The Impact of a High School-Based Positive Youth Development Program on Sexual Health Outcomes: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial
Walsh, Sarah; Jenner, Eric; Qaragholi, Noor; Henley, Catherine; Demby, Hilary; Leger, Rebekah; Burgess, Kelly (2022). Journal of School Health, v92 n12 p1155-1164. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1355298
-
examining1,523Students, grade9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decision making skills (Walsh et al 2022) |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
5.31 |
5.13 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
School engagement (Walsh et al, 2022) |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
4.79 |
4.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Connections with peers (Walsh et al 2022) |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
5.84 |
5.76 |
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: 50%
Male: 49%
Other or unknown: 1% -
Rural, Urban
-
- 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
North Carolina, New York
-
Race Black 29% Other or unknown 47% Two or more races 8% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Other or unknown 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted 18 high schools in North Carolina (11 schools) and New York City (7 schools) during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. In North Carolina, the schools were in rural areas and served large Hispanic populations. The New York City high schools served a mix of Hispanic, Black/African American, and other under-represented groups.
Study sample
Participants were approximately 14 years old at baseline. The participants were 50% female and 49% male. Roughly one-third of participants identified as Hispanic. The racial breakdown of the participants was 29% Black/African American, 16% White, 8% Multiracial, and 18% Other Race. Twenty-nine percent of students did not specify their race.
Intervention Group
Peer Group Connection (PGC-HS) was led by 11th and 12th-grade peer leaders selected by trained faculty advisors. Peer leaders led groups of 10-14 9th grade students in 45-minute sessions implemented in school and supplemental to their required coursework. The sessions focused on positive youth development topics, including school attachment, motivation, and decision-making. Intervention duration varied from one semester to the full academic year. The study considered PGC-HS to be fully implemented if schools completed at least 18 of the 26 planned sessions and included three key activities: Activity Day, Family Night, and Service-Learning.
Comparison Group
Control group students attended their regularly scheduled classes during PGC-HS sessions. School administrators confirmed that these regular classes did not include sexual or reproductive health components on days when PGC-HS sessions occurred.
Support for implementation
Faculty advisors participated in an 18-month training course to learn how to run the program, and they taught peer leaders in a daily leadership course.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).