||||| I .
. q -A a .I . n . . I. . I ..
f... I I O 0 . c ,l . . I . I . . . II
.. . ‘ I I I I _ I Q I. .II
‘I .,I . . .. . . . . . . I . . . . .
. I ..I . .
I ~ I I. O . .II . O I I I — . O -
. I . . . v . . .
4 . . I . I . . I
I I .
a . I. I .0 . . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . . . I I I A _ . I .. ._ I...
. , .
. I. I O . I A I . I . . ..
II... . . . .. . .0 I.‘ I . ..o .. ... . III.....
. I I v .0 I O I. I I . I o . .I I-I
.IAI I 0 . . . .. . . . 0. I
. . . I
. _. . a . . . I . I _ .. I.
. .. . .. . . . I I I I I A. I
. u I I A . II . I _ .
I .. . .
I I I . I . v . . . . . .. . . I II
. I I . . _ . I AII....I!..I.D.III..
0 - . .' I I VD I i
I . . . . . . _. . 4 . A
§ . . I I 0 d..... . I
I . . . . .. A . . . . I....oV..II.II:...~u“
I I . 0 . .I,..n....IHII..CI
. I. I . II . . . . . . . . . .IIO .. C
I . . .. I s
. . A. . . . .. I u. _ n
I 0 I . .
. . . n - . .n I
I II A . . . . . .
.I I . . . I
.. It . I I 0 . . I
I . I _ . I .. I . I I.I . A
I . . I II. . . .. L I
I . I _ _ I I a
. . . . I I I
.. .. .. . . . . . . ..
. . . . I > . I I I. I _
.. .. I I I 0 . II. I - _ _ . . I
o C I I . . I I . .. I
. . _ _ _. I .3. . .o . . . I . . I O
. . I I
I I I I I ._ . I I I . . . I . . I O I
. . . . . I . . .
A. I II I . I. . . .. . . . I . .
I . . . I . .
I I . I v I I I .1. I . Q 0 . . .
.I I I . . I 0 . I
. ' I y ‘0 I 0 II 0 t - .-'0' A.‘
. . . . . A 00 I . . ...I\.II
: . . . . . . . . V . .I . .. ~ ._ IJ.............I..... .. ..1.IrI...:.....I
.- . V . . . .. ._..0 .I 0..
I .. II . .. I . . I I . I . . I. I . . . A .0
. u . . . . . ._ _
. .o I I I . 0 I I O. I . .I . . I, . .40.
. . I II I .. I I .
. . A . . V v . .
I . I I _ . I I
I I I a. .I I . I 0
. . I . . I . I. .
. . . .. . . I..........I.....r...a
I . I .- I I IQ.\IOID
I . . I 1. v . V . . . I 0 .
_ . I . Q. I . . I . I
I . .u . . I . .. .
. ’0 . . . . I. . .
_ I O. . . . . . II...IIIIII...I.D..IIOF.I
v I . I I I I . I I I. .VI. I. I . I II
. . I .. . . . . I......I..IIII.. I..III.II.V.
. . . . . . . . I . . . :3... .5... t!.....
v . . AI 0 . _ . .. _. _ I . .
I I I . n I :I I
I v I . a I O I . . . I . . I I 0 o . I O .
. . . . I A . I I.
I _ . I . . . . . . - . .
‘ . I . I . I . . . I .
I . II . . . I . . v . . I
I. . . I . I ~ I u _ . . ..
I . . .I 0 . I I . I I
. . I I .I - . . . 3 . .
I . I . 0 O I . c . I I A . I.
v I II A . I I U I .
I . : . .. II . . I I . . . I I .. I u I. I u I I.
I . .I . A . I . .0 II V .. A
. . . .I o .. I.I I . 0 I. . I .V . I'Ignpovaol
- _ . I I I I . . . IIIIII.I. .III...cO.
I _.
v . O.. I. I. .. I. . .. ... . I 0 .III I III-.1...Ic.00.00..III..I'IOI.000III.III0..I..
t O I .I l . I
I . . I. .. I r . . .. 0
I . 1 . A . .1. .I
I .0 I . O I I I ’. . I . A D I I'IIII‘IIILCI
V . . . . I . 0 I . . I . . If. .I.. ..r..... 2. .2... :IIIII.
u . A I . . .. I .I . 3 , I I. vIr- I .I.. I..I :0. I.(...I.II... .o.
I n
. . . . I. . . . . . . ._ I ‘I .
v I , v . . . I I
u . . . V . . I. I v . .0.
I I II I 0 C O I I I
. . . . I . I. . . I a
I o . . I I I I A
I . I . V _ II. I. .0 II..III.I .I.I0
. v . . II” II... I: o A!
u . . . . \ s. $.19.-.
. . . I .V I ..I .IvIICO..I.I old”...-
. . . I . . L .I o .3 1 I
.. 0 I I
I v 4 . r . . u. a
. . .
. . . I .
O 4 . u . . I I
I . . .
I . . .. l
I . .. . . . I I .I . :01; 0 I... o.
. I . .. I . «war... I..-V0..b '_
I. . . . . . . . . I.
. c . . . I I . l. .. 4.... l.- . ..Io'o I I. IIIDIOH..I§I.II.1.
I . I - I.0.I.t.0:.!. .IIIOIII-
. . . . I I
a I . .. A I
0 O I .. I I o
I. . . I I I . II
. . . . .
v I . I I 0,0.II0
I I. A .. 0o. 0 I.‘ .I. 3?. . I...
‘ . . I. I
v I I o . . .. l. . . .
V .0 . . . . .AI
. . .A
.. . . .
w A. V
I. Z .
n . . . . .I..n.,4..IJ.I.Il...VI..04. .
v . .. . I ..I.9.I~A.I.'7.VIIO IV...II...I......OI.II.IIII..YI.I
v . I V I . o .I. .3 .Io..I.II. .. I I .
' .0 . O .
I . . . J
V . . . . I . I ..
I . . ‘ . . . .
W .. . . I I. I I
. 0
V . . . I. I . . . V
I I V .I 0..
I . c I. . . . P.... I II.III.010(I..CII. .0I-
I . . . . . I...v.... IIIIIIIIIII....I1O..I..Z.I. I...
C I . . I . I. .9 I.AII.IIIIII..
I . A . .I.
I . - . . . . . . . _ .3
. n In. II 0".‘0 III-OIpOIIIL-Io
. .. . . . 0; .....P.IQI..2. . . I ..
‘ ..I.. . o I I I .v . .II...0
I . . . .. _
I ‘ . . . . ..
I . . I
. . u . . I I .
‘ . .. ..I
O I
I . . . .
C .
.. ‘ .
0‘ r 0 I I 0 21?. .
I . I 0 I . I0Ii. .n!.... I. I. 0 III IIII..1II.II :00. .1 .. IIOIJ I’d. III‘II III Iv...
Q . . . . I I. 9. . o .3... I I... a II c.0923 {III-:20; 3! .1
r
' . .. .. l
.I . . .
C o
I.
C . I .
Q . . .
. .A . I. .I I3! (I n.83r.A
I .I...I.I.III.I I...) n.
I
.. _ .
I . .
fi u t
. . . b.
N . . -
Q . . 4 A
. ’
U
I.
d . . . 4 .’0 .II..0 III. Inu.I0’I 'OI0 0
I . V .4: I. to (.05. 1.31.
I .. . . . . .... 2 9.1!. I.
. JI.
.
‘ O
I . .0.... . ..O‘OIOIII..‘II..
Q. IO...IIOIIII'I
O . .
‘ _ — H
3
I . _ .
. I
O. . .A
I . .
' . . . . .
I . ...
O . . . . II ..
H . V . .V. . I .4331..- 0 II I .I.I a .I :3.I_.VII'.IO.':. '0: 0.0!. .09: II..I v A
O . .. . . .I: . I I II I I I I I.. I.. .I'IIIII.1I0IIIIA‘..4IIIII.I I)...’ I
.
Q . . . .. I
I . . . . . a
' . I . . I n n
I . _ . V
D _ .2 . . . 5......
O .. . . . .
- . . . . .. O _ _ .0 D...I......a. II . OI O .0... s .
Q . . . . . .V.. . . _
' .. . . _ . .

I I I .I.\O '0.‘0.I. _ .0. 0
I I.-... .V.

A OIIIIIIO..
4 I. :0 Ian... I.. v. I I!

 

 

 

«L'A'blo 0% ”l

. _ _ l/I ll lll'l l I ”Ill! 1.) I'll/Ill
LIB... . i 4833

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION OF A PRESCHOOL CURRICULUM TO
PREVENT THE SEXUAL ABUS oE OF CHILDREN

presented by

Rosemarie Ratto

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MA degree in Psychology

 

 

 

fijor professor

Dam October 12, 1988

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DAJWEDUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E... _ __ _ I

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative ActlorVEqual Opportunity institution

 

l M

AN EVALUATION OF A PRESCHOOL CURRICULUM TO
PREVENT THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

By

Rosemarie Ratto

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1988

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF A PRESCHOOL CURRICULUM TO
PREVENT THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

By

Rosemarie Ratto

The effectiveness of teaching preschool children sexual
abuse prevention concepts is unknown. In this study, 39
children (3-5 years old) from three day care centers were
randomly placed in either a delayed treatment control, a no
parent involvement, or a parent involvement condition.
Children in the experimental conditions received the 5-day
Grossmont Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum. All children
were tested on two knowledge scales and a fear scale before
the curriculum, directly after, and three months later.
Results indicated that, when compared to the control group,
children exposed to the curriculum were able to learn the
sexual abuse prevention concepts and retain the knowledge
for at least a three month period regardless of parent
involvement. No significant increase in fear was noted in
the children participating in the program. Consequently,
the Grossmont curriculum appears successful at teaching
preschool children sexual abuse prevention topics in a

non-threatening manner.

For Dave

-iii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Anne Bogat for her time, energy and
valuable supervision in the project. I would also like to
thank Marianne McGrath and Ray Frankmann for their support
and guidance. Appreciation is also extendend to the Office
for Young Children, my research assistants, and the parents,

teachers and children who participated in this study.

-iv-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1
METHOD ................................................. 21
Subjects .......................................... 21
Materials ......................................... 22
Personal Safety Questionnaire ................ 22

"What If” Situation Test ..................... 22

Fear Scale ................................... 23
Parent-Child Workbook ........................ 24

Parent Interview ............................. 24

Procedure ......................................... 25
RESULTS ................................................ 29
DISCUSSION ............................................. 34
APPENDICES ............................................. 47
A: Personal Safety Questionnaire ................. 47

B: "What If" Situation Test ...................... 50

C. Fear Scale .................................... 55

D. Parent-Child Workbook ......................... 56

E. Parent Interview .............................. 63

F. Letter of Invitation .......................... 66

G. Consent Form .................................. 67

H. Parent Education Meeting Outline .............. 69

I. Teacher Training Outline ...................... 71

J. Tables ........................................ 73
REFERENCES ............................................. 85

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Number, Gender, and Mean Age of Participants in

the Control, Parent Involvement, No Parent
Involvement, and Parent and No Parent Combined
Conditions .......................................... 73

Observed and Adjusted Means for Post Test

Scores on the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale for

the Control, Parent Involvement, No Parent
Involvement, and the Parent and No Parent

Combined Conditions ................................. 74

Means and Standard Deviations for the Pretest

Scores on the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale for

the Parent Involvement, No Parent Involvement,

and Control Groups .................................. 75

Analysis of Covariance for PSQ, WIST, and Fear
Scale for Post Test Scores .......................... 76

Observed and Adjusted Means for 3-Month

Follow Up Scores on the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale

for the Control, Parent Involvement, No Parent
Involvement, and Parent-No Parent Combined

Conditions .......................................... 77

Analysis of Covariance for PSQ, WIST, and Fear
Scale for 3-Month Follow Up ......................... 78

Frequency of Responses on the PSQ for Individual
Items ............................................... 79

Frequency of Responses on the WIST for
Individual Items .................................... 80

Frequency of Responses on the Fear Scale for
Individual Items .................................... 82

Intercorrelations Between the Change Scores of

the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale, Age, Sex, Race

of the Child, Mother’s and Father’s Social Index,

and the Attitude Scale .............................. 83

Intercorrelations Between the Pretest Scores of

the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale, Age, Sex, Race of
Child, Mother’s and Father’s Social Index, and the
Attitude Scale ...................................... 84

“Vi—

INTRODUCTION

The sexual abuse of children has existed throughout
history. However, it has only been within the last one
hundred years that laws have been enforced to protect
children against this heinous crime (Brown, 1985).
Currently, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
defines child sexual abuse as contacts or interactions
between a child (under the age of eighteen) and an adult (or
one significantly older than the child) in which the child
is used for the sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or
another person. Sexual abuse ranges from non-touching
offenses such as exposure to offenses that involve physical
contact such as fondling, oral/genital contact, vaginal and
anal stimulation and penetration, incest, and the
exploitation of children through pornography and
prostitution (Downer, 1985);J

Many common myths pervade current thinking concerning
the sexual abuse of children. For example, sex offenders
are generally thought of as "dirty, old men" unknown to the
child. Also, victims are mostly considered to be adolescent
females who provoke their own assaults, come mainly from low
socio-economic status families, and lie about their sexual
relations with adults. Assaults are also thought to occur
in secluded areas at night. Finally, many individuals

believe that sexual abuse is rarely kept a secret.

Contrary to myth, the incidence of sexual abuse
suggests that high numbers of all children are sexually
abused. The number of reported cases of sexual abuse has
increased markedly within recent years. In 1976, the
American Humane Association reported an estimate of 7,559
sexual abuse cases, whereas in 1983 the figure increased
almost ten times to 71,961 reported cases. However, this
increase may be a result of better reporting practice rather
than an actual increase in the incidence of abuse. In
Michigan, according to the Protective Services Management
Information System, 4,025 documented cases of sexual abuse
occurred in the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1986.
Although these statistics are shocking, studies suggest that
official reports do not reflect an accurate picture of the
problem but only a vague underestimate.

Although numbers vary from study to study, all surveys
report that high percentages of children experience sexual
abuse. Russell (1983) found that out of a sample of 930
women living in San Francisco, 28 percent had experienced
unwanted touching before the age of 14 and 38 percent before
the age of 18. In a survey of 795 undergraduates at six
East Coast colleges and universities, a total of 19 percent
of the females and 9 percent of the males reported having a
sexually abusive experience with an older person while still
a minor (Finkelhor, 1978). Consequently, one in 3-4 girls

and one in 6-10 boys will have been sexually abused by age

18 (Downer, 1985). Also, 70 to 90 percent of sexual abuse
involves someone the child knows such as a family member, a

neighbor, or a babysitter (American Humane Association,

1969).
k; Victims range from infants to older adolescents; more
than one-third of the victims are 5 years old or younger.}

A,

The abuse generally starts when the child is between 6 to 8
years old;, Moreover, sexual abuse is seldom a one time
experiende. The average abusive relationship lasts an
average of one to four years, and many last longer.
Finally, children very rarely lie about being sexually

abused; yet, a large majority of child sexual abuse

incidents still go unreported by informed adults (Downer,

1985).

A Much literature has explored the consequences of being
sexually abused as a child. Unfortunately, the
repercussions appear overwhelmingly negative and there are
both long-and short-term effects. Fear, anger and
hostility, guilt and shame, inappropriate sexual behavior,
difficulty at school, truancy, running away, early marriage,
early pregnancy, depression, and anxiety have all been cited
in the literature as problems in children who have been
sexually abused (American Humane Society, 1969; Friedrich,
Urquiza, & Beillke, 1986; Gomez-Schwartz, Horowitz, &
Sauzier, 1985). Adult women abused as children also report

experiencing depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, isolation

and stigmatization, self-destructive behavior, and substance
abuse problems (American Humane Society, 1969; Courtois,
1979; Sedney & Brooks, 1984).

[i However, not all victims report these negative
experiences. Schultz (1973) believes that the greatest
potential damage to a child is caused when s/he is used by
the parents to prosecute the offender. He states that what
does the harm is "society’s need to have her (the victim)
repeat the details of the offense several times, to police,
prosecutors and to the jury, sometimes with the asghlter.
present."%§1n addition, the parents are said to contribute
to the repercussions with their need to prove that their
child was not responsible and hence that they are not
"failures." The American Humane Association (1969) reports
that when parents provide assurance and emotional security,
the child victim may be able to escape serious emotional
damage. However, due to the needs and deficiencies of many
parents, tension is exacerbated upon disclosure of sexual
abuse and added damage results to the child. Consequently,
it is imperative that both potential victims and parents
become aware of the severity of problems involved with
sexual abuse.

By increasing the awareness and removing the silence
and mystery surrounding the sexual abuse of children, some
children may be able to prevent sexual assault, others may

be able to stop abuse from progressing, and others may be

able to get help if they are victimized. Plummer (1986b)
defines sexual abuse prevention as an active intervention
plan that has the ultimate goal of avoiding negative
outcome. In this case, the long term goal is the
elimination of sexual abuse and the short term goal is to
reduce the chances of abuse by intervening in the
"preconditions" in which abuse occurs. Consequently, by
informing children about sexual abuse and ways to prevent
it, children can be empowered to help avoid their own
victimization.

~. '-

L‘Children are targets for abuse due to powerlessness
resulting from their size, vulnerability, lack of resources,
insufficient information, and lack of skills to protect
themselves (Butler, 1986). *Consequently, effective/

educatign,ispcited as the key to effective prevention of

w

sexualfiabuse of children. Downer (1986) states that schools

are the preferred location for reaching children who need
help. [Koblisky and Behana (1984) also suggest that early
childhood educators play a critical role in the intervention
and prevention of child sexual abuse. They posit that
children need realistic information about sexual abuse so
that they are not tricked or misled into abusive situations
-out of ignorance. Moreover, prevention education can 1)
increase children’s self-esteem and positive self-image, 2)
provide children with the vocabulary and experience to talk

about the assault and understand that they are not to blame,

3) decrease the child’s isolation and increase support, 4)
provide education in appropriate sexual behavior, and 5)
increase response from legal, medical, and social service
systems to the needs of children (Shaman 1986). Education
also breaks individual and societal silence and denial,
increases access to community resources for treatment and

l»
intervention, and decreases the level of public acceptance. 1

. 7:? ‘T‘ sq." ~'

h...”
mu- ‘1

- Consequently, starting in the late 1970’s, standardized“

f»

f

personal safety curricula for children have been developed.
These programs include training on assertiveness, knowledge
of appropriate and inappropriate touch, and the
identification of adults who can help. Conte (1986) states
that the negative risks of sexual abuse are clear; and
consequently, programs that may help children prevent sexual
abuse are definitely worth the effort. However, he and
others have recognized that since such prevention programs
are experimental they should be approached with caution and
much attention should be placed on evaluating the effects of
these programs in order to improve them and to identify
their weaknesses.

Recently, evaluations of various personal safety
curricula have been published. Most studies to date
evaluate if an increase in knowledge concerning sexual abuse
prevention is attained by the children as a result of
participating in the program. Prevention programs that

involve a single presentation as well as more extensive

programs have been reviewed. Also, children from various
age groups have been examined. :Although most studies have
. measured knowledge change,_gttempts have been made to
measure behavioral outcomes in the children as well. In
response to concerns recently voiced by several educators,
research has examined potential negative effects in the
children as a result of their participation in the program.
Finally, attempts have also been made to determine what
benefit parental involvement has on sexual abuse prevention
programs.

By far, the majority of evaluations presently available
examine if children’s knowledge concerning sexual abuse
increases as a result of participating in the program. In
an evaluation of a single presentation prevention program,
Saslawsky and Wurtele (1986) looked at the effectiveness of
the film "Touch" when viewed by children in kindergarten,
lst, 5th, and 6th grades. Sixty-seven children were randomly
assigned to either a treatment or a control group. Meggggegi
given after the intervention aggessed children’s knowledge
about sexual abuse (P80) and verbal and behavioral responses
to potentially abusive encounters (HIST). The authors found
that when compared to the control group, children viewing
the film demonstrated significantly greater knowledge and
skills concerning sexual abuse which was maintained at a
three month follow up. The older children achieved

significantly higher scores when compared to the younger

children. However, the authors failed to obtain baseline
scores prior to the children viewing the film, so the amount
of knowledge learned is questionable.

In a similar evaluation of a single presentation,
Wolfe, MacPherson, Blount, and Wolfe (1986) randomly
assigned 290 children from fourth and fifth grades to
either an experimental group which viewed two 5-minute skits
and participated in a discussion or to a no-treatment
control group. Relative to the control group, the children
receiving the program showed an overall increase in
knowledge of ways to prevent sexual abuse. However, issues
relating to adults exposing themselves to children,
selfablame, being believed by adults, and realistic
portrayal of the perpetrator were not clearly understood at
post testing. The authors recommended that repeated
exposure to treatment may be more beneficial in producing
effective results for the children. Unfortunately, the lack
of a pretest limits confidence in the findings.

The evaluations of single exposure sexual abuse
prevention programs have not been adequate and the Wolfe et
a1. (1986) study suggests that they may have limited
effectiveness. Other studies have attempted to evaluate
programs employing more extensive curriculum. Ray (1985)
compared two groups of third grade children who viewed a
slide show along with the movie "Who Do You Tell?" Half of

the classrooms viewed an additional film "Better Safe Than

Sorry II" two weeks later. Children were evaluated on their
knowledge of sexual abuse prior to, one month, and six
months following the program. Analyses indicated that all
children significantly increased their knowledge of sexual
abuse for at least six months. Also, those children
receiving the additional segment indicated a higher
retention level than those viewing only the first slide
show. Although this evaluation adds support for a more
extensive program, the study is flawed because there was no
control group and subjects were not randomly assigned to the
two interventions.

Plummer (1984) evaluated a three day program involving
fifth grade children which included discussion and viewing
the film "No More Secrets." Assessments indicate that the
children significantly increased their knowledge and
attitudes concerning sexual abuse from pretest to posttest.
However, when reassessed three and eight months later, a
substantial loss of information is noted; children tend to
revert back to their old ways of thinking about child
abusers. Criticisms of Plummer’s study include lack of a
randomly assigned control group. Downer (1984) also
evaluated a curriculum (Talking About Touching) for a group
of 70 fourth grade children and compared them to 15 students
who did not receive the program. Pre-post analysis showed a
significant increase in knowledge for the trained students.

Downer also noted that students receiving the program tended

to demonstrate more competence in assertiveness skills
including voice tone and body language. She recommends that
more instruction time be devoted to active skill building
techniques with the use of role play. However, the results
are questionable since subjects were not randomly assigned
to groups.

Several additional studies provide marginal support for
a more active approach to teaching children sexual abuse
prevention versus the passive approaches such as viewing
films and promoting discussions. Conte, Rosen, Saperstein,
and Shermack (1985) randomly assigned young children (4-5
years of age) and school age children (6-10 years of age)
from a day care center to either a sexual abuse prevention
program in which assertiveness training was stressed or a
waitlist control. After pre-post testing, children in the
experimental group who received three days of training
indicated a significant increase in knowledge of prevention
concepts. However, only half of the concepts presented were
actually learned by children. Similar to Saslawsky and
Wurtele’s (1986) study, older children learned more than
younger children. Also, abstract concepts (e.g., the
difference between physical abuse and sexual abuse) were
more difficult to learn for both younger and older children
than specific concepts (e.g., stand tall and yell no.)

Pursuing the idea that active participation is more

beneficial than passive learning when teaching children

-10—

sexual abuse prevention, Wurtele, Saslawsky, Miller, Marrs,
and Britcher (1987b) randomly placed 71 children from two
grade groups (k & lst and 5th & 6th) in one of three
conditions 1) viewing the film "Touch" alone, 2)
participating in a Behavioral Skills Training (BST) program,
3) a combination of 1 and 2, or 4) a no-treatment control.
When compared to the no-treatment control, the BST program
alone or in combination with the film was more effective
than the film alone in teaching children about sexual abuse
prevention. Also, consistent with past research, older
children performed significantly better than the younger
children. In a subsequent study, Wurtele, Marrs, and
Miller-Perrin (1987a) assessed 26 kindergarten children on
expanded versions of the PSQ and WIST. The children were
randomly assigned to either a Participant Modeling group or
a Symbolic Modeling group. However, no control group was
used. The pre-post analysis suggests that, for younger
children, personal safety skills were taught significantly
more effectively through participant modeling. These
results suggest that a cognitive approach may have limited
utility, especially with younger children. Also, when asked
how much the children enjoyed their respective programs,
'each group indicated high levels of enjoyment.

In sum, research suggests that single exposure programs
only provide a marginal increase in knowledge gain

concerning sexual abuse prevention (Wolfe et al., 1986).

