Resource Process and Outcome Evaluation Measures for Sexual Assault Prevention Activities in the Military

Process Evaluation Measures

Type of Measure Measure Items Measure Name and Source
1. Demographics 1.1 Gender 1.1.1 Are you a . . . Response options: Man, woman, prefer not to answer U.S. Census Bureau
1.2 Age 1.2.1 What is your age? Response options: Number National Health Promotion Associates, Cadet Healthy Personal Skills (CHiPS): An Adaptation of Botvin Life Skills Training Report, 2018.
1.3 Ethnicity 1.3.1 What is your ethnicity? Response options: Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic or Latino, prefer not to answer National Health Promotion Associates, Cadet Healthy Personal Skills (CHiPS): An Adaptation of Botvin Life Skills Training Report, 2018.
1.4 Race 1.4.1 What is your race? Response options: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White, other (please specify), prefer not to answer National Health Promotion Associates, Cadet Healthy Personal Skills (CHiPS): An Adaptation of Botvin Life Skills Training Report, 2018.
1.5 Pay grade 1.5.1 What is your pay grade? Response options: E-1–E-4, E-5–E-8, W-1–W-5, O-1–O-3, O-4 and above
2.Implementation quality 2.1 Presenter delivers with fidelity Ratings on adherence to the prevention activity model or curriculum made by
  • 2.1.1 the trainer ("Were you able to cover the following training elements . . . ")
  • 2.1.2 an external observer ("Did the trainer cover the following training elements . . . ")
  • 2.1.3 participants (the provided question is framed in an easy-to-understand way—for example, "My trainer let us explain what we mean by ‘respect'")
Fidelity assessment items will be unique to the content of the prevention activity being implemented. 		Coreen Farris, Terry L. Schell, Margaret Tankard, Lisa H. Jaycox, Barbara Bicksler, Angela Clague, and Dionne Barnes-Proby, Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2220-USMC, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2220.html
2.2 Leadership communicated support for the prevention activity Participant ratings of the extent to which their direct supervisor, leader, and/or commander values the prevention activity process and encouraged them to engage in the prevention activity
  • 2.2.1 My leadership has clearly emphasized the importance of this training.
  • 2.2.2 My leadership made sure I attended this training (for example, they came to the training with us, they reminded me that attendance is mandatory).
  • Response options: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree
 Coreen Farris, Terry L. Schell, Margaret Tankard, Lisa H. Jaycox, Barbara Bicksler, Angela Clague, and Dionne Barnes-Proby, Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2220-USMC, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2220.html
2.3 Participant engagement in the intervention External observer or trainer estimate of the percentage (or number) of participants who
  • 2.3.1 appeared attentive for the majority of the session (for example, looked at speaker, nodded head, maintained active posture)
  • 2.3.2 spoke at least one time
  • 2.3.3 spoke regularly
  • 2.3.4 Made negative, disparaging, or disruptive remarks about the prevention activity
  • 2.3.5 [Observer, trainer] Did trainees appear attentive? For example, looked at trainer or slides, nodded, maintained active posture. Response options: Not at all attentive, slightly attentive, moderately attentive, very attentive, extremely attentive
  • 2.3.6 [Trainee] To what extent were you able to pay attention during the training? Response options: Not at all, slightly, moderately, very, extremely
  • 2.3.7 [Observer, trainee] Was the trainer engaging? For example, used a conversational style or humor. Response options: Not at all engaging, slightly engaging, moderately engaging, very engaging, extremely engaging
  • 2.3.8 [Observer] To what extent did the trainer facilitate active participation? For example, asking open-ended questions, prompting feedback or discussion. Response options: 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal)
  • 2.3.9 [Observer, trainer] How many trainees actively participated? For example, asked questions, made productive comments. Response options: none, one to three, four to ten, more than ten
  • 2.3.10 [Trainee] Did you say anything during this training (related to the training content)? For example, asked a question, made a comment, or engaged in a small group discussion about the training content. Response options: No, one time, more than one time
 Coreen Farris, Terry L. Schell, Margaret Tankard, Lisa H. Jaycox, Barbara Bicksler, Angela Clague, and Dionne Barnes-Proby, Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2220-USMC, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2220.html
2.4 Participant satisfaction Extent to which participants rated the experience as important, useful, and likely to succeed.
Perceived importance
  • 2.4.1 [Observer, trainer] To what extent did trainees voice disapproval of the topic or devalue the importance of the topic? Response options: 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal)
  • 2.4.2 [Trainee] The Marine Corps is making too big of a deal out of sexual assault. Response options: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree
  • 2.4.3 [Trainee] I believe it is important for Marines to learn the information in this training. Response options: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree

Perceived personal relevance
  • 2.4.4 [Trainee] This training is relevant to me and to situations that I might be in or observe. Response options: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree
  • 2.4.5* [Trainee] My Service's sexual assault training provides information about sexual assault that is relevant to my rank and career stage. Response options: Strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree
  • 2.4.6 How much participants agree with the statement "I would recommend this program to others."

