, titled “Refusals anbuilding positive social interactive video story aof the story were presenand one from a female Program Implemente

education teachers partreceived a detailed instrorientation 2 weeks befCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Sexual Attitude Survey (Burt, 1980) - consists of 

four subscales 1 - Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) - included nine items 

from the original 19. 11 were dropped because they asked respondents to estimate percentages of rape-relate events, were judged to be out of date, or did not related to the curriculum. One item on date rape was added. 2 - Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (ASB) - included nine items 

3 - Sex Role Stereotyping (SRS) - included nine items 

4 - Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV) - included six 

items

 Time Points of Measurement: 

pre- and post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge:

 Attitudes: Preliminary analyses not presented here (see 

pages 555 and 556) 

Preliminary Outcome Analyses: A repeated measures MANOVA was performed: none of the group X time interaction effects, multivariate or univariate, was significant, indicating that the intervention did not have a significant main effect. Did find that for students initially above the mean, intervention students had lower mean postscores than control students. These findings led to: Latent variable model of differential effectiveness: Authors did not include AIV for simplicity (would have needed statistical models to correct censoring). 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 61/85 (72%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 36/60 (60%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

Designed intervention interventionists in the f1. Clearly defined beha2. Examined findings bdifferences based on th3. Random assignmen4. Sophisticated statist5. Looked at differenc

and those who did not 

6. Used computers no

students responses 

E-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.

Measures Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Background information questionnaire - basic background information, such as grade, gender, race, and age

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pre-test 

Results Study Quality 

The three outcome measures were taken as indicators of an underlying latent variable, coercive sexual attitudes (CSA). In summary, teens in the intervention group who Major Weaknesses:

were above the prescore mean on CSA improved Study: significantly more than corresponding teens in the control 1. Modified standard mgroup, and the effect sizes associated with these affects the scales, normimprovements ranged from small for teens at the prescore mean, to moderate for teens at 1 SC above the prescore mean, to very large for teens at 2 SDs above the prescore mean. Summary: the study found that an intervention for high school teenagers was effective in reducing their acceptance of sexual coercion. Benefits were apparent only for those students who initially, were considered relatively more at risk, that is, for those students whose indicators of coercive sexual attitudes were at or above the prescore mean benefitted from the intervention, whereas those below did not.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Pinzone-Glover, Gidycz, and Jacobs 

Title: An Acquaintance Rape Prevention Program: Effects on Attitudes Toward Women, Rape-Related Attitudes, and Perceptions of Rape Scena

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: 2 moderately sized Midwestern universities 

Study Eligibility Criteria: undergraduates enrolled in 

introductory psychology class at either university Population Type: College students 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: 72% between the ages of 18-20

 28% 21years old or older

 Sex: Females: 93 (61%); Males 59 (39%) 

(one female is unaccounted for in table 1)

 Education: undergraduates

 42% freshmen; 25% sophomores; 18% juniors; 15% 

seniors

 Race/Ethnicity: 85% Caucasian; 12% African 

American; 3% Asian

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not 

reported 

Study Design: Randomized comparison

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

mixed-gender group of approximately 15-20 participants (number of groups Not reported) n=76 Comparison Group Type(s): Mixed-gender group of approximately 15-20 participants that received the sexually-transmitted diseases prevention intervention, not rape-prevention intervention. (number of groups Not reported) n= 75 Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

N = 166 Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Numbers of participants that completed both the preand post-test (and the intervention): Intervention group: n=76 Comparison group: n=75 Total of 152 students completed all three phases (Note: discrepancy between numbers in text and table) Seven females (4%) and eight males (5%) dropped out prior to completion of study (no indication of which group these dropouts were from). 91% participation rate Time Points of Data Collection: Session 1: Pre-test: 1 week prior to interventions Session 2: Program evaluation: immediately following intervention Session 3: Post-test: 1 week after the intervention 

Setting: classroom (im

been auditorium settingDuration: approximatTheory/Model: Not r

Delivery Mode: prese

completion of The Rapdiscussion of worksheeComparison program: handout on sexual assauCurriculum/Content: basic statistics on prevamen and women , (b) dand facts about rape ancharacteristics and attituincluding acquaintance can increase personal sasituations that could porape, and (e) identify codepartments that assist Statistics about pervasivcampuses and state legaParticipants then compWorksheet (designed by whether statements werheld about worksheet; battitudes often exhibited case examples of acquadiscussed to facilitate awstaying sober on dates wincrease personal safety were described. Males avoiding situations that Comparison program: 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: program’s objectives wSelf-administered questionnaires prevalence; (b) describe 

intervention; (c) distingdescribe preventative stthat provide services to examples were given. (program and modified Participants were led to two separate experimenthe sessions, consent foto accomplish this. Ththe instruments were ad“Judgments and Attitudconsisted of either of thProgram Implemente

psychology students facfacilitated half of the exgroups and the other msessions. Mixed-gender appropriate male-femalrole models for the paruse of mixed-gender teaof change with the mixCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) (Burt, 1980), 11 items, scale; Assesses the degree to which participants accepted rape myths Rape Empathy Scale (RES) (Deitz and Byrnes, 1981), 19 items, scale; Assesses the degree to which participants empathized with either rape victims or the offender Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS) - short form (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1973), 25 items, scale; Assesses participants' attitudes regarding the rights and roles of women. Acquaintance-Rape Scenarios 3 rape scenarios of differing degrees of ease at which they are defined as rape (based on pilot of 12 scenarios). Each scenario is consistent with the legal definition of rape (women indicate in each that they did not want to have sex by saying no.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test (one-week 

prior to intervention)and post-test (one-week post 

intervention) 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Program evaluation

 Time Points of Measurement: at pre-test (one-week 

prior to intervention) and post-test (one-week post 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge:

 Attitudes: 

No significant results post-test for RMAS. However, men in intervention group evidenced a 5-point change (more than half a standard deviation) from pre- to post-test in rape-myth acceptance. And univariate analysis with RMAS was significant. 

Intervention group became significantly more empathic toward the victim than comparison group Men in intervention group changed more with respect to their attitudes toward women than men in the comparison group (they became less traditional in their attitudes) Gender difference: Men changed more in their attitudes toward women (pre- to post-test) than did women. Women’s attitudes toward women did not change due to intervention. Women scored significantly higher on AWS at both time points (they had less room for change). Men in the intervention group were significantly more likely to define a scenario situation as rape after the intervention than were men in comparison group. No such differences were found for women (may be related to significant linear trend obtained for differences across gender regardless of group membership). Significant linear trend was obtained for differences between pre- and post-testing for intervention group. The general trend for differences between groups across scenarios post-intervention was not significant.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Findings Not reported (most likely 

because tasks were defined as ‘distractors’) 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 52/85 (61%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 33/60 (55%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Social desirability, oftwas addressed: the comthat they were in a diffeintervention on a diffewith a similar format anused. - Comparison group fr- Authors chose scales, wide use and potential 

 Article: 

- Relevance of findings - Indication of how the on the present study Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Short follow-up duratweek following interve- Scales used (AWS and 

RMAS has limited condifferently among resp

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality intervention) 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Distractor tasks were included in participants’ packets of instruments at both pre- and post-test: Beck Depression Other: Inventory, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and various distractor judgment tasks.

E-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.

Author/s: Proto-Campise, Belknap, and Wooldredge Title: High School Students’ Adherence to Rape Myths and the Effectiveness of High School Rape-Awareness Programs Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: 3 Cincinnati public high schools Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison Setting: Classroom 

Study Eligibility Criteria: High School Student Author-reported: An experimental design with pre- Duration: One-session 

and post-tests and experimental and control groups 

Population Type: High school students 60% of the sample were in the intervention group and Theory/Model: Not 

40% in the control group 

Population Characteristics: Delivery Model: Lect

Age: 13 - 14 years: aprx half Intervention Group Type(s): High school students communication betwee

15 years: 30% who had parental permission (No videotapes or othe16 years: 15%

 > 17 years: aprx 10% Comparison Group Type(s): Curriculum/Content: 

Control Group: High school students who had parental about the legal definitio

Sex: Male, 53%; Female, 47% permission statistics about rape (co

about rape. Class discu

Education: 

Sample: > 75% = freshmen

 11% = sophomores Aprx 5% = juniors Aprx 6% = seniors 

School A: Experimental group: six mostly freshmen health classes and one sociology class consisting of mostly sophomores, 

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 866 usable (not missing any responses) for the descriptive study

rape, gender roles, and media. Also, included iphysical and emotional has been raped may havdiscussion about how tsocially) and what an indo to seek help and supProgram Implemente

juniors, and seniors. Control Experimental Woman (WHO), a CincControl group: four physical-education classes consisting Pre-test 172 257 services for victims of imostly of freshmen Post-test 174 263

Culturally Specific: N

School B: 837 usable (not missing any responses) for the Experimental group: two health classes, students from multivariate analysis Assessment of Exposgrades 9 through 12 Control Experimental Control group: one health class, students from grades 9 Pre-test 161 256 Intervention Retentiothrough 12 Post-test 164 256 School C: 12 home economic classes randomly split between experimental and control (6 classes each); consisted of a majority of ninth graders 

Time Points of Data Collection: (varied slightly due to 

schools timetable) Pre-test: a few days before the intervention Post-test: experimental groups received approximately one week after program; control received as closely as possible to the time span of the experimental groups’ 

Other: 

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Race/Ethnicity: Sample mostly Euro-American post-tests. 

(61%); 29% were African-American 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: SelfSchool A: Predominantly Euro-American, middle-class administered survey in classroom except for one school 

suburban where testing was conducted in a physical education 

classes. First author administered all the testing and was 

School B: Mostly African-American lower- to working- present to answer any questions that the students had class urban high school about the survey. School C: Ethnically mixed, lower-to working-class, urban high school

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): - 58% of the sample came from two-parent households - 84% had dating experience 

Measures Knowledge: Not measured

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 2-page survey designed by authors; 24 true and false questions regarding students’ descriptive information. Development of the survey items was guided by prior measurement instruments on rape attitudes (Burt, 1980; Fonow et al., 1992; Gilmartin-Zena, 1988; Warshaw, 1988) as well as an attempt to address the specific points WHO covered in their rape-awareness program.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and Post-test 

Victimization: Not measured 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

No differences in pre-test scores between groups Pretest and post-test scores indicated that males were significantly more likely than females to adhere to rape myths. This analysis also found that African American students were more likely to adhere to rape myths than Anglo students. The findings suggest that Anglo females are the least likely to adhere to rape myths, followed by African American females, Anglo males, and African American males, respectively. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 47/85 (55%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 26/60 (43%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Pilot tested instrumensmall sample(n=6) - Recognized limitationstatistical controls and limitation - One person did all ‘te- Examined differences - Considered race and e

economic status in resu

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not measured

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Time Points of Measurement: 

At pretest, students from two-parent homes were more likely to adhere to rape myths than students from singleparent homes. However, this was washed out by with the rape education. No significant change occurred in the control group’s mean from the pretest to the post-test. Significant change in the intervention group mean from pretest to post-test (p=<.0001) 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Students were told thrape-awareness program and control groups - co-Short follow-up period - Survey has no norms, - Impossible to determrates, etc 

Experimental group performed significantly better than the control group on 15 of the 24 questions on the posttest. Control group performed significantly better on one question. No significant difference between groups on 8 questions. “This information provides fairly powerful evidence of a significant effect for the rape-awareness program, but also shows that the program was more successful in some areas than others” Post-test analysis: the higher the grade level, the less likely a student was to report adherence to rape myths. However, age is negatively related: the younger the student, the more likely it is that she or he answered the rape myth item correctly. Analysis controlled for grade level and age simultaneously.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Rosenthal, Heesacker, and Neimeyer Title: Changing the Rape-Supportive Attitudes of Traditional and Nontraditional Male and Female College Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large southern university 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Undergraduate psychology 

Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison

 Author-reported: 

Setting: Campus class

Duration: One-hour 

students who gave informed consent and were selected based on high and low scores on SRS (Burt, 1980 - see Intervention Group Type(s): Students who agreed to Theory/Model: RepliMeasures). participate in the intervention and completed follow-up psychoeducational inter

phone appeal and were offered discontinuation of the Petty and Cacioppo’s (1

Population Type: Undergraduate psychology students study at any point. They were also debriefed. (ELM) of attitude chan

N = Not reported specifically to create a t

Population Characteristics: both endure and influen

Age: between 18 and 22 years Comparison Group Type(s): Control group received maximize participant’s 

and completed post-test measures and follow-up phone about the intervention, 

Sex: 122 males = 50% appeal identical to those administered to the treatment favorability regarding th

123 females = 50% participants immediately upon arriving at the classroom. 

Education: Undergraduate students - no further info

 Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

They did not receive the intervention. Same debriefing as intervention group. N = Not reported Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Delivery Mode: A ma

intervention to all partitranscript of the interveadministered equivalentdidactic form and role-p

Sexually Active: Not reported

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Curriculum/Content: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Not reported - unclear if sample size in article reflects only those who completed both tests or follow-up or both Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest: 8 weeks prior to intervention Post-test: immediately after intervention Follow-up: one month after intervention 

used in Gilbert et al.’s (arguments in favor of rrape myths, adversarial dominance. To induce techniques were used to and ability to think aboensure that these thougthe points made in the was promoted by stresssocial consequences of rape myths, adverse sexProgram Implemente

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Classroom old White man with a s

setting where intervention was delivered ; paper and education and a 19-yearpencil surveys sophomore. 

Culturally Specific: N

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Sex Role Stereotyping Scale(SRS) - (Burt 1980) consists ofnine items that primarily assess beliefs regarding thenature of appropriate sexual and social roles for women;items are rated using a Likert-type scale

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, post-test 

(only reported pretest findings) 

Rape Myth Acceptance (RMAS) - (Burt 1980) measures adherence to typical myths about rape and consists of 19 items.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Date Rape Vignette - participants’ responses to a vignette describing a date rape situation; serves as a measure of rape-supportive attitudes (Muehlenhard and MacNaughton, 1988).

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Post-Intervention Attitudes: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (ASB) - (Burt 1980) consists of nine items designed to assess beliefs regarding manipulation and “game-playing” by both men and women in sexual relationships. 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

Overview: results of a MANOVA revealed that treatment group participants showed differences from control group participants across 10 measures of rape-relevant attitudes and beliefs. There was no significant main effect for traditionality indicating that the intervention can be as effective with traditional as with less traditional individuals. The main effect for participant gender was NOT statistically significant 

Traditionality: main effect for traditionality was (p.174) statistically significant, p<.001. In general, as traditionality decreased, so did rape-supportive attitudes, although this effect did not extend to the phone appeal responses. Gender: Main effect for gender was statistically significant (p<.001) indicating that men were more rape-supportive than women, both in attitudes and behavior. SRS: pretest SRS scores were used to create five levels of traditionality; each composed of aprx 20% of the participants. Findings Not reported for post-test scores on SRS and SES RMAS: significant main effects for treatment (p<.005) Date Rape Vignette: significant main effects for treatment on responses concerning Amy’s responsibility (p<.005) but not for Mike’s responsibility, for Amy’s’s desire for 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 37/85 (44%) Description: 15/25 (60Design: 22/60 (37%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

1. Phone contact persoresearch and were randparticipants 2. Attempted to target 3. Expanded on previo

adapting for coed audie

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

1. Impossible to determ

who was in control gro

2. No baseline informa3. No control variable

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: post-test sex, or for the justifiability of Mike’s actions. 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV) - (Burt AIV and ASB: no significant main effects for treatment 1980)consists of six items regarding use of physical force, primarily by men against women in sexual relationships. Phone Appeal: The treatment group was significantly more 

likely to volunteer than was the control (P<.01). The 

Time Points of Measurement: post-test treatment group did NOT demonstrate a greater likelihood 

of making positive comments regarding the phone appeal, 

Phone Appeal - (Gilbert et al. 1991) a script was read to nor did they listen longer to the appeal than did the participants over the phone; participants were told of two control group.proposed projects, a campus escort service and a peer discussion program regarding dating issues. Students Victimization:could participate in these programs, or help organize or advertise them or both. Participants were asked to Perpetration: indicate how much time they would volunteer for any or all of these activities. Willingness to listen to the appeal, Other Measures:statements supportive of the project, and number of hours volunteered served as dependent variables.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Time Points of Measurement: One-month after 

completing the immediate post-test measures Other: Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Sexual Experiences Survey - data were gathered but not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

E-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.

Author/s: Smith and Welchans Title: Peer Education: Does Focusing on Male Responsibility Change Sexual Assault Attitudes? 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: High school in a suburb of Detroit; the Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Classroom an

community covers almost 36 square miles and has a population of slightly more than 100,000. The high Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 45-minute pschool was one of four serving the community. 

Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: To p

Study Eligibility Criteria: High school students in N=253 students in grades 10 to 12 to reach the students w

grades 10 to 12; volunteered to participate change the attitudes of 

Comparison Group Type(s): commit the crime; it is 

Population Type: High school students in grades 10 to 

12 Population Characteristics:

 Age: Not reported. Sex: Males: 39%

 Females: 46%

No comparison group Sampling Frame Size: 

Student body = 2,000 Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Not reported 

the attitudes of males brape myths relates to mwho acknowledge command Yee, 1990). Therefmales should decrease tcommitted. Delivery Mode: Prese

Declined to identify their sex: 15% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Education: Ninth-grade students were not included in 

the sample; twelfth-grade classes were the most heavily sampled.

 Race/Ethnicity: Predominantly white Sexually Active: Not reported. Victimization: Not reported. Criminal History: Not reported.

Participation Rates): 253students completed pre- and post-test Time Points of Data Collection: Pre: immediately before presentation Post: immediately after presentation Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Paper and pencil test completed in classrooms and large group assemblies 

Curriculum/Content: Project: goal was to deprogram directed at merape myths and ultimatsexual assault. Information on sexual asexual assault law, and hassaulted. An emphasis on male rassault was included in Program Implemente

female peer educator fa

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Predominantly middle class Trained high school stu

student council and a pstudents were chosen bpositive role models in training in empathy and completed an applicatioselection to be a peer edenthusiasm for the proj

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

issues, public speaking leadership abilities. They received 15 hours assault prevention and included knowledge bubuilding in listening and presentation skills, grouplays. They received invictim blaming, stereotyeducators attended conmeetings twice a month Continued training inclsexual assault law, sexudating relationships, Roalcohol and other drugs Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: questionnaire developed for the study; 20 questions; Likert-type scale. Included items such as “A girl should know better than to drink too much with guys she doesn’t know well”, “Most strangers rapes are committed because the rapist is attracted to the victim and wants sex,” and “As long as people take precautions they won’t be raped.”

 Time Points of Measurement: pre- and post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

Attendance at a peer education presentation was shown to significantly affect short-term attitudes about sexual assault. A significant improvement for both males and females from pre-test to post-test was found. Those who did not report gender were the only group that did not show a significant change. 

Female students scored significantly higher than male students on pretest (p=.000). Furthermore, females scored 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 39/85 (46%)Description: 25/25 (10Design: 14/60 (23%)Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- ongoing training of pMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- peer educators identifinformation by contactImpossible to know wh

E-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.

Measures Results Study Quality Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

higher than males at post-test (p=.000). Males showed a 

more dramatic improvement from pre-test to post-test than the females. 

- Measure was developreliability or validity me

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Evaluation measure developed for the 

study: six-question evaluation; Likert-type scale

 Time Points of Measurement: Post-test 

A regression indicated that gender had a stronger impact on test scores, accounting for 54% of the variance in score, than whether the test was taken before or after the presentation, which accounted for 39% of the variation in test scores. Note: findings for each item were presented. I did not report them here.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Evaluation: were quite high with a 

mean score of 55.76 out of 60. Evaluations of 

presentations were significantly correlated with gender, (p=.0001), with female students reporting higher 

evaluations of the presentation than male students. Evaluation ratings were also correlated with test scores (p=.05), indicating that those who scored higher on the 

post-test reported that they found the presentation more interesting, important, and well-prepared. When the effects of 

gender were controlled the effects of evaluation score were no longer significant. 

Evaluations by male students were inversely related to Post-test scores, indicating that those who rated the presentation as interesting and well-done actually scored lower at post-test than those who did not enjoy the presentation. The opposite was found to be true for females.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-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.

Author/s: Weisz and Black Title: Evaluating a Sexual Assault and Dating Violence Prevention Program for Urban youths Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Urban public charter middle school (school is Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison Setting: Mandatory af

associated with public university) exact location 

Author-reported: Quasi-experimental pretest, postStudy Eligibility Criteria: Seventh-grade students test, follow-up group design Duration: Spring prog

attending the charter school during the two school years six-week period 

Intervention Group Type(s): Seventh-grade students Fall program: 12, 1.5 h

Population Type: 7th grade students who voluntarily chose to participate in the program as period. 

part of required after-school program (and had parental 

Population Characteristics: consent) Theory/Model: Not 

Age: 12.84 Years = X “across both groups”

Comparison Group Type(s): Seventh-grade students Delivery Mode: Dida

Sex: Intervention: 25 girls (54%) and 21 boys (46%) from the same charter school who were not enrolled in modeling, role-plays, ex

Comparison: 13 girls (65%) and 7 boys (35%) the program discussions to help part

better understand their 

Education: 7th grade students; many of the students Sampling Frame Size: 250 seventh-graders Leaders used role-plays 

have failed at other public schools because of behavioral responded very positiveor academic problems. Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Classes were separated 

46 students in the intervention completed pre-test 

Race/Ethnicity: 100% African American(school was 

99% African American)

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Measured but Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 60% of 

the students in the school qualify for subsidized lunch. 

46/250=18% 20 students in the comparison group completed pretest: 20/250 = 8% Total: 66/250 = 24% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post-test: Intervention: 27/46 = 59% Comparison: post-test not given to comparison group Follow-up: Intervention: 21/46 = 46% Comparison: 9/20 = 45% Total: 30/66=45% 

Curriculum/Content: and Teaching Teens to Domestic Violence Sexincludes information on and physical violence dconsequences of using relationships. Group leaders geared thfor low-income, inner-cby basing discussion anexperiences. Because mofficially “dating”, the pthat occur between youand spending time togeProgram Implemente

trainers facilitated the g

Both pre-test and follow-up: Rape Counseling CenteIntervention: 17/46 = 37% co-trainers for the girls’ Comparison: 9/20 = 40% students co-led the boy

E-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

of the trainers had an M

Time Points of Data Collection: Female trainers were all Pre-test: initial day of program Post-test: final day of the program (for intervention only) Follow-up: six months after program completion Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self-administered surveys (location of administration Not reported) 

four male trainers were Culturally Specific: T

culturally sensitive and Facilitators were Africapresentations was desigAssessment of Expos

Would we say it differethe intervention in 6 we

12 weeks? Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Developed by researchers - 17 questions 

(based primarily from Knowledge of Sexual Assault (RAVE, 

1997))

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pre-test: initial day of program Post-test: final day of the program (for intervention only) Follow-up: six months after program completion 

Attitudes: Developed by researchers - 25 items drawn from the Rape Attitude Scale (Hall, Howard and Boezio, 1986), Youth Dating Violence Survey (Foshee, 1994), and the 

Teen Life Relationship Questionnaire (Kantor, 1996)

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pre-test: initial day of program Post-test: final day of the program (for intervention only) Follow-up: six months after program completion 

Victimization AND Perpetration: Incidence - a survey 

of students victimization and perpetration during the 

Results 

Primary Measures: Significance is reported for scores 

with a p value of less than .10 (because authors considered study ‘exploratory’)

 Knowledge: A paired t-test showed a significant 

difference between pre- and post-test mean scores for the intervention group (n=23) (p=.005). 

Pretest to follow-up: ANOVA comparing the 17 intervention students who completed both the pretest and follow-up with the nine students from the comparison group who completed both indicated a significant effect for time and group (p=.005), controlling for gender. Pretest (23 girls and 19 boys) in the intervention group: girls achieved significantly higher scores (p=.012). Post-test (14 girls and 11 boys) in the intervention group: no significant differences at post-test or follow-up (12 girls and 8 boys)

 Attitudes: for the 11 intervention students who 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 44/85 (52%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 23/60 (38%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

1. Pilot study conducte2. Measured difference

and follow-ups versus instrument. Found sigattitudes. 

3. Incorporates broad 

curriculum including retermed “dating”. 

4. Content of the pres

culturally relevant (facil

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

1. Very low rates of par

E-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.

Measures Results preceding six months. (Findings Not reported) completed all three time points, a paired samples t-test 

showed that the mean pretest and post-test scores were 

Time Points of Measurement: Not reported significantly improved (p=.01). 

Other Measures: Behavior or anticipated behavior(not Pretest to post-test: No significant differences according 

described) to time of testing (n=14 who completed all three time 

periods). 

Time Points of Measurement: Not reported 

Significant improvement at post-test in the mean scores of the 27 intervention group students who completed the pre- and post-test attitude scales. 

pretest to follow-up: ANOVA, controlling for gender, indicate a significant effect for time and group but not for time alone (p=.015). The intervention groups’ scores rose, and the comparison group’s score fell. Gender differences: Boys and girls in the intervention group had significant attitude differences at pretest (p=.020) and post-test (p=.071). Differences at follow-up were not significant.

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

2. No analyses of differ

participated and those 

3. No analyses of samp4. Modified curriculum was presented and how was followed. 5. Not clear why some 6. Non-random assignm7. Very small sample si

E-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.

Authors: Schwartz and Wilson 

Title: We’re Talking But Are They Listening? The Retention of Information from Sexual Assault Programming for College Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: A residential public university in the midwest 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Students referred to a study 

skills class for their first term in college due to a change in admission criteria. All students enrolled and attending the class participated. 21scheduled classes. Population Type: College 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Not reported Sex: 66% female, 34% male (pre-test group; “post-test 

group almost identical)

 Education: 100% First term college students Race/Ethnicity: 97% White (pre-test group; “posttest group almost identical)

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group

 Author-reported: Pre-test, post-test design 

Intervention Group Type(s): half of the study skills 

classes were presented a program on the nature of rape on college campuses (n=167). Which classes were selected for the experimental treatment and which were named controls were decided mainly for scheduling reasons. Comparison Group Type(s): half of the study skills 

class that did not participate in the rape program.. All classes not receiving treatment were designated as controls. Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

376 Participation rate - Not applicable Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 346 Participation rate - 92% Time Points of Data Collection: pre-test: At the beginning of the term -first few days of classes post-test:: toward the end of the term - between 1 month and 6 weeks after the rape awareness lecture. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported 

Setting: Classroom, 14 

Duration: one-time, 5Theory/Model: Not r

Delivery Mode: Lectu

Curriculum/Content: presenter felt were the college campus and somrape. She discussed the depth, both in terms of behavior (although stremale behavior), and also increasing female vulnethis does not increase frape prevention techniqlabeling behavior approbefore proceeding with Course credit was roughhour, and students did participating in the studProgram Implemente

assault education and pCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

E-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.

Measures Knowledge:10-item test of rape myths; Likert-type scale. 

Scale provided in appendix of article

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest and port-test 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Two additional questions asked at post-test: report the number of friends that told them that they had been sexually assaulted during the experimental term and “rate your level of personal concern about sexual assault.” 

Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Measure: results section reports findings about usefulness of intervention but no information about exactly what was asked is provided.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Overall: students exposed to rape myth lectures were likely to change their attitudes, while equally situated students who did not hear the lecture were not.

 Knowledge: Pretest scores ranged from 22 to 50 

(respondents could score from 0 to 50). The mean pretest score was 37.85. The post-test mean score for the experimental group was 40.03. A t-test shows that the difference between these two groups is statistically significant (p<.0005). The mean of the control group at post-test was 38.48. The difference in this mean score was not statistically significant.. 

Differences between control group and experimental group were stronger among women than men. There was a change from pretest to post-test for men in the experimental group (p =.034) however the gain in the experimental group did not differ significantly from the control group at the end of the study. For the women, however, there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group (t=2.90, df=223.8, p=.002).

 Attitudes: Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Although there were no significant differences between the experimental and control group in the number who reported having friends tell them that they had been sexually assaulted during the experimental term (approximately 10%) there was a difference in that men in the experimental group were more likely to have such a friend. There was no difference for women. The experimental group rated their concern about sexual assault significantly higher than the control group 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 42/85 (49%) Description: 18/25 (72Design: 24/60 (40%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Identify gender differpost-test

 Article: 

- Describes another stuamong students in a soinformation integrated Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- No description or cita

acceptance 

- Subjects not randoml- No citations, validity, presented 

E-121
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

(p=.014). Differences were statistically significant for men ( p=.005) but not statistically significant for women (p=.16). Measure of usefulness of intervention: 87% of the students said the program was useful enough that it should be provided during orientation to all incoming first year students. Only 5% did not recommend that the program become mandatory, while the rest remain undecided.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-122
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.

Author/s: Nelson and Torgler Title: A Comparison of Strategies for Changing College Students’ Attitudes Toward Acquaintance Rape 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Nonequivalent comparison Setting: Not reported 

Author-reported: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Undergraduate psychology Duration: 

students that signed up to participate Intervention Group Type(s): Undergraduate E1: 30 minute videotap

psychology students that were assigned to groups based E2: 10 minutes to read 

Population Type: College Students on the times they were available to participate. All three Control: 10 minutes to 

groups were tested at a similar time of day. 

Population Characteristics: E1 videotape: 33 total; 9 men and 24 women Theory/Model: Not 

Age: Mean age for all participants: 19 years E2 brochure: 31 total; 7 men and 24 women 

Delivery Mode: 

Sex: 25 men = 28% Comparison Group Type(s): Undergraduate E1: videotape 

64 women = 72% psychology students that were assigned to groups based E2: read brochure 

on the times they were available to participate. All three Control: read brochur

Education: Most were freshmen or sophomores groups were tested at a similar time of day. 

Control: 25 total; 9 men and 16 women Curriculum/Content: 

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Not reported 

E1 - viewed a videotape You Know: Acquaintance E2 - read literature on a

and Men Should Know aboInc., 1988). Brochure d

Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): E1: 33 total; 9 men and 24 women 

information as videotapControl - read a brochu

Everyone Should Know AbBete, Inc., 1987). Chos

E2: 31 total; 7 men and 24 women and layout to the date rControl: 25 total; 9 men and 16 women (can not determine percent because no baseline sample Program Implementesize provided) 

Culturally Specific: N

Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test: one week prior to intervention Assessment of ExposPost-test: immediately after intervention 

Intervention Retentio

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Selfadministered pre- and post-test survey. Location not Other: 

clear. 

E-123
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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

1. Attitude Toward Women Scale (AWS) - short version 

(Helmreich et al 1982)

 Time Points of Measurement: 

AWS - pretest 

2. Forcible Date Rape Scale (SDRS) -(Giarrusso, Johnson, 

Goodchilds, and Zellman (cited in Fischer, 1986a)) measures attitudes toward date rape: six items were added to the original scale, and some changes were made in the content of the precatory statement. In addition, a 7-point Likert scale was selected as the unit of measure.

 Time Points of Measurement:

 SDRS - pretest and post-test Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Background information sheet

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Administered with both pre- and post-test allowing for matching using identification numbers on sheet 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

Pre-test: no significant differences between groups on 

either the AWS nor the (SDRS); significant main effect of 

sex on the AWS (p=.01) (indicating that men had more 

traditional attitudes toward women than women did toward women and were more apt to attribute less independence and fewer rights to women). Also a significant sex difference on the SDRS (reflecting an 

attitude that was less rejecting of using coercion to obtain sex 

As predicted, there was a significant correlation between scores on the AWS and scores on the pretest SDRS ( a 

more traditional attitude toward women was associated with a greater acceptance of coercion as a means to obtain sex). 

Post-test: Overall, the post-test SDRS scores of all three 

groups were significantly lower (desired direction) than the pretest scores (participants were more rejecting of using coercion to obtain sex than at pretest). Contrary to the hypothesis that the videotape would be more effective than the rape brochure that would be more effective than the control brochure, the fact that all three 

groups’ scores were lower indicates that the change in scores was independent of the strategy used. 

Post-test scores of men on the SDRS were significantly higher than were the women’s scores (as in pretest, men were not as rejecting as women were). Men and Women’s scores were significantly lower on the post-test SDRS than they were on the pretest SDRS, 

contrary to the hypothesis that women’s scores would not change significantly. 

There was a significant negative correlation between 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 28/85 (33%) Description: 12/25 (48Design: 16/60 (27%) Major Strengths: Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Small sample - Impossible to determ

student body/psycholo

- Scale was modified so - No follow-up (only p

 Article: 

- No sample numbers rpost-test, participation - No description of sam- No description of cur

E-124 
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

participants’ AWS scores and their pretest SDRS scores 

(p<.01), supporting the hypothesis that a more traditional attitude toward women is correlated with a less rejecting attitude toward using coercion to obtain sex.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-125
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.

Author/s: Himelein Title: Acquaintance Rape Prevention with High-Risk Women: Identification and Inoculation 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Campus coun

help off-campus. 

Study Eligibility Criteria: all entering female college Author-reported: Not reported 

students enrolled in new student orientation who scored Duration: 5, weekly, 9in the upper 20% of the overall sample on a questionnaire Intervention Group Type(s):which used measures of six different risk characteristics, 7 women who scored high on questionnaire (see Theory/Model: Not rincluding, in order, depression, alcohol use in dating, eligibility criteria) were sent letters informing them of sexual liberalism, consensual sexual experience, prior their status (as high-risk) and inviting them to participate Delivery Mode: introdsexual victimization in dating, and child sexual abuse. in the prevention group. mini-lecture, clips from These women were defined as ‘high risk’ for victimization exercises. Self-defense or re-victimization. Women who expressed interest and Comparison Group Type(s): No comparison group who didn’t have scheduling conflicts participated. Curriculum/Content: 

Sampling Frame Size: 42 women were eligible for the First session: great emp

Population Type: college women 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Not reported Sex: 100% female Education: College students Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Sexually Active: asked as part of screening; specific 

findings Not reported

 Victimization: asked as part of screening; specific 

findings Not reported

 Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

study Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate):

 7 women 7/42 = 17% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 6 women 6/7 =86% Points of Data Collection: Pre-test - initial group session Follow-up - one month after final group session. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: paper and pencil questionnaire (given during first session and mailed to recipients one-month after last session) 

participants feel comfowith the content of the and icebreaker exercisepretest assessing dating knowledge. Facts and mvia an informal mini-lecmovies were viewed in session concluded with sexually aggressive men behaviors. Throughout emphasized that althourape by education womof rape. Second session: two spmini-lecture, discussionin sexual aggression and group members particippracticed assertiveness Third session: concernInformation about gendof verbal and nonverbaand a discussion of sexusexual aggression was fawere reviewed with speassertiveness. Role play focused on sexual situa

E-126
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Fourth session: addresThe prevalence of sexuconsequences of victimmembers volunteered tvictimization that mighrepeat victimization: seas one particularly troubto self-esteem developmdiscussion, and additionwere conducted. Finallabout characteristics of Fifth (final) session: cowith expertise in the prsession was held off camterm workshop on womlearned both verbal and Program Implemente

senior psychology majoclinical psychologist. Tcompleted an independvictimization and had inadditional hours in trainstart of the group. Self-defense expert conCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

E-127 
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.

Measures Knowledge: Questionnaire about sexual assault assessing dating behaviors and sexual assault knowledge (may have asked about other things, such as attitudes, etc. but no specific information provided)

 Time Points of Measurement: pre- and post-test 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

1. phone calls - no further information provided

 Time Points of Measurement: Follow-up 

2. verbal feedback - participants expressed their level of 

satisfaction and general feedback about the intervention

 Time Points of Measurement: following the final 

group meeting 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Results indicated that knowledge about 

sexual assault had increased (significance Not reported). Women also reported more frequent engagement in precautionary dating behaviors (significance Not reported).

 Attitudes: Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

1. On the basis of the follow-up phone calls as well as the 

responses of the group participants, no negative psychological reactions were observed. 

2. High degree of satisfaction, learned a great deal, and felt 

info presented was highly relevant and worthwhile.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 34/85 (40%) Description: 13/25 (52Design: 21/60 (35%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- variety of modes of p- targeted “high-risk” wMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- small sample size- significance levels No- dependent measure (q

E-128 
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.

Author/s: Dallager and Rosen Title: Effects of a Human Sexuality Course on Attitudes Toward Rape and Violence 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large midwestern university Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group Setting: Classroom 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Undergraduate students Author-reported: Non-equivalent control group Duration: 

enrolled at a large midwestern university and taking a design (subjects were not randomly assigned to groups) - Human Sexuality courHuman Sexuality course or an Education course semester with three of tvolunteered to participate. Intervention Group Type(s): 97 students in a Human examinations 

Sexuality course who volunteered to participate - Education course also 

Population Type: college 

Comparison Group Type(s): 48 students in education Theory/Model: “. . . r

Population Characteristics: (demographics are class who volunteered to participate often based on the prem

presented by gender by course in text, p 196) about rape and discoura

Human Sexuality Education Sampling Frame Size: Not reported decrease in rape myth b

Course Course supportive environmen

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Reeves, 1983: Burt, 19

Age: Range 18-42 yrs 20-41 yrs Not reported human sexuality course 

acceptance. Presented 

Sex: Male 35% 27% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and orientation toward the 

Female 65% 73% Participation Rates): 

Not reported Delivery Mode: 

Education: undergraduates Human Sexuality cou

Mean Range 3.09-3.25 3.97-4.00 Time Points of Data Collection: values clarification 

Pre-test: start of the class period during the second week Education course -lec

Race/Ethnicity: of the semester 

White 89% 98% Post-test: the 14th week of the semester Curriculum/Content: 

Black 1% 1% Human Sexuality - toHispanic 1% 0 Methods/Setting of Data Collection: reproduction, anatomy, Asian 1% 0 Paper and pencil questionnaire and scales in a college pregnancy, the sexual reNative Amer 1% 0 classroom setting. homosexuality, heterosOther 0 0 oppression, misuse and 

contraception, and vene

Marital Status: directly with the topics 

Single 96% 79% misuse and abuse; inclu

Married 1% 19% for discussions of the vDivorced 3% 2% with a feminist orientat

Presentations and discu

Religion: confrontational manner

None 27% 17%

 Christian 71% 77% Education course - le

Jewish 2% 4% educational practices in 

E-129
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Other 

Knows a Victim 

0 

40% 

2% 

38% 

schools. Did NOT coveducation, or rape. 

Sex Education:

 None <1% 

Friend/Self 11% Parents 18% Class 52% 

Sexually Active: Not reported

 Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

2%

15%

12%

71%

Program Implemente

Human Sexuality - minformation provided) Education course - mfurther information proCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

See above (population characteristics) 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) (Burt, 1980) - 19 items; Likert scale; measures acceptance of rape myths

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and post-test 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV) (Burt, 1980) - 6 statements; Likert scale; measures acceptance of interpersonal violence

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and post-test 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge:

 Attitudes: Significant difference between the education 

students and human sexuality students on the RMA adjusted mean scores at post-test (p<0.01). (Students in the human sexuality class showed significantly less acceptance of rape myths than did the scores for students taking an education class.) “The present findings, however, would be misleading if only the statistical significance was considered. While it is hopeful that course-work in human sexuality can still positively influence the attitudes of young adults, the influence seems small when the actual score change is considered. The mean scores for the human sexuality group and the education group were 33.99 and 35.02, respectively. Dividing these scores by 19, the total number of items on the RMA scale, shows that both groups had average item scores of less than 2 - representing general 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 54/85 (64%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 31/60 (52%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- differences in pretest Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-non-random assignme

 Article: 

- lack of description of rates 

E-130
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.

Measures Results Study Quality Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

disagreement with rape myths.” No significant difference between groups on the AIV scale.

Other Measures: Demographic questionnaire Victimization:

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-131
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.

Author/s: Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, Grasley, and Reitzel-Jaffe Title: Dating Violence Prevention with At-Risk Youth: A Controlled Outcome Evaluation Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Seven CPS agencies including urban, rural Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group Setting: Groups were o

and semirural jurisdictions (no other detail) (assumed such as youth centers. took place in Canada) Author-reported: Random two-group, two-level 

growth curve design applied to individual-level longitudinal Duration: 18-session p

Study Eligibility Criteria: Adolescents aged 14 to 16 data. “We had to compromise true random assignment to 

years (inclusive) and at risk of developing abusive increase the number of participants receiving the Theory/Model: Youth relationships on the basis of their history of intervention” (p 289); random assignment to condition a health-promotion apprmaltreatment from 7 participating Child Protective was modified to reflect a ratio of 2:1 (treatment and dating relationships by fServices (CPS). (Referrals were not sought on the basis control, respectively), to increase the number of youths aggression-based interpeof prior abuse in a dating relationship; however, those receiving the program gender-based role expecwho had engaged in such behavior were not excluded). from skill- and learning-Individuals were excluded if they were receiving or in Intervention Group Type(s): previously as well as frogreater need of other mental health services, on the basis 96 youths; CPS caseworker referred; verbal consent to be societal values that mainof a caseworker’s report or intake findings; if they had contacted by a member of the research team was obtained gender-base violence, suconvictions for crimes against persons; or if they were if the caseworker, caregiver, and youth agreed. Required role stereotyping, and gedevelopmentally delayed. Verbal consent to be consent from youth and parent or legal guardian. Dobash, 1992); and from contacted by a member of the research team was Random assignment to condition reflected ratio of 2:1 linking past child maltreobtained if the caseworker, caregiver, and youth agreed. (treatment and control) to increase the number of youths peerships and partnersh

receiving the program. 

Population Type: adolescents 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Typically 15 years old, X = 15.18 years Sex: 

Baseline: n=99 girls, 52%; n= 92 boys, 48% Completers: Intervention: n=96, 52% girls; 48 % boys Control: n=62, 47% girls; 53% boys

 Education: Not reported Race/Ethnicity: (self-identified) 85% Caucasian, 8% 

15 coeducational groups, each consisting of 6-10 participants per group) In addition, participants in both conditions received additional services infrequently (i.e., co-intervention). Counseling and preparation for independent living were the most common additional services (n=31), which did not differ between groups. Less than 5% of the sample received summer camp or other community activities; most participants did not received additional services beyond case worker visits. Comparison Group Type(s): 62 youths; CPS caseworker referred; verbal consent to be contacted by a member of the research team was obtained 

Delivery Mode: progra

of learning strategies, incdidactic material, behaviagencies, and a social ac15 coeducational interveparticipants per group) Incentives: Adolescentreceived $5 for each of ttransportation costs werreceived $10 for complequestionnaires and were each follow-up assessmeCurriculum/Content: 

First Nations, 3% Asian, and 4% African Canadian if the caseworker, caregiver, and youth agreed. Must be three components: (a) e

between the ages of 14 to 16 years and at risk of abusive and power dynamics in 

Sexually Active: Not reported relationships on the basis of their history of maltreatment. development, and (c) so

Required consent from youth and parent or legal guardian. Education and awarenes

Victimization: History of maltreatment teens recognize and iden

CTQ results: many youths scored above CTQ clinical Youth assigned to the control condition continued to various domains with a p

E-132
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 and Setting cutoffs (moderate or severe) for experiences of emotional abuse (43%), emotional neglect (41.2%), physical abuse (40.4%), physical neglect (47.4%), and sexual abuse (33.6%) At initial assessment, boys and girls reported statistically equivalent levels of physical abuse victimization. 

Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

-Youth were from lower income families -Over half the sample (60%) lived outside the home (i.e., foster parents, group home, or other arrangements); remainder lived with one or more natural or adoptive parents - over 90% of the sample came from CPS agencies and were under a protection, supervision or wardship order; a small subset of maltreated youths attended a special needs school in the community - >90% had begun dating; aprx half of them were dating 

at the time of the initiation of the study. 

- Mothers of youths living at home listed their

occupation status as unemployed or unskilled (51%), skilled (34%), or professional (14%). 

Study Design and Sample 

receive standard CPS services, which consisted primarily of bimonthly visits from a social worker and the provision of basic shelter and care. In addition, participants in both conditions received additional services infrequently (i.e., co-intervention). Counseling and preparation for independent living were the most common additional services (n=31), which did not differ between groups. Less than 5% of the sample received summer camp or other community activities; most participants did not received additional services beyond case worker visits. Sampling Frame Size: 319 students referred over the 

four-year period of the study. Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

191 were eligible or available to participate (191/319 = 60%) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 158 (96 intervention; 62 control)Total: 33 dropouts out of 191 = 83% study participationrate(intervention=25, control=8)Intervention dropouts were defined as having attended nomore than five sessions (n=25, 21%)Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest: Initial interview, before intervention Post-test: After completing the four-month intervention/control period Follow-up: Bi-monthly contact by telephone to determine whether they were involved in a dating relationship for 1 month or longer. If so, they were scheduled to complete questionnaires concerning their relationship, including questions of abuse perpetration and victimization. Face-to-face interviews were regularly scheduled at 6-month intervals to re-administer all outcome measures. On average, participants were followed for 16 months post-group and assessed 4.7 times. 

Intervention 

dynamics in male-female Skill development built oexploring available choicmore amicably and avoid Communication skills inemotional expressivenesand were applied to fampersonal safety in sexual myths that contribute to interpersonal violence wSocial action activities pinformation about resouassist them in managing affecting their relationshyouths in the communitovercome their prejudice.g. police, welfare. You

conduct a prearranged inthe group with their findtheir help-seeking skills expectations and avoidadeveloped a fund-raising to teach empowerment 

Program Implementer

Intervention groups: led cofacilitator who modelIncluded social workers professionals chosen on youths or with victims oFacilitators participated 2 days. Were paid $650 Guest speakers: examplabuse and a former male Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Exposu

E-133 
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Note: the number of assessment contacts over the course Intervention Retention of the study was dependent on dating experiences, so some youths had more contacts that others; analyses were limited to the first six assessment points for the entire sample, for which at least 50% of the youths had data. Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Paper and pencil 

tests; ratings by facilitators 

dropouts = 96 adolescenOther: Fidelity of the delivery othe use of a manual with correction procedure invwith members of the restraining provided by an necessary. Sessions weradherence to protocol anindependently rated the met for each session acrgroups. On average, 88(range: 60-90%), indicatthe delivery of the interv

Measures Knowledge: Not reported 

Attitudes: Not reported 

Victimization (also see “CTQ short form” below under 

Other Measures) 

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (see Perpetration below) Perpetration: 

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; 

Wolfe, Scott, Reitzel-Jaffe, et al., 2001) - 70-item measure completed by teens in reference to an actual conflict or disagreement with a current or recent dating partner over the past 2 months; each question is asked twice, first in relation to the respondents’s behavior toward a dating partner and, second, in relation to a dating partner’s behavior toward them; Also used to assess conflict resolution skill with positive items

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, Post-test, 

Follow-up 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Note: separate analyses of change (growth curves) were conducted in three steps for each outcome variable: 1. Examined unconditional growth models (i.e. without consideration of moderator variables such as intervention) to determine whether there was any time-related change, and if so, whether there was sufficient variability to warrant an investigation of individual differences. Linear, quadratic, and cubic effects were examined. 2. The next step determined whether intervention, gender of the participant, or the Intervention X Gender intervention (fixed effects) for each target outcome variable, while controlling for initial group differences. 3. If significant, a third step was undertaken to determine 

whether group process variables (fixed effects) would refine predictions of growth (random effect). 

The five intervention process variables, (a)attendance, b) listening skills, c) disruptive behavior, d) involvement ( through cofacilitators’ average weekly ratings), and e) group cohesion) were entered into the growth model retaining those that showed a significant effect on growth 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 73/85 (86%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 48/60 (80%) Major Strengths:

 Study:

 - Measured differences 

completers 

- Reported details of ea- Longitudinal follow-u- Use of growth modeltrajectories rather than – Measured differences groups - Compared results of tmaltreatment) to a “nostudy.

 Article: 

Well-written; thorough 

E-134 
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.

Measures Other Measures: Background risk factors Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ short form; Bernstein et al., 1994) - contains 35 items concerning the frequency with which the respondent experienced or witnessed violence “while you were growing up”; rated on a 5-point scale; has 5 subscales. Authors added a sixth subscale “Witness of Parental Violence”

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test 

Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST; Selzer, 

Vinokur, and Van Rooiuen, 1975) - used as an indicator of parental problem drinking; 10-items; yes/no responses. Modified form so that respondents answered 

in reference to their parents (biological and step) alcohol use.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test 

Youth Self-Report problem section (YSR; Achenbach, 1991) -

administered to provides self-ratings of overall 

adjustment problems at intake. 

Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test 

Emotional distress 

Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40; Elliot and Briere, 

1992) - 40 items are rated for frequency of occurrence on a 4-point scale; designed to assess the impact of child abuse and other psychological trauma on emotional and behavioral adjustment; total score collapsed over 5 subscales (Dissociation, Anxiety, Depression, Sleep Disturbance, and Post abuse Trauma) was used.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, Post-test, 

Follow-up Hostility subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90 -Revised (SCL90-R; Derogatis, 1983) - assess the degree of annoyance in interpersonal relationships.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, Post-test, 

Follow-up 

Healthy relationship skills 

Results 

parameters. Overall Intervention participants evidenced trajectories of decreasing frequency and severity of abuse compared with controls in several domains. Abuse perpetration and victimization - youths in both conditions reported decreases in several indicators. This developmental effect is consistent with longitudinal studies on childhood aggressive over time. However, intervention participants decreased at a faster rate than controls. Over the two years of the study, those receiving the intervention were less physically abusive toward their dating partners and reported less physical, emotional and threatening forms of abuse by their partners toward themselves.

 Victimization: 

Unconditional growth models: significant reduction in all forms of victimization over time (p<.01). Intervention participants showed greater declines than controls in experiencing emotional abuse (p<.01) and threatening behavior (p<.05) by a dating partner. Intervention and Gender: For physical abuse, there was an interaction between gender and intervention status (p<.05) with greater treatment effects shown for boys than girls. Girls reported higher levels of emotional abuse victimization initially (p<.01) and had steeper declines over time in experiencing threats (p<.05). At initial assessment, boys and girls reported statistically equivalent levels of physical abuse victimization. Over time, the amount of victimization reported by all intervention youths and by female controls declined, whereas male controls reported increases in physical abuse victimization. Youths with high levels of maltreatment in their background initially reported higher levels of physical and emotional abuse victimization (p<.05) and showed greater change in physical abuse victimization over time (p<.05), thus making formerly described interaction effects more 

Study Quality 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Difficult to ascertain because authors reportoriginal design of rando- Unable to draw firm c

of the program since tarisk youths with histori

- due to number of sign

variables, the results shuntil further replication 

 Article: 

– Time points of instru– Findings are very diff

listed by instrument anwhich instrument was u

E-135
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.

Measures Results Study Quality Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ; pronounced. 

Buhrmester, 1990) - 32-item questionnaire to assess four domains of competence related to adolescent dating The treatment group was compared to a normative relationships; uses 5-point scale to rate one’s own sample from another study (Wolfe, Scott, Reitzel-Jaffe, interpersonal competence in general Wekerle, Grasley, and Straatman, 2001; not equivalent to 

growth curve analyses): For the normative sample physical 

Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test, Post-test, abuse victimization was similar to the intervention group 

Follow-up at the last assessment. For threatening experiences, the 

treatment group reported lower rates (7% and 24% for 

Initial Interview boys and girls, respectively) than the normative group Information was obtained on family demographics, (24% and 21% for boys and girls, respectively). background, and other support or mental health services received. The rate of physical abuse experiences among girls in the 

comparison group was similar to that of the normative 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest sample, however a higher percentage reported threats 

(27% vs. 21%). The boys in the comparison group reported experiencing physical abuse victimization at a much higher rate (33% vs. 28%) and at the final assessment (43% vs. 24%) reported experiencing more threats. The effect of intervention process on victimization: Listening skills emerged as a predictor of less victimization over time (p< .05). Other intervention variables were unrelated to victimization. 

Perpetration: 

Examination of the unconditional growth models for three indicators of abuse perpetration revealed that, over time, there was a significant reduction in physical abuse (p<.01) and emotional abuse (p<.05) against a dating partner. Decreases in threatening behaviors were not significant. Intervention and Gender: Conditional growth model analyses indicate that intervention status was a significant predictor of the magnitude of change in youths’ physical abuse perpetration (p<.05); changes in threatening behaviors were non-significant. Gender found to be important in predicting perpetration: Girls reported higher initial levels of physical abuse perpetration (p<.01) and showed steeper declines in 

E-136
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

physical abuse over time than boys (p<.05) Girls also reported more emotional abuse and threatening behaviors initially than boys (p<.01) and showed greater reductions in their threatening behaviors over time than boys (p<.05). No significant effects were noted for the degree of past maltreatment or for Gender X Intervention interaction status. Treatment was associated (growth curves) with a decrease in physical abuse perpetration each month for boys and girls.(control and intervention groups). CADRI comparisons were made between the treatment group and the normative sample. By end of follow-up period, rate of physical abuse and perpetration among treatment youths were similar to those found in the normative sample, whereas, higher percentages of youths in the comparison group reported physical abuse perpetration during their final assessment. (19% and 41%, boys and girls respectively vs. 10% and 28%). The effect of intervention process on perpetration: Youths who were rated as listening more showed steeper reductions in physical abuse than those with lower ratings (p<.01). Ratings of group involvement showed the opposite trend, with those more involved showing less reduction in their physical abuse over time than less involved youths (p<.01). Attendance, disruptiveness, and overall group cohesion were not associated with change in physical abuse. Other Measures: 

Emotional Distress: TSC-40 and SCL-90 A general reduction in emotional distress symptoms was seen among all youths, with intervention participants showing steeper decline than controls. There was a significant decrease over time in reports of interpersonal hostility (p< .05) and trauma symptoms (p< .01). Intervention and Gender: 

E-137 
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Intervention had a significant effect of TSC-40 trauma 

symptoms, but not on SCL-90-R hostility. Intervention youth in their last assessment reported rates of clinically significant trauma symptoms that were within normal limits, whereas, higher percentages of the controls reported clinically significant trauma symptoms (significance Not reported). Gender and history of maltreatment were related to initial levels of trauma symptoms and ratings of hostility, with girls and youth with history of maltreatment reporting significantly higher levels of emotional distress, but maltreatment status and gender were not related to changes in target behavior over time. The effect of intervention process on emotional distress: Again, facilitators ratings of listening skills were associated with greater decreases in trauma symptoms over time (p<.05) whereas group cohesion was inversely related to positive change (p<.05). Other process-related variables were not related to magnitude of change over time. Comparisons indicate that for both boys and girls at the final assessment the treatment group was similar to the normative sample, however the comparison group reported substantially higher rates (29% and 32% for both boys and girls, respectively) of emotional abuse. Healthy Relationship Skills: AICQ Intervention youths did not show expected growth over time in healthy relationships skills (researchers hypothesize that their measure of relationship skills lacked sufficient sensitivity to change).

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 

33 dropouts out of 191 = 83% study participation rate(intervention=25, control=8) 

Other: 

E-138 
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.

Author/s: Wright, Akers, and Rita Title: The Community Awareness Rape Education (CARE) Program for High School Students 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Classroom set

Study Eligibility Criteria: 10th grade students who with Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Not reporte

parental consent 

Intervention Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Not 

Population Type: 10th grade students High School 1: N= 245 10th graders 

High School 2: N=257 10th graders Delivery Mode: Role-

Population Characteristics: High School 3: N=196 10th graders ways to reduce the risk 

Age: Not reported students encouraged to 

Comparison Group Type(s): None Index cards and posters 

Sex: Not reported

 Education: 10th grade

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported Curriculum/Content: 

reduction measures, an

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Distributed index cards 

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Not reported common “myths and tr

rape. Students read alo

Sexually Active: Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Participation Rates): Program Implemente

Victimization: Not reported 698 (from above numbers) counselor, and a repres

Participation rate Not applicable rape crisis center) 

Criminal History: Not reported

Time Points of Data Collection: Culturally Specific: N

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Pre-test: Time given Not reported 

Post-test: Time given Not reported Assessment of ExposMethods/Setting of Data Collection: Intervention RetentioPencil and paper test given in classroom 

Other: 

E-139
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.

Measures Knowledge: A seven-question survey was designed. Questions included knowledge of sexual assault, rape; myths; ways to reduce risk of sexual assault (see below); resources.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and post-test 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Part of the seven-question survey included ways to reduce risk of sexual assault.

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: There was a significant increase in the posttest scores (significance levels Not reported). 

Questions: After participation in the program, test scores increased an average of 70-88% 

1. Definition of rape: 17% increase in correct answers 2. List 3 community resources: 12% increase in correct 

answers

 Attitudes: Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: - 3 measures to reduce risk of sexual assault: all schools 

increased by at least 28%.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: Classroom instructors and counselors were 

given evaluation forms. All stated that the objectives were clearly presented and that the material followed the goals and objectives. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 27/85 (32%) Description: 14/25 (56Design: 13/60 (22%) Major Strengths: Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Study presented few dparental consents, etc. - Difficult to determine intervention, for exampagreed, showed up, etc- Questionnaire consist

given immediately after 

E-140
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.

Author/s: Fors, Lightfoot, and Burrichter 

Title: Familiarity with Sexual Assault and its Relationship to the Effectiveness of Acquaintance Rape Prevention Programs 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Florida Atlantic University 

Study Eligibility Criteria: undergraduate students in 

Criminal Justice and Psychology classes Population Type: Undergraduate students 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Ranged from 19 to 44 years; X = 23.9 yrs Sex: Female: 61% female; 39% males Education: 48% seniors; 44% juniors; 6% 

sophomores; 2% freshman

 Race/Ethnicity: 89% Caucasians; 11% minorities

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: See below Criminal History: Not reported 

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

All participants had been residents in the United States for over 10 years except for one African-American and on Haitian. Both had resided n the U.S. for 5 to 10 years. 

Study Design: Experimental design

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): Ns Not reported; undergraduate students in Criminal Justice and Psychology classes randomly assigned to one of two 

interventions Comparison Group Type(s): Ns Not reported; 

undergraduate students in Criminal Justice and Psychology classes randomly assigned control group (not given any intervention) Sampling Frame Size: 420 students 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Not reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): N=54. Rate can not be determined Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test: immediately before intervention Post-test: immediately after intervention (intervention groups only) Follow-up: two weeks after intervention(intervention groups only) Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Paper and pencil tests; classroom setting used at each time point 

Setting: College classr

Duration: 2 interventi1. Didactic: presentatihour 2. Theater: Not reportTheory/Model: Chan

decrease unless attitudemodifying attitudes thean increase in women’s Delivery Mode: 2 inte

1. Didactic: didactic an(produced by Santa Mo

participated in a questio2. Theater: experientiafrom the audience. Impprimary method of instCurriculum/Content: 

group) 1. Didactic: Not repor2. Theater: two scenes the risk factors and misacquaintance rape. The the female to have sex aof the first scene, the auidentifying behaviors thsituation and how they 2 - incorporated the premade by the audience. 3 - control: did not rec

programs. Program Implemente

assigned a facilitator. Tgraduate degrees and exworkshops and/or cou

E-141
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

approximately one houwere given a facilitator’prior to the workshop. Two drama students: mscenarios in InterventioCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes:Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale (ASB) (Burt, 1980) - 9 items;

involving the aspect of exploitation in sexualrelationships; Likert Scale

Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) (Burt, 1980) - 19 items;

Likert scale; measures acceptance of rape myths

Note: these two scales were combined into onequestionnaire with filler questions placed throughout thequestionnaire. These filler questions were not analyzedbut were utilized to mask the goal of the instruments.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-, Post-, and 

follow-up 

Victimization: Biographical/demographic data form: 

requested information such as age, sex, year in school, and race. It also contained four questions concerning forced sex victimization and perpetration. 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: When the subjects had been the victim of 

forced sex, there was no significant decrease in ASB scores 

or RMA scores after either intervention.. The ‘victim’ 

participants had fewer rape-supportive beliefs and their scores were significantly lower than non-victim across all groups, pre-treatment and post-treatment. 

