Healthy dating: a mixed-gender date rape workshop.

College communities are increasingly being called upon to institute date rape prevention programs. This article describes a mixed-gender workshop sponsored by a university's Program for Rape Education and Prevention that was given to more than 1,400 undergraduate students in more than 80 presentations. In order to guide modifications of the workshop, formative evaluation data collected from 330 male (mean age 20.3 years) and 314 female (mean age 20.5 years) university students were collected. Results were largely positive. Despite the sensitive nature of the topic, only 10.2% of the men and 8.2% of the women reported being uncomfortable discussing date rape in mixed-gender groups. Furthermore, students were virtually unanimous in their agreement that date rape is a topic worthy of a workshop.

An evaluation of a mixed-gender date rape prevention workshop.

A randomized, posttest-only experimental design was used to compare the date-rape attitudes of university students who were exposed to a mixed-gender date-rape workshop (n = 163) with those of students who were not exposed (n = 168). A previously validated instrument, the 25-item Date Rape Attitudes Survey (DRAS), was used as the criterion measure. Three hypotheses were tested, with the following results: (1) Men reported attitudes that were more tolerant of date rape than those reported by women (ie, the men were more likely to condone date rape); (2) students in the control group reported attitudes that were more tolerant of date rape than those reported by students in the treatment group; and (3) men exhibited a greater effect from the program than did women. Finally, the authors discuss implications of the study and offer recommendations for future research evaluating date-rape prevention programs.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in airliners--a health hazard evaluation.

Some passengers and airline attendants have expressed concern about exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in commercial airlines. Irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, odor, and personal sensitivities are often the bases of complaints. Previous studies demonstrate low concentrations of materials, including ETS. Attendants fly some 800 h per year, passengers much less. Based on previous studies and duration of exposures, the absorbed dose of ETS is less than a cigarette equivalent per year. Nicotine absorption of 0.2 to 0.3 mg in 8-10 h flights has been reported as unlikely to have physiologic effects. The retained 'dose' in relation to the hypotheses of risks to health based on the conflicting results of studies on 'passive smoking' are discussed. There are additional confounding factors in aircraft. We consider segregation into smoking and nonsmoking zones to be reasonably effective in meeting the preferences of passengers.

Predicting learning and other developmental disabilities: assessment of reproductive and caretaking variables.

As the studies summarized above reflect, there has been considerable progress made toward identifying and quantifying some of the many variables that are known to place infants and children at risk for learning and other related disabilities. Of specific relevance to this chapter are the improvements that have been made in the conceptualization and measurement of reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables. Both of these classes of variables are well known to influence learning disabilities. However, additional research is now needed to firmly establish the specific nature of the influence of these variables. First, it appears that the influence of reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables is different at different age points. However, because not all longitudinal studies include measures of both reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables, it is difficult to adequately evaluate their influence on outcome measures at different ages. With more consistent use of these measures across studies and age groups it will be possible to make the needed comparisons. Second, there needs to be a closer examination across studies that have used similar samples and designs but that report conflicting findings concerning the influence of reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables. The critical differences between these studies need to be identified. For example, it appears that some studies reporting findings of no effects of reproductive measures on developmental outcome are using perinatal risk scales that are different from those used by studies that report reproductive effects. Clearly, it is critical to use perinatal risk scales that are appropriate for the characteristics of the study sample, the study design, and statistical analyses. Beyond these criteria, the selected scales need to have established validity with respect to the measurement questions under study. Overall, consideration needs to be given to the selection of valid and reliable measures of both reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables. Finally, reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables need to be included more consistently in studies as predictors of learning developmental disabilities and not just for the purpose of subject classification and description. By using these variables as predictors in statistical analyses, it will be possible to determine if these variables directly contribute to developmental outcomes and the strength (or importance) of the contributions of these variables compared to other variables. Tracking the role and strength of the contribution made by these variables across age periods will permit the assessment of possible developmental changes in susceptibility to influence by reproductive and environmental/caretaking variables.