Appendix A1 Study characteristics: Page & D'Agostino, 2005 (quasi-experimental design)
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Study citation | Page, B. & D'Agostino, A. (2005). Connect with Kids: 2004–2005 Study Results for Kansas and Missouri. Available from: Compass Consulting Group, LLC. 5726 Fayetteville Road, Suite 203, Durham, NC 27713. |
| Participants | More than 800 elementary, middle, and high school students from 46 classrooms (24 intervention and 22 comparison) at 12 schools participated in the study. The study authors describe the sample as representing a diverse student population for urbanicity (urban, suburban, and rural school districts), socio-economic status, gender, ethnic and racial background, and grade level. |
| Setting | The sample was drawn from 12 elementary, middle, and high schools from eight rural, suburban, and urban school districts in Kansas and Missouri. |
| Intervention | The program was implemented during one of the following subject-matter classes, which varied among schools: English, Math, Social Studies, Life 101, Mentoring, or Choir. Intervention classrooms in both elementary and secondary schools covered the character traits in as few as 1–2 months and as many as 8 months, with the authors reporting an average of 5–6 months. Assessment of the quality of implementation indicated high quality in the elementary schools and moderate quality in the secondary schools. |
| Comparison | The comparison group was drawn partly from the intervention schools and partly from different schools in the same school district. Comparison students did not participate in any aspect of theConnect with Kids program at school. |
| Primary outcomes and measurement | Students responded to a student survey measuring their perception of their classmates' and their own behavior regarding six designated character traits. Teachers responded to a survey measuring their perception of students' classroom behavior. Some items represented positive behaviors (helping each other even if they are not friends) while others represented negative behaviors (solving problems by fighting). |
| Teacher training | A one-day workshop is offered with lectures, discussions, peer-to-peer interaction, and simulated activities that address classroom video and print materials, the password-protected website, and the shows that air on network television. |
Appendix A2 Outcome measures in the behavior domain
| Outcome measure | Description |
|---|---|
| Elementary school student survey–part 1 | On this 21-item survey, developed by the study authors for this study, elementary school students rate how often students in their class demonstrate certain behaviors associated with six core character traits: honesty, kindness, perseverance, responsibility, self-control, and tolerance. |
| Elementary school student survey–part 2 | On this 21-item survey, developed by the study authors for this study, elementary school students rate their own class behavior relative to six core character traits: honesty, kindness, perseverance, responsibility, self-control, and tolerance. |
| Middle/high school student survey–part 1 | On this 29-item survey, developed by the study authors for this study, middle and high school students rate how often students in their class demonstrate certain behaviors associated with six core character traits: honesty, kindness, perseverance, responsibility, self-control, and tolerance. |
| Middle/high school student survey–part 2 | On this 29-item survey, developed by the study authors for this study, middle and high school students rate their own class behavior relative to six core character traits: honesty, kindness, perseverance, responsibility, self-control, and tolerance. |
Appendix A3 Summary of study findings included in the rating for the behavior domain
| Author's findings from the study | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean outcome (standard deviation1) | WWC calculations | |||||||
| Outcome measure2 | Study sample | Sample size (classrooms/ students) | Connect with Kids group (column 1) | Comparison group (column 2) | Mean difference3 (column 1– column 2) | Effect size4 | Statistical significance5 (at α= 0.05) | Improvement index6 |
| Page & D'Agostino, 2005 (quasi-experimental design) | ||||||||
| Elementary school student survey–part 17 | Grades3–5 | 24 | 3.92 (0.61) | 3.75 (0.63) | 0.17 | 0.27 | ns | +10 |
| Elementary school student survey–part 27 | Grades 3–5 | 24 | 4.56 (0.42) | 4.44 (0.51) | 0.12 | 0.25 | ns | +10 |
| Middle/high school student survey–part 1 | Grades 7–12 | 22 | 3.84 (0.79) | 3.37 (0.68) | 0.47 | 0.61 | Statistically significant | +23 |
| Middle/high school student survey–part2 | Grades 7–12 | 22 | 4.25 (0.64) | 3.94 (0.59) | 0.31 | 0.48 | Statistically significant | +19 |
| Domain average8 for behavior | 0.40 | Statistically significant | +16 | |||||
|
ns = not statistically significant 1 The standard deviation across all students in each group shows how dispersed the participants' outcomes are: a smaller standard deviation on a given measure would indicate that participants had more similar outcomes. The student-level standard deviations were requested by the WWC and submitted by the study authors. Thus, the standard deviations reported here are different from the standard deviations in the study report. |
||||||||
Appendix A4 Rating for the behavior domain
The WWC rates interventions as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. 1
For the outcome domain of behavior, the WWC rated Connect with Kids as having potentially positive effects. It did not meet the criteria for positive effects, because it only had one study. The remaining ratings (mixed effects, no discernible effects, potentially negative effects, negative effects) were not considered because Connect with Kids was assigned the highest applicable rating.
| Rating received |
|---|
|
Potentially positive effects: Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
| Other ratings considered |
|
Positive effects: Strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
|
1 For rating purposes, the WWC considers the statistical significance of individual outcomes and the domain level effect. The WWC also considers the size of the domain level effect for ratings of potentially positive effects. See the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme for a complete description. |