. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Apr 5.

Published in final edited form as: J Community Psychol. 2007 Oct 25;35(8):981–999. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20207

Table 2.

Correlations Between Implementation Quality Outcomes and Potential Correlates

	Family-focused intervention			School-based intervention
Potential correlates	Adherence	Group participation	Facilitator quality	Adherence	Student engagement
Team factors
Team effectiveness	−.16	−.01	−.12	.03^a	.25
	.13	.07	.13	.43	−.00
Meeting quality	−.03	−.10	−.12	−.20	.17
	−.05	−.04	−.12	.58^*	.05
Team attitude regarding prevention	.02	.10	−.02	−.16	.55^*
	.23	.35	.43	.51⁺	.29
Effective technical assistance collaboration	−.10	−.12	−.02	−.03	.25
	−.24	−.29	−.29	.57^*	.00
Frequency of technical assistance requests	.27	.02	.05	.04	−.09
	.14	−.11	−.06	−.01	.08
Instructor factors
Instructor affiliation	n/a	n/a	n/a	.43	.47
				.40	.19
Instructor use of lecturing	n/a	n/a	n/a	−.72^**	−.24
				.25	−.09

Note. Values for Cohort 1 are placed above values for Cohort 2.

After controlling for supportive district policy, the relationship between Team Effectiveness and Adherence to the school-based program in Cohort 1 became significant, partial r = .54, p ≤ .10. Controlling for supportive district policy did not cause any other nonsignificant (p > .10) relationship to become significant (p ≤ .10), nor did it cause any significant (p ≤ .10) relationship to become nonsignificant (p > .10).

⁺

p ≤ .10.

p ≤ .05.

^**

p ≤ .01.