USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The evaluation of a commercially-available abduction prevention program

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The evaluation of a commercially-available abduction prevention program
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Beck, Kimberly V
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Safety skills
In situ training
Behavioral skills training
Stranger
Children
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Behavior Analysis -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Child abduction is a serious problem in the U.S.; therefore, it is essential that researchers evaluate the efficacy of currently available abduction prevention programs. This study evaluated the efficacy of a commercially-available abduction prevention program, The Safe Side. The participants included six 6-8-year old children with no prior abduction prevention training. A non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design was used to evaluate the effects of the training. The participants' safety responses were assessed using in situ assessments within two different situations (responding to a knock on the door of the participant's home and interaction by a stranger in public) and scored numerically. Any participant who failed to perform the appropriate safety skills following the post video training assessment received in situ training implemented by the parent. Additional assessments were subsequently conducted until each participant demonstrated the desired safety skills to criterion (three consecutive correct scores). In situ training was continually conducted as necessary.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kimberly V. Beck.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 44 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001999360
oclc - 318355490
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002471
usfldc handle - e14.2471
System ID:
SFS0026788:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Evaluation of a Commercially-Ava ilable Abduction Prevention Program by Kimberly V. Beck A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Appl ied Behavior Analysis College of Graduate School University of South Florida Major Professor: Raymond G. Miltenberger, Ph.D. Stacie A. Neff, M.S. Bobbie J. Vaughn, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 20, 2008 Keywords: safety skills, in situ training, be havioral skills traini ng, stranger, children Copyright 2008, Kimberly V. Beck

PAGE 2

Dedication I would like to dedicate this text to my husband and to my parents; without their unlimited support and patience, I would not be where I am today. I would also like to dedicate this to my faculty advisor, Dr. Raymond Miltenberger. The guidance, knowledge, and opportunity that he has provided me are invaluable and I am grateful.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my huge team of dedicated research assistants who conducted numerous assessments in order to coll ect all of the necessary data. Because of their flexibility, dedication, and willingness to act as confederates, I was able to collect all of the necessary data for my investiga tion. I would also like to thank my committee members for their encouragement and support. In particular, I would like to thank my committee member, Stacie Neff for all of her participation and guidance and for monitoring all of my thesis documents when necessary.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Method 9 Participants and Settings 9 Materials 10 Target Behaviors 10 Knock on the Door 10 The Approach 11 Assessment 11 Observers and Interobserver Agreement 13 Demographics Questionnaire 14 Side Effects and Social Validity Questionnaire 16 Experimental Design and Procedures 16 Baseline 16 Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD 16 In Situ Training 17 Booster Training 17 Results 21 The Approach 21 The Knock 23 Social Validity 25 Discussion 26 References 33 Appendices 37 Appendix A: Demograp hics Questionnaire 38 Appendix B: Side Eff ects Questionnaire 42

PAGE 5

ii List of Tables Table 1. Demographics of Participants 15

PAGE 6

iii List of Figures Figure 1. The Approach. Participants’ safety scores across all conditions. 22 Figure 2. Knock on the Door. Participants ’ safety scores across all conditions. 24

PAGE 7

iv The Evaluation of a Commercially-Ava ilable Abduction Prevention Program Kimberly V. Beck ABSTRACT Child abduction is a serious problem in th e U.S.; therefore, it is essential that researchers evaluate the efficacy of current ly available abduction prevention programs. This study evaluated the efficacy of a co mmercially-available abduction prevention program, The Safe Side. The participants in cluded six 6-8-year old children with no prior abduction prevention training. A non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design was used to evaluate the effects of th e training. The participants’ safety responses were assessed using in situ assessments w ithin two different situations (responding to a knock on the door of the participant’s home and interaction by a stranger in public) and scored numerically. Any participant who faile d to perform the appropriate safety skills following the post video training assessment r eceived in situ training implemented by the parent. Additional assessments were subsequently conducted until each participant demonstrated the desired safety skills to crite rion (three consecutive correct scores). In situ training was continually conducted as necessary.

PAGE 8

1 Introduction Child abduction is one of many safety thre ats to children in the U.S. Although it is unlikely that most childre n will ever experience an a bduction situation, there are serious consequences of abduction, includi ng sexual abuse and death. Most child abductions are committed by family members of the victim; howev er, studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice reveal that approximately 58,200 children were abducted in 1999 by nonfamily perpetrators. Nonfamily abductions is defined by Finkelhor, Hammer, and Sedlak (2002) as “an episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or th reat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least one hou r) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm (p. 2).” In a nonfamily abduction, perpetrators may also use lures to entice a child unde r the age of 15 to voluntarily go with them. Some of the most common lures include offering incentives to entice the child and using authority to convince the child that the perpetrator has appropriate permission to take them. Within the category of nonfamily abductions there exists a more serious category referred to as stereotypical kidnapping. St ereotypical kidnapping differs from nonfamily abduction in that the “child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom, abducted with the intent to keep the child permanently, or killed (p. 2).” Stereotypical kidnappings are rare occu rrences, accounting for only 115 of the 58,200 total nonfamily abductions in 1999 (Finkelhor et al., 2002).

PAGE 9

2Despite the common belief that physical forc e or threat is most often used to abduct children, earlier studies suggest that in only 10% to 17% of cases, perpetrators used physical force to abduct their vict ims (Poche, Brouwer, & Swearington, 1981). Research on child abduction reveals that most perpetrators engage in a friendly interaction to establish rapport with their victims and use lure s to entice the child to leave with them (Poche et al., 1981). Furthermore, investigators have found that children often will leave willingly with an abductor after being presented with a lure (Holcombe, Wolery, & Katzenmeyer, 1995; Marchand-Ma rtella, Huber, Martella, & Wood, 1996; Poche et al., 1981; Poche, Yoder, & Miltenberger, 1988). There are four types of lures that are comm only used to abduct children. The first is the simple lure wherein the abductor mere ly provides a request to the child to leave with him (“him” will be used throughout this paper as research reveals that most child abductors are males). In the authority lure, th e perpetrator says that someone of authority (i.e. teacher/parent) gave the child permission to go with him. The incentive lure is used when the perpetrator presents an attractive offe r to the child in order to entice the child to go with him (Poche et al., 1981). Lastly, the assistance lure is described as the perpetrator requesting the child’s aid for something (Holcombe et al., 1995). Although legislation and prevention effo rts by parents attempt to eliminate many threats to children’s safety, preventing these life-threatening incidents from occurring is not always possible. Despite best efforts to watch children closel y, a number of children are being abducted annually. Nearly a quarter of the nonfam ily abductions that occurred in 1999 took place in the home or yard of th e victim. The remaining 77% took place in the community such as streets a nd parks (Finkelhor et al., 2002).