_11-

Studies evaluating more extensive programs report a
substantial increase in knowledge in children after exposure
to the program (Conte et al., 1985; Downer, 1984; Plummer
1984; Ray, 1985). However, some loss of knowledge over time
has been noted (Plummer, 1984). Older children reported
learning substantially more information than younger
children (Conte et al., 1985; Saslawsky & Wurtele, 1986;
Wurtele et al. 1987b); and active education seems to be
superior to passive education (Conte et al., 1985; Downer,
1984; Wurtele et al., 1987a,b).

Recently, Leventhal (1987) discussed the current
problems with evaluation research of sexual abuse prevention
programs.3fée states that the ultimate goal of any program
to prevent sexual abuse is to teach behaviors so that in a
potentially abusive situation the child will act in an
appropriate manner by saying no and telling a responsible
adult. However, to date, most evaluations do not look at
behavioral change as much as a knowledge gain. He feels
that innovative strategies that measure direct outcomes are
necessary. Also, he states that researchers should
thoroughly investigate the possibility that adverse effects
might occur in some children exposed to the intervention. He
concludes that researchers need creative strategies to learn
the most effective ways to teach children and help them
prepare to translate knowledge into behavior so that action

is available when necessary.

-12..

Poche, Brouwer, and Swearingen (1981) attempted to look
at the behavioral effects of self-protection training on
three preschool children. Prior to training, none of the
children responded appropriately to confederates’ lures.
However, the researchers found that within one week of
training all of the children were able to display
appropriate responses to the confederates. Unfortunately,
with such a small sample and lack of appropriate controls,
generalizability is questionable. More recently, Fryer,
Kraizer, and Miyoshi (1987a) randomly assigned 44
kindergarten, first, and second grade students to either an
experimental or a control group. The experimental group
received the Children Need to Know Personal Safety Training
Program which consisted of 8, 20-minute presentations
educating children about sexual abuse. Pre-post testing
involved staging a simulation of a potential sexual abuse
situation. Following training, the experimental group
performed significantly better during the simulations than
the control group. That is, children who participated in
the program were less likely to leave a safe environment
when approached by a stranger. In addition, intelligence
test scores were not predictive of success. However,
children with a high pretest measure of self-esteem and who
attained greater knowledge of sexual abuse prevention were
more likely to perform appropriately in the simulations. In

a follow up study six months later, these children were

-13...

again able to perform successfully in the simulation.
(Fryer, Kraizer, & Miyoshi, 1987a). However, the ethicality
of using confederates with children to simulate a potential
sexually abusive encounter has been questioned (Conte,
1987). Also, one child was reported as having experienced
extreme anxiety as a result of participating in the study.
The concern of whether sexual abuse prevention

programs produce anxiety in children has not received much
attention in the literature. Only one published study has
attempted to measure any potential negative effects of an
intervention. Garbarino (1987) examined how second, fourth,
and six grade children responded to a special issue of a
Spiderman comic about sexual abuse. From post-test-only
assessments, it is evident that children in each grade
comprehended a majority of the information. However, 35
percent of the girls and 17 percent of the boys in the 2nd
and 6th grades as well as 50 percent of the 4th grade
children reported feeling worried or scared. No pre-test
was conducted and no control group was employed so it is
unclear whether fear actually increased as a result of
reading the comic. However, unalarmed by the childrens’
responses, the author concludes that, with the evidence to
date, the Spiderman comic provides a low-cost approach to
reach millions of children.

As mentioned earlier, parental involvement is seen as

vitally important in the prevention of child abuse. For

-14..

example, damage to the child can be intensified by the
parent responding incorrectly to a disclosure of sexual
abuse. Plummer (1986a) states that "parents are the most
powerful allies of a prevention program (p. 77)." Brassard,
Tyler, & Kehle (1983) also posit that for maximum
effectiveness, prevention programs should be presented to
both children and parents. However, only a few evaluations
have attempted to examine the effects of parental
involvement in sexual abuse prevention programs.

Swan, Press, and Briggs (1985) evaluated the effects of
a 30-minute play entitled "Bubbylonian Encounters" viewed by
63 children in grades 2 to 5, a group of 56 parents of the
children, and 224 professionals and parents. Forty-four
randomly assigned children received a pretest, viewed the
play, and took a post test. A second group of 19 children
viewed the play and took a post test. Results showed
evidence that the children did learn prevention concepts and
that their reactions to the play were generally positive.
Also, two-thirds of the parents reported liking the play and
half of the parents reported sharing information with their
children. None of the parents reported negative effects in
their children as a result of viewing the play. The authors
conclude that for a sexual abuse program to be truly
effective it is imperative that adults also be
knowledgeable. However, only percentages of responses on

attitudes toward the program were reported and no

-15..

manipulation or control comparisons were made leaving in
question the actual effect of parental involvement.

Looking more closely at the effects of parent
participation, Hill and Jason (1987) evaluated a prevention
program conducted for 58 children between the ages of 3 to
5. Half of the children were randomly assigned to a
child-parent group and half to a parent-alone group. Both
groups received a two-hour parent workshop. The results
indicate that children in both the parent-alone and
parent-child intervention groups improved significantly in
pre-post testing of knowledge concerning sexual abuse. The
authors conclude that parental involvement and interest may
have a significant impact on the program. However, no
randomly assigned control group was used leaving the
findings in doubt.

Although some research has evaluated sexual abuse
prevention programs, much is still in question. With many
studies using small sample sizes, lack of controls,
insufficient follow up, poor assessment techniques, and lack
of random assignment, evaluations of the effectiveness of
sexual abuse prevention programs is, to a large degree,
unknown. Also, with very limited research available, the
negative effects of the prevention programs and the
contributions of parental involvement are still in question.
In a recent article, Kraizer (1986) criticizes the current

surge in prevention projects that do not adequately consider

-16..

the overall needs of children. She posits that there is a
large possibility that children may become more fearful,
mistrustful, and insecure after these prevention programs.
Also, she states that many of these programs are created
from concepts and beliefs that make sense to adults but may
be misunderstood by children. Conte, Rosen, and Saperstein
(1986) also suggest that research is necessary to delineate
the children’s ability to learn and understand the terms
used in the various sexual abuse prevention programs.

Recently, emphasis has been placed on teaching

.“i prevention skills to preschool age children. However,

little research has been done to evaluate the effects of
these programs (Conte et al, 1985; Hill & Jason, 1987; Poche
et a1; 1981). Of the 13 evaluation studies of sexual abuse
curriculum only 3 have examined the influence of these
programs on preschoolers. Although many writers advocate
better prevention approaches for preschool and day care
centers, others (e.g., Adams, 1986) caution that prevention
programs for preschoolers have the potential to frighten
children and children may over generalize the concepts.

The current study evaluates the Grossmont College Child
Sexual Abuse Prevention Program. The program consists of
'three components: Teacher training, Parent Education
meeting, and a five day children’s curriculum for the
classroom. The children’s curriculum teaches children to

protect themselves from sexual exploitation. The program

-17..

provides information and self protective skills that reduce
children’s vulnerability to abuse. Children learn to
distinguish appropriate from inappropriate touch, to assert
their rights to say no to touches that are uncomfortable or
inappropriate, and to tell someone if they are uncomfortable
about the touch. The information is taught through the use
of books, a puppet show, discussion, activities, and role
play. The parent education meeting informs parents about
sexual abuse and provides them with strategies to use with
their children to protect them from sexual abuse. The
parents also learn suggestions for coping with sexual abuse
should it occur.

The present evaluation attempted to remedy some of the
problems in the earlier studies. The evaluation of the
curriculum included pre-post assessment of randomly assigned
preschool children to an experimental or a no-treatment
control group in order to determine if the curriculum
conveys concepts in a manner in which children 3-5 years of
age can understand and retain for at least a three month
period. The follow-up assessment is necessary since prior
research suggests that, although children may learn the
concepts initially, they are unable to maintain the
information for extended periods of time (Plummer 1984.) In
response to Leventhal’s (1987) criticisms, assessment
includes both knowledge-based responses as well as

behavioral-type responses. Also, since only one study has

_18_

attempted to measure adverse effects of the prevention
programs (Garbarino, 1987) and none have assessed this
problem for younger children, the evaluation also measured
if the Grossmont curriculum created increased fear in the
preschoolers. Finally, since parental involvement has been
cited as having a critical effect in the prevention of
sexual abuse, particularly with younger children (Adams,
1986; American Humane Society, 1969; Brassard et al., 1983;
Plummer, 1986a; ) and with little research available that
effectively measures the affects of parental involvement
(Hill & Jason 1987; Swan et al., 1985), the current study
compared the knowledge of children whose parents have
participated in the program to those whose parents have not
participated. Also, parents involved in the program were
interviewed concerning their attitudes towards the program
to determine what effects these factors have on the
children’s ability to perform in the program.

The following hypotheses were investigated:

I. An overall significant difference will be obtained
when comparing children’s knowledge scores on the PSQ and
WIST for those children with parent involvement, without
parent involvement, and in the delayed treatment control
condition.

II. Those children who participated in the curriculum
(children with and without parent involvement) will attain

higher scores on the PSQ and WIST relative to the delayed

-19-

treatment control group.

III. Children’s knowledge scores on the PSQ and WIST
will be significantly higher for those children with parent
involvement when compared to those children’s scores whose
parents were not involved.

IV. No difference will be found for scores on the fear
scale for either those children with parent involvement,
those children without parent involvement, or for the
control group.

V. Hypotheses I-IV will be maintained at a three month

follow-up evaluation.

-20-

METHOD

Subjects

Out of a possible 48 children from three day care
centers in the greater Lansing area, 43 children received
parental permission to participate in the study. These 43
children were randomly placed in one of two experimental
groups (parent involvement (n=12) or no parent involvement
(3:9)) or a delayed treatment control group (n=22).
Thirty-nine of these children completed the pre- and
post-testing as well as the three month follow-up testing.
Four children did not complete post testing or follow-up
testing: one child moved, two refused to complete the
testing, and one child was unavailable. The resulting
conditions included 10 children in the parent involvement
group, nine children in the no parent involvement group, and
20 children in the delayed treatment control group. The
children’s ages were between 37 and 62 months with a mean of
53.8 months; there were 19 (44%) girls and 24 (56%) boys.
Thirty-five (81%) of the children were White, five (12%)
were Black, two (5%) were Asian, and one (2%) was Hispanic.
There were no significant demographic differences between
the original 43 children and the 39 who fully participated
in the study. See Table 1 in Appendix J for the number,

gender, and mean age of the participants in each condition.

-21-

Materials

Wm (PSQ) (Wurtele.

Marrs, & Miller-Perrin, 1987a). This questionnaire (see
Appendix A) consists of 14 items assessing the child’s
knowledge about sexual abuse. The child responds either
yes, no, or I don’t know to 5 practice items and 14 personal
safety questions (e g. Would you tell a grown-up if someone
touched your private parts?). The child receives a point
for each correct response up to a total of 14 points. The
scale has an internal consistency reliability
(Kuder-Richardson formula 20, Saslawsky & Wurtele, 1987a) of
.83 and takes approximately 10 minutes to administer. A
Cronbach’s Alpha of .63 was determined for the pretesting of
the 43 children in this study.

" " ' ' (WIST) (Wurtele, Marrs, &
Miller-Perrin 1987a). This assessment (see Appendix B)
begins with two practice questions describing safety
situations a child might encounter and asks how s/he would
respond. Three vignettes are then presented that describe
potential sexual abuse encounters and one vignette describes
a positive touching encounter with an adult. The three
vignettes include: 1) changed touch (appropriate touch
turned inappropriate), 2) touch of others coerced through
bribery, and 3) touch of child coerced through bribery. The
child is asked to recognize inappropriate situations,
describe appropriate behavioral responses, and discuss who

-22..

to talk to about the situation (e.g. Let’s pretend you are
having fun wrestling with a make believe friend, and all of
a sudden your friend starts grabbing and feeling your
private parts? What would you say to your make believe
friend?). The child may receive up to 8 points for each
vignette for a maximum total of 32 points. The
questionnaire takes approximately 10 minutes to administer.
For scores on the four vignettes, a Cronbach’s alpha of .70
has been reported (Saslawsky & Wurtele, 1987a). Minor
changes were made in the wording of the WIST for use with
preschool children but the meaning of the questions remained
unchanged. Also, one bad touch vignette was omitted from
the original assessment to make the questionnaire less
negative and shorter to administer. A Cronbach’s Alpha of
.84 was determined at pretesting (n=43). For the five
interviewers involved in this study, an interrater
reliability for scoring the responses was .97.

