TAB E_ CASAPP validation manuscript

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Abstract
Competent prevention practitioners are critical for effective interventions. Although the
importance of having a well-trained staff has been emphasized in the prevention science
literature, most individuals tasked with the primary prevention of sexual assault are not
adequately trained to do so (e.g., school staff, professionals trained in sexual assault response).
Prevention practitioners responsible for implementing sexual assault prevention must possess
certain core competencies, or knowledge and skills essential for job performance, in order to
achieve optimal outcomes. These competencies include those needed for any primary prevention
effort in addition to those specific to sexual assault prevention. The purpose of this study is to
develop and pilot-test a competency assessment for sexual assault prevention practitioners
working in military and civilian settings so that gaps for individuals and for teams can be
identified and addressed. An existing assessment tool, which was designed for injury and
violence prevention practitioners, was tailored to reflect sexual assault prevention-specific
competencies as informed by the literature. The criterion validity of the newly tailored measure
was tested with 33 individuals who had varying levels of expertise with sexual assault
prevention. These individuals were categorized into three groups based on self-rated sexual
assault prevention expertise (low, medium or high) in order to assess group differences. As
expected, the high expertise group rated higher knowledge in all the competencies than the
medium and low expertise groups. Implications for how the assessment tool can be used to
identify gaps among individual practitioners and teams of practitioners are discussed.
Keywords (5-7 keywords): Core competencies, self-assessment, sexual assault, primary
prevention, prevention practitioners
DOPSR Case 21S-1737

CLEARED
For Open Publication
Apr 29, 2021
Department of Defense

OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW

1

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Development and Pilot Test of the Competency Assessment for
Sexual Assault Prevention Practitioners
Despite growing awareness and public outrage about the problem, sexual assault—i.e.,
unwanted sexual contact of any kind—remains widespread across the U.S. and has devastating
short-term and long-term consequences for the survivors’ psychological and physical health as
well as financial well-being (Martin et al., 2011). In the U.S., approximately 4.7% of women and
3.5% of men report experiencing sexual assault, which includes attempted or completed rape in
addition to other forms of unwanted sexual contact, in the preceding year (Smith et al., 2018).
The rates for sexual assault occurring for women in the military are comparable (Black et al.,
2011) . In the latest Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (WGRA),
6.2% of women experienced sexual assault in the preceding year (Breslin et al., 2019). Research
has suggested that one in five women have experienced sexual assault since starting college
(Muehlenhard et al, 2017).
Sexual assault is considered to be a public health problem because it is widespread there
is some evidence to show it can be prevented with a comprehensive evidence-based prevention
approach that targets modifiable risk factors and optimizes protective factors at individual,
relational, organizational/community and societal levels of analysis (e.g., Dills et al., 2016).
While there is an established process of intervention design and evaluation to demonstrate that
sexual assault interventions are evidence-based, no analogous process exists for determining
whether the professionals who conduct these EBIs are adequately trained and effective at
delivering these interventions.
Critical for any workforce, competencies foster improved performance (Chouhan &
Srivastava, 2014), and the workforce of prevention practitioners is no exception. Various reviews

2

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
and guidance documents have highlighted the essential role of well-trained staff in prevention
work and the importance of training staff on the required competencies. Nation and colleagues
(2003) reviewed various prevention literatures (e.g., substance abuse) and identified that delivery
of content by well-trained staff, along with eight other characteristics (e.g., theory-based
program content), was strongly associated with intervention effectiveness. Fixsen and colleagues
(2009) emphasized that essential implementation components of interventions included:
recruiting qualified staff, conducting training before the intervention is delivered, providing onthe-job coaching by more experienced staff during intervention delivery, and evaluating the
performance of staff. Finally, the Society for Prevention Research’s identified staff training as a
standard for prevention interventions (Flay et al., 2005).
Previous efforts have tried to determine whether prevention practitioners (i.e.,
professionals who perform work in the fields of primary prevention of injury and violence
prevention) are competent in primary prevention in general. Specifically, the core competencies
needed for prevention practitioners—i.e., the essential skills and knowledge for one’s work–were
developed in a consortium in the prevention science community (Songer et al., 2009) and an
assessment tool (the Injury Prevention Assessment or IPA) was developed to allow prevention
practitioners to self-assess on these competencies (Villaveces et al., 2010). These competencies
include approaching an injury or violence problem with frameworks like the public health model,
understanding how to analyze and use data for continuous quality improvement, designing and
evaluating interventions, and managing a prevention program.
The research suggests that sexual assault prevention practitioners may require additional
skills beyond the core competencies needed for injury and violence prevention in general
(Songer et al., 2009). One of the factors that makes sexual assault a unique type of violence to

