Table 3.
Implementation Fidelity of Tested and Effective Programs in the Intervention (CTC) and Control (C) Communities
| OUTCOME | PROGRAM 2005 | PROGRAM 2007 | TEACHER 2007 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTC | C | CTC | C | CTC | C | |
| ADHERENCE | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Staff Training | 89% | 72% | 76% | 79% | 42% | 53% |
| W+=26, W−=10 (n=8), p<0.32 | W+=7, W−=8 (n=5), p<1.0 | W+=13, W−=32 (n=9), p<0.30 | ||||
| Teacher Manual | 96% | 80% | ||||
| W+=1, W−=0 (n=1), p<1.0 | ||||||
| Participant Materials1 | 92% | 100% | ||||
| Content Delivered | 92% | 70% | 91% | 81% | ||
| W+=27, W−=1 (n=7), p<0.05 | W+=16, W−=5 (n=6), p<0.32 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| DOSAGE | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Lessons Taught | 98% | 71% | 97% | 90% | ||
| W+=10, W−=0 (n=4), p<0.13 | W+=3, W−=3 (n=3), p<1.0 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| PARTICIPANT RESPONSIVENESS | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Good Attendance | 86% | 82% | 82% | 81% | ||
| W+=34, W−=11 (n=9), p<0.21 | W+=21, W−=15 (n=8), p<0.75 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| PROGRAM OVERSIGHT | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Monitoring System | 90% | 75% | 82% | 90% | 53% | 28% |
| W+=18, W−=3 (n=6), p<0.16 | W+=4, W−=11 (n=5), p<0.44 | W+=36, W−=9 (n=9), p<0.13 | ||||
| Evaluation System | 90% | 82% | 90% | 79% | 28% | 24% |
| W+=4.5, W−=1.5 (n=3), p<0.50 | W+=9, W−=1 (n=4), p<0.25 | W+=25.5, W−=29.5 (n=10), p<0.85 | ||||
| Staff Coaching | 97% | 76% | 88% | 90% | ||
| W+=15, W−=0 (n=5), p<0.07 | W+=6, W−=9 (n=5), p<0.82 | |||||
| Quality Assurance | 82% | 56% | ||||
| W+=13.50, W−=7.50 (n=6), p<0.57 | ||||||
Note: Implementation fidelity scores were averaged across all programs in the Intervention (CTC) and Control (C) communities.
Significance tests were conducted using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/Service/Statistics/Signed_Rank_Test.html; statistically significant (p<.05) differences based on two-tailed tests are indicated in bold.
1
There were no valid comparisons on which to conduct the Wilcoxon significance test.