Treatment Integrity and Social Validity of the FRIENDS for Life Programme in a Northeastern Canadian School System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The FRIENDS for Life (FFL) programme, a school-based anxiety prevention programme, targets anxiety reduction and resiliency development in elementary school-aged children (Barrett, Sonderegger & Xenos, 2003). In the context of equivocal effectiveness findings regarding FFL in Canadian schools, the present study assessed pre–post changes in anxiety, self-esteem, and prosocial behaviour in a school system in Northeastern Canada. To yield further insight to the potential sources of equivocal FFL effectiveness findings, we also evaluated FFL treatment integrity (TI) and social validity (SV). Few studies have assessed FFL TI at the level of identifying which programme sessions, or within-session content, have or have not been adhered to (Higgins & O'Sullivan S, 2015). Similarly, few studies have provided detailed programme SV data or perceived programme benefits by children and parents. TI and SV can provide programme data beyond anxiety reduction, which is key in prevention programming research, as pre–post changes are challenging to detect in ‘healthy’ samples (Durlak & Wells, 1997). Treatment outcome, TI, and SV data were collected from classrooms across 10 elementary schools administering FFL. The sample included 210 child and 108 parent participants; post-testing occurred 1 week following FFL programme completion. Findings indicated significant decreases from pre- to post-test in child-reported anxiety and self-esteem but no changes in prosocial behaviours. Findings suggest that low TI ratings may have impacted anxiety, self-esteem, and prosocial behaviour results, and that child-reported SV may be more related to programme outcomes than parent-reported SV. Implications for FFL programme developers and future FFL evaluation studies 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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".