Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02083302
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : March 11, 2014
Last Update Posted : March 11, 2014
Sponsor:
Collaborator:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Tracking Information
First Submitted Date  ICMJE March 3, 2014
First Posted Date  ICMJE March 11, 2014
Last Update Posted Date March 11, 2014
Study Start Date  ICMJE June 2010
Actual Primary Completion Date February 2012   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Current Primary Outcome Measures  ICMJE
 (submitted: March 7, 2014)
  • Bystander Intentions [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to three months ]
    To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Bystander Intentions [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to six months ]
    To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Bystander Intentions [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to eight months ]
    To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Bystander Intentions [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to fifteen months ]
    To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Bystander Intentions [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to twenty months ]
    To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
Original Primary Outcome Measures  ICMJE Same as current
Change History No Changes Posted
Current Secondary Outcome Measures  ICMJE
 (submitted: March 7, 2014)
  • Bystander Friend Norms [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to three months ]
    To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely."Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Bystander Friend Norms [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to six months ]
    To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Bystander Friend Norms [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to eight months ]
    To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Bystander Friend Norms [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to fifteen months ]
    To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Bystander Friend Norms [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to twenty months ]
    To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, "Unlikely" to "Very likely." Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
  • Bystander Efficacy [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to three months ]
    To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Bystander Efficacy [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to six months ]
    To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do").Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Bystander Efficacy [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to eight months ]
    To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Bystander Efficacy [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to fifteen months ]
    To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Bystander Efficacy [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to twenty months ]
    To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 ("can't do") to 100 ("very certain can do"). Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
  • Bystander Behavior [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to three months ]
    To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Bystander Behavior [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to six months ]
    To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Bystander Behavior [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to eight months ]
    To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation". Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Bystander Behavior [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to fifteen months ]
    To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation".Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Bystander Behavior [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to twenty months ]
    To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate "Yes", "No", or "Wasn't in the Situation". Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
  • Rape Myth Acceptance [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to three months ]
    A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Rape Myth Acceptance [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to six months ]
    A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Rape Myth Acceptance [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to eight months ]
    A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Rape Myth Acceptance [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to fifteen months ]
    A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Rape Myth Acceptance [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to twenty months ]
    A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011).Students' rape myth acceptance assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
  • Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to three months ]
    For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to six months ]
    For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to eight months ]
    For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence up to fifteen months ]
    For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to twenty months ]
    For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
  • Sexual Violence Perpetration [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to three months ]
    Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August.
  • Sexual Violence Perpetration [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to six months ]
    Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; and (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010. After the September, 2010 follow-up survey, participants were randomized to either receive two additional doses in October, 2010 and November, 2010 (experimental group) or no additional doses (control group).
  • Sexual Violence Perpetration [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to eight months ]
    Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; and (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011.
  • Sexual Violence Perpetration [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to fifteen months ]
    Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via(1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; and (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011. After the September, 2011 survey, experimental group participants were randomized to receive one additional dose (a booster session) or no additional doses.
  • Sexual Violence Perpetration [ Time Frame: Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to twenty months ]
    Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline); (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010; (3) a follow-up web-based survey in early December 2010; (4) a follow-up web-based survey in February, 2011; (5) a follow-up web-based survey in September, 2011 and (6) a final follow-up web-based survey in February 2012.
Original Secondary Outcome Measures  ICMJE Same as current
Current Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures Not Provided
Original Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures Not Provided
 
Descriptive Information
Brief Title  ICMJE Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention
Official Title  ICMJE Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of a Campus-based Bystander Intervention
Brief Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a bystander intervention education program on college students' attitudes and behaviors associated with bystander intervention and sexual violence.
Detailed Description This study used a randomized control trial, longitudinal design to determine the impact of a peer education theater intervention on undergraduate student attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence and bystander intervention. Students were assigned to either an experimental group (receiving 3-4 doses of the intervention ) or a comparison group (receiving 1 dose only) and were surveyed six times over an 18 month period.
Study Type  ICMJE Interventional
Study Phase  ICMJE Not Applicable
Study Design  ICMJE Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Prevention
Condition  ICMJE
  • Assaultive Behavior
  • Violence
  • Sexual Assault and Rape
  • Helping Behavior
Intervention  ICMJE
  • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 1
    Intervention 1: A three part program: a skit acted out by peer educators that depicts a sexual assault; an in-character question and answer session; and an out-of-character information session.
  • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3

    Dose 2: Scenes from the skit from Session 1 are re-created with small groups of students, but stop at certain points to allow audience members to explore different bystander intervention possibilities.

    Dose 3: The six scenes outlined in Session 2 are presented individually to small groups of student participants; specifically outlining potential points of bystander intervention.

  • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 4
    Booster Session
Study Arms  ICMJE
  • Experimental: Treatment1
    The Treatment1 group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1, SCREAM Theater Dose 2 and SCREAM Theater Dose 3.
    Interventions:
    • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 1
    • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3
  • Experimental: Treatment2
    The Treatment2 group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1, SCREAM Theater Dose 2, SCREAM Theater Dose 3 and SCREAM Theater Dose 4.
    Interventions:
    • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 1
    • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3
    • Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 4
  • Control
    The control group received SCREAM Theater Dose 1.
    Intervention: Behavioral: SCREAM Theater Dose 1
Publications *

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruitment Information
Recruitment Status  ICMJE Completed
Actual Enrollment  ICMJE
 (submitted: March 7, 2014)
4385
Original Actual Enrollment  ICMJE Same as current
Actual Study Completion Date  ICMJE February 2012
Actual Primary Completion Date February 2012   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Eligibility Criteria  ICMJE

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Incoming first year students in the fall semester of 2010
  • Age 18 - 21
  • Attended Summer Orientation session

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Incoming transfer students
  • Younger than 18 or older than 21
Sex/Gender  ICMJE
Sexes Eligible for Study: All
Ages  ICMJE 18 Years to 21 Years   (Adult)
Accepts Healthy Volunteers  ICMJE Yes
Contacts  ICMJE Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Listed Location Countries  ICMJE United States
Removed Location Countries  
 
Administrative Information
NCT Number  ICMJE NCT02083302
Other Study ID Numbers  ICMJE 07-412M
1R01CE001855-01 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract )
Has Data Monitoring Committee No
U.S. FDA-regulated Product Not Provided
IPD Sharing Statement  ICMJE Not Provided
Responsible Party Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Study Sponsor  ICMJE Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Collaborators  ICMJE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Investigators  ICMJE
Principal Investigator: Sarah McMahon, PhD Rutgers University School of Social Work
Principal Investigator: Judy Postmus, PhD Rutgers University School of Social Work
PRS Account Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Verification Date March 2014

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP