A four-unit program to help first-year college women (ages 17-24) resist acquaintance sexual assault by providing them with information and resistance training.
Blueprints: Promising
Shannon Dumont
Program Coordinator
Flip the Script with EAAA™ Program
SARE Centre
401 Sunset Ave.
Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4
226-350-SARE (7273)
info@sarecentre.org
http://sarecentre.org/
Charlene Y. Senn
University of Windsor
The sexual assault resistance program is designed to help first-year university women resist acquaintance sexual assault. The program consists of four 3-hour units that involve information-providing games, mini-lectures, facilitated discussion, and application and practice activities. Participants can attend group sessions for all the units in one weekend (two units each day) or for one unit per week for 4 weeks.
The sexual assault resistance program is designed to help first-year university women resist acquaintance sexual assault. The program consists of four 3-hour units that involve information-providing games, mini-lectures, facilitated discussion, and application and practice activities. Participants can attend group sessions for all the units in one weekend (two units each day) or for one unit per week for 4 weeks.
Unit 1 (Assess) focuses on improving women's assessment of the risk of sexual assault by male acquaintances and developing problem-solving strategies to reduce perpetrator advantages. Unit 2 (Acknowledge) assists women to more quickly acknowledge the danger in situations that have turned coercive, explore ways to overcome emotional barriers to resisting the unwanted sexual behaviors of men who are known to them, and practice resisting verbal coercion. Unit 3 (Act) explores and provides opportunities to overcome personal obstacles to resisting known men and offers instruction about and practice of effective options for resistance, including 2 hours of self-defense training focused entirely on situations involving acquaintances. Unit 4 (Sexuality and Relationships) aims to integrate content from the previous units into participants' sexual lives by providing sexual information, including the slang and scientific terms for a wide range of possible sexual activities beyond intercourse and health and safer-sex practices, and a context to explore their sexual attitudes, values, and desires and to develop practices and strategies for sexual communication.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017), Senn, Barata et al. (2012), and Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed a significantly lower risk of:
Regarding secondary outcomes, participants in the intervention group showed significantly improved:
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Of the three studies Blueprints has reviewed, one study (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). In addition, Study 1 was done by the developer.
Study 1
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017), Senn, Barata et al. (2012), and Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) recruited female students from three Canadian colleges and randomized 916 subjects to an intervention or control group. Subjects completed surveys at baseline, 1-week after program completion, 6 months after baseline, and 12 months after baseline in which they reported on completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, and non-consensual sexual contact. The analysis also examined the occurrence of each type of sexual event over a 24-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included self-assessed risk of acquaintance rape, risk assessment, belief in rape myths, self-defense self-efficacy, and women-blaming beliefs.
Study 1
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 2326-35.
Individual: Substance use
Peer: Romantic partner violence
Individual: Problem solving skills, Prosocial behavior, Refusal skills
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific race, ethnic, or gender group:
Study 1 (Senn et al., 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017; Senn, Barata et al., 2012; Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found subgroup effects by using a homogenous sample of all females. In addition, based on subgroup analyses run specifically for Blueprints, the Study 1 investigators found no statistical evidence to conclude that the program is ineffective for any racial, ethnic, or sexual identity category.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender:
The Study 1 sample included women only and was nearly three-quarters white.
A train the trainer model is employed in the dissemination of the EAAA program. EAAA Facilitators are trained by Campus Trainers who have attended the EAAA Train the Trainer workshop.
Training of Campus Trainers
6 full days in-person training delivered by EAAA Lead Trainer. This training includes an in-depth exploration of the theory and research behind the design and content of EAAA; key elements of EAAA facilitator supervision and common issues that arise in each of the four sessions; interactive practice supervising EAAA facilitator dry runs; brainstorming and practice dealing with participant issues such as woman blaming, gender norms, etc.; advice on hiring, training and supervision; discussion of practical issues related to administering and implementing the EAAA program in your campus community; one full day of specialized Wen-Do self-defense instruction for EAAA Trainers, etc.
Training of Facilitators
Note: As few as two Program Facilitators and as many as 18-20 could be trained together using the training model and methodology presented in the Campus/Community Trainer Manual.
A consecutive 8 full days of Facilitator Training followed by a 5-6-hour dress rehearsal of ACT at least 2 weeks before the first EAAA group begins is recommended. We suggest holding the training in late August or early September before classes begin and after students' summer jobs wrap. The intensity of the training helps with team cohesion and promotes focused and deep reflection on the content of the EAAA. If this cannot be achieved, a few different models are possible and are suggested in the Campus Trainer Manual.