PAGE 10

3Because research has shown that most child abductions occur when an adult engages in a friendly interaction with the child and then entices the child to leave willingly by delivering an abduction lure, rese archers began evaluati ng training programs to address this safety threat Poche et al. (1981) conducted th e first study to evaluate the efficacy of behavioral skills training for teach ing abduction prevention skills. Behavioral skills training (BST) which includes instruc tions, modeling, rehearsal in simulated and/or naturalistic settings, and feedback/praise, is the method found to be most effective for teaching a variety of prevention skills (C arroll-Rowan & Miltenberger, 1994; Himle & Miltenberger, 2004; Marchand-Martella et al., 1996; Olsen-Woods et al., 1998; Poche et al., 1981: 1988). The participan ts included three preschool ch ildren ages 3 to 5 years of normal intelligence and social skills. In re sponse to an abduction lu re, the children were trained to say “No”, leave th e proximity of the abductor wi thin 3 seconds, and report the incident to a trusted adult. A multiple ba seline across subjects design revealed that children’s scores greatly improved from baseline to post-treatment. All of the participants achieved criteri on in response to all three lu res presented by the “abductor”; however, not all participants maintained the safety skills during the follow-up assessments. Marchand-Martella et al. (1996) replicated the behavioral skills training used by Poche et al. (1981) to teach abduction prevention skills to children. The researchers assessed long-term maintenance and like pr evious research, found that despite the participants’ acquisition of the safety skills, the skills did not always maintain over time. Additional studies focused on group traini ng and found that following BST, most children learned the skills; howev er, a percentage of participants did not (Carroll-Rowan

PAGE 11

4& Miltenberger, 1994; Olsen-Woods, Milte nberger, & Foreman, 1998; Poche et al., 1988). Although participants in prev ious research demonstrat ed acquisition of safety skills using BST, some particip ants failed to engage in th e appropriate behavior when assessed during in situ assessments (Ca rroll-Rowan & Miltenberger, 1994; Himle, Miltenberger, Gatheridge, & Flessner, 2004; Miltenberger, Thiesse-Duffy, Suda, Kozak, & Bruellman, 1990). This failure to demonstr ate skills when a seemingly real safety threat is presented in a naturalistic environm ent poses a serious problem, as the research findings suggest that these participants are le ss likely to demonstrate the skills necessary when faced with a real life-threatening situati on. In an attempt to increase the probability of generalization after skills are acquired us ing BST, researchers have added in situ training (IST) to their training package and ha ve found it to be eff ective (Gatheridge et al., 2004; Himle et al., 2004; Johnson et al ., 2005: 2006; Miltenbe rger et al., 1999; Miltenberger et al., 2004). In situ training is conducted when the part icipant fails to demonstrate the skills to criterion during the in situ assessment. Im mediately upon failure to use the skills during the in situ assessment, the trainer appears in the environment and provides on-the-spot training. The trainer asks the participant what just happened (what di d the confederate ask the participant, and what was the participan t’s response), provides the correct response, engages the participant in role play scenar ios, and provides feedback. This training continues until the participant exhibits the correct response 3-5 consecutive times during the role play scenarios. In situ assessments are conducted again within days and IST is implemented again if necessary. This procedure continues until the participant

PAGE 12

5demonstrates the criterion sk ills during several consecutive assessments (Egemo-Helm et al., 2007; Gatheridge et al., 2004; Himle et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2005: 2006; Miltenberger et al., 1999; Milt enberger et al., 2004: 2005). Johnson and colleagues (2005) taught abduction prevention skills to 13 preschool children using BST. Following in situ a ssessments, IST was implemented for any participant who failed to demonstrate the appr opriate skills. Post training and follow-up assessments results revealed that particip ants acquired and maintained the abduction prevention skills. In 2006, Johnson and colleague s took the research one step further to evaluate BST alone verses BST plus IST in a small group format. Both treatment groups performed significantly better than the contro l group. The 3 month follow-up is the only assessment wherein the two treatment groups di ffered significantly, as the BST plus IST group performed better than the BS T-alone group (J ohnson et al., 2006). Although IST has been found to be the mo st effective at teaching prevention skills, the approach ut ilizes trained professionals, is tim e-consuming, and can be costly to arrange. BST and IST are most often implem ented on a one-to-one basis and thus are not practical approaches for reaching the large numbers of children who could benefit from training. Efforts have been made to use BS T and IST to reach more participants while using fewer resources. Poche et al. (1988) developed a videotape training program designed to teach abduction prevention skill s to young children. Using a posttest only control group design, participants were ra ndomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) videotape only, (2) videotape plus BST, (3 ) standard program, (4 ) no training-control group. The standard program was the training program that was available in the schools which was presented by one trainer. In the standard program, the two safety rules that

PAGE 13

6were described in the video were discussed, potential abduction scen arios were presented, and the children were asked how they would respond. The trainer praised the children for correct answers. A short video was also s hown in this group. Re sults revealed that children in the two videotape groups performed signi ficantly better than the children in the standard program or control group. The results suggested that videotape training may be one way to make safety skills training more efficient, although th e videotape training was not effective for all children and was most effective when combined with rehearsal of the skills (Poche et al., 1988). In addition to the evaluation of video as a way to make safety skills training more accessible to children, other researchers have evaluated commercially available safety skills training programs to see if they are e ffective (Gatheridge et al., 2004; Himle et al., 2004; Kelso, et al., 2007). Most of this re search has focused on evaluating commercially available programs for teaching skills to children to prevent firearm injuries; this research has been evaluated with children of various ages. For example, the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program, available for purchase from the Natio nal Rifle Association, has been used with over 15 million children in the United States according to figures provided by the NRA. The researchers reasoned that if the Eddie Eagle program we re found to be effective, it could potentially reach large numbers of ch ildren because it is commercially available and relatively inexpensive. Himle et al. (2004) found that the E ddie Eagle program was not effective with 4 and 5 year olds. Gath eridge et al. (2004) f ound results similar to those of Himle et al. (2004), revealing that 6 and 7 year olds in the Eddie Eagle group learned to verbalize the safety skills, but di d not demonstrate the skills in naturalistic situations as the children in the BST gr oup did. Gatheridge et al. (2004) and Kelso,

