Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Allen, J. P., & Philliber, S. Who benefits most from a broadly targeted prevention program? Differential efficacy across populations in the Teen Outreach Program. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(6), 637-655. Study 2Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64(4), 729-742.
Outcomes
Outcome 1: Teen pregnancy |
Description of Measures
|
Teen pregnancy was measured with a researcher-developed self-report questionnaire. Facilitators administered the questionnaire to students at the beginning of the school year or upon participants' entry to the program (pretest) and at the end of the school year or upon participants' exit from the program (posttest). The pretest questionnaire assessed pregnancy with a single item, which asked whether the student had ever been pregnant (females) or caused a pregnancy (males). The posttest questionnaire also used one item to assess pregnancy, asking whether the student had been pregnant (females) or caused a pregnancy (males) during the prior school year. Pre- and posttest findings were then statistically analyzed to determine the relative risk of teen pregnancy.
|
Key Findings
|
In one study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of pregnancy that was 53% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.53; p < .001), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., racial/ethnic minority, history of pregnancy). In addition, among study participants who were teen parents at pretest, those participating in TOP had a risk of pregnancy that was 18% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.18; p < .01).
In another study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of pregnancy that was 41% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.41; p < .05), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., demographics, prior problem behaviors).
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental, Quasi-experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.2
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Outcome 2: Academic achievement |
Description of Measures
|
Academic achievement was measured with a researcher-developed self-report questionnaire that used a single item to assess whether the student had failed any courses during the prior school year. Facilitators administered the questionnaire to students at the beginning of the school year or upon participants' entry to the program (pretest) and at the end of the school year or upon participants' exit from the program (posttest). Pre- and posttest findings were then statistically analyzed to determine the relative risk of course failure.
|
Key Findings
|
In one study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of course failure that was 60% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.60; p < .001), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., racial/ethnic minority, history of pregnancy). In addition, the study found that:
- Among female study participants, those participating in TOP had a risk of course failure that was 52% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.52; p < .001).
- Among racial/ethnic minority study participants, those participating in TOP had a risk of course failure that was 52% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.52; p < .001).
- Among students with a prior suspension history at pretest, those participating in TOP had a risk of course failure that was 43% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.43; p < .001).
In another study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of course failure that was 42% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.42; p < .001), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., demographics, prior problem behaviors).
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental, Quasi-experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Outcome 3: Academic suspension |
Description of Measures
|
Academic suspension was measured with a researcher-developed self-report questionnaire that used a single item to ask whether the student had been suspended from school in the prior year. Facilitators administered the questionnaire to students at the beginning of the school year or upon participants' entry to the program (pretest) and at the end of the school year or upon participants' exit from the program (posttest). Pre- and posttest findings were then statistically analyzed to determine the relative risk of academic suspension.
|
Key Findings
|
In one study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of academic suspension that was 52% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.52; p < .001), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., being in younger grades in high school, history of prior course failure and academic suspension, lower levels of parents' education, living in a single-parent family).
In another study, at posttest, students participating in TOP had a risk of academic suspension that was 39% that of control group participants (odds ratio = 0.39; p < .001), after controlling for significant background factors (i.e., demographics, prior problem behaviors).
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental, Quasi-experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
Study 1
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
73.2% Male 26.8% Female
|
45.2% Black or African American 36.8% White 12.8% Hispanic or Latino 5.3% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
Study 2
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
84.6% Female 15.4% Male
|
67.2% Black or African American 18.7% White 11.2% Hispanic or Latino 2.9% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
1: Teen pregnancy
|
1.5
|
2.0
|
0.8
|
3.1
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.2
|
2: Academic achievement
|
1.5
|
2.1
|
0.8
|
3.1
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.3
|
3: Academic suspension
|
1.5
|
2.1
|
0.8
|
3.1
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.3
|
Study Strengths The validity of the student self-report measures for course failure and academic suspension was assessed in a sample of students by examining school records. Hours of volunteer service and classroom sessions attended were tracked in both studies, and one study analyzed the dosage effects of these factors. Attrition was low in both studies. Attrition analysis was thorough and revealed no significant differences between intervention and control groups. The analyses were appropriate, thoughtful, and thorough.
Study Weaknesses All outcomes were assessed using single-item measures, and no test-retest reliability analysis was conducted on these items prior to the studies to determine the items' reliability within the population of students. Although the validity of course failure and suspension measures was assessed in a sample of students by examining school records, it was found that a quarter of these students did not accurately self-report. For the teen pregnancy measure, validity is limited to face validity. Intervention fidelity was difficult to establish because facilitators had considerable latitude in the topics they covered. Evidence of adherence to the curriculum was not provided. In one study, respondents had various points of entry into the study (random assignment, self-selection, and referral); although this concern is mitigated by careful analyses of group differences on available variables, the potential for selection bias remains. The administration of pre- and posttest questionnaires by TOP facilitators may have influenced students' responses.
|
|
Readiness for Dissemination
Materials Reviewed
The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation
point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention
and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.