Ee§r_figale (Anderson-Varney, 1987). This is an
eight-item questionnaire (see Appendix C) developed to
examine fear in young children. Children respond either
"very scared," "a little scared," or "not soared" in
'response to questions concerning common fears of children
and fears concerning personal safety (e.g. How scared do you
feel about someone you don’t know talking to you?). The
questionnaire takes approximately 5 minutes to administer

and has scores ranging from 0-16 points. Anderson-Varney

-23...

(1987) reported a Cronbach’s alpha score of .80 for this
questionnaire. In this study, at pretesting, a Cronbach’s
alpha of .50 was determined for the original 43 children.
The lower internal consistency found for this sample of
children may be the result of interviewer effects. It was
possible to calculate alphas for three interviewers: .53
(n=15), .75 (3:6), .60 (3:10). Two interviewers had
insufficient sample sizes to calculate a reliability score.

Parent;§hild_flgrkbggkg This measure (see Appendix D)
was developed by the researcher to check for parent-child
involvement at home during the week of the curriculum. The
workbook contains 5 separate pages each consisting of a
picture to be colored and 3-4 sexual abuse prevention
questions to be answered by the child with the parents’
help. Each page corresponds to the lesson given at the
preschool on a particular day and takes approximately 10-15
minutes to complete. If the workbook was returned
completed, the child was considered to be in the parent
involvement condition. If it was not completed, the child
was considered to be in the no parent involvement condition.
Of the 11 parents given workbooks, six returned the
workbooks completed.

Ea;ent_lnte;xigg‘ Developed by the researcher, the
parent interview (see Appendix E) distinguishes which
parents participated in the parent education meeting and
follows with a series of 13 questions surveying the parents’

-24-

feelings and attitudes concerning the parent education
meeting as well as their children’s involvement in the
program. Six questions on this scale measure the parents’
attitudes toward sexual abuse. The questions are rated on
either a four-point Likert scale or yes/no. A Cronbach’s
alpha of .65 was determined for this scale (nzll). To check
for knowledge concerning child sexual abuse, parents were
asked to respond true or false to a series of 7 statements.
An alpha was unable to be determined due to insufficient
variance. The parents were also asked to report any
negative effects displayed by their children as a result of
the program as well as asked to make comments or suggestions
about their experience in the program. Finally, parents
were asked to report their occupations and education levels.
An index of social position was calculated for each parent
(Hollingshead, 1957).
W

Letters of invitation were sent to 102 day care centers
in the greater Lansing area (See Appendix F). Ten centers
expressed interest in the sexual abuse prevention program
and five centers volunteered to participate. Two of the
five centers later dropped out: one due to organizational
problems and the other because of parental opposition to the
program. Consequently, three day care centers participated
in the program. Parental consent for the children’s
involvement in the project was attained through a take home

-25-

consent form (See Appendix G). Of those children allowed to
participate in the project, half of the children in each day
care center were randomly placed in a no-treatment control
condition and half of the children received the prevention
curriculum.

Two of the three day care centers were randomly
selected to participate in a parent education meeting (see
Appendix G). At one of the three centers, the education
meeting was held for parents of children in the parent
involvement group prior to the beginning of the program and
following the pretesting of the children. At another
center, by request of the day care center, the parent
eduacation meeting was held for all interested parents prior
to pretesting. Those parents in the control condition (n=3)
were asked to abstain from talking with their children about
sexual abuse until after the program was completed. A
sign-in roster was available to note those parents attending
the meetings. Out of the original 23 parents, from the
parent involvement condition, invited to the meeting, nine
parents (39%) attended. Also, during these meetings, the
parent-child workbook was distributed and explained to those
parents in the parent involvement condition. For those
parents not attending the meetings and in the parent
involvement condition, a parent-child workbook as well as
information concerning sexual abuse was sent to their home
through the day care center. All parents were instructed to

-26-

return the books to the day care center once they were
completed. A teacher training meeting was held prior to
pretesting at each of the daycare centers (see Appendix H).

The week prior to the program each child was assessed
on the PSQ, WIST, and the Fear Scale. The interviewers
included myself and four trained female college students who
were unaware of the treatment conditions and the
experimental hypotheses. Interviews took place in private
areas of the child care centers and were no longer than
twenty minutes. Verbal consent from the child was obtained
before the interview began. Interrater reliability (.99)
was obtained prior to initial interviewing using 3
videotapes of interviews with preschoolers. The
experimental group of preschoolers then obtained instruction
during the week long Grossmont College Child Sexual Abuse
Prevention Program described earlier while the control group
was involved in an activity not related to the topic of
sexual abuse. During the week following the program, the
children in both conditions were again assessed on the same
measures that were administered at pretesting. Follow-up
interviews of the children on the same measures occurred
three months later.

Following the program, the parent-child workbooks were
collected; those parents who did not return workbooks were
telephoned to encourage compliance. One member of the

research team contacted the parents in the parent

-27-

involvement condition by telephone and the parent interview
was given. Following the completion of the program, the

children in the control group received the curriculum.

-28-

RESULTS

The three experimental conditions in this study were:
(1) No Parent Involvement, children who received the
curriculum but whose parents were not involved in the
program (n=13) (2) Parent Involvement, children who received
the curriculum and whose parents participated in the program
(n=6) (3) Control, children who did not receive the
curriculum and whose parents were not involved in the
program (3220).

To test hypothesis 1, a one way Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) was computed to determine if an overall significant
difference exists for the means on the PSQ and WIST for the
different treatment effects (see Table 2 in Appendix J). To
account for the individual differences of the children’s
knowledge before being exposed to the program, the pretest
score was used as the covariate (see Table 3 in Appendix J
for pretest means and standard deviations). The results of
these ANCOVAS are presented in Table 4 in Appendix J. A
significant overall difference at post testing was found for
the comparison between the control, parent involvement
group, and no parent involvement group on the PSQ [E(2.35) :
'19.52, p<.001]. Further ANCOVA tests were used to determine
if the children who received the program and if the children
whose parents participated attained higher scores on the PSQ
and WIST compared to the control condition (Hypotheses II

- 29 -

and III). These tests showed that the parent versus no
parent conditions were not significantly different on the
PSQ [E(1,35) = 1.81], but the combined parent and no parent
groups versus the control condition were significantly
different [E(1,35) = 30.45, p<.001]. The adjusted mean for
the combined parent and no parent involvement conditions
(12.39) was greater than the adjusted mean for the control
condition (10.08). To further test for hypothesis I, an
ANCOVA, with pretest scores used as the covariates, was also
used to examine treatment effects on the WIST. No
differences were found between the three conditions
[E(1,35) = .09].

To test for hypothesis V: Were hypotheses I, II, and
III maintained at a three month follow up?, an ANCOVA was
again used with the pretest scores as the covariate. Tables
5 and 6 in Appendix J display means, standard deviations,
and the results of the ANCOVA tests for each of the
conditions at the three month follow-up. On the PSQ, a
significant overall difference at follow-up was found for
the comparisons between the control, the parent involvement
group, and the no parent involvement group [E(2,35) = 9.95,
p<.001]. Further ANCOVA tests showed that the no parent
involvement condition was significantly different than the
parent involvement condition at follow-up on the PSQ
[E(1,35) : 4.67, p<.04) and the parent and no parent
conditions combined were also significantly different at

-30-

follow-up from the control condition [E(1,35) = 10.12,
p<.003). The adjusted mean of the no parent involvement
condition (12.41) was greater than the mean of the parent
involvement condition (10.86), and the adjusted mean for the
parent and no parent involvement combined conditions (11.92)
was also greater than the adjusted mean for the control
condition (10.10). Further ANCOVA testing of hypothesis V,
with the pretest score as the covariate, indicated no
differences between the three conditions at follow-up on the
WIST [E(1,35)=1.36].

In testing for hypothesis IV, to determine if there was
a difference in fear scores between the treatment
conditions, an ANCOVA was also used, again using pretest
scores as the covariate. For the Fear Scale, marginal
overall significance at post testing was found between the
three conditions [E(2,35) = 2.86, p<.07]. Looking at more
specific ANCOVA comparisons, a marginal difference was found
on the Fear Scale between the parent and no parent
conditions [E(1,35) = 2.72, p<.11], and no difference was
found between the parent and no parent combined conditions
versus the control [E(1,35) = 1.50]. The adjusted mean for
the no parent involvement condition (7.92) was greater than
the adjusted mean for the parent involvement condition
(5.30). An ANCOVA test, with pretest scores as the
covariate, was used to determine differences between
conditions on the three-month follow-up. No differences

-31-

between the three conditions were found [F(2,35)=1.11]

Individual item differences were examined to determine
what questions appeared the most difficult for the children.
A comparison of pre and post test frequencies for the
combined parent and no parent conditions was used. For the
PSQ (see Table 7 in Appendix J), all items show some
increase in knowledge yet items 5, 6, and 9 appear to be the
most difficult questions for the children. These increases
were also maintained at the three-month follow-up testing.
On the WIST (see Table 8 in Appendix J), items 5, l4, and
19, which ask the child to disclose the pretend sexual
abuse, show virtually no improvement at post testing but did
improve slightly at follow-up. Improvement is noted,
however, on the WIST questions which ask what the child
would do if in a potentially abusive situation (items 1, 3,
11, and 16). This increase was also maintained at follow-up.
On the fear scale (see Table 9 in Appendix J), items 4, 5,
and 8 which specifically discuss personal safety indicate
the highest increase in fear at both post testing and at the
three-month follow-up.

Pearson product-moment correlations were computed
between change scores from pre to post testing on the PSQ,
WIST, and the Fear Scale and the variables of the child’s
age, sex, race, the Mother’s and Father’s Social Index
score, and the Parent Attitude Scale (see Table 10 in
Appendix J). A significant correlation was found between

-32-

differences on the Fear Scale and Father’s Social Index
score (1:.55, p<.05). There was also a positive correlation
between change scores on the PSQ and the Fear Scale (;=.62,
p<.01). Marginal significance was found for the correlations
between the differences on the WIST and Father’s Social
Index (1:.49, p<.08), and between the differences on the
Fear Scale and age of the child (1:.31, p<.10).

Pearson product-moment correlations were also
determined to find the relationship at pretesting for the
scores on the PSQ, WIST, and the Fear Scale and the
variables for child’s age, sex, race, and Mother’s and
Father’s Social Index and the Attitude Scale (see Table 11
in Appendix J). A significant correlation was found for the
PSQ and WIST (3:.56, p<.01) and for the age of the child and

the WIST pretest score (3:.31, p<.05).

-33-

DISCUSSION

Those children exposed to the sexual abuse prevention
program demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge on
the Personal Safety Questionnaire compared to those children
in the control condition. This supports prior research
indicating that preschoolers are able to increase their
knowledge concerning sexual abuse prevention after being
exposed to a prevention curriculum (Conte et al., 1985; Hill
& Jason, 1987; & Poche et al., 1981.) This increase was
maintained at follow-up testing indicating that preschool
children are able to remember sexual abuse prevention
concepts for at least three months. Although no significant
differences were found between the conditions on the What if
Situation Test, some increase in knowledge for the
experimental groups was indicated from an analysis of the
trends in the frequencies--especially for items pertaining
to saying no to bad touch and leaving the situation. This
effect was also shown at follow-up testing. However, at
posttesting, virtually no increase is noted for questions
concerning disclosing sexual abuse, yet the children’s
ability to disclose did increase slightly at follow-up.
These trends in the PSQ and WIST may suggest that, although
children cognitively understand the concepts involved in
sexual abuse prevention, they are not as adept at utilizing
the information in pretend situations. Consequently, it may

-34-

be beneficial to incorporate more behavioral learning into
the curriculum. Another explanation for these results may
be that preschool children do not have the verbal skills
needed to disclose sexual abuse. Support for this idea is
the significant positive correlation between pretest scores
on the WIST and the age of the child which suggests that as
children increase in age their performance on the WIST also
increases.

It is important to note, however, that WIST scores of
children in the control conditions tended to increase at the
same rate as those in the experimental conditions. This
trend may have been a result of a contamination in the
design. For instance, at one day care center a parent
meeting was held for all interested parents, including those
whose children were in the control condition. Consequently,
information may have been transmitted to the children in the
control group even though parents were requested to refrain
from talking to their children until after follow up. Also,
since in the experimental design children from the same day
care classrooms were randomly assigned, control children may
have overheard some of the prevention concepts from the
presentations or later from other children. This
lcontamination effect demonstrates how difficult it is to
execute true experimental design research within the
community where controlling for extraneous variable is
difficult.

