Skip to content

Evaluation Study of the Online High School Media Aware Program

Web-based High School Media Literacy for Healthy Relationships

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04035694
Enrollment
590
Registered
2019-07-29
Start date
2019-09-10
Completion date
2020-06-05
Last updated
2021-05-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Sexual Behavior

Keywords

Adolescent sexual health, Media literacy education, Web-based programming

Brief summary

The main aim of this study is to conduct a pretest-posttest RCT with a three-month follow-up to investigate the sustainability of outcomes in students who use the Media Aware program. Media Aware, a web-based media literacy education program for high school students to promote sexual and relationship health. Media Aware is designed to provide high school students with sexual health knowledge, media literacy skills, and the skills to make healthy decisions about sexual activity. This study will examine if behavioral indicators among students in the intervention group sustain, emerge, or diminish over time compared to students in the delayed intervention group.

Interventions

Media Aware is an online media literacy and sexual health education program developed for high school students that addresses the influence of media on sexual behaviors explicitly using established message processing theory. The program consists of 4 self-paced modules each with two to three lessons. Broadly, the modules cover healthy and unhealthy relationships, sexually transmitted infections, consent, substance use, pregnancy, protection and contraception, and communication between adolescents and their partners, parents, or health providers. Users also learn media literacy skills including message deconstruction to help examine the truth behind media messages.

Sponsors

Innovation Research & Training
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
12 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

SCHOOL SITES: Inclusion: 1. Schools must have students in 9th or 10th grade health education as this program is designed for use in these grades during health education classes. 2. Schools must agree to provide the Media Aware program during class periods as their sexual health education which means that an educator will facilitate the students taking the program. 3. Schools must have adequate technology for the students to use the web-based Media Aware program and complete the online questionnaires. 4. It must be feasible for iRT project staff members to travel to the school sites for the three data collection time points. TEACHER PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion: 1. Teacher's classrooms must have students in 9th or 10th grade as this program is designed for use in these grades. 2. Teachers must be able to ensure that participating students have computers and internet access during class periods as the program and questionnaires are web-based. STUDENT PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion: 1. Students must be in grades 9 or 10. 2. Students must be able to speak and read English because the study materials (e.g., questionnaires) are in English. However, parent permission and youth assent forms for the research study will be available in both English and Spanish. 3. Students must have appropriate parent permission to receive sexual health education per school districts' policy (i.e., opt-in policy or opt-out policy).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Protection Intentions During Oral Sexposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to decide to have oral sex, how likely would you be to use a condom or dental dam?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)
Birth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)posttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal sex, how likely would you be to use birth control other than condoms?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)
Willingness to Have Sexposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have sex in a relationship context. (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend and they say they love you. They want to have sex. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex?).
Willingness to Engage in Unprotected Sexposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to engage in unprotected sex (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)
Willingness to Hook upposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have hook up even if they are not sure that they really want to (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to hook-up, but you are not sure that you want to. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and hook-up anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)
Intentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Personposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to engage in sexual activity in the next year (How likely is that you will have any type of sexual contact with another person (oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, or genital-to-genital contact) in the next year?). α = 0.77 (adapted from L'Engle, Brown, and Kenneavy, 2006)
Condom Use Intentionsposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal or anal sex, how likely would you be to use a condom?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Acceptance of Rape Mythsposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to myths about rape (e.g., It shouldn't be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn't realize what he was doing.). (adapted from Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance-Short Form (IRMA-SF; 7 pt. scale); Payne et al., (1999); McMahon & Farmer (2011), α=0.88)
Intentions to Intervene as Bystanderposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not likely at all; 2=Unlikely; 3=Likely; 4=Extremely likely) how likely they would be to intervene as a bystander (e.g., Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystanderposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a scale of 0 (Can't do) to 100 (Very Certain) their degree of confidence in several behaviors (e.g., I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)
Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activityposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in sexual activity (e.g., oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)
Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activityposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in risky sexual activities (e.g., What percentage of teens have sex with someone who is much older?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)
Sexual Health Knowledgeposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked several multiple choice and True/False questions about sexual health (e.g., True or false: You can tell someone has an STI by looking at him/her.).
Descriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communicationposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens communicate with parents, health providers, or another trusted adult (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, what percentage of teens talk with their boy/girlfriend about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)
Efficacy to Use Contraception/Protectionposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could get and use contraception (e.g., If I wanted to, I could get condoms or another form of contraception.).
Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Useposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens use contraception (e.g., What percentage of teens who have oral sex use a condom or a dental dam?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)
Efficacy to Communicate Before Sexposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could communicate with others about sexual health (e.g., I could talk with a boy/girlfriend about using condoms for sexually transmitted infection protection.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)
Intent to Communicate Before Sexposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to communicate with others before sexual activity (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, how likely would you be to talk with your parents or another trusted adult about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)
Cognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisementposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) thought about the ad; 2) spent time thinking about the ad; and 3) paid attention to the ad. (adapted from Shiv, Britton, and Payne, 2004)
Communication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Healthposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or other health professional (e.g., How often do you talk with a doctor or other health professional about sexual health?).
Communication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Healthposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or trusted adult (e.g., How often do you talk with a parent or other trusted professional about sexual health?).
Communication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Healthposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a boyfriend/girlfriend (e.g., How often do you talk with your boyfriend/girlfriend about sexual health?).
Efficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Useposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could convince a partner to use contraception (e.g., If I decided to have sex, I could talk to any potential partner to make him/her understand why we should use condoms or other contraception.).
Perceived Realism of Media Messagesposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agreed that teens on the media (e.g., Teens in the media do things that average teens do.). (adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997, α=0.80)
Acceptance of Dating Violenceposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly 2=disagree; 3=disagree; 4=agree; strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to dating violence (e.g., It is okay for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends if they did something to make them mad.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.73)
Advertisement Deconstruction Skillsposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012)
Media Message Completenessposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=incomplete to 4=complete) how complete the information included in an advertisement is (e.g., How complete is the information in this advertisement?).
Media Skepticismposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agree with several statements about media (e.g., Media are dishonest about what happens if people have sex.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, and Kupersmidt, 2014, α=0.86)
Acceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypesposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to strict gender role stereotypes (e.g., Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.87)

