http://www.eurowrc.org/ >
Contributions
> Education_EuroWRC
|
http://www.eurowrc.org/ >
Contributions
> Education_EuroWRC |
|
|
|
|
| Violences jeunes |
|
|
 |
 |
|
VIRAJ EVALUATION OF A PREVENTION PROGRAM
Fancine
Lavoie, Martine Hébert
Communication presented at the
For
more information: Research
funded by Le Conseil québécois de la recherche sociale, Gouvernement du Québec.
The
elimination of violence is a national priority in both Canada and the United
States. One of the too few
evaluations of a program to prevent dating violence during adolescence is
presented here. It is a three-year
evaluation study using a patched-up cohort design, involving an assortment of
comparison groups of Grade 10 students in two schools.
817 students were involved in the different comparison groups.
The objective of the evaluation were to test, with a quasi-experimental
design, the net effect of the program, clear of the effects of maturational
trends, interfering events and pretesting.
The outcomes were measured after five weeks and four months; and for a
subsample, after 13 months. The
results of multiple analysis of variance show that the 2 1/2-hour program
influences attitudes toward dating violence, even 13 months after completion,
with rival hypotheses taken into account. Students
obtained better results after the intervention.
An exploratory analysis was done with female victims in a dating
relationship and male aggressors; and results indicate that the program was also
efficient for those at-risk populations on the attitudes scale.
In general, the program was not conductive to fostering changes in
behavioral intentions, in self-efficacy of control of dating violence and or in
peers approval. A second
objective was to verify, through interviews, the influence of the program six
months later.
The
elimination of violence is a national priority in both Canada and the
United-States. The school setting
is often considered to be one of the best levels of intervention.
One of the too few evaluations of a program to prevent dating violence
during adolescence is presented here.
A) Objectives
The
objective of the evaluation was to test, with a quasi-experimental design, the
net effect of the program, clear of the effects of maturational trends,
interfering events and pretesting, and to measure medium- term influences.
A second objective was to verify, through interviews, the influence of
the program six months later.
B) Perspectives
Epidemiological
data indicates that in Canada and in the United States, more than 20% of all
young people will have experienced incidents of dating violence before finishing
high school (Foshee, 1996; Malik,
Sorenson & Aneshensel, 1997; O'Keefe,
1997; Poitras & Lavoie, 1995).
It is therefore imperative that measures be taken to eliminate this
violence. This paper will describe the evaluation of a program to prevent
violence and foster equal-partner relationships among 14- to 16-year-old
adolescents going to school. The
program is different from the majority of programs available in the field,
because it centers exclusively on dating relationships and considers themes of
control and emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.
The program, which was initially developed by a team of researchers in
psychology, has been endorsed by the Province of Quebec's Ministry of Education
and has also been adopted by other French-speaking communities in Canada. An
English version is also available. An
initial evaluation without a control group conducted with 517 students confirmed
the program's effectiveness to in modifying attitudes (Lavoie, Piché, Boivin,
& Vézina, 1995).
C) Methods
Content
and objectives of the program
The
school program (named VIRAJ) consists of two classroom sessions (total program
duration: 150 minutes).
The
objectives of the first session are:
1)
to distinguish self-control or control over one's environment from the
abusive control of other people;
2) to identify and denounce different forms of control, including physical and social control and emotional blackmail;
3)
to understand the importance of the problem of violence in dating
relationships.
The
objectives of the second session are:
1)
to establish certain rights of each partner in a dating relationship;
2)
to learn how to apply these rights in situations with a risk of abuse;
3)
to learn that each partner is responsible for respecting the other's
rights;
4)
to understand that the responsibility for abuse must not be attributed to
the victim, but rather to the perpetrator.
Other
resources available are:
-
a training program for first-line practitioners to identify and support
victims and aggressors looking for help
-
a training session for schools wishing to implement the program
-
a videotape and posters.
Evaluation
goal
-
Using questionnaires, assess the impact that the VIRAJ program has on the
short and medium term, meaning five weeks, four months and in certain cases
thirteen months after the end of the program.
-
Using interviews with a selection of students including some who had
experienced violence, verify what is learned.
Participants
The
study was conducted in two Quebec City area high schools. The mean age was
around 15 years old, and 817 students were involved in different comparison
groups. Forty-eight young students
were interviewed.