-35-

Demographics such as age, sex, and race appeared to
have little relationship to pre-post differences on the WIST
or the PSQ. However, a significant correlation between the
child’s age and his/her WIST score indicates that how well a
child performs on the WIST is related to the age of the
child. Consequently, since in this study little improvement
was noted on WIST, this may be an indication that the
questionnaire is more appropriate for older children. One
possible problem may be that the vignettes used in this
questionnaire are too complex for the children to remember.
In addition, since the WIST was the last questionnaire in
the interview, the children may have been fatigued and thus
performed more poorly.

A significant relationship was also found for the
pretest scores on the PSQ and the WIST indicating that as
scores on one test increase scores on the other test will
also increase. This finding suggests that these two
questionnaires may be measuring many of the same concepts.
However, if they are similar in what they are measuring then
it is difficult to explain why a significant increase was
noted on the PSQ but not on the WIST.

Support was also found for hypothesis IV indicating no
significant increase in fear after the children had been
exposed to the curriculum. This lack of significance was
also maintained at the three month follow-up. This does not
support Garbarino’s (1987) findings indicating that children

_ 36 -

become frightened after being exposed to sexual abuse
prevention concepts. These conflicting results may be due to
the difference in the age of the children surveyed:
Garbarino’s subjects were 8-11 year old children. More
important, however, is the difference in prevention material
presented to the children. The Spiderman comic used in
Garbarino’s study was given to the children unsupervised and
without appropriate discussion. Also, this study suffers
from several design flaws such as a lack of pretesting and
no control group. Unlike the Spiderman comic, the topics in
the Grossmont Curriculum do appear to be presented to the
children in a non threatening manner. However, a slight
increase in the percentages of the "very scared" responses
indicate that the three questions on the Fear Scale that
deal with personal safety did tend to increase at post
testing and at the three month follow-up for those children
in both the parent and no parent involvement conditions.
Since the increase was not large enough to obtain
significance and only occurred for questions concerning
strangers and sexual abuse, this finding indicates that a
"healthy” amount, instead of an overall significant
increase, of fear regarding sexual abuse may have been
instilled in the children.

Lending counter support for hypothesis IV, a
significant relationship was found between changes in the
fear scale and changes in the PSQ indicating that as

-37-

knowledge of sexual abuse increases the scores on the fear
scale also increase. Yet, this relationship does support
the trend found in the data suggesting that there was a
slight increase in fear in the children after being exposed
to the curriculum. Also, the marginal significance found
for age and the change in fear score suggests that as the
age of the child increases the score on the fear scale will
also increase. This relationship suggests that research
looking at fear increase among older children, as a result
of a sexual abuse prevention program, may be more likely to
find a significant increase (Garbarino, 1987). However, the
lack of a clear significant increase in fear in this study
suggests that younger children appear to show little
distress as a result of exposure to the information.

None of the parents interviewed noted any negative
effects in their children as a result of participating in
the program. In addition, no teachers reported negative
effects in any children either during the presentation or
following the program. All of the teachers and parents
interviewed reported overall positive responses to the
program. They state that the program promoted discussion in
the home and classroom about personal safety in a very
mature manner. One teacher reports hearing children role
play personal safety issues during free play. A parent
stated, surprisingly, that her child enjoyed learning about
"private parts" the most. Another parent reported that her

-38-

child recited the complete puppet show presentation to her.
Finally, one parent noted that, following the program, his
child told him to leave the room as she undressed.
Consequently, these results imply that teaching sexual abuse
prevention concepts to preschool children has an overall
positive effect.

One of the problems with the fear scale appears to be
the low internal consistency which may make the results
discussed above questionable. However, the alpha does
increase when accounting for the different interviewers.
Consequently, this suggests that who does the interviewing
affects how the children will respond to the questions. It
may be that those interviewers who appear more frightening
to the children, whether it be due to appearance or voice
tone, tend to elicit higher levels of fear on each of the
items. Also, different interviewers may transmit some of
their anxiety about the topic. Therefore, when using the
fear scale it is important to have the same interviewer for
the pre- and post-testing and to standardize the
administration as much as possible.

No support was found for hypothesis IV suggesting that
the children in the parent involvement condition do not have
a greater increase in knowledge of sexual abuse prevention
than the children whose parents did not participate. But,
contrary to the hypothesis, at follow-up testing, the no
parent involvement condition had significantly higher scores

-39-

on the PSQ than the parent involvement condition. The major
problem with these results originates from the fact that out
of the original 12 parents invited to participate only six
parents fully participated in the parent involvement
condition. First of all, less than half of the parents
attended the parent education meeting. Excuses for those
parents not attending included prior commitments, work, too
busy, out of town, sick child, and feeling already
knowledgeable about the topic. Secondly, even though
information concerning sexual abuse and the parent-child
workbook was sent home to those parents in the condition who
did not attend the meeting, only one out of those five
parents completed the workbook with their child. However,
all the parents who attended the meeting did complete the
workbook. Consequently, with such a small sample, the
results are difficult to interpret. In the future,
precaution should be taken to assure participation from the
parents by calling to remind them to attend the parent
meeting and to complete the workbook.

No significant relationship was found between the
parent’s score on the attitude scale and the child’s
increase in knowledge of sexual abuse prevention. Again,
this correlation which included only 10 attitude scores from
the parent involvement group made it difficult to obtain
significance. However, from the self report data, parents
seemed to feel comfortable dealing with topics of a sexual

-40-

nature with their children. Also, 11 out of 12 of the
parents received all of the points possible on the knowledge
scale and the other parent only incorrectly answered one of
the items. Therefore, the parents seem knowledgeable
concerning the common myths surrounding the sexual abuse of
children. However, with such a small range in scores,
identifying a relationship between parental knowledge and
the child’s increase of knowledge of sexual abuse prevention
was not likely.

Mother’s Social Index had no relationship to pre and
post test score changes on the three assessments.
Consequently, this suggests that the socioeconomic status of
the child’s mother has no relationship to the child’s
ability to understand or fear sexual abuse prevention
concepts. This finding may be due to the way in which
Mother’s Social Index was calculated. From the Hollingshead
scale, women who are homemakers receive a very low score
which is quite unrepresentative of the sample since those
mothers who stayed home were from families of higher social
status. On the other hand, Father’s Social Index, which is
probably more representative of the true social index of the
family, revealed a significant correlation for differences
on the Fear Scale suggesting that as Father’s Social Index
increases the child’s fear also increased. This
relationship may be a spurious correlation related to the
fact that the older children in the study tended to have

_ 41 -

fathers with higher Social Index scores. In addition,
Father’s Social Index was also marginally correlated to
changes on the children’s WIST scores indicating that the
higher the Father’s Social Index the higher the increase in
children’s WIST score. This may be due to higher verbal
ability within these families which enhances their
performance on the WIST. Even though there was no clear
relationship between parent participation and the child’s
knowledge increase, there does appear to be some
relationship in the family situation and ability to
understand and accept sexual abuse prevention concepts.
However, caution should be used when interpreting any of the
above mentioned correlations due to the small sample size of
each of the cases. Also, none of these relationships were
indicated from correlations with pretest scores.

Considering the fact that three separate day care
centers from three different areas in the community were
utilized in this study (one located in an urban downtown
area, another in the suburbs of a college community, and
another in a small rural town) the findings are quite
generalizable. However, there are limitations to
generalizing from this study. Much difficulty was
encountered in obtaining day care centers willing to
participate which may have restricted the sample involved.
From the original list of approximately 100 day care centers
in the area only 10 expressed interest in the program.

-42-

Among those ten, half expressed interest in participating in
the program. Yet, even after obtaining permission from day
care directors and preschool teachers more resistance was
encountered from the parents. At one day care center, a set
of parents, very disturbed by the thought of teaching their
”young and naive children" the concepts of "private parts"
and ”good versus bad touch," threatened to take their
children out of the center if the program was implemented as
scheduled. Consequently, for financial reasons, the center
dropped out of study even though over half of the parents
had signed consent forms. At another center, organizational
problems caused the center to drop out of the program at the
last minute since consent from the board of directors was
not obtained. Therefore, the centers that remained in the
study may not be a representative sample since those parents
and administrators who permitted their children to
participate in the study were most likely those individuals
who felt comfortable with the topic of sexual abuse and who
had already had prior contact and knowledge concerning the
issues. The high ceiling effect obtained in much of the
pretesting may be another indication_that those children who
participated were from an informed sample and not
representative of the population.

During the course of this study, no children reported
any incidents of sexual abuse. The lack of disclosure is
difficult to understand considering the prevalence of sexual

-43-

abuse. Possibly due to the nature of the consent form
involved with the research, those children who have been
molested were not allowed to participate in the study in
order to maintain the "secret."

In conclusion, consistent with past research, preschool
age children are able to learn sexual abuse prevention
concepts after being introduced to the 5-day Grossmont
Curriculum, regardless of parent involvement, and were able
to maintain the information for at least a three month
period. However, not all of the concepts appear to be
understood. Future research is necessary to pinpoint what
concepts children are able to understand and utilize and
what they are not able to comprehend. The issue of whether
or not preschool age children can understand disclosure is
an important question not completely answered from this
study. Research is also needed to examine the questionnaires
used in this study, especially the WIST, to determine how
appropriate these assessments are for preschool age
children. Since a relationship was found between age of the
child and knowledge of sexual abuse prevention, it may be
interesting for future research to focus on differing ages
of young children to determine what, developmentally,
children at each age are capable of understanding. In
addition, the question of whether children are able to
transfer knowledge learned in the curriculum to stop abuse
from occurring was not addressed in this study. By using

-44-

 

more behaviorally oriented assessment techniques, future
research can measure children’s actions and not just their
responses to questions. The effect of parent involvement
was not adequately assessed in this study due to the small
sample size. Further research is warranted in this area
since the family is an essential component in the prevention
of child sexual abuse. Also, design problems in this study
should be reworked so as to minimize contamination effects.
For example, by randomly assigning a sufficient number of
day care centers to the various experimental conditions a
clearer treatment effect may be possible.

In response to much concern about the negative effects
of these programs on children, no significant fear increase
was noted. However, there did appear to be a trend in the
data indicating a slight increase in fear at posttesting for
those children who participated in the program, but this
finding did not hold up at the three month follow-up. So
consequently, research is still need to determine the
potential negative effects of these types of curriculum.
For this study, however, a general overall positive feeling
was expressed by those parents, teachers, and children
participating in the study indicating that the Grossmont
Sexual Abuse Prevention Program was a beneficial experience
for those involved.

The prevalence of sexual abuse among children is
phenomenal, and prevention programs are critical in

-45-

attempting to stop this injustice. In light of the recent
controversy in the field (Repucci, 1988), this study lends
support to the fact that, under rigorous experimental
conditions, the Grossmont Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum
is able to teach preschool age children prevention concepts
with no significant increase in fear. If children can be
exposed to effective programs such as the Grossmont, they a

will have the knowledge that it takes to protect themselves.

-46-

APPEND I CE S

APPENDIX A
PERSONAL SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

Evaluation of a Personal Safety Curriculum

Direction to the Interviewer: This interview is being
conducted to determine the amount of knowledge the child
has at this time. The only instance where the interview
should be used to instruct the child is the explanation of
private parts. For all other questions read them as
written. Probe by repeating questions as written.

 

Introduction: (to child) Hi, my name is _______. What is
your name? I’m going to be asking you some questions. This
isn’t a test at all. You can say whatever you want to. If
you don’t want to answer the questions or if you want to
stop just tell me.

Practice Items:
1. Does it sometimes snow in winter? Yes No I’m Not Sure
2. Do you attend ._ Child Care Center? Yes No I’m Not Sure
3. Are you a girl/boy? Yes No I’m Not Sure
Now try two more questions for practice.
A. If you are home alone, is it ok to

open the door and let a stranger come

into your house? Yes No I’m Not Sure
B. Is it ok for kids to play with

matches as long as no one finds

out? Yes No I’m Not Sure

Good, you are ready to answer some questions about personal
safety.

C. Tell me what the word "Private Parts" means.

 

 

(Do not continue until the child understands "Private
Parts")
Initially Understood
Explained to Child

1. If a grown-up touches a kid’s

private parts, is it the kid’s
fault? Yes No I’m not sure

-47-

10.

ll

12.

13.

14.

Do you have to let grown-ups
touch you on your private parts?

If someone’s trying to touch a
kid’s private parts, is it ok
for the kid to ask for help?

Would you tell a grown-up if some-
one touched your private parts?

