1 / 16

ART Project Rogaland 2005

ART Project Rogaland 2005. Knut Gundersen* & Frode Svartdal* ** * Diakonhjemmet College Rogaland ** University of Tromsø. Purpose. Investigate the efficacy of ART interventions carried out by students as part of their education. Design. Randomized group design Randomization on group level

robin-mitchell
Download Presentation

ART Project Rogaland 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ART Project Rogaland 2005 Knut Gundersen* & Frode Svartdal* ** * Diakonhjemmet College Rogaland ** University of Tromsø

  2. Purpose • Investigate the efficacy of ART interventions carried out by students as part of their education

  3. Design • Randomized group design • Randomization on group level • Each student group established two matched groups of pupils • Random allocation of groups to either ART or control

  4. Participants I • Student ART trainers • Ca. 30 students participated as ART trainers • Divided into ca. 15 groups depending on geographic location etc. • Each group planned and implemented the ART intervention (24 h standard ART) • Each group collected data on social competence and problem behavior before and after interventions (PRE vs. POST)

  5. Participants II • Youths at schools and institutions participated • [mer her]

  6. Instruments • Behavior problems: CADBI • Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory, Burns & Taylor • Social skills: SSRS • Social Skills Rating System, Gresham & Elliott

  7. Design • Matched groups at each location • Random assignment to ART or control • Measurement (SSRS, CADBI) PRE and POST • Statistical comparisons • Between groups (ART vs. control) • Within groups (PRE vs. POST)

  8. Data • Data presented here are from the whole sample, ca. 150 • Ca. 100 ART youths • Ca. 50 control youths

  9. Results: SSRS, Parents Green cells = Significant PRE vs. POST differences

  10. Results: SSRS, Teachers

  11. Results: CADBI, Parents

  12. Results: CADBI, Teachers

  13. Results: Summary • ART • Significant changes in the predicted direction in 13 of 19 measures • Control • Significant changes in the same direction as in the ART groups: 2 of 19 measures • Tendency to positive changes on other measures • Conclusion • Rather convincing evidence of the efficacy of ART in reducing behavior problems and increasing social skills

  14. Results: Further analysis • Why ”effects” of intervention in the control groups • Three explanations • Test-retest effects (positive changes are due to test and retest – SSRS, CADBI) • Diffusion of treatment (ART interventions directed at the ART groups also affect control subjects) • Model effects (behavioral changes in models in the ART groups affect subjects in the control groups)

  15. Results: Further analysis • Diffusion of treatment and model effects are probably most likely explanations • If true, effects (especially the model effect) in the control croups should be most pronounced in projects with pronounced effects in the ART groups • Hypothesis: • Control group “effects” should correlate positively with ART group effects

  16. Results: Further analysis Correlation between effect index scores in the ART and control groups = .58

More Related