cars outcomes final copy - lehigh university

4/27/14

1

¡  Comprehensive intervention for adolescents: CARS outcomes (Kern, Evans, Wills, Lewis)

¡ Meeting the needs of adolescents with EBD (Zaheer, Evans, Wachsmuth)

¡  Classroom-‐based intervention and implementation (State, Harrison)

¡  Self-‐management with mobile devices (Wills, Mason)

¡  Check & Connect (Pohl)

4/27/14

2

Lee Kern, Steve Evans, Howard Wills, Tim Lewis , and Beth Custer

¡  Describe CARS study and sample ¡  Highlight a few findings

§  Differences in students with and without labels §  Check & Connect mentor-‐mentee relationships

4/27/14

3

¡  Funded for five years by Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education

¡  Focus: secondary age students with intensive social, emotional, and behavioral problems

¡  Lee Kern, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, Lehigh University ¡  Steve Evans, Ph.D., Co-‐Principal Investigator, Ohio

University ¡  Tim Lewis, Ph.D., Co-‐Principal Investigator, University of

Missouri ¡  & Howard Wills, Ph.D., & Deborah Kamps, Ph.D., Juniper

Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas ¡  Mark Weist, Ph.D., University of South Carolina ¡  Paras Mehta, Ph.D., TIMES, University of Houston (design/

statistical consultation, data analysis)

4/27/14

4

Major Study ¡  Years 1-‐2: Develop and refine intervention package with small sample of students (n=30, 3 states)

¡  Year 3: Evaluate and refine intervention package with larger sample of students (n=60, 5 sites/states)

¡  Years 4-‐5: Evaluate efficacy of intervention in randomized controlled trial

¡  School referral: 20+ students ¡  Screening

§  Externalizing (BASC) §  Internalizing (MASC, RADS)

¡  School functioning §  Behavioral referrals §  Poor grades §  Excessive absences §  Suspensions

4/27/14

5

Lehigh University

17%

Ohio University 35%

University of Missouri

9%

University of South Carolina

29%

University of Kansas 10%

Gender Frequency Percent

Female 217 33.5

Male 430 66.5

Total 647 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

13 14 15 16 17 18

8.4

25.4

29.4

18.3

3.2 0.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

8 9 10 11

5.5

38.3 35.9

3.9

Age

Grade

Percen

tage

Percen

tage

4/27/14

6

Caucasian 52%

African American

39%

Hispanic/Latino 5%

Other 4%

Rural 37%

Suburban 39%

Urban 24%

General Educatio

n 51%

Special Educatio

n 49%

Percen

tage

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Learning Disability

Emotional Disturbance

Other Health Impairment

Other Missing

21.0

10.3

8.4

2.4

6.5

4/27/14

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$0 -‐ $20,000 $20,001 -‐ $40,000

$40,001 -‐ $60,000

$60,001 -‐ $80,000

$80,001 -‐ $100,000

$100,001 -‐ $120,000

$120,001 -‐ $140,000

$140,001 +

36 32.3

13.4

8

3 2.8 0.4 1.2

Percen

tage

¡  All students §  Check &Connect §  Interpersonal Skills Group §  Parent Education

¡  Class-‐wide (as indicated by assessment) §  Classroom Structure (Expectations, Routines) §  Student-‐Teacher Interactions §  Opportunities to Respond

¡  Individual (as indicated by assessment) §  Student-‐Teacher Interactions §  Organizational Skills §  Study Skills §  De-‐escalation §  Accommodations

¡  Mental Health (as indicated by assessment) §  Mood §  Anxiety §  Self-‐management

4/27/14

8

PARENT MEASURES ¡  Demographic Questionnaire ¡  Behavior Assessment System for Children-‐II ( BASC 2)*

¡  Index of Family Relations* ¡  Impairment Rating Scale (IRS) ¡  Disruptive Behavior Disorders Scale (DBD) ¡  Stress Index for Parents of Adolescents (SIPA) ¡  Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

TEACHER MEASURES ¡  Behavior Assessment System for Children-‐II (BASC 2)*

¡  Impairment Rating Scale (IRS) ¡  Classroom Performance Survey (CPS)

4/27/14

9

STUDENT COMPLETED MEASURES ¡  Behavior Assessment System for Children-‐II (BASC 2)*

¡  WJIII (Letter-‐Word Identification, Reading Fluency, Passage Comprehension, Calculation, Math Fluency, Applied Problems

¡  Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS) * ¡  Multi-‐Dimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) *

¡  Student Engagement Instrument ¡  Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Also: direct observation

¡  Modified Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents (SACA)/Services for Children and Adolescents-‐Parent Interview (SCA-‐PI)

¡  Developed Teacher Interview ¡  Examined

§  School-‐based services §  Medication use §  Inpatient services §  Outpatient services §  After school/weekend/summer programs §  Other community services §  Family services

4/27/14

10

¡  Do students with SPED labels differ from students with no labels on measures of academic, behavioral and mental health problems? §  Do students with specific SPED labels (ED, LD, & OHI) differ on

measures of academic, behavioral and mental health problems?

¡  Do students with SPED labels differ from students with no labels in types/amount of services received in school? §  Do students with specific SPED labels (ED, LD, & OHI) differ in types

of services received in schools?

¡  What variables predict receipt of a SPED label? §  Demographics, academic achievement and level of behavioral/

mental health functioning

4/27/14

11

¡  MANOVA §  Group comparison of special education students versus general

education students §  Group comparisons between labels (ED, LD, OHI).

¡  Dependent Variables §  Academic achievement (WJ-‐3) ▪  Broad Reading ▪  Broad Math

§  Behavioral and Mental Health ▪  Externalizing problems (Parent BASC-‐2) ▪  Internalizing problems (Parent BASC-‐2) ▪  Depression (RADS-‐2) ▪  Anxiety (MASC-‐2)

¡  Special education v. General education students §  Overall, there was a significant difference (p<.001) §  MASC-‐2, RADS-‐2, & BASC-‐2 scores were not found to be significantly

different between these groups §  Academic achievement was significantly different with Special

Education student scoring lower ▪  Broad reading (p<.001) ▪  Broad math (p<.001)

¡  ED v. LD v. OHI §  Overall, there was a significant difference (p<.001) §  Similar to the above analysis, only broad reading (p<.001) and broad

math (p<.001) were found to be significantly different ▪  Broad reading: LD < OHI < ED ▪  Broad math: LD < OHI < ED

4/27/14

12

¡  Do students with SPED labels differ from students with no labels in types/amount of services received in school? §  Do students with specific SPED labels (ED, LD, &

OHI) differ in types of services received in schools?

¡  MANOVA §  Compared special education students and general education students on types of services received in school

§  Compared ED, LD and OHI students on types of services received in schools

¡  Service types included §  Special school for emotional or behavioral support §  Retained grade §  Daily or weekly reports cards sent home §  Counseling

4/27/14

13

¡  Special education v. General education students §  Overall significant group difference was found (p=.02) §  Follow up analysis: “Special school for emotional and behavioral

support” only category significantly different (p=.004) between the two groups, with special education students significantly more likely to have used this service

¡  ED v. LD v. OHI ▪  Overall significant group difference was found (p=.008) ▪  Follow up analysis: “Special schools for emotional and

behavioral support” as the only significantly different type of service used (p=.003), with students OHI most likely to use this service, followed by ED and LD.

¡  What variables predict receipt of a SPED label? §  Demographics, academic achievement and level

of behavioral/mental health functioning

4/27/14

14

¡  Predictors of special education labels ¡  Hierarchical Regression

¡  Predictors §  Demographics

▪  Geographic area (urban, rural, suburban) ▪  Ethnicity ▪  Gender

§  Academic Achievement ▪  WJ3-‐ Broad Reading ▪  WJ3-‐ Broad math

§  Behavioral and Mental health ▪  Externalizing problems (Parent BASC-‐2) ▪  Internalizing problems (Parent BASC-‐2) ▪  Depression (RADS-‐2) ▪  Anxiety (MASC-‐2)

¡  What predicts special education labels? §  Model 1: Demographics (Geographic area, Ethnicity & Gender) ▪  p=.018; R2=.025; 2% of variance explained ▪  Change R2 = .025, p = .018

§  Model 2: Academic Achievement (Reading & Math) ▪  p<.001; R2 =.169; 17% of the variance explained ▪  Change R2 = .114, p < .001

§  Model 3: Behavioral and Mental health (internalizing/externalizing, anxiety and depression) ▪  p<.001; R2 =.179; 18 % of variance explained ▪  Change R2 = .01, p = .301

4/27/14

15

¡  Little difference in measures of behavior and emotions between high school students with and without labels §  Academic functioning only significant difference

¡  Only difference in services was in educational services was segregated schools

¡  Academic performance only predictor of SpEd label

¡  Need to provide emotional and behavioral support to all students, regardless of label

¡  Need to determine whether academic performance are different at point of identification or whether differences are the result of instructional differences

4/27/14

16

¡  To what extent are mentors and mentees perceptions of their relationship similar?