When the participant knew a victim of forced sex, there was a significant decease in their rape-supportive beliefs as measured by the ASB scale (p<.05) after the didactic treatment; this was not true of the theater or control group. The RMA scores among participants who knew people who were victims of forced sex were not significantly reduced by either program. When the subject knew an individual that had forced someone to have sex, they had a significant decrease in the ASB scale (p<.05) after the didactic program while there was not significant interaction with regards to the RMA scale. There was no significant decrease in ASB or RMA 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 53/85 (62%) Description: 25/25 (10Design: 28/60 (47%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- measured differences at pre-test - random assignment

 Article: 

- described rationale fo

reduce type II error 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- couldn’t tell if results between pre-test and p

E-142
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test scores in either the theater or control group.

Perpetration: Biographical/demographic data form: Victimization: pre-t est: 24% had been forced to have 

requested information such as age, sex, year in school, sex against their will; 46% knew one or more individuals and race. It also contained four questions concerning who had been forced to have sex against their will.forced sex victimization and perpetration.

 Perpetration: pre-test: One participant admitted 

Time Points of Measurement: pre-test having forced someone to have sex, and 30% knew 

someone who had forced someone to have sex. 

Other Measures: 

Biographical/demographic data form: requested Other Measures: information such as age, sex, year in school, and race. It 7 victims of sexual assault in the didactic program also contained four questions concerning forced sex 3 victims of sexual assault in the experiential program victimization and perpetration. 14 victims of sexual assault in the control group

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-143
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.

Author/s: Schewe and O’Donohue Title: Sexual Abuse Prevention with High-Risk Males: The Roles of victim Empathy and Rape Myths 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Northern Illinois University Study Design: Experimental design Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 1 time, 45 m

Volunteers from an introductory psychology course were screened for high and low scores on the Likelihood of Sexually Abusing (LSA) scale. 

Population Type: University students Population Characteristics:

 Age: Measured but Not reported Sex: 100% male Education: Not reported Race/Ethnicity: Measured but Not reported Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Marital 

status measured but Not reported. 

SES (see below - measures)Subjects who indicated a 

higher likelihood of sexually abusing reported that they used more force in sexual relationships, fantasized more often about the use of force in sexual relationships, fantasized more about sexually abusing children, indicated greater sexual arousal, showed less empathy for victims of rape, and scored significantly higher on the AIV and ASB 

than did low-potential subjects. (Pre-test only) 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

42 high potential males were selected. High potential was defined as males who scored higher than 10 on the LSA scale and reported at least some likelihood of raping on the Likelihood of Raping Scale (score of 2 - range 1 to 5).. The subjects were randomly assigned to 3 groups: victim empathy, rape facts, and a no-treatment control group Comparison Group Type(s): The high potential subjects were randomly assigned to 3 groups: victim empathy, rape facts, and a no-treatment control group 13 low potential subjects as defined by scores of 9 or less on the LSA were chosen for a no-treatment control group to assess the magnitude of changes in the high-potential subjects Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

216 males volunteered; 55 were screened into study Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Not reported Time Points of Data Collection: Immediately before and after intervention Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Not reported 

Theory/Model: Discu

components needed for two of them relate to reFinkelhor (1984) has prmust be present before motivation to sexually oinhibitions, overcoming offend and overcoming victim empathy could psexual offending by opeFinkelhor’s model. Delivery Mode: 

Videotape to small grouCurriculum/Content: Groups were told that tof the videotapes for podistribution. This procto minimize the reactandesirability) that might was a direct attempt to were developed by expeTreatment group 1: T45 minute video presenempathy toward victimcontained depictions of sexual abuse, and sexuaabuse and their pain aninstructed several times woman might feel befo

assaulted or harassed as 

High risk groups had a significantly greater history of child. Also, to increase 

sexual aggression than low-risk groups as measured by the assault, subjects were gu

E-144
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention SES. they were to imagine th

video did not attempt tfacts. The sole emphasemotional perspective o

Treatment group 2: T

group viewed a 45-minuimportance of knowledvictimization. They recsexual harassment, and intended to increase thecommunication, rape msexual victimization. Program Implemente

Trained graduate studenhypotheses 

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Results Study Quality Knowledge: Not reported Primary Measures: Quality Score: 

Overall: the results of the statistical comparisons between Total: 37/85 (44%) 

Time Points of Measurement: the empathy group and the non-empathy groups generally Description: 16/25 (64

support the use of victim empathy-related material in Design: 21/60 (35%) 

Attitudes: programs designed to prevent men from raping in that the 

Likelihood of Sexually Abusing (LSA; a modified version of empathy group scored significantly better than the facts Major Strengths:Briere and Malamuth’s (1983) Likelihood of Raping Scale) and no-treatment group on the LSA, Likelihood of Raping, Study: - measures self-reported likelihood of raping, sexually and Likelihood of Sexually Harassing scales, the AIV scale, and - Content validity of vidharassing, and committing child sexual abuse. Range of the ASB scale. However, significant differences remained -Distinguishes between scores: 7 to 35 post-treatment between the empathy group and group for sexual violence. 

initially judged to be a low risk for raping. Therefore, it -Controlled for social d

Likelihood of Raping Scale (no detail about scale provided) appears that the high-risk individuals’ rape potential was -Used control group (b

not reduced to an empirically derived “normal” level and -Used attitudinal and b

E-145 
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.

Measures Rape Empathy Scale (RES; Deitz et al., 1982) (no detail 

about scale provided) 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence scale (AIV; Burt, 1980) 

(no detail about scale provided) 

Adversarial Sexual Beliefs scale (Burt, 1980) (no detail about scale provided)

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and Post 

Intervention 

Victimization: Not reported 

Perpetration: Not reported 

Other Measures: 

-24 item Mood Scale (Fultz, Schaller, and Cialdini, 1988) -subjects responded to 24 affective adjectives on a 7-point Likert Scale indicating how much they were experiencing that emotion. -Open-ended items to assess videotape in regards to credibility and potential helpfulness and to solicit openended responses regarding the videotape. -Conformity measure-10 items - after completing the posttests, subjects were asked to participate in a group 

discussion. This was the disguised “conformity” measure. In this measure, subjects were individually placed in a room with three confederates. Subjects were asked to indicate their response to a series of multiplechoice questions. Seven of the 10 questions comprised the dependent measure. The questions ranged over whether revealing dress can make rape justifiable, to whether Russian soldiers raping German during WWII was justifiable and whether some women would eventually enjoy rape. Subjects were scored according to how many times they did not conform to the group norm for the seven items (the confederates always gave identical answers indicating that sexual victimization is in some way justifiable). 

Results 

on several of the dependent measures, the high-risk, notreatment group changed as much as the subjects receiving the empathy treatment which suggests that regression toward the mean, or some other experimental artifact such as test sensitization or social desirability, may have been operating in the empathy and no-treatment conditions.

 Knowledge: Attitudes: 

-There was a lack of variance on the Likelihood of Committing Child Sexual Abuse which prevented analysis of this scale and the conformity measure 

-Subjects in the empathy condition showed a significantly larger increase in their empathy ratings after viewing the video than did the subjects n the facts condition. -Comparisons b/t the empathy group and non-empathy groups(facts and control) showed no significant difference at pretest and significant difference at post test on the LSA, Likelihood of Raping, Likelihood of Sexually Harassing, AIV, and ASB scales. -Similar contrasts for scores on the RES and Arousal to Rape measure failed to reach significance. -Significant differences were found b/t the control and fact group on the Likelihood of Raping scale, the Arousal to Rape, AIV, and ASB scales such that the no-treatment group reported fewer rape-supportive attitudes and behavior than did the facts group. - Similar comparisons between the empathy group and the

facts group revealed significant differences between groups on every dependent measure except Arousal to Rape such that the empathy group displayed fewer rape-supportive attitudes and behavior post-treatment. The facts subjects’ scores did not change between pre- and post-treatment.

 Victimization: 

Study Quality 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-Sample not adequately - Not clear when contr

test surveys

 Article: 

-No information about -Not clear on the settin-Measures need to be pseparate section. Severand it is not clear which 

E-146
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Before and after viewing videotapes 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

- Questionnaire - self-reported differential arousal to forced 

versus consenting sex 

Time Points of Measurement: Pre- and PostIntervention 

- Demographic questionnaire - subjects recorded their age, 

race, and marital status 

-Both treatment groups scored equally on credibility and potential usefulness (helpfulness) of the program. -There were no significant differences b/t the 4 groups in the amount they conformed to the negative group norm in the conformity measure. -Mood Scales: findings Not reported 

Time Points of Measurement: Pre Intervention 

Revised version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss 

and Oros, 1982) (no detail about survey provided)

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre Intervention 

E-147
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.

Author/s: Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, Meyerson, and Meyerson Title: Sexual Revictimization Prevention: An Outcome Evaluation 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two large Universities in the southeastern and Study Design: Experimental Setting: Group setting 

midwestern United States specified. 

Author-reported: Random assignment to control and 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Women from undergraduate intervention groups Duration: 2, 2-hour se

research pool. Women were excluded if they did not have occurred within a maxima history of sexual victimization after the age of 14 or if Intervention Group Type(s): they had a history of suicidal ideation or attempts, Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention Theory/Model: Based previous and current psychiatric treatment, and past or group (n=24; 13 Southeast, 11 midwest) Hanson and Gidcyz (19present use of psychotropic medication. address issues of revicti

Comparison Group Type(s): (and others) suggest tha

Population Type: Female university students from Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention cues may help account 

midwestern and southeastern areas. group (n=37; 21 southeast, 16 midwest) assault for women with 

assault prevention prog

Population Characteristics: Sampling Frame Size: Not reported situations and teach ada

Age: mean age of 20.12 (SD=3.79) to those situations. 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Sex: 100% female

 Education: Undergraduate students Race/Ethnicity: White (85%), African American 

(2%), Hispanic (6%), Asian or Asian American (5%), and Native American (2%)

 Sexually Active: Not reported

n=66 (Midwestern n=32 and Southeastern n=34) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 2 month follow-up: n= 61 (92%) 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

Baseline: immediately before intervention immediately after intervention (for one measure) Follow-up: 2 month after intervention 

Delivery Mode: Inclu

violence related informleaders, discussion, vide

completion of writing agroup discussion, problmodeling procedures thassault situation with a scene followed by grouAll received course cred

Victimization: 

A part of the inclusion criteria was victimization after age 14.

 Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self report on questionnaires and response latency measures. Listed to audiotape and press a button on a computer to respond. Administered to each individual prior to intervention and intervention group completed measures in group setting at Time 2. 

Curriculum/Content: This intervention used developed by Hanson arelapse-prevention approf high-risk situations, ptraining, assertiveness trcommunication skills. 

Session 1: initial 2-hr sesexual assault and rape frequency of sexual assashared information on 

E-148
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

signals from men and ofactors for sexual victimGross, 1996). Common feelings of self-blame andiscussed. Participants depiction of events leadthat occurs at a college discussion of protective Preventive Strategies Incompletion of workshevictimization. Question Session 2: second 2-hr sessresponse, problem-solvcommunication skills. actions or reactions necIn a group exercise, parseveral hypothetical higformulate alternative sorevictimization. Particimodeling procedure to skills. Open discussion limited amount of timenames of local agencies information about sexuassistance if needed. 

Program Implement

Trained, masters level, led all groups. Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

the group leaders answeinformation presented iassault in general. A standardized manual were closely supervised delivery of the protocol

E-149
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Intervention Retentiobe determined because number of women origjust that the both intervwent down from 66 to 

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: 

The Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al, 1987): 10-item self-report measure used to assessed sexual victimization history and victimizations during the follow-up periods. There were 3 versions, one assessing experience b/t ages 14-17, one assessing experiences from age 17 to baseline, and one assessing victimization experiences after the initial assessment to the 2-month follow-up..

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Baseline -14-17 year version and 17 year to baseline version 

- Follow-up ( 2 month) - version assessing victimization 

experiences after the initial assessment 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Self-Efficacy Ratings (Hall, 1989), Participants rate their certainty of performing 7 behaviors specific to sexual situations (risk recognition, problem solving, 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes: Victimization: SES: 27% of participants were 

revictimized during the 2 month follow-up period. No difference between control and intervention groups when all levels of victimization were considered. 

Approximately 23% of participants experienced a rape revictimization (those who experienced a completed rape during the follow-up period). Significant difference between groups: 30% of the control group members report being raped during the follow-up period, compared with only 12% of participants in the intervention group. Chi-Square analysis indicated that significantly fewer women in the intervention group (12%) reported rape revictimization as compared to women in the comparison group (30%)

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: There were no significant difference b/t the intervention and comparison groups on all variables except self-efficacy at the initial assessment. Participants in the comparison group had significantly higher scores on self-efficacy. Thus, self-efficacy was used as a covariate in relevant 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 69/85 (81%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 48/60 (80%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

-2 month follow-up ass-use of latency responscapturing change in thi-manual developed for of program fidelity - group leaders were cl- controlled for differenmeasures

 Article: 

-Good description of inMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-Small sample size 

E-150 
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.

Measures Results Study Quality assertiveness, etc.)on a 7 pt Likert-type scale; this served analyses. as a measure of the extent to which participants believed they could successfully resist forceful sexual advances. Self-efficacy: 2 x 2 x 2 mixed designed ANCOVAs (initial 

assessment of self-efficacy as covariate) were conducted 

Time Points of Measurement: for each level of victimization. The intervention group 

Baseline and 2 month had a greater increase in self-efficacy than the comparison 

group regardless of whether they were revictimized. 

Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1977): 90-item self-report measure of psychopathology to assess The above analysis were repeated with rape status the impact of the program on psychological symptoms. substituted (rape vs. not raped during follow-up) for Self report measure of pscyhopathology used the Global general revictimization. Participants in the intervention Severity Index (GSI) from this measure. The GSI assesses group reported significantly greater increases in selfoverall symptoms. efficacy from pre-intervention to follow-up than those in 

the comparison group. 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Baseline and 2 month GSI: ANCOVAs indicated that participants in the 

intervention group had greater decreases in symptom 

Response Latency Measure (Marx and Gross, 1995) severity than those in the comparison group Participants listened to audio-taped portrayal of a man (revictimization analysis) and woman in a sexual encounter that concludes in date rape. They are asked to make judgements about the All participants GSI scores improved regardless of group interaction and respond by pressing a button on a or rape revictimization rape vs. not raped during followcomputer keyboard when the man had gone too far. up). Total running time of the tape is 390 seconds.

Response Latency Score: A one-way ANOVA indicated no 

Time Points of Measurement: significant differences between the intervention and 

Immediately following Session 2 of the intervention comparison groups on response latency. There were also 

no significant differences in response latency b/t participants who reported revictimization and those with no revictimization during the follow-up period. There were significant differences on response latency between participants who did and did not report rape revictimization at follow-up. Participants with rape revictimization at follow-up showed poorer risk recognition, i.e. longer latencies.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-151
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.

E-152
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.

Author/s: Gray, Lesser, Quinn, and Bounds 

Title: The Effectiveness of Personalizing Acquaintance Rape Prevention: Programs on Perception of Vulnerability and on Reducing 

Risk-Taking Behavior 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: community college located in a rural area 

Study Eligibility Criteria: All women from three day 

and three evening social sciences classes offered in the spring of 1989 who volunteered and gave informed consent Population Type: college students Population Characteristics:

 Age: 17-21 years: 44%

 > 21 years: 56%

 Sex: 100% female Education: college students

 Race/Ethnicity: White - 74%

 Black - 24% Other - 1%

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.):

 Marital status: 

Study Design: Randomized comparison group

 Author-reported: classes were randomly assigned 

intact to one of two groups Intervention Group Type(s): 44 women from three day 

and three evening social sciences classes offered in the spring of 1989 who volunteered and gave informed consent. Comparison Group Type(s): 26 women (Note: Article 

reports 26 women in the text but 36 women in the table) from three day and three evening social sciences classes offered in the spring of 1989 who volunteered and gave informed consent. Control group was exposed to an acquaintance rape prevention program that used national statistics vs. the intervention group which was exposed to a program using local statistics. Sampling Frame Size: 70 women 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

70 women - 100% 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Participation Rates): 70 women - 100% 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

pre-test: prior to prevention program post-test: at the conclusion of the program Methods/Setting of Data Collection: paper and pencil questionnaire 

Setting: Classrooms in 

Duration: Not reporteTheory/Model: Fishb

behavioral intent. The is under rational controintervening variable bet(Fishbein, 1967) Delivery Mode: infor

Curriculum/Content: Prevention Program usintervention group. Thgroup was personalized statistics from a study pinstitution. 

The Program included playing that concerned that increase vulnerabilimessages and how the oexpectations, and commProgram Implemente

intervention group werindependent of the reseCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: 

E-153
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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Questionnaire composed of a series of 

questions designed to measure behavioral intent to avoid high-risk dating practices. Items were clustered and concerned high-risk behaviors such as (a) using alcohol and other drugs on the first few dates, (b) leaving a party alone with someone you’ve just met, (c) being in isolated places on the first few dates; (d) being aware of nonverbal messages being sent, (e) knowing sexual desires and setting limits, (f) communicating limits clearly, (g) being familiar with surrounding when on a date, (h) trusting a date, and (i) dating individuals who have a reputation for hostility, jealousy, possessiveness, displaying anger or aggression. 

Perception of vulnerability to acquaintance rape was measured by one question on the questionnaire: What are your chances of being raped by a date or someone else you know?

 Time Points of Measurement: pre- and post-test 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Attitudes: Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: The mean difference of the 

experimental group is significantly higher than is the mean difference of the control group for all women (p=.038) and for unmarried women, p=.026. (Personalized acquaintance rape prevention program reduces risk-taking behavior as measured by behavioral intent). Perception of vulnerability: the mean difference of the experimental group is higher than is that of the control group but was not at significant levels for all women (p=.12). When married women were removed from the sample, a comparison of the means shows that the mean difference of the experimental group is significantly higher than is the mean difference of the control group for unmarried women (p=.028) lending qualified support to the personalized acquaintance rape prevention program increasing perception of vulnerability for unmarried women.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 50/85 (59%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 27/60 (45%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- no significant differenstatus, age, and race - questionnaire piloted Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- questionnaire devised validity and reliability (iweakness) 

E-154
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.

Authors: Schewe and O’Donohue Title: Rape Prevention with High-Risk Males: Short-Term Outcome of Two Interventions 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large Midwestern university Study Design: Experimental design Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Male undergraduates who Author-reported: Not reported Duration: 1-hour 

volunteered to participate in exchange for credit in their introductory psychology courses. Intervention Group Type(s): Male undergraduates who Theory/Model: All took pretest measures but only men that met the met screening criteria. Subjects were randomly assigned Bandura’s (1977) Theorscreening criteria of a score of 15+ on the Attraction to to one of two treatment groups (or a no-treatment the product of cognitioSexual Aggression scale (Malamuth, 1989) (which control): the Victim Empathy/Outcome Expectancy reprehensible conduct sappeared to be a reasonable selection rate for high-risk intervention (n=26) or the Rape Supportive Cognitions misconstrue the conseqsubjects) were eligible to participate in the full study. (RSC)intervention (n=22). devalue or attribute bla

suggests that interventio

Population Type: College males 

Population Characteristics:

 Age: X=19.7 (range = 18-33) Sex: 100% male Education: Race/Ethnicity: 67% Caucasian, 15% Hispanic, 10% 

Asian American, and 6% African American.

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported

Comparison Group Type(s): Male undergraduates who 

met screening criteria and were randomly assigned to the no-treatment group (n=24) (which was one of three groups – two different treatment and no-treatment). The no-treatment control group did not participate in any treatment sessions until after the conclusion of the experiment. Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

225participated in screening/pretest 102 (of the 225) were deemed eligible for the study 74 (out of the 102 – 28 were either not contacted because of time constraints or declined to participate in the full study). 

cognitions, (ii) decrease expectancies, or (iii) incto decrease the amount by males. The RSC intervention iviews problematic anteimportant precipitants ocognitions as inhibitors Delivery Mode: videoexercise Incentives: voluntary introductory psychologCurriculum/Content: Expectancies (VE/OE) in

Criminal History: Not reported Participation rate Not applicable videotaped presentation 

towards victims of sexu

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Not Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and awareness of the negati

reported Participation Rates): rape holds for men. Vi

74 subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three describing their rape exgroups. instructed to imagine h74/102=73% during, and after a sexu

narrator through short 

 Time Points of Data Collection: Interventions: victimization. Personal 

Pretest Phase I: Total sample (225) completed measures discussed with the goal and demographics immediately after giving informed might change men’s ouconsent. that they would begin t

E-155
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample 

Pretest Phase II and Post test: Subjects in both treatment groups completed the Affective Adjective Checklist immediately before the intervention - had intervention -then completed the instrument again, immediately following the intervention. Follow-up: Subjects from all three groups returned 2 weeks later to complete the follow-up measures and participate in a group discussion (which was actually the disguised RCA). Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Self-administered questionnaires and “group discussion” (which is RCA assessment). 

Intervention 

most costly than consennegative consequences. behavioral exercise, incinvolvement in the progof the information, and Rape Supportive Cognitionsubjects’ knowledge conrape myths, and the disvictimization, by targetihave been identified as who are fairly amenable cognitions with more acommunication, and cominute videotaped presof cognitions in prevenpresented with informacognitions may play in the videotaped portion engaged in the same beparticipants in the VE/Program Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: Purposeful similar treatintervention groups to the content of the messdifferent (speaker charausing same actors in bo

E-156
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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported 

Attitudes: 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV; Burt, 1980) is a 6-item scale that uses a 7-point Likert scale designed to measure attitudes condoning the use of force in relationships.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase I), 

follow-up 

Adversarial Sexual Beliefs (ASB; Burt, 1980) is a 9-item scale utilizing the same Likert scale as the AIV, designed to measure the degree to which a person believes that sexual relationships are exploitative or adversarial in nature.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase I), 

follow-up 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA; Burt, 1980) is a 19-item scale designed to measure the degree to which a person believes the false information that our society spreads concerning rape.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase I), 

follow-up 

Victimization: Not reported 

Perpetration: Not reported 

Other Measures: 

Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale (ASA) Malamuth, 

1989), developed to improve “likelihood” measures and expand “lure” construct of sexual aggression, is a 10-item scale with a 5-point Likert format that is embedded within 54 questions regarding arousal to various deviant and nondeviant sexual activities as well as a subject’s likelihood of engaging in those behaviors.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase I), 

follow-up 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Attitudes: Significant changes occurred on the ASB and 

the RMA scales for the RSC group (p<.01) and on the 

AIV scale (p<.05). Significant changes occurred on the AIV scale for the VE/OE group(p<.05).

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Both interventions were successful in reducing the subjects’ scores on the ASA (p<.01). Results of the behavioral exercise (RCA) show that 

subjects in the VE/OE condition used significantly more empathy-based and consequence-based arguments to convince the hypothetical man not to rape women, F(1,99)=3.99, p<.05; F(1, 99)=33.50, p<.01. Subjects in the RSC condition used more rape-myth information and communication-based arguments, F(1,99)=46.51, p<.01; F(1,99)=10.60, p<.01. 

No significant difference were found between groups on the total number of arguments used in the behavioral exercise. Results indicate groups did not differ significantly on how often they conformed to the negative group norm. Immediately post-intervention, only the empathy (Affective 

Adjective Checklist) scores of the VE/OE group significantly increased (p< .05).

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 57/85 (67%)Description: 21/25 (84Design: 36/60 (60%)

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

• Content of curriculum 

for content validity and suggestions to incorportreatment protocol. 

• Examined clinical sign

significant results by aswas originally selected the ASB) reduced their low-risk (below the mewho participated in the 

• Compares two treatm• Assessed whether par

from study subjects on 

Major Weaknesses: Study: • Small sample size • Short time frame f• No description of 

implementation

 Article: 

• Description of RCA 

E-157 
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.

Measures Results Study Quality Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (MC; Reynolds (1982) consists of 13 true/false items designed to measure the “need of subjects to obtain approval by responding in a culturally appropriate and acceptable manner.” Originally developed by Crowne and Marlowe (1960)

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase I), 

follow-up 

Affective Adjective Checklist (Fultz et al, 1988) is a 24-item checklist designed to measure feelings of empathy, happiness, distress, sadness, anger, and excitement utilizing a 7-point Likert format. Used to assess the programs’ effects on subjects’ emotional states. 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest (phase II), post 

test (only for treatment groups) 

Rape Conformity Assessment (RCA; Schewe and O’Donohue, 1993). RCA’s tendency is to reverse any trends in social desirability that the experimental situation might evoke. In this assessment, subjects are placed in a room with two confederates and are asked to indicate their response to a series of multiple-choice questions. Eighteen of the 20 questions constitute the dependent measure. The two confederates each give their responses out loud, in turn, followed by the subject. The confederates responses are always identical. For the first two questions the confederates respond with high baserate responses. The purpose of this is to establish some history of agreement with the subject. For the 18 following items, the responses of the confederates indicate that sexual victimization is in some way justifiable. This is intended to measure the strength of a subject’s commitment not to rape. It is scored by noting how many times a subject that unanimously professes the opposite.

 Time Points of Measurement: follow-up 

Behavioral exercise 

E-158 
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.

Measures Results Study Quality Included in 2 interventions to increase subjects’ involvement in the program, to improve their processing of the information, and to serve as a manipulation check. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical man who believes that he can force sex upon a woman whenever he wants to and were asked to record as many arguments as they could to convince this man to change his behavior. 

Time Points of Measurement: during intervention 

Demographics questionnaire 

Time Points of Measurement: Pretest (Phase I) 

E-159 
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.

Author/s: Gilbert, Heesacker, and Gannon Title: Changing the Sexual Aggression-Supportive Attitudes of Men: A Psychoeducational Intervention Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two state universities: one in the West and Study Design: Experimental design Setting: Not reported 

one in the Midwest. 

Author-reported: involved pretest, post-test, and Duration: one-hour 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Men enrolled in psychology followup phases. all volunteers were randomly assigned 

courses at two state universities to either the treatment condition or a no-treatment Theory/Model: select

control condition. elaboration likelihood m

Population Type: Male college students the guiding conceptual 

Intervention Group Type(s): N=30 male college and assessment of the i

Population Characteristics: students enrolled in psychology courses at two state routes to attitude chang

Age: Not reported universities who volunteered to participate peripheral route. Centr

on thoughtful evaluatio

Sex: 100% male

 Education: college students Race/Ethnicity: 86.7% White Americans

 2.7% Black Americans 5.3% Hispanic Americans 2.7% Asian Americans 2.7% non-Americans

 Sexually Active: Findings Not reported but Sexual 

Experiences Survey was reported as being given during pretest

Comparison Group Type(s): N=28 male college 

students enrolled in psychology courses at two state university who volunteered to participate Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

N = 75(rate not available) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 61/75 (14 subjects who started the study failed to complete it) = 81% 

and the content of the pcase, the content of the the persuasive communchange is based on the cues to change one’s atpersuasive communicatof rejecting interpersonsexual beliefs, and male specifically designed to ability, and favorability communication. Delivery Mode: role-p

communicated directly 

Victimization: Not reported Time Points of Data Collection: subjects simply read the 

pre-test 

Criminal History: Not reported post-test: one week after pre-test Curriculum/Content: 

follow-up: one month after post-test tactics described by Pet

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): (1984). Motivation was Subjects’ family-of-origin income ratings indicated that most came from middle- or upper-class families. 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: self administered 

paper and pencil surveys. Location Not reported 

psychoeducational contand direct communicatifacilitated in 3 ways: 1) complexity for suitable points of the interventiintervention content wapresentation. Thought presenting 2 different bthe topic of persuasive 

E-160
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

intrapsychic negative cointerpersonal violence, beliefs, and male-dominsocial sanctions associaProgram Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio

Other: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Burt, 1980 Scales ( 7-point scale): 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Rape Myth Acceptance Sex Role Stereotyping Scales were combined into a single score.

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Pre-test, post-test 

Other attitude measure: Subjects were contact by phone. An experimenter, unaware of the treatment condition, posed as a member of a newly formed student group and read a script describing proposed women’s safety projects. Subjects attitudes were measured in three ways: 1) all comments made by subjects during the call were written down. The experimenter later reviewed the comments and evaluated whether the subject had made a supportive comment; 2) at the end of the phone script, subjects were asked how 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge:

 Attitudes: Subjects in the treatment group changed their attitudes in the desired directional significantly more than control group subjects (p<.05). Follow-up: Treatment subjects were significantly more willing to listen to a naturalistic appeal in an unrelated context than were control subjects (p<.01). Treatment subjects also made favorable comments regarding the women’s safety project significantly more often than did control subjects (p<.01). There was no significant group differences in willingness to volunteer time for a women’s safety project. These data provide support for hypothesis 2, which predicted that the attitude differences observed initially between treatment and control groups should also be observed in an unrelated, delayed, naturalistic context.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 55/85 (65%) Description: 21/25 (84Design: 34/60 (57%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- measured attitudes of 

groups for analysis 

- measured generalizati- strong theoretical basMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- can not determine un

drawn from 

- conflicting sample siz

E-161 
-------

-------

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Measures Results Study Quality much time they would volunteer for the safety projects. Other Measures: The experimenter then described the connection between Measures of motivation, ability, and thought favorability the call and the study and asked subjects whether they were hypothesized to significantly predict attitude change had heard the presentation or not; 3) experimenters scores, because according to the ELM, when these three recorded how much of the script subjects heard before components are present, central-route attitude change is hanging up. more likely to occur. In sum, the follow-up variables were the following: Need for Cognition Scale - correlated significantly with willingness to listen to the appeal, whether subjects had attitude change scores (p<.05), suggesting that as made statement supportive of the project, and the motivation to process increased, so did attitude change. number of hours volunteered.