If you tell a grown-up that some-
body tried to touch your private

parts, and that grown-up doesn’t
help you, should you forget about
it?

Are strangers the only people who

might want to touch a kid’s private

parts?

If someone touched a kid’s private
parts and promised never to do it
again,

If a grown-up asks to see your
private parts, should you get away
from them right away?

Is it ok for a grown-up to touch
your private parts if it feels
good?

Is it ok for your mom or dad to
give you a hug if you want one?

.Would it be ok for your doctor to

look at your private parts if you
had a hurt there?

Is it right for grown ups to make
you touch or look at their private
parts?

Is your teacher the boss of your
private parts?

If your babysitter wants to look at

your private parts, what would you
say?

-48-

should the kid tell someone?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

sure

Explanation of Private Parts

Some parts of your body are called your private parts. Do
you know where your private parts are? (Some may be
confused, some may call them by slang terms.) Your private
parts are the parts of your body that are covered by
underpants or your bathing suit. Show me where on your body
you wear a bathing suit. That’s right. Is this a private
part? (touch your arm) Why isn’t this a private part?
(Because it isn’t covered by underpants or a bathing suit.)
Is this a private part? (Indicate the front area of your
body where a bathing suit might be.) Yes, that’s right,
because this part of my body is covered by underpants or a

bathing suit. These are your private parts.

-49-

APPENDIX B
"WHAT IF" SITUATION TEST

Practice A.

Practice B.

 

Changed
Touch

"What If" Situation Test
(Interviewer Script)

"Let’s pretend you are on the playground at
school and you fall down and out yourself?
What would you do?

(Feel free to discuss the child’s answer with
him/her)

Let’s pretend you were playing in the front yard
of your house and a stranger drove up and asked
you to get in the car with him, what would you
say?

(Check here if child says would get in the car)

(Feel free to discuss the child’s answer with
him/her, accept what they say.)

”Let’s pretend you are having fun wrestling with
a make believe friend, and all of a sudden your

friend starts grabbing and feeling your private

parts?"

"Is there anything wrong with this?” Yes=1
(If answer is No, skip to the next No=0
item, and no credit given for Changed

Touch)

"What would you say to the make believe
friend?

 

 

"Let’s pretend the make believe friend
wouldn’t stop; what would you say next?"

Direct Rejection=2

 

Evasion =1

 

No Change =0

"What would you do/what action would
you take?"

Effective Escape=2
Vague Escape =1

 

-50-

Do nothing/Stay =0

 

"Would you tell anyone about it?

or would you keep this a secret

and not tell anyone?"

(If answer is secret, skip following
2 questions)

“Who would you tell if this were
happening to you?"

(Record persons mentioned, and prompt for
additional contacts)

Two or more=2

 

One person =1

 

Tell no one=0

"What would you say to (person(s)
named above?"

Informative Discl.=1

 

Uninform. Discl. =0

 

**************************3k********************************3k

Positive
Touch

"Let’s pretend you were riding your bike and you
fell off and hurt your private parts and when you
went home your parents wanted to look at them to
make sure they were all right?“

"Is there anything wrong with this?" Yes=0
(If answer is Yes, skip to the next No=2
item and no credit is given for

Positive Touch)

"Would you let your parents do that?"
Yes=2

 

No=0

 

"Why would it be ok for your parents to

look at your private parts?"

Appropriate=2
Answer
Inapprop. =0
Answer

 

 

-51-

"Would you need to tell anybody that
your parents touched your private
parts?”

Yes=0

 

No=2

 

*****************3kfink****************************************

Bribe to
Touch
Others

"Let’s pretend a make believe babysitter promised
you that you could stay up late to watch your
favorite TV show if you only touched her private
parts for a little while?"

"Is there anything wrong with this?" Yes=1
(If answer is No, skip to the next
item and no credit is given for No=0

Bribe to Touch Others.)

"What would you say to the make
believe babysitter?"

 

 

”Let’s pretend the make believe baby-
sitter wouldn’t stop; what would you
say next?“

Direct Reject.=2

 

Evasion =1

 

No Change =0

”What would you do/what action would
you take?"

Effect. Escape=2

 

Vague Escape =1

 

Do Nothing =0
"Would you tell anyone about it?
Or would you keep this a secret?"
(If answer is Secret, skip following
2 questions)

-52-

"Who would you tell if this were
happening to you? (Record persons
mentioned, and prompt for additional
contacts)

Two or more=2

 

One person =1

 

Tell no one=0

"What would you say to (person(s)
named above)?

Inform. Discl.=1

 

Uninform. Dis.=0

 

************************************************************

Bribe to
Touch
Child

"Let’s pretend you were at the park playing and a
man who you like says to you one day. "Take off
your pants (name of child) so I can touch you
private parts and then I’ll buy you an ice cream
cone."

"Is there anything wrong with this?" Yes=1
(If the answer is No, skip to the next No=0
item, and no credit is given for Bribe

to Touch Child)

"What would you say to the man?"

 

 

"What if the man wouldn’t stop; what
would you say next?"

Direct Reject.=2

 

Evasion =2

 

No Change :0

-53-

"What would you do/what action
would you take?"

Effect. Escape=2

 

Vague Escape =1

 

No Change =0

"Would you tell anyone about it? Or
would you keep this a secret and not
tell anyone?" (If answer is secret, skip
following 2 questions)

"Who would you tell if this happened

to you?”(record persons mentioned, and
prompt for additional contacts)

Two or more=2

 

One person =1

 

Tell no one=0

"What would you say to (person(s)
named above?“

Inform. Discl.=1

 

Uninform Disc.=0

 

"Since we have been talking about the ways people touch us,
why don’t we talk about a kind of touch you really like?

I’d like you to remember that most people like to give and
get touches they like. How do you like people to touch you?
How about one you like to give?"

(Feel free to discuss and prompt answers and examples of
good touch)

"Any questions?“

“I’d like to thank you for talking to me."

-54-

APPENDIX C
FEAR SCALE

Fear Assessment

How scared do you feel about:

1.

Getting into a fight when you are playing with friends?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

Falling off your bike?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

The dark at night?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

Someone you don’t know talking to you?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

Someone asking you if they can touch your private parts?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

Being left at home with a sitter?

 

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared
Thunderstorms?
Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

Someone asking you to touch their private parts?

Very Scared A Little Scared Not Scared

 

-55-

APPENDIX D
PARENT-CHILD WORKBOOK

.”“
3A RENT —

CHILD
WORKBOOK

 

Dear Parents,

Please spend approximately 10-15 minutes each night
working on the following pages of this workbook. One page
per night.

First, discuss with your children what they learned
that day in their daycare class about personal safety.
Next, have them color the picture for that lesson. Finally,
ask them the questions at the bottom of the page. Please
record their answers next to the questions and note any
additional comments concerning your child’s responses on the
back of the page.

After you have completed the book, please return it to
the daycare center. If any problems arise please call
either Rosemarie Ratto #351-2598 or Anne Bogat
#(313)663-5969. Thank you for your cooperation.

-57-

 

 

 

 

 

1. Point to the private parts of the girl and boy in this picture.
Does the child correctly identify all private parts? Yes No

2. What are some kinds of touches that you like?
3. Is it alright to say no to touches that you don't like?

Please note any addtbnal comments concerning your child’s responses
on the back of this page.

[hte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What are some times when grown-ups might need to touch your
private parts?

2. Why is it 0.x. for grown-ups to touch your private parts then?

3. Is it 0.x. for grown-ups or bigger kids to ask you to touch
the private parts of their body?

Please note any additional comments concerning your child's
responses on the back of this page.

 

U‘.h —'- O

    

"I/llllle

 

 

1. What is a stranger?
2. Do you have to talk to a stranger?
3. What can you do if you don't want to talk to a stranger?

A. What do you do if someone tries to trick or hurt you or touch}
your private parts?

Please note any additional comments concerning your child's
responses on the back of this page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What is a secret?

2. Is it 0.x. to say no, go, and tell if you get a secret touch?

3. Who can you tell if someone is trying to play with the private
parts of your body or if you get a touch that scares or hurts?

Please note any additional comments concerning your child'd
responses on the back of this page.

-61-

UGLB

 

 

 

', ‘”-— L;%":r

1. What do you do if someone tries to trick or hurt you or touch
the private parts of your body?

2. What do you do if they won't step?

3. What are some kinds of touches that you like?

Please note any additional comments concerning your child's
responses on the back of this page.

-62-

APPENDIX E
PARENT INTERVIEW

Parent Interview

Hi, may I speak with . Hi, my name is
and I’m part of the research team that is
evaluating the sexual abuse prevention program that your
child took part in last week. As part of the evaluation, I
would like to ask you some questions. Your answers will be
completely anonymous. This should only take about 10
minutes.

 

Has your child been involved in a sexual abuse prevention
program in the past?

Y N not sure

Did the parent participate in the Parent Education
meeting?(Check the attendance roster)

Y N
If no, why did you not participate in the P.E.M.? (probe)

If yes, how much new information did you learn concerning
child sexual abuse?

alot/ some/ very little/ none

Had you discussed sexual abuse with your child prior to the
P.E.M.?

Y N

If yes, how many times had you discussed sexual abuse with
your child?

single event/ several times/ many occasions

How comfortable do you feel discussing sexual abuse with
your child?

very comfortable/ somewhat comfortable/
a little uncomfortable/ very uncomfortable

How comfortable do you feel with toilet training?

very comfortable/ somewhat comfortable/
a little uncomfortable/ very uncomfortable

-63-

Have you ever discussed where babies come from with your
child?
Y N

How comfortable do you feel discussing this subject with
your child?

very comfortable/ somewhat comfortable/
a little uncomfortable/ very uncomfortable

How much do you think the program helped your child in
learning how to prevent sexual abuse?

alot/ some/ very little/ none
Overall, how would you rate the P.E.M.?
excellent/ good/ fair/ poor

Overall, how would you rate your child’s response to the
curriculum?

excellent/ good/ fair/ poor

Did you notice any negative effects (increased fear,
anxiety) in your child as a result of being exposed to the
program? Y N

If yes, what effects have you observed?

True or False?

1. Sexual molestation is usually a single, violent
event.
Sexual molestation of children usually begins in the
teenage years.
Many child victims are molested by a family member
or another person known to the child.
If parents react badly when sexual abuse if
discovered, the child may be emotionally harmed.
Children rarely make up stories about participating
in sexual activities with adults.
It is more likely that a child will indirectly tell
someone s/he has been sexually abuse than directly
talk about what happened.

 

 

0301.th

7. Child sexual abuse happens at about the same rate in
all kinds of neighborhoods and in all parts of the
country.

-64-

Occupation of Mother (specific position):
Occupation of Father (specific position):
Highest level of education completed by Mother:
Highest level of education completed by Father:

Do you have any further suggestions or comments about you or
your child’s participation in the program?

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. Please
remember to return the parent-child workbook to your daycare
center if you have not already done so. If you have any
further questions or concerns, please call Rosemarie Ratto
3351-2598.

-65-

APPENDIX F
LETTER OF INVITATION

As you are probably know, one in four girls and one in
six boys will be sexually abused prior to the age of 18. In
response to these alarming statistics, I would like to
invite your child care program to participate in a project
which implements and evaluates the Grossmont College Child
Sexual Abuse Prevention Program. The project is being
coordinated by the Office for Young Children and by Michigan
State University. There will be no cost to your center.

The curriculum is especially designed to teach young
children how to protect themselves from sexual exploitation
through the use of books, discussion, activities, role play,
and a puppet show. The curriculum includes 5, 20-minute
presentations along with a parent education meeting. Your
own teachers may teach the curriculum or, if desired, a
teacher will be provided. The evaluation of the program
will consist of a 25 minute individual interview with each
of the children one week prior to the program, the week
following the program, and three months later. All
interviews will be trained and supervised college students.

The Grossmont Program has been used extensively in
California and is now being used locally. Our previous
experience indicates a large majority of parents and child
care programs support the program.

The program will be offered in late Fall and Winter.
If you are interested in participating please call
353-8690, before September 15, 1987, and leave a message
for Dr. Bogat or Rose Ratto. We will be contacting your
center in early Fall. Thank you for you time and
cooperation.

