Can focus groups be used for longitudinal evaluation? Findings from the Medellin early preventionof aggression program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAs part of a longitudinal evaluation of a violence prevention program in Medellin, Colombia, researchers used focus groups to explore participants’ perceptions of their experience during the program and to help analyse outcome data 4 years later. A quasi-experimental multi-year evaluation of the Medellin early prevention of aggression program showed statistically significant associations between program participation among children aged 3–9, their families, and teachers, and patterns of prosocial behaviour, non-violent parenting practices, and less severe teacher discipline. Focus group participants (parents, teachers, and children) selected through stratified random sampling were inconsistent in their capacity to recall program characteristics that contributed to intervention fidelity, sustainability, and individual and family outcomes. The difficulties and benefits of employing focus groups to help interpret quantitative longitudinal research findings are discussed.Keywords: prevention of aggressionfocus groupslongitudinal researchsocial program evaluationparents and caregiverseducatorschildren
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it