Implementation Factors Related to Student Outcomes on the Pilot of the Coping Power Program in a City School Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coping Power is a standardized psycho-educational program designed to teach youth at risk for antisocial behavior self-management skills such as goal setting, anger management, communication and problem-solving [1]. In the 2012-2013 school year, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) in Ontario, Canada, piloted the Coping Power program at four elementary schools and two vocational secondary schools. Participants completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) pre-and post-intervention. This questionnaire measured five behavioral domains targeted by Coping Power: emotional disturbance, hyperactivity, conduct problems, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. To assess the implementation process, staff interviews were conducted based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a model that systematically evaluates factors that affect the success of program implementation [2]. Thepresent study examined the relationship between student outcomes in the Coping Power program and staff’s perception of program implementation factors. Results indicated that reported difficulty with implementation was significantly related to student outcome scores for five key behavioral domains.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".