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Counterarguing While Viewing an Advertisementposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) wanted to argue back to what it was saying; 2) thought of ways they disagreed with what was presented; 3) thought of ways that the information being presented was inaccurate or misleading; and 4) found themselves looking for flaws in the way information was presented in the ad. (adapted from Moyer-Gusé and Nabi, 2010)
Advertisement Credibilityposttest (approximately one week after pretest)Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (variable) how 1) believable; 2) truthful; 3) trustworthy they find the advertisement. (adapted from MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986)

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention
Participants will receive access to Media Aware. Media Aware Sexual Health - High School: Media Aware is an online media literacy and sexual health education program developed for high school students that addresses the influence of media on sexual behaviors explicitly using established message processing theory. The program consists of 4 self-paced modules each with two to three lessons. Broadly, the modules cover healthy and unhealthy relationships, sexually transmitted infections, consent, substance use, pregnancy, protection and contraception, and communication between adolescents and their partners, parents, or health providers. Users also learn media literacy skills including message deconstruction to help examine the truth behind media messages.
374
Delayed-Intervention Control
Participants will receive their regular health education programming not related to sexual health education or media literacy education.
216
Total590

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicInterventionDelayed-Intervention ControlTotal
Academic Grades
As and Bs
131 Participants59 Participants190 Participants
Academic Grades
Bs and Cs
23 Participants22 Participants45 Participants
Academic Grades
Cs and Ds
7 Participants5 Participants12 Participants
Academic Grades
Mostly As
139 Participants70 Participants209 Participants
Academic Grades
Mostly Below Ds
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Academic Grades
Mostly Bs
25 Participants9 Participants34 Participants
Academic Grades
Mostly Cs
4 Participants4 Participants8 Participants
Academic Grades
Mostly Ds
4 Participants2 Participants6 Participants
Academic Grades
Unknown or Not Reported
41 Participants44 Participants85 Participants
Age, Continuous14.33 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.58
14.60 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.86
14.41 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
45 Participants27 Participants72 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
313 Participants167 Participants480 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
16 Participants22 Participants38 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants3 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
21 Participants22 Participants43 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
36 Participants50 Participants86 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
51 Participants43 Participants94 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
21 Participants27 Participants48 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
243 Participants71 Participants314 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
374 Participants216 Participants590 Participants
Romantic Relationship Status
No/Unsure
275 Participants134 Participants409 Participants
Romantic Relationship Status
Unknown or Not Reported
44 Participants43 Participants87 Participants
Romantic Relationship Status
Yes
55 Participants39 Participants94 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
197 Participants96 Participants293 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
146 Participants93 Participants239 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Nonbinary
17 Participants7 Participants24 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Unknown or Not Reported
14 Participants20 Participants34 Participants
Sexual Experience
No
280 Participants137 Participants417 Participants
Sexual Experience
Unknown or Not Reported
54 Participants44 Participants98 Participants
Sexual Experience
Yes
40 Participants35 Participants75 Participants
Socioeconomic Status (SES)
No/Unsure
265 Participants104 Participants369 Participants
Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Unknown or Not Reported
66 Participants41 Participants107 Participants
Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Yes
43 Participants71 Participants114 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 3740 / 216
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 3740 / 216
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 3740 / 216

Outcome results

Primary

Birth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal sex, how likely would you be to use birth control other than condoms?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionBirth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)2.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Delayed-Intervention ControlBirth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)2.76 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
p-value: 0.74Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Birth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal sex, how likely would you be to use birth control other than condoms?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionBirth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)2.99 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Delayed-Intervention ControlBirth Control Use Intentions (Other Than Condoms)2.89 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
p-value: 0.52Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Condom Use Intentions

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal or anal sex, how likely would you be to use a condom?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCondom Use Intentions3.53 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlCondom Use Intentions3.51 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.78Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Condom Use Intentions

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to have vaginal or anal sex, how likely would you be to use a condom?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCondom Use Intentions3.46 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlCondom Use Intentions3.42 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
p-value: 0.66Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Intentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to engage in sexual activity in the next year (How likely is that you will have any type of sexual contact with another person (oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, or genital-to-genital contact) in the next year?). α = 0.77 (adapted from L'Engle, Brown, and Kenneavy, 2006)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person2.03 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person1.96 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.4Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Intentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to engage in sexual activity in the next year (How likely is that you will have any type of sexual contact with another person (oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, or genital-to-genital contact) in the next year?). α = 0.77 (adapted from L'Engle, Brown, and Kenneavy, 2006)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person1.97 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntentions to Engage in Sexual Activity With Another Person2.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.74Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Protection Intentions During Oral Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to decide to have oral sex, how likely would you be to use a condom or dental dam?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionProtection Intentions During Oral Sex2.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Delayed-Intervention ControlProtection Intentions During Oral Sex2.68 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
p-value: 0.27Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Protection Intentions During Oral Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to use protection (if you were to decide to have oral sex, how likely would you be to use a condom or dental dam?). (adapted from Jemmott and Jemmott, 1991)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionProtection Intentions During Oral Sex2.94 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Delayed-Intervention ControlProtection Intentions During Oral Sex2.77 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.21Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to engage in unprotected sex (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex1.72 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex1.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
p-value: 0.38Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to engage in unprotected sex (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex1.69 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Engage in Unprotected Sex1.75 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.54Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Have Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have sex in a relationship context. (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend and they say they love you. They want to have sex. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex?).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Have Sex2.26 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Have Sex2.42 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.11Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Have Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have sex in a relationship context. (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend and they say they love you. They want to have sex. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex?).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Have Sex2.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Have Sex2.30 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.41Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Hook up

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have hook up even if they are not sure that they really want to (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to hook-up, but you are not sure that you want to. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and hook-up anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Hook up1.98 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Hook up2.13 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.09Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

Willingness to Hook up

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=very unwilling; 2=unwilling; 3=willing; 4=very willing) how willing they are to have hook up even if they are not sure that they really want to (Imagine you were with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They want to hook-up, but you are not sure that you want to. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and hook-up anyway?). (adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 2014)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWillingness to Hook up2.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlWillingness to Hook up1.98 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
p-value: 0.56Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Dating Violence

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly 2=disagree; 3=disagree; 4=agree; strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to dating violence (e.g., It is okay for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends if they did something to make them mad.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.73)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Dating Violence1.40 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Dating Violence1.48 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
p-value: 0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Dating Violence

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly 2=disagree; 3=disagree; 4=agree; strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to dating violence (e.g., It is okay for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends if they did something to make them mad.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.73)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Dating Violence1.36 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Dating Violence1.36 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.95Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Rape Myths

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to myths about rape (e.g., It shouldn't be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn't realize what he was doing.). (adapted from Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance-Short Form (IRMA-SF; 7 pt. scale); Payne et al., (1999); McMahon & Farmer (2011), α=0.88)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Rape Myths1.35 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Rape Myths1.33 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
p-value: 0.69Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Rape Myths

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to myths about rape (e.g., It shouldn't be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn't realize what he was doing.). (adapted from Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance-Short Form (IRMA-SF; 7 pt. scale); Payne et al., (1999); McMahon & Farmer (2011), α=0.88)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Rape Myths1.31 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.05
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Rape Myths1.28 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
p-value: 0.63Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to strict gender role stereotypes (e.g., Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.87)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes1.44 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes1.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.89Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Acceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) their level of agreement on several items pertaining to strict gender role stereotypes (e.g., Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility.). (adapted from Foshee, Bauman, Ennett, Suchindran, Benefield, and Linder, 2005 α=0.87)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAcceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes1.51 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
Delayed-Intervention ControlAcceptance of Strict Gender Role Stereotypes1.52 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.05
p-value: 0.97Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Advertisement Deconstruction Skills

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAdvertisement Deconstruction Skills5.30 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
Delayed-Intervention ControlAdvertisement Deconstruction Skills5.37 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.55
p-value: 0.92Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Advertisement Deconstruction Skills

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAdvertisement Deconstruction Skills4.46 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.52
Delayed-Intervention ControlAdvertisement Deconstruction Skills3.47 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.53
p-value: 0.19Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Cognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) thought about the ad; 2) spent time thinking about the ad; and 3) paid attention to the ad. (adapted from Shiv, Britton, and Payne, 2004)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement2.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlCognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement1.86 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
p-value: 0.03Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Cognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) thought about the ad; 2) spent time thinking about the ad; and 3) paid attention to the ad. (adapted from Shiv, Britton, and Payne, 2004)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement1.94 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlCognitive Elaboration While Viewing an Advertisement2.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
p-value: 0.57Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a boyfriend/girlfriend (e.g., How often do you talk with your boyfriend/girlfriend about sexual health?).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health1.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health1.77 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
p-value: 0.17Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a boyfriend/girlfriend (e.g., How often do you talk with your boyfriend/girlfriend about sexual health?).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health1.95 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Boyfriend or Girlfriend About Sexual Health1.96 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
p-value: 0.89Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or other health professional (e.g., How often do you talk with a doctor or other health professional about sexual health?).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health1.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health1.79 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
p-value: 0.72Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or other health professional (e.g., How often do you talk with a doctor or other health professional about sexual health?).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health1.98 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Doctor or Other Health Professional About Sexual Health1.97 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.91Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or trusted adult (e.g., How often do you talk with a parent or other trusted professional about sexual health?).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health2.15 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health1.95 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.07Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Communication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health

Participants are asked on a 4-point Likert scale (1never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often) about their frequency of sexual health communication with a doctor or trusted adult (e.g., How often do you talk with a parent or other trusted professional about sexual health?).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCommunication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health1.95 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlCommunication With a Parent or Other Trusted Adult About Sexual Health2.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.56Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens communicate with parents, health providers, or another trusted adult (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, what percentage of teens talk with their boy/girlfriend about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication40.97 percentage of teens communicatingStandard Error 2.27
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication39.41 percentage of teens communicatingStandard Error 3.15
p-value: 0.58Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens communicate with parents, health providers, or another trusted adult (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, what percentage of teens talk with their boy/girlfriend about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication39.95 percentage of teens communicatingStandard Error 1.88
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Sexual Health Communication37.16 percentage of teens communicatingStandard Error 2.08
p-value: 0.28Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens use contraception (e.g., What percentage of teens who have oral sex use a condom or a dental dam?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use54.09 percentage of teens using BCStandard Error 1.86
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use58.34 percentage of teens using BCStandard Error 2.07
p-value: 0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens use contraception (e.g., What percentage of teens who have oral sex use a condom or a dental dam?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use53.89 percentage of teens using BCStandard Error 2.64
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Birth Control Use52.52 percentage of teens using BCStandard Error 3.93
p-value: 0.75Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in risky sexual activities (e.g., What percentage of teens have sex with someone who is much older?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity30.89 percentage of teens having risky sexStandard Error 2
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity37.35 percentage of teens having risky sexStandard Error 2.18
p-value: 0.03Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in risky sexual activities (e.g., What percentage of teens have sex with someone who is much older?). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity36.39 percentage of teens having risky sexStandard Error 2.19
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Risky Sexual Activity35.17 percentage of teens having risky sexStandard Error 3
p-value: 0.65Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in sexual activity (e.g., oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity36.10 percentage of teens sexually activeStandard Error 1.85
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity43.02 percentage of teens sexually activeStandard Error 2.01
p-value: 0.01Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Descriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity

Participants are asked to indicate what percentage \[0% = no teens; 100% = all teens\] of teens engage in sexual activity (e.g., oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex). (adapted from Scull, Kupersmidt, Malik, and Keefe, 2018)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity38.65 percentage of teens sexually activeStandard Error 2.67
Delayed-Intervention ControlDescriptive Norms Regarding Teen Sexual Activity40.89 percentage of teens sexually activeStandard Error 4.11
p-value: 0.64Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Communicate Before Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could communicate with others about sexual health (e.g., I could talk with a boy/girlfriend about using condoms for sexually transmitted infection protection.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Communicate Before Sex2.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Communicate Before Sex2.79 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
p-value: 0.14Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Communicate Before Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could communicate with others about sexual health (e.g., I could talk with a boy/girlfriend about using condoms for sexually transmitted infection protection.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Communicate Before Sex2.92 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Communicate Before Sex2.74 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.03Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander

Participants are asked to indicate on a scale of 0 (Can't do) to 100 (Very Certain) their degree of confidence in several behaviors (e.g., I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Intervene as Bystander75.96 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.9
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Intervene as Bystander70.97 units on a scaleStandard Error 2.7
p-value: 0.11Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander

Participants are asked to indicate on a scale of 0 (Can't do) to 100 (Very Certain) their degree of confidence in several behaviors (e.g., I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Intervene as Bystander74.26 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.68
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Intervene as Bystander71.28 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.85
p-value: 0.2Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could convince a partner to use contraception (e.g., If I decided to have sex, I could talk to any potential partner to make him/her understand why we should use condoms or other contraception.).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use3.19 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use3.11 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.49Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could convince a partner to use contraception (e.g., If I decided to have sex, I could talk to any potential partner to make him/her understand why we should use condoms or other contraception.).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use3.30 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Negotiate Contraception/Protection Use3.39 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
p-value: 0.55Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Use Contraception/Protection

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could get and use contraception (e.g., If I wanted to, I could get condoms or another form of contraception.).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Use Contraception/Protection3.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Use Contraception/Protection3.23 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.95Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Efficacy to Use Contraception/Protection

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) how effectively they could get and use contraception (e.g., If I wanted to, I could get condoms or another form of contraception.).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionEfficacy to Use Contraception/Protection3.06 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlEfficacy to Use Contraception/Protection3.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.54Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Intentions to Intervene as Bystander

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not likely at all; 2=Unlikely; 3=Likely; 4=Extremely likely) how likely they would be to intervene as a bystander (e.g., Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntentions to Intervene as Bystander3.10 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntentions to Intervene as Bystander3.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
p-value: 0.79Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Intentions to Intervene as Bystander

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not likely at all; 2=Unlikely; 3=Likely; 4=Extremely likely) how likely they would be to intervene as a bystander (e.g., Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help.). (adapted from Banyard, 2005)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntentions to Intervene as Bystander3.13 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntentions to Intervene as Bystander3.11 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
p-value: 0.93Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Intent to Communicate Before Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to communicate with others before sexual activity (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, how likely would you be to talk with your parents or another trusted adult about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntent to Communicate Before Sex2.82 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntent to Communicate Before Sex2.64 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
p-value: 0.01Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Intent to Communicate Before Sex

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not at all likely; 2=unlikely; 3=likely; 4=extremely likely) how likely they are to communicate with others before sexual activity (e.g., Before deciding to have sex, how likely would you be to talk with your parents or another trusted adult about sexual health?). (adapted from Scull, Malik, & Kupersmidt, 2014)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionIntent to Communicate Before Sex2.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlIntent to Communicate Before Sex2.60 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
p-value: 0.02Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Media Message Completeness

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=incomplete to 4=complete) how complete the information included in an advertisement is (e.g., How complete is the information in this advertisement?).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionMedia Message Completeness2.27 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Delayed-Intervention ControlMedia Message Completeness2.23 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
p-value: 0.81Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Media Message Completeness

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=incomplete to 4=complete) how complete the information included in an advertisement is (e.g., How complete is the information in this advertisement?).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionMedia Message Completeness2.17 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Delayed-Intervention ControlMedia Message Completeness2.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.81Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Media Skepticism

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agree with several statements about media (e.g., Media are dishonest about what happens if people have sex.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, and Kupersmidt, 2014, α=0.86)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionMedia Skepticism3.04 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Delayed-Intervention ControlMedia Skepticism3.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
p-value: 0.82Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Media Skepticism

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agree with several statements about media (e.g., Media are dishonest about what happens if people have sex.). (adapted from Scull, Malik, and Kupersmidt, 2014, α=0.86)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionMedia Skepticism2.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlMedia Skepticism2.78 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.14Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Perceived Realism of Media Messages

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agreed that teens on the media (e.g., Teens in the media do things that average teens do.). (adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997, α=0.80)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionPerceived Realism of Media Messages2.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.05
Delayed-Intervention ControlPerceived Realism of Media Messages2.23 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
p-value: 0.01Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Perceived Realism of Media Messages

Participants are asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree) the degree to which they agreed that teens on the media (e.g., Teens in the media do things that average teens do.). (adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997, α=0.80)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionPerceived Realism of Media Messages2.03 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlPerceived Realism of Media Messages2.19 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
p-value: 0.23Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Sexual Health Knowledge

Participants are asked several multiple choice and True/False questions about sexual health (e.g., True or false: You can tell someone has an STI by looking at him/her.).

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionSexual Health Knowledge11.34 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Delayed-Intervention ControlSexual Health Knowledge11.06 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
p-value: 0.2Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Sexual Health Knowledge

Participants are asked several multiple choice and True/False questions about sexual health (e.g., True or false: You can tell someone has an STI by looking at him/her.).

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionSexual Health Knowledge11.38 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Delayed-Intervention ControlSexual Health Knowledge10.72 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
p-value: <0.01Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified

Advertisement Credibility

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (variable) how 1) believable; 2) truthful; 3) trustworthy they find the advertisement. (adapted from MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAdvertisement Credibility2.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlAdvertisement Credibility2.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
p-value: 0.41Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified

Advertisement Credibility

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (variable) how 1) believable; 2) truthful; 3) trustworthy they find the advertisement. (adapted from MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionAdvertisement Credibility2.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Delayed-Intervention ControlAdvertisement Credibility2.14 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
p-value: 0.34Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified

Counterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) wanted to argue back to what it was saying; 2) thought of ways they disagreed with what was presented; 3) thought of ways that the information being presented was inaccurate or misleading; and 4) found themselves looking for flaws in the way information was presented in the ad. (adapted from Moyer-Gusé and Nabi, 2010)

Time frame: posttest (approximately one week after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points and participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCounterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement2.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Delayed-Intervention ControlCounterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement1.90 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
p-value: 0.2Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified

Counterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement

Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not much at all; 2=a little; 3=a good amount; 4=a lot) the extent to which they: 1) wanted to argue back to what it was saying; 2) thought of ways they disagreed with what was presented; 3) thought of ways that the information being presented was inaccurate or misleading; and 4) found themselves looking for flaws in the way information was presented in the ad. (adapted from Moyer-Gusé and Nabi, 2010)

Time frame: follow-up (approximately three months after pretest)

Population: The number of participants analyzed for this measure differs from the numbers in the Participant Flow module due to the fact that not all participants completed questionnaires at all time points, participants were able to skip questions on the questionnaire. In addition, participants whose follow-up data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the analyses.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionCounterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement1.87 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Delayed-Intervention ControlCounterarguing While Viewing an Advertisement1.92 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
p-value: 0.78Mixed Models Analysis

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 19, 2026