Sincerely,
Rosemarie Ratto G. Anne Bogat, Ph.D.
Graduate Student Assistant Professor

-66-

 

APPENDIX G
CONSENT FORM

CONSENT FORM

Evaluation of a Personal Safety Curriculum
for Preschoolers

As you know, the Child Care Center your preschooler
attends will be conducting the Grossmont College Child
Sexual Abuse Prevention Program. Children are already
taught safety rules about fire, streets, and water. In the
same manner, children will be taught to protect themselves
from sexual exploitation. The program will provide
information and self protective skills to reduce children’s
vulnerability to abuse. Children will learn to identify
"private parts," to determine appropriate and inappropriate
touch, to assert their rights, to say "no" to touches that
are uncomfortable or inappropriate, and to tell someone if
they are uncomfortable about a touch. The Grossmont Program
is a safety information and not a sex education curriculum.
It does not provide any explicit information about human
sexuality. The program will be presented by the Child Care
Center’s teachers in coordination with the Michigan
Department of Social Services. In order to determine how
much of the information the children learn from the program,
an evaluation of the Program will be conducted. This will
be done by interviewing each child before the beginning of
the program, shortly after the program is completed, and
3 months later. The interview will be conducted by the
researcher named below or a trained assistant. The
children will be told that we want to ask them some
questions about personal safety and that they can say
whatever they like. The questions will ask children to
identify appropriate and inappropriate touch and to state
what they would say and do in various pretend situations.
This evaluation will help us to determine how valuable this
program is to preschoolers. We can make recommendations in
order to make it better and more useful for other children.

1. I understand the above evaluation process of the
Grossmont College Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program.
An explanation of this project has been given to me and I
understand what my child’s participation will involve.

2. I understand my child’s participation is optional and
that my child must also give his/her verbal permission.

3. I understand that either myself or my child may
discontinue my child’s participation in the evaluation at
any time without penalty and that my child will still
have the opportunity to participate in the Grossmont
College Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program.

-67-

4. I understand that all results of the study will be
kept in strict confidence and all responses of my son or
daughter will remain anonymous except if my child reports
possible sexual abuse. In which case, the researcher will
notify both myself and the preschool teacher immediately.
Within these restrictions the results of the study will be
made available to me at my request.

5. I understand that participation in the study does not
guarantee any additional benefits to my child or to me.

I hereby give my approval to allow my child to be
interviewed before and two times after the personal safety
program (Grossmont College Child Sexual Abuse Prevention
Program) is presented to the children. I understand that
this information will be used as part of a research project
being conducted by Rosemarie Ratto (351-2598) and Dr. Anne
Bogat (353-8690) at Michigan State University.

Name of Child Birthdate

 

Signature of Parent/Guardian

 

Date

 

-68...

 

APPENDIX H
PARENT EDUCATION MEETING OUTLINE

Parent Education Meeting Outline
I. Definition of Sexual Abuse

Contacts or interactions between a child (under the age
of 18) and an adult (or one significantly older than the
child) in which the child is used for the sexual stimulation
of the perpetrator or another person. Sexual abuse ranges
from non-touching offenses such as exposure to offenses that
involve physical contact such as fondling, oral/genital
contact, vaginal and anal stimulation and penetration,
incest, and exploitation of children through pornography and
prostitution.

II. Prevalence

1 out of every 4 girls
1 out of every 6 boys

Begins early (possibly in infancy) and continues for
many years

Serious long term psychological effects
- substance abuse
- serious depression
- self-destructive behavior
- low-self esteem
- isolation

III.Common Myths

-Abusers are not strangers
-75-85% are people the child knows

-Abusers are not always adults
-they may be teenagers

-Abusers are not "weird/crazy" people
-they are very normal in appearance

-Sexual abuse is rarely a violent attack
-it is mostly carried out with bribes or threats

-Abuse is not just intercourse
-much involves fondling

-Abuse doesn’t necessarily happen in public places
-most commonly abuse occurs in the child’s home

-The child never provokes sexual abuse

-69-

IV.

and

VI.

VII

-the responsibility is always on the adult
Indications of abuse

-unusual knowledge about sex

-unusual seductive behavior

-fear being alone with specific people
-pain around genitals

Prevention Strategies

Teach children to be assertive about their own bodies
that they have the right to say no to an unwanted touch.

Children need to understand:

-private parts of body

-good touch vs. bad touch
-right to say no to bad touch
-to keep saying no

-talk to a safe person
-stranger and people they know
-secrets

Disclosure

-stay calm

-find a quiet, private place to talk

-believe them

-reassure the child it is not his/her fault

-make sure the child knows you will keep them safe
-tell them what you will do

.Resources

-C.P.S. Handout

-Parent Resources Handout
-National organizations
-List of books

VIII.Question and Answer

-70-

 

APPENDI X I
TEACHER TRAI N I NG

II.

III

Teacher Training Outline
Important points
-Stress safety

-Stay clam while teaching
-don’t over react

-Stress role play
-participant learning
-active

-Target shy children

-Be aware of any children who may be frightened
-inquire about fear

-have them sit next to you

-if necessary, remove them from participation

Lesson 1
-Private parts
-Introduce with concept of safety

-Read book slowly
-ask questions
-comment in your own words

-Have each child identify their private parts
-use doll if desired

-Have each child say what they would do if someone
touched their private parts
-Additional activities

-color picture identifying private parts
-optional

.Lesson 2

-Review private parts and saying no
-role play with each child

-Review safe touch
-role play with each child

-Talk about feelings
-good vs. bad

-71-

IV.

VI.

VII

Lesson 3
-Puppet Show
-Longer than other lessons
-Emp. on strangers
-Active participation
-Stress saying no, leaving, and telling someone
Lesson 4
-Review saying no, leaving, and telling someone
-Review definition of stranger
-Discuss different types of secrets
Lesson 5
Review-use puppets so kids can remember
-Before ending children should know:
-strangers
-secrets
-private parts

-good touch vs. bad touch
-what to do

.Disclosure

-Give handout on disclosure
-emp. staying calm

-Review indications of abuse
-Inform about C.P.S.

VIII.Question and Answer

-72-

APPENDIX J
TABLES

Table 1

Number, Gender, and Mean Age of Participants in the Control,

Parent Involvement, No Parent Involvement,

Parent Combined Conditions

and Parent and No

 

 

 

Condition

n gender mean age

Control 20 6 girls 56.0
14 boys

No Parent Involvement 13 7 girls 56.9
6 boys

Parent Involvement 6 5 girls 49.3
1 boy

Parent & No Parent Combined 19 12 girls 54.5
7 boys

 

-73-

 

Table 2
Observed and Adjusted Means for Post Test Scores on the PSQ,
WIST, and Fear Scales for the Control, Parent Involvement,

No Parent Involvement, and the Parent and No Parent Combined

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conditions
Means
Observed Adjusted
PSQ
Control 10.30 10.08
Parent Involvement 11.83 11.86
No Parent Involvement 12.46 12.64
Parent and No Parent 12.21 12.39
WIST
Control 14.15 15.87
Parent Involvement 18.50 16.07
No Parent Involvement 15.23 15.93

 

Fear Scale

 

Control 5.60 5.35
Parent Involvement 5.33 5.36
No Parent Involvement 7.69 7.92
Parent and No Parent 7.00 7.11

 

-74-

 

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for the Pretest Scores on the
PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale for the Parent Involvement, No

Parent Involvement, and Control Groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean SD

PSQ
Control 9.75 2.55
Parent Involvement 9.33 2.25
No Parent Involvement 9.08 3.01

WIST
Control 9.65 7.33
Parent Involvement 14.83 8.89
No Parent Involvement 10.92 6.97

Fear Scale

Control ' 5.80 2.73
Parent Involvement 5.30 2.30
No Parent Involvement 4.90 3.54

 

-75-

Table 4
Analysis of Covariance for PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale for

Post Test Scores

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable SS DF MS E p
PSQ
Error 48.28 35 1.38
Condition 53.85 2 26.92 19.52 .001
Parent vs. No Parent 2.49 1 2.49 1.81 .187
Parent and No Parent 42.00 1 42.00 30.45 .001
vs. Control
WIST
Error 1246.02 35 35.60
Condition .17 2 .09 .00 .998
Fear Scale
Error 344.11 35 9.83
Condition 56.22 2 23.11 2.86 .071
Parent vs. No Parent 26.78 1 26,78 2.72 .108
Parent and No Parent 14.78 1 14.78 1.50 .228

vs. Control

 

-76-

Table 5

Observed and Adjusted Means for 3-Month Follow-up Scores on
the PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scales for the Control, Parent
Involvement, No Parent Involvement, and Parent-No Parent

Combined Conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means
Observed Adjusted

PSQ

Control 10.30 10.10
Parent Involvement 10.83 10.86
No Parent Involvement 12.23 12.41
Parent and No Parent 11.79 11.92
WIST

Control 14.10 15.42
Parent Involvement 18.00 16.13
No Parent Involvement 18.92 19.46
Fear Scale

Control 4.55 4.46
Parent Involvement 6.50 6.51
No Parent Involvement 5.92 6.01

 

Table 6
Analysis of Covariance for PSQ, WIST, and Fear Scale for
3-Month Follow Up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable SS DF MS E p

PSQ

Error 73.17 35 2.09

Condition 41.60 2 20.80 9.95 .001

Parent vs. No Parent 9.75 1 9.75 4.67 .038

Parent and No Parent 21.15 1 21.15 10.12 .003

vs. Control
WIST

Error 1,706.86 35 48.77

Condition 132.32 2 66.16 1.36 .271
Fear Scale

Error 459.21 35 13.12

Condition 29.19 2 14.60 1.11 .340

 

-78-

Table 7
Frequency of Responses on the PSQ for Individual Items

 

Frequency

 

Question 3
Pre (3:20) Post (n=19) 3-month (n=19)

 

1. Correct 50.0% 94.7% 89.5%
Incorrect 50.0% 5.3% 10.5%
2. Correct 65.0% 84.2% 94.7%
Incorrect 35.0% 68.3% 5.3%
3. Correct 70.0% 89.5% 89.5%
Incorrect 30.0% 10.5% 10.5%
4. Correct 60.0% 84.2% 89.5%
Incorrect 40.0% 15.8% 10.5%
5. Correct 35.0% 73.7% 52.6%
Incorrect 65.0% 26.3% 47.4%
6. Correct 70.0% 78.9% 63.2%
Incorrect 30.0% 21.1% 36.8%
7. Correct 65.0% 89.5% 84.2%
Incorrect 35.0% 10.5% 15.8%
8. Correct 80.0% 89.5% 89.5%
Incorrect 20.0% 10.5% 10.5%
9. Correct 70.0% 78.9% 68.4%
Incorrect 30.0% 21.1% 31.6%
10. Correct 95.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Incorrect ' 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
11. Correct 80.0% 94.7% 89.5%
Incorrect 20.0% 5.3% 10.5%
12. Correct 65.0% 89.5% 94.7%
Incorrect 35.0% 10.5% 5.3%
13. Correct 65.0% 95.8% 78.9%
Incorrect 35.0% 4.2% 21.1%
14. Correct 65.0% 94.7% 94.7%
Incorrect 35.0% 5.3% 5.3%

 

Table 8
Frequency of Responses on the WIST for Individual Items

 

Frequency

 

Question #
Pre(n=20) Post(n=19) 3-month(n=19)

 

1. No 45.0% 26.3% 21.1%
Yes 55.0% 73.7% 78.9%
2. No Change 45.0% 31.6% 21.1%
Evasion 5.0% 0.0% 10.5%
Direct Rejection 50.0% 68.4% 68.4%
3. Do Nothing/Stay 70.0% 47.4% 52.6%
Vague Escape 5.0% 0.0% 5.3%
Effective Escape 25.0% 52.6% 42.1%
4. Tell no one 65.0% 52.6% 42.1%
One person 15.0% 26.3% 15 8%
Two or more 20.0% 21.1% 42.1%
5. Uninformative Discl. 100.0% 94.7% 94.7%
Informative Discl. 0.0% 5.3% 5.3%
6. Yes 35.0% 21.1% 10.5%
No 65.0% 78.9% 89.5%
7. No 45.0% 31.6% 15.8%
Yes 55.0% 68.4% 84.2%
8. Inappropriate Answer 90.0% 63.2% 57.9%
Appropriate Answer 10.0% 36.8% 42.1%
9. Yes 50.0% 52.9% 36.8%
No 50.0% 42.1% 63.2%
10. No 40.0% 36.8% 21.1%
Yes 60.0% 63.2% 78.9%
11. No Change 65.0% 36.8% 31.6%
Evasion 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Direct Rejection 25.0% 63.2% 68.4%
12. Do Nothing/Stay 60.0% 52.6% 63.2%
Vague Escape 5.0% 5.3% 5.3%
Effective Escape 35.0% 42.1% 31.6%

-80-

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Tell no one
One person
Two of more

Uninformative Discl.