PAGE 14

7Miltenberger, Waters, Egemo-Helm, and Bagne (2007) showed that the use of in situ training following the use of the Eddie Eagle program increased the effectiveness of the program (almost all children in both the E ddie Eagle and the BST group demonstrated the skills following one in situ training). A recent internet search on national child abduction prevention programs revealed several commercially available programs designed to teach children the skills to avoid abduction. One prevention program in particular is The Safe Side The Safe Side program, which began in 2004, employs a video training approach with instructions and modeling of safety skills and provides seve ral “hot tips” in order to teach abduction safety skills to children ages 5-10 years old. The developers be hind the training video have attempted to make the video humor ous at times, engaging, and developmentally appropriate for 5 to 10 year ol ds (The Safe Side, 2004). Sim ilar to other safety skills programs shown to be effective (Poche et al., 1981; Johns on et al., 2005: 2006; Marchand-Martella, et al., 1996) the Safe Side program teaches children to engage in similar safety skills when presented with a potential abduction situation; say no, get away, and tell a parent or other safe adult. The Safe Side website hosts a page of testimoni als regarding the efficacy of the training program as well as lists the numerous awards the program has received (The Safe Side, 2004); however, like many other commerci ally available programs aimed to teach safety skills to children, there is no publishe d scientific research examining the program’s efficacy. Although research has found strategies such as BST and IST to be effective, these approaches are largely ina ccessible; therefore, it would be beneficial for research to examine the programs that are commercially available so that many more children can

PAGE 15

8receive effective training in less time a nd using fewer resources. Furthermore, by examining the efficacy of commercially avai lable prevention programs, researchers can identify modifications that can be made to increase their effectiv eness if necessary. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the commercially available abduction prevention program, The Safe Side Furthermore, given the success of in situ training following the Eddie Eagle program in previous research (Gatheridge et al., 2005; Kelso et al., 2007), this study will further evalua te in situ training as an added component for any children who do not demonstrate the skills following the evaluation of The Safe Side program. Various assessments will be conducted in different situations to examine the acquisition of skills following training. As this program has not received previous scientific evaluation, the following predictions will be made: (a) Following the viewing of the Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD, the participants will achieve scores higher than their baseline scores; however, they will not perform the skills to criterion; (b) In situ training will be effective for teaching abducti on prevention skills to the participants in each of the situations.

PAGE 16

9 Method Participants and Settings Participants were six children, 5 girls and one boy, ages 6 and 8 years living in a southern metropolitan area. A demographics questionnaire completed by the parents of each participant confirmed the absence of any known mental health disorders or developmental disabilities and the absence of any prior relevant abduction prevention training (See Table 1 for complete results from demographics questionnaire). All of the participants were recruited through a departme nt-wide email to staff at a local university to request participation of their children w ithin the age range of 6 to 8 years old. Selection criteria included age, absence of any known mental he alth disorders/disabilities, absence of prior abduction prevention traini ng, availability to participate in multiple assessments, and the receipt of written, in formed parental consent. The study was reviewed and approved by the Universi ty Institutional Review Board. Assessment and training took place in the children’s homes and in the community. The community settings incl uded places such as a public park or playground, a mall/department store or a big box store, (i.e. Wal-Mart). Researchers included thirteen (3 males and 10 females) trained graduate students enrolled in the university’s Applied Behavior Analysis mast er’s program. The graduate assistants received training on data collection from the i nvestigator and acted as the confederates for the study in both situations.

PAGE 17

10Materials The Safe Side abduction prevention training DVD titled “Stranger Safety” was used in the study. The DVD is 42 minutes and provides several “hot tips” in order to teach abduction safety skills to children ages 5-10 years old. The objective of the video is to teach children, with instru ctions and modeling, to respond safely in various possible abduction situations. These re sponses included the safe wa y to respond to a knock on the door, abduction lures, and to adults w ho violate the child’s personal space. Target Behaviors The target behaviors were the safety sk ills used in response to two different potential abduction situations that were addressed in the Safe Side DVD. The two situations included (1) knock on the door and (2) the approach No situation was used more than once with any one participant duri ng any of the assessments (i.e. the location was not repeated and/or the nature of the vi sit to the store was di fferent). The scoring criteria for the safety skills for each meas ure were coded with the following numerical values described below. Knock on the door. In response to a knock on the door when the parent is not present in the room, the target safety skill was to not answer the door and to go tell the parent that someone is at the door. The safety skill responses for knock on the door were coded on a 3-point scale incl uding the following: 0= ope ns the door independently (without parental permission or parental assi stance); 1= Does not open the door but does not tell parent/adult; 2= Does not open the door, and tells parent/adult that someone knocked on the door.

PAGE 18

11 The Approach. The approach involves a scenario in which an adult violates a child’s personal space by walking up to a child in a public place, standing close to the child, and talking to the child. The safety skil ls (gets away immediatel y and tells an adult) to be used when an adult violates the ch ild’s personal space were scored on a 3-point scale as follows: 0= stays in proximity of confederate (regardless of whether or not the child reports the incident); 1= gets away imme diately but does not te ll an adult; 2= gets away immediately and tells adult. Getting aw ay immediately as stat ed above was defined as leaving the proximity of the confederate within 10 seconds of in itiation of speech by confederate, and traveling a minimum of 5 feet away fr om the confederate in the direction of their parent (o r reaching the parent). A decision was made to use the approach instead of an abduction lure to measure abduction safety skills for two reasons; one was that the approach in which the adult engages the child in pleasant conversation is a precursor to the delivery of the abduction lure (Poche et al., 1981), so it is most safe for the child to respond before the lure is delivered. The second reason was that the child is less likely to be frightened when presented with this situation than when presen ted with an actual lure involving a request to leave with the adult. A lthough an adult might engage a so litary child in conversation without any intent to abduct the child, the mo st conservative response is for the child to respond to this potentially dangerous intera ction by getting away and telling a parent. Assessment The safety skills relevant to each of the two potential abduction situations were assessed through in situ assessments During an in situ assessment the child was at the home or taken to the prearranged community setting and was unaware that assessment

PAGE 19

12was taking place. The in situ assessments we re conducted for each of the two situations in the setting described in each situati on. Both the researcher and the parent independently recorded the participant’s response. During the knock on the door situation, the confederate approached the house and knocked loudly on the door using five cons ecutive raps (if there was a door bell, the confederate rang the door bell in conj unction with knocking on the door). The confederate waited ten seconds for the door to be answered before knocking again. The confederate waited another te n seconds if the door was not answered and knocked one final time totaling three knocks. During the approach situation, the parent took the child to a community location for a legitimate purpose (e.g., shopping, playi ng in the park) and left the child’s immediate vicinity. Once the parent was away from the child, a confederate approached the child and began speaking with the child by saying something relevant to what the child was doing (i.e. that’s a good cereal; my daughter really likes lucky charms, do you? etc). If the child spoke and stayed in the confederate’s proximity, the confederate responded with one brief statement. The c onfederate waited ten seconds for a response and then left (or excused him or herself if n ecessary). For both of the situations, if the child exhibited the correct safety skills acco rding to the response definitions, which included reporting the incident to the parent, then the parent provided praise to the child for reporting the situation. A wide variety of community locations were used to ensure an adequate assessment of the generalized use of the safety skills. The community locations included the child’s front/back yard, grocery stores office stores, public parks, clothing department stores, a video store, a dollar store, a pharmacy, big box stores, a

PAGE 20

13sporting goods store, a bank, a public librar y, a fast food restaurant, and a dine-in restaurant. Two participants (Meghan and Alyssa) in the study were siblings and therefore, the assessments were conducted independent of each other but usually during the same day. Both parents accompanied the participants to the community location and upon arriving, each parent took one da ughter and went to a different location of the store. This was not unusual for the family as both parents reported that they typically completed an outing as a family by splitting up into pairs. During all phases of Meghan and Alyssa’s assessments, the confederate assessed one child’s skills and then calle d the other parent to assess the other child’s skills in a different lo cation a few minutes later. At no point did either child witness the assessment or trai ning of her sibling. A four week follow-up was conducted to assess maintenance of the safety skills during the approach situation only. This assessment was identical to the in situ assessments conducted during the in situ trai ning phase. If the ch ild demonstrated the skills, the parents provided descriptive, en thusiastic praise. If the child did not demonstrate the appropriate skills, in situ training was implemented and one additional visit was scheduled within the w eek to assess the skills again. Observers and Interobserver Agreement The investigator or a traine d research assistant acted as the confederate and he/she served as the primary observer for whether th e child opened the door for the confederate, and/or got away immediately. The parent or another trained research assistant acted as the reliability observer in all of the components. In both situations, th e parent of the child acted as the primary observer only for whether the child reported that someone was at the

PAGE 21

14door or that a stranger spoke to him/her in the community. These data were often reported to the confederate immediately afte r the assessment and then recorded by the confederate. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was ca lculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements for each of the four targeted responses (get away and tell for the appro ach assessment, and open the door and tell for the knock on the door assessment). This number was then multiplied by 100%. Agreement was reached when two observers recorded the same response for each response opportunity. For the knock on the door assessment, IOA for answering the door was obtained during 45% of all observations with a mean score of 94.4% agreement. 100% agreement was reached during 43% of the observations of whether or not the child reported that someone knocked. In the commun ity, the two behaviors that were assessed were getting away from the proximity of the confederate and reporting to the parent that a stranger approached. A mean of 96.6% agreement was obtained during 52% of all observations of the ‘get away’ behavior. Agreement on ‘telling’ was assessed during 43% of all observations at a score of 100% agreement. Demographics Questionnaire A demographics questionnaire was comp leted prior to beginning training or assessments. The demographics questionnair e (see Appendix A) was used to acquire descriptive information on th e participants, identify any prior abduction prevention training, and determine inclusion or exclusion into the study.

PAGE 22

15Table 1 Demographics Questionnaire Results Demographics Question Alyssa Caleb Kaitlyn Sandie Meghan Gillian Does the child have any mental health disorders or disabilities? No No No No No No Parent age? 41-50 3140 31-40 31-40 31-40 41-50 Child’s age 6 6 7 7 7 8 Ethnic Background? White/ Caucasian White/ Caucasian White/ Caucasian White/ Caucasian White/ Caucasian Multiracial Parental Marital Status? Married Married Married Married Married Married How many siblings to the participant? 2 1 1 1 2 1 How many children <16 in the house? 2 2 2 2 2 2 Child’s educational enrollment? Public School Private School Public School Private School Public School Public School Household income? 100,000 or more 100,000 or more 100,000 or more 100,000 or more 100,000 or more $80,00099,999 Prior abduction prevention training? No No No No Yes* Note. Gillianprior training in cluded “a one-time training vi a a video, instruction, and demonstration 2 years ago at elementary schoo l for about two hours.” Parents reported to investigator that the training content include d physically escaping from a perpetrator if a person were to attempt to grab and take the child out of the area.

PAGE 23

16Side Effects and Social Validity Questionnaire To assess any possible changes in behavi or of each child following the training, a six-item questionnaire was administered to parents (Johnson et al., 2005). The questionnaire was also used to assess parental attitudes conc erning the training. Following completion of the study, the questi onnaire was e-mailed to the parents of children who completed the study (See Appendix B). Experimental Design and Procedures A non-concurrent multiple baseline acro ss participants design was used to evaluate the efficacy of the Safe Side Strange r Safety DVD and in situ training if needed. The participant’s safety score for each asse ssment was plotted in each participant’s graph for the relevant situation (knock on the door, the approach). Baseline. Participants received two to five in situ assessments for each situation during baseline. No feedback was provided for their performance during assessments. The number of data points in baseline wa s determined by the stability of each participant’s approach data. It was not possible to ensure stability in the knock data prior to intervention because intervention occurred for both behaviors simultaneously and the timing of implementation of intervention was base d on the stability of the approach data. Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD. Each participant viewed the Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD in his or her home. Within one week, following viewing of the video tape, another assessment for each situation was conducted. If the participant failed to demonstrate the appropriate safety skills during the in situ assessment, both the investigator (not the confederate for that assessment) and parent appeared immediately following the assessment and implemented in situ training.

