Development-and-Pilot-Test Competency-Assessment

1084228
research-article2022

HPPXXX10.1177/15248399221084228Health Promotion PracticeO’Neill et al. / SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPETENCIES

The Needs and Impact of Health Promotion Practitioners and Providers

Development and Pilot Test of the Competency
Assessment for Sexual Assault Prevention
Practitioners
AnnaMarie S. O’Neill1
Joie D. Acosta2
Matthew Chinman3
Andra L. Tharp4
Beverly L. Fortson4
Sexual assault is a preventable problem that is widespread and particularly prevalent for certain populations (e.g., female college students, Native American
women). Despite the gravity of this public health priority, most individuals tasked with the primary prevention
of sexual assault are not adequately trained for the job
(e.g., professionals often trained solely in sexual assault
response). To achieve optimal outcomes, professionals
responsible for implementing sexual assault prevention
must possess certain core competencies, or knowledge
and skills essential for job performance, which include
those needed for any primary prevention effort in addition to those specific to sexual assault prevention. The
purpose of this study was to develop and assess the
construct validity of a competency assessment tool for
sexual assault prevention practitioners. An existing
assessment tool, which was designed for injury and
violence prevention practitioners, was tailored to
reflect competencies needed by sexual assault prevention practitioners as informed by the literature. The
newly tailored measure was pilot tested with 33 individuals with varying levels of expertise with sexual
assault prevention. These individuals were categorized
into three groups based on self-rated sexual assault prevention expertise (low, medium, or high) to assess group
differences. As expected, the high expertise group rated
higher knowledge in all the competencies than the
medium and low expertise groups (except for the
competency pertaining to developing and maintaining
Health Promotion Practice
May 2023 Vol. 24, No. (3) 514­–522
DOI: 10.1177/15248399221084228
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2022 Society for Public Health Education

514

competency). Data collection and analyses were conducted in 2020. Implications for how the assessment tool
can be used to identify gaps among individual practitioners and teams of practitioners are discussed.
Keywords: core competencies; self-assessment;
sexual assault; primary prevention;
prevention practitioner

D

espite growing awareness and public outrage
about the problem, sexual assault—that is,
unwanted sexual contact of any kind—remains
widespread across the United States and has devastating short-term and long-term consequences for the
survivors’ psychological and physical health as well as
their financial well-being (Martin et  al., 2011). In the
United States, approximately 4.7% of women and
3.5% of men report experiencing sexual assault,
which includes attempted or completed rape in addition to other forms of unwanted sexual contact, in the

1

Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
RAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, USA
3
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
4
Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office, Alexandria, VA, USA
2

Authors’ Note: This work was supported by the Department of
Defense. Phase 2 of Training the Department of Defense in Getting
to Outcomes to Strengthen Sexual Assault Prevention Programs:
Supplement (P&R 19-215). 3/1/19 to 8/31/20. Address correspondence to Joie Acosta, RAND Corporation, 1200 South Hayes
St., Arlington, VA, 22200, USA; e-mail: jacosta@rand.org.

preceding year (Smith et al., 2018). The rates for sexual
assault occurring for women in the military are comparable (Black et  al., 2011). In the latest Workplace and
Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members,
6.2% of women experienced sexual assault in the preceding year (Davis et  al., 2019). In the university setting, one in five women is estimated to have experienced
sexual assault since starting college (Muehlenhard
et al., 2017).
Sexual assault is considered a public health problem because it is widespread and can be prevented
(Dills et  al., 2016). In addition, sexual assault disproportionately affects individuals based on sex and
gender identity (e.g., women; Smith et al., 2018), sexual orientation (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual; Rothman
et al., 2011) and race/ethnicity (e.g., Native Americans;
Rosay, 2016). Therefore, sexual assault prevention can
be considered a health equity issue. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends
that sexual assault prevention approaches are rooted
in the social ecological model such that comprehensive strategies address modifiable risk and protective
factors across the four overlapping levels of analysis
(i.e., individual, relationship, community, and societal
levels) to decrease the likelihood of sexual assault perpetration/victimization (Dills et  al., 2016). Although
there is an established process of intervention design
and evaluation to demonstrate that interventions
are evidence-based (e.g., Lodzinski et  al., 2005), no
analogous process exists for determining whether the
professionals who implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are adequately trained and effective at
delivering these interventions.
This study utilizes a competency-based approach,
which shifts the focus of workplace assessment and
training from the job and its associated tasks to the
individual and their competency (i.e., knowledge
and skills; Chouhan & Srivastava, 2014). Critical for
any workforce, competencies foster improved performance (Chouhan & Srivastava, 2014). Various reviews
and guidance documents highlight the essential role
of well-trained staff in prevention work. A review of
various prevention literatures (e.g., substance abuse)
found that delivery of content by well-trained staff
was strongly associated with intervention effectiveness
(Nation et al., 2003). Essential implementation components of interventions include several factors to ensure
a well-trained staff (e.g., recruiting qualified staff, conducting training before the intervention is delivered,
and evaluating the performance of staff) (Fixsen et al.,
2009). Finally, the Society for Prevention Research

identified staff training as a standard for prevention
interventions (Flay et al., 2005).
Previous efforts have tried to determine whether
prevention practitioners are competent. Specifically,
the core competencies needed for prevention
practitioners—that is, the essential knowledge and
skills for one’s work—were developed as part of a collaboration in the prevention science community called
the National Training Initiative for Injury and Violence
Prevention (Songer et al., 2009). An assessment tool (the
Injury Prevention Assessment or IPA) was developed to
allow prevention practitioners to self-assess on these
competencies as well as to consider the relevance these
competencies have on their current position (Villaveces
et al., 2010). These competencies include approaching
an injury or violence problem with frameworks like the
public health model, understanding how to use data for
continuous quality improvement, designing and evaluating interventions, and managing a program.
The research suggests that sexual assault prevention practitioners may require additional skills beyond
the core competencies needed for violence prevention
in general (Songer et al., 2009). One of the factors that
makes sexual assault a unique type of violence to prevent is the cultural pervasiveness of survivors being
blamed—and internalizing blame—for the event, which
results in risk of re-traumatization and underreporting.
Combatting culturally ingrained rape myths and avoiding harming participants with a history of sexual assault
while administering sensitive program content are only
some of the major challenges with which sexual assault
prevention practitioners contend. The IPA (Villaveces
et al., 2010) does not assess sexual assault-specific prevention competencies. The sexual assault prevention
community would benefit from the articulation of core
competencies and incorporation of those competencies
in an assessment tool, so that gaps in competencies can
be identified and addressed with training, reassignment,
or hiring new personnel. The purpose of this study was
to develop an assessment tool for sexual assault prevention practitioners regarding knowledge about and job
relevancy of the core competencies. We first conducted a
literature review and thematic analysis of sexual assault
prevention-specific competencies to adapt the existing
assessment tool (IPA; Villaveces et al., 2010) for use with
sexual assault prevention practitioners. We created an
alternative version of the assessment tool for military
settings. Finally, we pilot-tested the assessment tool
with a convenience sample of individuals with varying
levels of expertise in sexual assault prevention to assess
the construct validity of the measure.

O’Neill et al. / SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPETENCIES  515

Study Hypotheses
We hypothesized that pilot test participants with
higher levels of self-reported expertise in sexual assault
prevention would score higher on the competency
assessment tool, reporting greater knowledge in the competencies and perceiving that the competencies were
more relevant to their jobs. Specifically, we predicted
that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The High expertise group would have
greater knowledge than the Medium expertise group
and the Low expertise group.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The High expertise group perceive
greater job relevance than the Medium expertise
group and the Low expertise group.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The Medium expertise group would
have greater knowledge than the Low expertise group.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The Medium expertise group perceive greater job relevance than the Low expertise
group.

Method
>>

Literature Search Strategy and Results
To identify core competencies needed for sexual
assault prevention practitioners and existing competency assessment tools for sexual assault prevention
practitioners, we searched the formal and gray literatures in 2020. We searched the Web of Science database
for the following search terms: (rape OR sex* assault*
OR sex* harassment OR sex* violen* OR gender-based
violence) AND (primary prevention OR violence prevention or prevent*) AND (practitioner training OR professional competence* OR skills OR core competencies)
AND (competency assessment* OR curriculum-based
assessment OR assessment OR scale OR measure OR
instrument OR questionnaire). In the Web of Science
database, 477 references were returned from the search.
The references were categorized as follows: descriptions
of programs or evaluations (N = 224), empirical studies
about sexual assault (N = 207), trainings or information about best practices for professionals who respond
to sexual assault (e.g., forensic nurses, mental health
professionals; N = 37), assessment tools or competency
criteria that can inform a tool (N = 5), guidelines or
standards for violence prevention practitioners (N = 2),
or miscellaneous (e.g., validation of a scale) (N = 2). We
searched Google for the following terms: (sexual assault
OR sexual harassment) AND (primary prevention OR
prevention) AND (practitioner OR educator OR facilitator) AND (training OR train the trainer) and (assessment OR skills OR core competencies), which returned

516  HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE / May 2023

approximately 1,630,000 results. We reviewed the first
20 pages of results to find relevant resources. Resources
deemed to be irrelevant often described sexual assault
response.
We did not find self-assessment tools specific to sexual assault prevention practitioners, but we identified
two self-assessment tools for general prevention. One of
them, the IPA (Villaveces et al., 2010), consisted of selfratings of knowledge about and job relevance of the core
competencies for prevention work. Since prevention
core competencies are the foundation of knowledge for
sexual assault prevention practitioners (Runyan et al.,
2005), we deemed it appropriate to tailor the IPA to make
it specific to sexual assault prevention.
We systematically extracted information from these
publications and analyzed that information using
constant comparative analysis (or thematic analysis).
Four themes emerged: (a) understanding and addressing the oppressive systems underlying sexual assault
(Dills et  al., 2016; National Sexual Violence Resource
Center [NSVRC], 2012), (b) coordinating efforts across
prevention and response (Dills et al., 2016), (c) using a
trauma-informed approach (Dills et  al., 2016), and (d)
expanding the prevention focus to include what the
program is trying to promote (e.g., safe, respectful and
equitable environments), not just what the program is
aiming to prevent (NSVRC, 2012). These themes were
not adequately covered by the IPA.
Assessment Tool Development
We then tailored the IPA by first deleting and rewording existing items to be more sexual assault-specific and
then adding items that reflected any general prevention
or specific sexual assault prevention competencies that
were missing. Thirteen items were deleted because
they were not relevant to sexual assault (e.g., description about biomechanics of injury), were sufficiently
addressed in other items, or merged with existing items
(e.g., “Describe various levels where prevention activities can be focused”). Five more items were deleted
because they were meant to assess specialized expertise
on a type of violence, which was no longer relevant since
the entire assessment was focused on sexual assault. An
item was added for each of the following for the new
general prevention items: knowledge of the multiple
key elements of effective prevention practice (Nation
et al., 2003), ability to use scientific articles (Basile et al.,
2016), ability to identify EBIs (Basile et al., 2016), ability
to tailor programs (Perkinson et  al., 2017), knowledge
of best practices concerning effective learning environments (NSVRC, 2012), and ability to convey program
goals with a promotion paradigm (NSVRC, 2012; Walden

& Wall, 2014). A single item was added to assess each
of the following for the new sexual assault prevention
competencies: knowledge of protective factors against
sexual assault perpetration and victimization (Basile
et  al., 2016), understanding how oppressive systems
underlie sexual assault (Dills et al., 2016; NSVRC, 2012;
Walden & Wall, 2014), understanding special data issues
like underreporting (Yung, 2015), coordinating efforts
across prevention and response (Dills et al., 2016), and
using a trauma-informed approach in program delivery
(Dills et al., 2016; NSVRC, 2012).
The resulting assessment tool had 70 items which
were sorted into eight competencies: (a) sexual assault
as a major public health problem (10 items); (b) working
with sexual assault data (10 items); (c) design, adaptation, and implementation of sexual assault prevention
activities (9 items); (d) program evaluation (7 items);
(e) program management (11 items); (f) dissemination
(6 items); (g) ability to foster change related to sexual
assault prevention through policy, enforcement, advocacy
and education (12 items); and (h) maintaining competency
as a sexual assault prevention practitioner (5 items).
The modified assessment tool was renamed the
Competency Assessment for Sexual Assault Prevention
Practitioners (CASAPP). We created an alternate version of the CASAPP (CASAPP-m) complete with military-specific language for use by the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office in the Department
of Defense. For example, the text in parentheses in a
general CASAPP item “Describe how to establish and
maintain an advisory group to assist with the development and monitoring of goals for sexual assault prevention within a population (e.g., a community, a state,
among children, among Latinos, etc.)” became “(e.g., at
a Military Service Academy, on a submarine or a ship,
among service members with alcohol-related conduct
offenses)” in the CASAPP-m.
Assessment Tool Pilot Test
We pilot-tested the CASAPP to assess construct
validity of the assessment tool with a convenience sample of 33 researchers at the RAND Corporation, at the
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)
in the Department of Defense (DoD), and at Portland
State University (PSU), all of whom were Masters- or
Doctoral-level researchers during the summer of 2020.
We requested self-ratings of their expertise in sexual
assault prevention and any information that informed
that rating (such as relevant trainings and work experience). We then categorized participants into the: Low
expertise group, Medium expertise group, or High expertise group. Participants were instructed to take either the
CASAPP or CASAPP-m depending on their workplace

