Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention

Violence Clinical Trial

Official title:

Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02083302
• Other study ID #: 07-412M
• Secondary ID: 1R01CE001855-01
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: March 3, 2014
• Last updated: March 7, 2014
• Start date: June 2010
• Est. completion date: February 2012

Study information

• Verified date: March 2014
• Source: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a bystander intervention education program on college students' attitudes and behaviors associated with bystander intervention and sexual violence.

Description:

This study used a randomized control trial, longitudinal design to determine the impact of a peer education theater intervention on undergraduate student attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence and bystander intervention. Students were assigned to either an experimental group (receiving 3-4 doses of the intervention ) or a comparison group (receiving 1 dose only) and were surveyed six times over an 18 month period.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 4385
• Est. completion date: February 2012
• Est. primary completion date: February 2012
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years to 21 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Incoming first year students in the fall semester of 2010

• Age 18 - 21

• Attended Summer Orientation session

Exclusion Criteria:

• Incoming transfer students

• Younger than 18 or older than 21

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Prevention

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Assaultive Behavior
• Helping Behavior
• Sexual Assault and Rape
• Violence

Intervention

Behavioral:
• SCREAM Theater Dose 1
Intervention 1: A three part program: a skit acted out by peer educators that depicts a sexual assault; an in-character question and answer session; and an out-of-character information session.
• SCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3
Dose 2: Scenes from the skit from Session 1 are re-created with small groups of students, but stop at certain points to allow audience members to explore different bystander intervention possibilities. Dose 3: The six scenes outlined in Session 2 are presented individually to small groups of student participants; specifically outlining potential points of bystander intervention.
• SCREAM Theater Dose 4
Booster Session

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey	New Brunswick	New Jersey

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (2)

McMahon S, Allen CT, Postmus JL, McMahon SM, Peterson NA, Lowe Hoffman M. Measuring bystander attitudes and behavior to prevent sexual violence. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62(1):58-66. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2013.849258. — View Citation

McMahon, S., Hoffman, M., McMahon, S.M., Zucker, S. & Koenick, R.A. (2013). What Would You Do? Strategies for Bystander Intervention to Prevent Sexual Violence by College Students. Journal of College and Character, 14(2), p.141-152.

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Bystander Intentions	To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to three months	No
Primary	Bystander Intentions	To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to six months	No
Primary	Bystander Intentions	To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to eight months	No
Primary	Bystander Intentions	To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to fifteen months	No
Primary	Bystander Intentions	To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Bystander Friend Norms	To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely."Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to three months	No
Secondary	Bystander Friend Norms	To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to six months	No
Secondary	Bystander Friend Norms	To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Bystander Friend Norms	To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Bystander Friend Norms	To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Bystander Efficacy	To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to three months	No
Secondary	Bystander Efficacy	To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do").Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to six months	No
Secondary	Bystander Efficacy	To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Bystander Efficacy	To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Bystander Efficacy	To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Bystander Behavior	To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to three months	No
Secondary	Bystander Behavior	To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to six months	No
Secondary	Bystander Behavior	To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation". Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Bystander Behavior	To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Bystander Behavior	To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation". Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Rape Myth Acceptance	A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to three months	No
Secondary	Rape Myth Acceptance	A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to six months	No
Secondary	Rape Myth Acceptance	A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Rape Myth Acceptance	A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Rape Myth Acceptance	A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence	For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to three months	No
Secondary	Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence	For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to six months	No
Secondary	Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence	For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence	For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence	For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to twenty months	No
Secondary	Sexual Violence Perpetration	Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.	Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to three months	No
Secondary	Sexual Violence Perpetration	Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).	Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to six months	No
Secondary	Sexual Violence Perpetration	Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.	Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to eight months	No
Secondary	Sexual Violence Perpetration	Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via(1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.	Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to fifteen months	No
Secondary	Sexual Violence Perpetration	Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.	Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to twenty months	No

External Links

•   Information on research projects at VAWC