Overview of Facilitator Training
The eight-day curriculum includes:
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
All costs are in Canadian dollars (CAD).
There are two levels of initial training that must be completed before the EAAA/Flip the Script™ program can be implemented. First, Campus/Community Trainers must attend the EAAA Train the Trainer workshop offered by the SARE Centre. Once trained, the Campus/Community Trainers can recruit and train facilitators (with the annual help of an approved empowerment self-defense instructor) to deliver the education program to first-year university students on their campuses. More detail is provided below.
The fee for attending the EAAA Train the Trainer workshop is $3300 plus 13% sales tax per participant and includes:
Training costs do not include travel or transportation. For EAAA Train the Trainer workshops offered at the University of Windsor, campus accommodation (shared bathroom and kitchen) is available at $325 a week + 13% tax. Local hotel accommodation is available at the University rate of $129.95 a night +18% for room and sales taxes.
Graduates of the Train the Trainer workshops (Campus/Community Trainers) are qualified to train and supervise EAAA Facilitators who deliver the EAAA/Flip the Script™ program to young women on their campuses or in their communities. It is important to note, however, that Campus/Community Trainers are qualified to supervise but not to teach the facilitators the physical self-defense component of the EAAA/Flip the Script™ program. A Wen-Do self-defense basic 15-hr workshop and an additional day of individualized instruction with a certified self-defense instructor must be part of EAAA Facilitator training. Wen-Do is a women's self-defense education organization in Canada. Approved alternative empowerment self-defense instructors can be used for those outside Canada, if the cost of annual Wen-Do training would be prohibitive.
The cost of training facilitators will vary depending on their salaries and the travel costs associated with either sending the facilitators to take a Basic Wen-Do Course (15 hr.) and individualized training (4 hr. for 2-3 facilitators; 7 hr. for 4-10 facilitators) or bringing a certified Wen-Do instructor (or approved alternative self-defense instructor) to your campus. EAAA Facilitators must receive 9 days of training, which includes 6 days delivered by the Campus/Community Trainer, 3 days of self-defense instruction, plus 15-20 hours of pre-training readings. Facilitators must also complete approximately 18 hours of additional preparation and practice in semesters with no training.
Included in the initial training fee.
Universities are required to sign a licensing and trademark agreement detailing the conditions they agree to abide by when hiring and training facilitators and delivering the EAAA program on campus. Licensing for three years is included in the initial training fee and is currently renewable at no cost, provided the conditions outlined in the licensing agreement are honoured.
Other start-up costs include the cost of staff time while attending the Train the Trainer workshop. For facilitator training and EAAA/Flip the Script™ program delivery, the following additional equipment is needed: a laptop computer, data projector and screen, 2 presentation easels/free standing flip charts, 2 strike pads (can be purchased online from Amazon or from martial arts equipment suppliers), and a digital recorder (for optional intervention fidelity checks). Books and posters required for EAAA/Flip the Script™ program must be purchased from secondary sources.
Ongoing material costs include:
Additional manuals can be purchased from the SARE Centre for an additional fee ($150 per set (including appendices) plus tax and shipping). Additional full program kits (including 2 sets of EAAA Facilitator Manuals and Appendices) can be purchased for $600 in/kit plus tax and shipping.
Qualifications: Women 18 and over who are employed by or affiliated with a postsecondary institution or community organization working with the postsecondary institution can participate in the training to become a Campus/Community Trainer if their institution is preparing to implement EAAA. Although one Trainer is sufficient for implementation, the SARE Centre recommends that two women be trained if possible so duties can be shared and to protect program sustainability from staff turnover. The EAAA/Flip the Script™ program must be delivered by pairs of highly skilled and trained facilitators who identify as women and are preferably under 30 years of age (to be perceived as "expert peers" by participants). The SARE Centre recommends that a minimum of three facilitators be trained if possible to ensure there is always a backup in case of illness. Graduate students, senior undergraduates, and young staff members have been trained successfully as EAAA Facilitators.
Ratios: Three part-time facilitators working 290 hours each year (including training) can deliver 8 EAAA/Flip the Script™ programs with approximately 20 participants in each (160 total participants per academic year).
Time to Deliver Intervention: The EAAA/Flip the Script™ program is typically delivered in a 12-hour, two-day workshop over a weekend or in 3-hour sessions delivered on four weeknights (e.g., four Tuesdays in row).
Implementing EAAA also requires some administrative support staff to design and print recruitment posters, produce and compile participant resource kits, book rooms, arrange food for workshops, etc.
A feminist therapist to support facilitators (if needed).
None.
