Findings from the Mighty Girls Efficacy Trial: Changes in Acceptance of Dating Violence
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Randomization Process
2.2.1. Recruitment and Study Participants
Schools
Students
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Study Conditions
2.4.1. Intervention Condition
2.4.2. Control Condition
2.5. Instrument
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Equivalence
3.2. Contamination
3.3. Implementation Quality
3.3.1. Dosage Received
3.3.2. Adherence
3.3.3. Quality of Program Delivery
3.4. Attrition
3.5. Missing Data
3.6. Tests of Study Hypotheses
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Intervention Condition | Control Condition | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 Oct-Dec 2015 | T5 | T1 | T5 | |
Resistance Self-Efficacy | 4.48 (0.68) Range: 1–5 (n = 251) | 4.47 (0.49) Range: 2–5 (n = 261) | 4.48 (0.73) Range: 1–5 (n = 187) | 4.64 (0.528) Range: 1–5 (n = 177) |
Sexual Intentions | 0.09 (0.30) Range: 0–3 (n = 244) | 0.17 (0.37) Range: 0–1.80 (n = 260) | 0.10 (0.34) Range: 0–3 (n = 185) | 0.15 (0.39) Range: 0–3 (n = 179) |
Sexual Behavior | 0.22 (0.47) Range: 0–2.58 (n = 236) | 0.60 (0.82) Range: 0–4 (n = 259) | 0.13 (0.36) Range: 0–3.83 (n = 181) | 0.45 (0.73) Range: 0–4 (n = 177) |
Acceptance of Dating Violence | 1.33 (0.39) Range: 1–3 (n = 260) | 1.13 (0.23) Range: 1–2.56 (n = 261) | 1.27 (0.39) Range: 1–4 (n = 190) | 1.14 (0.28) Range: 1–2.72 (n = 179) |
a. Solution for Fixed Effects: | |||||
Effect | Estimate | Standard Error | df | t Value | Pr > |t| |
Intercept | −0.7871 | 1.3310 | 19 | −0.59 | 0.5612 |
Study Condition | −0.00069 | 0.08768 | 314 | −0.01 | 0.9937 |
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 0.03232 | 0.06698 | 314 | 0.48 | 0.6298 |
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 0.9443 | 1.3965 | 314 | 0.68 | 0.4994 |
b. Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | df | F Value | Pr > F | ||
Study Condition | 1, 314 | 0.00 | 0.9937 | ||
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 1, 314 | 0.23 | 0.6298 | ||
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 1, 314 | 0.46 | 0.4994 |
a. Solution for Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | Estimate | Standard Error | df | t Value | Pr > |t| |
Intercept | −0.01458 | 0.7507 | 19 | −0.02 | 0.9847 |
Study Condition | 0.01232 | 0.05155 | 315 | 0.24 | 0.8113 |
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | −0.02878 | 0.03467 | 315 | −0.83 | 0.4070 |
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 0.1537 | 0.7897 | 315 | 0.19 | 0.8458 |
b. Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | df | F Value | Pr > F | ||
Study Condition | 1, 315 | 0.06 | 0.8113 | ||
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 1, 315 | 0.69 | 0.4070 | ||
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 1, 315 | 0.04 | 0.8458 |
a. Solution for Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | Estimate | Standard Error | df | t Value | Pr > |t| |
Intercept | 0.02674 | 0.9952 | 19 | 0.03 | 0.9788 |
Study Condition | 0.04129 | 0.06870 | 297 | 0.60 | 0.5483 |
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 0.01131 | 0.04688 | 297 | 0.24 | 0.8096 |
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 0.2036 | 1.0470 | 297 | 0.19 | 0.8459 |
b. Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | df | F Value | Pr > F | ||
Study Condition | 1, 297 | 0.36 | 0.5483 | ||
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 1, 297 | 0.06 | 0.8096 | ||
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 1, 297 | 0.04 | 0.8459 |
a. Solution for Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | Estimate | Standard Error | df | t Value | Pr > |t| |
Intercept | −0.5550 | 0.6356 | 19 | −0.87 | 0.3934 |
Study Condition | −0.08281 | 0.04160 | 324 | −1.99 | 0.0473 |
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 0.04165 | 0.03150 | 324 | 1.32 | 0.1871 |
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 0.3125 | 0.6672 | 324 | 0.47 | 0.6399 |
b. Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects | |||||
Effect | df | F Value | Pr > F | ||
Study Condition | 1, 324 | 3.96 | 0.0473 | ||
Student Qualifies for Free/Reduced Price Lunch | 1, 324 | 1.75 | 0.1871 | ||
School’s Average Daily Attendance | 1, 324 | 0.22 | 0.6399 |
References
- Martin, J.A.; Hamilton, B.E.; Osterman, M.J.K. Births in the United States, 2017. NCHS Data Brief. 2018, 1–8. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db318.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2020).