(for example, the DoD SAPRO participants opted to selfadminister the CASAPP-m). We collected participants’
impressions of the tool, which we used to refine the tool.
Statistical Analysis
Given their similarity in content, the analyses conducted combined responses from both versions of the
CASAPP. All analyses were conducted in SPSS v22.0
(George & Mallery, 2019). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was calculated for each competency. Then, we conducted hypothesis-testing through a series of ANOVAs
and Bonferroni post hoc tests predicting self-reported
ratings of knowledge and job relevance for each competency subscale using a categorical coding of self-rated
expertise (Low, Medium, and High). Due to the modest
sample size, no covariates were included. These analyses were conducted during the summer of 2020.

Results
>>
Each of the core competency subscales demonstrated
adequate reliability for the dimensions of knowledge and
job relevance. See Table 1 for reliability information and
descriptive statistics. The ANOVAs revealed that there
was a significant effect of self-rated expertise for each of
the eight core competencies for both knowledge and job
relevance. For example, there was a significant effect of
self-rated expertise for the 3 groups regarding knowledge
for Competency 1, F(2, 30) = 34.61, p < .001. Once the
presence of between-group differences was established,
Bonferroni tests were conducted to do specific group
comparisons (e.g., High expertise group versus Medium
expertise group).
Table 2 displays the full results for the Bonferroni
comparisons. Regarding the dimension of knowledge,
the High expertise group was significantly higher than
the Low expertise group on all the competencies and
was significantly higher than the Medium expertise
group on all competencies except Competency 8 (ability to develop and maintain competency), thus lending
support for H1. For example, the High expertise group
(M = 43.62, SD = 4.74) had significantly greater knowledge on Competency 1 (understanding sexual assault
as a public health problem) than the Medium expertise
group (M = 30.11, SD = 4.05) with a mean difference
of 13.50 (SE = 2.62; p < .001) and the Low expertise
group (M = 23.55, SD = 8.32) with a mean difference
of 20.07 (SE = 2.50). The Medium expertise group was
significantly higher than the Low expertise group on
competencies 2, 3, 4, and 8, thus lending partial support for H3. Regarding the dimension of job relevance,
the High expertise group was significantly higher than
the Low expertise group on all competencies and was
O’Neill et al. / SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPETENCIES  517

518  HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE / May 2023

23.55 (8.32)
25.00 (8.99)
16.55 (7.79)
14.82 (7.34)
18.00 (8.23)
11.91 (7.04)
21.18 (10.75)
10.73 (5.76)

0.953
0.960
0.972
0.968
0.950
0.972
0.937

Low
M (SD)

0.950

Cronbach’s
alpha

14.44 (3.54)
23.44 (7.16)
14.89 (4.65)

22.00 (6.82)
21.44 (6.58)

33.44 (6.86)
23.22 (4.68)

30.11 (4.05)

Medium
M (SD)

26.08 (3.48)
47.00 (9.45)
22.54 (2.30)

32.46 (2.40)
42.46 (8.47)

45.69 (3.66)
39.15 (4.10)

43.62 (4.74)

High
M (SD)

0.950
0.973
0.953

0.985
0.978

0.962
0.971

0.968

Cronbach’s
alpha

Note. Low—Low expertise group, Medium—Medium expertise group, and High—High expertise group.

