What Is Not in the Methods Section: Challenges,Successes,and Lessons Learned From Conducting School-Based Interpersonal Violence Prevention Research

Abstract

Interpersonal violence (IV)—which includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, teen dating violence, bullying, and other forms of violence—among youth (i.e., individuals 18 years of age or younger) is a public health crisis in the United States. As such, preventing IV among youth is a public health priority. Schools are natural settings for IV prevention among youth. However, conducting school-based IV prevention research with youth in school settings is riddled with challenges, and there is little systematic discussion of lessons learned from doing this work. As such, the purpose of this paper is to outline challenges, successes, and lessons learned from conducting school-based IV prevention research, as ascertained by four researchers with over 75 years of collective experience conducting school-based IV prevention research. Specifically, we focus on the importance of researchers (1) doing research on the school/school district prior to reaching out about potential partnerships; (2) establishing relationships with school partners that are characterized by being present, trustworthiness, and respect as well as the prioritization of school partners’ ideas over one’s research agenda; (3) working collaboratively with school partners to conceptualize and fund school-driven ideas; (4) preparing for pushback, often from parents/caregivers; and (5) embracing reciprocity (i.e., do things to support your school partners that may not directly benefit you). Additional considerations for recruitment, enrollment, and retention; program implementation and data collection; and dissemination are discussed.

Keywords

violence youth adolescents children sexual assault teen dating violence bullying prevention implementation guidance school lessons learned community-based participatory action research

Interpersonal violence (IV)—which includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, teen dating violence, bullying, and other forms of violence—among youth (i.e., individuals under the age of 18 years) is a public health crisis in the United States (Basile et al., 2020). Recent nationally representative data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documented that 9.7% of high school students experienced sexual assault victimization, 8.0% experienced physical teen dating violence victimization, 19.0% were bullied on school property, and 23.6% were in a physical fight (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Research also demonstrates that elementary and middle school students experience alarmingly high rates of IV victimization and perpetration (e.g., bullying, dating violence) (Edwards et al., 2022; Lebrun-Harris et al., 2019; Siller et al., 2022). These experiences of IV in earlier developmental periods are robust predictors of subsequent experiences of IV in later developmental periods among youth (Edwards et al., 2022; Espelage et al., 2012, 2014, 2022; Siller et al., 2022; Taylor & Mumford, 2016). In addition to documenting the high rates of IV among U.S. youth, research highlights myriad short- and long-term deleterious outcomes (e.g., psychological, physical, social, academic) associated with IV victimization, which underscores the critical need for primary prevention efforts across developmental periods from childhood through adolescence (Edwards, 2015; Edwards & Banyard, 2020; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Gruber & Fineran, 2015).

Primary and secondary schools (grades K–12) are natural settings for IV prevention efforts as youth spend a great deal of time in these settings, and IV prevention efforts align with National Health Education Standards (Division of Population Health & National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2019). Furthermore, state laws and district policies often require youth to receive healthy education and IV prevention programming (National Association of State Boards of Education). Thus, researchers are well-positioned to partner with schools to develop, implement, and evaluate IV prevention efforts.

However, researchers are often faced with substantial and complex challenges to implementing prevention programming that will lead to sustainable outcomes. Outside of the occasional mention in the limitations section of a paper, real-world barriers associated with school-based IV prevention research are rarely discussed in the literature. To work toward a more nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by researchers and provide valuable lessons learned from doing school-based IV prevention work, we must consistently address these challenges. Without a systematic, detailed, and open dialogue on the challenges of conducting school-based IV prevention research, scholars, especially those newer to this work, will not be able to learn from our mistakes. By sharing our experiences, failures, successes, and lessons learned, we hope to enhance the thoughtfulness, integrity, rigor, and ultimately the impact of subsequent work on reducing IV among youth. We also believe that this will increase the likelihood that early career prevention scientists will view schools as viable research sites.

Thus, using our 75 years of collective experience conducting school-based IV prevention research with youth, school personnel, and caregivers, we provide IV researchers a first step in developing a robust understanding of best practices for implementing rigorous evaluations of IV prevention programs in primary and secondary school settings. It is important to note that the purpose of this paper is not to provide an overview of what works in the school-based youth IV prevention efforts as these have been systematically reviewed elsewhere (Basile et al., 2016; Finkelhor et al., 2014; Lee & Wong, 2020; Polanin et al., 2012; Prevention, 2019). We also note that whereas a wealth of articles exist on conducting community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) and school-based research more broadly (Bryan & Burstow, 2018; Esbensen et al., 2008; Girio-Herrera et al., 2019; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2011; Wilson, 2017), none of these writings focus specifically on school-based youth IV prevention research, which has its own set of unique challenges. We recognize that access to schools as research sites is challenging in many areas of scholarship. But it is our opinion and experience that schools are less open to IV research than research and programming related to other areas (e.g., enhancing test scores), which may be seen as more directly related to the mission of K–12 settings more so than the prevention of IV. Although our experiences are rooted in school-based IV prevention research, much of what we discuss in this paper may nonetheless be helpful to researchers doing school-based research in related fields (e.g., pregnancy prevention). Finally, our recommendations herein are specific to a U.S. context.

Furthermore, although a few papers have been published on lessons learned in conducting school-based youth IV research, these papers are either dated, focus specifically on one racial/ethnic group of students, or provide lessons learned specific to one study (Cook-Craig, Millspaugh, et al., 2014; Edwards, 2022; Hunter et al., 2001). Furthermore, these previously published papers do not delineate many of the challenges, successes, and lessons learned that we discuss herein. Finally, we focus on prevention in school-based settings. Although IV prevention work outside of school settings is critical, especially in reaching youth who are out of school, an in-depth discussion of these issues are beyond the scope of this paper. For these reasons, a critical commentary designed to advance a shared understanding of best practices for implementing rigorous evaluations of IV prevention initiatives in primary and secondary school settings represents an important contribution to the advancement of prevention science.

Researcher Positionality

The authors of this paper represent a team comprised of white, non-Hispanic, heterosexual and queer-identified, cisgender mid- and senior-level career researchers with over 75 years of collective experience conducting school-based youth IV prevention research. Collectively, we are committed to developing and evaluating IV prevention and response efforts in both school and community settings. Furthermore, we believe that youth IV prevention efforts must cover all the levels of the social ecology to be truly impactful and that CBPAR is the most effective way to conduct school-based youth IV prevention research.

Do Your Research

To the extent possible, it is critical to approach schools with an in-depth understanding of the school’s history, openness to research–school partnerships, and their needs. Ascertaining openness to research–school partnerships can be achieved by asking other school researchers at your institution about their experiences. School districts that are open to these partnerships may also have research applications and some will also highlight their current and past partnerships and priority areas. If this information is unavailable, which is often the case for low-resourced schools, you should prioritize these questions during initial meetings (e.g., “has your school participated in research before and if so what worked and what did not work?”; “if your school has not participated in research before, what were some of the reasons and how can we work towards doing research in a way that will be respectful and of high impact for your students and school community?”). While questions like the above are advised, we also suggest not peppering school officials with questions and your thoughts—they are the experts on their schools and will share with you what they think is most important.

With respect to the needs of the district, one school may focus on dropout prevention, another may be concerned about increasing their standardized test scores. Although preventing IV can help to address both concerns, how you approach each school may differ. Researchers can learn about school and district priorities by reviewing their website, local newspaper stories, and the state department of education. Knowing the demographic composition (and how IV prevention efforts may need to be tailored accordingly), types of programs offered at the school, potential political pressures for and against certain prevention programs, and identifying potential champions for your work will have a major impact on (1) your ability to conduct the research and (2) the quality of your research. Becoming familiar with local and state policies regarding research (e.g., requirement of active consent; school-based institutional review board [IRB]) will also improve your research.

It is also critical to determine whether other researchers have partnered previously on research projects (on any topic) with the school or school district. These individuals can help facilitate introductions with school partners and provide specific strategies for how to work with a particular school. Talking directly to a researcher who has partnered with the school or district can also help contextualize what you have learned from the school and/or district website. Lastly, it is critical to know the positive and negative relationships schools have had with previous researchers. For example, we have had experiences that required us to devote substantial energy and resources to establish trust with schools who were “burned” by previous researchers (e.g., using the school to develop a program and then selling the program back to them, never sharing results of a study with the school community).

Establish Effective Partnerships

The foundation of successful school-based youth IV prevention is strong, trusting, and collaborative relationships between researchers and school partners, which include school personnel (e.g., teachers, staff, nurses, counselors, librarians), parents/caregivers/guardians, students, and even sometimes community-based agencies (e.g., local crisis center) that support youth in the schools. If a researcher is seeking to establish these relationships, a first step is to reach out to school partners and request a meeting to get to know them and to learn more about how you can support their work. An in-person meeting can go a long way in establishing long-lasting relationships. In many districts, the first point of contact is with administrators at the district level, who are often the gatekeepers of research for individual schools. However, in other areas, especially in smaller and/or rural school districts, the point of contact may be at the specific school or schools you wish to partner with. Other potential points of contact include the principal, school guidance counselors, health educators, or social workers. If you are new to an area, it would be fruitful to set up a meeting and offer to present to district and/or school personnel via an in-service or professional development event. During these initial meetings and beyond, it is critical that researchers listen to school partners. You, the researcher, are not the expert in their local school community and context. Researchers should never come in with a set agenda, but instead should listen to school partners’ ideas for the challenges that they see in their school related to IV and their ideas for how to address the prevention of IV, including the leveraging of student and community strengths in this work.

Related to this, we have learned in our work that the presence of the principal investigator (PI) in the school during active study implementation (i.e., data collection, staff training, program implementation) is often critical to the success of the work. PIs need to be present during the foundational work of relationship building and throughout all phases of research. This helps to build trust and to show school partners the investment and dedication of the PI, which will lead to a greater likelihood of success. Unfortunately, when PIs are not present and things go wrong or the school feels like the relationship is one-sided, this tarnishes the school’s enthusiasm for research—your research and those coming after you.

PIs and their teams also need to take time to get to know their school partners in a way that is most meaningful to the partners. For some school partners, this may mean having lunch or a coffee to get to know one another on a more personal level so that the work does not feel transactional. We have learned that humility, curiosity, humor, patience, and being willing to admit when we do not know something and/or made a mistake goes a long way in establishing and maintaining relationships between researchers and school partners.

Although all of us have worked with districts in close proximities to our universities, we frequently work with schools in other parts of the state, country, or even regions of the world. Even if you are working with schools at a distance, your presence in the school is essential. In addition to frequent site/school visits, be sure to maintain good email and phone communication in between in-person visits without overwhelming school personnel who are incredibly busy. Having a clear communication plan in place with school partners goes a long way for your relationships with them and the success of your projects. For example, some of our school partners do not like emails, especially long emails that can be overwhelming. Some of our partners prefer phone calls, text messages, or in-person meetings. Asking school partners about their preferences for communication is respectful and can go a long way.

Collaboratively Conceptualize and Fund the School-Driven Idea

Once you determine what school partners wish to address and how, you can begin to look for funding opportunities to support this work. If you have access to non-competitive internal funding (e.g., start-ups, F&A returns), you could start with a small project to demonstrate your commitment to building long-term partnerships. If applying for a competitive grant, there are a number of helpful resources that may demystify the process (e.g., Demaray et al., 2020; Dickens, 2022; Gerin et al., 2010; Maholmes & Lomonaco, 2011). One point to consider is the length of time, number of submissions, and strict competition associated with securing funding. Be sure to communicate these realities and maintain your relationship with your school partners during these long waiting periods.

It is important to involve school partners in conceptualizing the project and integrating their voices and perspectives throughout the grant. We often identify funding mechanisms that fit well with the current needs and ideas of school partners. Sometimes the funding solicitations may not be perfect matches, but in our experience school partners are often flexible and welcome our ideas as content experts. Rather than sending the lengthy funding solicitation, prepare a one- to two-page brief that summarizes the proposed project in non-research language, outlines the specific timelines, and the responsibilities/roles of the school and the responsibilities/roles of the university research partners. Be sure to link the funding opportunity to their interests and priorities. Some school districts require that a grant application be conceptualized and applied for jointly by a PI and school district and may not consider partnering on a grant that has been funded without the school districts direct involvement; again, do your homework early!

Also, the PI and their team should write the grant; it is not a realistic ask to request school partners to do direct writing unless they wish to do so, which has rarely been the case for us. Nevertheless, meeting with school partners while writing the grant and sending them select pieces to review and provide feedback on is critical. Partners often have preferred ways they wish to provide feedback. In our experience, it is rarely through direct writing and more so in an email or verbal feedback during a meeting. Also, be sure as much as possible in your grants to offer to include school stipends for the use of the schools’ facilities and school personnel time.

Remember that schools are complex ecologies with staff, teachers, and administrators that are often under a lot of stress, with many programming demands and few resources. Their willingness to partner with researchers rests in them seeing a mutual benefit to their involvement. Sometimes, this means that researchers must compromise. In some school-based work, school or district policy may prohibit you from asking certain questions on surveys or implementing certain types of programming. For example, in our work, we have at times had schools or districts forbid us from asking race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity in our surveys or assessments (i.e., we were only allowed to ask sex assigned at birth). Furthermore, in abstinence-only school districts, we are often limited in the types of information we can include in sexual and dating violence prevention programs. Although it may be discouraging, successful partnerships require that we work within the constraints of the larger political landscape in some schools and recognize that compromise may be the only way to get the work accomplished.

Related to this is identifying your “champions” within the school early on, ideally prior to seeking funding for your project, especially because you often need multiple layers of approval to submit grants (and most funding agencies require to see a letter of intent to participate from schools). Thus, identify the teachers, guidance counselors, coaches, parents, and student leaders who will partner with you to help advocate for the need for school-based youth IV prevention research. Potential school champions could be leaders/sponsors of student organizations or student representatives on school committees (e.g., school climate/safety community, youth advisory board, social justice clubs), as well as parent groups. Reaching out to community organizations already doing work in the schools focused on well-being (e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters of American, Boys and Girls Club, Communities in Schools, nonprofit organizations, health departments, crisis centers) is another path forward. If you are not sure who might be a school champion, ask the principal or another leader within the school if there are school personnel, students, and parents who seem to have a particular interest in IV prevention (and be sure to use layperson friendly terms such as bullying prevention, promoting healthy relationships, and so forth). We also find that when we are able to link IV prevention to community, school, cultural, family, and/or personal values, buy-in is often more likely.

Having “asks” to do school-based research on IV prevention come from individuals within the school to the school and district administrators as well as out of influential community members who may not be “in” the school is often much more impactful than coming solely from the researcher/PI. School champions can also help address pushback that you may receive from other parents/caregivers/guardians, school personnel, and/or students given the sensitive nature of IV prevention. Also, know who needs to approve your project and at what stage, as this varies across schools and districts. It varies across districts from the principal to the superintendent to the school board (or some combination thereof). Also, in some communities, districts have their own IRBs, so plan ahead.

As shown in Table 1, there are also a number of detailed and important questions you will need to consider when planning your project. Being prepared to discuss these questions in school meetings will send a message that you are organized, experienced, and understand the uniqueness of each school district. In addition to addressing these questions with your school partners, you should also consider reaching out to senior/established investigators for advice on how they handled these complexities in their own work. Be sure not to overwhelm your school partners with all of these questions at once unless you have a sense that is appropriate. There is always a balance between respecting people’s time, but also not overwhelming them with a barrage of questions and discussion points. We have also found funders to be flexible in allowing us to make changes to our methodology as funders are increasingly recognizing (often with our assistance) the complexities and challenges of conducting school-based IV prevention research.

Table 1.

Tips for School-based IV Research.