Perceived usefulness of the material
  • 2.4.7 Participant ratings of the usefulness of the material covered in the prevention activity

Participant satisfaction
  • 2.4.8 Proportion of participants indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied with
    • prevention activity content
    • exercises or interactive pieces of the prevention activity
    • user friendliness of the prevention activity material
  • 2.4.9 Extent to which participants indicated that they incorporated strategies from the prevention activity into their daily life
 Coreen Farris, Terry L. Schell, Margaret Tankard, Lisa H. Jaycox, Barbara Bicksler, Angela Clague, and Dionne Barnes-Proby, Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2220-USMC, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2220.html
* This item is from the 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members:
Lisa Davis, Amanda Grifka, Kristin Williams, and Margaret Coffey, eds., Military Workplace Climate: 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members Overview Report, Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Department of Defense Office of People Analytics, 2017. http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/Annex_1_2016_WGRA_Report.pdf Tanya L. Tompkins and Jody Witt, "The Short-Term Effectiveness of a Suicide Prevention Gatekeeper Training Program in a College Setting with Residence Life Advisers," Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2009, pp. 131–149. Kate Hendricks Thomas and Sarah Plummer Taylor, "Bulletproofing the Psyche: Mindfulness Interventions in the Training Environment to Improve Resilience in the Military and Veteran Communities," Advances in Social Work, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2015, pp. 312–322.
3.Level of delivery 3.1 Prevention activity attendance 3.1.1 How many sessions a participant attended within a given time period

3.1.2How many minutes a participant received of the prevention activity within a given time period 		Jennifer M. Gamarra, Matthew T. Luciano, Jaimie L. Gradus, and Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, "Assessing Variability and Implementation Fidelity of Suicide Prevention Safety Planning in a Regional VA Healthcare System," Crisis, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2015, pp. 433–439. Helen Christensen, Kathy Griffiths, Chloe Groves, and Ailsa Korten, "Free Range Users and One Hit Wonders: Community Users of an Internet-Based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Program," Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 59–62.
3.2 Participant– prevention activity staff interactions 3.2.1 Number and quality of documented accounts of collaboration between participant and prevention activity facilitator or provider Jennifer M. Gamarra, Matthew T. Luciano, Jaimie L. Gradus, and Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, "Assessing Variability and Implementation Fidelity of Suicide Prevention Safety Planning in a Regional VA Healthcare System," Crisis, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2015, pp. 433–439.
3.3 Attrition rate of participants involved in prevention activity 3.3.1 Number of participants who were still enrolled at the end of the prevention activity divided by the number enrolled at the start of the prevention activity to determine the percentage of attrition M. Katherine Shear, Charles F. Reynolds, III, Naomi M. Simon, Sidney Zisook, Yuanjia Wang, Christine Mauro, Naihua Duan, Barry Lebowitz, and Natalia Skritskaya, "Optimizing Treatment of Complicated Grief: A Randomized Clinical Trial," JAMA Psychiatry, Vol. 73, No. 7, July 1, 2016, pp. 685–694.
3.4 Training dosage 3.4.1 Extent to which prevention activity facilitators and providers received the training—for example, the number of training sessions attended or the number of hours of training received                                                                        Takahiro A. Kato, Yuriko Suzuki, Ryoko Sato, Daisuke Fujisawa, Kumi Uehara, Naoki Hashimoto, Yasunori Sawayama, Jun Hayashi, Shigenobu Kanba, and Kotaro Otsuka, "Development of 2-Hour Suicide Intervention Program Among Medical Residents: First Pilot Trial," Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Vol. 64, No. 5, October 2010, pp. 531–540.