PAGE 24

17 In situ training. In situ training was conducte d individually and was only provided upon failure to engage in the appropriate skills during the in situ assessments; if a participant demonstrated the safety skills dur ing one situation and not the other, then in situ training was only provided for the one wh erein the subject did not engage in the correct behavior. Upon failing to demonstrate the criterion skills, the parent appeared in the situation and the confederate immediatel y left the situation (during the approach situation only in order to remain a potenti al threat and not al ert the child to the assessment). The parent identified the safety threat and the danger it posed, prompted the child to state the correct responses, modele d the appropriate skills for the child if necessary, and engaged the child in three consec utive role plays of the same scenario. For the first community assessment followi ng the viewing of the Safe Side video, the investigator was present in the situation a nd acted as if the meeting in the setting was coincidental. The parent introduced the investig ator to the child as a friend or colleague, and requested the investigator act as the st ranger in order to help them practice the scenarios. In all subsequent assessments wherein training was necessary, the parent followed the same procedure as listed above, but simulated the presence of a stranger. For example, the parent recreated the scene by sending the child back to the same task and saying to the child, “okay, you’re looking for cereal and I’m over here getting coffee. Someone you don’t know just spoke to you.” Th en the parent would provide feedback for the child’s behavior. In one case, the pa rent had a friend play the confederate in the role play scenarios. For the knock on the door situation, the parent followed the same protocol by providing praise for correct sk ills and/or implementing in situ training for any missed

PAGE 25

18steps. The in situ training in the knock s ituation differed from the approach situation only in that the confederate acted as someone that the parent knew and part icipated in the three practices each time. Three consecutive co rrect safety skill demonstrations were necessary to complete the training. The knock on the door assessment often took place on the same day as the approach assessment, however, a different confederate was used and the approach assessment always took place first. Within one week following IST, an in s itu assessment was co nducted to assess the child’s usage of the appropria te safety responses for the situation. If the child demonstrated the appropriate skills, the parent provided enthusiastic praise to the child. If the child failed to perform the appropriate skills for the situati on, in situ training was implemented by the parent. If IST was nece ssary, the child was required to demonstrate the appropriate safety responses for the situ ation during three cons ecutive rehearsals. Further in situ assessments were conducted w ith additional in situ training sessions as needed until the child engaged in the desired safety skills in three consecutive in situ assessments. Booster Training Session. A booster training session was provided by the researcher for two participants (Meghan and Alyssa) because they did not achieve criterion performance (3 consecutive scores of 2) after several in situ assessments following Safe Side and in situ trainings. The booster session followed a behavioral skills training format which included instruct ions, modeling, rehearsal and feedback. The training session was conducted at the home of the two participants (the participants were siblings) and included both participants and both parents.

PAGE 26

19 Training began with a discussion with the participants (facilitated by the researcher) about what they should do if a stranger knocks on thei r door or approaches them in public and their parent is not next to them. The remainder of the training only pertained to the situation of a stranger a pproaching the child in the community. The researcher modeled the appropr iate safety skills and then rehearsed several different scenarios, four times with each participant. During the rehearsal component, both participants were asked to identify a commun ity location that they would visit with their parent(s) and a task that thei r parent may send them on. These scenarios were then used to role-play with each child. Some of the co mmunity settings selected by the child during the booster session included a pizza place, bowling alley, movie theatre (going to bathroom while parent orders candy), zoo, gr ocery store, big box store, swimming in the backyard (participants live on golf course), and a large pharm acy. The parents practiced providing descriptive, enthusiastic praise to each child as she demonstrated the appropriate skills. Both participants were present throughout the enti re training, therefore role playing in front of each other. Following the booster session, the investigat or accompanied the participants to a community location. This arrangement was made in the presence of the two participants to appear as a coincidence (i.e. the parent sa id they were going to a certain store and the investigator said that she coincidentally had pl ans to head there also). Each parent paired off with a child and headed to separate sections of the store. The investigator remained with one of the pairs and a novel confederate a pproached the child in the setting while the parent and the investigator were approxima tely 15 feet away from the child. A few minutes later, this procedure was implemente d for the other participant. Descriptive

PAGE 27

20praise was provided for correct steps by the parent and the inves tigator and in situ training was implemented as necessary by the investigator.

PAGE 28

21 Results The Approach During baseline, the participants’ scores varied from 0 to 1 (Figure 1). Four of the participants (Meghan, Caleb, Sandie, and Kaitlyn) left the c onfederate’s proximity within 10 seconds of being approached at least once during baseline. None of the participants reported to their parent that they were approached and spoken to by a stranger at any point during baseline. After viewing the Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD, all bu t one participant (Caleb), received a score of a zero. Caleb received a score of 1, as he left the area of the confederate, but failed to repor t to the parent. This scor e did not differ greatly from Caleb’s baseline data as Caleb had achieved a score of a 1 for two out of three baseline data points (see Figure 1).

PAGE 29

22 Figure 1. The Approach 0 1 212345678910111213141516 0 1 212345678910111213141516 Booster Session 0 1 21234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 6 0 1 212345678910111213141516 0 1 212345678910111213141516 0 1 2 12345678910111213141516Sessions Baseline SS Booster Session Meghan Alyssa Caleb Gillian Sandie Kaitlyn Safety Score 4 wk F/U IST

PAGE 30

23 In situ training was implemented for all of the participants following the Safe Side training. Following in situ training, four participants (Caleb, Gillian, Kaitlyn, and Sandie) achieved criterion performance (three consecutive scores of 2). Three of the participants achieved immediat e criterion performance, while one participant (Kaitlyn) achieved criterion performance more graduall y. Two participants (Alyssa and Meghan) did not achieve three consecutive scores of 2 following in situ training, even after 4 or 5 in situ assessments. For these individuals a booster session usi ng behavioral skills training was implemented by the researcher. Following the booster session, additional approach assessments were conducted and both pa rticipants rapidly achieved criterion. Maintenance was assessed for two out of six participants (Sandie and Gillian) during the approach situation. Due to scheduling, Sandie and Gillian were the only participants available for follow-up assessm ents. The maintenance probes took place four weeks after each pa rticipant’s completion in the study. Both participants got away from the confederate and reported to their pa rent, thus demonstrating maintenance of the safety skills during the four week follow-up. The Knock Four of six participants (Caleb, Gill ian, Sandie, and Kaitlyn) demonstrated the appropriate safety skills duri ng baseline (Figure 2). Follo wing the viewing of the Safe Side Stranger Safety DVD, the four particip ants maintained their performance throughout the remainder of the assessments. The two remaining participants (Meghan and Alyssa) both scored 0 during all baseline assessments and following the viewing of the Safe Side DVD. Meghan and Alyssa both received in situ training and they immediately achieved

PAGE 31

24criterion performance during the next assessment. Alyssa and Meghan maintained the skills for three consecutive assessments. Figure 2. Knock on the Door 0 1 212345678 0 1 212345678 0 1 212345678 0 1 212345678 0 1 212345678 0 1 212345678Sessions Baseline SS IST Meghan Alyssa Caleb Gillian Sandie Kaitlyn Safety Score

PAGE 32

25Social Validity The parents of all six pa rticipants filled out the social validity/side effects questionnaire. Three out of six reported no ch ange in their child’s behavior, two reported moderate changes, and one reported substantia l change. Five parents who completed the survey reported that they were very pleas ed (the remaining parent reported she was pleased) with their child’s participation in the study. Actual responses for each item are reported in Appendix B.

PAGE 33

26 Discussion The current study evaluated the efficacy of the Safe Side DVD in teaching abduction prevention skills to children. The re sults of this study suggest that the Safe Side DVD is not effective in teaching childre n to engage in abduc tion prevention skills when approached by a stranger in the commun ity. The investigators measured the two skills addressed in the Safe Si de video (responding to an a pproach by a stranger in public and responding to a knock on the door). None of the children demonstrated the appropriate safety skills for responding to a st ranger’s approach following the viewing of the video; in fact, all of th e participants except one scored a 0 when approached by a stranger following the Safe Side training vi deo. Furthermore, for the two children who did not already possess the skills of respondi ng safely to a knock on the door, the Safe Side DVD did not result in the use of the skills. These results are important because they showed that a commercially available prevention program alone failed to teach safety skills to children. This information should be publicized so that parents are awar e that their children will likely not learn the skills necessary to avoid abduc tion as a result of the Safe Side video training. These results are not surprising as the training is information-based and does not employ the active learning approach which research supports as effective at teaching skills (Miltenberger, in press). The current findings are similar to those of Himle et al. (2004) and Gatheridge et al. (2004) where the e fficacy of an information-based gun safety program (the Eddie Eagle Program) was evaluate d. In both of these previous studies, the

PAGE 34

27investigators found that the Eddie Eagle GunS afe Program was not effective at teaching the necessary skills to avoid firearm injuries. A noteworthy aspect of the present st udy is the use of a wide variety of community locations to assess the generalized us e of the safety skills. We used a variety of community settings, changed the nature of the community visit in each assessment, and also arranged for different scenarios at home. Some of the settings that the children were assessed in include: the child’s front/b ack yard, grocery stores office stores, public parks, clothing department stores, a vide o store, a dollar store, a pharmacy, big box stores, a sporting goods store, a bank, a public library, a fast food restaurant, and a dinein restaurant. The results of the present study furthe r support the growing research indicating that in situ training is effective in teaching safety skills to children. The children in the current study lacked the skills prior to th e in situ training phase. With a training procedure that employed rehe arsal and feedback in the natural setting, all of the participants were successful at demonstrating th e appropriate safety sk ills in a variety of community settings. Although the literature valid ating in situ training is plentiful, there is little research which supports the efficacy of in situ training being implemented by persons other than highly trained rese archers. Only one other st udy (Gross et al., 2007) suggests that in situ training can be implemented by parents. Gross and colleagues showed that parents can successfully implement in situ tr aining when teaching gun safety skills to children. This finding is significant because of the time and cost that in situ training can require. It would be benefici al if parents and teachers co uld be trained to implement

PAGE 35

28training so as to reduce cost as well as to pot entially teach more than one child at a time. In the present study did show that two of th e six parents had difficulty with the fidelity and integrity of implementing the training. In response, the researcher conducted a booster session and accompanied the parent on one assessment to conduct in situ training. A possible explanation for the lack of integrit y is that parents did not receive adequate training to conduct in situ tr aining. Parents were given a protocol to follow and had discussions with the researcher, but did not r eceive behavioral skills training to learn to conduct in situ training. Future research should include a parent training component which includes rehearsal and feedback to ensu re that the parents learn the skills necessary to implement in situ training properly. Another noteworthy finding is that this study is the first to assess abduction prevention skills in response to a situation in which an unknown adult approaches and talks to a child in public but does not deliver an abduction lure. The findings suggest that children can learn the sa fety skills without an obvious lure being presented. Previous studies (Johnson et al., 2005) have experienced participan t drop-outs due to repeated assessments with abduction lures. In the pres ent study, we experienced no attrition due to the presentation of abduction lures. In f act, only one participant began and did not continue the study due to scheduling conflicts By eliminating the presentation of the lure, we were able to assess and teach the sa me skills without the same degree of risk for participant drop-out. Furthermore, the presen t findings suggest that children may get away from the perpetrator prior to the delivery of a lure, thus suggesting that they may be safer in that situation.

PAGE 36

29 The researchers issued a questionnaire to assess any side e ffects of the study regarding child behavior cha nge or increase in fear res ponses. The questionnaire also assessed parental satisfaction wi th their child’s part icipation. It is no teworthy that while one participant was reported to be much more scared after the study, the parent remained extremely satisfied with her child’ s participation. Another difference between this study and prior research is th at prior abduction prevention research has included a verbal res ponse, such as saying “no” to the potential perpetrator. When considering whether or not to include a verbal re fusal as part of the safety skills, the investigators decided that it would be irrelevant to have the children provide a refusal statement because the conf ederates were not actually asking them to leave with them. In addition, although the i nvestigators considered including a verbal response (or refraining from speaking) as part of the safety skills, many of the parents in the study stated that they wanted their chil dren to be polite by responding briefly if someone addresses him/her (as l ong as it is not a request for in formation). This raises the question of whether or not the participants’ responding with friendly conversation (which many did) caused them to also remain in the area for longer than 10 seconds. Limitations and Future Suggestions The present study contributes to the growing literature on safety skills training for children, providing a further rep lication of the effectiveness of in situ training and further documenting that an informational approach does not work. There are also some limitations that we believe necessitate discus sion in order to benefit future research. The assessments for most participants took place within a few days following in situ training sessions. We believe the schedul ing of the assessments within days of

PAGE 37

30training sessions contributed to the positive results. However, due to some scheduling conflicts, it was difficult for the community assessments for Alyssa and Meghan (who are siblings) to closely follow the in situ training. For example, several community assessments took place two to th ree weeks after in situ traini ng or a previous community assessment. Both participants achieved variab le scores and never achieved a score of a 2 during this time period. The time between assessments may have affected the participants’ demonstration of skills. One po ssible explanation for the lack of criterion performance is the absence of consistent positive reinforcement for demonstrating the correct safety skills. A possible contributor to the efficacy of in situ training is the descriptive praise that is pr ovided upon the display of correct skills. If the child went three weeks before the next assessment (a nd thus the next possibility of positive reinforcement for engaging in the correct skills ), then it is possible that the efficacy in situ training was compromised. Another limitation as previously mentioned is the problem with the fidelity of in situ training. On two occasions, Alyssa di d not receive in situ training by her parent when she failed to demonstrate the skills in the community. On one occasion each, Meghan and Kaitlyn also went without in si tu training by their parent when it was necessary. This inconsistent use of in s itu training may have decreased the likelihood that the participants would learn and dem onstrate the skills. The data reflect the variability in the safety scores achieved by each of these three participants (Alyssa, Meghan, and Kaitlyn). Future research in this area should use a training package employing instructions, rehearsal and feedback to teach parents to use in situ training in order to promote better fidelity of the training implementation.

PAGE 38

31 A third possible limitation was the parent’s proximity to the participant when the skills were being assessed in the community. The parent was told to send their child to complete a task and therefore, the child was away from his/her “safe side” adult. This was challenging to accomplish as the parents were not comfortable w ith their child being out of sight and therefore, most of the pare nts remained in the same aisle or in close proximity to the child. The proximity of the parent during assessments could have influenced the data in several ways. First, it may potentially acc ount for why several of the children did not get away from the c onfederate following training; the child could have decided that the safety skills were not necessary as his/her parent was nearby and thus he/she was safe. Followi ng training, parental proximity could have also contributed to the child’s correct demonstr ation of the skills given the history of rehearsal which may have potentially been viewed as aversive. Future studies may also benefit from i nvestigating whether a person’s history of compliance could be a potential influence on th e acquisition and demonstration of skills. Caleb, Gillian, and Sandie all achieved criterion performan ce immediately following in situ training and also maintained the skills during the four week maintenance probe. A reasonable question to ask is whether assessment of factors such as th e child’s history of compliance would help predict the outcomes of training. Additionally, could the child’s correct demonstration of skills be influe nced by any previous encounter with an abduction situation or knowing someone who ha s been involved in an abduction? Would this familiarity with abduction lead the fam ily to have discussed it more often and in more detail than a family without that type of experience? It would perhaps be beneficial

PAGE 39

32to include an item on the demographics ques tionnaire addressing any previous encounter with abduction by the child, parent, or someone they know. Consistent with previous research show ing that an informational approach to teaching safety skills is not effective (G atheridge et al., 2004; Himle, Miltenberger, Gatheridge, et al., 2004), this study showed that children did not demonstrate the correct safety skills following the viewing of the Safe Side video. Also cons istent with previous research demonstrating the e ffectiveness of in situ training (e.g., Himle, Miltenberger, Flessner, et al., 2004; Miltenbe rger et al., 2004; 2005), the pr esent findings showed that in situ training is effective in teachin g children appropriate safety skills.

PAGE 40

33 References Bromberg, D. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). Beha vioral versus traditional approaches to prevention of child abduction. School Psychology Review, 26 (4), 622-633. National Association of School Psychologists. Carroll-Rowan, L. A., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). A comparison of procedures for teaching abduction prevention to preschoolers. Education & Treatment of Children, 17 (2), 113-128. Egemo-Helm, K. R., Miltenberger, R.G., Knuds on, P., Finstrom, N., Jostad, C., & Johnson, B. (2007). An Evaluation of In Situ training to teach sexua l abuse preventi on skills to women with Mental Retardation. Behavioral Interventions, 22 99-119. Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H ., & Sedlak, A. (2002). Nonfamily abducted children: National estimates and characteristics. Retrieved June 2, 2007 from http://ojj dp.ncjrs.org Gatheridge, B.J., Miltenberger, R. G., H uneke, D.F., Satterlund, M.J., Mattern, A.R., Johnson, B.M., & Flessner, C.A. (2004). Co mparison of two programs to teach firearm injury prevention skills to 6and 7-year-old children. Pediatrics, 114 (3), 294-299. Haseltine, B., & Miltenberger, R. (1990). Teac hing self protection sk ills to persons with mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95 (2), 188-197.

PAGE 41

34Himle, M. B., & Miltenberger, R. G. (2004) Preventing unintentiona l firearm injury in children: The need for behavioral skills training. Education & Treatment of Children, 27 (2), 161-177. Himle, M. B., Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., & Gatheridge, B. (2004). Teaching safety skills to children to prevent gun play. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37 (1), 1-9. Himle, M. B., Miltenberger, R. G., Gatherid ge, B. J., & Flessner C. A. (2004). An evaluation of two procedures for training skills to pr event gun play in children. Pediatrics, 113 (1), 70-77. Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Katzenmeyer, J. (1995). Teaching preschoolers to avoid abduction by strangers: Evaluati on of maintenance strategies. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4 (2), 177-191. Johnson, B. M., Miltenberger, R. G., EgemoHelm, K., Jostad, C. M., Flessner, C., & Gatheridge, B. (2005). Evaluation of beha vioral skills trai ning for teaching abduction-prevention skills to young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38 (1), 67-78. Johnson, B. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Knudson, P., EgemoHelm, K., Kelso, P., Jostad, C. (2006). A preliminary evaluation of two be havioral skills training procedures for teaching abduction-prevention skills to schoolchildren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39 (1), 25-34. Jostad, C.M., Miltenberger, R.G., Kelso, & K nudson (in press). Peer tutoring to prevent firearm play: Acquisition, gene ralization, and long-term maintenance of safety skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

