Secondary and 2-Year Outcomes of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the secondary outcomes and longevity of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated a novel sexual assault resistance program designed for first-year women university students. Participants ( N = 893) were randomly assigned to receive the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) program or a selection of brochures (control). Perception of personal risk, self-defense self-efficacy, and rape myth acceptance was assessed at baseline; 1-week postintervention; and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month postrandomization. Risk detection was assessed at 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months. Sexual assault experience and knowledge of effective resistance strategies were assessed at all follow-ups. The EAAA program produced significant increases in women’s perception of personal risk, self-defense self-efficacy, and knowledge of effective (forceful verbal and physical) resistance strategies; the program also produced decreases in general rape myth acceptance and woman blaming over the entire 24-month follow-up period. Risk detection was significantly improved for the intervention group at post-test. The program significantly reduced the risk of completed and attempted rape, attempted coercion, and nonconsensual sexual contact over the entire follow-up period, yielding reductions between 30% and 64% at 2 years. The EAAA program produces long-lasting changes in secondary outcomes and in the incidence of sexual assault experienced by women students. Universities can reduce the harm and the negative health consequences that young women experience as a result of campus sexual assault by implementing this program. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".