Middle School Effects of the Dating Matters® Comprehensive Teen Dating Violence Prevention Model on Physical Violence, Bullying, and Cyberbullying: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Alana M Vivolo-Kantor, Phyllis Holditch Niolon, Lianne Fuino Estefan, Vi Donna Le, Allison J Tracy, Natasha E Latzman, Todd D Little, Kyle M Lang, Sarah DeGue, Andra Teten Tharp, Alana M Vivolo-Kantor, Phyllis Holditch Niolon, Lianne Fuino Estefan, Vi Donna Le, Allison J Tracy, Natasha E Latzman, Todd D Little, Kyle M Lang, Sarah DeGue, Andra Teten Tharp

Abstract

Few comprehensive primary prevention approaches for youth have been evaluated for effects on multiple types of violence. Dating Matters®: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships (Dating Matters) is a comprehensive teen dating violence (TDV) prevention model designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and evaluated using a longitudinal stratified cluster-randomized controlled trial to determine effectiveness for preventing TDV and promoting healthy relationship behaviors among middle school students. In this study, we examine the prevention effects on secondary outcomes, including victimization and perpetration of physical violence, bullying, and cyberbullying. This study examined the effectiveness of Dating Matters compared to a standard-of-care TDV prevention program in 46 middle schools in four high-risk urban communities across the USA. The analytic sample (N = 3301; 53% female; 50% Black, non-Hispanic; and 31% Hispanic) consisted of 6th-8th grade students who had an opportunity for exposure to Dating Matters in all three grades or the standard-of-care in 8th grade only. Results demonstrated that both male and female students attending schools implementing Dating Matters reported 11% less bullying perpetration and 11% less physical violence perpetration than students in comparison schools. Female Dating Matters students reported 9% less cyberbullying victimization and 10% less cyberbullying perpetration relative to the standard-of-care. When compared to an existing evidence-based intervention for TDV, Dating Matters demonstrated protective effects on physical violence, bullying, and cyberbullying for most groups of students. The Dating Matters comprehensive prevention model holds promise for reducing multiple forms of violence among middle school-aged youth. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01672541.

Keywords: Bullying; Cyberbullying; Dating Matters; Randomized controlled trial; Violence prevention; Youth violence.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Percent relative risk reduction by outcome (M, range) for Dating Matters vs. standard-of-care. Note: Relative risk reduction represents the percent reduction in scores on measures of victimization and perpetration of bullying, cyberbullying, and physical fighting for the Dating Matters condition relative to the standard-of-care condition. The numbers within the circles represent the average risk reduction for that outcome across the 4 groups (sex by cohort), and the space between the diamonds represent the range of relative risk reduction on that outcome across the four groups
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bullying perpetration across time by sex and cohort. Note: SC = standard-of-care condition; DM = Dating Matters condition. Percent of Maximum Score (POMS) refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Mean POMS scores have been constrained to be equal when not significantly different; non-overlapping lines at any time point represent a statistically significant group difference
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cyberbullying perpetration across time by sex and cohort. Note: SC = standard-of-care condition; DM = Dating Matters condition. Percent of Maximum Score (POMS) refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Mean POMS scores have been constrained to be equal when not significantly different; non-overlapping lines at any time point represent a statistically significant group difference
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Cyberbullying victimization across time by sex and cohort. Note: SC = Standard-of-care condition; DM = Dating Matters condition. Percent of Maximum Score (POMS) refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Mean POMS scores have been constrained to be equal when not significantly different; non-overlapping lines at any time point represent a statistically significant group difference
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Physical violence perpetration across time by sex and cohort. Note: SC = standard-of-care condition; DM = Dating Matters condition. Percent of Maximum Score (POMS) refers to the maximum possible score given the number of items and response categories in a scale, rather than the maximum observed score. Mean POMS scores have been constrained to be equal when not significantly different; non-overlapping lines at any time point represent a statistically significant group difference

References

    1. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing and sexual harassment in America’s schools. Washington, DC.
    1. Bender D, Lösel F. Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2011;21:99–106. doi: 10.1002/cbm.799.
    1. Botvin GJ, Griffin KW, Diaz T, Ifill-Williams M. Preventing binge drinking during early adolescence: One-and two-year follow-up of a school-based preventive intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2001;15:360. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.15.4.360.
    1. Botvin GJ, Griffin KW, Nichols TR. Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal school-based prevention approach. Prevention Science. 2006;7:403–408. doi: 10.1007/s11121-006-0057-y.
    1. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse. 2012;3:231–280. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2016). Preventing multiple forms of violence: A strategic vision for connecting the dots. Atlanta, GA: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    1. Crooks CV, Scott K, Ellis W, Wolfe DA. Impact of a universal school-based violence prevention program on violent delinquency: Distinctive benefits for youth with maltreatment histories. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2011;35:393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.002.
    1. Elgar FJ, Craig W, Boyce W, Morgan A, Vella-Zarb R. Income inequality and school bullying: Multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45:351–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.004.
    1. Esbensen FA, Carson DC. Consequences of being bullied: Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of American students. Youth & Society. 2009;41:209–233. doi: 10.1177/0044118X09351067.
    1. Espelage DL, Holt MK. Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 2001;2:123–142. doi: 10.1300/J135v02n02_08.
    1. Espelage DL, Basile KC, Hamburger ME. Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;50:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.015.
    1. Espelage DL, Basile KC, De La Rue L, Hamburger ME. Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2015;30:2541–2561. doi: 10.1177/0886260514553113.
    1. Estefan, L. F., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Niolon P. H., et al. (2019). Effects of the Dating Matters® comprehensive prevention model on health- and delinquency-related risk behaviors in middle school youth: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. (under review)
    1. Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK, Turner HA. Polyvictimization: A neglected component in child victimization trauma. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007;31:7–26. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008.
    1. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Linder GF, Benefield T, Suchindran C. Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:619–624. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.4.619.
    1. Foshee VA, Reyes HLM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Basile KC, Chang LY, Faris R, Ennett ST. Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2014;55:439–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.03.004.
    1. Foshee VA, Reyes LM, Agnew-Brune CB, Simon TR, Vagi KJ, Lee RD, Suchindran C. The effects of the evidence-based Safe Dates dating abuse prevention program on other youth violence outcomes. Prevention Science. 2014;15:907–916. doi: 10.1007/s11121-014-0472-4.
    1. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Reyes M, Luz H, Eastman M, Vivolo-Kantor AM, et al. Examining explanations for the link between bullying perpetration and physical dating violence perpetration: Do they vary by bullying victimization? Aggressive Behavior. 2016;42:66–81. doi: 10.1002/ab.21606.
    1. Foshee VA, Reyes HLM, Chen MS, Ennett ST, Basile KC, DeGue S, et al. Shared risk factors for the perpetration of physical dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment among adolescents exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016;45:672–686. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0404-z.
    1. Greenberg MT, Domitrovich C, Bumbarger B. The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment. 2001;4:1–59.
    1. Griffin KW, Botvin GJ, Nichols TR. Long-term follow-up effects of a school-based drug abuse prevention program on adolescent risky driving. Prevention Science. 2004;5:207–212. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000037643.78420.74.
    1. Hertz MF, Everett Jones S, Barrios L, David-Ferdon C, Holt M. Association between bullying victimization and health risk behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of School Health. 2015;85:833–842. doi: 10.1111/josh.12339.
    1. Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012;17:311–322. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003.
    1. Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Queen B, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2017. MMWR Surveillance Summary. 2018;67:1–479. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1.
    1. Kazdin AE, Weisz JR. Identifying and developing empirically supported child and adolescent treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1998;66:19–36. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.19.
    1. Lang KM, Little TD. Principled missing data treatments. Prevention Science. 2018;19:284–294. doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0644-5.
    1. Little TD. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013. pp. 1–386.
    1. Little TD, Lopez DF. Regularities in the development of children’s causality beliefs about school performance across six sociocultural contexts. Developmental Psychology. 1997;33:165–175. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.165.
    1. Margolin G, Vickerman KA, Oliver PH, Gordis EB. Violence exposure in multiple interpersonal domains: Cumulative and differential effects. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010;47:198–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.020.
    1. Mercy J, Butchart A, Farrington D, Cerdá M. Youth violence. In: Krug E, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R, editors. World report on violence and health. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2002. pp. 25–56.
    1. Miller E, Tancredi DJ, McCauley HL, Decker MR, Virata MCD, Anderson HA, et al. “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;51:431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.018.
    1. Muthén LK, & Muthén, B.O. Mplus user’s guide. 7th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2012.
    1. Niolon PH, Taylor BG, Latzman NE, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Valle LA, Tharp AT. Lessons learned in evaluating a multisite, comprehensive teen dating violence prevention strategy: Design and challenges of the evaluation of dating matters: Strategies to promote healthy teen relationships. Psychology of Violence. 2016;6:452. doi: 10.1037/vio0000043.
    1. Niolon, P., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Tracy, A. J., et al. (2019). An RCT of dating matters: Effects on teen dating violence and relationship behaviors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
    1. Olweus D. A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2005;11:389–402. doi: 10.1080/10683160500255471.
    1. Rigby K. Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2003;48:583–590. doi: 10.1177/070674370304800904.
    1. Salmivalli C, Huttunen A, Lagerspetz KM. Peer networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 1997;38:305–312. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00040.
    1. Song LY, Singer MI, Anglin TM. Violence exposure and emotional trauma as contributors to adolescents’ violent behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1998;152:531–536. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.152.6.531.
    1. Tharp AT. Dating matters™: The next generation of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science. 2012;13:398–401. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0307-0.
    1. Tharp AT, Burton T, Freire K, Hall DM, Harrier S, Latzman NE, et al. Dating Matters™: Strategies to promote healthy teen relationships. Journal of Women's Health. 2011;20:1761–1765. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2011.3177.
    1. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F. School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012;17:405–418. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002.
    1. Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Ormrod R. Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;38:323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.012.
    1. Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2018). Benefit-cost of life skills training. Assessed at.
    1. Wolfe DA, Crooks CV, Jaffe P, et al. A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2009;163:692–699. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다