Program Profile: Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (2006)

Study Title: “Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Risk Reduction and Self-Defense Program: A Prospective Analysis of a Revised Protocol.” (which is associated with Outcome 1, Outcome 2, and Outcome 3)

Research Design

Orchowski and Colleagues (2008) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a modified version of the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (with a self-defense component), also known as the Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program, at a medium-sized midwestern university. Participants included 300 undergraduate women enrolled in psychology courses. The study was advertised as a study of educational programming for women. Participants volunteered for the study using an online sign-up system. All program sessions were conducted in classrooms in the Department of Psychology. 

Sample

College women were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (n = 157) or the placebo-control group (n = 143). The treatment group received a sexual assault risk reduction program that consisted of an interactive course, a feminist self-defense course, and a booster-session review of program material. The content of the placebo-control group intervention focused on vaccine-preventable diseases and was designed not to overlap with the content of the treatment group intervention. The placebo-control group intervention was the same length as the risk reduction program and also incorporated video segments, a presentation, facilitated discussions, and a booster-session review of program material. 

The majority of women were first- or second-year college students (95 percent), 18 or 19 years old (91 percent), and identified as nonmarried (100 percent) and heterosexual (98 percent). Ninety-six percent identified as Caucasian, 3 percent as African American, 0.3 percent as Asian American, and 0.7 percent as other race/ethnicity. Eight percent reported previous participation in a sexual assault risk reduction program and 13 percent reported previous participation in a self-defense program. Experiences of adolescent sexual victimization (i.e., unwanted sexual experiences from age 14 to the pretest assessment) were reported by 39 percent of the participants. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group participants in age, ethnicity, academic rank, and family income; past participation in a sexual assault risk reduction program or self-defense course; and history of sexual victimization. There were baseline differences on program outcome measures. Program participants reported statistically significantly higher levels of self-protective dating behaviors compared with control group participants at the baseline assessment.

Data Collection/Outcome Measures 

The outcomes scored for the CrimeSolutions review of this study were assertive sexual communication, self-protective dating behaviors, and self-efficacy (in responding to risky dating situations). Assertive sexual communication was assessed using the Sexual Communication Survey. Participants reported the frequency with which they engage in open sexual communication with their partner regarding a range of topics, such as sexual likes and dislikes (e.g., “Do you ever end up allowing a guy that you go out with to kiss you when you don’t really want to, not because you feel forced or coerced, but because of some other concern [such as wanting him to like you or being too embarrassed to talk about it]?”). Responses were provided on a seven-point scale, ranging from never to always. Self-protective dating behavior was assessed using the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Participants reported the frequency with which they engage in a series of 15 behaviors used to protect themselves from sexual victimization (e.g., “How often do you pay attention to your dating partner’s drug/alcohol intake?”). Responses were provided on a six-point scale, ranging from never to always. Confidence in performing an array of assertive responses in threatening dating situations was assessed by seven items on the Self-Efficacy Scale (e.g., “If a man you were with was attempting to get you to have sex with him and you were not interested, how confident are you that you could successfully resist his advances?”). Responses were provided on a seven-point scale, ranging from not at all confident to very confident. Data were collected at pretest, at the two-month follow-up, and at the four-month follow-up over the course of one academic year (the CrimeSolutions Review of this study focused on four-month follow-up measures).

Statistical Analysis 

For each outcome measure, the authors reported means and standard deviations for both the treatment group and the placebo-control group. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Citation:

Orchowski, Lindsay M., Christine A. Gidycz, and Holly Raffle. 2008. “Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Risk Reduction and Self-Defense Program: A Prospective Analysis of a Revised Protocol.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 32(2):204–218.

Study Title: "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." (which is associated with Outcome 1, Outcome 2, and Outcome 3)

Research Design

Gidycz and Colleagues (2015) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a modified version of the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program (with a self-defense component), also known as the Sexual Assault Risk Reduction program, at a medium-sized midwestern university, where students were required to live on campus during their first year. The program was tailored to women and participation was voluntary. The intervention was implemented concurrently with a sexual assault prevention program for men within a residence-hall setting. The content and results of the sexual assault prevention program for men are described in a companion paper (Gidycz et al. 2011). 

Sample

First-year residence halls were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. A total of 650 women living in campus residence halls for first-year students volunteered to take part in the study. However, women in both conditions dropped out of the study between baseline and the 4-month (n = 555) and 7-month (n = 535) follow-up.  Women living in residence halls assigned to the treatment group (n = 207) received a sexual assault risk reduction program, which included an initial interactive course, a feminist self-defense workshop, and a booster-session review of program material. Intervention components were manualized and administered in the residence hall. Women in control-group (n = 297) residence halls only completed questionnaires and were offered the opportunity to complete the sexual assault risk reduction program following the completion of the study. 

The majority of women were 18 or 19 years old (98 percent), unmarried (99 percent), and reported that they were heterosexual (98 percent). Nearly 91 percent of women identified as Caucasian (n = 597), 4 percent as African American, 2 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 1 percent as Asian, 0.8 percent as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.5 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1 percent as other race/ethnicity. Descriptive characteristics (i.e., age, race, ethnicity, family income, and history of sexual victimization) and outcome measures did not differ between groups at baseline. 

Data Collection/Outcome Measures

The outcomes scored for the CrimeSolutions review of this study were assertive sexual communication, self-protective dating behavior, and self-efficacy (in responding to risky dating situations). Assertiveness in sexual situations was assessed with the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women. Participants responded to 30 items on a five-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure included the Relational Sexual Assertiveness (RSA) subscale. Use of protective behaviors to decrease risk for sexual victimization was assessed by the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Participants responded to 15 items on a six-point scale, ranging from never to always. Women’s confidence in performing an array of assertive responses in threatening dating situations was assessed with the Self-Efficacy Scale. Participants responded to seven items on a seven-point scale, ranging from not at all confident to very confident. Data were collected at pretest, the four-month follow-up, and the seven-month follow-up over the course of two academic years (the CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on seven-month follow-up measures).

Statistical Analysis

For each outcome measure, the authors reported means and standard deviations for both the treatment group and the control group. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Citation:

Gidycz, Christine A., Lindsay M. Orchowski, Danielle R. Probst, Katie M. Edwards, Megan Murphy, and Erin Tansill. 2015. "Concurrent Administration of Sexual Assault Prevention and Risk Reduction Programming: Outcomes for Women." Violence Against Women 21(6):780–800.