Outcome Evaluation Measures

Domain 1: Preventing Sexual Harassment and Promoting Workplace Civility

Type of Measure Measure Items Measure Name and Source
4.Longer-term outcome measures 4.1 Workplace civility Over the past 6 months, how often has each of the following occurred at work:

  • 4.1.1 Someone withholding information which affects your performance
  • 4.1.2 Spreading of gossip and rumors about you
  • 4.1.3 Being ignored or excluded
  • 4.1.4 Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes, or your private life
  • 4.1.5 Being shouted at or being a target of spontaneous rage
  • 4.1.6 Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes
  • 4.1.7 Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach
  • 4.1.8 Persistent criticism of your work and effort
  • 4.1.9 Practical jokes carried out by people you do not get along with


Response options: (0) Never, (1) now and then, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily

Sum item scores. Higher score indicates more negative acts. 		Measure: Short-Form Negative Acts Questionnaire

G. Notelaers, B. Van der Heijden, H. Hoel, and S. Einarsen, "Measuring Bullying at Work with the Short-Form Negative Acts Questionnaire: Identification of Targets and Criterion Validity," Work & Stress, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2019, pp. 58–75.
4.2 Unit cohesion
  • 4.2.1 My unit is like family to me.
  • 4.2.2 People in my unit are trustworthy.
  • 4.2.3 My fellow unit members appreciate my efforts.
  • 4.2.4 I feel valued by my fellow unit members.
  • 4.2.5 Members of my unit are interested in my well-being.
  • 4.2.6 My fellow unit members are interested in what I think and how I feel about things.
  • 4.2.7 My unit leader is interested in what I think and how I feel about things.
  • 4.2.8 My service is appreciated by the leaders in my unit.
  • 4.2.9 I could go to unit leaders for help if I have a problem or concern.
  • 4.2.10 The leaders of my unit are interested in my personal welfare.
  • 4.2.11 I feel valued by the leaders of my unit.


Response options: Strongly disagree: 1, somewhat disagree: 2, neither agree nor disagree: 3, somewhat agree: 4, strongly agree: 5

Sum item scores. Possible range is 12 to 60; higher scores are indicative of greater perceived social support from fellow unit members and unit leaders. 		Measure: Adapted Unit Support Scale from Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory–2

D. S. Vogt, B. N. Smith, L. A. King, D. W. King, J. A. Knight, and J. J. Vasterling, "Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory–2 (DRRI-2): An Updated Tool for Assessing Psychosocial Risk and Resilience Factors Among Service Members and Veterans," Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 26, 2013, pp. 710–717.
4.3 Gender discrimination
  • 4.3.1 I have sometimes been unfairly singled out because of my gender.
  • 4.3.2 Prejudice based on gender exists in my unit.
  • 4.3.3 In my unit all people are treated the same, regardless of their gender.
  • 4.3.4 In my unit I feel socially isolated because of my gender.
  • 4.3.5 In my unit females receive fewer opportunities.
  • 4.3.6 There is no discrimination in my present unit.
  • 4.3.7 In my unit some males are treated better than females.
  • 4.3.8 Supervisors scrutinize the work of females more than that of males.
  • 4.3.9 In my unit males and females get along well with each other.
  • 4.3.10 In my unit some people get better treatment because of their gender.
  • 4.3.11 Telling sexist jokes is not common in my unit.
  • 4.3.12 There is gender discrimination in my unit.
  • 4.3.13 In my unit, I am treated poorly because of my gender.
  • 4.3.14 In my unit members of opposite gender do not tell me some job-related information that they share with members of the same gender.
  • 4.3.15 In my unit promotions and rewards are not influenced by gender.


Response options: Strongly disagree: 1, strongly agree: 7

Sum item scores. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived discrimination experiences.

Strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity for the Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory have been demonstrated (James, Lovato, and Cropanzano, 1994). 		Adapted Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory

M. M. Foynes, J. C. Shipherd, and E. F. Harrington, "Race and Gender Discrimination in the Marines," Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2013, p. 111.

K. James, C. Lovato, and R. Cropanzano, "Correlational and Known-Group Comparison Validation of a Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 17, 1994, pp. 1573–1592.