Design
-
a three-year evaluation study with a quasi-experimental design
-
a patched-up cohort design, involving an assortment of comparison groups
-
control of the effects of:
. pretesting
. maturational trends
. interfering events
-
measurement with validated instruments at 5 five weeks, 4 four months and
for a subsample, 13 months after the program
-
assessment of attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-efficacy in
preventing their own involvement in dating violence, peer approval of their
involvement in dating violence
-
interviews completed six months after the completion of the program with
a selection of students
A description of the quasi-experimental design:
P =
Program
Measures
Attitudes
A
34-item attitudes scale was built, based on results of work undertaken
previously, and on the work of other researchers.
A Likert scale was used, with four response alternatives (ranging from
“completely agree” to “completely disagree”).
Higher scores indicated attitudes against dating violence.
The alpha with a group of 997 students from a rural area was 0.86 (Lavoie
et al., 1997).
Behavioral
intentions as a victim/as a witness
Two
items represented behavioral intentions:
"If I were the victim of violence inflicted by my partner, I would
keep it secret" and "If I were to observe violent acts within a
couple, I would tell them that I disagree with the use of violence.”
The same Likert scale was used.
Peer
approval
A 9-item
scale of peer approval of violence in dating relationships was constructed.
Students had to evaluate how their peers would approve of them if they
bullied their intimate partner in 9 couple-conflict situations.
Alpha was 0.86 with a group of 246 students from a rural area and 0.74
with a group of 971 students from urban areas (Lavoie et al., 1997). Higher scores indicated that students perceive that their
peers would approve them.
Self-efficacy
of control of dating violence
The same
nine couple-conflict situations were presented and students had to evaluate how
easy or how difficult it would be for them not to react with violence.
Alpha was 0.89 with a group of 250 students from a rural area and 0.89
with a group of 977 students from urban areas (Lavoie et al., 1997).
Higher scores indicated that students perceived that they demonstrated
good self-efficacy of control of dating violence.
Dating
violence
A
questionnaire on dating violence (psychological, sexual and physical) was
developed to identify male aggressors and female victims (description of the
instrument: Lavoie & Vézina,
submitted).
D)
Results
Please
note that in the following sections no distinction is made between the results
obtained from males and females, because in all analyses of our main
measurement, the attitudes scale, results indicated that even if females on a
whole scored higher than the males, there was no interaction effect between
gender and comparison situations. In other words, the same trends were observed
for females and males in comparable situations.
Test of
the equivalence of groups
Before
submitting the data to the analyses of variance, the equivalence of groups was
tested. Even if a cohort design presumes that there is a similarity between
students of three different years in a same school when there is no documented
changes in the institution recruitment policy, statistical tests could be used
to verify this equivalence for cohorts 2 and 3.
On the other hand, equivalence of groups had to be checked between
Schools 1 and 2 before comparing the students (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Results (Table 1) indicate that in pretest (O2), Cohort Group 2 showed
results comparable to those of the third cohort in
pretest (O5) and students of the second school during the first
questionnaire (O6). Therefore, one
may conclude equivalence among the different comparison groups.
Table 1
Test of equivalence
Pretesting
effects
The
effect of the pretest was verified with the second cohort.
Half of the students were given an evaluation questionnaire during the
pretest and the other half completed a questionnaire on a different subject
(teachers at the school). The results obtained from both groups of students were
the same during the post-test, indicating that the pretest had no effect.
Moreover, post-test results of students not having completed the pretest were
higher than the results obtained in the pretest of the other group of students
in the attitudes scale.
Table 2
Pretesting effects
Impact
five weeks after the program
The
impact of the program was verified through a series of comparisons between the
information gathered during pretests and during post-tests. It may be concluded that on four occasions the program was
deemed efficient, but only with respect to attitudes. The next sections will
address attitude measurement only.
Table 3
Impact five weeks after the program
Effect
of maturational trends and interfering events
The
preceeding comparaisons are insufficient. Results obtained in School 1 must be
compared with those of a control group not exposed to the same program in the
same timeframe. If maturational trends or interfering events might explain
post-program gains, they should be revealed by the addition of this group. The
useful comparison is:
(O3
- O2) > (O7
- O6). Analyses of
variance indicate that students (n = 140) having received VIRAJ (School 1) and
students (n = 306) not having received VIRAJ (School 2) obtained higher scores
in the attitudes scale in the second questionnaire as opposed to the first, and
there is a significant interaction effect of time and group.