No information is available
Universities/colleges wishing to implement the EAAA/Flip the Script™ program could reduce expenses by partnering with other postsecondary institutions located nearby. Some strategies for cost savings include sharing Campus Trainers or EAAA Facilitators across institutions, lowering expenses on EAAA Facilitator training costs by training them together, reducing travel costs by hosting the EAAA Train the Trainer workshop in their communities (for minimum of 8 Trainers).
The following example is for a postsecondary institution that sends one staff member to be trained as a Campus/Community Trainer who then trains three graduate-level facilitators who deliver 8 programs serving 160 students in an academic year. This example assumes that the Campus Trainer is an existing university staff member (e.g., from student services, health, or Title IX office) who performs the training and supervision as part of her regular duties, so there is no staffing cost included for the Campus Trainer.
NOTE: Cost estimates are in Canadian dollars (CAD) and will need to be converted to US dollars for those wishing to implement in the United States.
| Initial Training Fee for Campus/Community Trainer | $3,729.00 |
| Travel and accommodations for 1 Campus Trainer to attend Train the Trainer workshop in Windsor, Ontario, Canada | $2,500.00 |
| Self-defense instructor assistance for facilitator training (instructor's fee and travel) | $5,670.00 |
| Facilitator hours during training ($30/hr x 92 hrs x 3 + 14% fringe benefits) | $9,439.00 |
| 4 audience members for dry runs during facilitator training ($15/hr. x 24 hrs. x 4 + 14% fringe benefits) | $1,642.00 |
| Facilitator hours for program delivery - ($30/hr. X 24 hrs./program X 6 programs/facilitator X 3 facilitators + 14% fringe benefits) | $14,775.00 |
| Administrative support at .10 FTE | $5,000.00 |
| One-time equipment purchases (laptop, easels, flip charts, 2 strike pads) | $1,600.00 |
| Materials including 160 resource kits ($1280), participant handouts and recruitment posters ($400), and "My Body, My Decision" white boards ($425: optional) | $2,105.00 |
| EAAA Participant snacks and refreshments for 4 weekday programs at $750 each and 4 weekend programs at $1250 each. | $8,000.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $54,460.00 |
The first year implementation costs shown above is equivalent to approximately $37,190 in US dollars. With 160 students receiving the intervention, the cost per student in the first year would be $340 Canadian or $232 US. This cost would be slightly lower in subsequent years after the one-time equipment purchases have been made and initial facilitator training is complete.
Sustaining EAAA over time generally requires a commitment on the part of the administration of postsecondary institutions to allocate resources for EAAA within their core budget. This can mean training existing health, student services, or counseling center staff to act as Campus/Community Trainers. Partnerships with Women's Centers on campus and nonprofit Rape Crisis Centers can also offer support. These organizations may have access to grant funding to support staffing and training.
The biggest ongoing cost of the program is staff time for coordinating and training facilitators and pay for facilitators' time for preparation and delivery of workshops. College counseling or health centers can train existing staff to act as Campus/Community Trainers and recruit seniors or graduate students to work as facilitators. Postsecondary institutions could potentially offer the facilitator positions as internships for graduate students in psychology, sociology, social work, social justice, or counseling which could defray the cost of paying facilitators.
State funds, most typically from college budgets, can be allocated to purchase the initial training and curriculum, as well as to pay staff to administer and deliver the intervention.
Formula Grants: The STOP Violence Against Women and the Sexual Assault Services Formula Grant Program (SASP) both provide funding to states and local law enforcement to support community solutions to address violence against women and interventions for victims of sexual assault. These funding streams (particularly SASP) may be funding rape crisis centers who can partner to deliver the EAAA program. See: www.justice.gov/ovw/grant-programs#svaw
Discretionary Grants: There are relevant federal discretionary grants administered by the Department of Justice, Office of Violence against Women. This office administers the Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program. This program funds prevention education programs as well as other campus responses.
Foundation grants can be solicited to pay for initial training. Foundations focused on grants to prevent and end violence against women as well as foundations focused on postsecondary education might potentially support this program.
Charlene Y. SennUniversity of Windsor401 Sunset Ave.Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4Canadacsenn@uwindsor.cainfo@sarecentre.org sarecentre.org
A four-unit program to help first-year college women (ages 17-24) resist acquaintance sexual assault by providing them with information and resistance training.
The program is designed for first-year female college students (ages 17-24).
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific race, ethnic, or gender group:
Study 1 (Senn et al., 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017; Senn, Barata et al., 2012; Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found subgroup effects by using a homogenous sample of all females. In addition, based on subgroup analyses run specifically for Blueprints, the Study 1 investigators found no statistical evidence to conclude that the program is ineffective for any racial, ethnic, or sexual identity category.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender:
The Study 1 sample included women only and was nearly three-quarters white.
The program aims to improve knowledge and resistance skills of potential victims.
Individual: Substance use
Peer: Romantic partner violence
Individual: Problem solving skills, Prosocial behavior, Refusal skills
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
The sexual assault resistance program is designed to help first-year university women resist acquaintance sexual assault. The program consists of four 3-hour units that involve information-providing games, mini-lectures, facilitated discussion, and application and practice activities. Participants can attend group sessions for all the units in one weekend (two units each day) or for one unit per week for 4 weeks.
The sexual assault resistance program is designed to help first-year university women resist acquaintance sexual assault. The program consists of four 3-hour units that involve information-providing games, mini-lectures, facilitated discussion, and application and practice activities. Participants can attend group sessions for all the units in one weekend (two units each day) or for one unit per week for 4 weeks.
Unit 1 (Assess) focuses on improving women's assessment of the risk of sexual assault by male acquaintances and developing problem-solving strategies to reduce perpetrator advantages. Unit 2 (Acknowledge) assists women to more quickly acknowledge the danger in situations that have turned coercive, explore ways to overcome emotional barriers to resisting the unwanted sexual behaviors of men who are known to them, and practice resisting verbal coercion. Unit 3 (Act) explores and provides opportunities to overcome personal obstacles to resisting known men and offers instruction about and practice of effective options for resistance, including 2 hours of self-defense training focused entirely on situations involving acquaintances. Unit 4 (Sexuality and Relationships) aims to integrate content from the previous units into participants' sexual lives by providing sexual information, including the slang and scientific terms for a wide range of possible sexual activities beyond intercourse and health and safer-sex practices, and a context to explore their sexual attitudes, values, and desires and to develop practices and strategies for sexual communication.
The program draws on the "cognitive ecological" model (Nurius & Noris, 1996), which provides a framework for the environmental and psychological factors that affect women's responses to acquaintance sexual assault and interfere with early acknowledgement of danger and self-protection. It also draws on social psychology theories of persuasion (e.g., Elaboration Likelihood Model) for the design of process/delivery and some content (e.g., personal relevance). The "Enhancement" (Relationships and Sexuality unit) is included based on the rationale that emancipatory sexuality education focusing on women's sexual desires and alternatives to intercourse is critical to women's increased ability to seek out sex they do want, and to reject and actively resist sex that they do not want.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Of the three studies Blueprints has reviewed, one study (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). In addition, Study 1 was done by the developer.
Study 1
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017), Senn, Barata et al. (2012), and Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) recruited female students from three Canadian colleges and randomized 916 subjects to an intervention or control group. Subjects completed surveys at baseline, 1-week after program completion, 6 months after baseline, and 12 months after baseline in which they reported on completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, and non-consensual sexual contact. The analysis also examined the occurrence of each type of sexual event over a 24-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included self-assessed risk of acquaintance rape, risk assessment, belief in rape myths, self-defense self-efficacy, and women-blaming beliefs.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017), Senn, Barata et al. (2012), and Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly fewer completed rapes (5.2% versus 9.8%), attempted rapes, attempted coercion, and non-consensual sexual contact at posttest. A follow-up analysis indicated that the lowered risk was significant even 24 months after program completion, though results were stronger for attempted rape (4.9% vs. 13.5%; significant) than completed rape (8.1% vs. 11.8%; not significant). Significant positive effects on self-assessed risk of acquaintance rape, risk assessment, self-defense self-efficacy, belief in rape myths, and women-blaming beliefs were maintained through 24 months, as were self-reported use of rape resistance strategies such as forceful verbal and physical resistance.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017), Senn, Barata et al. (2012), and Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed a significantly lower risk of:
Regarding secondary outcomes, participants in the intervention group showed significantly improved:
In Study 1, Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) found that risk detection significantly mediated the program effect on completed rape, direct resistance significantly mediated the program effect on completed rape and on attempted rape, and self-defense self-efficacy significantly mediated the program effect on attempted rape. In addition, three secondary mediators had significant indirect effects on a combined measure of completed and attempted rape. In tests for moderated mediation, Senn, Barata et al. (2021) found that the mediation models did not differ by baseline levels of past sexual victimization.
Study 1 presented figures on relative risk reduction (ranging from 34.1% to 63.2%) and number needed to treat (ranging from 8 to 22). Cohen's d ranged from small (.19) to large (.80) for program effects on secondary outcomes at 24-month follow-up.