¡  To what extent was the student’s perception of the relationship predicted by their own gender, the age of their mentor, the gender match between the mentors and mentees and/or ethnicity match between mentors and mentees?

4/27/14

17

¡  180 students in intervention group Year 5

¡  Each student paired with one mentor ¡ Mentors recruited, asked to commit for one year (some stayed for 2)

¡ Met with students 1 time per week for 15-‐20 minutes

¡ Monitored student risk indicators

4/27/14

18

¡ Mentors tracked indicators of dropout §  Attendance §  Tardies §  Grades/failing classing § Missing assignments §  Skip classes §  Behavioral Referrals §  Detention §  In-‐school and out-‐of-‐school suspension

¡  Developed by the University of Minnesota ¡  Students and Mentors both completed survey

¡  Students reported their perceptions of the mentoring experience

¡ Mentors indicated what students would report

4/27/14

19

5.6%

12.8%

47.8%

25.6%

7.8%

0%

6.1%

53.6%

31.8%

8.4%

strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree Not reported

I look forward to meeting/The student looks forward to meeting.

Mentor Perceptions Student Perceptions

Combined Answer Categories

Students’ Perceptions Mentors’ Perceptions

Agree or Strongly Agree 85.4% 73.4%

Disagree or Strongly Disagree

6.1% 18.4

4/27/14

20

2.8% 2.8%

40.2%

46.4%

7.8%

0.6%

4.5%

43.6% 43.0%

8.4%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Not reported

I feel comfortable meeting with my mentor/The student is comfortable meeting with me.




Agree or Strongly Agree 86.6% 86.8%


5.1% 5.6%

4/27/14

21

2.8%

9.5%

39.1% 39.7%

8.9%

0.6% 2.8%

45.8% 42.5%

8.4%


I am willing to share information about my school experiences with my mentor/The student easily and readily shares information

with me about their school experiences.



Students’ Perceptions

Mentors’ Perceptions

Agree or Strongly Agree

88.3% 78.8%


3.4% 12.3%

4/27/14

22

3.9%

14.5%

33.0%

39.1%

9.5%

3.9%

11.7%

46.4%

29.6%

8.4%


I am willing to share information about my personal life with my mentor/The student easily and readily shares information about

their personal life.






76% 72.1%


15.6% 18.4%

4/27/14

23

4.5%

16.2%

44.1%

26.8%

8.4%

0.0%

5.0%

42.5% 43.6%

8.9%


I could ask my mentor for help if I have a problem/The student has asked for or been receptive to an offer of help.






86.1% 70.9%


5.0% 20.7%

4/27/14

24

36.3%

32.4%

6.7% 4.5%

2.2%

9.5% 7.8%

26.8%

44.1%

14.0%

5.0%

1.7% 0%

8.4%

More than once a week

Once a week Once every two weeks

About once a month less than once a month

Other Not reported

How often do you get to meet?




Once a week or More 70.9% 68.7%

Less than once a week 20.7% 22.9%

4/27/14

25

27.4%

62.6%

1.7%

7.6%

17.6%

65.9%

5%

12.3%

More often About the same Less often Not reported

How often would you like to meet?




More Often 17.6% 27.4%

Same 65.9% 62.6%

Less Often 5.0% 1.7%

4/27/14

26

Method ¡  Hierarchical Linear Regression Variables Examined ¡  Gender of mentees ¡  Age of mentors ¡  Gender match ¡  Ethnicity match Results Holding constant all other variables (mentor age, mentor/student gender match, and mentor/student ethnicity match) ¡  Male gender was only variable that predicted a quality

relationship

¡  Overall, C & C appears to be a very positive experience for both mentees and mentors

§  The majority of students agreed or strongly agreed that they: ▪  Like meeting with their mentors ▪  Feel comfortable talking about school and personal life ▪  Could ask mentors for help

¡  Matching mentee characteristics (gender, ethnicity) with mentor characteristics did not predict a quality relationship

4/27/14

27

¡  CARS Website

§  http://www.lehigh.edu/~incars/overview.html

cars outcomes final copy - lehigh university

Documents