The calculation of simple effects confirmed that the school (School 1)
where VIRAJ was presented showed more improvement, in terms of attitudes, since
the results obtained in the pretest in the attitudes scales of both schools were
not significantly different (F(1, 884) = 1,82, p >0.05) , while
in the post-test, School 1 obtained much higher results (F(1, 884) =
7.08, p <0.001). There
was no effect on other measurements. Figure
1 below illustrates this influence. In conclusion, the program explains the higher results
obtained. They may not be attributed solely to the maturing of young people, nor
to an interfering event experienced in both environments.
Figure 1
Medium-term
effects
Medium-term
effects were verified for two different timeframes: one for Cohort 2 (4 months)
and the other for Cohort 1 (13 months). In
the follow-up questionnaire, only our main measurement, the attitudes scale, was
administered to students in order to curtail the task of those who had to answer
three questionnaires during the same year.
Effect
after four months
Analyses
of variance for repeated measures were carried out on the students of Cohort 2
who received a pretest, the program, a post-test and follow-up.
Results indicate differences between pre and post-test (F(1,111) = 55.47,
p<0.001) and between follow-up and post-test (F(1,111) = 5.36, p < 0.05).
Figure 2 presents overall results for all students, and for boys and
girls. Changes noted 5 weeks after the program remained, improving continually.
Figure 2
Effect
13 months later
The
results of analysis of variance for the first cohort indicated positive and
significant changes between follow-up (13 months) and post-testing (F(1,
252) = 3.64, p = 0.05). This
indicates that 13 months after the program, there were still noticeable gains.
Exploration
of data of victims and of aggressors
An
exploratory analysis was done with victimized females and male aggressors, and
results indicate that the program was also efficient at changing attitudes for
those at-risk populations. Analyses
of variance were carried out on the sample of young people from the second
cohort who had received both a pretest and a post-test. The results indicate significant, positive changes following
the program for females (F(1, 35) = 13,96, p <0.001) in terms
of the attitudes scale and no effect of interaction between the status of
victim/non-victim and time of measurement (F(1,35) = 0.35, p >
0.05). For males, significant, positive changes were also observed in the
pretest and post-test (F(1, 21) = 5.71, p < 0.05)
with no interaction effect with the status of aggressor/non-aggressor (F(1,
21) = 3.84, p > 0.05. However,
because the sample for these analyses was small, results may not be generalized
(16 female victims, 21 female non-victims, 6 male aggressors and 17 male
non-aggressors).
Significant
differences in two scales of measurement distinguish the females (Figure 4) and
the males (Figure 5) depending on their status (victim/non-victim,
aggressor/non-aggressor), but the program had no influence on these two
measurements. It should be noted
that a high result on the scale of peer pressure indicates that the young person
deems having received the approval of peers to react violently to his or her
partner in certain situations, while a high result in the scale of self-control
indicates that the young person believes he or she is capable of controlling his
or reactions faced with difficult situations with his or her partner.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Interview results
-
Some questions were intended to verify whether the program covered
material similar to what teens live but which are not discussed here. The
question of interest in relation to the evaluation of impact is what they got
from the program. In addition, we considered unplanned negative influences
reported by teens. The main results
are that:
1) Males
and females learned how many were affected in the population and that we should
not ignore the problem.
2) Both
sexes became self-conscious that some of their behaviors were abusive or
represented victimization incidents.
3) Most
females analyzed rather systematically their present dating relationship.
4) Males
perceived that they were also victimized by females, especially through
emotional manipulation, but most reported that they asserted themselves at the
time and that consequences were not serious. A few said that they were not
skillful at asserting themselves.
5) Males
saw that they had abusive behaviors at times and they were convinced to
communicate more with their partner, listen more and respect their rights.
6)
Females were convinced that, if victimized, it was time to change things and ask
for help. Some left their
boyfriends, some asserted themselves more specifically regarding their
sexuality.
7) Some
females reported that they tried to be less controlling.
8) Males
and females in violent relations were relieved to see that they were not the
only ones confronted with violence.