3

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
prevent is the cultural pervasiveness of survivors being blamed – and internalizing blame – for
the event, which results in internalized shame, risk of retraumatization, and underreporting.
Combatting pervasive rape myths and avoiding harming participants with a history of sexual
assault while administering sensitive program content are only some of the major challenges
with which sexual assault prevention practitioners contend. The aforementioned IPA assessment
tool (Songer et al., 2009; Villaveces et al., 2010) does not assess sexual assault-specific
prevention competencies (e.g., group facilitator skills for using a trauma-informed approach).
The sexual assault prevention community would benefit from the articulation of core
competencies and incorporation of those competencies in an assessment tool, so that gaps in
competencies can be identified and addressed with training, reassignments, or hiring new
personnel. The purpose of this article is to (1) describe the development of a competency
assessment tool, that builds off of existing prevention core competencies, but is designed
specifically for sexual assault prevention practitioners working in both civilian and military
settings) and (2) its pilot test assessing knowledge and job relevance of these specific
competencies with practitioners reporting higher and lower levels of self-reported expertise in
sexual assault prevention.
Study hypotheses. We hypothesized that pilot test participants with higher levels of selfreported expertise in sexual assault prevention would score higher on the competency assessment
tool, reporting greater knowledge of competencies and perceiving greater job relevance of
competencies. Specifically, we predicted that the high expertise group would have greater
knowledge (H1a) and perceive greater job relevance (H2a) than medium and low expertise
groups. We predicted that the medium expertise group would have greater knowledge (H1b) and
perceive greater job relevance (H2b) than the low expertise group.

4

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Method
Literature search strategy and results. In order to identify existing competency
assessments and competencies needed for sexual assault prevention practitioners, we searched
the formal and gray literatures. We searched the Web of Science database for the following
search terms: (Rape OR sex* assault* OR sex* harassment OR sex* violen* OR gender-based
violence OR violence) AND (Primary prevention OR violence Prevention or prevent*) AND
(practitioner training OR Professional competenc* OR skills OR core competencies) AND
(competency assessment* OR curriculum-based assessment OR assessment OR scale OR
measure OR instrument OR questionnaire). In the Web of Science database, 477 references were
returned from the search. The references were categorized as follows: descriptions of programs
or evaluations (N=224), empirical studies about sexual assault (N=207), trainings or guidelines
about best practices for professionals who respond to sexual assault (e.g., physicians, forensic
nurses, mental health professionals) (N=13), information about therapy or response for sexual
assault (N=12), practice recommendations for sexual assault prevention or response (N=12),
assessment tools or competency criteria that can inform a tool (N=5), guidelines or standards for
violence prevention practitioners (N=2), or miscellaneous (e.g., validation of a scale) (N=2). We
searched Google for the following terms: (sexual assault OR sexual harassment) AND (Primary
prevention OR prevention) AND (practitioner OR educator OR facilitator) AND (training OR
train the trainer) and (assessment OR skills OR core competencies), which returned
approximately 1,630,000 results. We reviewed the first twenty pages of results to find relevant
resources. Resources deemed to be relevant often described sexual assault response (e.g.,
therapy).
We did not find self-assessment tools specific to sexual assault prevention practitioners,

