Hall, Bruce W.; Bacon, Tina P. (2005). Journal of School Violence, v4 n4 p63-83. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ845785
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Violence (TGFV).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher checklist of Student Behaviors- Total score |
Too Good For Violence (TGFV) vs. None |
20 week follow-up |
Grade 3;
|
4.17 |
3.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student Protective Factor Survey- Total score |
Too Good For Violence (TGFV) vs. None |
20 week follow-up |
Grade 3;
|
3.89 |
3.70 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 13% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 44% |
| Hispanic | 36% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 64% |
One large school district in Florida serving students from urban, suburban, and rural regions.
The study included 999 third-grade students from 10 elementary schools. Of the sample, 48% were females, 20% received exceptional education services, 17% received limited English proficiency services, 44% were Caucasian, 12.5% African-American, 36% Hispanic, and 7.5% “multicultural or other race.” About 54% of the students in the sample were eligible for participation in the free or reduced lunch program.
The program was implemented during the first quarter of the school year. The program instructors in the intervention group delivered seven lesson units—one a week—over a seven-week period, with each lesson averaging 45 minutes in length.
Students in the comparison group did not participate in the Too Good for Violence program. In addition, the comparison schools were asked to refrain from delivering any major prevention curriculum or program until the fourth quarter.
The two measures, the Student Protective Factor Survey Questionnaire and the Teacher Checklist of Student Behaviors, were administered immediately after the intervention and again 20 weeks later. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.)
The program was delivered by program instructors (off-site educators). So no teacher training was conducted.
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. (2003). Technical report: The effects of the Too Good for Violence prevention program on student behaviors and protective factors. Tampa, FL: C. E. Mendez Foundation, Inc. Available from: Mendez Foundation, 601 S. Magnolia Avenue, Tampa, FL 33606.
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