Me & You-Tech: A Socio-Ecological Solution to Teen Dating Violence for the Digital Age

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 13-item psychological victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-13. If the score is 3 or more, psychological victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 3 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0, 1, or 2 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report psychological victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item physical victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, physical victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report physical victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual perpetration item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual perpetration item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual victimization item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). One sexual victimization item was used with a count score ranging from 0-1. If the score is 1, sexual victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report sexual victimization.

The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber perpetration.

The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber perpetration.

The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 and are considered victims. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber victimization.

The Cyber Dating Abuse questionnaire include 22 questions relating to cyber dating abuse among dating partners adapted from existing sources (Zweig et al., 2014; Picard, 2007). It includes a 12-item cyber dating abuse victimization subscale with a total score ranging from 0-11. If the score is 1 or more, cyber abuse victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report cyber victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening perpetration subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening perpetration occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered perpetrators. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening perpetration.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Reported are the participants with a score of 1 or more and 0. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening victimization.

The CADRI is a 34-item questionnaire that assesses abusive behavior among adolescent dating partners (Wolfe et al., 2001). It includes a 4-item threatening victimization subscale with a count score ranging from 0-4. If the score is 1 or more, threatening victimization occurred. Those in the Category of "Yes" have a score of 1 or more and are considered victims. Reported are the participants with a score of 1 or more and 0. Those in the Category of "No" have a score of 0 and either did not report a dating partner or reported a dating partner but did not report threatening victimization.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 4-item girls aggressing boys subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of girls aggressing boys under certain circumstances.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire that assesses adolescents' perceptions of their norms toward violence for boys and girls (Foshee et al., 2001). A 4-item girls aggressing boys subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. The higher the number, the more accepting of girls aggressing boys under certain circumstances.

The Acceptance of Dating Abuse Survey is a questionnaire to assess among adolescents' perceptions of their norm toward violence for boys and girls. A 6-item boys aggressing girls subscale is scored as 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each item. Then a composite score is created. The higher the number the more accepting of boys aggressing girls under certain circumstances.

The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.

The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.

The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 7-item constructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of constructive conflict resolution skills.

The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.

The Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills questionnaire measures communication skills (Foshee et al., 2001). A 6-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.

Constructive and Destructive Conflict Resolution Skills measure communication skills. A 7-item destructive conflict resolution skills subscale was scored as 0 (never) to 3 (very often) for each item. Subscale total score was created as a composite score ranging from 0 to 3 with the higher scores indicated greater use of destructive conflict resolution skills.

This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.

This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.

This item assesses attitudes toward sexting among adolescents (Strassberg et al., 2013). Answer choices include: "It is always wrong to send or forward such pictures or videos" (1), "It is ok to send such pictures or videos of yourself, but not of other people" (2), "It is ok to forward such pictures or videos you might receive, but not to be the one to first send such a picture or video" (3), and "Sending, receiving, or forwarding such pictures or videos is ok" (4). Total scores range from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positive attitudes towards sexting.

This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.

This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.

This item assesses perceived parental communication about different topics (how to handle problems in relationships, how to handle emotions, appropriate behavior when communicating through technology [texting/social networking], what's important to you and/or parent/caregiver [values] when it comes to romantic relationships, choosing your dating partners, none of the above) adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). Scores reflect the number of topics discussed by the parent/guardian and child. The higher the number, the more topics discussed.

This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived frequency of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot; more than 3 times) with total scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect greater frequency of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived helpfulness of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all helpful) to 7 (very helpful) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived helpfulness of communication about topics.

This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.

This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.

This item assesses perceived comfort of communication about different topics with parents/guardians adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived comfort in communicating with parents/guardians about topics.

This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.

This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.

This item assesses perceived parental comfort of parental communication about different topics adapted from the Modified Miller Communication Scale (Rizzo et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1998). It is scored from 1 (not at all comfortable) to 7 (very comfortable) with total scores ranging from 1-7. Higher scores reflect greater perceived parental comfort in communicating about topics.

This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.

This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.

This item assesses perceived confidence in communicating about different topics with parents/guardian (Foshee et al., 2012). It is scored from 1 (very confident) to 4 (not at all confident) total mean scores ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect lower perceived confidence in communicating about topics with parents/guardians.

An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.

An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.

An adapted 8-item version of the sexual consent- scale revised was used to assess youth attitudes towards need for consent (Humphreys et al., 2010). Each item was scored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) and an average score was calculated, ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect more positives attitudes toward need for consent.

This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.

This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.

This item assesses knowledge of the "select, detect, protect" decision-making paradigm (a core feature in the curriculum). Respondents choose from five possible responses that include different combinations of the paradigm, with one response being the correct answer. The item is scored as 0 (not correct) or 1 (correct). Results are reported as the number of respondents who selected the correct response and the number who selected an incorrect response.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Responsible Decision-Making subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to make responsible decisions. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to make responsible decisions.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Emotional Regulation subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional regulation skills. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional regulation skills.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 4-item Goal Management subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to manage goals. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to manage goals

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) Social and Emotional Competency Assessment (Short Form) includes 17 items, including a 2-item Emotional Knowledge subscale that assesses how easy or difficult it is to use emotional knowledge. It is scored from 1 (Very Difficult) to 4 (Very Easy) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1-4. Higher scores reflect a greater ability to use emotional knowledge.

