Flay, B., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., & Beets, M. (2006). Available from Positive Action, Inc. 264 4th Avenue South, Twin Falls, ID 83301.
Reviewed: April 2007
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 Positive Action (PA).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade retention |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Reading (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
52.00 |
44.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Math (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
26.00 |
21.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illegal drug use |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
0.00 |
2.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Being drunk |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
0.74 |
3.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Suspensions |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Serious violence |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5: Boys;
|
10.80 |
23.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Alcohol use |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
9.63 |
14.83 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Tobacco use |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
3.33 |
4.78 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Serious violence |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5: Girls;
|
5.80 |
3.60 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 33% | |
| Black | 1% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Pacific Islander | 41% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 98% |
The study was conducted in 20 K–5 or K–6 schools in Hawaii. Five pairs of matched participating schools were from Oahu, three pairs were from Maui, and two pairs were from Molokai.
The study tracked students who started grades K–1 in the 2001–02 academic year. The report reviewed by the WWC examined the outcomes of 2,666 third- and fourthgrade students at the end of the third year of program implementation. These outcomes included students who had remained in the school since the beginning of the study as well as new students in the school. About 25% of the students surveyed each year were new to the school. The students were enrolled in 20 elementary schools that were randomly assigned into conditions. A small percentage of the students were white (13.40% in the intervention school and 17.94% in the comparison). Among the remaining students the following ethnic groups were represented: Hawaiian, Filipino, Asian (other), Japanese, Samoan, Hispanic, Chinese, Black, and Portuguese. About 60% of the schools in the sample were Title I schools.
The program consisted of the Positive Action curriculum and additional components that involved school principals, counselors, parents, and community members. The components addressed school and classroom management, school climate, family and community involvement, and skills and knowledge related to core values.1 The report reviewed by the WWC presented findings for the end of the third year of program implementation. The authors report that by the third year, two schools were still implementing at a very low level, three at a moderate-to-high level, and five at a high level. But even the high-implementation schools were still not implementing at the level the program developer would expect for high-implementation schools. For example, few schools implemented the family- or community-involvement programs.
The comparison schools were drawn from the same school districts as the intervention schools and were matched on demographic characteristics, student behavior, and academic achievement. Comparison schools did not implement the Positive Action program. The comparison schools had other types of character education activities they regarded as business-as-usual, which were also practiced (although to a lesser extent) in the intervention schools.1
The study examined students’ outcomes in the academic achievement and behavior domains. Outcomes in the academic achievement domain included percent proficient on the reading and math sections of a state standardized test and daily absences. Outcomes in the behavior domain included students’ reports of use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Prior to each school year, the program developer, Dr. Allred, provided teacher/staff training to each intervention school. The training lasted 3–4 hours the first year and 1–2 hours each of the subsequent years. In addition, Dr. Allred visited each school at least once each year to provide an in-service session (usually 30–50 minutes). Finally, 5–6 representatives from each intervention school participated each winter in a mini-conference to obtain further training on the schoolwide components of the program and to share experiences.
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