PAGE 42

35Kelso, P., Miltenberger, R., Waters, M., Egemo-Helm, K., & Bagne, A. (2007) Teaching skills to second and third grade children to prevent gun play: A comparison of procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 29-48. Marchand-Martella, N.E., Huber, G., Mart ella, R.C., & Wood, W.S. (1996). Assessing the long-term maintenance of abduction prevention skills by disadvantaged preschoolers. Education & Treatment of Chidren, 19 (1), 55-68. Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., Gatheri dge, B., Johnson, B., Satterlund, M., & Egemo, K. (2004). Evaluation of behavioral skills training to prevent gun play in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37 (4), 513-516. Miltenberger, R. G., Gatheridge, B. J., Satte rlund, M., Egemo-Helm, K. R., Johnson, B. M., Jostad, C., Kelso, P. & Fle ssner, C. (2005). Teaching safe ty skills to children to prevent gun play: An evaluation of in situ training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38 (3), 395-398. Miltenberger, R. G., & Olsen, L. A. (1996). Abduction prevention trai ning: A review of findings and issues for future research. Education & Treatment of Children, 19 (1), 69-82. Miltenberger, R. G., Roberts, J. A., Ellingson, S., Galensky, T., Rapp, J. T., Long, E. S. & Lumley, V. (1999). Training and generalizati on of sexual abuse pr evention skills for women with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32 (3), 385-388. Miltenberger, R. G., Thiesse-Duffy, E., Suda, K. T., & Kozak, C. (1990). Teaching prevention skills to children: The use of multiple measures to evaluate parent versus expert instruction. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 12 (4), 65-87. Haworth Press.

PAGE 43

36Olsen-Woods, L. A., Miltenberger, R. G., & Foreman, G. (1998). Effects of correspondence training in an abduction pr evention training program. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 20 (1), 15-34. Haworth Press. Poche, C., Brouwer, R., & Swearington, M. (1981). Teaching self protection to young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14 169-176. Poche, C., Yoder, P., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1988). Teaching self-p rotection to children using television techniques. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21 (3), 253-261. The Safe Side (2004). Re trieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.thesafeside.com/

PAGE 44

37Appendices

PAGE 45

38Appendix A: Demograp hics Questionnaire The information in this questionnaire will be used to describe participants in the study. The information will be summarized and no individual information will be disclosed. Please select the responses to each item which best describes you. For any questions that pertain to a ch ild, please refer to the child participating in this study. 1. What is your relationship to the participant in the study? Mother Father Grandmother Grandfather Legal Guardian (but not biol ogical parent or grandparent) 2. Does your child have any diagnosable mental health disorders or disabilities? Please check all that apply Learning Disability Developmental Disability Autism Spectrum Disorder Mental Retardation Bi-Polar AD/HD Other: (Please specify) ___________________________ No known mental health disabilities 3. What is your age?

PAGE 46

39 0-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+ 4. What is your gender? Male Female 5. Please select one of the following whic h best describes your ethnic background. Caucasian/White African American Indigenous or Aboriginal Person Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Latino Multiracial Other: ______________________ 6. Please select one of the following which best describes your cu rrent marital status. Single Married

PAGE 47

40 Married, but separated Divorced Widowed Living with another but not married 7. What is the number of siblings of the child participating in the study? 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 8. How many children under the ag e of 16 live in your household? 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 9. Please select one of the following wh ich best describes yo ur child’s current educational enrollment. Currently enrolled in public school Currently enrolled in private school Currently enrolled in home school

PAGE 48

41 Not currently enrolled in any school 10. Please indicate your current household income in U.S. Dollars. Under $10,000 $10,000-$29,999 $30,000-$49,999 $50,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more 11. Has your child ever participated in a training program aimed to teach abduction prevention skills? No Yes If you answered yes to the last question, pl ease describe the program that your child participated in (including the number of pr ograms participated in, name of the program, and any other information you are willing to share about the training program)? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Thank you!

PAGE 49

42Appendix B: Side Effect s Questionnaire Items Please put a check mark next to th e item that reflects your response. 1. Compared to before this study my child now appears: a. scared: afraid to leave parent s, showing fear of strangers much more scared (Caleb) a little more scared (Kaitlyn and Sandie) no change (Alyssa, Meghan, and Gillian) less scared much less scared b. If a change occurred, pl ease describe briefly:________________________ ____________________________________________________________

PAGE 50

43c. cautious: hesitant to go outside or be alone much more cautious a little more cautious (Kaitlyn and Sandie) no change (Alyssa, Caleb, Meghan, and Gillian) less cautious much less cautious If a change, occurred, pleas e describe briefly: ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ d. upset: concerned about the issues of strangers, persona l safety, etc. much more upset (Caleb)-this child had a nightmare a little more upset (Kaitlyn and Sandie) no change (Alyssa, Meghan, and Gillian) less upset much less upset 2. Other changes I noted in my child’s behavior are: somewhat more observant of strangers ( Alyssa and Meghan) ; when parent asks child to sit alone, child says to mom “but what if someone tried to talk to me?” ( Kaitlyn) Please describe or mark N/A if no change was observed. 3. How pleased are you that your child participated in the study? very pleased (Alyssa, Caleb, Sandie, Meghan, and Gillian) pleased ( Kaitlyn) neutral disappointed very disappointed

PAGE 51

444. How satisfied are you with the way the researchers communicate what was going on throughout that study? very satisfied (Alyssa, Caleb, Kaitlyn, Sandie, Meghan, and Gillian-ALL) satisfied neutral unsatisfied very satisfied 5. Did you terminate your child’s partic ipation in the study? Yes or No (Alyssa, Caleb, Kaitlyn, Sandie, Meghan, and Gillian-ALL) If yes, please explain why._________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 6. Please note any additional comm ents you have about the study. Difficulty learning the behavior; parent expected participant to respond quicker


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001999360
003 fts
005 20090413131627.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090413s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002471
035
(OCoLC)318355490
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF176.7 (Online)
1 100
Beck, Kimberly V.
4 245
The evaluation of a commercially-available abduction prevention program
h [electronic resource] /
by Kimberly V. Beck.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 44 pages.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Child abduction is a serious problem in the U.S.; therefore, it is essential that researchers evaluate the efficacy of currently available abduction prevention programs. This study evaluated the efficacy of a commercially-available abduction prevention program, The Safe Side. The participants included six 6-8-year old children with no prior abduction prevention training. A non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design was used to evaluate the effects of the training. The participants' safety responses were assessed using in situ assessments within two different situations (responding to a knock on the door of the participant's home and interaction by a stranger in public) and scored numerically. Any participant who failed to perform the appropriate safety skills following the post video training assessment received in situ training implemented by the parent. Additional assessments were subsequently conducted until each participant demonstrated the desired safety skills to criterion (three consecutive correct scores). In situ training was continually conducted as necessary.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Raymond G. Miltenberger, Ph.D.
653
Safety skills
In situ training
Behavioral skills training
Stranger
Children
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Behavior Analysis
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2471