Empirically Based Mean Effect Size Distributions for Universal Prevention Programs Targeting School-Aged Youth: A Review of Meta-Analyses
This review of reviews presents an empirically based set of mean effect size distributions for judging the relative impact of the effects of universal mental health promotion and prevention programs for school-age youth (ages 5 through 18) across a range of program targets and types of outcomes. Mean effect size distributions were established by examining the findings from 74 meta-analyses of universal prevention and promotion programs that included more than 1100 controlled outcome studies involving over 490,000 school-age youth. The distributions of mean effect sizes from these meta-analyses indicated considerable variability across program targets and outcomes that differed substantially from Cohen’s (1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)) widely used set of conventions for assessing if effects are small, medium, or large. These updated mean effect size distributions will provide researchers, practitioners, and funders with more appropriate evidence-based standards for judging the relative effects of universal prevention programs for youth. Limitations in current data and directions for future work are also discussed.
KeywordsEffect sizes Meta-analysis Universal prevention Youth
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. JAD acknowledges that he is an author of several meta-analyses included in this review, but he was not involved in extracting any data from those meta-analyses for the purposes of this review.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). Analysis of binary data (2nd ed.). New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
- Furr-Holden, C. D., Ialongo, N. S., Anthony, J. C., Petras, H., & Kellam, S. G. (2004). Developmentally inspired drug prevention: Middle school outcomes in a school-based randomized prevention trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 73, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.10.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lippke, S., Nigg, C. R., & Maddock, J. E. (2012). Health-promoting and health-risk behaviors: Theory-driven analyses of multiple health behavior change in three international samples. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9135-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sandler, I., Wolchik, S. A., Cruden, G., Mahrer, N. E., Ahn, S., Brincks, A., & Brown, C. H. (2014). Overview of meta-analyses of the prevention of mental health, substance use and conduct problems. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 243. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185524.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Substance Abuse & Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA). (2016). National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2015 (NSDUH-2016-DS0001). Retrieved from https://www.datafiles.samhsa.gov/study-dataset/national-survey-drug-use-and-health-2015-nsduh-2015-ds0001-nid16894.
- Wiefferink, C. H., Peters, L., Hoekstra, F., Ten Dam, G., Buijs, G. J., & Paulussen, T. G. (2006). Clustering of health-related behaviors and their determinants: Possible consequences for school health interventions. Prevention Science, 7, 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0021-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar