Skip to content

Evaluating Cross-Cutting Prevention at the U.S. Air Force Academy

Evaluating Cross-Cutting Sexual Assault and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programming at the U.S. Air Force Academy

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06875284
Enrollment
2041
Registered
2025-03-13
Start date
2022-06-27
Completion date
2024-05-01
Last updated
2025-11-25

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

Conditions

Alcohol Misuse, Sexual Assault

Keywords

Sexual assault prevention, Alcohol misuse prevention, Sexual Communication and Consent, eCHECKUP TO GO

Brief summary

Sexual assault and alcohol misuse are interrelated, persist at high rates in military populations, and carry negative consequences for military units and personnel. Combining tailored efforts to prevent sexual assault and alcohol misuse is critical for developing a more effective Force. This study will test the cross-cutting immediate and long-term outcomes of two programs, the Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC) sexual assault prevention program and the eCHECKUP TO GO alcohol misuse prevention program, delivered separately and in combination, with Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy. Anonymous Cadet self-report data will be collected before training (pre-test), immediately after training (post-test), 3 months after training (Fall semester follow-up), and 9 months after training (Spring semester follow-up).

Detailed description

Sexual assault and alcohol misuse both persist at high rates among military populations. These behaviors interfere with readiness, unit cohesion, mission objectives, and personnel performance and retention. There are demonstrated associations between sexual assault and alcohol misuse for both perpetrators and victims of sexual assault. Therefore, combining efforts to prevent sexual assault and alcohol misuse is critical for more effective and efficient programming. Moreover, tailored prevention programming that addresses individual risks and experiences related to sexual assault and alcohol misuse is likely to be the most effective programming. Unfortunately, to date, no evidence-based cross-cutting interventions have been developed and evaluated for impacts on both sexual assault and alcohol misuse among military populations. Several challenges impede this effort. Sexual assault prevention and alcohol misuse prevention are typically managed in different organizations within military settings, including within Military Service Academies. Training settings face many competing demands for trainees' time and instructor capacity, and instructors' ability to provide both sexual assault-related and alcohol-related training varies widely. Despite the promise of tailored training, individualized programming also presents feasibility challenges in group education settings common to military training. In alignment with the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Department of Defense (DoD) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Research Agenda and DoD's desire to have cross-cutting prevention programs that reduce risk for multiple harmful behaviors, the long-term goal of the proposed work is to address these challenges and provide the military with flexible, engaging, tailored prevention programming that reduces sexual assault and alcohol misuse while minimizing burden on Service members and training settings. To that end, the basic objective of this study is to test the cross-cutting immediate and long-term outcomes of two programs, the Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC) sexual assault prevention program and the eCHECKUP TO GO alcohol misuse prevention program, delivered separately and in combination, with Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy. Anonymous Cadet self-report data will be collected before training (pre-test), immediately after training (post-test), 3 months after training (Fall semester follow-up), and 9 months after training (Spring semester follow-up).

Interventions

BEHAVIORALSexual Communication and Consent (SCC)

SCC combines universal classroom instruction with tailored web-based content. Based on sociodemographic characteristics and prior sexual assault experiences, Cadets receive tailored content that addresses either primary victimization prevention, revictimization prevention, or healthy relationships and bystander intervention promotion.

BEHAVIORALAlcohol eCHECKUP TO GO (eCHECKUP TO GO)

eCHECKUP TO GO is a personalized, online intervention designed to reduce cognitive risk factors for alcohol misuse. eCHECKUP TO GO is brief, self-guided, and provides individualized feedback based on a user's self-reported alcohol use patterns and consequences.

TAU involves universal classroom instruction focused on developing knowledge, attitudes, and skills to promote personal resilience, increase potential for success, and develop healthy and rewarding personal relationships.

Sponsors

U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity
CollaboratorFED
U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command
CollaboratorFED
University of Florida
CollaboratorOTHER
San Diego State University
CollaboratorOTHER
United States Department of Defense
CollaboratorFED
RTI International
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Quasi-experimental trial

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
17 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* U.S. Air Force Academy Basic Cadet enrolled in 2022 or 2023 Basic Cadet Training

Exclusion criteria

* Unable or unwilling to provide informed consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Self-reported Sexual Assault VictimizationFrom pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 monthsParticipants self-report whether they experienced any type of unwanted sexual contact between Basic Cadet Training and the Spring semester follow-up using a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey.
Self-reported Sexual Assault PerpetrationFrom pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 monthsParticipants self-report whether they perpetrated any type of unwanted sexual contact between Basic Cadet Training and the Spring semester follow-up using a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey.
Self-reported Alcohol UseFrom pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 monthsParticipants self-report the approximate number of alcoholic drinks they consumed each day of the week during a typical week over the past month (assessed at both the Fall and Spring semester follow-up assessments). Participants who respond with any weekly value greater than 0 alcoholic drinks at either the Fall or Spring semester follow-up are coded as positive for any alcohol use.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Knowledge of Sexual AssaultFrom pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 monthThe percentage of correct participant responses to 8 true-or-false questions about sexual assault.
Knowledge of Effective ConsentFrom pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 monthThe percentage of correct participant responses to 7 true-or-false questions about effective sexual consent.
Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesFrom pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 monthA subset of participants rate their degree of confidence in their ability to use certain protective strategies in 6 specific high-risk situations. Scale scores range 6 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy.
Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UseFrom pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 monthParticipants report how many days in the week they estimate the average Cadet of their same age and gender drinks and how many drinks the average Cadet of their same age and gender consumes per day using a modified version of the Quantity/Frequency/Peak questionnaire. The average number of estimated drinks consumed per drinking day is computed from this data and has a possible score range of 0 drinks to 6 drinks.
Readiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorFrom pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 monthParticipants self-report their readiness to change their drinking behavior using a single item. The possible item score ranges 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater readiness to change.
Dating-related Protective Strategy UseFrom pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 monthsParticipants self-report the degree to which they engaged in behavioral strategies to reduce sexual assault risk using the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Scores range 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater engagement in dating-related protective behavioral strategies.
Alcohol-related Protective Strategy UseFrom pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 monthsParticipants self-report the degree to which they engaged in behavioral strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms using an adapted version of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Survey. Scores range 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater engagement in alcohol-related protective strategies.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Training as Usual (TAU)
TAU without SCC or eCHECKUP TO GO
556
TAU Plus eCHECKUP TO GO
TAU with eCHECKUP TO GO (without SCC)
401
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)
Sexual Communication and Consent without TAU or eCHECKUP TO GO
632
SCC Plus eCHECKUP TO GO
SCC with eCHECKUP TO GO (without TAU)
396
Total1,985

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTraining as Usual (TAU)TAU Plus eCHECKUP TO GOSexual Communication and Consent (SCC)SCC Plus eCHECKUP TO GOTotal
Age, Continuous18.33 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.98
18.35 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.86
18.29 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.93
18.34 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.91
18.32 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.93
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
45 Participants38 Participants54 Participants37 Participants174 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
30 Participants14 Participants32 Participants16 Participants92 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Multiple races/ethnicities
63 Participants38 Participants61 Participants32 Participants194 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Native American or Alaska Native
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other race/ethnicity
2 Participants0 Participants4 Participants4 Participants10 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian
1 Participants1 Participants6 Participants0 Participants8 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Prefer not to answer or missing
5 Participants9 Participants14 Participants6 Participants34 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino/a
64 Participants39 Participants64 Participants38 Participants205 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
345 Participants262 Participants396 Participants263 Participants1266 Participants
Self-reported Alcohol Use122 Participants93 Participants130 Participants89 Participants434 Participants
Self-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration6 Participants6 Participants8 Participants7 Participants27 Participants
Self-reported Sexual Assault Victimization88 Participants63 Participants92 Participants69 Participants312 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
156 Participants118 Participants173 Participants107 Participants554 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
400 Participants283 Participants459 Participants289 Participants1431 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 5560 / 4010 / 6320 / 396
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 5560 / 4010 / 6320 / 396
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 5560 / 4010 / 6320 / 396

Outcome results

Primary

Self-reported Alcohol Use

Participants self-report the approximate number of alcoholic drinks they consumed each day of the week during a typical week over the past month (assessed at both the Fall and Spring semester follow-up assessments). Participants who respond with any weekly value greater than 0 alcoholic drinks at either the Fall or Spring semester follow-up are coded as positive for any alcohol use.

Time frame: From pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 months

Population: The number analyzed at follow-up differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided follow-up data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Alcohol UsePretest122 Participants
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Alcohol Use9-month follow-up18 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Alcohol Use9-month follow-up5 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Alcohol UsePretest93 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Alcohol UsePretest130 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Alcohol Use9-month follow-up14 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Alcohol UsePretest89 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Alcohol Use9-month follow-up9 Participants
Primary

Self-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration

Participants self-report whether they perpetrated any type of unwanted sexual contact between Basic Cadet Training and the Spring semester follow-up using a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey.

Time frame: From pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 months

Population: The number analyzed at follow-up differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided follow-up data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Sexual Assault PerpetrationPretest6 Participants
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration9-month follow-up0 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration9-month follow-up0 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault PerpetrationPretest6 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Sexual Assault PerpetrationPretest8 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration9-month follow-up0 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault PerpetrationPretest7 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault Perpetration9-month follow-up0 Participants
Primary

Self-reported Sexual Assault Victimization

Participants self-report whether they experienced any type of unwanted sexual contact between Basic Cadet Training and the Spring semester follow-up using a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey.

Time frame: From pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 months

Population: The number analyzed at follow-up differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided follow-up data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Sexual Assault VictimizationPretest88 Participants
Training as usual (TAU)Self-reported Sexual Assault Victimization9-month follow-up1 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault Victimization9-month follow-up0 Participants
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault VictimizationPretest63 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Sexual Assault VictimizationPretest92 Participants
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-reported Sexual Assault Victimization9-month follow-up0 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault VictimizationPretest69 Participants
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-reported Sexual Assault Victimization9-month follow-up0 Participants
Secondary

Alcohol-related Protective Strategy Use

Participants self-report the degree to which they engaged in behavioral strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms using an adapted version of the Protective Behavioral Strategies Survey. Scores range 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater engagement in alcohol-related protective strategies.

Time frame: From pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 months

Population: The number analyzed at follow-up differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided follow-up data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Alcohol-related Protective Strategy UsePretest60.64 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.65
Training as usual (TAU)Alcohol-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up68.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.65
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOAlcohol-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up66.77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 38.96
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOAlcohol-related Protective Strategy UsePretest63.34 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.52
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Alcohol-related Protective Strategy UsePretest58.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.22
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Alcohol-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up55.61 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 43.06
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOAlcohol-related Protective Strategy UsePretest64.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.21
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOAlcohol-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up73.52 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.5
Secondary

Dating-related Protective Strategy Use

Participants self-report the degree to which they engaged in behavioral strategies to reduce sexual assault risk using the Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale. Scores range 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater engagement in dating-related protective behavioral strategies.

Time frame: From pre-test to Spring semester follow-up, an average of 10 months

Population: The number analyzed at follow-up differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided follow-up data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Dating-related Protective Strategy UsePretest42.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.4
Training as usual (TAU)Dating-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up39.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.41
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GODating-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up40.55 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.04
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GODating-related Protective Strategy UsePretest42.05 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.82
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Dating-related Protective Strategy UsePretest40.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.28
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Dating-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up37.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.22
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GODating-related Protective Strategy UsePretest42.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.21
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GODating-related Protective Strategy Use9-month follow-up42.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.59
Secondary

Knowledge of Effective Consent

The percentage of correct participant responses to 7 true-or-false questions about effective sexual consent.

