The Impact of a Psychoeducational Prevention Program for Behaviorally At-Risk Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent psychoeducational prevention program (EQUIP for Educators) Two aspects were examined: (1) if there was a significant relationship among the three psychometric measures: Social Skills Rating System (SSRS), Children’s Inventory of Anger (ChIA), Sociomoral Reflection and Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF); and (2) if the treatment (EQUIP for Educators) and control groups differed on the SSRS, ChIA, and the SRM-SF, from pretest to posttest, and if these effects were different by levels of achievement. This exploratory study was a first attempt to expand EQUIP for Educators from a treatment-only program to a treatment-and-academic-learning program. Subjects (N = 45) aged 10.1–11. 8 years (M = 10.9) participated in this 10-week study. A quasi-experimental 2 X 2 X 2 repeated measures MANOVA was conducted. A Pearson’s product-moment correlation was conducted to examine the statistical correlation of 3 dependent variables: (1) SSRS; (2) ChIA; (3) SRM-SF. Results of the Pearson r analysis indicated statistically significant correlations between the SSRS, ChIA, and the SRM-SF (p < .05). A statistically significant multivariate effect for the Time X Group interaction was found (p <. 001, ES = .86). Further, a statistically significant multivariate main effect for achievement was found across the dependent variables (p < .001, ES = .56). The univariate 2 X 2 ANOVA for the Time X Group interaction evinced statistically significant results for the social skills (p <. 001, ES = .77), anger management (p < .001, ES = .59) and the sociomoral reasoning (p < .001, ES = .46). EQUIP for Educators treatment was effective in equipping behaviorally at risk students with: (a) skills for managing anger and correcting cognitive distortions; (b) social skills for constructive social behavior; and (c) remediating development delay in moral judgment. Results suggest that EQUIP for Educators had an impact on cognitive distortions, social skills deficiencies, and sociomoral delays. Implications and recommendations for use of multicomponent prevention programs 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".