Me & You-Tech: A Socio-Ecological Solution to Teen Dating Violence for the Digital Age (MYTech)

The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate a multi-level (youth, parent, school) Internet-based dating violence prevention program, 'Me & You-Tech' (MYT) for 6th-grade middle school students.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Domestic Violence; Adolescent Behavior; Interpersonal Relations; Physical Violence
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Me & You - Tech

Detailed Description

The purpose of this three year study is to develop and evaluate Me & You - Tech, a computer-based healthy relationships and dating violence prevention curriculum for 6th grade students. The curriculum will be developed and adapted from an existing effective healthy relationship curriculum, Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships. A randomized two-arm design will be conducted among 6th grade students, where students receiving the curriculum were compared to students receiving usual care. Four middle schools participated in the study, 2 schools were randomly assigned to receive the curriculum and two to receive usual care. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 months following completion of the intervention, and 9 months after baseline. Parental permission and student assent were obtained prior to administration of the surveys. The primary hypothesis is that students who receive the curriculum will have significantly lower teen dating violence perpetration than those who do not receive the curriculum.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 123
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Texas
    • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
      • University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 11 years to 14 years (Child)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• 6th grade student
• Currently attending a middle school

Exclusion Criteria:

• Previous participation in usability and feasibility testing
• Inability to complete activities
• Inability to read English
• Lack of home internet connectivity

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

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intervention; Students randomized to the intervention group will receive Me & You Tech in place of their standard health education.	Behavioral: Me & You - Tech; The 13 MYT lessons will train youth to adopt a zero tolerance approach to dating violence (DV) and contain activities to enable youth to recognize healthy (non-abusive) and unhealthy (abusive) relationships, assess their own relationships, and adopt and practice a lifestyle paradigm of select-detect-protect informed by SCT self-regulatory frameworks. Within this lifestyle paradigm, youth select their personal rules to have only healthy (non-abusive) relationships, detect unhealthy (abusive) relationships that might threaten their rules, and learn to protect their rules using communication, management, and avoidance skills. MYT will tailor content by gender, relationship status, and the youth's DV profile of perpetration or victimization based on the Conflict in Adolescent Dating and Relationship Inventory (CADRI).
No Intervention: Control; Students assigned to the standard care condition will receive their usual health education which usually includes knowledge-based content on violence prevention taught from the state textbook

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Any Type of Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). The scale has a count score ranging from 0-34. If the score is 1 or more, teen dating violence perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report perpetration.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Any Type of Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). The scale has a count score ranging from 0-34. If the score is 1 or more, teen dating violence perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Any Type of Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). The scale has a count score ranging from 0-34. If the score is 1 or more, teen dating violence victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Any Type of Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). The scale has a count score ranging from 0-34. If the score is 1 or more, teen dating violence victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report victimization.	6 months after baseline

