Anne P DePrince1, Ann T Chu2, Jennifer Labus3, Stephen R Shirk2, Cathryn Potter4. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado. Electronic address: Anne.DePrince@du.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Girls in the child welfare system are at high risk of revictimization in adolescence. The present study compared two interventions designed to decrease revictimization in a diverse sample of adolescent child welfare-involved girls. The social learning/feminist (SL/F) intervention focused on concepts derived from social learning and feminist models of risk, such as sexism and beliefs about relationships. The risk detection/executive function (RD/EF) intervention focused on development of specific executive function abilities related to detecting and responding to risky situations/people. METHODS: Participants were randomized to RD/EF (n = 67) or SL/F intervention (n = 67). A group of youth (n = 42) engaged in the research assessments only. Participants (n = 180) were assessed before intervention, immediately after intervention, 2 months after intervention, and 6 months after intervention. We examined revictimization (the presence/absence of sexual or physical assault in any relationship) over time. RESULTS:Adolescent girls in the RD/EF condition were nearly five times less likely to report sexual revictimization compared with girls in the no-treatment group. A trend suggested that girls who participated in the SL/F intervention were 2.5 times less likely to report sexual revictimization relative to the no-treatment group. For physical revictimization, the odds of not being physically revictimized were three times greater in the SL/F condition and two times greater in the RD/EF condition compared with the no-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The active interventions did not differ significantly from one another in rates of revictimization, suggesting that practitioners have at least two viable options to engage high-risk youth in revictimization prevention.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Girls in the child welfare system are at high risk of revictimization in adolescence. The present study compared two interventions designed to decrease revictimization in a diverse sample of adolescent child welfare-involved girls. The social learning/feminist (SL/F) intervention focused on concepts derived from social learning and feminist models of risk, such as sexism and beliefs about relationships. The risk detection/executive function (RD/EF) intervention focused on development of specific executive function abilities related to detecting and responding to risky situations/people. METHODS:Participants were randomized to RD/EF (n = 67) or SL/F intervention (n = 67). A group of youth (n = 42) engaged in the research assessments only. Participants (n = 180) were assessed before intervention, immediately after intervention, 2 months after intervention, and 6 months after intervention. We examined revictimization (the presence/absence of sexual or physical assault in any relationship) over time. RESULTS: Adolescent girls in the RD/EF condition were nearly five times less likely to report sexual revictimization compared with girls in the no-treatment group. A trend suggested that girls who participated in the SL/F intervention were 2.5 times less likely to report sexual revictimization relative to the no-treatment group. For physical revictimization, the odds of not being physically revictimized were three times greater in the SL/F condition and two times greater in the RD/EF condition compared with the no-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The active interventions did not differ significantly from one another in rates of revictimization, suggesting that practitioners have at least two viable options to engage high-risk youth in revictimization prevention.
Authors: C Christ; M M de Waal; M J Kikkert; D G Fluri; A T F Beekman; J J M Dekker; D J F van Schaik Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Kyoung Min Shin; Young Ki Chung; Yee Jin Shin; Miran Kim; Nam Hee Kim; Kyoung Ah Kim; Hanbyul Lee; Hyoung Yoon Chang Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.153