An Evaluation of Two Dating Violence Prevention Programs on a College Campus
Embargo until
2015-05-01
Date
2014-04-17
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
Background: Dating violence is a serious and prevalent public health problem that is associated with numerous negative physical and psychological health outcomes (Black et al., 2011; Campbell, 2002; Glass et al., 2003; Sutherland, 2011; Vagi et al., 2013). There is limited research on prevention and intervention strategies to address the issue of dating violence (Coker et al., 2000; Glass et al., 2003; Shorey et al., 2012). The development and evaluation of evidence-based programs targeted at dating violence prevention is very important.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare a modified version of the Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2007) education program for dating violence prevention with a traditional awareness education program for dating violence prevention, as well as to no education, to determine which is more effective in changing attitudes, beliefs, perceived efficacy, intentions, and self-reported behaviors in college students.
Methods: The study used a quasi-experimental pre-test/ post-test design with follow up at 2 months post-intervention. A sample of predominately freshmen college students were randomized to either the bystander or traditional dating violence education intervention. There was also a control group of students who did not receive any education. Participants completed paper and pen survey measures that included: 1) Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale- Revised (IRMA-R), 2) Gender Violence Scale (GVS), 3) Bystander Efficacy Scale (BES), 4) Brief Intention to Help Scale (BIH), 5) Bystander Behavior Scale (BBS), 6) Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17), 7) Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS), 8) Sexual Experienced Survey (SES), and 9) Demographics. Data were collected at pre-test (T1), immediate post-test (T2), and 2 month follow-up (T3).
Sample: The sample was recruited from 28 freshmen seminar classes and 1 non-freshmen class at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. 1,279 students were eligible for the study. At T1, pre-test surveys were collected from 1,001 students. At T2, 745 surveys were collected following the educational interventions (no control students at T2 and 7% attrition from T1 in both education groups). At T3, 667 surveys were collected at 2 month follow-up (38% attrition from T1 in the bystander group, 51% attrition from T1 in the traditional group, and 22% attrition from T1 in the control group). Most of the attrition at T3 was due to instructors denying access to students in their classes at 2 month follow-up (N= 228 students), and there were no statistically significant differences between students who were retained at T3 and those who were not.
Data Analysis: A repeated measures MANCOVA (using social desirability as a covariate) was the primary analytic technique used to test the overall impacts of the educational programs across time points. The education group (traditional, bystander, and none) served as the independent variables, with each of the survey instruments measuring a dependent variable. In addition, paired sample t-tests were performed to further examine changes in scores across the groups.
Findings: When comparing the bystander and traditional education from T1 to T2, there was a significant time by group interaction when social desirability was controlled, F(4, 685)= 28.83, p<.001, Wilks’ Lambda= .86, partial η2=.14. Both the bystander group and the traditional awareness group showed significant (p<.003) positive changes in mean scores on outcome measures (decreased acceptance of rape myths and gender violence and increased efficacy and intention to help) from T1 to T2. At two month follow-up (T3), there was also a significant time by group interaction when social desirability was controlled, F(8, 402)= 9.07, p<.001, Wilks’ Lambda= .85, partial η2=.15. Although both groups did show evidence of decay from immediate post-test scores (T2), there were still significant (p<.003) positive changes in outcome measures for both groups from T1 to T3. The only exceptions to this were the significant changes in intention to help and self-reported bystander behaviors for the bystander group that were not significant in the traditional awareness education group. For the bystander group, there was a statistically significant increase in intention to help scores from T1 (M= 3.7, SD= 0.7) to T3 (M=4.1, SD= 0.6), t=-9.1, p<.003 and a statistically significant increase in self-reported bystander behaviors from T1 (M= 4.6, SD= 4.6) to T3 (M=7.0, SD= 5.8), t=-6.6, p<.003. Overall, the bystander group demonstrated more improvements than the traditional awareness group on all outcome measures at both T2 and T3.
The educational programs worked equally well for men and women, with both genders showing reductions in mean scores for rape myth and gender violence acceptance and increased efficacy, intention to help, and bystander behaviors. Time by group by gender interaction was not significant, F(4, 680)= 0.52, Wilks’ Lambda= .99, partial η2=.03. However, there were still significant (p<.003) differences in both pre-test and post-test outcome measures between men and women. Overall, women showed less acceptance of rape myths and gender violence and more efficacy, intention to help, and bystander behaviors. The educational programs also worked equally well for participants who reported victimization of abuse (both intimate partner abuse and sexual abuse) compared to those who did not report abuse victimization. There were non-significant effects for time by group by partner abuse interaction, F(4, 665)= 2.71, Wilks’ Lambda= .98, partial η2=.02 and for time by group by sexual abuse interaction, F(4, 683)= 1.34, Wilks’ Lambda= .99, partial η2=.01
Finally, when comparing the bystander and traditional education to no education from T1 to T3, there was a significant time by group interaction when social desirability was controlled, F(8, 1162)= 17.06, p<.001, Wilks’ Lambda= .80, partial η2=.11. The no-education group did not show significant changes in mean scores for acceptance of rape myths and gender violence or perceived efficacy from T1 to T3. Intention to help showed a significant negative change, with intention to help decreasing from T1 (M=3.6, SD=0.7) to T3 (M= 3.4, SD= 0.8), t=3.2, p<.003 for the no education group. Bystander behaviors also showed a significant negative change, with self-reported behaviors decreasing from T1 (M=4.9, SD=4.3) to T3 (M= 3.7, SD= 4.3), t=3.8, p<.003 for the no education group. For all measures, the control group scored worse than the groups that received either type of dating violence prevention education.
Conclusions: The bystander education program was more effective at changing attitudes, beliefs, efficacy, intentions, and self-reported behaviors among college students than the traditional awareness education program in this study. However, both the traditional and bystander education were more effective than no education. Overall the educational intervention yielded moderate effect sizes by conservative estimates. This study’s findings support the use of an adapted form of the evidence-based bystander education program, Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2007) for dating violence prevention education for college students. The results of this study have important implications for future dating violence prevention educational programing, especially given the new requirements of the Campus SaVE Act which mandates that higher education institutions must educate students, faculty, and staff on issues related to dating violence/domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, there are important implications for nurses who can be involved in dating violence prevention efforts. Bystander education is a promising approach to dating violence prevention and is an important area for future study.
Description
Keywords
Dating Violence, Prevention, Bystander Education, College Students