1. U
 nderstand the
problem
2. Interpret and use data
3. Design, tailor, and
implement programs
4. Program evaluation
5. Build and manage a
program
6. Disseminate
7. Foster change
8. Maintain and develop
competency

Competency

Dimension: Knowledge

12.73 (8.84)
23.27 (16.02)
9.45 (7.49)

14.82 (10.50)
20.45 (13.57)

22.00 (12.08)
18.73 (13.81)

22.36 (13.46)

Low
M (SD)

17.44 (6.91)
30.00 (15.79)
14.89 (6.17)

28.89 (7.77)
26.89 (14.71)

37.89 (9.05)
28.33 (11.51)

33.67 (11.51)

Medium
M (SD)

Dimension: Job relevance

26.15 (4.34)
47.77 (11.00)
21.31 (3.35)

32.15 (4.62)
42.69 (11.70)

44.46 (6.01)
38.46 (6.40)

42.46 (5.32)

High
M (SD)

Table 1
Reliability and Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge and Job Relevance in the Eight Competencies of the CASAPP for the Low, Medium, and
High Expertise Groups

O’Neill et al. / SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPETENCIES  519

20.07 (2.50)***
20.69 (2.74)***
22.61 (2.35)***
17.64 (2.34)***
24.46 (3.25)***
14.17 (2.04)***
25.82 (3.84)***
7.65 (1.89)**

8.44 (3.01)*
6.68 (2.57)*
7.18 (2.57)*
3.44 (3.56)
2.54 (2.23)
2.26 (4.22)
11.81 (1.78)***

High
and low

6.57 (2.71)

Medium
and low

11.63 (2.15)***
23.56 (4.07)***
4.16 (1.96)

10.46 (2.48)**
21.02 (3.44)***

15.93 (2.48)***

12.25 (2.90)**

13.50 (2.62)***

High
and medium

Medium
and low

4.72 (3.06)
6.73 (6.36)
5.43 (2.60)

14.07 (3.52)**
6.43 (5.93)

9.61 (4.83)

15.89 (4.14)**

13.43 (2.79)***
24.50 (5.80)**
11.85 (2.37)***

17.34 (3.21)***
22.24 (5.40)**

19.73 (4.40)***

22.46 (3.77)***

20.10 (4.24)***

High
and low

8.71 (2.95)*
17.77 (6.14)*
6.42 (2.50)*

3.27 (3.40)
15.80 (5.72)*

10.13 (4.66)

6.57 (4.0)

8.80 (4.49)

High
and medium

Dimension: Job relevance
Group comparison: Mean difference (SE)

11.30 (4.65)

Note. Low—Low expertise group, Medium—Medium expertise group, and High—High expertise group.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1. U
 nderstand the
problem
2. Interpret and use
data
3. Design, tailor, and
implement programs
4. Program evaluation
5. Build and manage a
program
6. Disseminate
7. Foster change
8. Maintain and
develop competency

Competency

Dimension: Knowledge
Group comparison: Mean difference (SE)

Table 2
Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests Identifying Differences Between the High, Medium and Low Expertise Groups on Knowledge and Job Relevance in
the Eight Competencies of the CASAPP

significantly higher than the Medium expertise groups
on all the competencies except competencies 5, 6, 7,
and 8, thus lending partial support for H2. The Medium
expertise group was significantly higher than the Low
expertise group on Competencies 2 and 4 for job relevance, thus lending partial support for H4.
In total, 33 out of 48 tests were significant. To determine the likelihood of a Type 1 error rate due to multiple comparisons (Sainani, 2009), we calculated the
number of tests that would be expected to be significant
by chance. The number of significant tests (34) is higher
than the number of tests that would be expected to be significant by chance (48 tests total multiplied by 5%, or 2.4
tests), and, therefore, we are confident in these findings.