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, "Sexual Assault Prevention Climate," DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS) Assessment to Solutions, 2019.
4.4 Sexual Harassment
  • 4.4.1 Since [x date], did someone from work repeatedly tell sexual "jokes" that made you uncomfortable, angry, or upset? Yes 1, No 2 [Programming note: Same sex as respondent]
  • 4.4.2 Since [x date], did someone from work embarrass, anger, or upset you by repeatedly suggesting that you do not act like a [man/woman] is supposed to? For example, by calling you [male respondents: "a woman, a fag, or gay"; female respondents: "a dyke, or butch"]. Yes 1, No 2
  • 4.4.3 Since [x date], did someone from work make repeated sexual comments about your appearance or body that made you uncomfortable, angry, or upset? Yes 1, No 2
  • 4.4.4 Since [x date], did someone from work make repeated attempts to establish an unwanted romantic or sexual relationship with you? These could range from repeatedly asking you out for coffee to asking you for sex or a "hook-up." Yes 1, No 2
  • 4.4.5 Since [x date], did someone from work intentionally touch you in a sexual way when you did not want them to? This could include touching your genitals, breasts, buttocks, or touching you with their genitals anywhere on your body. Yes 1, No 2
 Measure: RAND Short Form Measure of Sexual Harassment Risk in the Military

Terry L. Schell, Matthew Cefalu, and Andrew R. Morral, Development of a Short Form Measure of Sexual Harassment Risk in the Military: Findings from the RAND Military Workplace Study, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2031-OSD, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2031.html

NOTE: Please consult the source for the instructions that should accompany the items, programming notes, and scoring instructions.

Outcome Evaluation Measures

Domain 2: Preventing Sexual Assault Through Bystander Intervention, Changing Social Norms, Risk Perception, Confidence in Self Defense, and Reducing Alcohol Misuse

Type of Measure Measures Items Measure Name and Source
5. Short-term outcomes 5.1 Positive bystander behavior How often did you engage in the following behaviors in the last year:

  • 5.1.1 Expressed concern to a friend whose partner was acting very jealous and trying to control him or her
  • 5.1.2 Spoke up if somebody said that someone deserved to be raped or to be hit by their partner
  • 5.1.3 Talked to a friend who was raped or hit by a partner
  • 5.1.4 Asked someone who looked very upset if they were okay or needed help
  • 5.1.5 Asked a friend if they needed to be walked or driven home
  • 5.1.6 Spoke up to someone who was bragging or making excuses for forcing someone to have sex with them
  • 5.1.7 Got help for a friend because they had been forced to have sex or were hurt by a partner
  • 5.1.8 Discussed the possible dangers of drinking too much with friends
  • 5.1.9 Told someone you were concerned about their drinking, told someone that getting drunk puts them at risk for being a victim of violence
  • 5.1.10 Expressed concern when someone was talking about how they got "so wasted"
  • 5.1.11 Made sure someone who had too much to drink got home safely


Response options range from 0 to 3 (0 = not at all, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = 3–5 times, 3 = 6 or more times).

Scores are summed for a cumulative score. Higher scores indicate greater number of positive bystander behaviors. 		Measure: Positive Bystander Behavior

Ann L. Coker, Patricia G. Cook-Craig, Corrine M. Williams, Bonnie S. Fisher, Emily R. Clear, Lisandra S. Garcia, and Lea M. Hegge, "Evaluation of Green Dot: An Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Violence on College Campuses," Violence Against Women, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2011, pp. 777–796.
5.2 Risk perception
  • 5.2.1 What are your chances of being raped by someone you know?


Response options: 1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely

Scores may be totaled for a cumulative score. Higher scores indicate greater risk perception for assault by an acquaintance.

  • 5.2.2 Risk Perception Measure from Messman-Moore and Brown, 2006.


Response options: A realistic, yet hypothetical story of a sexual assault (either by an acquaintance or a stranger) is presented in 25 statements. Respondents are to identify where in the story they would "leave the situation" (1–25).

Score is calculated at the point the person determines they would leave the situation. Lower scores (leaving the situation earlier) indicate greater perception of risk. Average of population assesses overall level of risk. 		Measure: Women's perception of their risk of sexual assault by male acquaintances

Charlene Y. Senn, Misha Eliasziw, Paula C. Barata, Wilfreda E. Thurston, Ian R. Newby-Clark, H. Lorraine Radtke, and Karen L. Hobden, "Sexual Assault Resistance Education for University Women: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (SARE Trial)," BMC Women's Health, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2013, p. 25.

Measure: Risk Perception Measure

Terri L. Messman-Moore and Amy L. Brown, "Risk Perception, Rape, and Sexual Revictimization: A Prospective Study of College Women," Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006, pp. 159–172.
5.3 Consent beliefs
  • 5.3.1 Not asking for sexual consent some of the time is okay.
  • 5.3.2 It is the responsibility of both partners to make sure sexual consent is established before sexual activity begins.
  • 5.3.3 It is not necessary to ask for consent at every step of a sexual interaction.
  • 5.3.4 Obtaining sexual consent is more important in a new relationship than in a long-term relationship.
  • 5.3.5 It is enough to ask for consent at the beginning of a sexual encounter.
  • 5.3.6 Sexual intercourse is the only sexual activity that requires explicit verbal consent.


