2016
DOI: 10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2016.0110
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preventing Sexual Abuse of Children and Adolescents with Disabilities – Evaluation Results of a Prevention Training for University Students

Abstract: This paper presents first results of the Cologne (Germany) evaluation study about a prevention training for University students. University students of special needs education (N=391) received a special prevention training on sexual abuse of children and adolescents with disabilities. The training was evaluated in an experimental-controlgroup-design with three points of measurement. The effectiveness of the training was investigated by exploring learning and attributional outcomes. These constructs were operat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…People with ID are a highly vulnerable group ideally protected by a closely knit network which they learn to navigate on one side and wherein they learn to live a self-determined sexuality on the other side. An effective way to do this is to sensitize and empower caretakers as well ( 63 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People with ID are a highly vulnerable group ideally protected by a closely knit network which they learn to navigate on one side and wherein they learn to live a self-determined sexuality on the other side. An effective way to do this is to sensitize and empower caretakers as well ( 63 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, after the completion of the curriculum, the students reject sex-related myths more strongly than before. These results are especially remarkable because both AMMSA and CSAM scales have strong ceiling effects and effect sizes of interventions are usually low (e.g., Verlinden, Scharmanski, Urbann, & Bienstein, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%