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Psychological Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Psychological Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological perpetration.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Psychological Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Psychological Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Psychological Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Psychological Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Psychological Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Psychological Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological victimization.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Physical Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Physical Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical perpetration.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Physical Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Physical Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Physical Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Physical Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Physical Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Physical Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical victimization.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Sexual Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Sexual Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual perpetration item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual perpetration.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Sexual Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Sexual Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual perpetration item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Sexual Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Sexual Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual victimization item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Sexual Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Sexual Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual victimization item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual victimization.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Digital Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by a Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire - Perpetrator Subscale	The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber perpetration.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Digital Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire - Perpetrator Subscale	The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Digital Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire - Victimization Subscale	The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Digital Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire - Victimization Subscale	The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse victimization subscale with a total score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber victimization.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Perpetrated Threatening Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Threatening Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening perpetration.	Baseline
Number Youth Who Perpetrated Threatening Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Threatening Perpetration Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Threatening Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Threatening Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Reported are the participants with a score of 1 or more and 0. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening victimization.	Baseline
Number of Youth Who Were Victimized by Threatening Teen Dating Violence as Assessed by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) - Threatening Victimization Subscale	The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Reported are the participants with a score of 1 or more and 0. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening victimization.	6 months after baseline
Student Norms Toward Violence as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey - Boys Aggressing Girls Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.	Baseline
Student Norms Toward Violence as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey - Boys Aggressing Girls Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.	about 2 months after intervention
Student Norms Toward Violence as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey - Boys Aggressing Girls Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.	6 months after intervention
Student Norms Toward Violence as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey- Girls Aggressing Boys Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 4-item girls aggressing boys subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of girls aggressing boys under certain circumstances.	Baseline
Student Norms Toward Violence as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey- Girls Aggressing Boys Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 4-item girls aggressing boys subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of girls aggressing boys under certain circumstances.	About 2 months after baseline
Student Norms Toward Violence for Girls as Assessed by the Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey - Girls Aggressing Boy Subscale	The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire to assess among adolescents' perceptions of their norm toward violence for boys and girls. A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item. Then a composite score is created. The higher the number the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.	6 months after baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Constructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.	Baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Constructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.	about 2 months after baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Constructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.	6 months after baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Destructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.	Baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Destructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.	about 2 months after baseline
Conflict Resolution Skills as Assessed by the Destructive Conflict Resolution Skill Subscale	Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills measure communication skills. A 7-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item. Subscale total score was created as a composite score ranging from 0 to 3 with the higher scores indicated greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.	6 months after baseline
Attitudes Towards Sexting as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.	Baseline
Attitudes Towards Sexting as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.	about 2 months after intervention
Attitudes Towards Sexting as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.	6 months after intervention
Perceived Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.	Baseline
Perceived Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.	about 2 months after Baseline
Perceived Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.	6 months after Baseline
Perceived Frequency of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.	Baseline
Perceived Frequency of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.	about 2 months after baseline
Perceived Frequency of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.	6 months after baseline
Perceived Helpfulness of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.	Baseline
Perceived Helpfulness of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.	about 2 months after baseline
Perceived Helpfulness of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.	6 months after baseline
Perceived Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.	Baseline
Perceived Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.	about 2 months after baseline
Perceived Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.	6 months after baseline
Perceived Parental Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.	Baseline
Perceived Parental Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.	about 2 months after baseline
Perceived Parental Comfort of Parental Communication About Different Topics as Assessed by One-Item From an Adapted Version of the Modified Miller Communication Scale	This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.	6 months after baseline
Perceived Confidence in Communication About Different Topics With Parent as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.	Baseline
Perceived Confidence in Communication About Different Topics With Parent as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.	about 2 months after baseline
Perceived Confidence in Communication About Different Topics With Parent as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Attitudes Towards Need for Consent as Assessed by the Adapted Version of the Sexual Consent Scale-Revised	An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.	Baseline
Youth's Attitudes Towards Need for Consent as Assessed by the Adapted Version of the Sexual Consent Scale-Revised	An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.	about 2 months after baseline
Youth's Attitudes Towards Need for Consent as Assessed by the Adapted Version of the Sexual Consent Scale-Revised	An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.	6 months after baseline
Knowledge of the Select, Detect, Protect Decision-Making Paradigm as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.	Baseline
Knowledge of the Select, Detect, Protect Decision-Making Paradigm as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.	about 2 months after baseline
Knowledge of the Select, Detect, Protect Decision-Making Paradigm as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.	6 months after baseline
Responsible Decision-Making as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Responsible Decision-Making Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.	Baseline
Responsible Decision-Making as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Responsible Decision-Making Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.	about 2 months after baseline
Responsible Decision-Making as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Responsible Decision-Making Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.	6 months after baseline
Emotional Regulation as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Emotional Regulation Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.	Baseline
Emotional Regulation as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Emotional Regulation Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.	about 2 months after baseline
Emotional Regulation as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - The Emotional Regulation Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Goal Management as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Goal Management Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals	Baseline
Youth's Goal Management as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Goal Management Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals	about 2 months after baseline
Youth's Goal Management as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Goal Management Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals	6 months after baseline
Youth's Emotional Knowledge as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Emotional Knowledge Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.	Baseline
Youth's Emotional Knowledge as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Emotional Knowledge Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.	about 2 months after baseline
