Table 5.
Study analyses and results summary
| Variable | Measures | Significant results |
|---|---|---|
| How much GTO was received? | ||
| Implementation support | TA hours delivered in year 1 | Intervention group received more TA hours (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group |
| TA hours delivered in year 2 | Intervention group received more TA hours (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group | |
| Differences between years 1 and 2 | Total TA hours increased for both groups (except for hours spent on GTO step 4), but increased more for the intervention group | |
| What impact did GTO have on sites performance and fidelity? | ||
| Performance | Year 1 interview scores | Intervention group scored higher on performance (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group |
| Year 2 interview scores | Intervention group scored higher on performance (total and for all GTO steps except step 7) than the control group | |
| Differences between year 1 and 2 | • Total scores (and scores for steps 2, 5, 8, and 10) increased for both intervention and control groups | |
| • Step 2 increased more for the intervention group | ||
| • Step 7 increased more for the control group | ||
| Fidelity | Year 1 adherence, quality of delivery1, and dosage | • Intervention group had fewer activities “not at all” completed |
| • No differences between groups on quality of delivery1 or attendance | ||
| Year 2 adherence, quality of delivery1, and dosage | • Intervention group had more activities completed in full and higher ratings of all quality of delivery variables | |
| • No differences between groups on attendance | ||
| Differences between year 1 to 2 | • Intervention group had more activities rated as completed in full an increase in the quality of delivery (two dimensions: facilitator enthusiasm and objectives met) than in year 1 | |
| • Intervention group had a greater increase in activities rated as completed in full and quality of delivery (two dimensions: facilitator enthusiasm and objectives met) than the control group | ||
| Is there empirical support for the GTO logic model? | ||
| GTO predicts performance (intervention group only) | Year 1 TA hours and interview scores | Not significant |
| Year 2 TA hours and interview scores | • TA hours predicted performance of GTO step 9 and total score | |
| • All other GTO steps were not significant | ||
| Change in TA hours and interview scores between year 1 and 2 | Not significant | |
| Performance predicts fidelity (both intervention and control group) | Year 1 performance scores and adherence | Higher performance predicts an increase in the odds of an MPC activity being rated “fully” or “partially” |
| Year 2 performance scores and adherence | Higher performance predicts an increase in the odds of an MPC activity being rated “fully” | |
| Differences between year 1 and 2 | Not significant | |
1Classroom control, student interest, facilitator enthusiasm, objectives met