Table 4.
Fidelity comparisons in years 1 and 2
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Change from year 1 to year 2, odd ratio (95 % CI) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adherence: How well was the MPC activity completed? | Control | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Difference of differences | |||||||
| Freq | % | Freq | % | Freq | % | Freq | % | 0.97 (0.62, 1.50) | 8.65 (4.64, 16.11)*** | Logistic b = 2.19 (1.43, 2.95)*** | ||||
| Fully | 145 | 55.7 | 165 | 57.1 | 74 | 55.0 | 156 | 92.0d | ||||||
| Partially | 83 | 31.9 | 113 | 39.1 | 48 | 36.0 | 12 | 7.0 | ||||||
| Not at all | 32 | 12.3 | 11 | 3.8c | 12 | 9.0 | 1 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Number of activity observations | 260 | 100 | 289 | 100 | 134 | 100 | 169 | 100 | ||||||
| Quality of delivery (1 = least to 7 = most)a | M (SD) | Hedges’ g (95 % CI) | M(SD) | Hedges’ g (95 % CI) | Hedges’ g (95 % CI) | Generalized omega-squaredd | ||||||||
| Control (N = 46) | Intervention (N = 51) | Control (N = 25) | Intervention (N = 29) | Control | Intervention | Difference of differences | ||||||||
| Classroom control | 4.8 (1.4) | 4.7 (1.5) | −0.08 (−0.48, 0.31) | 4.7 (1.29) | 5.4 (1.10)e | 0.68 (0.13, 1.23) | −0.13 (−0.62, 0.36) | 0.51 (0.05, 0.97) | 0.066 | |||||
| Student interest | 5.2 (1.4) | 5.1 (1.1) | −0.06 (−0.46, 0.34) | 4.9 (1.06) | 5.6 (0.95)e | 0.71 (0.16, 1.27) | −0.08 (−0.57, 0.42) | 0.89 (0.41, 1.37) | 0.051 | |||||
| Facilitator enthusiasm | 5.0 (1.1) | 4.7 (1.2) | −0.22 (−0.62, 0.18) | 4.8 (1.00) | 5.5 (0.69)e | 0.77 (0.21, 1.32) | −0.28 (−0.77, 0.21) | 0.39 (−0.07, 0.85)** | 0.015** | |||||
| Objectives met | 5.0 (1.3) | 5.1 (1.3) | 0.09 (−0.32, 0.49) | 4.9 (1.07) | 6.0 (1.09)e | 1.18 (0.59, 1.76) | −0.13 (−0.62, 0.36) | 0.70 (0.23, 1.17)** | 0.058** | |||||
| Dosageb | Control (N = 121) | Intervention (N = 200) | Hedges’ g (95 % CI) | Control (N = 103) | Intervention (N = 146) | Hedges’ g (95 % CI) | ||||||||
| Percent modules attended, M (SD) | 0.77 (0.24) | 0.73 (0.27) | −0.13 (−0.36, 0.09) | 0.74 (0.29) | 0.69 (0.29) | −0.18 (−0.43, 0.08) | −0.0004 (−0.27, 0.26) | −0.09 (−0.31, 0.12) | −0.025 | |||||
Differences in changes in fidelity ratings where noted with the following asterisks
*False discovery rate adjusted p < .05, significant at the 5 % level
**p < .01, significant at the 1 % level
***p < .001, significant at the 0.1 % level
a N = number of modules observed for quality of delivery ratings
b N = youth participants with attendance data
cIn year 1, comparing “not at all” vs. “partially + fully,” OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.92, t(519) = 2.13 p = .033
dIn year 2, comparing not at all + partially vs. fully, OR 11.81 95 % CI 4.12, 33.80, t(274) = 4.6, p < 0.001
eIn year 2, classroom delivery variables: intervention > control, t(51) = 2.49, p = 0.016 to t(50) = 4.27, p < .001