5

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
but we identified two self-assessment tools that were not specific to sexual assault. One of them,
the IPA (Villaveces et al., 2010), consisted of self-ratings of knowledge about and job relevance
of the core competencies for prevention work. Since prevention core competencies are the
foundation of knowledge for sexual assault prevention practitioners (Runyan et al., 2005), we
aimed to build on them by tailoring this assessment tool.
We read and systematically extracted information from these publications. Then we
analyzed that information using constant comparative analysis (or thematic analysis). Four
themes described specific competencies needed for sexual assault prevention work: (1)
understanding and addressing the oppressive systems underlying sexual assault (e.g., Dills et al,
2016; NSVRC, 2012), (2) coordinating efforts across prevention and response (e.g., rape crisis
centers) (e.g., Dills et al, 2016), (3) using a trauma-informed approach to anticipate and manage
distressed feelings that may arise for program participants (Dills et al, 2016), and (4) expanding
the prevention focus to include what the program is trying to promote (e.g., safe, respectful and
equitable environments), not just what the program is aiming to prevent (i.e., sexual assault)
(NSVRC, 2012). These themes were not found to be adequately covered by the IPA.
Assessment tool development. We then tailored the IPA by first deleting and rewording
existing items to be more sexual assault-specific and then adding items that reflected any general
prevention or specific sexual assault prevention competencies that were missing. Thirteen items
were deleted because they were not relevant to sexual assault (e.g., Describe the biomechanics
which underlie how injuries occur) or were covered already or merged with existing items (e.g.,
Describe various levels where prevention activities can be focused). Five more items were
deleted because they were part of a competency that assess expertise on one-specific type of
violence (e.g., Describe the causes and characteristics of the specific injury and/or sexual

6

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
violence topic), which was no longer relevant since the entire assessment was focused on sexual
assault. Regarding the general prevention items that were added, a single item was added to
assess each of the following: knowledge of the multiple key elements of effective prevention
practice (Nation et al., 2003), ability to access and use scientific articles (Basile et al., 2016),
ability to distinguish interventions that are evidence-based from those that are not (Basile et al,.
2016), ability to tailor prevention programs (Perkinson et al., 2017), knowledge of best practices
concerning effective learning environments (NSVRC, 2012), and ability to convey program
goals with a promotion paradigm (NSVRC, 2012; Walden & Wall, 2014). Regarding the sexual
assault prevention competencies that were added, a single item was added to assess each of the
following: knowledge of protective factors against sexual assault perpetration and victimization
(e.g., Basile et al., 2016), understanding how oppressive systems lay foundation for sexual
assault (e.g., Dills et al, 2016; NSVRC, 2012; Walden & Wall, 2014), understanding special
issues concerning data and sexual assault such as underreporting (Yung, 2015), coordinating
efforts across prevention and response (e.g., rape crisis centers) (e.g., Dills et al, 2016), and using
a trauma-informed approach in program delivery (e.g., Dills et al, 2016; NSVRC, 2012) .
The resulting assessment tool had 70 items which were sorted into 8 competencies: (1)
sexual assault as a major public health problem (10 items); (2) working with sexual assault data
(10 items); (3) design, adaptation and implementation of sexual assault prevention activities (9
items); program evaluation (7 items); program management (6 items); dissemination (6 items);
ability to foster change related to sexual assault prevention through policy, enforcement,
advocacy and education (12 items); maintaining competency as a sexual assault prevention
practitioner (5 items). See Table 1 for reliability information and descriptive statistics concerning
the group averages for these competencies.

