Promoting Afterschool Quality and Positive Youth Development: Cluster Randomized Trial of the Pax Good Behavior Game
- 1k Downloads
This randomized trial tested a strategy originally developed for school settings, the Pax Good Behavior Game (PAX GBG), in the new context of afterschool programs. We examined this approach in afterschool since 70% of all juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3–6 pm, making afterschool an important setting for prevention and promotion. Dual-career and working families need monitoring and supervision for their children in quality settings that are safe and appropriately structured. While substantial work has identified important features of afterschool programs, increasing attention is being given to how to foster quality. PAX GBG, with its focus on shared norms, cooperative teams, contingent activity rewards, and liberal praise, could potentially enhance not only appropriate structure and supportive relationships, but also youth self-regulation, co-regulation, and socio-emotional development. This study examined the PAX GBG among 76 afterschool programs, serving 811 youth ages 5–12, who were diverse in race-ethnicity, socio-economic status, and geographic locale. Demographically matched pairs of afterschool programs were randomized to PAX GBG or treatment-as-usual. Independent observers conducted ratings of implementation fidelity and program quality across time; along with surveys of children’s problem and prosocial behavior. Interaction effects were found using hierarchical linear models such that experimental programs evidencing higher implementation fidelity demonstrated better program quality than controls, (i.e., less harshness, increased appropriate structure, support, and engagement), as well as reduced child-reported hyperactivity and intent-to-treat effects on prosocial behavior. This study demonstrates that best practices fostered by PAX GBG and implemented with fidelity in afterschool result in higher quality contexts for positive youth development.
KeywordsAfterschool quality Child socio-emotional outcomes Co-regulation Implementation fidelity PAX GBG Positive youth development PAX GBG Randomized trial Self-regulation Setting-level effects
We acknowledge funding support from William T. Grant Foundation [Grant # 8529]; the Wallace Foundation [Grant #20080489]; and the National Institute for Drug Abuse [Grant # R01 DA025187]. We acknowledge former W. T. Grant Executives, Robert Granger, Edward Seidman and Vivian Tseng, whose feedback on this study was invaluable. We are also grateful for the many staff, parents, and children whose participation made this study possible.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. A process for obtaining informed consent from all individual participants was included in the study. Research involving Human Participants was approved and monitored by The Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board (IRB # 23990).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Afterschool Alliance (2014). America After 3pm; Afterschool Programs in Demand. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Browne, D. (2015). Growing together, learning together: What cities have discovered about building afterschool systems. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
- Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, 15a.Google Scholar
- Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Strecher, V. (2007). The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): New methods for more potent eHealth interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, S112–S118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Gill, S., Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J. A., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering highquality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professional development support: The head start REDI program. American Educational Research Journal, 567–597. doi: 10.3102/0002831208328089.
- Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Committee on community-level programs for youth. Board on children, youth and families, division of behavioral and social sciences and education, national research council and institute of medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.Google Scholar
- Embry, D. D., Richardson, C., Schaffer, K., et al. (2010). PAX good behavior game (3rd ed.). Tucson: PAXIS Institute.Google Scholar
- Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social change: The challenge to survival. Morristown: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. http://www.popline.org/node/266329.
- Fleiss, J. L. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. In J. L. Fleiss (Ed.), Statistical methods for rates and proportions (pp. 212–236). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Frazier, S. L., Mehta, T. G., Atkins, M. S., Hur, K., & Rusch, D. (2013). Not just a walk in the park: Efficacy to effectiveness for after school programs in communities of concentrated urban poverty. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 40, 406–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Hynes, K., & Sanders, F. (2011). Diverging experiences during out-of-school time: The race gap in exposure to after-school programs. The Journal of Negro Education, 80, 464–476.Google Scholar
- Ialongo, N. S., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999). Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 599–641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of two first grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder and mental health service need and utilization in early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., & Pistorino, C. (2005). When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: Final Report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2005. Available at http://www.ed.gov/ies/ncee.
- Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongoc, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., Petras, H., Ford, C., Windham, A., & Wilcox, C. H. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, SS5–S28. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After school programs in the 21st century: Their potential and what it takes to achieve it. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J., & Berstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Odgers, C. L., Moffett, T. E., Tach, M. L., Sampson, R. J., Taylor, A., & Matthews, C. L. (2009). The protective effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on British children growing up in deprivation: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 45, 942–957.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Pas, E. T., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Examining contextual influences on classroom-based implementation of positive behavior support strategies: Findings from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 16(8), 1096–1106.Google Scholar
- Pittman, K. J. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth serving and community organizations. Washington, D.C.: Center for Youth Development and Family Research.Google Scholar
- Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2012). A User's Guide to MLwiN Version 2.26. Bristol: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., Martinez, A., Bloom, H., Zhu, P., & Lin, F. (2011). Studying the reliability of group-level measures with implications for statistical power: A six-step paradigm. Retrieved from http://wtgrantfoundation.org/FocusAreas#youthsocial-settings.
- Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. E. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Smith, C., & Hohmann, C. (2005). Full findings from the Youth PQA validation study. Ypsilanti: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.Google Scholar
- Smith, E. P., Boutte, G. S., Zigler, E., & Finn-Stevenson, M. (2004). Opportunities for schools to promote resilience in children and youth. In K. I. Maton, C. J. Schellenbach, B. J. Leadbetter, & A. L. Solarz (Eds.), Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy. Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Smith, C., Akiva, T., Sugar, S. A., Devaney, T., Lo, Y.-J., Frank, K., Peck, S., & Cortina, K. (2012). Continuous quality improvement in afterschool settings: Impact findings from the Youth Program Quality Intervention study. Ypsilanti, MI: David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality. Washington, DC: Forum for Youth Investment.Google Scholar
- Smith, E. P., Osgood, D. W., Caldwell, L. C., Hynes, K., & Perkins, D. F. (2013). Measuring collective efficacy among children in community-based afterschool: Pathways toward prevention and positive youth development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 27-40. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9574-6.
- Smith, E. P., Wise, E., Rosen, H., Rosen, A., Childs, S., & McManus, M. (2014). Top-down, bottom-up, and around the jungle gym. A social processes and networks approaches to building learning communities in afterschool. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53, 491–502. doi: 10.1007/s10464-014-9656-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report (pp. 1–261). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Stuhlman, M. W., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). A practitioner’s guide to conducting classroom observations: What the research tells us about choosing and using observational systems. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
- Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., Brown, B. B., Pierce, K. M., Dadisman, K., & Pechman, E. M. (2004). The study of promising after-school programs: Descriptive report of the promising programs. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/childcare/statements.html.
- Wanless, S. B., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2015). Readiness to implement school-based social-emotional learning interventions: Using research on factors related to implementation to maximize quality. Prevention Science, 16(8), 1037–1043.Google Scholar