To determine preliminary youth outcomes, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to compare intervention and control group participants by age, grade, gender, and baseline scores on all measures. It was determined that the students who had participated in the intervention were more likely than the control group children to be in fourth grade and younger (Mendeleson et al., 2010). When the psychosocial variables were assessed from the pretest, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group (Mendelson et al., 2010). Intervention effects were assessed with the use of data analysis techniques. An estimation of general linear models was conducted for each …show more content…
Mendelson et al. (2010) reported multiple limitations, or characteristics of design or methodology that impacted the interpretation of the research findings. First, the small sample size of students did not provide enough power to determine true group differences and also prevented testing of moderation and mediation (Mendelson et al., 2010). There is also the limitation that the researchers do not know the Type I error rate, or the chance that a false positive occurred do to the rejection of a hypothesis when the results could have happened by chance (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Even thought the findings are consistent with an intervention effect, there can be no inference of causal effects because Mendelson et al. (2010) did not take into account for the clustered nature of the data. Mendelson et al. (2010) also reported that they did not utilize hierarchical linear models due to the fact that there were only four schools in the study. Mendelson et al. (2010) may have recruited more highly motivated students and students who have parents that are more engaged, thus biasing the sample population of students. This bias of sampling alludes to the fact that the students who participated may not truly represent the intended study population. According to McMillan and Schumacher (2010), a review of literature should summarize and analyze previously reported research that is directly related to the current study. Overall,
At the start of the study, at total of 150 students were identified as potential participants
This project will employ a Population-Intervention-Comparative-Outcome (PICO) fromat for development of the research question to be investigated:
The Indicated Review had 80 studies involving 11,337 students (Weissberg, Taylor, Schellinger, Payton, Pachan, Dymicki and Durlak,
The study design included a sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools with an unequal probability of selection, ensuring representativeness with regard to region of country, urban city, school size, school type, and ethnicity. The sample has been followed through adolescence and early adulthood (with ongoing data collection). More than 20,000 students participated in the first wave of data between years 1994 and 1995.1 Approximately 15,700
2. What data and method does the author use to evaluate this intervention? Why was that data and method used?
This can be one of the selected articles from your previous literature review or a new peer-reviewed article.
The article’s researchers believed that it is necessary to research the efficacy of these claimed evidence based interventions.
There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.
o Review of related literature: In what ways does the literature review support the need for this study?
Cullen and Gendreau compare and contrast the many studies on this subject, the meta-analyses conclusions, their strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and the trends that follow the studies
A Chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the purpose of going to school in boys and girls. A significant interaction was not found (χ2 (2, N = 478) = 21.45, p < .001, ΦCramer = .21).
Thus, providing a model for the delivery of health care to adolescents’ using primary and secondary interventions to promote optimal healthy psychological, social, and physical growth and development in adolescents’ ages 11-21 year old. The model includes screening questionnaires that are filled out independently by parent and youth. The questionnaires allow the adolescent patient to state the reason for their visit, health risk behaviors, and any health concerns they may have. The AMA provides questionnaires tailored for multiple age groups; young adolescent 11 to 14 years, middle-older adolescent 15 to 21 years, as well as one for the parent or guardian. This helps target the risk behavior must relevant to the adolescent’s own experience and streamlines screening during an annual adolescent health examination.
For this we need to make a literature review which we have bundled relevant information for our research.
The objective of this chapter is to describe the procedures used in the analysis of the data and present the main findings. It also presents the different tests performed to help choose the appropriate model for the study. The chapter concludes by providing thorough statistical interpretation of the findings.
A meta-analysis approach was employed using electronic databases, current journals, and bibliographic articles were gathered from 1980 to 2011.