↓ Skip to main content

Effects of After-School Programs with At-Risk Youth on Attendance and Externalizing Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Youth and Adolescence, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Effects of After-School Programs with At-Risk Youth on Attendance and Externalizing Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10964-014-0226-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristen P. Kremer, Brandy R. Maynard, Joshua R. Polanin, Michael G. Vaughn, Christine M. Sarteschi

Abstract

The popularity, demand, and increased federal and private funding for after-school programs have resulted in a marked increase in after-school programs over the past two decades. After-school programs are used to prevent adverse outcomes, decrease risks, or improve functioning with at-risk youth in several areas, including academic achievement, crime and behavioral problems, socio-emotional functioning, and school engagement and attendance; however, the evidence of effects of after-school programs remains equivocal. This systematic review and meta-analysis, following Campbell Collaboration guidelines, examined the effects of after-school programs on externalizing behaviors and school attendance with at-risk students. A systematic search for published and unpublished literature resulted in the inclusion of 24 studies. A total of 64 effect sizes (16 for attendance outcomes; 49 for externalizing behavior outcomes) extracted from 31 reports were included in the meta-analysis using robust variance estimation to handle dependencies among effect sizes. Mean effects were small and non-significant for attendance and externalizing behaviors. A moderate to large amount of heterogeneity was present; however, no moderator variable tested explained the variance between studies. Significant methodological shortcomings were identified across the corpus of studies included in this review. Implications for practice, policy and research are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 259 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 13%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 64 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 66 25%
Psychology 54 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Arts and Humanities 13 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 75 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 09 March 2024.
All research outputs
#704,734
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#118
of 1,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,605
of 368,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 368,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.