Critical questions	Tips
What about inclusion of students who are ELLs?	Research district websites to have a general understanding of the number of students who are ELL. To the extent possible, budget for project materials (e.g., guardian consent forms) to be professionally translated into the needed languages. If funds do not permit translation, work with school personnel to determine best path forward—they may have also encountered this scenario.
Does communication between researcher/PI and parents need to be in other languages?	As you build your team, recognize the importance of diversity, including language diversity. Your university may have translation services. Lastly, with school personnel to assist with reaching all students/parents (but recognize they likely will need to complete IRB training).
Are students with intellectual and developmental disabilities included in the survey (and if yes, how will you ensure anonymity and/or confidentiality of their data)?	Given the frequent need for surveys to be confidential and anonymous, we often limit eligibility to youth who can complete the survey independently (or via an electronic-assisted reader). Work with the school and individual teachers to make sure a particular student does not feel alienated.
Will there be opportunities for students who are not present in school to take the survey or program on another day/time?	Build in make-up days for students who missed the scheduled survey day. Undoubtedly, you will still have students that do not show for either day. It is important that these students be reached for IV research since they are the ones often most at risk; thus, when funding permits, meet with the students outside of school at a time and location of their choosing. If doing the survey on their own (via an online survey, for example), make sure it is clear to the student that they should be in a safe and private location when taking the survey.
How will you respond to disclosures of IV, suicidality, or other concerns reported directly to you or your research staff?	Follow state laws, school policies, etc. Be sure to have conversations with school partners about protocols in place for managing disclosures (e.g., during data collection, in program sessions, via text message to a research phone).
How will you handle a parent complaint?	Be prepared for this on all fronts. Talk to your school partners about this ahead of time and have a plan. Do not panic. It happens to all of us. With the appropriate supports in place and up-front planning, you will be able to manage this with integrity and grace.
Will implementation of the research increase the reports of violence to the school? Is the school prepared for this?	Well-done prevention may actually increase youth’s reporting behaviors. Make sure schools are aware of this and that school personnel and community partners (e.g., crisis center) is prepared for potential increases in disclosures and help-seeking. Emphasize that this is a positive sign that the programing is working. Provide training and support as needed.
How will you seat youth so that they can complete the survey with privacy?	Allow ample physical space in between youth. You may need to go to a larger classroom or gymnasium to allow students to spread out. We also use privacy dividers at times.
How will you address the concern that the identity of a student survey could be identified based on using demographic characteristics provided by the respondent?	Don’t ask very rare questions (e.g., if there are only two Asian students in the school, be more generic when asking about race and be sure to notify funders if they have requirements regarding how race and ethnicity are assessed). Assign subject numbers, never have students print their name on the survey, and keep the master list linking the subject number and names in a locked filing cabinet (or password-protected computer file) that is only accessible by the PI and project manager and/or other key personal.
Is the use of incentives allowed?	Some school districts and funding agencies have policies restrict the use of incentives. Even when they are allowed, be sure that the amount is not coercive. We typically give a modest incentive to all students who bring back a signed parent permission form, even if not allowed to participate in the study nix furthermore. We also inform youth that they will still receive their incentive if they skip a question(s). When incentives are not allowed, it is even more of a reason you need high levels of school and teacher buy-in which will help support enrollment and retention.
How will you survey students at follow-up intervals when they are no longer in the same classes in which they completed baseline surveys?	This takes a lot of planning and coordination. You have to balance the need for high retention without over-burdening your school partners and putting your needs over their multiple curricula demands. This is another reason surveys need to be as short as possible. Work with your school partners early on in producing creative solutions that maximize research rigor while being respectful of what schools can and cannot do.
Will teachers be in the room when surveys and other study activities are presented?	We try to minimize this when possible so that (1) there is no perception of coercion, (2) so that school personnel are not tempted to assist students with answering the questions, and (3) ensure nix more honest reporting. However, some schools will not allow researchers to be in the room without teachers and some students may feel more comfortable with their teachers in the room. Talk to your school partners early on about what is best. If teachers are in the room, make sure it is clear to them what they can and cannot do during survey administration. Make sure to frame this in a way that is respectful and does not undermine their expertise. Remember you are in their classroom.
What types of background checks are required for research staff to enter the school?	Have these conversations early and follow all requirements. Even if not required by the school, it is hopefully required by your institution. If you are working with student volunteers, still make them complete a background check. You must know who is on your team and ensure there is never any actual or perceived risk to students in schools.
What types of topics are and are not allowed to be covered in programming and asked on surveys?	Have these conversations early on, ideally prior to submitting a grant. For example, if a funder require you to examine whether the program works equally well for minoritized youth but you are not allowed to ask certain demographic questions, this will pose a serious problem. We have found in our work that the longer we work with schools and the more trust we build, there often becomes more openness to measurement but sometimes this is not the case especially when school districts forbid some question from being asked.

ELLs = English language learners; PI = principal investigator; IRB = institutional review board.

Be Prepared for Resistance

Because parents, caregivers, and others sometimes believe that schools should focus narrowly on academics, and/or that IV is inappropriate topic of foci school settings. It is common to receive some pushback IV work. Some parents may also worry about invasions of privacy or even fear that their children will disclose violence at their home. Thus, it is good to engage parents, caregivers, and other interested parties early in the process, ideally when you are conceptualizing an idea. This will require some research as well. All of us have attended school board meetings, presented to parent–teacher groups, tabled at local community or school events, hosted community feeds as part of projects/community-building events, and one of us served as a school board member for three terms. Understanding the politics in a school or district will save an immense amount of time and help you identify your student, parent, and community champions for your work. Having parents provide feedback on your study measures and procedures can also help to ensure a smooth roll out in the community. We always welcome the opportunity to meet with parents/caregivers/guardians to listen to their concerns and provide psychoeducation to address their concerns (e.g., asking about having sex on a survey does not cause someone to have sex, asking questions about dating violence is not traumatizing).

We have also found it helpful to link the importance of the work to personal, family, and cultural values. For example, the first author has met with Christian religious leaders in some communities to discuss the ways that violence prevention relates to biblical scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. However, recognize that there are some parents/caregivers/guardians who will never be supportive of school-based IV research and often go out of their way to prevent this work from happening. Although this can be discouraging and stressful, our experience tells us that with sufficient buy-in from school leadership, youth, and other parents/caregivers/guardians, these parents/caregivers/guardians rarely are able to completely block a research project from happening. In these cases, informed consent processes will ensure that parents who do not support the research have the opportunity to opt their child out of research participation.

Occasionally parents/caregivers/guardians or other individuals who are resistant to a school-based research project on IV may go to others in the community such as media outlets or state politicians (to support bills to restrict school-based research). For example, the third author recalls when a Facebook parent group shared our middle school bullying and sexual harassment survey with the local news station. This television channel then aired a segment that described the survey as being part of a study on sexual activities among early adolescents, and commented that the word “sexual” appeared over 60 times on the survey. The PI contacted the TV station and although they aired a segment explaining their mistake, one of the three middle schools dropped out of the study. The other middle schools stayed in the project because of the long-term trusting relationships between the PI, university team, and the principals and school staff.

The first author of this paper, when she was relatively early in her career, experienced negative press coverage—a student stole a paper copy of the survey (which should not have happened and speaks to issues with survey administration that were immediately remedied via additional staff training), gave it to their caregiver, and the student’s caregiver took the survey to a local reporter who subsequently did an evening television news report on the project that was riddled with inaccurate information. The first author worked with her university media relations spokesperson in consultation with the IRB as well as other researchers who she knew had faced similar challenges to (1) provide a comment to local and regional news outlets (the official comment came from the university not the PI—the PI never directly engaged with the media in this specific situation) and (2) engage in immediate damage control with the school where this issue originated as well as the 20+ other schools in the project; the PI personally called the point persons of all schools to make them aware of the situation and discuss with them any questions/concerns with them. Luckily, these steps along with a high school student writing a letter to a media outlet in support of the research project and expressing outrage at some parents’ reactions to the project (completely unbeknownst to the PI until it was published) resulted in minimal project disruptions (although one school did withdraw their participation because of this incident).

The first author of this paper also faced a situation in which a small yet highly vocal group of parents resistant to her research went to a state legislator to introduce a bill in the state legislature that would make providing incentives for completing surveys in schools a crime. Although the bill died quickly in committee, it was still very stressful for the PI and her team. It is important in situations like this to immediately notify the appropriate parties (e.g., government relationships team member, funders, school champions) of the situation and closely monitor it. These examples speak to how engagement with the ecosystems surrounding a school (e.g., parents, community) can be just as important as engagement with the staff and leadership within the school itself.

Finally, our projects often have social media pages (which are great to enhance school and community and engagement and provide project updates). However, occasionally you will have someone make a negative comment about the project on a social media page. Be sure that a staff member is checking project social media pages at least once a day and decide as a team how to respond (or disable comments altogether). We do not automatically delete negative comments as we welcome opportunities, in a public forum, to provide education to commenter and the community more broadly on why this work is important and factual information about school-based research. However, if a comment is offensive and/or the commenter continues to post negative posts, we will often delete the comment(s) and occasionally block the person or people making the offensive/harassing comments.

In sum, we recommend that PIs never try to navigate challenging situations on their own. In navigating the challenge, collaboration with the study sponsor, other researchers in the field, as well as school leadership was essential to maintaining engagement with the schools already enrolled in the research and explaining the circumstance to those who were negatively impacted by the erroneous news reporting. Always rely on school partners and champions as well as university-based resources (e.g., media relations spokesperson, government relationships team member) to help you navigate these scenarios. Also, remember self-care in all the school-based work that you do but especially in highly stressful situations such as negative press attention and legislative action to hinder school-based research.

Establish Advisory Boards

Advisory Boards are critical to the success of school-based studies. These should be established early on during a project so that members of the Board can advise on all study-related decisions as well as dissemination efforts. Advisory Boards should include diverse representation of school personnel, parents/caregivers/guardians, students, and community members who work closely with the school and/or its students. We have found in our work that sometimes it works best to have an Advisory Board for students that is separate from school personnel and parents/caregivers/guardians so that students have the space to share in ways they might not do in the presence of these individuals, but that opportunities for Advisory Boards to come together occasionally is important too. The frequency of Advisory Board meetings varies by projects, but usually meet at least a few times a year, if not more. If possible, try to budget for Advisory Board member stipends in your grants. Regardless of whether stipends are available, members of this group have always come to meetings (when in person) with small tokens to express our thanks to advisory board members (i.e., a breakfast for the group, grab-and-go coffee, small potted plants, etc.). If you do not have funding for these gestures, you might be able to get a local business to even donate. Allow for flexibility in terms of the duration of Advisory Board membership. For example, if you have a 4-year grant, it is unrealistic to ask individuals to commit to 4 years. Rather, you might ask for a 1-year commitment but encourage members to stay on for the entire duration of the project if they wish. Finally, some communities do not like the term Advisory Boards and/or the terminology may not feel youth-friendly to some students. Again, be sure to ask your school partners how to be name and describe Advisory Boards. Related to this, all projects need a name that is often more school/youth friendly than the title of your grant and/or IRB application that reflects a more academic way to describe the project. The name of the project should be selected by the school community and/or the Advisory Board.

Embrace Reciprocity

We often find ways to support our school partners in ways that go beyond our specific collaborations. For example, we may consult pro bono on issues related to school-based programming or offer training to school personnel to support their professional development. Furthermore, we sometimes will offer to help school partners write grants that are not specific to research, but nonetheless support their work and are important ways to show reciprocity and commitment to their school community. It is important to ensure that providing services (e.g., training) to a school is never done in a way that is coercive or contingent on the school submitting a grant or doing a project. If you have any questions about real or perceptions of conflict of interest (COI) or dual/multiple relationships, consult with your colleagues and senior mentors. However, we have consistently found that showing reciprocity to school partners is a way to maintain relationships—especially with our school partners who may be affiliated with Tribal communities or other culturally specific groups where this is a sign of cultural humility and respect.

Furthermore, we caution more junior researchers from doing a lot of time-consuming service to school partners, especially those who are not yet tenured, as this can be time-consuming. Be sure to talk to senior academics and mentors at your school to better understand the extent to which these types of activities are valued by your institution as well as CBPAR more broadly. We say this knowing that we have much to do to educate individuals on promotion and tenure committees about CBPAR and that this work, while incredibly meaningful, takes a great deal of time to implement appropriately.

We may also help school partners access researchers doing work in completely unrelated areas to our own but on a topic that is important to the school community (e.g., reading comprehension). Be careful in not just suggesting anyone. Even though they may not do research on IV, they still should embody many of the qualities that we are discussing herein and follow similar processes, especially around school leadership in all phases of the research process. The last thing you want to do is connect your school partners with a researcher who could cause problems for them and you.

Recruitment, Enrollment, and Retention

High-quality longitudinal evaluation research requires high rates of enrollment and retention. Be sure to include sufficient funds in your grant to allow for all costs (e.g., staff time, incentives, printing and mailing costs) associated with facilitating enrollment and participant retention. It is important to know that high levels of enrollment are much more costly and time intensive with active consent than passive consent. Like engaging parents/caregivers/guardians during the creation of project-related ideas, be sure to make yourself available to meet with parents/caregivers/guardians to answer their questions and address their concerns. Although project coordinators and research assistants may be able to help field some of these requests for more information, it is especially important that the PI be available as well, especially for the most research resistant parents/caregivers/guardians as well as resistant school personnel and students. You can also host a school dinner or other event where school community members can learn more about the project; just be sure that you make it worth their time (e.g., serve a meal, have raffles/give aways). As previously discussed, we have learned that if you have a great deal of buy-in early in the process (i.e., project conceptualization) and vocal school champions, recruitment and enrollment tend to go much more smoothly and successfully.

It is also important to rely heavily on your school champions during the recruitment process, and make sure that roles and responsibilities for school personnel and research staff are clearly delineated and that all project partners are aware of the timeline. There should be a point of contact (i.e., school champion) at each school who the researcher and their team work with on all scheduling-related tasks, approvals, issues that come up, and so forth. Try to absorb as much work as possible given this can become a time-consuming endeavor for a school point person. Because of this, school stipends can be critical. Also, be sure to express gratitude and appreciation throughout the process for the support you are receiving from the school point person and others assisting with the project.

At times, school personnel who are highly invested in your project may try to go the extra mile to ensure high rates of enrollment/retention. It is important that school personnel understand what is and is not allowable per your IRB. For example, in our experiences, some teachers have wanted to offer students extra credit for bringing back a consent form or completing a survey. However, this is an incentive that could be potentially coercive and not part of our IRB-approved protocols. Thus, making sure that school personnel understand what is and is not allowed is critical. We often do this in the form of a handout for school personnel so that when they are sharing information about the study with students, they are equipped with “talking points,” and also understand why offering extra credit, for example, is not allowable and that there are other ways they can show their strong support for the project. You may also need to consider what school personnel, if any, need to be added to your IRB protocol. In our experience, this varies quite a bit by institution. For example, if teachers are delivering an experimental intervention, the first authors’ IRB does require that they complete IRB training and other COI forms. Rather than having them do the online Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training, the first author has obtained permission from her IRB to do an in-person training with teachers that often reduces the stress of trying to navigate a new system online, allows for the content to be more tailored to the specific project, and is another way to build rapport with school personnel.

A few additional tips include sending home consent forms to parents, caregivers, guardians via multiple methods (e.g., back to school packets, emails, postal mail, students, and all school communication channels). Our teams have also had success in preparing YouTube videos in multiple languages which describe the study and walk parents and students through the study consent and assent forms. Also, make the survey available to parents/caregivers/guardians for full transparency, and include a description of why you are asking each of the types of questions being asked. This type of detailed information can be helpful. There is also a wealth of research documenting that participating in IV research is not upsetting for most participants (Jaffe et al., 2015), including youth (Edwards et al., 2016; Siller et al., 2022), and sharing this information with school partners, including parents/caregivers/guardians is important too.

Program Implementation and Research Evaluation

It is imperative that you have highly trained and diverse staff, ideally staff whose social identities mirror those of the students in the school. Staff should be highly trained in all aspects of the research protocol and possess qualities such as professionalism, integrity, attentive to detail, enthusiastic, and engaging. Be sure that your research staff are aware of the school dress code. In our experience, project t-shirts are ideal if the budget will allow for it so that everyone on your team is recognizable and there is consistency in attire across staff. Also, be prepared for the attrition of staff, both staff on your team as well as school personnel. Having multiple champions within the school can be helpful in this regard.

Furthermore, researchers should ensure that their staff are prepared for youth who engage in problematic behaviors (e.g., harassment of staff) during data collection as well as retention efforts (e.g., respond to text reminders with profanity). For in person data collection, ensure that a teacher or another school personnel is close by so that they can be immediately notified and take appropriate action to handle the situation if it cannot be easily handled by a research staff or is too severe/problematic and requires the notification of school personnel. In our experiences, more severe behaviors (e.g., sexually harassing staff, becoming physically aggressive toward staff) are extremely rare. Behaviors such as making jokes about the survey or engaging in side conversations during programming sessions are more likely and highly skilled research staff can be equipped with skills to put an immediate stop to this type of undesirable behavior.

Remember what is feasible in a school environment may not be what you could typically accomplish in your laboratory, or another setting—when the bell rings, students need to be done with the survey, so plan for missingness relating to the time of survey administration (if doing so in schools) and ensure that students have enough time to complete it. Above all, the policies and norms of the school supersede the needs of the research. Be sure that your staff is trained to acknowledge this. Often, conducting school-based research requires a large research team, and it is essential that all members of the research team know to respect the policies and procedures of the school, above all.

Be prepared for issues with technology at schools, especially those in rural or isolated locations where the Internet is limited. In our projects, we often use electronic surveys, but we also bring paper copies of the survey in case the Internet is spotty, or our links are blocked by the school firewall. Also, sometimes it is just easier to have paper surveys and pencils on the desks and ready for students when they come to the location of the survey administration although we recognize that paper surveys often require a lot more work on the back end. To address firewall issues, get to know the school or school district’s IT person, and send them the address of your electronic survey to this person to whitelist the URL.

Regarding program implementation, there are many considerations including identifying the target population (e.g., all grades, selected grades), timing of program (during school, after school), who will facilitate the programming (e.g., teacher, outside facilitator), and how program fidelity will be monitored. While many of the above will be linked to specific research questions and available funding, consistent with CBPAR, the school should have a voice in these decisions. We suggest that junior investigators work with more senior/experienced school-based IV prevention researchers and consult with the literature (e.g., Cook-Craig, Coker, et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2021; Nation et al., 2003; Reinke et al., 2014).

Dissemination

Schools should be highly engaged in interpretation of study findings as well as dissemination efforts. We often present summaries of our findings to Advisory Boards as well as school administrators and seek their leadership in creating practice-based implications. Be sure to provide the school community with non-technical reports that summarize in a few pages max the findings of the project; be sure to always highlight strengths and share the “good news” and as much as possible, use easy to understand figures or informatics. Some schools may require administrator approval before these can be shared. If funds allow, host a school event (e.g., family dinner) where you can share the results with the entire school community. Make yourself available to talk to school community members about the findings. In our experience, youth are often the most excited about the findings. Engage them in sharing the findings to their school and broader communities, as funds will allow.

Also, some schools do not permit the name of the school/district/community to be named in publications. In these cases, researchers can consider using a broad description of the community such as “small city in the Northern Great Plains region of the United States.” When publishing your work, we recommend that you check in with a school about how they would like to be referred to in manuscripts. Also, make sure you are aware of the school and district policies regarding dissemination of findings (do they require any level of approval?) and data archiving (is this allowed?). Data archiving is required by some funders, and if necessary, you can seek waivers of this requirement under certain conditions.

