Flay, Brian R.; Allred, Carol G. (2003). American Journal of Health Behavior, v27 supplement 1 pS6-21 2003. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ676774
Reviewed: July 2022
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Reviewed: February 2018
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Florida Comprehensive Aptitude Test (FCAT): reading subtest |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
106.00 |
73.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Florida Comprehensive Aptitude Test (FCAT) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
292.67 |
278.42 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in schools from a large south-eastern school district.
The study examines outcomes for schools with elementary, middle, and high school-aged students, all of interest under the topic area review protocol.
The Positive Action program includes a curriculum with scripted lessons for school teachers, as well as, school-wide activities and events that are aimed at building a positive climate, values, and positive self-concept. The program also has family and community components with specific kits targeted for use by families and communities. The kits include program guides, activities, and materials that are aligned with school program activities.
Non-PA schools either never used PA or had stopped using it 4 or more years before the 1997-98 school year.
Teachers utilized scripted lessons. Special program kits were available for schools, families, and communities respectively that included program guides, activities, and materials that were all aligned with the school program.
Reviewed: April 2007
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Positive Action (PA).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absentee rates |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1 -6;
|
10.79 |
12.36 |
No |
-- | |
|
Florida Comprehensive Aptitude Test (FCAT) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
290.90 |
278.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Violence rates |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1- 6;
|
3.83 |
12.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Suspensions rates |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1- 6;
|
2.71 |
4.09 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 25% | |
| White | 50% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 80% |
The participating schools were from one large Southeastern school district. The school district was characterized by a large number of school sites (about 65) that have implemented Positive Action for four or more years.
The study included 36 elementary schools. About 62% of the students in the intervention group participated in the free or reduced-price lunch program compared with 67% in the comparison group. About half of the students were white (50.59% in the intervention group and 44.66% in the comparison group). About one-fourth of the students were African-American (24.61% in the intervention group and 28.48% in the comparison group). About one-fifth of the students were Hispanic (20.71% in the intervention group and 23.23% in the comparison group). Because schools in the intervention and comparison conditions were matched, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the two groups.
The program consisted of the Positive Action curriculum and additional activities that involved school principals, parents, and community members. The components addressed school and classroom management, learning climate, and skills and knowledge related to core values.1
The comparison schools were drawn from the same school district as the intervention schools and were matched on demographic characteristics. Comparison schools did not implement the Positive Action program.
The study measures in the behavior domain included violence and suspensions rates. The study measures in the academic achievement domain included the Florida Comprehensive Aptitude Test (FCAT) and grade retention rates. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
No information on teacher training was provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube