Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45-50.  Study 2Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619-624. Study 3Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program "Safe Dates" using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245-258.
Supplementary Materials Coding and psychometric properties of the Acceptance of Dating Violence scale
Data collection protocols (Baseline Adolescent Questionnaire, School Data Collector Training Guide, Teacher's Evaluation of Days 1-9, Monitoring Forms for Days 1-9, Student Absence Forms)
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F, Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe Dates program: 1-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1619-1622.
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1007-1016.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., et al. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(Suppl. 2), 39-47.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128-141.
Safe Dates Curriculum Binder ("Introduction to the Curriculum" section, nine 50-minute-session implementation curriculum, student play script, parent materials, teacher training outline)
Safe Dates direct mail promotion
Safe Dates Program Detail
Scales used to measure mediating and outcome variables in the Safe Dates study
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Perpetration of psychological abuse |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking how often the person had ever perpetrated each of 14 different acts (e.g., damaged something that belonged to the victim, insulted the victim in front of others) on someone with whom they had been on a date.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported statistically significant decreases in psychological abuse perpetration at all four follow-up points, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p < .001).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Perpetration of sexual abuse |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking how many times the person had perpetrated each of two different acts on someone with whom they had been on a date: (1) forced them to have sex and (2) forced them to do other sexual things that they did not want to do.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported statistically significant decreases in sexual abuse perpetration against a dating partner at all four follow-up points, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.2
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Perpetration of violence against a current dating partner |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking those adolescents who were currently dating someone how often they had used physical force against that partner (not in self-defense).
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported statistically significant decreases in violence perpetration against a current dating partner at 1-month follow-up, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.0
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 4: Perpetration of moderate physical abuse |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking how many times the person had perpetrated each of 12 different acts on someone with whom they had been on a date: scratching, slapping, biting, pushing, grabbing, kicking, shoving, arm twisting, slamming against wall, bending back fingers, dumping out of a car, and throwing something at the partner.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported statistically significant decreases in perpetration of moderate physical abuse at all four follow-up points, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 5: Perpetration of severe physical abuse |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking how many times the person had perpetrated each of five different acts on someone with whom they had been on a date: choking, burning, beating up, hitting with a fist or something else hard, and assaulting with knife or weapon.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Statistically significant differences were found in self-reported perpetration of severe physical abuse between adolescents who participated in Safe Dates and those in the comparison condition. The differences were most pronounced among adolescents who reported no perpetration of severe physical abuse at baseline (p = .001) but also were evident among adolescents who reported average levels of perpetration of severe physical abuse at baseline (p = .005).
For adolescents who reported high amounts of severe physical abuse at baseline, no significant differences were found between the treatment and comparison groups in reported incidence of severe physical perpetration at any of the four follow-up points.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 6: Sexual abuse victimization |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking respondents how many times anyone they had been on a date with had either (1) forced them to have sex or (2) forced them to do other sexual things they did not want to do.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported significantly reduced rates of sexual abuse victimization at 4 years after the intervention, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p = .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 7: Physical abuse victimization |
|
Description of Measures
|
This outcome was measured by asking how many times anyone the respondent had been on a date with had done each of 12 different acts to the respondent: scratching, slapping, biting, pushing, grabbing, kicking, shoving, arm twisting, slamming against wall, bending back fingers, dumping out of a car, and throwing something at the respondent.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Safe Dates participants reported significantly reduced rates of being victimized (moderate physical abuse) at all four follow-up points, relative to adolescents in the comparison condition (p = .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
51.1% Female
48.9% Male
|
77.1% White
19.1% Black or African American
3.8% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 2
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
58.5% Female
41.5% Male
|
75.6% White
24.4% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 3
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
53.2% Female
46.8% Male
|
72.2% White
27.8% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Perpetration of psychological abuse
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.8
|
4.0
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
|
2: Perpetration of sexual abuse
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
3.8
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
|
3: Perpetration of violence against a current dating partner
|
2.0
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
|
4: Perpetration of moderate physical abuse
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
|
5: Perpetration of severe physical abuse
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
|
6: Sexual abuse victimization
|
2.0
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
|
7: Physical abuse victimization
|
2.5
|
4.0
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
3.3
|
Study Strengths The intervention was implemented with a reasonably high degree of fidelity, using multiple measures that were developed specifically for this research. These measures appear to have acceptable reliability, and the applicant made an effort to ascertain that the measures were valid, a challenging task given that no existing instruments were deemed appropriate for this research. The questionnaire is easy to understand, not too long, and seems to have good construct validity. The study design entailed random assignment of schools to the treatment and control conditions.
Study Weaknesses Although several strategies were used to address attrition, including multiple imputation procedures in the most recent analyses focusing on longitudinal data, the findings could have been affected by substantial overall attrition and nonrandom missing data. The absence of differential attrition by group does provide some indication that these effects did not occur.
|
|
