At the AMOSSHE National Conference this year, we shared early findings from a pilot we ran exploring one increasingly important question: how can institutions evidence the impact of harassment and sexual misconduct prevention training?
In 2025, the Office for Students (OfS) published the largest survey of its kind on sexual misconduct in English higher education, involving more than 50,000 final-year undergraduates. Nearly one in four respondents reported experiencing sexual harassment during their studies, while more than one in seven reported sexual assault or violence. Just 13.2% of harassment incidents were formally reported to institutions.
These findings highlight the scale of the challenge facing universities. They also reinforce why prevention training remains a critical part of institutional responses to harassment and sexual misconduct.
Following the introduction of OfS Condition E6 in August 2025, many institutions focused on implementing training programmes and demonstrating compliance. However, the sector is already moving toward a new phase. As monitoring and regulatory scrutiny continue to develop, institutions are seeking evidence that training is effective, not simply available. So the question about whether training is working has become impossible to set aside.
To support this shift, Epigeum has developed a two-layer approach to impact measurement of our Prevention & Response courses (starting with Consent Matters in 2025, and extending to Tackling Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in 2026).
The first layer consists of already established completion and quiz data, allowing institutions to track participation, completion rates and assessment performance. This provides valuable evidence of engagement and knowledge acquisition, while also supporting reporting and compliance requirements.
The second layer introduces efficacy surveys, designed to explore whether training creates a measurable shift in how learners think and feel. Rather than replacing completion data, these surveys add a complementary dimension, helping institutions understand the effectiveness of the training itself.
How the Efficacy Surveys Work
The design principle was simple: learners answer two or three questions before beginning a module and then respond to the same questions again after completion. Responses remain anonymous and are aggregated into cohort-level reporting. The questions are directly mapped to module learning outcomes and were developed alongside course authors and subject experts.
- Attitude – what learners believe and value.
- Confidence – how capable learners feel in relevant situations.
- Understanding – what learners know and comprehend about key concepts.
Importantly, the surveys do not claim to measure behavioural change directly. Instead, they provide a learner-reported indication of whether the training has influenced confidence, understanding or attitudes.
What the Data Shows
- Confidence: +3%
- Understanding: +2%
- Attitude: +1%
At first glance, these gains may appear modest and it is worth exploring why. Most learners already started with average scores above 4.5 on a five-point scale. When participants begin with strong attitudes and high levels of understanding, large gains become statistically difficult to achieve. In values-based training, small positive movements are often the expected outcome rather than evidence of limited effectiveness.
Where Training Has the Greatest Impact
The most compelling results emerged when examining learners who began with lower baseline scores. Among 983 learners across 17 institutions who entered training with pre-survey scores between one and three out of five, the average improvement across all questions was 22%. Attitudinal measures increased by up to 30%, understanding by up to 27%, and confidence by up to 22%.
These findings suggest that the training is achieving its greatest impact among learners who have the most significant gaps in knowledge, confidence or attitudinal alignment. This pattern was also visible at individual institutional level.
The lesson is clear: averages tell only part of the story. Looking deeper into the data reveals where the programme is having its most meaningful effect.
What Institutions Can Do With Impact Data
During a recent Community of Practice discussion, participating institutions identified several ways this type of evidence could be used. The most common applications included reporting to leadership and governing bodies, evaluating and improving training programmes, encouraging engagement through evidence of positive outcomes, and building longitudinal evidence to track progress over time.
Looking Ahead
The pilot findings suggest that learner-reported efficacy data can provide institutions with a credible additional layer of evidence alongside completion and assessment metrics. While no survey alone can demonstrate long-term cultural change, these results offer a useful indicator of whether training is influencing learner confidence, understanding and attitudes in the ways it was designed to.
As institutions continue to respond to evolving regulatory expectations and sector challenges, the ability to evidence impact is likely to become an increasingly important part of the conversation.
.tmb-thumbnail.webp?Culture=en&sfvrsn=dbd78b16_1 "Beatriz Antonieta Moya Figueroa")