Sum responses for score. Lower scores equate to greater awareness of appropriate consent behavior.

Response options: 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree 		Measure: Sexual Consent Scale

National Health Promotion Associates, Cadet Healthy Personal Skills (CHiPS): An Adaptation of Botvin Life Skills Training Report, 2018.

Adapted from Terry P. Humphreys and Mélanie M. Brousseau, "The Sexual Consent Scale—Revised: Development, Reliability, and Preliminary Validity," Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2010, pp. 420–428.
5.4 Self-defense tactics How likely are you to use the following tactics in response to an unwanted sexual advance?
  • 5.4.1 Assertive body language (for example, walking confidently)
  • 5.4.2 Assertive verbal responses (for example, saying "no")
  • 5.4.3 Avoiding "telegraphing" emotions (for example, providing an assertive verbal response even when nervous)
  • 5.4.4 Attention to intuition (for example, trusting your gut)
  • 5.4.5 Yelling and running
  • 5.4.6 Physical self-defense


Response is a 7-point scale from (1) not at all likely to (7) completely likely.

Scores are totaled for a cumulative score. Higher scores indicate greater confidence related to self-defense skills. 		Measure: Resistance Tactics Scale

C. A. Gidycz, L. M. Orchowski, D. R. Probst, K. M. Edwards, M. Murphy, and E. Tansill, "Resistance Tactics Scale," database, 2015.
5.5 Alcohol misuse
  • 5.5.1 How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? (0) Never, (1) monthly or less, (2) 2–4 times a month, (3) 2–3 times a month, (4) 4 or more times a week
  • 5.5.2 How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?
    (0) 1–2, (1) 3–4, (2) 5–6, (3) 7–9, (4) 10 or more
  • 5.5.3 How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.4 How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.5 How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected of you because of drinking?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.6 How often during the last year have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.7 How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.8 How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because of your drinking?
    (0) Never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4) daily or almost daily
  • 5.5.9 Have you or someone else been injured because of your drinking?
    (0) No, (2) Yes, but not in the last year, (3) Yes, during the last year
  • 5.5.10 Has a relative, friend, doctor, or other health care worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?
    (0) No, (2) Yes, but not in the last year, (3) Yes, during the last year


Scores are totaled for a cumulative score. Higher scores indicate greater alcohol misuse. 		Measure: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) by the World Health Organization

Thomas F. Babor, J. R. de la Fuente, J. Saunders, and M. Grant, "The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test," Guidelines for Use in Primary Health Care, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.
5.6 Intent to help
  • 5.6.1 I approach someone I know if I think they are in an abusive relationship and let them know I'm here to help.
  • 5.6.2 I let someone who I suspect has been sexually assaulted know I'm available for help and support.
  • 5.6.3 I ask someone who seems upset if they are okay or need help.
  • 5.6.4 If someone said they had an unwanted sexual experience but doesn't call it rape, I express concern or offer to help.
  • 5.6.5 I express concern to someone I know who has unexplained bruises that may be signs of abuse in relationship.
  • 5.6.6 I stop and check in on someone who looks intoxicated when they are being taken upstairs at party.
  • 5.6.7 I see a guy talking to a woman I know. He is sitting close to her and by the look on her face I can see she is uncomfortable. I ask her if she is okay or try to start a conversation with her.
  • 5.6.8 I see someone I know and their partner. They are in a heated argument. The partner has their fist clenched around the arm of the person I know and the person I know looks upset. I ask if everything is okay.
  • 5.6.9 If the partner of someone I know is shoving or yelling at them I ask the person being shoved or yelled at if they need help.
  • 5.6.10 I tell someone I know if I think their drink was spiked with a drug.


Response options: 1(not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely) 		Victoria L. Banyard, Mary M. Moynihan, Alison C. Cares, and Rebecca Warner, "How Do We Know If It Works? Measuring Outcomes in Bystander-Focused Abuse Prevention on Campuses," Psychology of Violence, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2014, pp. 101–115.
5.7 Bystander Efficacy Short Form Assess confidence in one's ability to engage in bystander helping behaviors
  • 5.7.1Get help and resources for a friend who tells me they have been raped.
  • 5.7.2Do something to help a very drunk person who is being brought upstairs to a bedroom by a group of people at a party.
  • 5.7.3Do something if I see a woman surrounded by a group of men at a party who looks very uncomfortable.
  • 5.7.4Speak up to someone who is making excuses for forcing someone to have sex with them.