- Albarracin, D.; Gillette, J.C.; Earl, A.N.; Glasman, L.R.; Durantini, M.R.; Ho, M.-H. A Test of Major Assumptions about Behavior Change: A Comprehensive Look at the Effects of Passive and Active HIV-Prevention Interventions Since the Beginning of the Epidemic. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 131, 856–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albarracin, J.; Albarracin, D.; Durantini, M. Effects of HIV-prevention interventions for samples with higher and lower percents of Latinos and Latin Americans: A meta-analysis of change in condom use and knowledge. AIDS Behav. 2008, 12, 521–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blum, R.W.; Mmari, K.; Moreau, C. It Begins at 10: How Gender Expectations Shape Early Adolescence Around the World. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 61 (Suppl. 4), S3–S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, C.; Brundage, C.L.; Kreinin, T. Why We Must Invest in Early Adolescence: Early Intervention, Lasting Impact. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 61 (Suppl. 4), S10–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabol, B.M.; Kernsmith, P.D.; Hicks, M.R.; Smith-Darden, J.P. Attitudes about aggression and perpetration of Adolescent Dating Aggression: A cross-lagged panel model. J. Adolesc. 2020, 83, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shorey, R.C.; Fite, P.J.; Choi, H.; Cohen, J.R.; Stuart, G.L.; Temple, J.R. Dating violence and substance use as longitudinal predictors of adolescents’ risky sexual behavior. Prev. Sci. 2015, 16, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ybarra, M.L.; Langhinrichsen, R.J. Linkages between violence-associated attitudes and psychological, physical, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization among male and female adolescents. Aggress. Behav. 2019, 45, 622–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demissie, Z.; Clayton, H.B.; Vivolo-Kantor, A.M.; Estefan, L.F. Sexual teen dating violence victimization: Associations with sexual risk behaviors among US high school students. Violence Vict. 2018, 33, 964–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fedina, L.; Howard, D.E.; Wang, M.Q.; Murray, K. Teen dating violence victimization, perpetration, and sexual health correlates among urban, low-income, ethnic, and racial minority youth. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 2016, 37, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sebastian, C.; Viding, E.; Williams, K.D.; Blakemore, S.-J. Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain Cogn. 2010, 72, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, R.; Widman, L.; Stokes, M.; Javidi, H.; Hope, E.; Brasileiro, J. Sexual Health Programs for Latinx Adolescents: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e20193572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pahl, K.; Williams, S.Z.; Capasso, A.; Fuller Lewis, C.; Lekas, H.M. A longitudinal pathway from ethnic-racial discrimination to sexual risk behaviors among Black women and Latinas: Ethnic-racial identity exploration as a protective factor. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 316, 115061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sales, J.M.; Newton-Levinson, A.; Swartzendruber, A.L. Racial Disparities in STIs Among Adolescents in the USA. In Sexually Transmitted Infections in Adolescence and Young Adulthood; Hussen, S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertl, M.M.; Dillon, F.R.; Cabrera Tineo, Y.A.; Verile, M.; Jurkowski, J.M.; De La Rosa, M. Sexual risk during initial months in US among Latina young adults. AIDS Care 2017, 30, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedlow, C.T.; Carey, M.P. Developmentally Appropriate Sexual Risk Reduction Interventions for Adolescents: Rationale, Review of Interventions, and Recommendations for Research and Practice. Ann. Behav. Med. 2004, 27, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Deveaux, L.; Lunn, S.; Dinaj-Koci, V.; Li, X.; Stanton, B. The influence of sensation-seeking and parental and peer influences in early adolescence on risk involvement through middle adolescence: A structural equation modeling analysis. Youth Soc. 2016, 48, 220–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brechwald, W.A.; Prinstein, M.J. Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes. J. Res. Adolesc. 2011, 21, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, A.E.; Hughes, C.; Hecht, M.; Peragallo, N.; Nickerson, D. Randomized trial of a peer resistance skill-building game for Hispanic early adolescent girls. Nurs. Res. 2013, 62, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogard, T.; Nenonene, R. Social Emotional Learning. In Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 5th ed.; Reiser, R.A., Carr-Chellman, A.A., Dempsey, J.V., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durlak, J.A.; Domitrovich, C.E.; Weissberg, R.P.; Gullotta, T.P. (Eds.) Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, J.; Cheung, A.C.K. Effective Components of Social Emotional Learning Programs: A Meta-analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 2024, 53, 755–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hecht, M.L.; Shin, Y.; Pettigrew, J.; Miller-Day, M.; Krieger, J.L. Designed cultural adaptation and delivery quality in rural substance use prevention: An effectiveness trial for the keepin’ it REAL curriculum. Prev. Sci. 2018, 19, 1008–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); Office of the Surgeon General (US). Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health; US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424857/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK424857.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2021). [PubMed]
- Bandura, A. Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 13, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galanti, G.A. The Hispanic family and male-female relationships: An overview. J. Transcult. Nurs. 2003, 14, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Triandis, H.C.; Marin, G.; Lisansky, J.; Betancourt, H. Simpatía as a cultural script of Hispanics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 47, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krieger, J.L.; Coveleski, S.; Hecht, M.L.; Miller-Day, M.; Graham, J.W.; Pettigrew, J.; Kootsikas, A. From kids, through kids, to kids: Examining the social influence strategies used by adolescents to promote prevention among peers. J. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, A.E.; Aroian, K.J.; Warren, S.; Wirth, J. Interactive performance and focus groups with adolescents: The power of play. Res. Nurs. Health 2012, 35, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1995–2017 Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data. 2018. Available online: http://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- DiIorio, C.; Resnicow, K.; Thomas, S.; Wang, D.T.; Dudley, W.N.; Van Marter, D.F.; Lipana, J. Keepin’ it REAL! Program description and results of baseline assessment. Health Edu Behav. 2002, 29, 104–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirby, D.; Korpi, M.; Barth, R.P.; Cagampang, H.H. The Impact of the Postponing Sexual Involvement Curriculum Among Youths in California. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 1997, 29, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, J.E. Evaluating “Baby Think It Over” infant simulators: A comparison group study. Adolescence 2006, 41, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Foshee, V.A.; Bauman, K.E.; Arriaga, X.B.; Helms, R.W.; Koch, G.G.; Linder, G.F. An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. Am. J. Public. Health 1998, 88, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, J.D. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 1998, 23, 323–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, R. Missing Data Imputation versus Full Information Maximum Likelihood with Second-Level Dependencies. Struct. Equ. Model. 2011, 18, 649–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, C.F.; Ku, L.; Rogers, S.M.; Lindberg, L.D.; Pleck, J.H.; Sonenstein, F.L. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 1998, 280, 867–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graham, J.W. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 549–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teesson, M.; Newton, N.C.; Slade, T.; Carragher, N.; Barrett, E.L.; Champion, K.E.; Kelly, E.V.; Nair, N.K.; Stapinski, L.A.; Conrod, P.J. Combined universal and selective prevention for adolescent alcohol use: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Psychol. Med. 2017, 47, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ranganathan, P.; Pramesh, C.S.; Aggarwal, R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analysis. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2016, 7, 144–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.K. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2011, 2, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiley, D.C.; Plesons, M.; Chandra-Mouli, V.; Ortega, M. Managing Sex Education Controversy Deep in the Heart of Texas: A Case Study of the North East Independent School District (NEISD). Am. J. Sex. Educ. 2020, 15, 53–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lesson | Content |
---|---|
1. Choices and Results | Personal goals, everyday choices, and consequences related to goals |
2. What’s Risky | Risky behaviors, consequences of risky behaviors, personal risk |
3. Avoid Skill a | Define the avoid skill, 3 methods to avoid pressure, and the Mighty Girl way of avoiding |
4. Refuse Skill a | Aggressive, passive, and assertive communication, matching verbal and nonverbal communication, and the Mighty Girl way of refusing |
5. Media Influences | Define media, understanding media influence, positive and negative media messages about girls, and the difference between media teens and “real” teens. |
6. Wrap-up and Review | Results-based choices, practice Mighty Girl skills |
DRAMA-RAMA b | Live videogame simulation of peer pressure with participants deciding whether or not to engage in risky behaviors, practice of Mighty Girls skills |
Construct | Number of Items | Sample Item | Response Options | Source | T1-T5 Cronbach’s Alpha Values |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resistance Self-Efficacy | 16 | Stop someone who is pressuring you to do sexual things without making them angry. | 5-point scale with labels for mid- and endpoints only (0 = Not at all sure I can do this; 2 = Moderately; Sure, I can do this; 4 = Completely; Sure I can do this | Adapted from DiIorio et al. [19,31] | 0.92–0.94 |
Sexual Intentions | 4 | I would have sex now if a girl a I cared about pressured me to have sex. | 4-point scale (0 = No, definitely not; 3 = Yes, definitely yes) | Kirby et al. [32] | 0.87–0.92 |
Sexual Behavior | 11 | Had a boy b touch you below the waist, underneath your clothing. | 5-point scale (0 = Never; to 4 = 10 times or more) | [33] | 0.85–0.93 |
Acceptance of Dating Violence | 6 | A girl who makes her boyfriend jealous on purpose deserves to be hit c | 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) | Foshee et al. (1998) [34] | 0.80–0.84 |
Variable | Intervention (n = 325) | Control (n = 217) |
---|---|---|
Age in years | ||
Mean (SD a) Median (range) | 12.31 yrs. (0.68) 12 (11–15) | 12.36 yrs. (0.78) 12 (11–15) |
Acculturation Score | ||
Mean (SD) Median (range) | 3.73 (0.72) 3.75 (1.5–5.3) | 3.73 (0.64) 3.75 (1.5–5) |
Born in US | 71% | 70% |
Generation b | ||
Mean (SD) Median (range) | 2.03 (0.88) 2 (1–4) | 1.9 (0.78) 2 (1–4) |
Country of Origin c | ||
Cuba | 40% | 43% |
Mexico | 6% | <1% |
Dominican Republic | 3% | 3% |
Puerto Rico | 2% | <1% |
Central America | 12% | 15% |
South America | 10% | 9% |
Multiple Countries | 27% | 29% |
Reduced/Free Lunch | 86% | 82% |
Started Menses | 62% | 58% |
Variable | Wave | Control | Intervention | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Std Dev | Mean | Std Dev | ||
Acceptance of Dating Violence | 1 | 1.27 | 0.39 | 1.33 | 0.39 |
2 | 1.22 | 0.35 | 1.25 | 0.32 | |
3 | 1.24 | 0.41 | 1.20 | 0.32 | |
4 | 1.17 | 0.28 | 1.17 | 0.25 | |
5 | 1.14 | 0.28 | 1.13 | 0.23 | |
Resistance Self-Efficacy | 1 | 4.48 | 0.79 | 4.48 | 0.68 |
2 | 4.56 | 0.70 | 4.57 | 0.69 | |
3 | 4.58 | 0.71 | 4.60 | 0.62 | |
4 | 4.63 | 0.55 | 4.59 | 0.56 | |
5 | 4.64 | 0.58 | 4.67 | 0.48 | |
Sexual Intentions | 1 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.30 |
2 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.44 | |
3 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.34 | |
4 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.37 | |
5 | 0.15 | 0.39 | 0.17 | 0.37 | |
Sexual Behavior | 1 | 0.13 | 0.36 | 0.22 | 0.47 |
2 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.21 | 0.44 | |
3 | 0.22 | 0.53 | 0.24 | 0.50 | |
4 | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.78 | |
5 | 0.45 | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.82 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hecht, M.L.; Norris, A.E.; Crowley, D.M.; Temple, J.R.; Choi, H.J. Findings from the Mighty Girls Efficacy Trial: Changes in Acceptance of Dating Violence. Children 2024, 11, 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111331
Hecht ML, Norris AE, Crowley DM, Temple JR, Choi HJ. Findings from the Mighty Girls Efficacy Trial: Changes in Acceptance of Dating Violence. Children. 2024; 11(11):1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111331
Chicago/Turabian StyleHecht, Michael L., Anne E. Norris, Daniel Max Crowley, Jeff R. Temple, and Hye Jeong Choi. 2024. "Findings from the Mighty Girls Efficacy Trial: Changes in Acceptance of Dating Violence" Children 11, no. 11: 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111331
APA StyleHecht, M. L., Norris, A. E., Crowley, D. M., Temple, J. R., & Choi, H. J. (2024). Findings from the Mighty Girls Efficacy Trial: Changes in Acceptance of Dating Violence. Children, 11(11), 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111331