Time frame: From pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 month

Population: The number analyzed at post-test differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided post-test data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Knowledge of Effective ConsentPretest value96.64 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 6.99
Training as usual (TAU)Knowledge of Effective ConsentPosttest value97.57 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 5.89
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Effective ConsentPosttest value97.57 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 5.95
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Effective ConsentPretest value96.86 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 6.58
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Knowledge of Effective ConsentPretest value96.37 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 7.42
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Knowledge of Effective ConsentPosttest value98.16 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 4.93
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Effective ConsentPretest value96.45 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 6.96
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Effective ConsentPosttest value98.53 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 4.57
p-value: 0.03595% CI: [-2.27, -0.08]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.5495% CI: [-1.44, 0.76]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.02395% CI: [-2.6, -0.19]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Knowledge of Sexual Assault

The percentage of correct participant responses to 8 true-or-false questions about sexual assault.

Time frame: From pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 month

Population: The number analyzed at post-test differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided post-test data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Knowledge of Sexual AssaultPretest value78.10 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 14.61
Training as usual (TAU)Knowledge of Sexual AssaultPosttest value82.74 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 13.66
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Sexual AssaultPosttest value81.85 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 13.57
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Sexual AssaultPretest value76.53 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 15.33
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Knowledge of Sexual AssaultPretest value78.97 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 14.55
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Knowledge of Sexual AssaultPosttest value90.79 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 11.01
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Sexual AssaultPretest value78.30 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 15.16
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOKnowledge of Sexual AssaultPosttest value92.32 percentage of correct responsesStandard Deviation 10.11
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.06, -6.96]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.04195% CI: [-4.22, -0.09]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-10.76, -6.25]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol Use

Participants report how many days in the week they estimate the average Cadet of their same age and gender drinks and how many drinks the average Cadet of their same age and gender consumes per day using a modified version of the Quantity/Frequency/Peak questionnaire. The average number of estimated drinks consumed per drinking day is computed from this data and has a possible score range of 0 drinks to 6 drinks.

Time frame: From pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 month

Population: The number analyzed at post-test differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided post-test data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePosttest value3.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.17
Training as usual (TAU)Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePretest value2.89 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.69
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GONormative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePretest value2.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GONormative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePosttest value2.52 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.09
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePretest value3.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.81
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Normative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePosttest value2.72 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.53
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GONormative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePosttest value2.88 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.05
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GONormative Perceptions of Peer Alcohol UsePretest value2.66 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
p-value: 0.05895% CI: [-0.02, 1.02]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.04695% CI: [-1.07, -0.01]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.09795% CI: [-1.06, 0.09]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Readiness to Change Alcohol Use Behavior

Participants self-report their readiness to change their drinking behavior using a single item. The possible item score ranges 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater readiness to change.

Time frame: From pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 month

Population: The number analyzed at post-test differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided post-test data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Readiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPretest value0.87 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.36
Training as usual (TAU)Readiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPosttest value1.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.48
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOReadiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPosttest value0.88 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.37
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOReadiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPretest value1.04 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Readiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPretest value1.02 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.44
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Readiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPosttest value1.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.51
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOReadiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPretest value0.94 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.39
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOReadiness to Change Alcohol Use BehaviorPosttest value1.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.43
p-value: 0.6495% CI: [-0.16, 0.26]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.2595% CI: [-0.09, 0.33]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.03395% CI: [-0.47, -0.02]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual Advances

A subset of participants rate their degree of confidence in their ability to use certain protective strategies in 6 specific high-risk situations. Scale scores range 6 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy.

Time frame: From pre-test to post-test, an average of 1 month

Population: The number analyzed at post-test differs from the overall number analyzed because not all participants who provided pre-test data provided post-test data.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Training as usual (TAU)Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPretest value33.45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.91
Training as usual (TAU)Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPosttest value34.68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.04
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPosttest value34.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.58
TAU plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPretest value33.45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPretest value33.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.68
Sexual Communication and Consent (SCC)Self-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPosttest value34.84 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.45
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPretest value32.05 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.05
SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GOSelf-efficacy to Resist Unwanted Sexual AdvancesPosttest value35.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3.98, -1.34]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.01295% CI: [-3.09, -0.39]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.000895% CI: [-3.88, -1.03]Mixed Models Analysis

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026