Evaluation of the Too Good for Drugs and Violence--High school prevention program.
Bacon, T. P. (2001). . A report produced for the Florida Department of Education, Department of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
-
examining302Students, grades9-12
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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;
|
4.08 |
3.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perceptions of emotional competence |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
4.04 |
3.72 |
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 |
|
|
|
Positive attitudes towards nonviolence |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
3.78 |
3.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perceptions of assertiveness and efficacy |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
4.18 |
3.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Perceptions of goal setting and decisionmaking skills |
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFD & V) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 9 - 12;
|
3.59 |
3.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
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 |
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: 54%
Male: 46% -
- 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 79% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91%
Study Details
Setting
One large school district in Florida.
Study sample
The study included 303 students in 20 classrooms across five high schools. About 54% of the total sample were females. The overall sample was primarily white (79%), with an equal number of African-American and Hispanic students (9%). The majority of the sample were ninth graders (81%) followed by 10% tenth graders, 5% eleventh graders, and 5% twelfth graders.
Intervention Group
The Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFDV) program, implemented during health or personal fitness classes, was integrated into the fourth quarter of instruction. Teachers delivered the programs in nine weeks rather than the program’s intended 18-week, or semester, time frame. Therefore, teachers delivered two lessons a week rather than one. In addition, the TGFDV program components related to infusing lesson units into other subject areas and strategies for community involvement were not implemented in this study.
Comparison Group
Students in the control group received the standard health and personal fitness curriculum and were not exposed to the TGFVD curriculum.
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
Teachers received one day of training provided by representatives of the Mendez Foundation.
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).