A similar pattern emerged for one of the state-motivation 

Time Points of Measurement: items. (“Did you feel motivated to think carefully about 

One-month after completing the post-test session the arguments and info presented in the speech?” p<.02) 

However, two indirectly worded items failed to 

Victimization: Not reported significantly predict attitude change. 

Time Points of Measurement: Ability - one item significantly predicted attitude change 

(Did you find the presentation easy to understand and 

Perpetration: Not reported follow?” p<.03); the second item did not significantly 

predict attitude change. 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Favorability of thought - one of the two items predicted 

Other Measures: attitude change(“Did you evaluate the logic and accuracy 

Motivation: of the arguments and information in the speech?” p<.01).Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982) - Short Form: measure of an individual’s tendency to enjoy tasks Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported requiring cognitive effort; consists of 18 items (measure of trait) Other: 

Three additional items served as state measures of 

subjects’ motivation. Ss were asked to rate themselves on a 7-point scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test 

Ability: two items were administered to the trmt group that asked about subject’s perceived ability to think about the topic of the persuasive communication.; 7-point scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

E-162
------

------

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Favorability of thought: two items were administered to the 

treatment group that asked about the favorability of subjects’ thoughts; 7-point scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Sexual Experience Survey: not described

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test 

The Likelihood of Rape or Force Index: not described

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, post-test 

E-163
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.

Authors: Linz, Fuson, and Donnerstein Title: Mitigating the Negative Effects of Sexually Violent Mass Communications Through Preexposure Briefings 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Experimental Setting: Not reported 

conducted in different p

Study Eligibility Criteria: Only male intro Author-reported: Not reported Not reported) 

communication students who completed both the media consumption and attitude questionnaires were contacted Intervention Group Type(s): (3 intervention groups) Duration: Total intervefor participation. All intervention subjects viewed the educational videotape 35-minutes (video port

containing a segment from ABC TV “20/20" 

Population Type: Undergraduate college males documentary on slasher films and two sex-information 

videotapes. 

Theory/Model: Pre-fil

of the harmful effects o

Population Characteristics: Subjects were told, when contacted by telephone to solicit been shown to decrease 

Age: Not reported

 Sex: 100% male

their participation, that they were being asked to participate in 2 different studies. 

effects of the viewing thDissonance Theory and Atmotivated to achieve so

Education: undergraduate college students

 Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Comparison Group Type(s): (2 control groups) 

Subjects in the “neutral control” viewed a neutral videotape on general television topics (the history of television, live broadcasts, and discussion of satellite transmissions) and then engaged in the same neutral activities as the traditional persuasion group. Subjects in the “no-exposure” control only attended the second phase of the study in which they completed the outcome measure questionnaires and did not receive any form of the intervention. The males who were to be recruited as no-exposure control subjects were randomly selected from the pool of eligible males first; The remaining subjects were then randomly assigned to the intervention conditions and called. 

their attitudes and behahimself or herself advounfamiliar or even counis motivated to shift attadvocated. A key stratesubjects that it is believqualities that the experiAlso, providing viewers evaluate sexual violence important in modifying Delivery Mode: Video

Incentives: Participanparticipation in [what thstudies 

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported Curriculum/Content: 

presentation in which th

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): programs had been edit

48 (56 of the 71 that completed both pretest first two segments were questionnaires were contacted and 8 of those declined materials used by Intonparticipation) Intons-Peterson and Ro(800 completed mass media consumption questionnaire segments showed a man but it is unknown how many students completed the misconceptions about sattitude/behavior surveys) segment covered social 

messages and myths ab

E-164
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample 

Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (andParticipation Rates): 

44 (48-4)(participation rate= 83%)Time Points of Data Collection: 

Pretest: The media consumption questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the term as part of a class requirement; the attitude and behavior questionnaires were administered later in the course of the term but several weeks prior to the intervention and was introduced as separate study. Post-test: Two weeks after participation in the intervention, all subjects participated in a post-test dependent measure session in which they were led to believe it was a separate study. They watched the slasher films and completed the film evaluation, attitude, and behavior questionnaires and the MAACL. They then watched a mock rape trial and completed the post-trial questionnaire. 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

Pretest questionnaires were administered to students in the introductory communications courses at the beginning of the term (mass media consumption) and then a few weeks later (attitude and behavior questionnaire). Only those subjects that completed both the media consumption and attitude questionnaire were contacted by phone for participation in the study (without mention of the pretest). Intervention occurred (no data collection) and then phase 2 (post-test), was presented as separate study. Survey instruments were completed immediately following the post-test film clips and mock rape trial were shown. 

Setting: Not reported 

Intervention 

confusing, slang terms, second segment includerape and disputing rape consequences for both facts, reasons for not reacquaintance rape, and segment was approximathird segment was an Afilms. Special attention adolescents and their paPsychological effects of 1– Cognitive Consistency - asked to help prepare a they were told would bof myths promulgated bviolence. Subjects were “myths about sexual viovideo and using questiosubjects to utilize criticaand comments on medreading his essay aloud subjects then watched tdiscussion and then evavideotaped essays wouleducation video. 2 – No Playback - After engaged in the same actsubjects except instead watching them, they rermembers and discussed video, and the usefulneschool students about s3 – Traditional Persuasion 

as the other two groups essays about sexually viinstructed to write essayan entertainment mediuof themselves reading t

Phase 2 (post-test) - Sucommercially released Rto 20. Subjects then vie

E-165
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

that was described as a being evaluated in the dacquaintance rape of a wAt the end of this sessioexplained; A videotaped desensitization effect arfilms was again discusseProgram Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) (Burt, 1980) 

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV) Scale (Burt, 1980)

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (Koss and 

Oros, 1982) - a scale designed to elicit self-reports of coercive sexual behaviors ranging from “having sexual intercourse with a woman when she really didn’t want to because she felt pressured by your continual arguments” to “having sexual intercourse with a woman when she didn’t want to because you used some degree of physical force.” 

Results Study Quality 

Primary Measures: Quality Score: 

Total: 47/85 (55%)

Knowledge: Description: 14/25 (56

Design: 33/60 (55%) 

Attitudes: 

RMA: As the intensity of the intervention manipulation Major Strengths:

increased, subjects scores on the RMA decreased. But this Study: difference was not significant (author says “marginally”) Examines effect of view

(p<.12). factor in sexual violenc

AIV: The pretest AIV variable accounted for the Innovative approach to 

significant effect. The addition of the intervention variable consistency: incorporaresulted in a nonsignificant increment; so did the addition oneself (or others) read

of the interaction term. 

Article: 

Victimization: Discuss evaluation app

a factor in the results. 

Perpetration: 

SES: Regression equations indicated that subjects who Major Weaknesses:

participated in more intensive levels of the intervention Study: reported lower levels of sexually coercive behaviors - Weak description of mcompared to control subjects. However, little difference - Small sample size 

E-166 
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.

Measures 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Other Measures: Multiple Affect Adjective Check List 

(MAACL; Zuckerman and Lubin, 1965). Only the anxiety and depression subscales were examined.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Mass Media Consumption Questionnaire an extensive selfreport inventory of TV and movie viewing and magazine consumption

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest 

Film Evaluation Questionnaire Scales measured a) the subjects’ physiological reactions to the films; b) attractiveness of the female victims in the clips; c) the extent to which subjects found these clips to be offensive; d) whether the subjects found the clips to be enjoyable; e) how debasing or degrading the clips were to woman; and f) levels of violence and rape in the films.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Critical Viewing Items tapped ideas such as how believable the violence in the clips was, how much the subjects identified with and respected the perpetrators in the clips, to what extent sound and special effects were used for dramatic purposes in the clips, and to what degree subjects recognized uses of stereotyping or persuasion in clips.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Rape Trial Evaluation Scales were designed to measure perpetrator and victim responsibility, victim characteristics, victim’s emotional injury and physical injury.

 Time Points of Measurement: post-test 

Results 

was noted between intervention groups. Men in the no exposure control group reported more sexually coercive behavior than men in either the intervention conditions or th e neutral control. Other Measures: 

MAACL: * Depression scores after viewing clips from slasher 

films tended to be higher for subjects taking part in increasing levels of the intervention. However, the means indicate that there is a slightly non-linear pattern with the no-playback group showing the highest levels of depression followed by the cognitive consistency group. 

• Self-reported levels of anxiety and other physiological 

reactions were not affected by the intervention. 

Film evaluation: • Intervention subjects rated women more positively 

than control subjects 

• Intervention subjects reported seeing more occurrence 

of violence against women than control subjects. 

• Subjects with higher levels of consumption (of slasher 

films) had higher levels of enjoyment but there was no effect on enjoyment for the intervention (p 561). 

Critical viewing: No significant results were found among the critical viewing items. Rape Trial evaluation: Participation in more intensive levels of intervention led to increased ratings of perpetrator responsibility compared to control groups. Intervention groups also reported the rape victim as less responsible for the assault than the control group. Group Differences on post-test: 

Rape Trial evaluation: Respondents in the no-playback interventions rated the defendant as being more responsible and rated the victim as less responsible for sexual assault than the other three groups. 

Critical viewing: Intervention groups who received information on how to critically evaluate sexually violent 

Study Quality 

- Small number of subjafford sufficient power comparison of sets of mauthors’ hypothesized l- No discussion of diff

to intervention type 

- Scales measuring iden

perpetrator in the film of the other constructs item. 

- Time frame of pretesis possible that the pretbefore the interventionother factors introduceintervention could hav

 Article: 

- Unclear description o

different studies. The rstudy to make it appear is poorly written and this described more than that are sometimes con

- No description of stu

E-167
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

media (the cognitive-consistency and no-playback viewing groups) showed no better ability to recognize the violence in the film clips as less believable, did not show lower levels of identification with perpetrators of sexual violence, showed no greater recognition of the use of special effects, and showed no higher recognition of stereotypes compared to subjects who did not receive the skills information (the traditional persuasion and both control conditions). Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-168 
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.

Author/s: Shultz, Scherman, and Marshall 

Title: Evaluation of a University-Based Date Rape Prevention Program: Effect on Attitudes and Behavior Related to Rape 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Midwestern university with approximately 

20,000 students Study Eligibility Criteria: Students who attended Safety 

Awareness Week activities on campus, enrolled in a career exploration course, or attended a weekly dormitory meeting Population Type: 

College Population Characteristics:

 Age: X=19.55

 Range 18 - 22 yrs; one student 27 yrs old

 Sex: 42% male, 58%female Education: 43% freshman, 15% sophomores, 23% 

juniors, 17% seniors.

 Race/Ethnicity: 72% Euro-American, 25% AfricanAmerican, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, or Other; 

3% did not specify ethnicity

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): None 

of the participants were married Parents’ income measured but Not reported 

Study Design: Experimental

 Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 2 groups, both received 

Campus Rape Prevention. Program.. One group was pretested and post-tested, the second group was posttested only. Numbers in each group Not reported. Students receiving treatment were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Comparison Group Type(s): Control group did not 

receive any intervention. Numbers Not reported. Completed post-tests only. Sampling Frame Size: 20,000 students 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

60 undergraduates (25 males and 35 females) -60/20,000= .3% Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates):Can not tell if sample described only contained students who completed both pre- and post-test. Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test: Prior to the intervention (exact time Not reported) Post-test: immediately following program presentation Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Students in the 

pre/post group were administered all the scales prior to receiving the program and students in the post-test only group were administered only the demographic information questionnaire. Immediately following the presentation participants in both treatment groups and the control group completed the post-test survey packet. 

Setting: Not reported 

Duration: Not reporte

Theory/Model: Based 

prevention education carape-supportive attitudeinvestigates the link betchange in behavior. Auresearch has been done Delivery Mode: Intera

detail provided Curriculum/Content: 

(1997) Campus Rape Pre

program targeted at botprogram was developed Awareness Committee. increase awareness coninformation on rape princorporates males into Program Implemente

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: Not reported 

E-169
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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: 

The College Date Rape Attitude and Behavior Survey - Modified (CDRABS-M) (Lanier and Elliot, 1997) consists of 27 statements that address attitudes and behaviors related to date rape. For the purposes of this study, the items pertaining to behavior were slightly modified to indicate behavioral intent rather than strictly current behavior, 

since post-testing occurred immediately following the program presentation.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest and post-test. 

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA) (Burt, 1980) consists of 14 items measuring attitude change by targeting rape mythology.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest and post-test. 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Demographic measure - asked age, 

gender, marital status, race and ethnicity, education level, and parents’ income status

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Attitudes: The RMA scores of the control group were 

significantly more supportive of rape myths than those in the treatment groups. The difference between the means of the two treatment groups was not significant. There were no significant differences between groups on the CDRABS-M Attitude Scale (post-test scores) There were no significant differences among the three groups on the CDRABS-M behavioral intent scale (posttest scores). Pretesting did not appear to have any effect on the scores for the two treatment groups; the means of their post-test scores did not differ significantly. Differences between pre-test and post-test scores were significant for the CDRABS-M Attitude scale(p<.0167) indicating that students in the treatment group endorsed attitudes less supportive of rape following intervention. There were no significant differences on the RMA or the 

CDRABS-M Behavioral Intent scale.

 Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: Total: 31/85 (36%) Description: 15/25 (6Design: 16/60 (27%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- Measures effect of p

 Article: Good revie

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- When reporting racegroups - No description of th- Small sample size - Did not measure diff

E-170 
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.

Author/s: Harrison, Downes, and Williams Title: Date and Acquaintance Rape: Perceptions and Attitude Change Strategies 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Large southwestern public university Study Design: Non-equivalent comparison group Setting: Not reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: students enrolled in speech Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Treatment 

communication classes whose instructors volunteered to Treatment 2 participate in class. Speech communications is one of the Intervention Group Type(s): Of the five classes, four 

three courses that may be elected to fulfill the oral served as the intervention groups. The four classes were Theory/Model: Attitucommunication required for all undergraduates at the randomly assigned to different treatment groups. “drive” states in individuniversity. Occasionally graduate students enrol in this including the attention course. Comparison Group Type(s): Of the five classes, one messages (Fleming and 

served as a control group. Not clear how control group 

Population Type: College (undergraduate and graduate) was chosen (out of the five classes available). Delivery Mode: Video

students (method depended on w

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported students were in -see cu

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Mean age = 19.5 years for both men and women Sex: 51 women (53%) and 45 men (47%)

 Education: 69% Freshmen; 10% sophomores; 

remainder were upper-class or graduate students.

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Not reported 96 students participated but no information on dropouts, etc was reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Curriculum/Content: Treatment 1: viewing acquaintance rape (two Treatment 2: viewing a facilitated instructionathe video (two groups) 

Participation Rates): 

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Not reported Time Points of Data Collection: pre-test: Not reported post-test: immediate following intervention Methods/Setting of Data Collection: paper and pencil test; location Not reported 

Videotape: titled Whovideotape presented a sseen by the target audieprint and TV advertisinadvertise clothing, perfuwere followed by scenerepresenting a couple odesigned to show that tmixed messages. Facilitated discussion conducted in three phaafter the video was showthat included six questiorelated to date and acquminutes of open discusgroup’s attention back tfacts related to date and 

E-171
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 and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

15 minutes of open discProgram Implemente

facilitator who administwell as presented the prCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

intervention) 

Intervention Retentiointervention) Other: 

Measures Knowledge: See below

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: questionnaire developed for this study relied on 

the questionnaire (Attitudes toward Date Rape (ATR)) by Feild (1978) and Barnett and Feild (1977) 

Short statements were added to the original ATR items; modernized the language in some of the original ATR items and clarifying the new items. The resulting statements were used to develop a 25-item attitudes questionnaire, the revised ATR, which asked respondents to rate their agreement on a 5-point scale. Note: although an attitude questionnaire, some of the questions included knowledge about rape myths, etc.

 Time Points of Measurement: 

pre-test and post-test (three of the five classes in the study completed the pretest - two did not to account for the possible priming effect of a pretest; all classes took 

Results 

Primary Measures

 Knowledge: Attitudes: The revised ATR was factor analyzed to 

detect any useful underlying structure. Data from both the pretest and the post-test administrations were analyzed, and two stable and homogeneous scales were created to reflect the major dimensions that appeared: victimblaming or denial and perceptions of factual information. These scales were used as both pretest and post-test data to assess the effectiveness of two treatment interventions intended to alter student perceptions about acquaintance rape. 

Analysis of data from the various treatment groups with-in sex revealed the following: on the victim-blaming or denial scale men showed a significantly greater change in responses from pretest to post-test. Women’s overall responses did not change much from pretest to post-test, whereas men showed a marked shift in mean responses to greater disagreement with statements reflecting victimblaming or denial. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 35/85 (41%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 16/60 (27%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- had two panels review revised ATR Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- hard to know if the st

representative of schoo

E-172
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.

Measures Results Study Quality post-test) Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

This overall shift was not significant for Scale 2, perceptions of factual information. This study also found that for men, both treatments, video-tape and video-plus-discussion raised scores on both scales in comparison to a control group that had no intervention. For men, both the intervention treatments did what they were designed to do: improve the accuracy of perception of factual information and increase the disagreement with statements that reflect victim-blaming or denial. There was n o difference in post-test scale scores in this study between the two types of video treatments, with and without facilitated discussion. No significant treatment differences were found for women for either scale. This is likely because their scores were so high to begin with (i.e., there might have been some ceiling effects). Possible priming effects of the pretest were assessed: there seemed to be a pretest effect; that is, both treatment groups that received a pretest seemed to show significantly higher scores on both scales than did the comparable unpretested groups. Additional follow-up contrasts found this pretest advantage effect to be especially evident in the video-tape group.

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

E-173
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.

E-174
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.

Author/s: Fawole, O. I., Ajuwon, A. J., Osungbade, K. O., & Faweya, O. C. Year: 2003 Title: Interventions for Violence Prevention among Young Female Hawkers in Motor Parks in South-Western Nigeria: A Review of Effectiv

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Six motor parks – the two biggest motor parks 

each in three cities (Abeokuta, Ibadan, and Osogbo) – located in south-western Nigeria Study Eligibility Criteria: Female hawker in one of the 

six motor parks Population Type: Young female hawkers (YFH) who 

trade in the motor parks Population Characteristics:

 Age: mean age = 23.5 (baseline); 23.4 (end line) [no 

statistical difference (p>0.05)]

 Sex: 100% female Education: had received only primary education or 

none at all – 48%(baseline); 38.5% (end line) [no statistical 

difference (p>0.05)] 

Ethnicity: NR

 Sexually Active: NR Victimization: Also see Results column 

Baseline: Common violent acts experienced were sexual harassment 

(36.3%), economic violence (27.5%), forced marriage (31.8%), and involuntary withdrawal from school (31.5%). 59.1% had been beaten or battered by men and 30.4% had been victims of sexual abuse with the main perpetrators being drivers or conductors (44.8%) and friends (16.2%) and these violent acts occurring at the motor parks (47.6%) and at home (29.2%). 

Study Design: Pre/post

 Author-reported: NR 

Intervention Group Type(s): Young female hawkers 

(secondary target group consisted of the drivers and officers of the NURTW, female traders at the motor parks, police officers, and judicial officers, however, they were not included in the quantitative data collection, and therefore, not included in the study results.) Comparison Group Type(s): none 

Sampling Frame Size: 364 girl hawkers were identified 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

Baseline interviews – 345 (94.5% participation rate) [Intervention – 595 hawkers, 254 drivers, 212 traders, 65 police officers, and 38 judicial officers participated; 261 micro credit participants] Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 374 hawkers (different respondents – some of the girls recruited at baseline were also recruited during the intervention, however the intervention consisted of many more new hawkers, most of whom were also interviewed at post-test). Time Points of Data Collection: Baseline data (pretest) – 2 month duration (April and May of 2000) [Interventions began immediately after baseline collection ended and lasted 5 months] Impact Evaluation (post test) – 12 months after the interventions (August 2001). Micro credit scheme – six months after recipients received the loan. 

Setting: For hawkers – 

parks; for drivers and trand judicial officials – in Duration: Six separate 

hawkers from each of ta period of 3 days. Intefive-month period, from Secondary targets – 11 (6 for drivers and tradeofficers) Theory/Model: NR 

Delivery Mode: Differ

for the various groups, and presentations, quescase scenarios and songeducational materials (hdistributed by the hawkIncentives – micro cred$20 each were given to hawkers; student hawkeeducation (including prand textbooks, and payBeneficiaries of the loanguidelines for repaymemicro credit scheme wafor each sate with the awomen traders in each financial management seffectively before commCurriculum/Content: 

definition, types, and coHIV/AIDS, including ptransmission; (c) results 

E-175 
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 and Setting 26.3% had experienced attempted rape, while 5.5%(n=19) had been raped with the perpetrators beingspouses and boyfriends. 70.4% of the victims did not seek care or redress. 

Criminal History: NR

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Marital status: not married – 58.3% (baseline); 51.1% (end line) [no statistical difference (p>0.05)] Time hawking: Between 1 and 5 years – 65% (baseline); 65.5% (end line) [no statistical difference (p>0.05)] Religion & Persons who kept proceeds of the sales of the merchandise: statistically different from baseline to end line, suggesting that the groups were not entirely homogenous (p<0.05) Three groups of hawkers were identified: 1. Professional hawkers – own and manage their own

business 

2. Apprentice hawkers – young girls who are learning howto trade under the supervision of an instructor 3. Student hawkers – girls who school during the day but

hawk in the evenings when they return from school and on weekends. They hawk for their parents, guardians, or instructors. 

Study Design and Sample 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

Interviews were conducted by six trained research assistants (females between 18-25 years old with at least secondary school education and previous experience with data collection) and coordinated by three research supervisors. The assistants were trained on the use of questionnaires and educated on various aspects of VAW; they were evaluated after training on efficiency and consistency of responses before they were allowed to commence data collection and then periodically retrained during data collection to ensure consistency of responses. The supervisors were two men and one woman with tertiary education between 30 and 40 years old. They registered hawkers in each park, sought parents’ consent, explained purpose of the study to respondents, and liaised with motor park officials. Interviews were carried out in a quiet stall or office of the female traders Micro credit scheme was evaluated using qualitative methods such as focus group discussions and in-depth interview, as well as observation (by program officers) of the quantity of goods the girls had for sale. 

Intervention 

implications; (d) develoand support for victims economic; (f) setting up opportunities available Also, at the training sesexplained the legal provin the Nigerian legal sysopportunities for free leTwo educational materidepicting the various fovulnerable to such as rabreast and backside, anthat listed the different south-western Nigeria (reviewing existing postesuggestions from the gisurvey, and designed by were distributed by the Secondary targets – for not reported; for police discussed included (a) dof VAW; (b) HIV/AIDmethods of transmissioand their implications; (e) police perspectives o

of violence; and (g) how collectively. 

Program Implemente

persons from NGOs, sproprietors of small scahair styling and cateringwere not involved in tra

Culturally Specific: tr

Yoruba, the native langjudicial officials was hel

Assessment of Expos

E-176 
Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention

E-177

Intervention RetentioOther:

Measures Results Study Quality

 violence by 310 (82.8%)

 compared to 274 (73.6%) hawkers at

baseline.

• Attempted rape was better recognized as violence

 (322, 86.1%) than at baseline (217,

62.9%).

• Forced sexual intercourse was recognized as rape by

340 (90.9%) compared to 300

(86.9%).

Knowledge of physical violence improved:

• 339 (90.6%) reported physical

violence to include beating, hitting, or batteringcompared to 199 (57.7%) at baseline.

Economic forms of violence were mentioned by 259

(69.2%) post-intervention compared to 100 (28.9%) preintervention.Psychological forms of violence such as disparagement

improved from 15% to 38%.Blame

133 (38.5%) blamed women and 215 (62.5%) blamed theattacker at baseline, compared to 104 (28%) and 194(64.5%) , respectively.

LocationThe hawkers recognized that violent acts might occur athome (68.4%), at school (73%), at work (71.8%), and atthe motor park (82.3%) at baseline compared to 79%,92%, 88.2%, and 95.5% (p<0.05).

Quality Score:

Total: 54/85 (23%) Description: 23/25 (9 Design: 31/60 (52%)Major Strengths: Study:- Field tested printed intproduction.- before intervention imgroups for advocacy pur- questions were pilot tefemale hawkers from an Article:- Extensive description Major Weaknesses: Study:– No control group (noconstraints)– Analysis of the effect different groups of hawcategories were identifie– Baseline, interventionwere different Article:Not certain if baseline aquestions/format were 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.
Measures Results 

Self as victim 92.8% at baseline mentioned hawkers as possible subjects 

Attitudes: 

Opinions about most prevalent type of violence in motor park: • • • 

Victimization: 

Sexual violence • 

(p<0.05) 

Perpetrators: drivers 44.8%/53.8%; spouses 16.2%/NR Location: motor park 47.6%/NR • Attempted rape: 26.4%/6.6% • 

friend): 11.3%/1.9% (p<0.05) 

• Rape (by male friends or prospective husbands; 

78.9% of which occurred at home): 19 (5.5%) baseline/1 post-intervention 

Physical violence: 

Beaten or battered: 59.1% (range of 1-9 times, mean=4) baseline / range 1-4, mean =2 (p<0.05) Psychological violence 

• 

baseline /6.9% post (p<0.05) 

• 

baseline /13.2% post (p<0.05)

 Perpetration: 

i

of violence. Other Measures: 

Reporting: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.

Study Quality 

of violent acts compared to 99.4% post-intervention.

sexual harassment/rape: 36.3% baseline/51.4% 

financial exploitation: 27.5%/14.8% 

Physical violence: 19.7%/13.9% 

Sexually harassed: 30.4% baseline/15.7% post 

Forced sexual intercourse (by their partner or male belittled or relegated because they were females 9.8% 

denied freedom of movement by spouses: 17.1% 

Post- ntervention drivers were still the main perpetrators 

E-178
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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Baseline – most common action was to tell a friend (20.6%) or tell no one (54.2%) Post intervention – most common action was to seek help from the traders’ or drivers’ association (30.6%); 76.3% sought help from someone (p<0.05). No one went to court or sought police help. Micro credit facilities: All (39%) the women interviewed said it boost their trade and gave them greater economic independence. The program officers found that most (75%) of the shops were better stocked after receiving the loans. School Exams: All the student hawkers in their final year of schooling sat for the school leaving examinations.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 

Other: 

E-179 
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

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University 

of Vermont. Department of Psychiatry. 

Anderson, L., Stoelb, M.P., Duggan, P., Hieger, B., Kling, K.H., & Payne, J. P. (1998). The 

effectiveness of two types of rape prevention programs in changing the rape-supportive 

attitudes of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39(2), 131-142. 

Bandura, A. “Social Learning Theory.” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977. 

Barak, A., & La Crosse, M.B. (1975). Comparative perceptions of practicum counselor behavior. 

Counselor Education and Supervision, 16, 202-208. 

Barnette, N.J., & H.S. Field. “Sex differences in university students’ attitudes toward rape.” Journal 

of College Student Personnel, 18 (1977): 93–96. 

Bechhofer, L. “Divergent Perceptions of Men and Women and the Risk of Date Rape.” Paper 

presented to the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis, MN, 1990. 

Bernstein, D.P., Fink, L. Handelsman, L. Foote, J., Lovejoy, M., Wenzel, K., et al. (1994). Initial 

reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 132-136. 

Bertolini, G. (1992). Hold her down. Unpublished play. 

Black, B., Weisz, A., Coats, S., & Patterson, D. (2000). Evaluating a psychoeducational sexual assault 

prevention program incorporating theatrical presentation, peer education, and social work. 

Research on Social Work Practice, 10(5), 589-606. 

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(4), 472-488. 

Breitenbecher, K.H., & Scarce, M. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual assault 

education program focusing on psychological barriers to resistance. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 16(5), 397-407. 

Breitenbecher, K.H., & Scarce, M. (1999). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual 

assault education program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(5), 459-478. 

Briere, J., & Malamuth, N.M. (1983). Self-reported likelihood of sexually aggressive behavior: 

Attitudinal versus sexual explanations. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 315-323. 

Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counter 

argument production. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 3, 269-309. 

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during 

preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101-1111. 

E-180 
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.

Bunting, A., & Reeves, J. (1983). Perceived male sex orientation and beliefs about rape. Deviant 

Behavior, 4, 281-295. 

Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 

217-230. 

Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Chicago, IL: Rand 

McNally. 

Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 

42, 116-131. 

Channing L. Bete, Inc. (1988). What women and men should know about date rape. (Available from 

Channing L. Bete, Inc., South Deerfield, MA 01373). 

Channing L. Bete, Inc. (1987). What everyone should know about career planning. (Available from 

Channing L. Bete, Inc., South Deerfield, MA 01373). 

Cornell University Audiovisual Center. (1987). Stop date Rape! [Film]. Ithaca, NY: Author. 

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of 

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Psychology, 24, 349-354. 

Dahlberg, L.L., Toal, S.B., & Behrens, C.B. (1996). The measurement of violence-related attitudes, beliefs, 

knowledge, and behavior among youth: A compendium of instruments. Atlanta, GA: National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Dallager, C., & Rosen, L.A. (1993). Effects of a human sexuality course on attitudes toward rape and 

violence. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 193-199. 

Deitz, S.R., Blackwell, K., Daely, P. & Bentley, B. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape 

victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384. 

Deitz, S.R., & Byrnes, L.E. (1981). Attribution of responsibility for sexual assault: The influence of 

observer empathy and defendant occupation and attractiveness. The Journal of Psychology, 108, 

17-29. 

Derogatis, L.R. (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual - II. Towson, MD: 

Clinical Psychometric Research. 

Derogatis, L. (1977). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual-II. MD: Clinical 

Psychometric Research. 

Dobash, R.W., & Dobash, R.P. (1992). Women, violence, and social change. New York: Routledge. 

Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1992). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. 

Earle, J.P. (1996). Acquaintance rape workshops: Their effectiveness in changing the attitudes of 

first-year college men. NASPA Journal, 34, 2-18. 

E-181 
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.

Elliot, D.M., & Briere, J. (1992). Sexual abuse trauma among professional women: Validating the 

Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40). Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 391-398. 

