Using a Meta-analytic Technique to Assess the Relationship between Treatment Intensity and Program Effects in a Cluster-Randomized Trial
- 369 Downloads
School bullying and delinquent behaviors are persistent and pervasive problems for schools, and have lasting effects for all individuals involved (Copeland et al., JAMA Psychiatry 70:419–426, 2013; Espelage et al., J Res Adolesc 24(2):337–349, 2013a). As a result, policymakers and practitioners have attempted to thwart these ill-effects using school-based interventions. Recent meta-analyses have found, however, that these programs produce only moderate effects (Ttofi and Farrington, J Exp Criminol 7:27–56, 2011). Consequently, it is important to investigate further the reasons for such findings. One promising analysis is to assess the relation between treatment intensity variables and program outcomes. Unfortunately, few treatment intensity variables have been utilized in the school-based prevention literature, and it is often cumbersome to model the relation between treatment intensity and outcomes. The purpose of this project, therefore, is to explicate novel measures of treatment intensity and delineate a relatively new meta-analytic technique to model the relation between the variables and program effects. The context for this project is a large-scale, multi-site, cluster-randomized trial; 36 schools and 3,616 students participated in three waves of data collection. The results indicated that, for the second wave of data collection, stronger treatment effects were found when teachers and program implementers spent a greater amount of time prepping lessons, provided additional financial resources, and received outside consultation and support.
KeywordsBullying Victimization Treatment intensity Meta-analysis Robust variance estimation
Research for the current study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, or related offices within.
- American Educational Research Association. (2013). Prevention of bullying in schools, colleges, and universities: Research report and recommendations. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school-randomized controlled trial of STEPS to RESPECT: A Bullying Prevention Program. School Psychology Review, 40, 423–443.Google Scholar
- Committee for Children. (2008). Second step: Student Success through Prevention Program. Seattle, WA: Author.Google Scholar
- Cordray, D. S. (2014). Fidelity of implementation.IES summer training institute for cluster-randomized control trials. Lecture conducted at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
- Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 562–581.Google Scholar
- Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2014). robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression (Version 1.0). Retrieved from: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robumeta/robumeta.pdf.
- Inc, Survey Monkey. (2014). SuveryMonkey [computer software]. Palo Alto, CA: SurveyMonkey Inc.Google Scholar
- Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Understanding how and why psychotherapy leads to change. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4), 418–428.Google Scholar
- Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 310–331). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Unlu, F., Bozzi, L., Layzer, C., Smith, A., Price, C., & Hurtig, R. (2013, March). Linking implementation fidelity to impacts in an RCT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC. Abstract retrieved from https://www.sree.org/conferences/2013s/program/downloads/abstracts/826.pdf.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar
- vanGeel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA pediatrics, Advanced Online Publication. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143.
- Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect Respect: A school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 327–350). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar