Testing the effectiveness of a sexual assault resistance programme in ‘real-world’ implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT), the EAAA programme designed for first year university women (17–24 years old) was shown to reduce the likelihood of any (attempted and completed) rape in the next year by 50% (Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2015). Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 2326–2335). Through a non-profit organization, EAAA has been available to universities globally since 2016 using a Train-the-Trainer model. Observations of the ‘real world’ implementation suggested that universities often altered eligibility criteria (especially year of study and age) in their recruitment.Objective: The current study (2017–2021) evaluated whether EAAA was effective when implemented by universities in Canada outside of the constraints of an RCT.Method: Five universities participated. Women students who signed up to take the EAAA programme on their campuses were recruited for the research. Participants completed surveys at 1-week pre-program and 1-week and 6-months post-programme. Compared to the RCT, participant eligibility was broader, the sample was more diverse in terms of race and sexual identity and had a higher proportion of survivors. Programme fidelity was adequate.Results: Comparisons in this quasi-experimental design, between students who took the programme and students in the control group (i.e. those who signed up but did not attend the programme), confirmed the effectiveness of the EAAA programme. Reduction of any rape exceeded the a priori benchmark of 37.5%. Completed rape was significantly reduced by 57.3% at 6-months. Reduction in attempted rape of 32.9% was lower than in the RCT likely due to the somewhat older (average age 22 vs 18) sample. Positive changes to previously established mediators of the programme effects were all replicated.Conclusions: These findings suggest that the EAAA is highly effective when implemented by universities even when eligibility for students in terms of year of study and age is broadened.
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 | 0.038 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".