Fawole, O.I., Ajuwon, A.J., Osungbade, K.O., & Faweya, O.C. (2003). Interventions for Violence 

Prevention among Young Female Hawkers in Motor Parks in South-Western Nigeria: A 

Review of Effectiveness. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 7(1), 71-82. 

Feild, H.S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, 

and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156-179. 

Feltey, K.M., Ainslie, J.J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion attitudes among high school students: 

The influence of gender and rape education. Youth and Society, 23(2), 229-250. 

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: The Free Press. 

Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New York: Free Press. 

Fischer, G.J. (1986a). College student attitudes toward forcible date rape: Changes after taking a 

human sexuality course. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 12, 42-46. 

Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (ed.), Reading in attitude 

theory and measurement (pp. 477-482). New York: Wiley. 

Fleming, M., & Levie, W.H. (1978). Instructional message designs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational 

Technology Publications. 

Fonow, M.M., Richardson, L., & Wemmerus, V.A. (1992). Feminist rape education: Does it work? 

Gender & Society, 6(1), 108-121. 

Forst, L.S., Lightfoot, J.T., & Burrichter, A. (1996). Familiarity with sexual assault and its 

relationship to the effectiveness of acquaintance rape prevention programs. Journal of 

Contemporary Clinical Justice, 12(1), 28-44. 

Foshee, V.A. (1994). “Youth Dating Violence Survey.” Unpublished Instrument. 

Foshee, V.A. (1998). Involving schools and communities in preventing adolescent dating abuse. In 

X.B. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds). Addressing community problems: Psychological research and 

interventions (pp. 104-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran (2004). 

Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates Program and a Booster in Preventing and 

Reducing Adolescent Dating Violence Victimization and Perpetration. American Journal of 

Public Health, 94(4), 619-624. 

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). 

An evaluation of Safe Dates: An adolescent dating violence prevention program. American 

Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45-50. 

E-182 
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.

Foshee, V.A., Bauman, K.E., Greene, W.F., Koch, G.G., Linder, G.F., & MacDougall, J.E. (2000). 

The Safe Dates Program: One-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 

1619-1622. 

Foshee, V.A., Linder, G.F., Bauman, K.E., Langwick, S.A., Arriaga, X.B., Heath, J.L., McMahon, P. 

M., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates Project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, 

and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39-47. 

Foubert, J.D. (2001). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on fraternity men's 

attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. In D.K. Wysocki (Ed.), Readings in Social Research. 

New York: Wadsworth Publishing. 

Foubert, J.D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on fraternity men's 

attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of American College Health, 48(4), 158-163. 

Foubert, J.D., & Marriot, K.A. (1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer education program on men's 

belief in rape myths. Sex Roles, 36(3-4), 259-268. 

Foubert, J.D., & Marriot, K.A. (1996). Overcoming men's defensiveness toward sexual assault 

programs: Learning to help survivors. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 470-472. 

Foubert, J.D., & McEwen, M.K. (1998). An all-male rape prevention peer education program: 

Decreasing fraternity men's behavioral intent to rape. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 

548-556. 

Frazier, P., Valtinson, G., & Candell, S. (1994). Evaluation of a coeducational interactive rape 

prevention program. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(2), 153-158. 

Fultz, J., Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. (1988). Empathy, sadness, and distress: Three related but 

distinct vicarious affective responses to another's suffering. Personality and Social Psychology 

Bulletin, 14(2), 312-325. 

Giarrusso, R., Johnson, P., Goodchilds, J., & Zellman, G. (1979). Adolescent cues signals: Sexual 

assault. Paper presented to a symposium of the Western Psychological Association Meeting, 

San Diego, CA. 

Gibson, D.B., & Humphrey, C.F. (1993). Educating in regards to sexual violence: An interactional 

dramatic acquaintance rape intervention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 

Sexual Violence Program, Minneapolis. 

Gidycz, C.A., Layman, M.J., Rich, C.L., Crothers, M., Gylys, J., Matorin, A., & Jacobs, C.D. (2001). 

An evaluation of an acquaintance rape prevention program: Impact on attitudes, sexual 

aggression, and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1120-1138. 

Gilbert, B.J., Heesacker, M., & Gannon, L.J. (1991). Changing the sexual aggression-supportive 

attitudes of men: A psychoeducational intervention. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 

197-203. 

Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1988). Gender differences in students' attitudes toward rape. Sociological Focus, 21, 

279-292. 

E-183 
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.

Goodchilds, J.D., Zellman, G.L., Johnson, P.B., & Giarusso, R. (1988). Adolescents and their 

perceptions of sexual interactions. In A.W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault II 

(pp. 245-270). New York: Garland. 

Gray, M.D., Lesser, D., Quinn, E., & Bounds, C. (1990). The effectiveness of personalizing 

acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of vulnerability and on reducing 

risk-taking behavior. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 217-220. 

Greenwald, A.G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, attitude change. In 

A.G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes 

(pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press. 

Hall, R.L. (1989). Self-efficacy ratings. In D.R. Laws (Ed.), Relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 

137-146). New York: Guilford Press. 

Hall, E.R., Howard, J.A., and Boezio, S.L. (1986). Tolerance of rape: A sexist or antisocial attitude? 

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 101-118. 

Hamilton, M., & Yee, J. (1990). Rape knowledge and propensity to rape. Journal of Research in 

Personality, 24, 111-122. 

Hanson, K.A., & Gidycz, C.A. (1993). Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1046-1052. 

Harrison, P.J., Downes, J., & Williams, M.D. (1991). Date and acquaintance rape: Perceptions and 

attitude change strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 131-139. 

Hays, R.D., Hayaski, T., & Stewart, A.L. ( 1989). A five item measure of socially desirable response 

set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 629-636. 

Head, S. (1988). A study of attitudes and behaviour in dating relationships with special reference to the use of force. 

Scarborough, Ontario: Board of Education for the City of Scarborough. 

Heppner, M.J., Good, G.E., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T.L., Hawkins, A.K., Hacquard, L.L., Nichols, R. 

K., DeBord, K.A., & Brock, K.J. (1995). Examining sex differences in altering attitudes 

about rape: A test of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Counseling and Development, 

73, 640-647. 

Heppner, M.J., Humphrey, C.F., Hillenbrand-Gunn, T.L., & DeBord, K.A. (1995). The differential 

effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology, 42, 508-518. 

Heppner, M. J., Neville, H.A., Smith, K., Kivlighan, D.M., & Gershuny, B.S. (1999). Examining 

immediate and long-term efficacy of rape prevention programming with racially diverse 

college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 16-26. 

Heppner, P.P., Baumgardner, A.H., Larson, L.M., & Petty, R.E. (1988). The utility of 

problem-solving training that emphasizes self-management principles. Counseling Psychology 

Quarterly, 1, 129-143. 

E-184 
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.

Heppner, P.P., Rosenberg, J.I., & Hedgespeth, J. (1992). Three methods in measuring the 

therapeutic process: Clients and counselors constructions of the therapeutic process versus 

actual therapeutic events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 20-31. 

Hilton, N.Z., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., Krans, T.S., & Lavigne, S.E. (1998). Antiviolence education 

in high schools: Implementation and evaluation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 

726-742. 

Himelein, M.J. (1999). Acquaintance rape prevention with high-risk women: Identification and 

inoculation. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), 93-96. 

Hochman, G.M. (1958). Public participation in medical screening programs: A sociopsychological study. (PHS 

Publication No. 572). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Humphrey, C.F. (1996). Scale for the Identification of Acquaintance Date Rape Attitudes (SIARA). 

Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri–Columbia. 

Intons-Peterson, M. J., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (1989). Mitigating the effects of violent 

pornography. In S. Gubar & J. Hoff-Wilson (Eds.), For adult users only. Bloomington: Indiana 

University Press. 

Intons-Peterson, M.J., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Thomas, L., Shirley, M., & Blut, D. (1989). Will 

educational materials reduce the negative effects of exposure to sexual violence? Journal of 

Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 256-275 

Jaffe, P.G., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip, S.M. (1992). An evaluation of a secondary school 

primary prevention program on violence in intimate relationships. Violence and Victims, 7(2), 

129-146. 

Kantor, G.K. (1996). A safe place dating violence prevention project. Durham: University of New 

Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory. 

Koss, M.P., & Gidycz, C.A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of 

Consulting Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423. 

Koss, M.P., & Gidycz, C.A. (1987). Sexual experience survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423. 

Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of 

sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal 

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. 

Koss, M.P, & Oros, C.J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating 

sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. 

Krazier, S. & Larson, C.L. (1993). Dating Violence: Intervention & prevention for teenagers. Tulsa, OK: 

National Resource Center for Youth Services, College of Continuing Education, University 

of Oklahoma. 

E-185 
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.

Lanier, C.A. & Elliot, M.N. (1997). A new instrument for the evaluation of a date rape prevention 

program. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 673-676. 

Lanier, C.A., Elliott, M.N., Martin, D.W., & Kapadia, A. (1998). Evaluation of an intervention to 

change attitudes toward date rape. Clinical and Program Notes. Journal of College Health, 46(4), 

177 180. 

Lavoie, F., Vezina, L., Piche, C. & Boivin, M. (1995). Evaluation of a prevention program for 

violence in teen dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 516-524. 

Lenihan, G.O., & Rawlins, M.E. (1994). Rape supportive attitudes among Greek students before 

and after a date rape prevention program. Journal of College Student Development, 35(6), 450-455. 

Lenihan, G.O., Rawlins, M.E., Eberly, C.G., Buckley, B., & Masters, B. (1992). Gender differences 

in rape supportive attitudes before and after a date rape education intervention. Journal of 

College Student Development, 33, 331-338. 

Linz, D., Fuson, I.A., & Donnerstein, E. (1990). Mitigating the negative effects of sexually violent 

mass communications through preexposure briefings. Communication Research, 17, 641-674. 

Lonsway, K.A. (1996). Preventing acquaintance rape through education. Psychology of Women 

Quarterly, 20, 229-265. 

Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A 

theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711. 

Lonsway, K.A., Klaw, E.L., Berg, D.R., Waldo, C.R., Kothari, C., Mazurek, C.J., & Hegeman, K.E. 

(1998). Beyond “no means no”: Outcomes of an intensive program to train peer facilitators 

for campus acquaintance rape education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 73-92. 

Lonsway, K.A., & Kothari, C. (2000). First year campus acquaintance rape education. Psychology of 

Women Quarterly, 24(3), 220-232. 

Macgowan, M.J. (1997). An evaluation of a dating violence prevention program for middle school 

students. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 223-235. 

Malamuth, N.M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part 1.” Journal of Sex Res., 26, 

26-49. 

Malamuth, N.M. (1983). Factors associated with rape as predictors of laboratory aggression against 

women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 432-442. 

Malamuth, N.M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138-157. 

Malamuth, N.M., Sockloskie, R.J., Koss, M.P., & Tanaka, J.S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors 

against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670–681. 

Marshall, L.L. (1992). Development of violence against women scale. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 

103-120. 

E-186 
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.

Marx, B.P. & Gross, A.M. (1995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. Behavioral 

Modification, 19, 451-463. 

Marx, B.P., Van Wie, V., & Gross, A.M. (1996). Date rape risk factors: A review and methodological 

critique of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 27-45. 

McNeill, B.W., & Stoltenberg, C.D. (1989). Reconceptualizing social influence in counseling: The 

elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Counseling Psychology 36, 24-33. 

Meadows , E., Jaycox, L., Webb, S., & Foa, E. (1996, November). Risk 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. Symposioum conducted at the 30th annual meeting of the Association for 

Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York. 

MTI Film and Video, A Simon & Schuster Co. (1986). Someone you know: Acquaintance (Film). 

Northbrook, IL: MTI Film and Video. 

Muehlenhard, C.L., & Linton, M.A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: 

Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186-196. 

Muehlenhard, C.L., & MacNaughton, J.S. (1988). Women’s beliefs about women who lead men on.” 

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 65-79. 

Naber, C. (1991). Not a love story: The influence on rape judgments of exposure to images of women in popular 

culture. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 

Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition. (1995). Reaching and teaching teens to stop violence. 

Lincoln, NE: Author. 

Nelson, E.S., & Torgler, C.C. (1990). A comparison of strategies for changing college students' 

attitudes toward acquaintance rape. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 29, 69-85. 

Nelson, M.C. (1988). Reliability and validity and cross-cultural comparisons for the simplified 

attitudes towards women scale. Sex Roles, 18, 289-296. 

Newman, B.S., & Colon, I. (1994). Beliefs about rape among college males: A revision of the rape 

myth acceptance scale. College Student Journal, 28, 10-17. 

Norris, J., Nurius, P.S., & Dimeff, L.A. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women's 

perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women 

Quarterly, 20, 123-145. 

Norris, J., Nurius, P. S., & Gaylord, J. E. (1997, August). Coping with and responding to male sexual 

aggression : A cognitive-ecological model. In C. Gidycz (Chair), Factors related to sexual 

victimization and revictimization in women. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American 

Psychological Association, Chicago. 

Northam, E. (1997). The evaluation of a university-based rape prevention program. Unpublished 

doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman. 

E-187 
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.

Pacifici, C., Stoolmiller, M., & Nelson, C. (2001). Evaluating a prevention program for teenagers on 

sexual coercion: A differential effectiveness approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 69(3), 552-559. 

Parrot, A. (1987). Stop date rape: How to get what you want but not more than you bargained for: Facilitators 

manual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 

Payne, D.L. (1993). The assessment and structure of rape myths. Unpublished doctoral 

dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. (Referenced as Payne, Lonsway, and 

Fitzgerald [1993] in Article No. 33.) 

Payne, D.L., Lonsway, K.A., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its 

structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale. 

Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. 

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary 

approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown. 

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude 

change. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In 

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 19, pp 123-205). New York: 

Academic Press. 

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Heesacker, M. (1984). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: 

Application to counseling. In R. P. McGlynn, J. E. Maddux, C. D. Stoltenberg, & J. H. 

Harvey (Eds.). Interfaces in psychology: Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology. Lubbock, 

TX: Texas Tech Press. 

Pinzone-Glover, H.A., Gidycz, C.A., & Jacobs, C.D. (1998). Effects on attitudes toward women, 

rape-related attitudes, and perceptions of rape scenarios. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 

605-621. 

Proto-Campise, L., Belknap, J., & Wooldredge, J. (1998). High school students adherence to rape 

myths and the effectiveness of high school rape-awareness programs. Violence Against Women, 

4(3), 308-328. 

Rape Treatment Center. (Producer). (1990). (videotape). Available from the Rape Treatment Center 

of Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA. 

RAVE. (1997). Knowledge of sexual assault. Grand Rapids, MI: RAVE of West Michigan. 

Reynolds, W.M. “Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social 

Desirability Scale.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 38 (1982): 119–124. 

Resick, P., & Jackson, T.L. (1981). Attitudes toward rape among mental health professionals. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 481-90. 

E-188 
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.

Rosenthal, E.H., Heesacker, M., & Neimeyer, G.J. (1995). Changing the rape-supportive attitudes of 

traditional and nontraditional male and female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 

42, 171-177. 

Schewe, P.A., & O'Donohue, W. (1996). Rape prevention with high-risk males: Short-term outcome 

of two interventions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(5), 455-471. 

Schewe, P.A., & O'Donohue, W. (1993). Sexual abuse prevention with high-risk males: The roles of 

victim empathy and rape myths. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 339-351. 

Schneebaum, and Fitzgerald. No. 33. No reference provided in article. 

Schultz, S.K., Scherman, A., & Marshall, L.J. (2000). Evaluation of a university-based date rape 

prevention program: Effect on attitudes and behavior related to rape. Journal of College Student 

Development, 41(2), 193-201. 

Schwartz, M.D., & Wilson, N. (1993). We're talking but are they listening? The retention of 

information from sexual assault programming for college students. Free Inquiry in Creative 

Sociology, 21, 3-8. 

Selzer, M.L., Vinokur, A., & Van Rooijen, L. (1975). A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism 

Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 117-126. 

Smith, P., & Welchans, S. (2000). Peer education: Does focusing on male responsibility change 

sexual assault attitudes? Violence Against Women, 6(11), 1255-1268. 

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the attitudes toward women scale. 

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220. 

Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. 

Straus, M.A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on 

validity and reliability. In M.A. Strauss & R.J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: 

Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick: Transaction. 

Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and 

acquaintance rape. New York: Harper & Row. 

Weisz, A.N., & Black, B.M. (2001). Evaluating a sexual assault and dating violence prevention 

program for urban youths. Social Work Research, 25(2), 89-100. 

Wolfe, D.A., Scott, K., Retizel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. (2001). 

Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. 

Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293. 

Wolfe, D.A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A. Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating 

violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting 

and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279-291. 

E-189 
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.

Wolfe, D.A., Wekerle, C., Gough, B., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Grasley, C., Pittman, A., et al. (1996). The 

youth relationships manual: A group approach with adolescents for the prevention of woman abuse and the 

promotion of healthy relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Wright, V., Akers, S. W., & Rita, S. (2000). The Community Awareness Rape Education (CARE) 

program for high school students. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 26(2), 182-185. 

Wyer, R. S., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Gorman, T. F. (1985). Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 324-338. 

Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist. San Diego, 

CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. 

E-190 
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 

Sexual Abuse Preventive Interventions (SAPIs) for Individuals 

with Disabilities 
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.
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

Sexual Abuse Preventive Interventions (SAPIs) for Individuals with Disabilities 

Individuals with disabilities are often ignored in the discussion of sexual assault despite their 

increased risk and vulnerability. When examining prevention efforts, the majority of studies and 

review articles use the term disabilities to include learning disabilities; developmental disabilities; mild, 

moderate, or severe mental retardation; developmental delays; and hearing impairment. Because of 

the significant differences in the nature of sexual assault preventive interventions (SAPIs) compared 

with those for the general population, RTI included a separate discussion of preventive efforts that 

target this group, to suitably focus on their unique needs and on the different approaches to SAPIs. 

Prevalence 

Rates of sexual abuse and sexual assault of individuals with disabilities vary significantly. It is 

estimated that individuals with disabilities are up to four times as likely to be exploited sexually than 

their counterparts without disabilities (Muccigrosso, 1991). Prevalence statistics of sexual abuse of 

persons with mental retardation range from 25 to 83 percent (Lumley & Miltenberger, 1997), and 

Finkelhor (1979) noted a rate of sexual exploitation among individuals with developmental 

disabilities as high as 90 to 99 percent by the age of 18. A little more than half (54 percent) of 

victims of sexual abuse and assault surveyed in victim service agencies were mentally retarded 

(Sobsey, 1988). Similar to estimates in the general population, sexual abuse by a stranger is less likely 

among individuals with disabilities than sexual abuse by someone known to them. Individuals with 

disabilities have been reported to be victimized by strangers only 8 percent of the time (Sobsey & 

Doe, 1991; Sobsey & Varnhagen, 1988). 

Risk Factors 

Several factors place individuals with disabilities at higher risk for sexual abuse. Individuals 

with mental retardation are often taught to obey or depend on others to meet their needs and tend 

F-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.

to be compliant and submissive and therefore more vulnerable to exploitation (Tharinger, Horton, 

& Millea, 1990; Walmsely, 1989). Furthermore, poor judgement and lack of social skills may 

increase vulnerability to sexual abuse (Watson, 1984); these deficits combined with a lack of 

communication skills can contribute to an offender’s perception that individuals with disabilities are 

more vulnerable (Sobsey & Mansell, 1990). 

Lack of education on appropriate sexual behavior and lack of knowledge about how to 

defend oneself against abuse also place individuals with disabilities at increased risk. In a study that 

compared individuals with disabilities against age-related peers without disabilities, individuals with 

disabilities displayed less knowledge related to sex and had less experience with sexual activity, but 

had a greater incidence of pregnancy and STDs. Researchers have also found that individuals with 

disabilities were more likely to have positive feelings toward interactions typically considered abusive 

and to think that having sex with anyone was acceptable (McCabe & Cummins, 1996). 

Institutions serving individuals with disabilities can also pose a risk for sexual 

abuse. Research suggests that the risk of being sexually abused in an institution is two to four times 

as high as it is for individuals in the community (Rindfleisch & Bean, 1988; Rindfleisch & Rabb, 

1984; Shaughnessy, 1984). Furthermore, psychotropic drugs used for behavior control and aversive 

behavior management programs used to control noncompliant, aggressive, sexually inappropriate, or 

other problem behaviors of people with developmental disabilities can also increase the risk of abuse 

by reducing the ability to resist or make a complaint (Sobsey & Mansell, 1990). Factors such as 

these indicate a need for prevention programs that are geared toward reducing the risk of sexual 

abuse within institutions serving individuals with disabilities. 

SAPIs for Individuals with Disabilities 

Very few interventions target individuals with disabilities and their specific needs. 

Mainstream programs tend to be fast paced, time limited, and facilitated by staff with a lack of 

F-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.

knowledge regarding specific learning characteristics of individuals with disabilities (Muccigrosso, 

1991). Behavioral skills training is the most commonly used approach. It utilizes components such 

as instructions, modeling, rehearsal, praise, and corrective feedback and has been successful in 

teaching abduction prevention skills (Lumley & Miltenberger, 1997). 

Researchers suggest that prevention programs targeting individuals with disabilities must 

include self-protection skills such as the ability to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, 

respond to the abuse situation by verbally refusing and/or escaping the situation, and reporting 

abuse situations (Muccigrosso, 1991; Sobsey & Mansell, 1990). Assertiveness skills are another 

important strategy for responding to sexual abuse solicitation (Muccigrosso, 1991; Sobsey & 

Mansell, 1990). These skills include verbal refusal in response to a sexual abuse lure and/or escape 

behavior in which the individual leaves the presence of the perpetrator or exits the area (Lumley & 

Miltenberger, 1997). 

In addition to teaching behavioral skills and strategies to prevent sexual abuse, a 

developmentally appropriate educational component should also be incorporated into the 

curriculum. Information presented at a developmentally and functionally appropriate level will 

provide individuals with disabilities with more appropriate tools and skills to deal with the threat of 

sexual abuse. Programs should not only teach individuals to identify abusive situations, but also 

include a comprehensive sexuality education component (Sobsey, 1988; Watson, 1984) that 

improves individuals’ ability to identify body parts for reporting accuracy (Gilgun & Gordon, 1985). 

This comprehensive education will also provide individuals with information about what constitutes 

appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior (Sobsey, 1988). To ensure program suitability, 

however, it is important to consider the age as well as the level of functioning of the target 

individuals. 

F-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.

Knowledge assessment to determine individuals’ ability to retain new information is also a 

critical component of developing effective SAPIs. These assessments can be conducted through 

staff member and parent observations, but this method is subject to possible rater bias (Foxx, 

McMorrow, Storey, & Rogers, 1984). Therefore, more direct assessments of knowledge may be 

more appropriate and reliable than observations of a participant’s increase in knowledge. 

Some researchers argue that skills assessments are more important than knowledge 

assessments because research has shown that there is often a lack of correlation between knowledge 

and actual behavior (Bakken, Miltenberger, & Schauss, 1993; Carroll-Rowan & Miltenberger, 1994). 

Skills are often measured through role-play assessments that include verbal refusal, physical escape, 

and reporting (Carroll, Miltenberger, & O’Neill, 1992). Another assessment frequently used to 

examine individuals’ ability to apply the skills they have learned is the in situ assessment. In situ 

assessments use staged situations (that the target individuals do not know are staged) to determine 

whether new skills are being applied. However, because of the ethical concerns related to simulating 

sexual abuse lures, abduction prevention training tends to be used more consistently (Lumley & 

Miltenberger, 1997). 

Effectiveness of SAPIs for Individuals with Disabilities 

Very few studies have examined the effectiveness of SAPIs for individuals with disabilities. 

Small sample sizes, nonuse of control groups, and the use of measures with no psychometric 

validation make effectiveness difficult to assess (Lee & Tang, 1998). Researchers stress that 

behavioral skills training is an effective method of teaching prevention skills to individuals with 

disabilities, but this hypothesis is supported only by studies of behavioral skills training of children 

(Lumley & Miltenberger, 1997). It is clear that additional research examining effectiveness of 

prevention programs specifically for this population is necessary before any definite conclusions can 

be drawn. 

F-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.

Synthesis of Effectiveness Evidence 

This section provides a summary of the key characteristics of the nine studies of individuals 

with disabilities that met inclusion criteria (see chapter 3) for this evidence-based review. The 

approach for synthesizing data that was used for the general SAPI studies was also used for these 

studies, with the exception that quality scores were not given1

. RTI synthesized individual study 

results to draw conclusions about the overall effects of SAPIs for individuals with disabilities. 

Descriptive Information 

The complete results of the data abstraction process for each of the nine studies examining 

individuals with disabilities are presented in appendix E. Six studies examined individuals with mild 

to severe mental retardation, two studies examined individuals with learning disabilities, and one 

study examined a deaf individual and an individual living in a treatment center for developmentally 

delayed individuals. Study-specific descriptive information is presented in exhibit F.1 (at the end of 

this appendix). 

The majority of studies (n=6) included only females participants; the other three studies 

included both males and females. Participants’ ages ranged from 11 to 57 years old. Two studies 

reported assessment of past victimization and two studies reported sexual activity of the study 

participants. Eight of the nine studies assessed level of learning disability (mild, moderate, or severe) 

to ensure that the participants had adequate communication and language skills required to 

participate. Four studies assessed this through IQ scores; two used the Wechsler Adult Intelligence 

Scale. Three of the studies assessed whether individuals had received previous training in the 

prevention of sexual abuse. 

1

Because of the different nature of the evaluation studies for individuals with disabilities, 

including smaller sample sizes and differing outcome measures, the quality rating form was not used. 

F-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.

All but two programs were conducted either in the classroom or at the participants’ 

residential group home. Of the six studies that reported clear information about length of the 

program length, four studies consisted of 10 or fewer intervention contact hours with participants; 

of the other three studies, one provided the number of sessions without the length, one provided 

the length of sessions without the total number of sessions, and one did not report on the time 

frame of the intervention. Three of the studies used incentives to encourage participation. 

Of the four study designs identified (pre-test/post-test design, nonequivalent comparison 

group design, randomized comparison group design, and experimental design), the most common 

study design was the pre-test/post-test design, which six studies used. Three of the studies used a 

comparison group. All the studies had relatively small sample sizes ranging from 2 to 77 

participants; the majority of studies (n=6) had fewer than 10 participants. Follow-up assessment was 

conducted in eight of the studies, ranging from 1 month to 8 years since completion of the 

intervention. Study retention rates, which reflect the number of baseline participants who 

participated in follow-up data collection periods, ranged from 60 to 100 percent. All of the studies 

used a post-test, and the majority of studies (n=7) had post-test retention rates greater than 75 

percent. Four of the eight studies that included a follow-up assessment had follow-up retention 

rates greater than 75 percent. 

The majority of studies (n=7) measured skills/strategies for preventing sexual abuse, and 

more than half (n=5) measured knowledge of prevention strategies. Three studies measured both 

skills/strategies and knowledge. Measures of knowledge included the ability to differentiate between 

appropriate and inappropriate sexual behaviors, knowledge of self-protection skills, and observer’s 

rating of use of skills and effectiveness. Skills included the ability to demonstrate criterion behavior 

(i.e., refusal, leaving the situation, and/or telling a trusted person). Two studies examined the side 

effects of the intervention; and one study each, in addition to examining either knowledge or skills, 

F-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.

examined (1) whether fear decreased after the intervention, (2) locus of control, and (3) satisfaction. 

Study measures were diverse; five studies used author-developed measures, with little information 

regarding psychometric properties. 

It is important to consider information about the intervention and the manner in which the 

assessment was conducted when interpreting the findings. None of the studies reported a negative 

intervention effect. Three of the seven studies that conducted skills training delivered corrective 

feedback to respondents on their skills performance (nos. 47, 48, and 56). Because five of the 

studies conducted the intervention until the desired response was achieved (at which time the 

training was considered complete), the results of the final follow-up for these studies always 

indicated a positive intervention effect (nos. 47, 48, 56, 57, and 76). Positive effects were reported 

among the four studies for skills and knowledge as well. 

Recommendations for Future Research 

It would be premature to make definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of SAPIs 

for individuals with disabilities considering the small number of studies examining this issue. 

Additional studies that measure effectiveness need to be conducted to fully understand and develop 

meaningful inferences. When abstracting the data from the articles for the evidence-based review, 

RTI reviewed the suggestions that the authors presented in their articles. These suggestions, 

discussed below, provide useful information to guide future prevention efforts in the areas of 

practice and research. 

The majority of researchers identified the lack of appropriate assessment tools as a 

significant barrier to examining effectiveness and suggested the development of alternative 

assessment methods. More naturalistic settings and assessment tools to examine effectiveness in real 

life are hypothesized to provide more valid measurements of preventive effects. Enhancing 

program curricula and presentation may also provide more insight into prevention efforts for this 

F-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.

population. Authors suggested that program effectiveness may be enhanced by employing more 

diverse strategies, such as training approaches for both cognitive and motivational issues in decision 

making and broader topic areas including sex education, societal norms, and familial and peer 

pressure, as well as by increasing the number of sessions provided. Developmentally appropriate 

material that individuals enjoy and actively engage in at a suitable pace will help ensure active 

participation of the target audience. In addition, support and acceptance of program staff and 

teachers are crucial to the success of a program. 

Researchers indicate that future research must identify elements of the intervention that are 

essential and effective. In addition, efforts to identify how to maintain and enhance individuals’ 

skills are critical to assessing programs’ effectiveness in reducing sexual abuse. Identifying 

commonalities among sexually active adolescents and the impact of refusal skills on unwanted sexual 

behavior are essential to developing any meaningful conclusions. Furthermore, increasing the 

number of follow-up assessments and using more than one independent rater to observe skill 

acquisition will increase reliability in measuring effectiveness. 

