| Title |
For Whom Does It Work? Subgroup Differences in the Effects of a School-Based Universal Prevention Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-012-0329-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jantine L. Spilt, Johannes M. Koot, Pol A. C. van Lier |
| Abstract |
This study examined subgroup differences in the effectiveness of a universal classroom-based preventive intervention. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) was delivered in Grade 1 and 2 in a randomized controlled trial including 759 students. Changes in externalizing and internalizing problems were modeled from Kindergarten through Grade 2. Unlike previous research, a person-centered approach was employed to examine critical combinations of child, peer, family, and demographic characteristics at baseline as moderators of intervention impact. Six subgroups were identified that differed both in baseline risk profiles and intervention responsiveness. The GBG prevented the development of externalizing and internalizing behavior among low-risk children, children with emotional problems, and victimized children. No positive intervention effects were found for children from dysfunctional families and children with combinations of behavioral and social risks. The study presented a novel approach to study subgroup differences in universal preventive interventions and provides first evidence that universal school-based programs may not be effective for children with more severe risks and risks at multiple levels. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 51 | 43% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 34 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,475,185
of 23,957,596 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#793
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,400
of 194,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#38
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,957,596 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.