As mandated by the 2013 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, bystander programs to reduce sexual and intimate partner violence are being adopted in college communities throughout the United States. However, little is currently known about how bystander programs are selected, implemented and experienced by staff and students. In the Multi-College Bystander Efficacy Evaluation (mcBEE) project, we seek to evaluate the relative efficacy of bystander programs at multiple college campuses. In this paper, we describe our mixed methods strategies as a critical first step in achieving our overall goal. We are employing a multi-phase mixed methods triangulation design to gather qualitative and quantitative data on bystander programming and intervention components at 24 college campuses. Specific methods include website reviews of campus programming and staff (Phase 1), web-based key informant surveys (Phase 2), and key informant interviews (Phase 3) over the four-year study period. To date, Phase 1 of data collection is complete and Phases 2 and 3 are ongoing. Survey and key informant interview data will shed light on campus decision-making processes for the adoption of bystander programs and provide program implementation, dose, and fidelity data over time. Data from each phase is being integrated to determine specific bystander intervention components at each campus that will inform analyses measuring relative program efficacy. This paper outlines the protocol and methods for a large-scale evaluation of college-based bystander program efficacy using a multi-phase mixed methods design with multiple forms of data triangulation.
|Number of pages||12|
|Journal||Journal of Family Violence|
|State||Published - Aug 1 2020|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Research supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Agreement U01 CE002668. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had a supervisory role in the design and conduct of the study but had no direct role in the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publications. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Kentucky. The project described was supported by the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through grant number UL1TR001998. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Kentucky. The project described was supported by the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through grant number UL1TR001998. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
- Bystander program
- Mixed methods; multi-phase
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Clinical Psychology
- Sociology and Political Science
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)