In developing this report, RTI recognized limitations in addition to those mentioned by 

authors. Small sample sizes across the studies make it difficult to generalize for the larger 

population of individuals with disabilities, and the combination of individuals with different 

disabilities (e.g., mild learning disabilities and the hearing impaired) into one sample for both 

implementation and evaluation of SAPIs also limits generalization. Conducting these evaluations 

with larger sample sizes and designing and evaluating SAPIs among populations with similar 

learning characteristics will increase the validity of the findings. Corrective feedback strategies 

which were implemented in the majority of the studies, made it difficult to assess whether the 

respondents learned new skills and maintained them over a longer period of time. Conducting longF-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.

term follow-ups without corrective feedback or continued implementation of the intervention will 

determine whether these skills can actually be maintained in a nonexperimental setting. 

Conclusion 

Although the majority of the studies reviewed in this report indicated positive results in skill 

and knowledge acquisition, the findings are inconclusive because of the limited amount of research 

on sexual assault/abuse prevention for individuals with disabilities. Researchers emphasize the need 

to develop more appropriate assessment tools and enhance curriculum components as crucial 

strategies for improving prevention efforts targeting this vulnerable population. Additional studies 

employing these advances are critical to our understanding of how to effectively prevent sexual 

assault among individuals with disabilities. 

F-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. Exhibit F.1 Study-Specific Descriptive Information for Studies for Individuals with Disabilities 

F-12

P

Baseline Inter

Article Intervention Format and Sample FollNo. Gender Length Intervention Content Incentives Study Design Size Sam

47 Females 10 hours; skills training, 

reinforcement, corrective 

Information about sexual behavior and sexual abuse; 

Yes Pre-test/posttest 5 

feedback; training complete when criterion response exhibited 

training to discriminate between innocuous and harmful situations; prevention skills - say “no,” leave the situation, tell someone trusted 

48 Females 60 to 90 min each (total not 

reported); skills training, reinforcement, corrective feedback; training complete when criterion response exhibited 

Information about sexual behaviors and sexual abuse; prevention skills; say “no,” leave the situation, tell someone trusted 

Yes Pre-test/posttest 6 

56 Females 7.5 hours; skills training, 

video, corrective feedback, group discussion; training complete when criterion response exhibited 

Component steps of decisionmaking process: cognitive decision-making strategy, problem identification, definition of problem, alternative choice evaluation, 

Yes Randomized 

comparison group 

36 3

and consequence evaluation 

57 Males 

and females 

4.5 hours; skills training, video, group discussion; training complete when criterion response exhibited 

Information about private body parts, discrimination of good touch and bad touch or solicitations; prevention skills -say “no,” leave the situation, tell someone trusted 

No Pre-test/posttest 10 

71 & 52 Males 

and females 

12.5 hours; multimedia technology (computers), skills training, group discussion 

Information about concepts of “telling” and “bullying”; prevention skills: say “no,” leave the situation, tell 

No Nonequivalent 

comparison 

50 N

someone trusted 
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. Exhibit F.1 (continued) 

F-13

P

Baseline Inter

Article Intervention Format and Sample FollNo. Gender Length Intervention Content Incentives Study Design Size Sam

72 Females 1.5 hours; skills training, 

corrective feedback, reinforcement 

Information about private body parts, discrimination of good touch and bad touch; prevention skills: say “no,” leave the situation, tell 

No Experimental 77 7

someone trusted 

74 Males 

and females 

6 to 9 hours; skills training, group exercises, games 

Developing body awareness, discrimination of good touch and bad touch, developing self-esteem; prevention skills: saying “no” 

No Pre-test/posttest 7 

75 Females Not reported; skills training Experiences described by 

participants incorporated into curriculum; prevention skills; refusal skills 

No Pre-test/posttest 2 

76, 77, 78 

Females 12 games (no time frame); 

training complete when criterion response exhibited 

Information on how to differentiate between public and private sexual behavior; how to make appropriate 

No Pre-test/posttest 6 

responses 
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.

Exhibit F.2 Summary of Characteristics of Studies for Individuals with Disabilities 

Characteristic Number of Studies Percentage of Studies*

Population 

Gender 

Mixed gender groups 3 33% 

Females only 6 67% 

Males only 0 0% 

Study Design 

Type of study 

Experimental 1 11% 

Randomized comparison 1 11% 

Non-equivalent comparison group 1 11% 

Pre-post 6 67% 

Study follow-up period 

Immediately through 1 month 4 44% 

2 months to 1 year 4 44% 

Greater than 6 months 1 11% 

Study retention rates 

Post-Test 

Less than 50% or not reported 2 22% 

50–75% 0 0% 

Greater than 75% 7 78% 

Follow-Up* 

Less than 50% 2 25% 

50–75% 2 25% 

Greater than 75% 4 50% 

Outcome measures** 

Knowledge 5 56% 

Skills/strategies 7 78% 

Other*** 4 44% 

Both knowledge and skills 3 33% 

* One study did not conducted post-test but no follow-up

** Many studies used more than one outcome measure; therefore the total percentage exceeds 100

*** Includes side effects, fear, locus of control, and satisfaction

F-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.

REFERENCES

Bakken, J., Miltenberger, R.G., & Schauss, S. (1993). Teaching parents with mental retardation. 

Knowledge versus skills. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 97, 405-417. 

Caroll, L.A., Miltenberger, R.G., & O'Neill, H.K. (1992). A review and critique of research 

evaluation child sexual abuse prevention programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 

335-354. 

Carroll-Rowan, L.A., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1994). A comparison of procedures for teaching 

abduction of prevention to preschoolers. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 335-354. 

Finkelhor, D. (1986). A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually Victimized Children. New York: Free Press. 

Foxx, R.M., McMorrow, M.J., Storey, K., & Rogers, B.M. (1984). Teaching social/sexual skills to 

mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 9-15. 

Gilgun, J., & Gordon, S. (1985). Sex education and the prevention of child sexual abuse. Journal of 

Sex Education and Therapy, 1(1), 46-52. 

Lee, Y. K., & Tang, C. S. (1998). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention program for female 

Chinese adolescents with mild mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 

103(2), 105 116. 

Lumley, V.A., & R.G. Miltenberger. (1997). Sexual Abuse Prevention for Persons with Mental 

Retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101(5), 459-472. 

McCabe, M.P., & Cummins, R.A. (1996). The sexual knowledge, experience, feelings, and needs of 

people with mild intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mentally Retardation and 

Developmental Disabilities, 31, 13-21. 

Muccigrosso, L. (1991). Sexual Abuse Prevention Strategies and Programs for Persons with 

Developmental Disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 9(3), 261-271. 

Rindfleisch, N., & Bean, G.J. (1988). Willingness to report abuse and neglect in residential facilities. 

Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 509-520. 

Rindfleisch, N., & Rabb, J. (1984). How much of a problem is resident mistreatment in child 

welfare institutions? Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 509-520. 

Shaughnessy, M.F. (1984). Institutional child abuse. Children and Youth Services Review, 6, 311-318. 

Sobsey, D. (1988). Sexual victimization of people with disabilities: Professional and social 

responsibilities. Alberta Psychology, 17(6), 8-9. 

F-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.

Sobsey, D., & Doe, T. (1991). Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. Sexuality and Disability, 9, 

243-259. 

Sobsey, D., & Mansell, S. (1990). The Prevention of Sexual Abuse of People with Developmental 

Disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 18(2), 51-66. 

Sobsey, D., & Varnhagen, C. (1988). Sexual abuse and exploitation of people with disabilities. Ottawa: 

Health and Welfare Canada. 

Tharinger, D., Horton, C.B., & Millea, S. (1990). Sexual abuse and exploitation of children and 

adults with mental retardation and other handicaps. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 301-312. 

Walmsley, S. (1989). The need for safeguards. In H. Brown and A. Craft (Eds.), Thinking the 

unthinkable: Papers on sexual abuse and people with learning difficulties (p. 5-16). London: FPA 

Educational Unit. 

Watson, J.D. (1984). Talking about the best kept secret: Sexual abuse and children with disabilities. 

The Exceptional Parent, 14, 15-20. 

F-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.

Appendix G

Evidence Tables – Individuals with Learning Disabilities
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.
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.

Author/s: Miltenberger, Roberts, Ellingson, Galensky, Rapp, Long, and Lumley Title: Training and Generalization of Sexual Abuse Prevention Skills for Women with Mental Retardation Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: Pre-post Setting: Residential se

area of the subjects’ gro

Study Eligibility Criteria: Not reported 

Population Type: 5 unmarried women with mild or 

Author-reported: Not reported 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

Duration: 1-hr session“Training was complete

moderate mental retardation 5 mentally retarded women who gave consent (or correctly responded to 

guardian gave consent) 

Population Characteristics: Theory/Model: Not r

Age: range 33 to 57 years Comparison Group Type(s): No comparison group 

Delivery Mode: Prese

Sex: 100% female Sampling Frame Size: Not reported Participants provided w

performance on a fixed 

Education: Not reported Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Race/Ethnicity: Not reported

 Sexually Active: Not reported Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Women were mentally retarded; possessed verbal skills to answer questions and to participate in assessments and training sessions; no prior training in sexual abuse prevention 

5 women (rate not available) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post-test: 4/5 = 80% Follow-up: 4/5 = 80% 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

Pre-test (prior to training - time not reported) Post-test:- one-week after following the completion of training - in-situ Follow-up: one-month following the completion of in situ training - in situ 

Curriculum/Content: with pairs of women (etrained individually); invabout sexual behavior adiscriminate sexual abuinstructions in the use oskills in response to a seperson, rehearsal of the solicitation; praises for corrective feedback as nexamples of sexual solical, 1998). Program Implemente

Methods/Setting of Data Collection:- Skills were assistants 

assessed via role-play in which a male trainer portrayed a staff member “presented a sexual abuse solicitation” to Culturally Specific: Nthe subject. Generalization was assessed via in-site assessments in which an unknown male research assistant Assessment of Exposwho was introduced as a new staff person, presented a intervention; staff knew solicitation 

Intervention RetentioOther: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: 4 to 10 verbal reports (Ss describe what she might do in responses to a scenario described to her)

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test, during 

training 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Role-play (measures skills) 

In-situ

 Time Points of Measurement: 

pretest: role-play 

In-situ : one-week following training; if Ss scored lower than a 4, in situ training was initiated. Within 3 days of 2 correct responses in role-play situations, another in situ assessment was conducted. In situ: One month following in-situ training - if the subject received a score of 4, her participation in the study was finished. If her score was less than 4, in situ trainings were repeated until subject received a score of 4 or better on a subsequent in situ assessment. 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Overall: this investigation showed that a 10-week behavioral skills training program resulted in the acquisition of sexual abuse prevention skills, but that the skills did not fully generalize to in situ assessments.

 Knowledge: during baseline, subjects’ scores varied 

from 0 to 3 (M=1.5) in verbal report; scores were more variable during training, ranging from 2 to 4.

 Attitudes: Victimization: Perpetration: 

Other Measures: A 10-week behavioral skills training 

program resulted in the acquisition of sexual abuse prevention skills, but the skills did not fully generalize to in-situ assessments. 

Skills training resulted in criterion performance (a score of 4) in 3 consecutive role-play assessments for all Ss. In-situ: after 4 to 8 sessions, all Ss achieved 3 consecutive scores of 4 on the in-situ One-month follow-up: initial scores were 3 for 3 subjects and 4 for one. Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality

Quality Score: 

Total: 35/90 (39%)Description: 13/25 (4Design: 22/65 (34%)

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- examines a population 

terms of sexual abuse p

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-Subjects knew they we- Small sample - Short follow-up perio- Subjects were coacheresponse - not general

 Article: 

- Difficult to distill info

G-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.

Author/s: Lumley, Miltenberger, and Long Title: Evaluation of a Sexual Abuse Prevention Program for Adults With Mental Retardation Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: pre/post Setting: Participants’ o

women whose training 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Women who were Author-reported: multiple baseline across subjects group home). 

functioning in the mild to moderate range of mental retardation, possession of verbal abilities sufficient to Intervention Group Type(s): Duration: each traininparticipate in role playing and respond to verbal scenarios, N=6 Training was completed expression of interest in learning sexual abuse prevention exhibited during at leasskills, and provision of signed informed consent to Comparison Group Type(s): assessments conducted participate. None Population Type: Six women with mild or moderate Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Theory/Model: Not r

mental retardation living a group home who expressed Delivery Mode: Behavinterest in the training and signed informed consent Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): instructions, modeling, forms. N=6; rate not available feedback. Participants 

certificate for every five 

Population Characteristics: Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

Age: Range: 30 - 42yrs Participation Rates): Curriculum/Content: 

Post-test: 100% Session 1: locations an

Sex: 100% female Follow-up: 100% taught. Sexual intercou

the need to use protecti

Education: Not reported Time Points of Data Collection: explained (and participa

Baseline: first meeting case managers for perso

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Post-test: at end of assessments protection.) In addition

Follow-up: one month after training appropriate and inappro

Sexually Active: Not reported sexual activities and the 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: sexual behavior very ca

Victimization: Not reported Data were collected in or around participants’ group taught that a sexual rela

home. has authority over them 

Criminal History: Not reported Assessments took place in the participants group homes 

except for one, whose training and assessment took place Session 2: the three-co

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): in her training partner’s group home. refusing a sexual abuse 

All women were unmarried reporting the incident t5 women were categorized as functioning in the mild trainers first modeled thrange of mental retardation, and 1 was in the moderate in a role-play format, anrange. engaging in role playing 

praise and corrective feor 10 role-playing situat

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Session 3: served to exSessions 1 and 2 througwider variety of role-plaparticipants had demonwere specifically incorpsituations. Session 4: started with material and was followincluded situations in wwere used as part of the Session 5: consisted oand the use of varied rowith all of the concepts Program Implemente

team of one male and o

included one female anand one female undergr

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

intervention; staff knew Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Results Study Quality Knowledge: Nine closed-end questions asking whether a Primary Measures: Quality Score: 

particular sexual behavior (e.g., kissing, touching private Total: 45/90 (50%) parts, having sex) was OK to do with a staff person. In Knowledge: average score on pretest was 67% and 84% Description: 16/25 (64addition, participants were asked if nonsexual types of on the post-test. Design: 29/65 (45%) touch (e.g., shaking hands) were OK to do with a staff person. Attitudes:

Major Strengths:

 Victimization: Study: 

G-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.

Measures 

Time Points of Measurement: 

Once before training Within one week after training 

Verbal report: experimenter described a scenario in which a staff person presented a client with a sexual abuse lure and then asked the participant to verbally describe what she would do in that situation. A safe scenario, in which the trainer described a situation that did not involve inappropriate behavior, was also described. The participant was thanked for their response to the scenarios, but no specific feedback was provided. The 

responses were recorded by the trainer and were later reviewed independently by two researchers. A score was assigned for the response to the sexual abuse scenario according to the 4-point scale.

 Time Points of Measurement: These scenarios were 

presented during each baseline assessment and prior to each training session. 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: Role playing: A male trainer played the role of a staff 

person and presented a lure to the participant. Participants were fully aware that the situation was not real, and there was never any physical contact between the trainer and the participant during the role play. The participant was thanked for their response to the scenarios, but no specific feedback was provided. Roleplay assessments were always conducted following the

Results 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Verbal report: following training: all but one of the participants (83%)moved to criterion performanceOne month after training: 1 participant (17%)demonstrated the criterion response on the verbal reportmeasure.Role playing: following training: all but one of the participants (83%)moved to criterion performanceOne month after training: 5 of the six (83%)demonstrated the three-component criterion responseduring the role-play assessment.Naturalistic Probes: following treatment: participants failed to achieve criterion performance during the naturalistic probes that were conducted after treatment. One month after treatment: no participants achieved criterion performance on this measure, demonstrating the lack of generalization of the skills to the target situation. Side-effects questionnaire: post-training means were slightly lower than the pre-training means. Questionnaire regarding satisfaction with program: each 

participant provided the highest rating for items that asked how much she liked being in the project and how much she learned.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

- responses to verbal re

by two reviewers.(inter

- measured ‘social valid

for assessment rate the scenario 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

-small sample - not sure who sample 

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality verbal report assessments but were different in content.

 Time Points of Measurement: These scenarios were 

presented during each baseline assessment and prior to each training session. 

Naturalistic Probes: prior to meeting with the participants in the first training session, a male confederate unknown to the participant was introduced as a new staff member. Within 15 min after becoming acquainted with the participant, the confederate presented one of the lures from the pool of assessment scenarios.

 Time Points of Measurement: These probes were 

conducted during baseline assessment, at the conclusion of skills training, and again at 1 month following the conclusion of training. 

Side-effects questionnaire: measures any adverse effects resulting from training. Completed by the participants’ case managers. 

Time Points of Measurement: before and after 

training 

Questionnaire regarding satisfaction with program: read to participants; asked how much they liked being in the program, how much they learned from being in the program, and whether they were glad they had participated.

 Time Points of Measurement: after training 

Note: one measure given to staff about the program but findings not reported because they did not involve outcome measures of the participants 

G-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.

Author/s: Lee, McGee, and Ungar 

Title: Issues in the Development of a Computer-Based Safety Programme for Children with Severe Learning Difficulties (#71) 

The Effectiveness of a Computer-Based Safety Programme for Children with Severe Learning Difficulties (#52) Article N

 (NOTE: most information is from article 052 that reports the study results) 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: schools that catered for young people with 

severe learning difficulties Study Eligibility Criteria: Not Reported 

Population Type: adolescents with severe learning 

difficulties Population Characteristics:

 Age: 

experimental age range – 12 to 18 (mean=15) comparison age range – 11 to 14 (mean=12) (discrepancy between articles – age range is 12-16, reported in article 71)

 Sex: 

experimental – 13 female; 18 male comparison – 7 female; 11 male (discrepancy between articles – experimental 12 female and 20 male; comparison 6 female and 12 male, reported in article 71) 

Education: Not Reported

 Race/Ethnicity: Not Reported

 Sexually Active: Not Reported Victimization: Not Reported Criminal History: Not Reported Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

None of the schools had previously implemented formal personal safety training procedures although teachers 

Study Design: non-equivalent comparison 

Author-reported: quasi-experimental 

Intervention Group Type(s): 

31students from two different schools; two subgroups, 

‘less able’ and ‘more able’ participants, were identified from the sample on the basis of their performance on the British Ability Scale. (Slight differences in Ns across acticles) Comparison Group Type(s): 18 students from a third school selected on the basis that time for the intervention program was not available until the latter part of the study period (comparison subjects were provided with the presentation of the program after the results of the study were compiled); two subgroups, ‘less able’ and ‘more able’ participants, were identified from the sample on the basis of their performance on the British Ability Scale. Sampling Frame Size: Not Reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

50 Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Not Reported 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

All participants were assessed before the program on level of cognitive ability and the knowledge of personal safety concepts. Two post tests were conducted - 1 week and 15 weeks after completion of the safety program Methods/Setting of Data Collection: semi-structured interviews 

Setting: classroom 

Duration: presented done school term (15 weaddressed within the prsessions delivered beforthe program material Theory/Model: Hypo

a participant’s authority on his/her response to Decision to use compustudies on the use of mpoint to its success at bgetting tired of students again (Salem-Darrow, 1generalize skills learnt ureal world (Standen and Delivery Mode: Class

multimedia technology. presented to small groudiscussion and/or teachposters and coloring shused; mouse and touch The implementation of depending on the ability the scenarios were dispthe small groups before opportunity to work th(with assistance). Curriculum/Content: Underlying concepts adintroduced in two class

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention were starting to discuss the dangers of talking to strangers with some older participants and one child was receiving safety messages at home from his mother. 

before the children wermaterial. In these sessiteacher and the researchdiscuss the concepts of through issues of autonfor children to control wConsists of a series of sbetween a child and an select the appropriate bthe screen to undertakes/he has poor fine motselected via a touch scrnumber of components with learning difficultiemark if answered correindicating incorrect ansgiving child opportunity the user in making decipassively go along with (2) say no, move away oillogical choice, which wto which the users undeapproach of the adult amode. If correct resposeries of counter-argumadult depicted on the sccomply with the adult rwere based on the childinterviews on issues relattempts to distinguish child might have the rigwhich compliance with Implementation very diable’ groups. The basic to practice saying ‘no’ ateacher, with the overalaccommodate their cogrelied on; verbal interacfirst shown the scenario concentrated on lookinchild’s feelings and allosaying no. As the lesso

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

start with a role-play in a child and nudge themParticipants were also aContent of the program emphasizing the basic sInteraction in the more The computer scenarioprovided a lot of discuswere often able to talk aduring the week and gediscussion to each childused, linking the child’s world with the personado if N wanted to kiss yEach lesson was adapteunderstanding and as suinvaluable in linking eacknowledge with the issulessons. To further reinthe video stories were pwhite for coloring in to attention, and others in Program Implemente

teachers ‘less able’ groups teacheindividual support provobserved the interaction Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: (Skills) 

Authority Scale (adapted from Bogat and McGrath, 1993). Used to assess children’s reasoning about authority figures. Individual semi-structured interview format in which 2 stories were presented (one benign and one sexual). Certain features of scale were changed in order to emphasize that it was the request, not who the authority figure was, that mattered. 

Time Points of Measurement: Pre-test only 

Personal safety knowledge - (adapted from the work of Tutty, 1994 and Saslawsky and Wurtele, 1986) Used to assess the participant’s knowledge of personal safety; individual semi-structured interview format The interview questions were grouped into one of three classifications which separated the questions that required a skill response from those questions that covered a more general topic based on the child’s knowledge: Skill A – response to inappropriate behavior Skill B – response to appropriate behavior Skill C – authority relations

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, follow-up 

Attitudes: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

British Ability Scales (Elliott et al., 1983) (included in 1998article, but reference not provided).Used to assess participants’ cognitive functioning or level 

Results 

Two subgroups for both conditions, ‘less able’ and ‘more able’ participants, were identified from the sample on the basis of their performance on the British Ability Scale. Authority Scale (pre-test): 

6% indicated that the boy will refuse both stories 54% indicate that the boy will go with the man in the first story but not in the second story 40% cannot distinguish between the stories 58% were categorized as operating at level 0-A (equivalent to 0-4 years), little understanding of authority 23% were categorized as operating at level 0-B (equivalent to 4-6 years), the distinction between the authority’s request and the child’s desires is blurred so children often obey because they perceive direct correspondence between their wishes and those of the authority figure 19% of the sample were operating at level 1-A (equivalent to 5-7 years), authority was legitimized by the physical attributes of the person (power, skill, age). Primary Measures: Overall: the participants significantly increased their knowledge of safety issues during the first post-test and maintained this knowledge during a second post-test 15 weeks later. There was no comparable shift in the knowledge scores of the comparison groups.

 Knowledge/Skills: 

Personal Safety: Authority reasoning was found to have an independent effect on the respondent’s safety scores (controlled for by level of ability) for Skill A (response to inappropriate touch) and Skill C (authority awareness) but not for Skill B. There was a significant positive relationship during pre-test (p<0.01) and at the second post-test (p<0.05). The influence of authority awareness on Skill A changed over time (p<0.05)and was independent of the effect of participants’ cognitive ability. Authority awareness was significantly correlated with safety scores throughout all assessments. For Skill C, there was a significant change in the influence of authority awareness over time (p<0.05), 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 56/95 (59%)Description: 20/25 (80Design: 36/70 (51%)Major Strengths:

 Study: 

– 15 week follow-up as- looked at difference b

- inter-rater reliability c- separated group based administered curriculum 

 Article: 

– lacked good descriptiMajor Weaknesses:

 Article: 

– 2001 article does not 

program (refers the rea

– 2001 article does not 

intervention and study 

– 1998 article refers to 

knowledge assessment references or further in

– discrepancies in the s

including gender, sex, a

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest beginning with a high effect of authority awareness on the 

safety scores and dropping to little effect during the postAbility to tell/disclose: results reported but no other test scores. 

information provided 

Knowledge gain across three time points on Skill A 

There was a significant change over time across the three levels (p<0.001). This change over time differed depending on the condition, experimental or comparison (p<0.001): a dramatic change in levels of safety knowledge for the experimental groups at the first post-test level compared to the comparison groups, where they remain constant. The safety knowledge for the experimental groups plateaus at the second post-test but remains significantly higher that the pre-test for the ‘more able’ (p<.-001) and ‘less able’ (p<.001) groups. The effect of the intervention varied according to cognitive ability (p<0.05). There were no significant differences across the 3 time points for the comparison group (however, there was a non-significant decrease in safety knowledge for the ‘less able’ comparison group). Knowledge gain across three time points on Skill B There was a significant change over time across the three levels (p<0.01). This change differed depending on the condition, experimental or comparison (p<0.01). There was a sharp increase for the experimental groups in the first post-test followed by a drop in knowledge at second post-test, however the second post-test scores are significantly higher than the pre-test scores for the ‘more able’ and ‘less able’ experimental groups. In contrast, the scores for the comparison group are constant across the time periods. Knowledge gain across three time points on Skill C There was a significant change over time across the three levels (p<0.001). This change over time differed depending on the condition, experimental or comparison (p<0.001) – there was a sharp increase in safety knowledge for the experimental group at post-test. 

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

The effect of the intervention varied according to cognitive ability (p<0.05) (the ‘more able’ groups scored higher in level of safety than the ‘less able’ groups). There were no significant differences across the three assessments for the comparison group (however, there was a non-significant increase in scores between the first and second post-test for the ‘more able’ group (which may have resulted from a maturation of the participants)). Ability to tell During pre-test, all groups were able to report that they would tell someone about an incident; however, there was a distinction between someone once and telling someone for a second time or telling another person if the first person was dismissive or critical. At post-test, the mean of ‘tell’ for the intervention group was significantly higher than the mean for the comparison group (p<0.01). The mean of ‘tell again’ for the experimental group was significantly higher than the mean for the comparison group (p<0.001). This change over time differed depending on the condition (p<0.001). The experimental groups’ mean score in the post-test fell into the category ‘positive view with reason’, indicating that the respondents not only specified someone that they would tell but also a reason why they would tell (this response was consistent across the ability groups). In contrast, those who did not receive the intervention program consistently reported that they would not tell a second time. Even at the 2nd followup, the experimental groups reported that they would tell 

repeatedly. 

Attitudes: Victimization: Perpetration: Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not Reported 

Other: 

G-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.

Author/s: Khemka 

Title: Increasing Independent Decision-Making Skills of Women with Mental Retardation in Simulated Interpersonal Situations of Abuse 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: New York City 

Study Eligibility Criteria: IQ (Wechsler Adult 

Intelligence Scale-Revised [WAIS-R] or Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, Form L-M) was used as a screening criterion to select participants who had adequate communication and language skills required for the decision-making tasks. The IQ records were obtained from agency records. Informed consent procedures, regulated by agency guidelines and reviewed by Human Rights Committee, were followed. Population Type: Adults (females) with mental 

retardation Population Characteristics:

 Age: range 21-40 

Final sample had mean chronological age of 35.75 years (standard deviation = 7.37)

 Sex: 100% female Education: Not Reported Race/Ethnicity: Not Reported Sexually Active: Not Reported Victimization: Not Reported Criminal History: Not Reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): all had 

mild or moderate mental retardation (IQ 50-70) Final sample had mean IQ of 60.89 (standard deviation = 5.83) 

Study Design: Randomized comparison group design

 Author-reported: pretest-post-test control group 

design Intervention Group Type(s): 

Two conditions to which participants were randomly assigned: Decision-making training or Self-directed decision-making training. Training sessions for both conditions were provided in small groups of 2-3 participants. Participants were recruited from a large nonprofit agency for adults with developmental disabilities and mental retardation Comparison Group Type(s): Participants were randomly assigned. Participants were recruited from a large nonprofit agency for adults with developmental disabilities and mental retardation. They did not receive any type of decisionmaking training but continued to receive the agency’s regular social skills or sex education curricula. Sampling Frame Size: Not Reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

45 originally consented to participate 36 completed pretest (participation rate - cannot determine) Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 36 in final sample (participation rate %). 8 participants dropped out due to scheduling difficulties and/or unwillingness to continue participation. One participant (from decision-making training group) was randomly excluded to balance the number of participants in the 3 treatment groups. Participation rate - 80% 

Setting: the participant

Duration: Both conditions consisteover several weeks Theory/Model: 

Decision-making trainin

Janis and Mann’s conflicSelf-directed decision-msystems theory (Ford, 19approaches (Fosterling, Delivery Mode: visual 

reading of vignettes, groVolunteer participants wagency for their time. Curriculum/Content: 

Decision-making trainin

Based on conflict theory making training schemaand Williams and Ellswothe component steps of Included instruction in tmaking strategy, with emdefinition of the problemand consequence evaluaThe first 35 minutes conthe use of the decision-m12 training vignettes situvignette situations in the presented as video clips remaining 10 minutes wthe utility of the decisionproblem situations. Self-directed decision-mCombined instruction o

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Time Points of Data Collection: pretest - time frame not reported post-test - within 2-3 weeks of completion of the training Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Pretest and post-test interviews were conducted in individual testing sessions of 25 to 30 minutes in a private area in the agency. Interviewers asked participants questions (following the video clips); responses were audio recorded and transcribed for scoring. No time Vignettes for the self social scale were presented verbally by the interviewer and then were followed by a question also asked verbally. For locus of control scale, items were read aloud to participants and relevant examples were provided if a participant showed difficultly in understanding the item. Participants were debriefed at the end of the study and provisions for follow-up supports were made at each agency’s site. 

aspects of decision-makof a cognitive decision-mdecision-making training an enhanced motivationtraining condition) in whinvolving increased awarindividual perceptions ogroup first generated gointo one of 4 areas that rsafety, privacy and respefor oneself, and acting to used these personal goaldifferent decision alternmaximized these goals. decision-making strategy decision-making training remaining 10 minutes wdirectedness activities (oProgram Implementer

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Exposu

training session, a make-the participant joined th

Intervention Retention reported to have droppesessions is not reported) Other: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: Not Reported 

Attitudes: Not Reported 

Victimization: Not Reported 

Perpetration: Not Reported 

Other Measures:Skills: Interpersonal decision-making

Social Interpersonal Decision-Making Video Scale (Khemka, 1997). Included 24 hypothetical interpersonal decisionmaking situations, presented in the form of short vignettes in video clip format, each of which contained 12 target items (i.e., situations of abuse) and 12 filler items (situations of interpersonal conflict that can be solved through negotiation or compromise). The vignettes each represented one of 3 types of abuse (physical, sexual, or verbal/psychological abuse). The 24 vignettes were randomly divided into 2 sets of 12 vignettes each in order to facilitate administration of the scale in 2 sessions. Equal numbers of female and male decision-makers were represented in the vignettes to minimize any genderrelated effects on the participants’ decision-making performance. A structured interview consisting of 4 questions immediately followed the presentation of each vignette to assess the ability of the participant to recommend a decision for the key decision-maker.