Philliber Research Associates. The evaluation of Teen Outreach: A guide for program sites. Accord, NY: Author.
Quality assurance materials:
- Format and Process for Club and Site Visits
- TOP Logic Model.
- TOPnet Club and Site Visit Report
- Wyman TOPnet Club and Site Visitor's Checklist
Sense Corp. Wyman TOPnet phase II training. Version 1.2. Saint Louis, MO: Author.
Training and support resources:
- Facilitator Training Evaluation
- Facilitator Training Outline and PowerPoint
- Follow the TOP Approach, Wyman's Teen Outreach Program Facilitator Training Guide.
- TOP Training Overview
- Trainer Kit List and Training of Trainer Guide
- Training of Trainers Evaluation
- Training of Trainers Outline
- Wyman Teen Outreach Program Facilitator Training Logic Model.
Wyman Teen Outreach Program. Changing Scenes curriculum. Eureka, MO: Wyman Center:
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman Teen Outreach Program (TOP): Welcome handbook
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman TOP: Community service learning guide
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman TOP: Level 1
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman TOP: Level 2
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman TOP: Level 3
- Changing Scenes, a curriculum of the Wyman TOP: Level 4
- Participant handouts
Other implementation materials:
- Chung, S., & Philipps, A. Promoting mental health and well being in adolescence: Recommendations for Wyman's Teen Outreach Program. Eureka, MO: Wyman Center.
- Letter of Intent for Partners and Partner Application
- Materials Order Form
- Reducing and Preventing Teen Violence: Recommendations for Wyman Teen Outreach Program
- Sample Materials for Partners
- Teen Outreach Program: For the Teens (Potential Partner Presentation)
- TOP Budgeting Tool and Club Start Up Kit
- TOP Facilitator Sample Job Description
- TOP Frequently Asked Questions
- Virtual Volunteer Guide
Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination
using three criteria:
- Availability of implementation materials
- Availability of training and support resources
- Availability of quality assurance procedures
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.
Implementation
Materials
|
Training and Support
Resources
|
Quality Assurance
Procedures
|
Overall
Rating
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
3.8
|
3.9
|
Dissemination Strengths Implementation handbooks include concise and practical information that covers a variety of social issues experienced by adolescents, and they offer creative activities associated with the lessons. Program staff are required to attend the implementation training to ensure program stability. A training-of-trainers program certifies experienced facilitators at sites implementing the program to train new facilitators. Fidelity standards and site visit protocols allow opportunities to provide feedback to implementers along with corrective actions that are easy to follow. The evaluation guide includes guidance for collecting outcome data using an assortment of assessment tools.
Dissemination Weaknesses Program materials lack details to help the facilitator provide quality assurance for day-to-day implementation at the program level.
|
|
Costs
The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information
may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect
the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued
items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and
discuss implementation requirements.
Item Description
|
Cost
|
Required by Developer
|
Initial start-up package (includes cost of off-site training of trainers for one participant; data collection for the first year of implementation, with report; 8 hours of technical assistance; a site visit during the first year, which includes staff assistance; and 10 sets of the Changing Scenes curriculum)
|
$26,000 each
|
Yes
|
Additional Changing Scenes curriculum (includes a welcome handbook, curriculum manuals for levels 1-4, a community service learning guide, and participant handouts)
|
$500 per set
|
No
|
5-day, off-site training of trainers at the developer site in Missouri (includes the 2.5-day facilitator training, two coaching calls after training, and additional support resources)
|
$6,000 per participant
|
Yes
|
2.5-day, off-site facilitator training
|
$750 per participant
|
Yes, for those who do not participate in the training of trainers
|
Technical assistance (on-site, telephone, or email)
|
$75 per hour, plus travel expenses if necessary
|
No
|
Annual certification fees
|
$6,000 for 50 clubs or up to 1,000 youth; $1,000 for each additional 10 clubs or 250 youth
|
Yes
|
Additional Information One participant per site is required to attend the training of trainers, although more may attend at the site's discretion. New sites are encouraged to train their own facilitators, but outside facilitator trainings are available through other sites as noted above. The cost per school year to implement TOP averages between $410 and $640 per teen, depending on staff, transportation, food, supplies, and meeting space. Programs held during the school day have the lowest cost structure since most variables are already covered with existing school budgets.
|