It is also important that you be prepared to share news with school communities that a program did not work, or even worse, had iatrogenic effects. Although iatrogenic effects are rare, protocols should be in place to monitor participant deterioration or other poor outcomes and stop research administration if the risks outweigh the benefits. Many of the studies conducted by the authors have utilized external Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMB), which consist of experts in human subjects research, clinical trials, violence prevention research, and school-based research. A DSMB collaborates with the research team to monitor the outcomes of the research, assess the extent to which unanticipated problems and adverse events are occurring in the research, and ensure that the study team is appropriately and swiftly addressing problems. Because the DSMB consists of individuals external to the study team, they are likely to have less bias in considering whether a study should be paused or stopped altogether. When working on letters of agreement and/or memorandums of understanding with our school partners (or the agency implementing the program in the school, if applicable), we often include a description of how we will monitor for adverse events, and reasons why the study might be paused or stopped. We also always explain to school partners why it is important (and required by funders) to share null and iatrogenic findings. In our experience, when following best practices in prevention science and CBPAR, it is not especially common that an intervention has all null findings. Nevertheless, making partners aware of this possibility early on and how you will communicate these findings with diverse audiences is important.

Sustaining Effective Partnerships

In our experience, one collaboration with schools often leads to future collaborations, if the initial project is done in such a way that where a present and approachable PI, highly trained research staff, and collaboration with school leadership lead to outcomes that make a positive impact on the lives of students. It is important to have conversations early on about sustaining a programming initiative within the school after funding for the grant ends if the programming is found to be acceptable, feasible, and efficacious. We also make it clear to our school partners that we are invested in our relationships with them beyond a single project and are always looking for ways to find funding to support programming initiatives they wish to implement and evaluate in their schools. However, sometimes for various reasons, partnerships do not work out. This may be due to shifting priorities of the schools, changes in leadership, or changes in the community itself. If a school decides they no longer wish to work with you, try to find out the reasons why. Sometimes, the reasons for discontinuing a research collaboration may have nothing to do with you/your team and other times they might, and you can use this information to modify your approach and practices working in other school settings.

Concluding Thoughts

There will never be a school-based youth IV prevention project that does not have bumps in the road. However, with thoughtful pre-planning and a commitment to sustained partnership and presence in a school, we have found school-based research to be extremely rewarding and deeply meaningful. School personnel want to learn more about their students, they want to contribute to the greater good, and they want to implement effective programs because at the end of the day most of them deeply care about their students and want the best for them. It is our job to be well-versed and knowledgeable, overcome mistakes by previous researchers (including ourselves), and cater to the school’s needs (while maintaining integrity to our work and the field). Conducting school-based youth IV prevention requires the mentality that this work is much more of a marathon than a sprint. It is necessary to start early in engaging school partners and include them in intentional and meaningful ways throughout the research project. This approach may be a vast shift for researchers who tend to plan for only what is needed to directly engage and inform the specific participants who will be recruited for the research. School-based IV research is also mutual and reciprocal in nature, rather than one-sided (e.g., schools as places to collect data and exit)—it truly is people and relationships first. This type of research also requires collaborative problem-solving, negotiation, and compromise between the researcher and the school community. Embarking on school-based IV research with this mindset and a healthy dose of humor will allow for impactful and sustained changes, ultimately contributing to reduction reducing IV among youth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Katie M. Edwards

Lindsay M. Orchowski

Dorothy L. Espelage

Jeff R. Temple

Author Biographies

Dr. Katie M. Edwards, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln where she directs the Interpersonal Violence Research Laboratory. Using community-based participatory action research, Dr. Edwards seeks to answer two questions in her work: (1) How do we prevent sexual and related forms of violence? and (2) How do we most effectively support survivors in the aftermath of violent victimization? Much of Dr. Edwards work focuses on minoritized populations, specifically Native American/Indigenous youth and families as well as LGBTQ2S+ youth and emerging adults. Dr. Edwards highly values community leadership in developing and evaluating strengths-focused, affirming, culturally grounded initiatives to prevent and respond to sexual and related forms of violence. To date, she has published more than 185 peer reviewed journal articles, and over the past 10 years has accrued over 20 million dollars in funding for her research, predominately from federal (U.S.) agencies.

Lindsay M. Orchowski, Ph.D. is a Staff Psychologist in the Adult Outpatient Division of the Department of Psychiatry within Lifespan Physicians Group. As Associate Professor (Research) at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Dr. Orchowski’s research program focuses on advancing the development and evaluation of sexual assault prevention for youth and young adults. Her research is supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Education. She is Associate Editor for Psychology of Women Quarterly, is on the Editorial Board for Violence Against Women and is a Consulting Editor for Psychology of Violence. She Co-Edited the books “Sexual Assault Risk Reduction and Resistance: Theory, Research and Practice” and “Engaging Boys and Men in Sexual Assault Prevention: Theory, Research, and Practice”.

Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D., is William C. Friday Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of North Carolina. She is the recipient of the APA Lifetime Achievement Award in Prevention Science and the 2016 APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Research in Public Policy, and is a Fellow of APS, APA, and AERA. She was recently elected to the National Academy of Education and awarded the SPR Prevention Science Award in 2020. She earned her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Indiana University in 1997. Over the last 22 years, she has authored over 250 peer- reviewed articles, eight edited books, and 80 chapters on bullying, homophobic teasing, sexual harassment, dating violence, and gang violence. Her research focuses on translating empirical findings into prevention and intervention programming and she has secured over 17 million dollars of external funding. She advises members of Congress and Senate on bully prevention legislation.

Jeff R. Temple, is a professor, licensed psychologist, and the Vice Dean for Research and Scholarship for the School of Nursing at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he also holds the John Sealy Distinguished Chair in Community Health. As the Founding Director of the Center for Violence Prevention, his research focuses on the prevention of interpersonal, community, and structural violence.

References

Basile

K. C.

Clayton

H. B.

DeGue

Gilford

J. W.

Vagi

K. J.

Suarez

N. A.

Zwald

M. L.

Lowry

(2020). Interpersonal violence victimization among high school students—Youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR Supplements, 69(1), 28–37.

