Evidence-Based Review of Rape and Sexual Assault Preventive Intervention Programs in the United States, 1990-2003 (ICPSR 4453)
Principal Investigator(s): Morrison, Shannon, RTI International; Hardison, Jennifer, RTI International; Mathew, Anita, RTI International; O'Neil, Joyce, RTI International
This study was an evidence-based review of sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. A total of 67 publications including articles, government reports, and book chapters (excluding dissertations) representing 59 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the data abstraction process. In order to be included in the review, the resource had to be an English-language publication, published between 1990 and June 2003, of a SAPI evaluation of a primary or secondary preventive intervention program that targeted people who were adolescent-age or older, and which included outcome measures and a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design. The findings for the article reviews are presented in evidence tables, for the general population in Part 1 and the evidence tables for individuals with disabilities in Part 2.
These data are freely available.
Morrison, Shannon, Jennifer Hardison, Anita Mathew, and Joyce O'Neil. EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEW OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1990-2003. ICPSR04453-v1. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International [producer], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-12-18. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04453.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04453.v1
This study was funded by:
- United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2002-WG-BX-0006)
Scope of Study
Geographic Coverage: United States
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation: publication
Universe: All publications published in English between 1990 and June 2003 that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, as a chapter in a book, or as a government report (not including dissertations) that were evaluations of a primary or secondary sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI) programs targeting populations of adolescent age or older and that included measures of attitudes, knowledge, behavior, victimization, and perpetration, and measured intervention effects using a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design.
Data Types: aggregate data
Data Collection Notes:
Users are encouraged to refer to the final report for more information about the data tables.
Study Purpose: The purpose of the study was to conduct an evidence-based review of sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. The review documented what is known about SAPI evaluation research, identified significant gaps, and highlighted areas for future research.
Study Design: To identify the greatest number of sexual assault prevention intervention (SAPI) evaluation publications within the scope of the inclusion criteria, RTI conducted an exhaustive search of the literature. A total of 67 resources (representing 59 studies, including 9 focusing on individuals with disabilities) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the data abstraction process. In order to be included in the review, the article had to be an English-language publication published between 1990 and June 2003 of a SAPI evaluation that had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, book chapter, or government report (dissertations were excluded), and the evaluated program had to be a primary or secondary preventive intervention targeting adolescents or older that included outcome measures and a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design. To find articles, the researchers performed keyword searches in several relevant electronic databases to describe the sexual offender, sexual offense, victim, intervention and prevention programs, and evaluation and program effectiveness. Key search terms specific to three groups (special populations/individuals with disabilities, minorities, and adolescents) were used to ensure inclusion of publications about these groups. A three-tiered review process was employed to abstract data from the articles and ensure a thorough assessment. Two reviewers from the RTI team separately recorded detailed information for each article, and any discrepancies were reconciled by a third reviewer. All three reviewers independently assessed study quality. Two standardized forms, one for data abstraction and one for quality rating, were used to review each article. The data abstraction form, which was used to classify information from each article, included sections for descriptive information about the population and setting, study design and sample, and the preventive intervention. The form also included sections for recording study measures and instruments. The final section included space to indicate the quality score (from the quality rating form) and the major strengths and weaknesses of both the study and the article. Each article was given three quality rating scores: one to assess the study description, one to assess the study design, and a total score (the sum of the study description and study design scores). The total score was then divided by the number of possible points to determine the percentage score.
Sample: This study included the review of 67 articles (representing 59 studies) on sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. Search terms were identified based on the inclusion criteria for this review. Different search criteria were used to search different databases to best utilize the controlled vocabulary available from each of the databases. The search terms used in the literature searches included keywords to describe the sexual offender, sexual offense, and victim, interventions and prevention programs, and evaluation and program effectiveness. Key search terms specific to three groups (special populations/individuals with disabilities, minorities, and adolescents) were used to ensure their inclusion. Abstracts returned by the literature searches were screened by the researchers to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. If they did, the full documents were retrieved. When an abstract did not provide sufficient information to determine inclusion, the full article was retrieved for further examination.
Mode of Data Collection: record abstracts
The data were collected from electronic databases including Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, EMBASE, Education Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), MEDLINE, Mental Health Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social SciSearch, and Sociological Abstracts.
Description of Variables: The data abstraction form, which was used to classify information from each article, included sections for descriptive information about the population and setting, study design and sample, and the preventive intervention. The form also included sections for recording study measures and instruments. The final section included space to indicate the quality score (from the quality rating form) and the major strengths and weaknesses of both the study and the article. Tables in Appendices E and G include information on the population and setting, study design and sample, intervention, measures, results, and study quality. Population and setting variables include location, study eligibility criteria, population type, and population characteristics such as age, sex, education, race/ethnicity, whether sexually active, victimization, and criminal history. Study design and sample variables include intervention group type, comparison group type, sampling frame size, baseline sample size, post-test and follow-up sample sizes, time points of data collection, and methods/setting of data collection. Intervention variables include setting, duration, theory/model, delivery mode, curriculum/content, program implementer, specific culture, assessment of exposure, and intervention retention rate. Measures variables include knowledge, time points of measurement, attitudes, victimization, and perpetration. Results variables include primary measures, knowledge, attitudes, victimization, penetration, and other measures. Study quality variables include the quality score, major strengths, and major weaknesses. Tables in Appendix F include variables on the article number (corresponds to the article in Appendix G), gender, intervention format and length, intervention content, incentives, study design, baseline and post-intervention follow up sample sizes, and outcome measures.
Response Rates: Not applicable.
Presence of Common Scales: none
Original ICPSR Release: 2006-12-18
Related Publications (?)
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)