Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Violence; Helping Behavior; Sexual Assault and Rape; Assaultive Behavior
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 1; Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3; Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 4

Detailed 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.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 4385
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • New Jersey
    • New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States, 08901
      • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 21 years (Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

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 Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

3

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Treatment1; The Treatment1 group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1, SCREAM Theater Dose 2 and SCREAM Theater Dose 3.	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.; Behavioral: 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.
Experimental: Treatment2; The Treatment2 group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1, SCREAM Theater Dose 2, SCREAM Theater Dose 3 and SCREAM Theater Dose 4.	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.; Behavioral: 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.; Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 4; Booster Session
Other: Control; The control group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1.	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.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
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
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
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
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
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

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• Collaborators: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Sarah McMahon, PhD, Rutgers University School of Social Work; Principal Investigator: Judy Postmus, PhD, Rutgers University School of Social Work

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• 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.
• 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.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: June 1, 2010
• Primary Completion (Actual): February 1, 2012
• Study Completion (Actual): February 1, 2012

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 3, 2014
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 7, 2014
• First Posted (Estimate): March 11, 2014

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimate): March 11, 2014
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 7, 2014
• Last Verified: March 1, 2014

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: bystander intervention; campus sexual assault
• Other Study ID Numbers: 07-412M; 1R01CE001855-01 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)