Bacon, T. P. (2000). Florida Educational Research Council, Inc., Research Bulletin, 31 (3 & 4), 1–25.
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 Drugs (TGFD).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Resistance skills |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
4.36 |
4.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peers disapprove use |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
3.73 |
3.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Intentions for marijuana |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Intentions for drinking |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Locus of control |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
4.37 |
4.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
Prosocial peers |
Too Good for Drugs (TGFD) vs. Business as usual |
Follow-up |
Grade 6;
|
4.58 |
4.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 6% | |
| Black | 33% | |
| White | 48% |
| Hispanic | 13% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 87% |
One large school district in Florida that serves students from urban, suburban, and rural regions.
The comparison group included 1,318 sixth-grade students from six middle schools. About 51% of the student population in these schools in eligible for participation in the free or reduced lunch program. Of the sample, 52% were females, 48% were Caucasian, 33% African-American, 13% Hispanic, and 6% Asian.
The Too Good for Drugs™ sixth-grade curriculum consisted of nine lesson units averaging 45 minutes in length. The program was implemented during the first quarter of the school year.
The comparison group was drawn from matched schools in the same school district. Comparison group students did not participate in the Too Good for Drugs™ program at the time of the study but received this program at the fourth quarter of the school year.
Students responded to survey items assessing students’ intentions to use marijuana and their perceptions of peer resistance skills, positive attitudes toward nondrug use, perceptions of peer normative substance use, perceptions of peer disapproval of substance use, prosocial peer relationships, and locus of control. (See Appendix A2.2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
All lessons were delivered by program instructors (trained off-site educators), so no training of teachers was done.
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