7

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
The modified assessment tool was renamed the Competency Assessment for Sexual
Assault Prevention Practitioners (CASAPP). We created an alternate version of the CASAPP
(CASAPP-m) compete with military-specific language for use by the Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Office (SAPRO) in the DoD. For example, the following item in the general
CASAPP “Describe how to establish and maintain an advisory group to assist with the
development and monitoring of goals for sexual assault prevention within a population (e.g., a
community, a state, among children, among Latinos, etc.)” became “Describe how to establish
and maintain an advisory group to assist with the development and monitoring of goals for
sexual assault prevention within a population (e.g., at a Military Service Academy, on a
submarine or a ship, among service members with alcohol-related conduct offenses).” in the
CASAPP-m.
Assessment tool pilot test. We then pilot tested the CASAPP to assess criterion validity
of the assessment tool with a convenience sample of 33 researchers at the RAND Corporation, at
DoD SAPRO, and at Portland State University, all of whom were Masters- or Doctoral-level
researchers. We requested that participants provide self-ratings of their expertise in sexual
assault prevention and any information that informed that rating (such as relevant trainings and
work experience). We then categorized participants into low, medium and high expertise groups.
Participants were instructed to take either the CASAPP or CASAPP-m depending on their
workplace (RAND and Portland State University participants took the CASAPP and DoD
SAPRO participants took the CASAPP-m). We collected participants’ impressions of the tool,
which we used to refine the tool.
Statistical Analysis. Given their similarity in content, the analyses conducted combined
responses from both versions of the CASAPP. All analyses were conducted in SPSS v22.0

8

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
(George & Mallery, 2019). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for each competency.
Then, we tested the study hypotheses through a series of ANOVAs and Bonferroni post-hoc tests
predicting self-reported ratings of knowledge and job relevance for each competency subscale
using a categorical coding of self-rated expertise (low, medium and high). Due to the modest
sample size, no covariates were included.

Results
The ANOVAs revealed that there was a significant effect of self-rated expertise for each
of the 8 core competencies for both knowledge and job relevance. For example of one of the
ANOVA findings, there was a significant effect of self-rated expertise for the 3 groups regarding
knowledge for Competency 1 [F(2, 30) = 34.61, p<.001]. Once the presence of between group
differences were established, Bonferroni tests were conducted to do specific group comparisons
(e.g., high versus medium expertise group). Table 2 displays the full results for the Bonferroni
comparisons. Regarding the dimension of knowledge, the high expertise group had was
significantly higher than the low expertise group on all of the competencies and was significantly
higher than the medium expertise groups on all competencies except Competency 8 (ability to
develop and maintain competency), thus lending support for H1a. For example, the high
expertise group (M=43.62, SD=4.74) had significantly greater knowledge about understanding
sexual assault as a public health problem (competency 1) than the medium expertise group
(M=30.11, SD=4.05) with a mean difference of 13.50 (SE=2.62; p<.001) and the low expertise
group (M=23.55, SD=8.32) with a mean difference of 20.07 (SE=2.50). The medium expertise
group was significantly higher from the low expertise group on competencies 2, 3, 4, and 8, thus
finding partial support for H1b. Regarding the dimension of job relevance, the high expertise

9

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
group had was significantly higher than the low expertise group on all competencies and was
significantly higher than the medium expertise groups on all the competencies except
competencies 5, 6, 7, and 8, this lending support for H2a. The medium expertise group was
significantly higher from the low expertise group on competencies 2 and 4 for job relevance, thus
lending partial support for H2b.
In total, 33 out of 48 tests were significant. To determine the likelihood of a Type 1 error
rate (false positive) due to multiple comparisons (Sainani, 2009), we calculated the number of
tests that would be expected to be significant by chance and compared that to our findings. The
number of significant tests (34) is higher than the number of tests that would be expected to be
significant by chance (48 tests total multiplied by 5%, or 2.4 tests), and therefore we are
confident in these findings.
Discussion
The CASAPP is informed by prevention science as well as practical guidance about what
competencies—i.e., knowledge, skills—sexual assault prevention practitioners should have
beyond the core competencies for prevention work outlined by Songer and colleagues (2009).
Our analyses suggest that the assessment tool is valid, with the high expertise group scoring
higher in knowledge on all competencies and higher in job relevance on most competencies. The
subscales also demonstrated good internal consistency. However, certain limitations should be
noted. The validity analyses utilized a small sample (n=33) and relied on self-reported expertise.
A larger sample with objective measures of expertise should be used for additional psychometric
testing. Additionally, while the convenience sample we utilized for the pilot test provided
preliminary validation of our assessment tool, the next step would be to administer the CASAPP
to a random sample of individuals with varying levels of expertise and work experience.

10

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
The assessment tool fills an important gap in the existing literature and is the first tool to
our knowledge that include specific competencies needed for sexual assault prevention in both
military and civilian settings. A previous needs assessment has found that practitioners working
in the fields of sexual assault and domestic violence focused most of their efforts on response
(e.g., counseling) rather than primary prevention and that they did not have adequate training and
experience in primary prevention but were eager to learn about primary prevention (Martin et al.,
2009). Although there are training programs for prevention practitioners in general (e.g.,
PREVENT Program; Runyan et al., 2005) and sexual assault prevention practitioners like those
offered by the CDC (Rape Prevention and Education (RPE)) to fill the learning gaps, there are no
self-assessment tools for teams of sexual assault prevention practitioners to first identify gaps in
knowledge and task assignments.
We believe that the advantages of a well-trained prevention practitioner workforce would
be significant. Well-trained staff can make the most use out of prevention funding, which tends
to be limited, by adopting the most appropriate EBIs and delivering them in a way that
maximizes the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes (e.g., Nation et al., 2003). Conducting
prevention in this manner would help potential victims avoid sexual assault’s devastating
psychological (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide) and economic (e.g., medical
expenses, lost wages) toll (Martin et al., 2011). Further, trauma-informed prevention work would
avoid causing additional harm to program participants with a history of sexual assault. Finally,
rigorously conducted research has been sparse resulting in only a handful of strategies being
proven to prevent sexual assault while there are many promising strategies that have yet to be
tested with rigorous methods (DeGue et al., 2014; Orchowski et al., 2018; Wright, Zounlome, &
Whiston, 2020). There is a need for competent professionals to conduct this research so that

11

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
effective programs can be invested in.
Beyond the inherent value of sexual assault prevention, universities and the military have
a particularly vested interest to have well-trained staff who do effective sexual assault prevention
work because sexual assault thwarts the core missions driving these institutions. Sexual assault
threatens education at universities as it hinders academic performance (e.g., declining grades)
and has found to be more predictive of dropping out of college than other types of violence
(Mengo & Black, 2016). The American College Health Association (ACHA, 2011) cautioned
that students cannot learn an unsafe environment and that survivors often face barriers to
academic success. The ACHA (2011) and the CDC (Dills et al., 2016) galvanized universities to
address sexual assault with a comprehensive approach and provided recommendations for
trauma-informed prevention and response to guide them. Analogous to sexual assault threatening
the mission of education for universities, sexual assault threatens the military’s mission of having
an effective force because it can result in personnel loss and it undermines unit cohesion, military
readiness and ultimately military effectiveness (Breslin et al., 2019; Klein & Gallus, 2018).
Important steps have been taken to improve the military’s response to sexual assault (like the
implementation of restricted reporting). We believe that the CASAPP would serve the military in
their prevention efforts. In military settings, individuals working in prevention are often not
trained, but are assigned these tasks as collateral duty (i.e., in addition to a full-time duty). In this
case, this assessment is critical for determining whether on-the-job training is appropriately
preparing these professionals to succeed.
The assessment tool could be used by entities at both the individual and team levels. At
the individual level, the assessment tool could be used to identify areas where additional training
would be beneficial. In addition to finding gaps in knowledge, the assessment tool can be used to

12

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
identify and reassign individuals possessing specific sets of knowledge that might not yet be
fully utilized when used at the team level. In addition, this assessment could also be used to
structure job announcements and to assess the quality of training programs through pre/post
assessments. The assessment tool could also be used to determine the knowledge and skills to
implement high quality prevention across an entire team, which could be critical as this work is
often conducted by teams.
Conclusion
High quality sexual assault prevention requires certain competencies to ensure
programming is well executed, evaluated, and sustained. The CASAPP is a tool that can help
both individuals and prevention teams monitor and improve those skills. The two versions
(general and military) of the assessment tool and instructions can be requested from the
corresponding co-author.

