Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Revising existing instruments for measuring bystander intervention opportunity and frequency of prosocial response for the prevention of sexual violence
  1. Jill C Hoxmeier
  1. Department of Health Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jill C Hoxmeier, Department of Health Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington 98926, USA; Jill.Hoxmeier{at}


Institutions of higher education increasingly offer training programmes to engage students’ as pro-social bystanders who can intervene in situations related to sexual violence. The purpose of this study was to assess the usage of a bystander behaviour measurement tool that captures both students’ intervention opportunities and frequency of prosocial response. University undergraduate students in the Northwestern USA (n=474) completed online surveys in the Fall of 2016. Results show that students have opportunities to intervene in a variety of situations at the three levels of prevention for campus sexual violence and they do not always intervene. The frequency of students’ prosocial bystander response ranged, for those with the opportunity, from ‘never’ to ‘always’; students reported varying degrees of intervention frequency depending on the situation. A bystander intervention behaviour instrument measuring opportunity and frequency of response can be a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness of bystander training programmes.

  • behavior change
  • sexual abuse
  • cross sectional study
  • school

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors JCH: made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of the data; drafted the article and has approved it for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Central Washington University Human Subjects Review Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Data may be obtained through the author.