Response options: 0 (can't do) to 50 (moderately certain) to 100 (very certain) 		V. L. Banyard, "Measurement and Correlates of Pro-Social Bystander Behavior: The Case of Interpersonal Violence," Violence and Victims, Vol. 23, 2008, pp. 83–97.
5.8 Rape beliefs Assesses endorsement of beliefs that justify rape or blame victims for their victimization
Subscale 1: She asked for it
  • 5.8.1 If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand.
  • 5.8.2 When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble.
  • 5.8.3 If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped.
  • 5.8.4 If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble.
  • 5.8.5 When girls get raped, it's often because the way they said "no" was unclear.
  • 5.8.6 If a girl initiates kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a guy assumes she wants to have sex.

Subscale 2: He didn't mean to
  • 5.8.7 When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex.
  • 5.8.8 Guys don't usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too sexually carried away.
  • 5.8.9 Rape happens when a guy's sex drive goes out of control.
  • 5.8.10 If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally.
  • 5.8.11 It shouldn't be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn't realize what he was doing.
  • 5.8.12 If both people are drunk, it can't be rape.

Subscale 3: It wasn't really rape
  • 5.8.13 If a girl doesn't physically resist sex—even if protesting verbally—it can't be considered rape.
  • 5.8.14 If a girl doesn't physically fight back, you can't really say it was rape.
  • 5.8.15 A rape probably doesn't happen if a girl doesn't have any bruises or marks.
  • 5.8.16 If the accused "rapist" doesn't have a weapon, you really can't call it rape.
  • 5.8.17 If a girl doesn't say "no" she can't claim rape.

Subscale 4: She lied
  • 5.8.18 A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regret it.
  • 5.8.19 Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.
  • 5.8.20 A lot of times, girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then had regrets.
  • 5.8.21 A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped have emotional problems.
  • 5.8.22 Girls who are caught cheating on their boyfriends sometimes claim it was rape.
 Measure: Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Diana L. Payne, Kimberly A. Lonsway, and Louise F. Fitzgerald, "Rape Myth Acceptance: Exploration of Its Structure and Its Measurement Using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale," Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1999, pp. 27–68.

Sarah McMahon and G. Lawrence Farmer, "An Updated Measure for Assessing Subtle Rape Myths," Social Work Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011, pp. 71–81.

Rachel A. Breslin, Lisa Davis, Kimberly Hylton, Ariel Hill, William Klauberg, Mark Petusky, and Ashlea Klahr, 2018 Workplace and Gender Relations of Active Duty Members: Overview Report, Alexandria, Va.: Office of People Analytics, U.S. Department of Defense, OPA Report No. 2019-027, May 2019.
5.9 Risk perception measure This measure presents two common social experiences that end in a sexual assault (one involving a stranger and one involving an acquaintance) and asks when the respondent would leave the situation. Each scenario is broken into 25 chronological steps and the respondent has to choose the step at which they would leave. The full measure can be found at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00279.x (Messman-Moore and Brown, 2006). Terri L. Messman-Moore and Amy L. Brown, "Risk Perception, Rape, and Sexual Revictimization: A Prospective Study of College Women," Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006, pp. 159–172.

Additional Outcome Measures

Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs is a report that includes measures of performance and measures of effectiveness for various prevention activities. In particular, Appendix C of the report lists the measures, their items, and response items. See Coreen Farris, Terry L. Schell, Margaret Tankard, Lisa H. Jaycox, Barbara Bicksler, Angela Clague, and Dionne Barnes-Proby, Measures of Performance and Effectiveness for the Marine Corps' Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2220-USMC, 2019. https://www.rand.org/t/RR2220.html

Development of a Short Form Measure of Sexual Harassment Risk in the Military: Findings from the RAND Military Workplace Study is a brief report that presents a shortened version of a measure that can predict an individual's exposure to sexual harassment. See Terry L. Schell, Matthew Cefalu, and Andrew R. Morral, Development of a Short Form Measure of Sexual Harassment Risk in the Military: Findings from the RAND Military Workplace Study, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2031-OSD, 2019. https://www.rand.org/t/RR2031.html

Handbook Overview