13

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Table 1. Reliability and descriptive statistics for knowledge and job relevance in the eight competencies of the CASAPP for the low,
medium, and high expertise groups.
Competency
Cronbach’s
Alpha
1. Understand the
problem
2. Interpret & use
data
3. Design, tailor, &
implement programs
4. Program
evaluation
5. Build & manage a
program

0.9505
0.953
0.960
0.972
0.968

6. Disseminate

0.950

7. Foster change

0.972

8. Maintain &
develop competency

0.937

Dimension: Knowledge
Low
Medium
High
expertise Expertise expertise
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
23.55
30.11
43.62
(8.32)
(4.05)
(4.74)
25.00
33.44
45.69
(8.99)
(6.86)
(3.66)
16.55
23.22
39.15
(7.79)
(4.68)
(4.10)
14.82
22.00
32.46
(7.34)
(6.82)
(2.40)
18.00
21.44
42.46
(8.23)
(6.58)
(8.47)
11.91
14.44
26.08
(7.04)
(3.54)
(3.48)
21.18
23.44
47.00
(10.75)
(7.16)
(9.45)
10.73
14.89
22.54
(5.76)
(4.65)
(2.30)

Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.968
0.962
0.971
0.985
0.978
0.950
0.973
0.953

Dimension: Job Relevance
Low
Medium
expertise
Expertise
M (SD)
M (SD)
22.36
33.67
(13.46)
(11.51)
22.00
37.89
(12.08)
(9.05)
18.73
28.33
(13.81)
(11.51)
14.82
28.89
(10.50)
(7.77)
20.45
26.89
(13.57)
(14.71)
12.73
17.44
(8.84)
(6.91)
23.27
30.00
(16.02)
(15.79)
9.45
14.89
(7.49)
(6.17)

High
expertise
M (SD)
42.46
(5.32)
44.46
(6.01)
38.46
(6.40)
32.15
(4.62)
42.69
(11.70)
26.15
(4.34)
47.77
(11.00)
21.31
(3.35)

14

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Table 2. Bonferroni post-hoc tests identifying differences between the high, medium and low expertise groups on knowledge and job
relevance in the eight competencies of the CASAPP.
Competency

Dimension: Knowledge
Dimension: Job Relevance
Group comparison: Mean difference (SE)
Group comparison: Mean difference (SE)
Medium and low
High and low High and medium Medium and low
High and low High and medium

1. Understand
6.57 (2.71)
20.07 (2.50)***
the problem
2. Interpret &
8.44 (3.01)*
20.69 (2.74)***
use data
3. Design,
tailor, &
6.68 (2.57)*
22.61 (2.35)***
implement
programs
4. Program
7.18 (2.57)*
17.64 (2.34)***
evaluation
5. Build &
manage a
3.44 (3.56)
24.46 (3.25)***
program
6. Disseminate
2.54 (2.23)
14.17 (2.04)***
7. Foster
2.26 (4.22)
25.82 (3.84)***
change
8. Maintain &
develop
11.81 (1.78)***
7.65 (1.89)**
competency
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

13.50 (2.62)***

11.30 (4.65)

20.10 (4.24)***

8.80 (4.49)

12.25 (2.90)**

15.89 (4.14)**

22.46 (3.77)***

6.57 (4.0)

15.93 (2.48)***

9.61 (4.83)

19.73 (4.40)***

10.13 (4.66)

10.46 (2.48)**

14.07 (3.52)**

17.34 (3.21)***

3.27 (3.40)

21.02 (3.44)***

6.43 (5.93)

22.24 (5.40)**

15.80 (5.72)*

11.63 (2.15)***

4.72 (3.06)

