Study
Senn and colleagues (2015) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Sexual Assault Resistance program on sexual assault measures at the 1-year follow up among 451 female university students, from September 2011 to February 2013. The treatment group (n = 451) and control group (n = 442) consisted of first-year female college students, 17 to 24 years, at one large university and two midsized universities in Ontario, Canada. While the treatment group was enrolled in the sexual assault resistance program, the control group had access to sexual assault brochures similar to those that would be available in a campus clinic or counseling center.
The average age of EAAA program participants was 18.5, and most program participants (72.1 percent) were white and identified as heterosexual (91.8 percent). The average age of control group participants was also 18.5, and most program participants (73.8 percent) were white and identified as heterosexual (91.6 percent). There were no significant differences between the groups on baseline characteristics, except for nonconsensual contact. Control group students were more likely to have experienced nonconsensual sexual contact than treatment group students.
The primary outcome, completed rape, was measured via the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) at the 1-year follow up. Other outcomes, also measured using the SES-SFV, included attempted rape, nonconsensual sexual acts, coercion, and attempted coercion. The outcome data was examined using a modified intention-to-treat population (which included participants who completed post-randomization surveys). Kaplan–Meier failure curves (indicating the cumulative percentage of completed rapes against women in the respective groups) and log-rank tests were used to compare the incidence of completed rape between the EAAA treatment group and control group. The other outcomes were examined using discrete-time survival analyses, which used a complementary log–log regression model. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the potential effect of previous victimization on program outcomes.