One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.

One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.

One item assessing youth's likeliness to seek help from a parent/caregiver if they were having a problem with relationships was adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al., 2005). The item is scored from 1 (very unlikely to seek support) to 4 (very likely to seek support) with total scores ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater likeliness to seek help.

The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Perpetration subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Perpetrators are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.

The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Perpetration subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Perpetrators are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.

The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Victimization subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Victims are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.

The adapted Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students includes 16 items with an 8-item Bully Victimization subscale (Olweus, 1996). Response options for each item include: 0 (Never), 1 (rarely), 2 (Occasionally), 3 (somewhat often), 4 (Often). Victims are counted as those youth who respond with options 2, 3, or 4 to any item.

This one item assesses youth's perception of the frequency with which their caregiver engaged in critical communication with them during the past month (adapted from Foshee et al., 2012). The item was scored as 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time) with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of critical communication.

This one item assesses youth's perception of the frequency with which their caregiver engaged in critical communication with them during the past month (adapted from Foshee et al., 2012). The item was scored as 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time) with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of critical communication.

This 7-item scale assesses youth's perception of the number of caregiver's rules about dating (Foshee et al., 2012). Responses include yes and no for each item; for four of the items, there was also a 'don't know' option. Total average score ranges from 0 to 7, with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of the number (or count) of rules their caregiver has about dating.

This 7-item scale assesses youth's perception of the number of caregiver's rules about dating (Foshee et al., 2012). Responses include yes and no for each item; for four of the items, there was also a 'don't know' option. Total average score ranges from 0 to 7, with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of the number (or count) of rules their caregiver has about dating.

This 5-item scale assesses youth's perception of how much their parents or caregivers know about what the youth is doing with regards to their friends, how they spend their money, etc. (Brown et al., 1993). The items were scored as 1 (don't know much) to 4 (know a lot) with a total average score ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of parental monitoring.

This 5-item scale assesses youth's perception of how much their parents or caregivers know about what the youth is doing with regards to their friends, how they spend their money, etc. (Brown et al., 1993). The items were scored as 1 (don't know much) to 4 (know a lot) with a total average score ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores reflect greater perceptions of parental monitoring.

This 6-item scale assesses youth's perception of their perceived closeness with their parent/caregiver (Vazsonyi et al., 2003). It is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each item with an average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater parental closeness.

This 6-item scale assesses youth's perception of their perceived closeness with their parent/caregiver (Vazsonyi et al., 2003). It is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for each item with an average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater parental closeness.

This 4-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses youth perception of the general school climate (Niolon et al., 2019). Each item is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a total average score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of school climate.

This 4-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses youth perception of the general school climate (Niolon et al., 2019). Each item is scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a total average score ranging from 1-5. Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of school climate.

This 6-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses the perceived frequency with which certain behaviors are observed among students who are dating in the school. This was scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Often) with a total average score ranging from 0-3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of observing the behaviors.

This 6-item scale, adapted from items in the Dating Matters School Educator Survey, assesses the perceived frequency with which certain behaviors are observed among students who are dating in the school. This was scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Often) with a total average score ranging from 0-3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of observing the behaviors.

A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.

A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.

A 5-item questionnaire, adapted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 'Blue Campaign', was used to asses youth knowledge of human trafficking. Youth are presented with 5 items which they have to designate as 'true' or 'false" about human trafficking. Each item is scored as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect). Total score is computed as the percent of items answered correctly which translates into a mean score ranging from 0-1, with higher score indicating greater knowledge.

This 4-item questionnaire assesses youth perception of the frequency with which their most recent dating partner engaged in positive relationship skills with them (Niolon et al., 2019). The items are scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always) with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of more positive relationship skills.

This 4-item questionnaire assesses youth perception of the frequency with which their most recent dating partner engaged in positive relationship skills with them (Niolon et al., 2019). The items are scored from 0 (Never) to 3 (Always) with a total average score ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores reflect greater perceived frequency of more positive relationship skills.

The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 4-item 'Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in in-person or electronic dating violence perpetration. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer in-person and electronic dating violence perpetration.

The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 4-item 'Perception of Peer In-Person and Electronic Dating Violence Perpetration' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in in-person or electronic dating violence perpetration. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer in-person and electronic dating violence perpetration.

The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 3-item 'Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in substance use and fighting. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer substance use and fighting.

The Perception of Peer Risk Behaviors measure includes 7 items, including a 3-item 'Perception of Peer Substance Use and Fighting' subscale, that assesses youth perception of the total number of friends who engage in substance use and fighting. It is scored from 1 (None of them) to 5 (All of them) for each item with a total average score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores reflect greater perception of peer substance use and fighting.