Study 1
To investigate the impact of the Sexual Assault Risk Reduction program, Gidcyz and colleagues (2001) conducted a randomized controlled trial on a large college campus in Ohio. The study sample was 1,108 college students. The sample included 300 men and 808 women, which was demographically composed of Caucasian (93 percent), African American (5 percent), Asian (1.3 percent), Hispanic (0.6 percent), and Native American (0.1 percent) participants.
To determine program impact, the following outcome measures were used: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, Rape Empathy Scale, Attitudes Toward Women Scale, and the Sexual Experiences Survey. The Rape Myth Acceptance Scale was used to determine the degree to which participants believed rape myths. The Rape Empathy Scale was used to assess the degree to which participants empathized with rape victims or those convicted of raping them. The Attitudes Toward Women Scale was used to measure participants’ attitudes regarding the rights and roles of women. The Sexual Experiences Survey was used to measure the number of experiences of sexual aggression in men and sexual victimization in women.
All participants received and completed all 4 measures at the beginning of an academic quarter and then participated in either the prevention program or the control program. The control program consisted of a brief handout on sexual assault. Following completion of the treatment program or the control program, participants completed an evaluation form. Nine weeks after completion, participants in both programs returned to complete the 4 measures once again.
The study authors analyzed sexual victimization for women during the 9-week follow up as a function of their victimization history and participation in the treatment program. To do so, the level of victimization was categorized into three groups: no history of sexual victimization (no items on the scale were endorsed), moderate sexual victimization (items assessing unwanted sexual experiences other than rape), and rape (physical force or threats of force were used to coerce the woman into sexual intercourse). Additionally, the study authors analyzed sexual aggression for men during the 9-week follow-up period as a function of perpetration history and participation in the treatment program. The level of aggression was also categorized into three groups: 1) none, 2) moderate, and 3) rape.
Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the potential effect of previous victimization in female participants and level of previous sexual aggression in male participants on program outcomes.
Study 2
To investigate the impact of the modified Sexual Assault Risk Reduction program, Gidycz and colleagues (2006) conducted a randomized controlled trial at a medium-sized midwestern university. Participants included 500 undergraduate women who were recruited from a psychology department participant pool. The vast majority of women were 18 or 19 years old, and in their 1st or 2nd year of college. The demographic composition of participants consisted of Caucasian (93 percent), African American (3 percent), Asian American (3 percent), Latina (1 percent), and other (1 percent). Participants were randomly assigned to either the risk reduction program (n = 234) or the wait-list control group (n = 266). Following random assignment into the two groups, participants completed the outcome measures and were assessed for a history of sexual victimization.
The outcome measures included the Sexual Experiences Victimization Survey, the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Self-Protection Against Rape Scale, and, if applicable, the Post-Assault Questionnaire. The Self-Efficacy Scale is a 7-item self-report scale that measures confidence in assertive resistance to sexually threatening advances. The Self-Protection Against Rape Scale was used to measure participants’ willingness to use resistance in threatening dating situations. Finally, the Post-Assault Questionnaire was given to women in both groups who were assaulted during the follow-up periods. The questionnaire asked about the assault and their response to the assault.
During both the 3-month and 6-month follow-up sessions, participants completed these outcome measures again and completed the Sexual Experiences Survey with regard to their experiences during the interim period. These measures were used to analyze the differences between the treatment group and wait-list control group on sexual victimization, self-efficacy, protective dating behaviors, and sexual communication. No subgroup analyses were conducted.
Study 3
To investigate the impact of another modified version of the program, Orchowski and colleagues (2008) conducted a randomized controlled trial at a medium-sized midwestern university. Participants included 31 women enrolled in psychology courses, predominately 18–19 years old, and in their 1st or 2nd year of college. The demographical composition of the participants was Caucasian (96 percent), African American (3 percent), Asian American (0.3 percent), and other (0.7 percent). Participants were randomized into the treatment group or a placebo-control group. The placebo-control group protocol focused on vaccine-preventable diseases, was the same length as the prevention program, and included a booster session review of program material.
The following outcome measures were used: the Sexual Experiences Survey, Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. Additionally, a set of questions was used at the 4-month follow-up period to measure how women’s use of self-protective strategies and self-defense tactics differed between groups.
An analysis of variance was conducted to assess whether program participation was associated with increased levels of self-protective dating behaviors and self-efficacy in resisting potential attackers over the 4-month follow-up period, compared with the comparison condition. An analysis was also used to examine the interactions among program participation, history of adolescent victimization, and experiences of sexual victimization over the 2-month follow-up period, and sexual victimization over the 4-month follow-up period. No subgroup analyses were conducted.
