4.3 Article

Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 143-164

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00031-1

Keywords

school-based prevention intervention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined results of a comprehensive, multifaceted longitudinal school-based prevention program called Raising Healthy Children (RHC). RHC focuses on enhancing protective factors with the goal of promoting positive youth development, reducing identified risk factors, and preventing adolescent problem behaviors. Participants included 938 elementary students from first or second grade who were enrolled in 10 area schools in the Pacific Northwest and randomly divided into two groups, those receiving RHC and peer controls. Analyses were conducted 18 months after implementation and focused on academic and behavioral improvements within the school environment. Results using hierarchical linear modeling showed that RHC students, compared to their peers who did not receive the intervention, had significantly higher teacher-reported academic performance (t ratio = 2.27, p < .001) and a stronger commitment to school (t ratio = 2.16, p < .03). Similarly, teachers reported that RHC students showed a significant decrease in antisocial behaviors (t ratio = - 2.43, p < .02) and increased social competency (t ratio = 2.96, p < .01) compared to control peers. Regression results from parent-reported outcomes also showed that RHC students had higher academic performance, beta=.082, t = 2.72,p < .01 and a stronger commitment to school, beta=.080, t = 2.45, p < .02. Results from this study and their implications for early and long-term prevention are discussed. (C) 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available