One study meets Blueprints standards for high-quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Senn et al., 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017; Senn, Barata et al., 2012; Senn, Eliasziw et al., 2021). The study sample included first-year female college students. It took place in central and western Canada and compared the treatment group to a control group that received a brochure and the opportunity to have questions answered.
Additional Studies (not certified by Blueprints)
Study 2 (Beres et al., 2019)
Beres, M. A., Treharne, G. J., Stewart, K., Flett, J., Rahman, M., & Lillis, D. (2019). A mixed-methods pilot study of the EAAA rape resistance programme for female undergraduate students in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Women's Studies Journal, 33(1/2), 8-24.
Study 3 (Senn et al., 2023)
Senn, C. Y., Hobden, K. L., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Radtke, H. L., McVey, G. L., & Thurston, W. E. (2023). Testing the effectiveness of a sexual assault resistance programme in 'real-world' implementation. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14(2).
Blueprints: Promising
Shannon Dumont
Program Coordinator
Flip the Script with EAAA™ Program
SARE Centre
401 Sunset Ave.
Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4
226-350-SARE (7273)
info@sarecentre.org
http://sarecentre.org/
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2013). Sexual assault resistance education for university women: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (SARE trial). BMC Women's Health, 13, 25. doi:10.1186/1472-6874-13-25
Certified Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 2326-35.
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I., Radtke, L., . . . SARE team. (2014). Sexual violence in the lives of first-year university women in Canada: No improvements in the 21st century. BMC Women's Health, 14(35), 1-8. doi:10.1186/s12905-014-0135-4
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Hobden, K. L., Newby-Clark, I. R., Barata, P. C., Radtke, H. L., & Thurston, W. E. (2017). Secondary and 2-year outcomes of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 147-162.
Senn, C. Y., Barata, P., Eliasziw, M., Hobden, K., Radtke, H. L., Thurston, W. E., & Newby-Clark., I. R. (2021). Sexual assault resistance education's benefits for survivors of attempted and completed rape. Women & Therapy, 45(1), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2021.1971425
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Hobden, K. L., Barata, P. C., Radtke, H. L., Thurston, W. E., & Newby-Clark., I. R. (2021). Testing a model of how a sexual assault resistance education program for women reduces sexual assaults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320962561
Beres, M. A., Treharne, G. J., Stewart, K., Flett, J., Rahman, M., & Lillis, D. (2019). A mixed-methods pilot study of the EAAA rape resistance programme for female undergraduate students in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Women's Studies Journal, 33(1/2), 8-24.
Senn, C. Y., Hobden, K. L., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Radtke, H. L., McVey, G. L., & Thurston, W. E. (2023). Testing the effectiveness of a sexual assault resistance programme in 'real-world' implementation. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14(2).
Summary
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017) recruited female students from three Canadian colleges and randomized 916 subjects to an intervention or control group. Subjects completed surveys at baseline, 1-week after program completion, 6 months after baseline, and 12 months after baseline in which they reported on completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, and non-consensual sexual contact. The analysis also examined the occurrence of each type of sexual event over a 24-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included self-assessed risk of acquaintance rape, risk assessment, belief in rape myths, self-defense self-efficacy, and women-blaming beliefs.
Senn et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly lower risk of:
Regarding secondary outcomes, participants in the intervention group showed significantly improved:
Evaluation Methodology
Design:
Recruitment: The study enrolled first-year female students, 17 to 24 years of age, at one large university in western Canada and two midsized universities in central Canada, from September 2011 to February 2013. Participants were recruited through e-mail messages and telephone calls, posters or flyers around campus, e-mail messages forwarded by professors, and presentations in classes and at student events. Of the 3241 women assessed, 916 (28.3%) were deemed eligible (i.e., able to attend one of the scheduled intervention sets) and agreed to participate.
Assignment: At the baseline session, the 916 participants completed a computerized survey, underwent randomization, and immediately attended their first resistance session or control session. Randomization was performed in permuted blocks of two. Intervention subjects received the 4-session treatment, while control subjects were invited by a research assistant to take and read brochures on sexual assault and were offered the opportunity to have questions answered in the group session or privately.
Attrition: Participants completed computerized surveys at baseline, and 1 week after completion of the intervention (control participants were matched to the same interval). They also completed offsite web-based surveys at 6 months and 12 months after the posttest. Of the 916 randomized, 23 (2.5%) withdrew or were found to not meet eligibility requirements and were not included in the analysis, while an additional 43 (4.7%) were lost to follow-up or withdrew but were included in the analysis sample of 893. At the 18-month follow-up there was an attrition rate of 10.2%, while only participants enrolled in the first year of the trial's recruitment period were invited to complete the 24-month survey (n=370).
Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) examined the sample of 857 women (93.6% of the randomized sample) that completed the one-week posttest and one or both of the six- and 12-month follow-up surveys. Senn, Barata et al. (2021) examined a similar sample of 851 women (92.9%).
Sample:
The sample of first-year female college students in Canada had a mean age of 18 years and were 73% white or of European descent. Most were sexually active and about 23% reported having been raped after age 14.
Measures:
All participants were assessed at 6, 12, and 18 months posttest, with half the sample completing an additional follow-up assessment at 24 months. The primary outcome of interest was sexual assault, classified into one of five sexual victimization categories: completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, attempted coercion, or non-consensual sexual contact, and measured using the self-report Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization, a widely used behavioral measure that is reported to have high reliability and validity. The secondary outcomes measuring psychological variables were as follows:
Perceived risk of acquaintance rape, measured on a 5-point scale with higher scores indicating greater perceived risk.
Risk assessment, using different vignettes at posttest and follow-ups (α=.81). The second risk assessment tool was a scenario read line by line with respondents instructed to indicate at which line they began to feel uncomfortable and at which line they would leave.
Self-defense self-efficacy was assessed using seven questions on a 7-point scale regarding participants' confidence about their ability to defend themselves from men in a variety of situations (α =.82).
Knowledge of effective rape resistance strategies were assessed using two measures; the one used at posttest indicated the respondent's likelihood to engage in a number of effective resistance strategies after reading a vignette, and the one used at follow-up was more open-ended, with respondents scored on whether (1) or not (0) they mention using one of the effective resistance strategies.
Rape myth acceptance was assessed using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale - Short Form, which consists of 17 seven-point items regarding beliefs in global rape myths (α =.93).
Female precipitation of rape was assessed using the 6-item Female Precipitation subscale of the Perceived causes of Rape Scale (α =86).
Rape self-blame (Senn, Barata et al., 2021) was measured with the Rape Attribution Scale but only for participants who experienced a completed rape during the follow-up period. Internal consistency was high (alpha = .89). Participants were not given the measure if they indicated that they did not consider what happened to be an assault of any kind.
Analysis:
The primary analysis of the incidence (first occurrence) of completed and attempted rapes used Kaplan-Meier failure curves (indicating the cumulative percentage of completed rapes among women in the respective groups) and the log-rank test. To account for the correlation among observations within group sessions, variance estimates were inflated for within-session clustering with estimates of the design effect. Analysis of the other outcomes - the incidence of coercion, attempted coercion, and nonconsensual sexual contact - used discrete-time survival analyses with a complementary log-log regression model and variance estimates inflated for within-session clustering. Linear and generalized linear models were used to assess the secondary outcomes. A random intercept was included in the models to account for correlation among observations within group sessions and a first-order autoregressive covariance structure was used to characterize the interdependence of the repeated measures over time. By nature, these models adjust for baseline outcomes.
Intent-to-Treat: The study largely relied on a "modified intention-to-treat population, which included all eligible participants who completed one or more postrandomization surveys." It appears that 6 subjects who withdrew were not followed due to IRB protocols and 17 subjects discovered after randomization to not meet eligibility requirements were dropped, but they made up only a small part (2.5%) of the sample. Another 43 did not complete the 12-month follow-up but were apparently included in the analysis (perhaps as censored observations). The 18-month follow-up data also included all available data, but the 24-month follow-up used only data from participants enrolled in the program's first year of recruitment due to budget concerns, which likely represents a violation of intent-to-treat for that follow-up period.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity: One quarter of the recordings from both groups were randomly selected and scored for fidelity. The intervention fidelity averaged 94% and the control fidelity averaged 86%. Attendance in the resistance group was 91%. There were no crossovers between groups, and cross-contamination was low: 14.5% of the participants in the control group and 10.4% of the participants in the resistance group shared facts or skills learned in their group with participants in the other group.
Baseline Equivalence: Of 17 baseline sociodemographic, relationship, past victimization, study recruitment, and previous training measures, one showed a significant difference between conditions. Past non-consensual sexual contact was higher in the control group.
Differential Attrition: The 1-year follow-up analysis included 442 of 452 in the control group (97.8%) and 451 of 464 in the intervention group (97.2%). Although included in the 12-month analysis, 43 subjects did not complete the follow-up. No tests for differential attrition were presented, though attrition was minimal. At 18 months, attrition reached 11.5% (400 of 452 retained) in the control and 10.2% (417 of 464 retained) in the treatment group, with no analysis of differential attrition by outcomes or other baseline characteristics. Additionally, only half of the sample (n=370, 185 in each group) was used for the 24-month follow-up with no assessment of the comparability of the resulting groups.
Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021) offered additional information on attrition by testing for baseline equivalence for the analysis sample of 857. Table 1 showed no significant differences in 15 tests.
Posttest: Relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly fewer completed rapes (5.2% versus 9.8%), attempted rapes, rapes of either type, attempted coercion, and non-consensual sexual contact. The most benefit came in the first 4 months, with the gains maintained afterward through the 12-month follow-up. Only 1 of the 6 outcomes, coercion, did not differ significantly across conditions.
Two prespecified tests for subgroup analyses examined whether the intervention effect differed by prior rape victimization or program timing (i.e., weekend vs. weekday sessions). Neither interaction reached statistical significance.
Long-Term:
Through the 24-month follow-up, compared to the control group, program participants showed significant and sustained improvements in self-assessed risk of acquaintance rape, general risk assessment, self-defense self-efficacy, and effective resistance strategies, though the effect sizes for some of these did decrease over time (while remaining significant). Program participants also showed significant reduction in rape myth beliefs and women-blaming beliefs at all time points, though effect sizes did diminish over time. Intervention women also improved use of 3 of 4 rape resistance strategies through 24-month follow-up.
The program effects on completed rape diminished and lost significance before the 18 and 24-month follow-ups, though results remained in favor of the treatment group (8.1% vs. 11.8%). The program did sustain significant reductions in the risk of attempted rape, however, over the full time period (4.9% vs. 13.5% at 24 months).
Mediation Tests (Senn, Eliasziw et al., 2021). The study measured the mediators at the one-week posttest and measured the two outcomes - attempted rape and competed rape - for the period from posttest to the 12-month follow-up. The analysis used proportional hazard models to predict time to the first rape event. Three primary mediators (situational risk detection, direct resistance, and self-defense self-efficacy) and three secondary mediators were examined (perception of personal risk, belief in the myth of female precipitation, and general rape myth acceptance).
The results first confirmed that, without controlling for the mediators, the program significantly reduced risk of completed rape and attempted rape. Then, the results in Table 2 demonstrated significant mediation for four of the six tests involving the primary mediators. Situational risk detection significantly mediated the program effect on completed rape, direct resistance significantly mediated the program effect on completed rape and on attempted rape, and self-defense self-efficacy significantly mediated the program effect on attempted rape. Together, the mediators accounted for 95% and 76% of the program reductions in risk for completed and attempted rape, respectively, demonstrating full mediation. For the secondary mediators, all but one of the 13 tests in Table 2 showed significant mediation on a combined outcome measure of completed and attempted rape.
Moderation Tests (Senn, Barata et al., 2021). In extending the mediation tests of Senn, Eliasziw et al. (2021), this study examined if the program effects on mediators and outcomes differed by baseline levels of past sexual victimization. The findings revealed that "prior victimization was not a significant moderator of the variables that mediate EAAA's effectiveness, suggesting EAAA functions similarly for women regardless of victimization history."
The study also examined program effects on self-blame for a subsample of women who experienced a post-intervention attempted or complete rape and perceived their experience as an assault (n = 45). Self-blame was significantly lower (i.e., less self-blame) for the intervention group than the control group among women who reported a previous completed rape at baseline and among women who reported no previous rape but not for women who reported a previous attempted rape.
The study expanded on the original program by including legal information specific to New Zealand, using local colloquial language, and adding a karakia (Māori incantations and prayer) to open and close the sessions.
Summary
Beres et al. (2019) used a quasi-experimental design without matching to examine 70 women attending college in New Zealand. The intervention group consisted of volunteers for the program, while the assessment-only control group consisted of other undergraduate students. Posttest and three-month assessments examined experiences of sexual violence, readiness to change, and acceptance of rape myths.
Beres et al. (2019) found no significant program effects on behavioral outcomes relating to experiences of sexual violence. For risk and protective factors at posttest and three-month follow-up, the intervention group relative to the control group reported
Evaluation Methodology
Design:
Recruitment: The study recruited two groups of female participants. The intervention group came from female residents of a first-year residential college. Of 60 female students, 38 expressed interest in participating and 25 attended the first session and completed the baseline assessment. The assessment-only control group of 45 participants came from female undergraduate students who volunteered for the study and could receive a small amount of course credit for completing the surveys.
Assignment: The quasi-experimental design used non-randomized groups (n = 70) without matching.
Assessments/Attrition: Assessments for the intervention group occurred at baseline, after the last session (posttest), and three months after the last session. Assessments for the control group occurred at three equivalent times. About 73% of the assigned sample of 70 completed the posttest assessment, and about 53% completed the follow-up assessment.