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

Self Social Interpersonal Decision-Making Scale (Khemka, 1997) 8 vignettes describing hypothetical everyday interpersonal decision-making situations that are presented from the participants’ own perspective. Measures participant’s ability to make decisions for themselves in social interpersonal situations. Time Points of Measurement: post-test Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale (adult version) 

Results 

Other Measures: 

The 3 groups differed significantly from each other on the adjusted post-test scores. Participants in the self-directed decision-making group provided more self-independent decision-making responses than did those in the decisionmaking training or control. Participants in the control did not differ significantly from the participants in the decision-making training group on these scores. Locus of control: Participants in the two training groups had higher scores than the control, with participants in the self-directed decision-making group holding significantly more internal perceptions of control than did participants in the other two groups at post-test. Participants in decision-making training group also differed significantly from those in the control group on 

their adjusted post-test scores; their perceptions of control were more internal.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 8 dropped out; 

1 randomly excluded from final analyses to balance the number in the groups 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 51/95 (54%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 28/70 (40%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- random assignment- compared 2 different Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- small sample - short duration of time - no p-values provided

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality (Nowicki and Duke, 1974) Measures participants’ perception of their locus of control. Includes 40 items in yes or no format. 2 items were modified to make them more age relevant. Used extensively in research studies of individuals with cognitive impairments. Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test 

G-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.

Author/s: Haseltine and Miltenberger Title: Teaching Self-Protection Skills to Persons With Mental Retardation 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two group homes in a community residential Study Design: Pre- post Setting: Training occu

program in a midwestern metropolitan area of 100,000 group homes. In additipeople. Author-reported: modified multiple-baseline design in situ. Small group (5 

across subjects 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Adults with mild mental Duration: Nine conse

retardation living in one of two group homes who Intervention Group Type(s): 8 adults with mild mental lasted approximately 25 volunteered to participate and signed informed consents. retardation who volunteered to participate hours) Population Type: Adults with mild mental retardation Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable Theory/Model: Resea

children can learn impo

Population Characteristics: Sampling Frame Size: Not reported may enable them to pre

Age: Range: 22 to 45 years This knowledge led the 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): that teaching self-prote

Sex: 62% (n=5) males and 38% (n=3) females N= 10; rate not available retardation would also e

and abduction. The pu

Education: Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and the effectiveness of a cu

IQ: range 50 to 77 (measured using the Wescheler Adult Participation Rates): protection skills to adulIntelligence Scale) Pre-test: 100% (10/10) 

post-test: 80% (8/10) (2 subjects were dropped from Delivery Mode: Role 

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported study because they showed no deficits in safety skills Sexually Active: Not reported

 Victimization: Not reported Criminal History: Not reported Other (i.e., disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

subjects: - had not previously received sexual abuse prevention training 

during baseline.) follow-up 1month: 80% (8/10) follow-up 6 month: 60% (6/10) Time Points of Data Collection: Pre-test: prior to training post-test: following training follow-up 1: 1-month following post-test follow-up: 6-months following post-test Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Assessment 

Curriculum/Content: self-protection skills to was used during the traand Haseltine, 1986). Tthe first three sessions tof private body parts, dtouch or solicitations. Tmodeled behaviors and individually and as a grosubjects learned self-proand tell), and discrimina

- were ambulatory probes occurred in situ in settings where the subjects were Trainers modeled skills - had good receptive and expressive language ability likely to be on a frequent basis (e.g., the sidewalk in from individually. In the eigh- were their own guardians and all signed informed of the subjects’ group homes, the parking lot by the group minute film, “Child Moconsent forms homes, or the vicinity of a nearby convenience store.) (AIMS Media) which d

of a different child in easituations. Afterwards, 

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

identify the self-protectthe ninth session all conengaged in role plays ouProgram Implemente

play the part of abductowho were either studena human service field. Eleast one hour of traininwere given written instrresponse definitions. Teach role play (after thereceived performance fcomplete when each reenact the role plays and the experimenter acting Two staff members froside-effects questionnaiCulturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

Measures Results Study Quality Knowledge: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Not Reported

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: Attitudes:

Quality Score: Total: 47/90 (52%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 24/65 (37%) Major Strengths:

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Perpetration: 

Other Measures: 

Study: 

- research assistants westudy in effect for each responses) - randomly selected rol

G-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.

Measures Perpetration: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: A pool of 12 role plays depicting 

potentially abusive situations was developed and utilized during the assessment probes. Due to ethical concerns, the role plays did not depict sexually abusive situations but instead depicted potential abduction scenarios utilizing authority or incentives similar to those used in the Poche et al (1981), Poche et al (1988), and ThiesseDuffy (1988). Each role play consisted of two inducements for the subject to leave with the confederate abductor. In half of the role plays, the confederate approached on foot and in half, he drove up in a car. In each case he greeted the subject in a friendly manner and offered the subject some inducement to leave with him. Examples included asking the subject to provide directions, offering the subject money to help find a lost pet, asking the subject to join him for a snack or soda, offering the subject a ride, and so forth. 

The role place used in each probe was randomly selected. In each probe the research assistant approached the subject in a public place and presented the solicitation. If the subject refused to go with the assistant or said nothing, a second solicitation was delivered. If the subjects refused or said nothing after 15 seconds, the assistant left. If the subject started to leave with the assistant, the assistant terminated the interaction. The research assistant recorded all of the subject’s verbal and motor responses, and whether the subject reported the incident. During six-month follow-up, a probe was conducted in which an unknown research assistant approached the subject and presented no solicitation. Rather, the assistant made some innocuous conversation about the weather. This probe was used to determine whether the subjects could discriminate between a threatening and 

Results 

Five of the 8 subjects achieved criterion performance (two consecutive scores of 3) following self-protection training (post-test); two required further training beyond the classroom training procedures to achieve criterion: feedback on one occasion for subject 1 and on two occasions for subject 4, was needed to achieve optimal performance (only deficient behavior was informing staff members about the solicitation). The scores for one subject did not change following classroom training or feedback. One-month follow-up: 6 of the 8 subjects maintained the self-protective skills. One remained stables; one did not maintain the appropriate skill level, but after feedback he performed at criterion. Six-month follow-up: (6 of 8 subjects took part) 5 subjects had perfect scores; one received a score of 2 but following feedback improved to a rating of 3. All subjects responded appropriately (showed no fear or avoidance behavior) in the probe involving innocuous contact with the stranger. Side-effects questionnaire: no changes in the scores on the questionnaire from pre- to post-training, suggesting that the subjects had no emotional or behavioral side effects due to participation; staff did not identify the development of any new behavior problems.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: Not reported 

Other: 

Study Quality 

- research assistant actifor each probe for each - one-third of the prob(reliability observations- in situ probes conduconly) Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- can not tell if those ad

the adults who lived in 

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality nonthreatening situation and respond appropriately.

 Time Points of Measurement: Pre-, post-test, 1­

month follow-up, 6-month follow-up 

Side-effects questionnaire: A questionnaire similar to the one developed by Thiesse-Duffy (1988) (Likert-scale) was used to assess the development of any behavioral or emotional side effects exhibited by the subjects after participation in this study. The questionnaire consisted of the following four items: (a) this resident exhibits behavior indicative of being scared (e.g., excessive alertness to persons and surroundings, fear of strangers), (b) this resident appears cautious or careful in novel

situations, (c) this resident is preoccupied with the issues 

of strangers, personal safety, and so on, and (d) this resident experiences nightmares. A fifth item was added : asked staff members to describe any changes they noticed in the resident’s behavior following participation in the study. The questionnaire also asked staff members to rate their satisfaction with the study.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre- and post-test 

G-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.

Author/s: Lee and Tang Title: Evaluation of a Sexual Abuse Prevention Program for Female Chinese Adolescents with Mild Mental Retardation 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Hong Kong Study Design: Experimental design Setting: Not Reported 

Study Eligibility Criteria: female students who Author-reported: Not Reported Duration: Treatment g

attended special schools for children with mental for Behavioral Skills Traretardation were included using these criteria: (a) Chinese Intervention Group Type(s): with 1-2 days in betweefemales ages 11-15, (b) intellectual functioning in the mild 38randomly assigned participants that completed the 12-15 participants in eamental retardation range as determined by the assessment pretest, intervention, and post-test; Participants from 2 of qualified educational psychologists prior to admission special schools were assigned to treatment. Control group: Attentioto the special schools (and as determined by pretest To control for intergroup contamination, participants sessions either on consassessment of intellect – only individuals with a standard from the same school were assigned to the same program. between. score of 70 or below on chosen instrument were Each program group consisted of 12-15 participants. 12-15 participants in eaincluded), (c) an absence of autistic features, (d) good receptive and expressive language ability, and (e) informed Comparison Group Type(s): Theory/Model: Not consent by both the participants and their parents (and 34randomly assigned participants that completed both the the schools). pretest and post-test; Participants from 2 other special Delivery Mode: imple

schools were assigned to the control. with pictures as visual a

Population Type: mentally retarded female adolescents To control for intergroup contamination, participants instruction, modeling, b

from the same school were assigned to the same program. reinforcement, and feed

Population Characteristics: (completers only) Each program group consisted of 12-15 participants 

Age: 11 to 15 years old Curriculum/Content: 

Mean age of total sample (72) = 13.44 Mean age of treatment = 13.38 

Sampling Frame Size: Not Reported Treatment group: Beh

(Wurtele, 1990; Wurtele 

Mean age of control =13.51 Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): Program is used to teac

77 completed pretest (participation rate is not possible to behavioral perspective. 

Sex: 100% female calculate due to absence of report of sampling frame) bosses of our bodies. (

are identified. (c) Touc

Education: Not Reported Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and acceptable when done i

Participation Rates): doctors, nurses, or pare

Race/Ethnicity: Chinese Post-test: 72 (5 dropped out - didn’t attend program or parts for health or hygie

failed to take post-test) = 94% not okay to have privat

Sexually Active: Not Reported Follow-up: 72/77 = 94% bigger person. (f) It is w

bigger person’s private 

Victimization: Not Reported Time Points of Data Collection: inappropriate touching 

Pretest: One month prior to program the child’s fault. Partici

Criminal History: Not Reported Post-test: within the week after the program body safety: It’s not ok

implementation look at my private parts

Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): Follow-up: 2 months following post-test In order to enhance reh

Participants standard scores on Raven’s Standard program included storieProgressive Matrices ranged from 56-69 (Mean=59.88) Methods/Setting of Data Collection: types of people in both 

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Individual interviews were conducted with participants by one of 3 female interviewers, who read the questions (from Personal Safety, “What If”, and Fear Assessment instruments) aloud in a standardized format and recorded participants’ exact responses. The Standard Progressive Matrices was administered to groups of 8-10. 

dangerous situations. Cbetween appropriate anand were taught self-prmotoric responses (try persons about the incidsituation concerning th

Control Program - At

al., 1992) used to controCovered various safety safety, fire prevention aabuse. Topic “gun ruleapproach also followed instruction, modeling, rfeedback. 

Program Implemente

programs; three female 

Culturally Specific: p

examine the feasibility oprevention program anfor use in the Western gadolescents with menta

Assessment of Expos

Intervention Retentio95% (36/38) Other: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: The “What If” Situation Test (Wurtele, 1990) measures participants’ ability to differentiate appropriate from inappropriate sexual advances and their knowledge about self-protection skills in response to hypothetical abusive situations. Consists of 2 practice trials and six brief vignettes, with 3 describing appropriate requests to touch/look at one’s genitals and 3 portraying inappropriate requests. Yields 3 scale scores: (1) Appropriate Request Recognition, (2) Inappropriate Request Recognition, (3) Total Skill, which measures the knowledge of self-protection skills and is combination of four scores that represent the participant’s verbal report of whether she is able to (a) refuse the advance by making appropriate, assertive, and persistent verbal responses; (b) describe a behavioral response removing herself from the situation, (c) list the persons to tell of the inappropriate-touch incident (d) report the incident and the identity of the offender. Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, follow-up The Personal Safety Questionnaire (Wurtele, 1990); designed to assess knowledge about sexual abuse; 15 items covering personal safety and 3 items serving as control questions

 Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, 

follow-up 

Attitudes: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Results 

Primary Measures: An overall significant main effect for group was found (p<.01). Behavioral Skills training program group scores were significantly higher than control on appropriate request recognition (p<.005) and ‘What If’ total skill (p<.01). There was a significant overall main effect for time (p<.001). 

Knowledge: 

“What if” - The Behavioral Skills training program group 

evidenced significant increase in their recognition of appropriate touch requests at post-test and did not overgeneralize. However, their recognition of appropriatetouch requests was not maintained after 2 months. 

For the overall knowledge of self-protections skills, the Behavioral Skills training program group displayed significantly higher scores than did the control at post-test, and the increase stayed at a comparable level over the following 2 months. Upon recognizing an inappropriatetouch request, participants in the Behavioral Skills training program group reported that they would react with more advanced self-protection skills when compared to control group. Compared to the control, Behavioral Skills training program group participants reported that they were more likely to verbally refuse the inappropriate sexual advance, remove themselves from the situation, tell a resource person about the inappropriate situations, and relay what had happened to the resource person. The enhancement of each of these 4 skills was maintained at follow-up, but the knowledge of these 4 skills (particularly the nonverbal refusal skill of physically removing oneself from the abusive situations) showed a decreasing trend at the 2­month follow-up. Personal Safety Questionnaire: At post-test, participants in the Behavioral Skills training program demonstrated better understanding of sexual abuse issues and differentiating between inappropriate and appropriate touch situations. 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: Total: 62/95 (65%) Description: 19/25 (76Design: 43/70 (61%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

– included measure of – study is first docume

Behavioral Skills Trainimild mental retardation

- measured differences - measured differences 

groups 

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

Authors noted: - uncertainty of general

these with mild Mental 

- no formal assessment 

participants; unclear whthe intervention group result of their superior 

- reliance on self-repor

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

The increments of sexual abuse knowledge remained 

Other Measures: stable for 2 months. In contrast, control participants Fear Assessment Thermometer Scale (Wurtele and Miller- consistently performed at lower levels and remained naive Perrin, 1986); assesses participants’ fear of various with regard to sexual abuse issues. objects, people, and situations; 12 items; Modified for this Clinical significance: authors point out that although the study to a rating system of ‘fear’ or ‘no-fear’ because intervention group significantly outperformed those in the participants in pilot study failed to comprehend the 7­ control group, the clinical significance of their participating point Likert scale. is less promising. In particular, the overall self-protection 

skills scores of the intervention group were only 24% 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest, post-test, better than the control’s scores at post-test. Yet, the 

follow-up percentage of students reaching the 80% competency 

criterion increased from 5% at pretest to 34% at post-test 

Intellectual Assessment for the intervention, and only from 8.8% to 11.8% for the Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1960); nonverbal and control group. About 50% of the intervention group culture-fair test of general intellectual ability; used to showed a 6-point increase on their knowledge of selfdetermine eligibility for inclusion in study. protection skills at post-test, whereas only 14.7% of the 

control group showed similar improvement. However, a 

Time Points of Measurement: pretest number of participants in intervention group did not reach 

the 80% criterion. 

Fear Assessment Thermometer Scale - significant main 

effect for time; significant differences between post-test and follow-up and between pretest and follow-up, with lower level at the follow-up assessment (p<.05). This indicated that lower level of fear was displayed at the 2month follow-up for both groups. Age and intellectual abilities were not associated with side effects of the program at various time points.

 Attitudes: 

Victimization: 

Perpetration: 

Other Measures:

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: not reported, 

other than ‘5 dropped out of program or didn’t take posttest (2 intervention; 3 control) 

Other: Attrition analysis and pretreatment 

analysis/manipulation check were performed to determine if there were significant differences between groups prior to implementation of the intervention program and 

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

between program completers and dropouts 

Author/s: Singer Title: Evaluation of a Self-protection Group for Clients Living in a Residential Group Home 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Group home, residential Study Design: Pre-post design Setting: Group home, 

Study Eligibility Criteria: People with learning Author-reported: Not Reported Duration: Six sessions

disabilities who lived in a residential group home, were a weekly basis. referred for skills training by their home manager, Intervention Group Type(s): 7 adults with learning 

disabilities who were referred for skills training by their Theory/Model: The s

Participation was voluntary home manager important in emphasizi

expression of personal 

Population Type: Learning Disabled/Mentally retarded Comparison Group Type(s): Not Applicable (Booth and Booth, 199

Shoultz, 1982). It has b

Population Characteristics:

 Age: Ranged 27-70 years Sex: 3 women, 4 men 

Females = 43% Males=57%

 Education: Not Reported Race/Ethnicity: Not Reported Sexually Active: Not Reported Victimization: Direct Assessments. Clients were 

interviewed individually by the trainers before the intervention work began. They were asked how they would respond in different situations of abuse, i.e. being asked for their money, being hit, being touched in a way they did not like. Clients had over the last year been subjected to verbal, physical, and emotional abuse by previous staff members who had left.

 Criminal History: Not Reported 

Sampling Frame Size: Not Reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

N = 7 Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): 6/7 = 86% 

Time Points of Data Collection: 

Pre-test: Before intervention (exactly when not reported) Post-test: last session of the intervention Methods/Setting of Data Collection: Home manager was asked to complete the Indirect Assessments. Clients were interviewed to complete Direct 

Assessments. 

behavior can avoid patrbehaviors from others Curriculum was designelearn and retain informand role-plays. Goal of sexual educatiopreventing sexual abuse ‘no’ and the liberty to dclients have a sexual rel1990). Delivery Mode: Mixtu

exercises, active games Curriculum/Content: 

Session 1: Introduction to -Name game -Purpose of the group -Ground rules -Topics to be covered Session 2: Developing Body - observing and copying Session 3: Saying Yes and 

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention  Other (i.e., disability, substance abuse, etc.): Included people with mild to moderate and more severe learning disability. All residents were able to communicate verbally, at least to some extent, five using full sentences and two using a few single words in communication. Four were perceived as being quite articulate, three as being more passive and quiet. All but one had reasonable comprehension of spoken language. Two could not read at all, three could read a limited number of words, and two could read full sentences. 

- using voice and body Session 4: Developing self-- differences between p- self-descriptions - what I enjoy doing - what I do well Session 5: Good and bad t- what they are in differSession 6: Role Plays - being bullied (verbally - being touched by stran- being touched by somThe role plays were alwfacilitators. They were together as a group. Session 7: Application - role playing with a straProgram Implemente

Group was facilitated bAssistant Psychologist, members of a Commun

Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not Reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

- Indirect Assessments of abilities and appropriateness of 

behavior in social situations. The home manager completed assessment form. Scored on a 5-point scale from very inappropriate to very appropriate. 1) social interaction/assertiveness skills (including the awareness of basic rights and the ability to respond assertively with friends, members of staff, strangers and people in authority in different situations); 2) social behavior (e.g. approaching people they do and do not know, introducing themselves, greeting others, initiating conversation, building close friendships); 3) appropriateness of verbal/non-verbal behavior (e.g. eyecontact, posture, facial expression, pitch, volume and 

clarity of voice, sticking to the topic of conversation); 

4) reading and writing skills Information on the clients’ background, their general level of ability and behavior was gathered in an additional interview with the manager.

 Time Points of Measurement: pre-test and post-test 

Direct measure 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Attitudes:

 Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Indirect assessments: Group members found it difficult to understand the concept of role-playing with each other. The residents varied quite substantially in their ability to give verbal responses and in their level of assertiveness. For less verbal clients more emphasis was placed on non-verbal responses such as pushing hands away or moving away physically. They also found that verbally less able clients initially used more able clients as role models and copied their behaviors in different role play situations. The mean ratings of clients on the individual items of levels of assertiveness in social situations indicates that apart from assertiveness with people in authority all changes were positive in the direction of more appropriate assertiveness responses. Shifts were also noted in other areas such as verbal/nonverbal behavior (particularly eye contact, posture, appropriate distance from others in conversation and pitch of voice) and in social behavior (e.g., greeting others and building close friendships). All group members, except for one, were rated as giving more appropriate responses in social situations after the group sessions (social interaction/assertiveness skill). 

Reading and writing skills: findings not reported Informal feedback from the manager and other members of the staff included the observations that clients appeared 

Study Quality 

Quality Score: 

Total: 36/85 (42%) Description: 23/25 (92Design: 13/60 (22%) Major Strengths:

 Study: 

Examined population tMajor Weaknesses:

 Study: 

- Cannot be generalized - Lack of reliability sinc

one person: manager orequested the training 

- Only a limited numbe

due to time constraints 

- Long term effects unk- Training would have members were more potraining - ‘Strangers’ were wom

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality - In the last session, clients were asked to role-play the scenarios that were introduced and practiced over the previous six sessions with a person they had never met before. The last session was used as a direct measure of what had 

more confident, expressed their needs more clearly and generally conveyed a more positive attitude. They reported that the clients enjoyed the group sessions and felt that the clients had developed more of a ‘group feeling’ amongst them which expressed itself in their increased interaction with each other. 

been learned in the group. Clients were asked to repeat some of the exercises (body awareness; saying yes and no) and to do all the role plays with a new member of the Community Learning Disability Team (another Assistant Psychologist). 

Direct assessment: all six participants performed confidently and responded appropriately in the exercises as well as in the role plays. The ‘stranger’ reported that she was “very impressed” with their performance.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: All clients 

attended at least 6 sessions except one person who dropped out after the 5th session. 

Other: 

G-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.

Author/s: Warzak, W.J. and Page, T.J. Title: Teaching Refusal Skills To Sexually Active Adolescents Primary Reviewer: Joyce Secondary Reviewer: Anita Tertiary: Shannon Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Not reported Study Design: pre-post Setting: Unclear 

Study Eligibility Criteria: Not reported Author-reported: Not reported Duration: Not reporte

Population Type: Deaf; developmentally delayed Population Characteristics:

 Age: client A: 14-yrs old

 Client B: 16-yrs old

Intervention Group Type(s): 

N=2; One lived in a residential school setting for the deaf; other lived in residential treatment center for developmentally delayed. Comparison Group Type(s): N/A 

Theory/Model: Skills 

decision-making, problecommunication skills (BFranzini, Siderman, & D1983; Libby & Carlson, 1979). Assertiveness tr

Sex: Female strategies have also bee

Sampling Frame Size: Not reported some individuals have r

Education: Not reported no or have difficulty com

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): preferences regarding s

Race/Ethnicity: Not reported N=2 (Campbell & Barnlund, 

Lieberman, & Miller, 19

Sexually Active: Both girls were sexually active (client Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and 

A had been repeatedly suspended from school because of Participation Rates): Delivery Mode: Role-psexual intimacy with male residents and client B had a 100% “history of precocious sexual behavior”) Curriculum/Content: 

Time Points of Data Collection: Each girl described situ

Victimization: Not reported Post-test: 2 weeks following the completion of refusals intercourse. The who, w

skills training develop role-plays vign

Criminal History: Not reported Follow-up: one-year after training (phone calls) 

Each session began wit

Other (i.e., disability, substance abuse, etc.): Methods/Setting of Data Collection: of previously learned re

client A was deaf; client B was developmentally delayed. Unclear in refusal skills, and addBoth girls reported difficultly effectively refusing New role plays and different confederates were used Refusal skills training founwanted sexual advances. Each expressed interest in during the follow-up assessments. modeling, behavioral relearning skills that might help them avoid unwanted reinforcement (Eisler & sexual intimacy. 

Program Implemente

American Sign Languagclient A throughout traassisted with other trainCulturally Specific: N

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention 

Assessment of Expoaware of their presence Intervention RetentioOther: 

G-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.

Measures Knowledge: Female psychology graduate students rated videotaped role-plays randomly selected at the conclusion of training each skill; 9-point Likert scale. Skills : 1. Refusal effectiveness

 2. Refusal skills included eye-contact, refusal (an 

explicit and audible NO), specification (a specific 

statement regarding the unacceptability of sexual behavior), and leaving the scene

 Time Points of Measurement: 

pre-, post-test Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

- patient incidence reports of sexual behavior (obtained 

by placing telephone calls to residential staff )

 Time Points of Measurement: follow-up 

Results 

Primary Measures:

 Knowledge: 

Post-test (2-weeks after training): yielded short tem 

maintenance of refusal skills with treatment staff not previously included in training Refusal skills: repeated measures analysis confirmed each girl’s acquisition of refusal behavior within role-play contexts. Client A had significant differences between baseline and post-treatment performance ratings for both refusal effectiveness (p<=.001) and skill (p<=.001). Differences were also found for skillfulness measures obtained at baseline and after the addition of each of the other skill components (i.e., refusal, specifies objection and leaves scene) (significance level not reported). Client B: significant difference for refusal skill rating (p<=.001) at baseline and post-test. No significant difference for effectiveness.

 Attitudes: Victimization:

 Perpetration: 

Other Measures: Follow-up (one-year after training): telephone contact with residential staff serving as informants indicated decreased sexual activity for each girl, as noted by patient incidence reports.

 Attendance/Treatment Completion: 

Other: 

Study Quality 

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

- role-plays scored by t- treatment designed foArticle: Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

Authors comments: - small sample; limits g- difficulty in obtaining 

 Article: 

G-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.

Author/s: Foxx, R.M. and Faw, G. D.; Foxx, R.M. & McMorrow, M.J.; Foxx, R.M., McMorrow, M. J., Storey, K., & Rogers, B. M. 

Title: An Eight Year Follow-up of Three Social Skills Training Studies; Teaching social skills to mentally retarded adults: Follow-up results 

from three studies; Teaching Social/Sexual Skills to Mentally Retarded Adults 

Primary Reviewer: Jennifer Secondary Reviewer: Anita Tertiary: Shannon 

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention Location: Two coeducational wards for moderately and 

mildly retarded adults Study Eligibility Criteria: 

institutionalized adults with mild to moderate mental 

retardation; unit staff were asked to refer residents in need of social/sexual skills training Population Type: disabled adults Population Characteristics:

 Age: mean age: group one 26; group two 24 Sex: all females Education: Not reported Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Sexually Active: 

5 subjects were identified by staff as frequently engaging in public sexual behavior that the staff deemed inappropriate

 Victimization: 

4 subjects were described by staff as being “frequently exploited by males” 1 subject had complained on several occasions of being sexually harassed by male residents (as reported by staff)

 Criminal History: Not reported

 Other (i.e. disability, substance abuse, etc.): 

Mean IQs: group one 47; group two 53 No subject had been married. Four subjects had played the game used in the intervention, Sorry, previously, and the other 2 subjects 

Study Design: Pre-post

 Author-reported: multiple baseline design across 

groups Intervention Group Type(s): 

6 female residents that were referred by staff; subjects’s individual preassessment scores were used to match them into 2 groups with 3 subjects in each group. Comparison Group Type(s): Not applicable Sampling Frame Size: Not reported 

Baseline Sample Size (and Participation Rate): 

N = 6; participation rate can not be determined Post-test and Follow-up Sample Sizes (and Participation Rates): Post test : N = 6 (100%) 6 month follow-up: N = 6 (100%) 8 year follow-up: N = 4 (67%) (one subject from each group was not available for participation) Time Points of Data Collection: Pretest: 2 pretests conducted prior to the baseline games Post-tests: 2 post tests were provided 3 days after the training games 1st Follow-up : 6 months following intervention (full 

results not reported) 2nd Follow-up: 8 years 

Methods/Setting of Data Collection: 

Methods – generalization tests involved the reading of stories and having subjects verbally respond; they were videotaped by camera hidden behind one-way glass; videotapes were transcribed 

Setting: all games were 

institutional residence hDuration: 12 games we

Theory/Model: Social

were developed based ocompliments, social int

confrontation, and queresearchers found to be involving male-female sDelivery Mode: card g

facilitator Curriculum/Content: Foxx, McMorrow, & MSubjects played a game 

and 48 game cards specverbal responses. Baseline – During baselpieces on their turn regin their response. They facilitator modeled a coSocial/sexual skills gamgame pieces was continfacilitator provided spePlayers self-monitored and graphed it afterwarTraining was aimed at hbetween public and privappropriate responses tstrangers. The focus wrather than on the contappropriate to the situa

G-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.

Population and Setting Study Design and Sample Intervention had no difficultly learning to play Game involved the use of modified table board game and 

specially designed game cards; responses were also videotaped behind one-way glass Setting – the generalization tests were conducted in a small lounge (3m x 3m) at the other end of the basement that was furnished with a table, chairs, plants, and pictures; both rooms contained one-way glass that permitted unobtrusive video taping; videotapes were transcribed Follow-up – different assessment rooms were used than were used during pre- and post-test assessments because of renovations to the facility 

opinions expressed wervalue judgements on thFollow-up: No feedbacassessment. Program Implemente

game – female undergrabehavioral training and the players and no experetarded individuals generalization test – confemale peer with no stawas selected because shsubjects, and she did nothat were targeted in th3 stories, pausing after subject’s response, and 

Follow-up: The assessothe two that conducted (1992 article indicates thstudy was available, but Culturally Specific: N

Assessment of Expos

Intervention RetentioOther: 

G-35
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.