Basile

K. C.

DeGue

Jones

Freire

Dills

Smith

S. G.

Raiford

J. L.

(2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. National Center for Injury.

Bryan

Burstow

(2018). Understanding ethics in school-based research. Professional Development in Education, 44(1), 107–119.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). 2019 YRBSS results. Retrieved October 13, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Coker

A. L.

Clear

E. R.

Garcia

L. S.

Bush

H. M.

Brancato

C. J.

Williams

C. M.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion-based active bystanding prevention program green dot in high schools. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1179–1202.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Millspaugh

P. H.

Recktenwald

E. A.

Kelly

N. C.

Hegge

L. M.

Coker

A. L.

Pletcher

T. S.

(2014). From empower to Green Dot successful strategies and lessons learned in developing comprehensive sexual violence primary prevention programming. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1162–1178.

Demaray

M. K.

Codding

R. S.

Doll

Overstreet

Jones

J. M.

(2020). Succeeding as a woman in school psychology. In Floyd

R. G.

Eckert

T. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of university and professional careers in school psychology (pp. 159-178). Routledge.

Dickens

D. E.

(2022). Securing grants. In Dickens

D. E.

Edwards

K. M.

(Eds.), Feminists and the road to tenure: Transforming the academy. Cognella, Inc.

Division of Population Health, & National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2019). National Health Education Standards. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/sher/standards/index.htm

10.

Edwards

K. M.

(2015). Incidence and outcomes of dating violence victimization among high school youth: The role of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(9), 1472–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618943

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Banyard

V. L.

(2020). Prevalence and correlates of sexual revictimization in middle and high school youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 284–300.

12.

Edwards

K. M.

Haynes

E. E.

Rodenhizer-Stämpfli

K. E.

(2016). High school youth’s reactions to participating in mixed-methodological dating violence research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616651783

13.

Edwards

K. M.

Herrington

Leader Charge

Hopfauf

Camp

Simon

Waterman

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2022). Engaging Native American youth and their caregivers in sexual violence research: A case study documenting challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24) https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211072158

14.

Edwards

K. M.

Siller

Leader Charge

Bordeaux

Leader Charge

(2022). Dating violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment victimization among girls on an Indian reservation: An examination of rates and risk and protective factors. Violence Against Women, 28(3–4), 761–779.

15.

Edwards

K. M.

Waterman

E. A.

Lee

K. D. M.

Himlin

Parm

Banyard

(2021). Feasibility and acceptability of a high school relationship abuse and sexual assault bystander prevention program: School personnel and student perspectives. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14): NP7070–NP7085.

16.

Esbensen

Melde

Taylor

T. J.

Peterson

(2008). Active parental consent in school-based research: How much is enough and how do we get it? Evaluation Review, 32(4), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X08315175

17.

Espelage

D. L.

Basile

K. C.

Hamburger

M. E.

(2012). Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.015

18.

Espelage

D. L.

Ingram

K. M.

Hong

J. S.

Merrin

G. J.

(2022). Bullying as a developmental precursor to sexual and dating violence across adolescence: Decade in review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(4), 1358–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211043811.

19.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

S. K.

Anderson

De La Rue

(2014). Bullying, sexual, and dating violence trajectories from early to late adolescence. National Institute of Justice.

20.

Exner-Cortens

Eckenrode

Rothman

E. F.

(2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71–78.

21.

Finkelhor

Vanderminden

Turner

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2014). Youth exposure to violence prevention programs in a national sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.010

22.

Gerin

Kapelewski

Itinger

J. B.

Spruill

(2010). Writing the NIH grant proposal: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.

23.

Girio-Herrera

Ehrlich

C. J.

Danzi

B. A.

La Greca

A. M.

(2019). Lessons learned about barriers to implementing school-based interventions for adolescents: Ideas for enhancing future research and clinical projects. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26(3), 466–477.

24.

Gruber

Fineran

(2015). Sexual harassment, bullying, and school outcomes for high school girls and boys. Violence Against Women, 22(1), 112–133.

25.

Hunter

Elias

M. J.

Norris

(2001). School-based violence prevention: Challenges and lessons learned from an action research project. Journal of School Psychology, 39(2), 161–175.

26.

Jaffe

A. E.

DiLillo

Hoffman

Haikalis

Dykstra

R. E.

(2015). Does it hurt to ask? A meta-analysis of participant reactions to trauma research. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 40–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.004

27.

Lebrun-Harris

L. A.

Sherman

L. J.

Limber

S. P.

Miller

B. D.

Edgerton

E. A.

(2019). Bullying victimization and perpetration among US children and adolescents: 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2543–2557.

28.

Lee

Wong

J. S.

(2020). Examining the effects of teen dating violence prevention programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09442-x

29.

Maholmes

Lomonaco

C. G.

(2011). Applied research in child and adolescent development: A practical guide. Psychology Press.

30.

Minkler

Wallerstein

(2003). Introduction to community based participatory research. In Minkler

Wallerstein

(Eds.), Community based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass.

31.

Minkler

Wallerstein

(2011). Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. John Wiley & Sons.

32.

NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education). (2022). State policy database. https://statepolicies.nasbe.org/

33.

Nation

Crusto

Wandersman

Kumpfer

K. L.

Seybolt

Morrissey-Kane

Davino

(2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.6-7.449

34.

Polanin

J. R.

Espelage

D. L.

Pigott

T. D.

(2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47.

35.

Reinke

W. M.

Stormont

Herman

K. C.

Newcomer

(2014). Using coaching to support teacher implementation of classroom-based interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(1), 150–167.

36.

Siller

Edwards

K. M.

Banyard

V. L.

(2022). Violence typologies among youth: A latent class analysis of middle and high school youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1023–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520922362

37.

Siller

Edwards

K. M.

Herrington

Bordeaux

Charge

L. L.

Charge

D. L.

(2022). Reactions to participating in sexual and dating violence research among Native American youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP19188–NP19204. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211035884

38.

Taylor

B. G.

Mumford

E. A.

(2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(6), 963–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514564070

39.

Wilson

(2017). School-based research: A guide for education students. Sage.