13.43 (2.79)***

8.71 (2.95)*

23.56 (4.07)***

6.73 (6.36)

24.50 (5.80)**

17.77 (6.14)*

4.16 (1.96)

5.43 (2.60)

11.85 (2.37)***

6.42 (2.50)*

15

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
References
American College Health Association (2011). Position Statement on Preventing Sexual Violence
on College and University Campuses.
Basile, K.C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S.G., Raiford, J.L. (2016). STOP
SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J.,
& Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breslin, R., Davis, L., Hylton, K., Hill, A., Klauberg, W., Petusky, M., & Klahr, A. (2019). 2018
Workplace and Gender Relations of Active Duty Members: Overview Report (No. OPA
Report No 2019-027). Office of People Analytics Alexandria United States.
Chouhan, V. S., & Srivastava, S. (2014). Understanding competencies and competency
modeling―A literature survey. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(1), 1422.
DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A
systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration.
Aggression and violent behavior, 19(4), 346-362.
Dills, J., Fowler, D., Payne, G. (2016). Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation
components. Research on social work practice, 19(5), 531-540.
16

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., ... & Ji, P.
(2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and
dissemination. Prevention science, 6(3), 151-175.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and
reference. Routledge.
Klein, M., & Gallus, J. A. (2018). The readiness imperative for reducing sexual violence in the
US armed forces: Respect and professionalism as the foundation for change. Military
Psychology, 30(3), 264-269.
Martin, S. L., Coyne-Beasley, T., Hoehn, M., Mathew, M., Runyan, C. W., Orton, S., & Royster,
L. A. (2009). Primary prevention of violence against women: Training needs of violence
practitioners. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 44-56.
Martin, S. L., Macy, R. J., & Young, S. K. (2011). Health and economic consequences of sexual
violence. In J. W. White, M. P. Koss, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women
and children, Vol. 1. Mapping the terrain (p. 173–195). American Psychological
Association. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1037/12307-008
Mengo, C., & Black, B. M. (2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA
and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 18(2), 234-248.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating
the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of
Sex Research, 54(4-5), 549-576.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., &
Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention

17

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
programs. American psychologist, 58(6-7), 449.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2012). Core competencies for sexual violence
prevention practitioners.
Orchowski, L. M., Berry-Cabán, C. S., Prisock, K., Borsari, B., & Kazemi, D. M. (2018).
Evaluations of Sexual Assault Prevention Programs in Military Settings: A Synthesis of
the Research Literature. Military medicine, 183(suppl_1), 421–428.
Perkinson, L., Freire, K.E., & Stocking, M. (2017). Using Essential Elements to Select, Adapt,
and Evaluate Violence Prevention Approaches. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Runyan, C. W., Gunther-Mohr, C., Orton, S., Umble, K., Martin, S. L., & Coyne-Beasley, T.
(2005). PREVENT: a program of the National Training Initiative on Injury and Violence
Prevention. American journal of preventive medicine, 29(5), 252-258.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.013
Sainani, K. L. (2009). The problem of multiple testing. PM&R, 1(12), 1098-1103.
Shadish, & Cook, (2009). The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions.
Annual review of psychology, 60, 607-629.
Smith, S.G., Zhang, X., Basile, K.C., Merrick, M.T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., Chen, J. (2018).
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief –
Updated Release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Villaveces, A., Stucky, B. D., Runyan, C. W., Moore, K. S., & Berlin, S. P. (2010). The
Development of an Instrument for Evaluating Core Competencies in Violence and Injury

18

RUNNING HEAD: Sexual assault competencies
Prevention. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 16(4), 337-344.
doi:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181bede2a
Wright, L. A., Zounlome, N. O. O., & Whiston, S. C. (2020). The Effectiveness of MaleTargeted Sexual Assault Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 21(5), 859–869.
Yung, C. R. (2015). Concealing campus sexual assault: An empirical examination. Psychology,
public policy, and law, 21(1), 1.

19