Informative Discl.

No
Yes

No Change
Evasion
Direct Rejection

Effective Escape
Vague Escape
No Change

Tell no one
One person
Two or more

Uminformative Discl.

Informative Discl.

7O
30
100

30

70.

45
50

50.
45.

60
35

90.

10

.0%
.0%
.0%

.0%
.0%

.02;
0%
.095
:09:
0%
.094
0%
.07.
.0%
.0°/.

0%
.O%

47.
15.
36.

94.
.3%

31.
68.

31.
.0%
68.

47.
.0%
52.

47.
.6%
21.

31

73.
26.

4%
8%
8%
7%
6%
4%
6%
4%
4%
6%
4%
1%

7%
3%

47.
21.
.6%

31

78.
21.

15.
.O%
84.

52.
10.
36.

36.
.5%
52.

68.
31.

4%
1%

9%
1%

.3%
94.

7%
8%
2%
6%
5%
8%
8%
6%

4%
6%

 

-81-

Table 9
Frequency of Responses on the Fear Scale for Individual

Items

 

Frequency

 

Question #
Pre(n=20) Post(n=19) 3-month(n=19)

 

1. Not Scared 70.0% 52.6% 57.9%
A Little Scared 10.0% 15.8% 10 5%
Very Scared 20.0% 31.6% 31.6%

2. Not Scared 30.0% 36.8% 47.4%
A Little Scared 35.0% 15.8% 21.1%
Very Scared 35.0% 47.4% 31.6%

3. Not Scared 65.0% 63.2% 73.7%
A Little Scared 10.0% 10.5% 15.8%
Very Scared 25.0% 26.3% 10.5%

4. Not Scared 50.0% 31.6% 31.6%
A Little Scared 10.0% 10.5% 26.3%
Very Scared 40.0% 57.9% 42.1%

5. Not Scared 60.0% 42.1% 36.8%
A Little Scared 25.0% 21.1% 21.1%
Very Scared 15.0% 36.8% 42.1%

6. Not Scared 75.0% 84.2% 89.5%
A Little Scared 20.0% 5.3% 5.3%
Very Scared 5.0% 10.5% 5.3%

7. Not Scared 60.0% 36.8% 52.6%
A Little Scared 10.0% 15.8% 5.3%
Very Scared 30.0% 47.4% 42.1%

8. Not Scared 65.0% 52.6% 36.8%
A Little Scared 25.0% 10.5% 31.6%
Very Scared 10.0% 36.8% 31.6%

 

Table 10

Intercorrelations Between the Change Scores of the PSQ,

WIST, and Fear Scale,

and Father’s Social Index,

Age,

Sex,

and the Attitude Scale

Race of the Child, Mother’s

 

 

 

PSQ WIST FEAR Age Sex Race M.SI F.SI ATT
PSQ (n=19) -.02 .62** .18 -.13 .18 .07 .03 -.16
WIST (n=19) .12 .21 -.11 .03 -.05 .49+ -.05
Fear Scale (3:19) .31+ -.16 .06 .24 .55* -.18
Age (3:42) -.12 .31* .34 .44+ .15
Sex (g=43) .06 -.42 -.15 -.14
Race (n=43) -.66**-.44 .35
Mother’s S.I. (n=12) .32 -.40+
Father’s S.I. (n=12) -.24
Attitude Scale (n=12)
**p<.01
*p<.05
+p<.10

-83-

Table 11

Intercorrelations Between the Pretest Scores of the PSQ,

WIST, and Fear Scale, Age, Sex, Race of Child, Mother’s and

Father’s Social Index,

and the Attitude Scale

 

 

PSQ WIST FEAR Age Sex Race M.SI .SI ATT
PSQ (D241) .56** -.01 .18 -.04 -.09 -.10 .08 .26
WIST (n=41) .17 .31* .07 -.16 .36 .12 -.31
Fear Scale (n=41) -.23 .13 .14 .08 .10 -.35
Age (n=42) -.12 -.31* .34 .43+ .15
Sex (p=43) .06 -.42+ .15 -.14
Race (n=43) -.66** .44+ .36
Mother’s S.I. (n=12) .32 -.40+
Father’s S.I. (n=12) -.24

Attitude Scale (n=12)

 

** p<.01
* p<.05
+ p<.10

-84-

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

The American Humane Association. (1969). Brgtegting_the
child_xictim_cf_sex_crimes. Children’s Division. Denver.
CO.

The American Humane Association. (1982). Highlight§_gf
Qfficia1_Qhild_Naslect_and_Ahuss_Bsnertins Denver. CO

Anderson-Varney. T. (1987). Ihe_exaluatien_2f_a_nsrsenal
Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan
State University.

Behana, N., Gamble, N., & Stevens, C. (1985). Ng¢_ggg_tell

.Larreuns_child_a_suide_about_child_sexual_ahuse
prexentignl. El Cajon,CA: Grossmont College Sexual Abuse
Prevention Program.

Bloom, B. L. (1979). Prevention of mental disorders: Recent

advances in theory and practice. 99mmunitz_flental_flealth
Journal. 15(3). 179-192.

Brassard, M. R. Tyler, A. H. , & Kehle, T. J. (1983). School
programs to prevent intrafamilial child sexual abuse.

Child_Ahuse_i_Nesleci. l. 241- 245.

Butler, S. (1986). Thinking about prevention: A critical
look. In M. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds.), Erexenting_ghild

sexual_ahuse (pp. 6-14). Santa Cruz, CA: Network
Publications.

Brown, N. (1985). Historical Perspectives on Child Abuse.
In A. Donner (Ed.), Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: A
Trainer’s Manual (pp. 22-28). Seattle, WA: Seattle
Institute for Child Advocacy.

Conte, J. R. (1987). Ethical issues in evaluation of
prevention programs. thld.Ahuss_&_Nsslact. 11. 171-172.

Conte, J. (1986). Evaluating prevention education programs.

In N. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds ). Ersxentina_child_ssxual
abuse (pp.126-129). Santa Cruz, CA: Network Publication.

Conte, J.R. (1984) Progress in treating the sexual abuse of
children. Spgial_flgrk, 29(3), 258-263.

Conte, J. R., Rosen, C. & Saperstein, L. (1986). An analysis
of programs to prevent the sexual victimization of

children. l2urnal_gf_Primarx_Erexentien. 6(3). 141-155.
-85-

Conte, J. R., Rosen, C., Saperstein, C. & Shermack, R.
(1985) An evaluation of a program to prevent the sexual

victimization of young children. thld_Ahu§e_and_Neglegt,
&. 319-328.

Courtois, C. A. (1979). The incest experience and its

aftermath WWW 4(4) .
337- 347.

Downer. A. (1984). W
,trainers_manual. Seattle, Washington: Seattle Institute
for Child Advocacy.

Downer, A. (1986). Training teachers to be partners in
prevention. In M. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds.), Brexenting

9hild_§§xua1_abu§e (pp. 80-86). Santa Cruz,CA: Network
Publication.

Finkelhor, D. (1983). Removing the child-prosecuting the
offender in cases of sexual abuse: Evidence from the
national reporting system for child abuse and neglect.

W. 1. 195- 205.

Finkelhor, D. (1978L Sexual victimization of children in a
normal population WW
West.

London.

Friedrich, W. N., Urquiza, A. J., & Beillke, R. L. (1986).
Behavior problems in sexually abused young children.

Wham. 11(1). 47-57.

Fryer, G. E., Kraizer,S. K., & Miyoshi, T. (1987a).
Measuring actual reduction of risk to child abuse: a new

approach. 911W. 1.1. 173-179.

Fryer, G. E., Kraizer, S. K., & Miyoshi, T. (1987b).
Measuring children’s retention of skills to resist
stranger abduction: Use of the simulation technique.

WM. 1.1. 181-185-

Garbarino, J. (1986). Can we measure success in preventing
child abuse? Issues in policy, programing and research.

WM. 19. 143-156.

Garbarino, J. (1987). Children’s response to a sexual abuse
prevention program: A study of the Spiderman comic. Child

Wales;- 11. 143-148-

Gentry, C. E. (1978). Incestuous abuse of children: The need
for an objective view. §h11d_flelfiaze, 51(6), 355-364.

-86-

Gomes-Schwartz, B., Horowitz, J. M., & Sauzier, M. (1985).
Severity of emotional distress among sexually abused
preschool, school- -age, and adolescent children. Eggpitel

and_99mmunitz_fisxchiatrr. 36(5). 503-508.

Goodwim, J., McCarthy, T., & DiVasto, P. (1981). Prior
incest in mothers of abused children. thld_Ahu§e_&
.Nsslect. 5. 87—95.

Hill, J. L. & Jason,L. A. (1987). An_exaluatign_gf_a
schoolzhased_child_sexual_shuss_primarz_prsxsntion
prggrem. Unpublished manuscript, DePaul University.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1957). Two factor index of social
position. 1965 Yale Sation: New Haven, Conn.

Jones, D. P. H. & Krugman, R. (1986). Can a three-year-old
child bear witness to her sexual assault and attempted

murder?.thld_Ahuse_iafleslec1. 19. 253-258.

Koblinsky, S. & Behana, N. (1984). Child sexual abuse: The
educator’s role in prevention, detection, and

intervention,. Igung_thldzen, 39(6), 3-15.

Kraizer. S. K. (1986). Rethinking prevention. thld_Ahu§e_§
Neglect. IQ. 259-261.

Leventhal, J. M. (1987). Programs to prevent sexual abuse:

What outcomes should be measured? Qh11d_Ahu§e_&_fleglegt,
11, 169-171.

Plummer, C. A. (1986a). Child sexual abuse prevention: Keys
to program success . In M. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds.),
' (pp. 69-79). Santa Cruz,
CA: Network Publications.

Planner. C. A. (1984). Prsxsntins_sexual_abuss1_sctixities
.and_stratesias_fQr_thoas_Horkina_uith_childrsn_and
,adglesgents, Holmes Beach, Fla: Learning Publications.

Plummer, C. A. (1986b). Prevention education in perspective.
In M. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds.),

,ahnse (pp 1-5). Santa Cruz, CA: Network Publication

Poche, C., Brouwer, R., & Swearingen, M. (1981). Teaching

self-protection to young children. Jpnrna1_gf_Applied
Behaxior_Analzsis. 14(2). 169-176.

Ray. J. & Dietzel. M. (1985). Isachins_child_ssxual_ahuse
prexentign. Unpublished manuscript.

-B7-

Repucci, Dick (1988, March) Invited address at the Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association.
New Orleans, LA.

Russell, D. E. H. (1983). The incidence and prevalence of
intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female

children. West. 1. 133-146.

Saslawsky, D. A. & Wurtele, S. K. (1986). Educating children
about sexual abuse: Implications for pediatric
intervention and possible prevention. Jgurnal_gf

W. 11(2). 235-245.

Schultz, L. G. (1973). The child sex victim: Social,

psychological, and legal perspectives. thld_flelfar§,
52(3), 147-157.

Sedney, M. A. & Brooks, B. (1984). Factors associated with a
history of childhood sexual experience in a nonclinical
female pepulation. W
W. 2.3. 215- 218

Shaman E. J. (1986) Prevention for children with
disabilities. In M. Nelson & K. Clark (Eds.), Ezgxenhing

chiliesxualjhuse (pp. 122-125). Santa Cruz. CA:

Network Publication.

Swan. H. L., Press, A. N., & Briggs, S. L. (1985). Child
sexual abuse prevention. Does it work? Qh11d_flelfare,
64(4), 395-405.

Wolfe, D. A., MacPherson, T., Blount. R., & Wolfe, V. V.
(1986). Evaluation of a brief intervention for educating
school children in awareness of physical and sexual

abuse. WM. 19. 85-92.
Wurtele, S. K., Marrs, S. R. & Miller- Perrin, C. L. (1987a)

;|I;.“ 0' a; e ‘.e o 0;; uee‘
MW. Manuscript submitted
for publication, Washington State University.

Wurtele, S. K ., Saslawsky, D. A., Miller, C. L., Marrs, S.
' R.. & Britcher. J. C. (1987b). W
skillLfoLpoisntialJrsxsntionJLaexualJbuaeJ

MW. Manuscript submitted for
publication, Washington State University.

Wyatt, G. E. & Peters, S. D. (1986). Issues in the
definition of child abuse in prevalence research. Child

West. 1.0.. 231-240.
- 88 -

lllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

600114833