Can focus groups be used for longitudinal evaluation? Findings from the Medellin early preventionof aggression program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As 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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.178 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".