| Title |
Evaluating the Impact of a Substance Use Intervention Program on the Peer Status and Influence of Adolescent Peer Leaders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-011-0248-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher S. Sheppard, Megan Golonka, Philip R. Costanzo |
| Abstract |
The current study involved an examination of the impact of a peer-led substance use intervention program on the peer leaders beyond the substance use-related goals of the intervention. Specifically, unintended consequences of an adult-sanctioned intervention on the targeted peer leader change agents were investigated, including whether their participation affected their peer status, social influence, or self perceptions. Twenty-two 7th grade peer-identified intervention leaders were compared to 22 control leaders (who did not experience the intervention) and 146 cohort peers. Three groups of measures were employed: sociometric and behavioral nominations, social cognitive mapping, and leadership self-perceptions. Results indicated that unintended consequences appear to be a legitimate concern for females. Female intervention leaders declined in perceived popularity and liked most nominations over time, whereas males increased in total leader nominations. Explanations for these results are discussed and further directions suggested. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 24% |
| Psychology | 17 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,236,094
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#770
of 1,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,808
of 130,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 130,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.