Examining the effectiveness of a sexual abuse prevention program designed for individuals with intellectual disabilities in adolescence

The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a sexual abuse prevention program designed for individuals with intellectual disabilities aged 12 to 25 during adolescence. This study was conducted using survey design and quasi-experimental design, which are among the quantitative research methods. The data collection tools used in the study are the Sexual Abuse Self-Protection Knowledge Test, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, and the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. For the validity and reliability study of the scales included in the research, 180 individuals with mild intellectual disabilities aged between 12 and 25 were included. In the experimental process, 38 individuals with mild intellectual disabilities aged between 15 and 18 (experimental=19 and control=19) participated. As a result of the research, it was determined that the Sexual Abuse Self-Protection Knowledge Test, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, and the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale are valid and reliable measurement tools for individuals with mild intellectual disabilities in adolescence. It was found that there was a significant increase in the self-protection knowledge levels against sexual abuse among participants in the experimental group after the Sexual Abuse Self-Protection Training Program (F = -2.90; p < .05), whereas there was no significant change among participants in the control group (F = -2.53; p < .05). It was determined that the implemented SASPTP did not cause a significant difference in the self-concept scores of the experimental group (F = 1.68; p > .05), whereas the self-concept scores of the control group showed a significant decrease from the pre-test to the post-test (F = 5.58; p < .05). When examining the post-test measurements after SASPTP, it was observed that both the state and trait anxiety levels of participants in the experimental group (who participated in the program) and the control group (who did not participate) decreased, and remained almost the same in the follow-up measurements. Regardless of the distinction between the experimental and control groups, it was found that the difference between the mean scores from the four measurements was not significant for trait anxiety levels (F(3,108) = 1.56; p > .05), but the difference between the mean scores for state anxiety levels was significant (F(2,78) = 4.35; p < .05).