Youth's Emotional Knowledge as Assessed by the Social and Emotional Competency Assessment - Emotional Knowledge Subscale	The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Likeliness to Seek Help From a Parent/Caregiver as Assessed by One Item From the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire	One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.	Baseline
Youth's Likeliness to Seek Help From a Parent/Caregiver as Assessed by One Item From the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire	One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.	about 2 months after baseline
Youth's Likeliness to Seek Help From a Parent/Caregiver as Assessed by One Item From the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire	One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.	6 months after baseline
Bullying Perpetration as Assessed by Adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students - Bully Perpetration Subscale	The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Perpetration subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Perpetrators are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.	Baseline
Bullying Perpetration as Assessed by Adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students - Bully Perpetration Subscale	The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Perpetration subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Perpetrators are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.	6 months after baseline
Bully Victimization as Assessed by Adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students - Bully Victimization Subscale	The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Victimization subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Victims are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.	Baseline
Bully Victimization as Assessed by Adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students - Bully Victimization Subscale	The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Victimization subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Victims are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Perception of Caregiver Communication as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This one item assesses youth's perception of the frequency with which their caregiver engaged in critical communication with them during the past month (adapted from Foshee et al., 2012). The item was scored as 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time) with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of critical communication.	Baseline
Youth's Perception of Caregiver Communication as Assessed by a One-Item Questionnaire	This one item assesses youth's perception of the frequency with which their caregiver engaged in critical communication with them during the past month (adapted from Foshee et al., 2012). The item was scored as 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time) with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of critical communication.	6 months after baseline
Youth Perception of Caregiver Rules About Dating as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 7-item scale assesses youth's perception of the number of caregiver's rules about dating (Foshee et al., 2012). Responses include yes and no for each item; for four of the items, there was also a 'don't know' option. Total average score ranges from 0 to 7, with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of the number (or count) of rules their caregiver has about dating.	Baseline
Youth Perception of Caregiver Rules About Dating as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 7-item scale assesses youth's perception of the number of caregiver's rules about dating (Foshee et al., 2012). Responses include yes and no for each item; for four of the items, there was also a 'don't know' option. Total average score ranges from 0 to 7, with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of the number (or count) of rules their caregiver has about dating.	6 months after baseline
Youth Perception of Parental Monitoring as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 5-item scale assesses youth's perception of how much their parents or caregivers know about what the youth is doing with regards to their friends, how they spend their money, etc. (Brown et al., 1993). The items were scored as 1 (don't know much) to 4 (know a lot) with a total average score ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of parental monitoring.	Baseline
Youth Perception of Parental Monitoring as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 5-item scale assesses youth's perception of how much their parents or caregivers know about what the youth is doing with regards to their friends, how they spend their money, etc. (Brown et al., 1993). The items were scored as 1 (don't know much) to 4 (know a lot) with a total average score ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of parental monitoring.	6 months after baseline
Youth Perceived Parental Closeness as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 6-item scale assesses youth's perception of their perceived closeness with their parent/caregiver (Vazsonyi et al., 2003). It is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each item with an average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater parental closeness.	Baseline
Youth Perceived Parental Closeness as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 6-item scale assesses youth's perception of their perceived closeness with their parent/caregiver (Vazsonyi et al., 2003). It is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each item with an average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater parental closeness.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Perception of Their School Climate as Assessed by Survey Items From the Dating Matters School Educator Survey	This 4-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses youth perception of the general school climate (Niolon et al., 2019). Each item is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a total average score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of school climate.	Baseline
Youth's Perception of Their School Climate as Assessed by Survey Items From the Dating Matters School Educator Survey	This 4-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses youth perception of the general school climate (Niolon et al., 2019). Each item is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a total average score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of school climate.	6 months after baseline
Youth's Perception of Their School's Teen Dating Violence Climate as Assessed by Survey Items From the Dating Matters School Educator Survey	This 6-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses the perceived frequency with which certain behaviors are observed among students who are dating in the school. This was scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Often) with a total average score ranging from 0-3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of observing the behaviors.	Baseline
Youth's Perception of Their School's Teen Dating Violence Climate as Assesed by Survey Items From the Dating Matters School Educator Survey	This 6-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses the perceived frequency with which certain behaviors are observed among students who are dating in the school. This was scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Often) with a total average score ranging from 0-3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of observing the behaviors.	6 months after baseline
Knowledge of Human Trafficking as Assessed by a Questionnaire	A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.	Baseline
Knowledge of Human Trafficking as Assessed by a Questionnaire	A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.	about 2 months after baseline
Knowledge of Human Trafficking as Assessed by a Questionnaire	A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.	6 months after baseline
Perception of Positive Relationship Skills as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 4-item questionnaire assesses youth perception of the frequency with which their most recent dating partner engaged in positive relationship skills with them (Niolon et al., 2019). The items are scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always) with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of more positive relationship skills.	Baseline
Perception of Positive Relationship Skills as Assessed by a Questionnaire	This 4-item questionnaire assesses youth perception of the frequency with which their most recent dating partner engaged in positive relationship skills with them (Niolon et al., 2019). The items are scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always) with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of more positive relationship skills.	6 months after baseline
Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors as Assessed by the Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration Subscale	The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 4-item 'Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in in-person or electronic dating violence perpetration. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer in-person and electronic dating violence perpetration.	Baseline
Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors as Assessed by the Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration Subscale	The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 4-item 'Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in in-person or electronic dating violence perpetration. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer in-person and electronic dating violence perpetration.	6 months after baseline
Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors as Assessed by the Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting Subscale	The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 3-item 'Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in substance use and fighting. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer substance use and fighting.	Baseline
Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors as Assessed by the Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting Subscale	The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 3-item 'Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in substance use and fighting. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer substance use and fighting.	6 months after baseline

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
• Collaborators: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); University of Texas; Radiant Creative Group, LLC
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Melissa Peskin, PhD, University of Texas Houston School of Public Health; Principal Investigator: Ross Shegog, PhD, University of Texas Houston School of Public Health

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): October 1, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): December 14, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): December 14, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: January 24, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 24, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): February 4, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): December 24, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 19, 2025
• Last Verified: December 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: program evaluation; adolescent behavior; teen dating violence; interpersonal relationships; intimate partner violence; Violence/prevention & control; programs using technology
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Behavior; Adolescent Behavior
• Other Study ID Numbers: HSC-SPH-19-0253; R42HD100233-01 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No