9) Some
saw the importance of prevention as compared to being subjected to abusive
incidents.
-
Some unmet needs were mentioned: to talk more about sexuality (first
sexual relation -mentioned by males-, incest, rape), about dating in general,
about parents and of in-laws and their acceptance.
-
Immediate negative impacts were reported.
Some females became stressed when thinking about a significant other or
themselves. They understood what a
significant other was going through and were preoccupied.
Being victims themselves, some reported it was difficult to listen to the
program; some choose to ignore their situation as victims at the time because it
was too difficult to accept, but they might face it later; and, finally, some
were afraid to be spotted in the classroom as it seemed to them that their
victim status was so evident. On the other hand, some females got the idea that
what they believed was abusive in their own life was not much to complain about
when compared to others situations.
-
Longer term negative impacts: some victims, after trying to assert
themselves more with greater success, saw that their boyfriends used controlling
patterns again and they stopped trying to change the situation.
-
In general, the program is reported as having brought changes.
Victims may have more difficulty to implement enduring changes, and some
adaptations should be made to the program content.
Conclusion
The
results of multiple analyses of variance show that the 2-1/2 hour program mainly
influences attitudes toward dating violence, even 13 months after completion,
with rival hypotheses taken into account. An
exploratory analysis was done with victimized females and aggressors;
results indicate that the program was also efficient for victims and
aggressors. In general, the program
was not conductive to fostering changes in behavioral intentions nor in the
perception of peer approval of dating violence.
Qualitative results help us to understand the unsettling experience of
victims and aggressors involved in such a program. Teens in general would like
to learn skills to assert themselves more and to build a respectful relation
with their partners. Sexuality seems to be an important theme worth developing
more in our program.
Summary
of Main Results
E) Educational and Scientific Importance
-
The most interesting conclusion of this study is that a relatively short
program modified attitudes about violence and control by a partner in dating
relationships. Because skills training requires greater involvement by
schools over a longer period, and are not often implemented for that reason, we
centered our short program around normative-change components (depiction of
violence as unacceptable, identification of negative consequences, etc.) and on
one moral issue related to the development of pro-social behavior, a concern for
the rights and needs of others confronted with our rights and needs.
This may provide an avenue for other programs.
-
Another important point to note is the impact of the program on boys
males. It is important that both
sexes benefited from the program: it did not provoke an reverse adverse effect
among the males. Contrary to Lenihan, Rawlins, Eberly, Buckley, and Masters
(1992), the program content seems to have succeeded in bringing about change
among the males. An important
factor contributing to success could be that we also addressed violence emitted
by females while not minimizing violence by males.
-
The design chosen (patched-up design and quantitative and qualitative
approach) was quite useful in the school setting. It should be used more often.
Our research also provides the first evaluation of medium term effects of a
prevention program on dating violence.
References Cook, T.
D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design and analysis issues for field settings.
Chicago: Rand and Mc Nally. Foshee,
V. A. (1996). Gender differences in
adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries.
Health Education Research, 11(3), 275-286. Lavoie, F., Vézina, L., Piché, C.,
& Boivin, M.
(1995). Evaluation
of a prevention program for violence in teen dating relationships.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 517-525 Lavoie, F., Dufort, F., Piché, C.,
& Vézina, L. (1997). Évaluation
d'un programme de prévention de la violence lors des fréquentations: Une évaluation de VIRAJ selon une aapproche quasi expérimentale.
Rapport final de recherche. Université
Laval, Québec. Lavoie, F., & Vézina, L.
(submitted). Présentation d'un
instrument de mesure, le VIFA, identifiant la victimisation et l'agression dans
le contexte des fréquentions amoureuses à l'adolescence.
Lenihan,
G. O., Rawlins, M. E., Eberly, C. G., Buckley, B., & Masters, B. (1992).
Gender differences in rape supportive attitudes before and after a date
rape education intervention. Journal
of College Student Development, 33(4), 331-338.
O'Keefe,
M. (1997). Predictors of dating
violence among high school students. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 546-568. Poitras, M., & Lavoie, F.
(1995). A study of the
prevalence of sexual coercion in adolescent heterosexual dating relationships in
a Quebec sample. Violence and
Victims, 10(4), 299-313. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||