Impact on high school students’ behaviors and protective factors: A pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence prevention program.
Bacon, T. P. (2001). Florida Educational Research Council, Inc. Research Bulletin, 32(3 & 4), 1–40.
-
examining200Students, grades9-12
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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 Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V).
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Perceptions of social and resistance skills |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
4.07 |
3.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perception of emotional competence |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
4.09 |
3.79 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Positive attitudes towards non-violence |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
3.97 |
3.55 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perceptions of parental negative attitudes towards substance use |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
3.76 |
3.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Intentions for fighting (no intentions) |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Intentions for marijuana (no intentions) |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perceptions of assertiveness/efficacy skills |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
4.17 |
3.98 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
-
Race Black 9% White 68% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
One school district in Florida.
Study sample
The study included 394 students from 11 classrooms in one high school. About 49% of the total sample were females. The majority of the students (68%) were white, followed by 20% Hispanic, and 9% African-American. Almost half of the sample (46%) were ninth grade students, 26% were tenth graders, 12% eleventh graders, and 16% twelfth graders. About 9% of the sample was of a low socioeconomic background.
Intervention Group
The TGFDV group received 14 lessons during health classes. Each lesson ranged from 45 to 55 minutes.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated in the standard health and personal fitness curriculum and were not exposed to the TGFDV program content or any equivalent program.
Outcome descriptions
Students responded to paper-and-pencil questionnaires that assessed intentions to use marijuana and engage in fighting, attitudes toward nonviolence, perceptions of emotional competency skills, perceptions of social and peer resistance skills, perceptions of assertiveness skills, attitudes toward drugs, perceptions of peer norms, perceptions of peer approval, and perceptions of goals and decisionmaking skills. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
All lessons were delivered by program instructors (trained off-site educators). So, no training of teachers was done.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Bacon, T. P. (2001). Impact on high school students’ behaviors and protective factors: A pilot study of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence prevention program. Florida Educational Research Council, Inc. Research Bulletin, 32(3 & 4), 1–40.
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).