Discussion
>>
The CASAPP is informed by prevention science and
practical guidance about what competencies sexual
assault prevention practitioners should possess beyond
those outlined by Songer and colleagues (2009) for general prevention. Our analyses suggest that the assessment tool is valid, with the High expertise group scoring
higher in knowledge on all competencies and higher in
job relevance on most competencies. The subscales demonstrated good internal consistency. However, certain
limitations should be noted. The validity analyses utilized a small sample (n = 33) and relied on self-reported
expertise. A larger sample with objective measures of
expertise should be used for additional psychometric
testing. In addition, while the convenience sample we
utilized for the pilot test provided preliminary validation of our assessment tool, the CASAPP should next be
administered to a random sample of individuals with
varying levels of sexual assault prevention expertise.
The assessment tool fills an important gap in the
existing literature and is the first tool that includes specific competencies needed for sexual assault prevention
in both military and civilian settings. A previous need
assessment has found that practitioners working in the
fields of sexual assault and domestic violence focused
most of their efforts on response (e.g., counseling) rather
than primary prevention and that they did not have adequate training in primary prevention despite being their
interest (Martin et al., 2009). Although there are training
programs for general prevention practitioners [PREVENT
(Preventing Violence Through Education, Networking,
and Technical Assistance) Program] (Runyan et al., 2005)
and sexual assault prevention practitioners like those
offered by the CDC (VetoViolence) to fill the learning
gaps, there are no self-assessment tools for teams of sexual
assault prevention practitioners to first identify gaps in
knowledge and task assignments.

520  HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE / May 2023

The advantages of a well-trained prevention practitioner workforce would be significant. Well-trained staff
would best use prevention funding, which is often limited, by adopting the most appropriate EBIs and delivering them in the most effective way (e.g., Nation et al.,
2003). Conducting prevention in this manner would
help potential victims avoid sexual assault’s devastating consequences (Martin et  al., 2011). Furthermore,
trauma-informed prevention work would avoid causing additional harm to program participants with a
history of sexual assault. Finally, rigorously conducted
research about sexual assault prevention has been sparse
which has resulted in only a handful of strategies being
proven effective while many other promising strategies
remain untested with rigorous methods (DeGue et  al.,
2014; Orchowski et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2020). There
is a need for competent professionals to conduct this
research so that effective programs can receive needed
investments.
Sexual assault is an issue that disproportionately
affects certain groups (e.g., women, Native American
women) and must be addressed to protect their health
and ability to fully pursue opportunities at school and
work. Beyond the inherent value of sexual assault prevention, universities and the military have a particularly vested interest to have well-trained sexual assault
prevention practitioners because sexual assault thwarts
the core missions driving these institutions. Sexual
assault threatens education at universities as it hinders
academic performance and has been found to be more
predictive of dropping out of college than other types of
violence (Mengo & Black, 2016). The American College
Health Association (ACHA, 2011) cautioned that students cannot learn in an unsafe environment. The ACHA
(2011) and the CDC (Dills et al., 2016) galvanized universities to address sexual assault with a comprehensive
approach and provided recommendations for traumainformed prevention and response. Sexual assault also
threatens the military’s mission of having an effective
force because it can result in personnel loss and undermined unit cohesion, military readiness, and ultimately
military effectiveness (Davis et al., 2019; Klein & Gallus,
2018). Important steps have been taken to improve the
military’s response to sexual assault like the providing
the option of restricted reporting, which enables the
sexual assault victim/survivor to confidentially disclose
the details of their assault (without triggering an official investigative process) and to receive care such as
medical treatment and counseling. We believe that the
CASAPP-m would serve the military in their prevention efforts. Historically in military settings, individuals
working in prevention have not been trained but are
assigned these tasks as collateral duty (i.e., in addition

to a full-time duty). Therefore, this assessment is critical
for determining whether on-the-job training is appropriately preparing these professionals to succeed.
The assessment tool could be used by entities at both
the individual and team levels, as this work is often conducted by teams. At the individual level, the assessment
tool could be used to identify areas where additional
training would be beneficial. The assessment tool can
be used to identify and reassign individuals possessing
specific sets of knowledge that might not yet be fully
utilized when used at the team level. In addition, this
assessment could also be used to structure job announcements and assess the quality of training programs.

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D.,
Kellam, S., Mościcki, E., Schinke, S., Valentine, J., & Ji, P. (2005).
Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step:
A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
Klein, M., & Gallus, J. A. (2018). The readiness imperative for
reducing sexual violence in the US armed forces: Respect and professionalism as the foundation for change. Military Psychology,
30(3), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2017.1422949
Lodzinski, A., Motomura, M. S., & Schneider, F. W. (2005).
Intervention and evaluation. In F. W. Schneider, J. A. Gruman &
L. M. Coutts (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 55–73). SAGE.

Conclusion
>>
High-quality sexual assault prevention requires certain competencies to ensure programming is optimally
conducted, evaluated, and sustained. The CASAPP is a
tool that can help both individuals and prevention teams
monitor and improve those skills. The two versions (general and military) of the assessment tool and instructions
can be requested from the corresponding co-author.

ORCID iD
AnnaMarie S. O’Neill

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core
implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice,
19(5), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335549

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4742-9202

References
American College Health Association. (2011). Position statement
on preventing sexual violence on college and university campuses.
Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S.
G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Black, M., Basile, K., Breiding, M., Smith, S., Walters, M.,
Merrick, M., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. (2011). National intimate
partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Chouhan, V. S., & Srivastava, S. (2014). Understanding competencies and competency modeling―A literature survey. IOSR Journal
of Business and Management, 16(1), 14–22. https://doi.org
/10.9790/487X-16111422
Davis, L., Breslin, R., Coffey, M., Hylton, K., Klauberg, X., Petusky,
M., & Hill, A. (2019). 2018 Workplace and gender relations Survey
of active duty members: Results and trends. Office of People
Analytics Alexandria United States.
DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J.
L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.
2014.05.004
Dills, J., Fowler, D., & Payne, G. (2016). Sexual violence on campus:
Strategies for prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Martin, S. L., Coyne-Beasley, T., Hoehn, M., Mathew, M., Runyan,
C. W., Orton, S., & Royster, L. A. (2009). Primary prevention of
violence against women: Training needs of violence practitioners.
Violence Against Women, 15(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1077801208327483
Martin, S. L., Macy, R. J., & Young, S. K. (2011). Health and
economic consequences of sexual violence. In J. W. White, M.
P. Koss, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women and children, Vol. 1. Mapping the terrain (pp. 173–195). American
Psychological Association. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu
/10.1037/12307-008
Mengo, C., & Black, B. M. (2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of
College Student Retention, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1521025115584750
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski,
K. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of
sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex Research, 54
(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt,
D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American
Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.58.6-7.449
National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2012). Core competencies for sexual violence prevention practitioners.
Orchowski, L. M., Berry-Cabán, C. S., Prisock, K., Borsari, B., &
Kazemi, D. M. (2018). Evaluations of sexual assault prevention
programs in military settings: A synthesis of the research literature.
Military Medicine, 183(suppl_1), 421–428.
Perkinson, L., Freire, K. E., & Stocking, M. (2017). Using essential
elements to select, adapt, and evaluate violence prevention
approaches. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rosay, A. B. (2016). Violence against American Indian and Alaska
Native women and men: 2010 findings from the National intimate
partner and sexual violence survey. National Institute of Justice
Research Report.
Rothman, E. F., Exner, D., & Baughman, A. L. (2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian,

O’Neill et al. / SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPETENCIES  521

or bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 12(2), 55–66.

Health, 99(4), 600–606. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008
.137331

Runyan, C. W., Gunther-Mohr, C., Orton, S., Umble, K., Martin, S.
L., & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2005). PREVENT: A program of the National
Training Initiative on Injury and Violence Prevention. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(5), 252–258. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.013

Villaveces, A., Stucky, B. D., Runyan, C. W., Moore, K. S., & Berlin,
S. P. (2010). The development of an instrument for evaluating core
competencies in violence and injury prevention. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 16(4), 337–344. https://doi.
org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181bede2a

Sainani, K. L. (2009). The problem of multiple testing. PM&R, 1(12),
1098–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.10.004

Walden, I., & Wall, L. (2014). Reflecting on primary prevention of
violence against women. The public health approach. Australian
Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault Issues, 19, 1–24.

Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J.,
Kresnow, M. J., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner
and sexual violence survey: 2015 data brief–updated release.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2018.
Songer, T., Stephens-Stidham, S., Peek-Asa, C., Bou-Saada, I.,
Hunter, W., Lindemer, K., & Runyan, C. (2009). Core competencies
for injury and violence prevention. American Journal of Public

522  HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE / May 2023

Wright, L. A., Zounlome, N. O., & Whiston, S. C. (2020). The effectiveness of male-targeted sexual assault prevention programs: A
meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 859–869. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1524838018801330
Yung, C. R. (2015). Concealing campus sexual assault: An empirical examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000037