Sample:
The sample of women were aged 18-20. The majority of the participants were white New Zealanders and Europeans.
Measures:
All measures came from student self-reports and included scales for rape myth acceptance, readiness to change, and sexual experiences. The measures used existing instruments but no information on reliability or validity was reported.
Analysis:
The analyses used ANOVA to examine group-by-time interactions across the three time points (including baseline).
Missing Data Method: The analyses included participants with complete data for all three assessments.
Intent-to-Treat: The study used all participants with complete data.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity:
No quantitative information provided.
Baseline Equivalence:
The authors presented Ns by condition for sociodemographic measures in Table 1 but did not list percentages or perform significance tests. The measures of sexual violence in Table 2 showed several significant condition differences.
Differential Attrition:
The study did not present tests using baseline measures, but the overall level of attrition combined with condition differences in attrition showed that the study failed to meet the What Works Clearinghouse optimistic or cautious standards.
Posttest:
For the eight measures of sexual violence experienced in the three months before the three-month follow-up, there were no significant condition differences.
For rape myth acceptance and readiness to change action stage, but not for readiness to change pre-contemplation stage and readiness to change contemplation stage, there were significant interactions between time and group (p < .05), with rape myth acceptance decreasing more in the intervention group and readiness to change action stage increasing more in the intervention group.
Long-Term:
Not examined.
Summary
Senn et al. (2023) used a quasi-experimental design without matching to examine 535 women attending five universities in Canada. The intervention group consisted of volunteers for the program who attended the first session, while the control group consisted of volunteers for the program who did not attend the first session. Posttest and six-month assessments examined rape victimization and several beliefs about rape.
Senn et al. (2023) found at posttest and six-month follow-up that the intervention group relative to the control group reported
Evaluation Methodology
Design:
Recruitment: The sample came from five of seven Canadian universities that agreed to implement the program (two ended up not implementing the program and were dropped). A total of 909 women-identified students who were attending the five universities signed up to participate in the program. Of those, 633 (70%) consented, and 535 (84% of those consenting) met the eligibility requirement (ages 17-40) and completed the baseline assessment.
Assignment: The quasi-experiment design assigned 200 participants who did not attend the first program session to an assessment-only control group and the remaining 335 who attended the first session to the intervention group.
Assessments/Attrition: Assessments occurred at baseline, posttest, and six-month follow-up. Attrition, defined as those not completing either of the two follow-up assessments, was 8.1%
Sample:
The female-identified sample averaged 21.7 years of age and included 49.7% whites, 9.2% Blacks, 9.7% East Asians, 14.6% South Asians, 8.2% Middle Eastern, 3.6% Indigenous persons, and 3.7% Hispanics.
Measures:
All measures came from student self-reports. The three primary outcomes of sexual assault came from the Sexual Experiences Survey and included measures of completed rape, attempted rape, and any rape. Risk and protective factors included perceived risk of acquaintance rape, self-defense self-efficacy, rape myth acceptance, belief in female precipitation of rape, and willingness to use effective rape resistance strategies. The scales had good reliabilities,
Analysis:
The primary analyses compared the incidence (first occurrence) of completed, attempted, and any rape between the control and intervention groups using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and the log-rank test. The secondary analyses of risk and protective factors used linear mixed models. To account for the correlation among observations within group sessions, variance estimates were appropriately inflated for within-session clustering using estimates of the design effect. None of the models included controls for baseline outcomes.
Missing Data Method: The analyses included all participants who completed one or more post-baseline surveys. The linear mixed models likely used FIML estimates.
Intent-to-Treat: The CONSORT diagram shows that the study dropped four intervention participants (< 1%) who did not attend the Assess program session. Otherwise, only those participants who completed neither of the two follow-up assessments were excluded.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity:
Not examined
Baseline Equivalence:
Table 3 showed no significant baseline differences between the conditions on four outcome measures of risk and protective factors, but the study did not test for baseline sociodemographic measures or behavioral outcomes.
Differential Attrition:
The study did not present tests using baseline measures, but the overall level of attrition combined with condition differences in attrition showed that the study met the What Works Clearinghouse optimistic standard but not the cautious standard.
Posttest:
For the primary outcomes, Table 2 shows that the intervention group reported significantly fewer completed rapes but not fewer attempted rapes or any rapes. For the secondary outcomes, Table 3 showed significant effects on four risk and protective factors at both posttest and six-month follow-up. Table 4 showed that the intervention group, compared to the control group, indicated significantly greater willingness to use forceful verbal and physical resistance strategies in a hypothetical situation.
Long-Term:
Not examined.