Measures Knowledge: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Attitudes: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Victimization: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Perpetration: Not reported

 Time Points of Measurement: 

Other Measures: 

Social Skills Training 8 game cards that depicted non-explicit sexual interactions or contained referents to sexual behavior were developed for each of the six component skills, thereby creating a 48-card deck. Each skill was further differentiated into four “actor” and “reactor” situational competencies, each of which required that players initiate interaction or respond to an interaction initiated by someone else. The cards were prearranged so that each player would be required to respond once to each card after 4 games (i.e., 12 exposures per game per player). Responses in each component area were scored using rules and validated criteria from earlier research (Foxx, McMorrow, Schloss, 1983; Foxx, McMorrow, & Mennemeier, 1984) Also, young, unmarried mental health paraprofessionals were asked to respond to each situation. Their responses were used to further validate the criteria and to develop correct responses used by the facilitator during the game. Individualized performance criteria was established for each player based on their baseline performance (beginning at 30% above baseline mean, increased to 60%, and finally to 90% correct). 

Results 

Primary Measures: 

Original study (Post-test) Social/sexual skills game Group 1 averaged 40.9% correct during baseline and 62.7% during training. Group 2 averaged 33.7% correct during baseline and 63.4% during training. At the end of the 12 training games, both groups were responding at the 75% correct level. Both groups achieved gains in all 6 social skill component areas. In general, there was continued improvement as training progressed, in both “action” and “reaction” categories and tended to score higher in reactor situations. Generalization Group 1 averaged 36.4% correct on individual preassessment and 55.5% on the post-assessment. Group 2 averaged 35% on preassessment and 56% on postassessment. All players showed improvement. Group 1's appropriate responding during the group assessment averaged 27.2% correct on the preassessment and 61.4% correct on the post-assessment. Group 2 averaged 38.6% (pre) and 56.8% (post). All but 1 subject in Group 2 improved. Subjects used their newly learned skills in both individual and group assessments. Post-test (as reported in Foxx & McMorrow, 1985) 

– all subjects maintained their levels of appropriateresponding that were above pre-training in both the individual and group assessments – Four subjects showed some improvement from post-test

to follow-up on the individual tests which 2 did so on the group assessment Number of words per response 

– 5 of the 6 subjects were above their pretest levels on the

individual test. All 6 subjects were above their pretest levels on the group assessments. But the results from post-test to follow-up were mixed. 

Study Quality 

Major Strengths:

 Study: 

Measures taken to ensu– Scoring criteria were 

synthesizing the responeach training situation 

– Scoring criteria accomknowledge and attitudebecause they permitted acceptable to any partic– Validity of the criterisubstantiated by the acbetween the trained obhealth professionals. – Skill areas and situatideveloped from observa review of the social skand discussions with un- Peer confederate who training conducted the - The presence of peerboth appropriate and inresponses would be dis- Excluding all staff and naturalness of the situa3- The tests were standa

rd one, not sure).

 Article: 

– provides rationale for 

were not as lasting as thassessments conducted format was more abstropportunities to use nedo subjects trained in g

Major Weaknesses:

 Study: 

– limited generalizabilit

G-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.

Measures Results Study Quality 

Time Points of Measurement: baseline and training Follow-Up Article: 

The 4 subjects’ percentage correct at follow-up had 

Generalization test decreased below their post-test and 6 month follow-up Consisted of 3 stories that together contained all of the scores and were only slightly higher than their pre-test 48 training situations. Each story depicted a fictitious scores. woman in situations similar to those that the subjects Mean number of words per response – 3 of the 4 subjects might encounter and was constructed to permit the were below their post-test levels and all were below their logical inclusion of variations of one-third of the training 6-month follow-up levels.situations, i.e., 16 of the training situations. The stories were read one at a time and the subjects were asked at Attendance/Treatment Completion: NR specific points what they would do if they found themselves in the situation. Responses were scored using Other:transcripts of video-taped sessions. Pretest – subjects were tested individually on each story; responses were scored using same criteria as was used to score the card game Post-test – Subjects’ mean scores for the 3 stories were used to assign them into 2 groups and subjects were retested on one of the stories, this time in a group setting, with the other 2 subjects present (done to determine the effect of group peer presence on social/sexual responding) Follow-Up – the group assessment was not conducted, only individual assessments

 Time Points of Measurement: pre, post, follow-up 

G-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.

REFERENCES

Blythe, B.J., Gilchrist, L.D., & Schinke, S.P. (1981). Pregnancy-Prevention Groups for Adolescents. 

Social Work, 26, 503–504. 

Bogat, G.A., & McGrath, M.P. (1993). Preschoolers’ Cognitions of Authority and its Relationship 

to Sexual Abuse Education.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 651–662. 

Booth, T., & Booth, W. (1992). Practice in Sexuality. Mental Handicap, 20, 64-73. 

Campbell, B.K., & Barnlund, D.C. (1977). Communication Patterns and Problems of Pregnancy. 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 134–139. 

Crawley, B. (1983). Self-Advocacy Manual. An overview of the development of self-advocacy by 

mentally handicapped people and recommendation for the development of trainee 

committees. Paper No. 49. Habilitation, Technology Project, Hester Adrian Research 

Centre, Manchester. 

Cvetkovich, G., Grote, B., Lieberman, E.S., & Miller, W. (1978). “Sex Role Development and 

Teenage Fertility-Related Behavior.” Adolescence, 8, 213–236. 

Dreyer, L. B., & Haseltine, B. A. (1986). The Woodrow Project. Fargo, ND: Rape and Abuse Crisis 

Center. 

Eisler, R.J, & Frederiksen, L.W. (1980). Perfecting Social Skills: A Guide to Interpersonal Behavioral 

Development. New York: Plenum. 

Elliott, C.D., Murray, D.J., & Pearson, L.S. (1983). “British Ability Scales.” NFER-Nelson: 

Windsor. 

Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Fosterling, F. (1985). Attributional retaining: A review. Psychological Review, 98, 495-512. 

Foxx, R.M., McMorrow, M.J., Storey, K., & Rogers, B.M. (1984). Teaching social/sexual skills to 

mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 9-15. 

Foxx, R.M., & Faw, G.D. (1992). An Eight-Year Follow-Up of Three Social Skills Training Studies.” 

Mental Retardation, 30(2), 63–66. 

Foxx, R.M., & McMorrow, M.J. (1984). Teaching Social/Sexual Skills to Mentally Retarded 

Adults.” American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(1), 9–15. 

Foxx, R.M., & McMorrow, M.J. (1985). Teaching Social Skills to Mentally Retarded Adults: Followup Results from Three Studies. The Behavior Therapist, 8, 77–78. 

G-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.

Foxx, R.M., McMorrow, M.J., & Mennemeier, M. (1984). Teaching social/vocational skills to 

retarded adults using a modified table game: An analysis of generalization. Journal of Applied 

Behavior Analysis 17: 343–352. 

Foxx, R.M., McMorrow, M.J., & Schloss, C. (1983). Stacking the deck: Teaching social skills to 

retarded adults with a modified table game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 157–170. 

Franzini, L.R., Siderman, L.M., & Dexter, K.E. (1988). Promoting Aids Risk Reduction via 

Behavioral Training. Presented at the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, 

New York, NY. 

Gilchrist, L.D., & Schinke, S.P. (1983). Coping with Contraception: Cognitive and Behavioral 

Methods with Adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 

Haseltine, B., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1990). Teaching self-protection skills to persons with mental 

retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95(2), 188–97. 

Howard, M. (1985). Postponing Sexual Involvement Among Adolescents: An Alternative Approach 

to Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 6, 271–277. 

Janis, I.L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. 

New York: Free Press. 

Kelley, J.A. (1982). Social Skills Training: A Practical Guide for Interventions. New York: Springer. 

Khemka, I. (1997). Increased independent interpersonal decision-making skills of women with 

mental retardation in response to social-interpersonal situations involving abuse. 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. 

Khemka, I. (2000). Increasing independent decision-making skills of women with mental 

retardation in simulated interpersonal situations of abuse. American Journal of Mental 

Retardation, 105(5), 387–401. 

Lee, D., McGee, A., & Ungar, S. (2001). Effectiveness of a computer-based safety program for 

children with severe learning difficulties. Child Abuse Review,10, 198–209. 

Lee, D., McGee, A., & Ungar, S. (1998). Issues in the development of a computer-based safety 

programme for children with severe learning difficulties. Child Abuse Review, 7, 343–354. 

Lee, Y.K., & Tang, C.S.. (1998). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention program for female 

Chinese adolescents with mild mental retardation. American Journal of Mental 

Retardation,103(2), 105–116. 

Libby, R., and J. Carlson. “A Theoretical Framework for Premarital Sexual Decisions Using 

Contraceptives.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 2 (1973): 365–378. 

Lumley, V.A., Miltenberger, R.G., Long, E.S., Rapp, J.T., & Roberts, J.A.. (1998). Evaluation of a 

sexual abuse prevention program for adults with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 31(1), 91–101. 

G-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.

Martin, N., & Martin, B. (1990). Sexual Abuse: Special Considerations when Teaching Children Who 

Have Severe Learning Difficulties.” Mental Handicap, 18, 69–74. 

Miltenberger, R.G., Roberts, J.A., Ellingson, S., Galensky, T., Rapp, J.T., Long, E.S., & Lumley, V.A. 

(1999). Training and generalization of sexual abuse prevention skills for women with mental 

retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(3), 385–388. 

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M.P. (1974). A locus of control scale for non-college as well as college 

students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136–137. 

Poche, C., Brouwer, R., & Swearinggen, M.(1981). Teaching self-protection to young children. 

Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 14, 169–176. 

Poche, C., Yoder, P., & Miltenberger, R. (1988). Teaching self-protection to children using 

television techniques. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 253–261. 

Private Line, 1988. 

Raven, J.C. Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices. London: Lewis, 1960. 

Saslawsky, D.A., and S.K. Wurtele. “Educating Children about Sexual Abuse: Implications for 

Pediatric Intervention and Possible Prevention.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 11 (1986): 

235–245. 

Schinke, S.P., Gilchrist, L.D., & Small, R.W. (1979). Preventing Unwanted Adolescent Pregnancy: 

A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach. American Orthopsychiatric Association, 49, 84–88. 

Singer, N. . (1996). Evaluation of a self-protection group for clients living in a residential group 

home. 

Thiesse-Duffy. (1988). [Full reference not provided] 

Tutty, L.M. (1994). The Revised Children’s Knowledge of Abuse Questionnaire: Development of a 

Measure of Children’s Understanding of Sexual Abuse Prevention Concepts. Social Work 

Research, 19, 112–121. 

Tymchuck, A. J., Andron, L., & Rahbar, B. (1988). Effective decision-making/problem-solving 

training with mothers who have mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 

510–516. 

Warzak, W. J., & Page, T. J. (1990). Teaching refusal skills to sexually active adolescents. 

Williams, J.P., & Ellsworth, N.J. (1990). Teaching learning disabled adolescents to think critically 

using a problem-solving schema.” Exceptionality, 1, 135–146. 

Williams, P., & Shoultz, B. (1982). We Can Speak for Ourselves. London: Souvenir Press. 

Winchurst, C., Stenfert, B., Kroese, and Adams, J. (1992). Assertiveness Training for People with a 

Mental handicap. Mental Handicap, 20, 97–101. 

G-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.

Wurtele, S.K. (1990). Teaching Personal Safety Skills to Four-Year-Old Children: A Behavioral 

Approach. Behavioral Therapy, 21, 25–32. 

Wurtele, S.K.,Saslawsky, C.L., Miller, C.L., Marrs, S.R., & Britcher, J.S. (1986). Teaching Personal 

Safety Skills for Potential Prevention of Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Treatments. Journal 

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,54, 688–692. 

Wurtele, S.K., Gillispie, E.I., Currier, L.L., & Frankin, C.F. (1992). A Comparison of Teachers vs. 

Parents as Instructors of a Personal Safety Program for Preschoolers.Child Abuse & Neglect, 

16, 127–137. 

Wurtele, S.K., Kast, L.C., Miller-Perrin, C.L., & Kondrick, P.A.. (1989). Comparison of Programs 

for Teaching Personal Safety Skills to Preschoolers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 

57, 515–511. 

Wurtele, S.K., & Miller-Perrin, C.L. (1986). An Evaluation of Side Effects Associated with 

Participation in Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program. Journal of School Health 57(6), 

228–231. 

G-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.

Appendix H

SAPI Author Suggestions
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.
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 

SAPI Author Suggestions 

RESEARCH DESIGN 

General 

• A research design with three experimental conditions is needed: treatment group that 

participates in original program, a treatment group that participates in the modified 

version of the program, and a control group that does not participate in any intervention. 

• Future research should include a control group with participants who are pre-tested and 

some who are not. 

• A control group is needed to substantiate differences between students who attended 

and students who did not. 

• Administer the posttest instruments to the comparison group. 

• Need more complex conceptual models to explain potential within-group differences. 

• Statistical techniques such as HCA to document more accurately the effectiveness of 

rape prevention interventions for individual men. 

• Control for effects of testing. 

• Control for the interaction between race and gender to understand their effects. 

• Code attitude tests so that results of posttest can be matched with pretest. 

• Use random assignment. 

• Clearly separate the intervention and evaluation phases of the experiment. 

• Further experimentation may be necessary to determine if evaluation apprehension 

influenced the outcome of the present study (one way would be to conduct an 

experiment similar in all respects to the present study, except that a subportion of 

subjects in each condition would be “sacrificed” before the end of the study and asked 

about the researchers’ intentions. 

• Determine whether administering the RMA to an untreated control group at follow-up 

elicits a decline in rape myth acceptance (measure test-retest reliability). 

• Further investigation is needed into whether programs prevent violence from continuing 

or escalating. 

• Build tasks that involve teens interacting into an evaluation component. 

• Explore questions of program content and format by “manipulating various elements to 

determine which are the most effective for affecting desired outcomes.” 

• Use matched data to strengthen confidence in the findings. 

Increase sample size* 

• to ensure sufficient statistical power 

• for more representative sample size 

* Mentioned multiple times by different authors. 

Follow-up 

• Incorporate multiple ongoing follow-up assessments at brief, intermediate, and 

long-term time intervals. 

• Multiple, ongoing follow-up assessments at brief, intermediate, and long-term intervals 

are needed. 

H-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.

• Determine whether men’s behavioral intent to rape not only decreases immediately 

post-intervention, but whether it remains significantly lower over time. 

• Essential to conduct long-term evaluations including attitude and behavior changes 

• Longer-term follow-up period needed to substantiate findings* 

• Need follow-up studies 1-5 months following intervention to assess stability 

• Need to examine long-term impact of rape prevention intervention to better understand 

and curtail the rebound of belief in rape myths 

• Verify the long-term effects the program may have on students. 

• Determine whether the kind of change speculated to occur in this study is maintained 

over the course of time and changing contexts and methodologies. 

• Future studies should include repeated follow-up assessments to determine the stability 

of effects over time. 

• Longitudinal study design of 3 to 6 months is suggested. 

• Assess the long-term effects of a strategy. 

• Address maintenance of changes over time; More longitudinal studies are needed 

• Longitudinal research is needed to investigate the replicability and causality (of higher 

scores on the measure of sexual assault awareness among women with histories of sexual 

victimization). 

* Mentioned multiple times by different authors. 

Replication 

• There are individual studies on single programs with little follow-up work. Rarely have 

evaluations been conducted on the same program over time.* 

• A promising program - one that affects both attitudes and behavior - has to be identified 

before we can begin to answer question about the effectiveness of particular program 

components. Once identified, multi-site testing of the program and replication of the 

results are essential. 

* Mentioned multiple times by different authors. 

Setting 

• Determine if intervention effective in other settings* 

• Test rape prevention education in other settings (beyond classroom). 

• Do not limit to university settings 

* Mentioned multiple times by different authors. 

Victimization and prevention efforts 

• Future research is needed to continue to assess the mechanisms through which 

victimization experiences become linked so that this information can be incorporated 

into prevention programs. 

• Clarify the nature of the relationship between participants’ sexual assault histories and 

program effectiveness. 

• Prospective research investigating the mechanisms of revictimization is needed. 

• Explore and extend research on the interrelationship between rape and other sexually 

violent behaviors, e.g. child sexual abuse and sexual harassment. 

• Study the relationship between self-efficacy and revictimization. 

H-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.

• Investigate the relationship between revictimization, risk recognition, and psychological 

variables. 

• Investigate the effects of single vs. multiple incidents to the victims. 

EVALUATION MEASURES 

Expansion of narrow focus on knowledge and attitudes as primary outcome 

• Important to use multiple measures and collect data on a range of attitudes, knowledge, 

and behavior indices to try to establish more specifically what impact programming is 

having on participants. 

• Move beyond documentation of attitude change and toward documenting program’s 

positive impact on behavior and the university community. 

• Include behavioral measures along with Burt’s Sexual Attitude Survey as well as 

performing causal modeling. 

Behavioral measures 

• Assess behavioral change through self-reports of sexual coercion and harassment 

experienced. 

• Incorporate additional assessments beyond self-report data to measure change—natural 

observations, info from other sources, such as a dating partner 

• Universities need to closely monitor sexual assault statistics and programming efforts to 

document a correlation between the two. 

• Research needs to address program impact on rates of sexual aggression and 

victimization. 

• Assess the impact of the prevention program on actual behavior over time. 

• Explore program’s impact on sexually coercive behavior. 

• Past research has demonstrated relationship between attitudes towards rape and 

self-reported histories of sexual aggression. Future research could be strengthened by 

measures of behavioral commitment to positive changes in attitudes towards rape. 

• Measure behavior not just intent. One way to do this would be to access annual 

prevalence rates of date rape at a university that now has a prevention program. 

Prevalence rates for the years following the initiation of the prevention program could 

be compared to rates for the years prior to the program’s implementation. 

• Existing programs must document their impact on rates of sexual victimization. 

• Additional research needs to be done concerning the actual behavioral consequences of 

both traditional attitudes and anti-rape interventions. 

• Design innovative behavioral outcome measures for rape prevention education. 

• Further attention to the processes through which sexual assault risk reduction programs 

impact rates of sexual victimization is needed. 

• Use behavior-based measures. 

• address the issue of the effects of volunteering by presenting students with a description 

of the program and then surveying them as to whether or not they would participate in 

such a program. 

• Any type of research that improves the current state of dependent variables in the area 

of rape prevention would be substantially beneficial (i.e. predictive validity of 

rape-related measures, measures of behavior). 

H-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.

• New and more sensitive behavioral and attitudinal measures are needed to improve the 

quality of research. RMA is outdated. 

• Include interviews that ask participants to comment on their attitudes and experiences in 

and impressions of the intervention might assist in the process of identifying and 

describing these elements. 

Knowledge/attitude measures 

• Use knowledge-based measures. 

• New and more sensitive behavioral and attitudinal measures are needed to improve the 

quality of research. RMA is outdated. 

• Instrument issues should be addressed in future research: test-retest reliability over time 

in the absence of the intervention, internal consistency reliability, factor structure, and 

relationship to existing measures of sex role attitudes, knowledge of woman abuse, and 

social desirability responding. 

• Develop, implement, and evaluate strategies to alter the deeper attitudes beneath 

misperceptions of rape. 

• Assess programs effect on factual knowledge about the causes and effects of rape, the 

extent to which participants learned strategies for preventing unwanted sex, the evidence 

that dating behaviors associated with rape had been altered, and the extent to which risk 

recognition and subsequent responding was improved. 

• A more thorough evaluation of retention of knowledge and attitude change. 

• Test the effectiveness of presentations more specifically geared toward changing 

traditional attitudes; include individuals of various ages, cultures, and histories of sexual 

aggression or victimization. 

• Examine the development of arguments that elicit favorable thoughts and attitude 

change in target audiences. 

Expansion of current measures 

• Include measures that are not limited to self-report. 

• Need to address how to best measure the construct of sexual communication. 

• Subsequent studies should attempt to use more developmentally sensitive skills 

measures, perhaps frequency ratings of specific behaviors. 

• May want to obtain information on problem-solving skills and conflict tactics from 

dating partners and build this component into evaluation (as alternative/supplement to 

self-reports of abuse). 

• Development of alternative forms of measurement for response latency. 

• Supplement outcome measures with instruments assessing the situational characteristics 

associated with assaults that occur during follow-up periods. 

• It is critical to undertake rigorous experimental evaluation of new program strategies 

beyond the usual “consumer satisfaction” surveys including detailed analysis of 

intervention components. 

• Measure students’ exposure to family and community violence. 

• Additional outcome measures such as use of sexual assault counseling programs, should 

be used to assess program effectiveness. 

• Use teachers to monitor the fidelity of the program. 

• More research to clarify the influence of gender on the outcomes of dating violence 

prevention programs. 

H-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.

• Important to identify other risk and contextual factors affecting adolescent romantic 

relationships (due to unexplained variance on most of this study’s outcome measures 

even after accounting for gender, intervention status, maltreatment history, and 

intervention process variables). 

• The interaction between male students’ previous actions of abusing dating partners and 

their response to the intervention needs to be addressed in further research. 

• Continue to use scales specifically for adolescent populations. 

• Continue to examine the relationship between gender and outcomes but also explore 

possible interactive effects. 

Psychometric qualities 

• Improve the psychometric qualities of instruments.* 

* Mentioned multiple times by different authors. 

Assessment of negative effects of intervention 

• Further research into whether increased distress exhibited by some participants. 

• Determine the number and type of programs that may have a negative effect on attitudes 

rather than improve them. 

• Ensure that participants who complete the program do not feel more to blame should 

they be revictimized. 

INTERVENTION CHARACTERISTICS 

Target population 

• Different levels of awareness (between men and women) would suggest that, at least 

initially, different interventions are desirable. Coed sessions may be in order as men 

begin to understand the women’s perspectives. 

• Future preventive efforts need to include men and research is needed to evaluate these 

efforts. 

• Future preventive efforts need to target the population of multiply victimized women. 

• Study more rape tolerant groups. 

• Need more research on diverse populations—beyond college population. 

• Use men-to-men programs as opposed to mixed-gender programs. 

• Although college educative efforts need to continue warning efforts towards women, 

more dramatic changes in preventive education with men, particularly men’s groups are 

necessary. 

• More rigorous evaluation of peer-to-peer and men-to-men date rape prevention 

programs is needed. 

• Any strategy designed to change attitudes about acquaintance rape should not be 

directed at men exclusively, but both men and women. 

• Independent strategies are needed for each gender. 

• Conduct research with participants who are greatest risk to victimization (unmarried 

high school students), but these populations are difficult to obtain without some proof 

of the potential value of the research program. We hope this study will allow further 

research in institutions with large at-risk populations. 

• Use subject samples with attitudes more initially supportive of sexual assault than those 

in the present sample. 

H-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.

• Use subject samples in which higher levels of sexual aggression were reported. 

• Explore means of addressing male defensiveness and reaching particularly high-risk 

groups. 

• Compare the responses of freshman college students to senior college students. 

• Need to identify “majority subgroup of decent and sensitive fraternity members” to 

enlist in educational efforts towards concealing sexual aggression. 

• Researchers may want to screen for men who have already engaged in sexually aggressive 

behavior or are identified as “at-risk” for committing an act of sexual aggression; by 

doing this, researchers could better assess potential “preventative” function of such 

interventions. 

• Evaluate usefulness of the intervention with women in the community. 

• Need more data on the developmental trajectory and contextual influences of violence in 

romantic relationships to shed light on the issue of change as it relates to group 

involvement, attendance, and participation in more cohesive groups. 

Mode 

• Investigate the use of repeated presentations that employ various formats. 

• Present videos illustrating positive sexuality and dating; then introduce materials 

concerning coercion and assault in a careful manner to reduce the level of defensiveness 

among male participants. 

• Presenters may need to be less verbal and didactic and more visually oriented to produce 

change with men. 

• Train peers as presenters. 

• Examine the efficacy of a combination of preventive methods. 

• Utilize cutting edge technology to engage teenagers. 

• Combine programmatic approaches to determine if an interactive effect occurs. 

• Address the efficiency and effectiveness of a multimedia theatrical performance 

compared to other programming formats in not only changing, but also maintaining, 

attitude change. 

• Develop and evaluate of live workshop. 

Timing of Intervention 

Initiation of Preventive Interventions 

• Primary prevention programs at earlier age may be necessary to address issue of negative 

attitudes in males that are already engaged in abusive behavior. 

• Begin interventions early, such as, high school. 

• Explore offering a variety of rape prevention presentations throughout an individual’s 

college experience. 

• Intervention needs to start early and continue through college. 

• Ideally, developmentally and contextually appropriate interventions should be developed 

targeting males earlier in their adolescence, perhaps interventions that could be 

presented in high school health education classes or part of social skills training in 

middle schools. 

• Document the patterns of dating violence among girls and boys to improve timing of 

prevention initiatives and understanding of other contextual factors that affect the 

gateway to normal and abusive relationship patterns and related risk behaviors. 

H-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.

Length of interventions/programs 

• Move beyond one-time intervention and learn what would be the effect a whole 

curriculum unit on rape education. 

• Use fewer curriculum sessions (Safe Dates). 

• Increase the number of sessions used in the intervention. 

• Lengthier interventions are needed. 1-2 hour interventions have limited effect 

considering the potency of rape myth culture on campuses. 

• There is still a need to know how much time to spend on the topic of rape, and whether 

or not the positive effects of this coverage are lasting. 

• Explore the effects of booster sessions. 

• Rebound effect findings may indicate need for similar short-term interventions at more 

frequent intervals during the college career. 

Increase of theory-based interventions 

• Health Belief Model and Elaboration Likelihood Model and Social Learning Theory 

suggested to guide efforts to change negative attitudes and also make material more 

salient. 

Integration into larger curriculum 

• It might be more effective to integrate violence-free principles and materials directly into 

schools’ curricula rather than to rely on time-limited interventions. 

• Integrate information about rape myth acceptance into other college courses. 

• Implement review sessions to reinforce learning in other classes and for violence 

prevention to become part of school-wide program. 

CONTENTS/CURRICULUM 

Socialization 

• Males need the opportunity to explore sex-based inequality more extensively. 

• Educational programs need to encompass both structural and interpersonal inequality, so 

that students understand the dynamics within their own relationships and the society at 

large. 

• Students should be encouraged to understand the ways in which current arrangements 

are oppressive to males as well as females. 

• Females need to be educated and provided with assertiveness strategies (but not forget 

that men are perpetrators and must be held accountable). 

• Both males and females need to understand how the behavior of females is interpreted 

by males in the context of sexuality. 

• Provide females and males with an understanding of how gender shapes their 

perceptions and structures their experiences in the social world; provide this at an early 

age. 

• Focus on men’s behavior (address the nature of the perpetrators and the context in 

which revictimization occurs). 

• Adolescents should be introduced to the structured inequality between men and women, 

and the interrelationships of sex and violence. 

• Presenting information regarding sex equality may enhance men’s response to rape 

education. 

H-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.

• Feminist rape education needs to address the themes of rape as sex and rape as social 

control, which takes into account that women and men begin at different places in their 

knowledge and attitudes. Both the erotic and the dominance themes that characterize 

our culture’s representations of rape need to be openly addressed. 

• Need to explore the interface between male sex role socialization and beliefs in rape 

mythology (socialization of male violence) to understand antecedents of these attitudes. 

• Identify what it is about this all-male culture (fraternity) and the men in it that leads to a 

rape-free environment would be instrumental to future research and campus-wide 

prevention efforts. 

• Future intervention programs should be sensitive to overemphasis on males as 

perpetrators of sexual coercion. 

• Feminist rape education needs to be more explicit about rape as form of control over 

women. 

Communication 

• Males should be coached in open communication skills where they can learn to listen to 

females and become sensitive to their own rather than their peers’ feeling. 

• Adolescents need to learn to communicate directly and clearly with one another. 

Personal relevance 

• Explore how to develop programs that are more personally relevant for individuals who 

do not know a victim. 

• Need to increase saliency and processing of the information that is provided to 

participants. Strategies for doing this include promoting more discussion and providing 

personalized manner. 

• Maximize the personal relevance and saliency of the information presented and ensure 

that the information is presented by individuals who are perceived by participants as 

helpful and interested. 

• Interventions should attend to the unique context of the participants’ lives. 

• Need to identify and present aspects of the rape phenomenon that are more personally 

relevant to men and help them engage in the kind of issue-relevant thinking that can 

produce more lasting change. 

Cultural relevance 

• Design and evaluate culturally sensitive interventions. 

• Need to examine the relevance of rape education intervention programs across the 

nation for racial and ethnic minority individuals and groups. 

• Begin to more meaningfully address the prevention of same-sex, group, and other types 

(other than White, middle-class model of acquaintance rape) of sexual assaults. 

• Explore educational approaches among other demographic groups. 

Components 

• Assess individual components of the Safe Dates program. 

• Further research may clarify which components of the program were most important in 

its effectiveness. 

• Determine which components of the program are most essential and most effective. 

• Results of [this study] and others suggest that some form of educational intervention is 

effective attitudes about rape and reactions to films portraying violence against women. 

H-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.

The question now is specifically what aspects of the educational message are effective 

for changing attitudes. 

• Future research is needed to demonstrate the necessary and sufficient components of 

prevention programs. 

• Investigate specific elements related to why some men change in their attitudes and 

others do not. 

Other 

• Youth violence prevention should address the unique issues related to dating violence by 

including activities to prevent and evaluating these activities. 

• Change the focus of anti-violence education towards teaching students to recognize the 

warning signs of violence, providing practical help to students attempting to end violent 

relationships, and selecting high risk students for treatment. 

• The behavioral intention items on instrument showed that speaking to 

teachers/counselors is a low-probability behavior for teens in dating violence situations, 

thus pointing out the importance of preventative efforts and suggesting the importance 

of building the skills of teens to help their friends. 

• Investigate the additive or iterative effects of combinations of treatment conditions. 

• Examine question of whether the impact of sex education on rape-related attitudes is 

perhaps attributable to the explicit focus on rape issues, possibly comparing students in 

the same sex education program both before and after presenting material regarding 

sexual inequality and violence. 

H-11