Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“Go Girls!”: psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with a group-based healthy lifestyle program for adolescent girls

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess changes in adolescent girls’ health-enhancing cognitions and behaviors targeted by the Go Girls! group-based mentorship lifestyle program. Three hundred and ten adolescent girls (nested within 40 Go Girls! groups) completed questionnaires that assessed cognitions (attitudes, self-regulatory efficacy, and intentions) and behaviors (physical activity and dietary) at four time points (two pre-program, one at the end of the program, and one at 7-week follow-up). Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine changes in the outcome variables among Go Girls! participants (M age = 11.68 years, SD = 0.80). No significant changes occurred in the outcome variables during the baseline comparison period (Time 1–2). When compared to the average of the baseline assessments, 7 weeks after completing the program, girls reported significant improvements in physical activity (M Baseline PAtotal = 3.82, SD = 3.49; M T4 PAtotal = 4.38, SD = 3.75) and healthy eating (M Baseline = 10.71, SD = 1.13; M T4 = 11.35, SD = 1.05) behavior and related cognitions (d values ≥0.65). Findings provide preliminary support for programs that foster belongingness and target health behaviors through mentorship models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Big Brothers Big Sisters general policy is that girls can only participate in the Go Girls! program once. However, after one group of girls completed Time 4 questionnaires, the research assistant was informed that these girls had completed the program once before (twice in total). We felt that it was not conceptually and methodologically appropriate to compare girls who had completed the program once to girls who had completed it more than once. As such, 11 girls who had completed the program before were excluded from the analyses.

  2. Teachers and/or school liaisons in participating schools ask adolescent girls if they would like to participate in the program. All adolescent girls in participating schools are eligible to participate in the program. There is no cost associated with participating in Go Girls!

  3. Note that effect sizes may be overestimated due to the correction for repeated measures (over time) and the nesting effect of girls in groups [40].

References

  1. Neumark-Sztainer DR, Story M, Hannan PJ, Rex J. New Moves: a school-based obesity prevention program for adolescent girls. Prev Med. 2003; 37: 41-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, et al. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep. 2011; 22: 1-9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Faulkner G, Irving HM. Multiple health-risk behaviour and psychological distress in adolescence. Can Acad Child Adolesc Psych. 2012; 21: 171-178.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kimm SY, Glynn NW, Kriska AM, et al. Decline in physical activity in Black girls and White girls during adolescence. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 709-715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Riediger ND, Shooshtari S, Moghadasian MH. The influence of sociodemographic factors on patterns of fruit and vegetable consumption in Canadian adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007; 107: 1511-1518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Systematic Reviews. 2011;CD001871.

  7. Wilfley DE, Tibbs TL, Van Buren DJ, et al. Lifestyle interventions in the treatment of childhood overweight: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Health Psychol. 2007; 26: 521-532.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neumark-Sztainer DR, Friend SE, Flattum CF, et al. New Moves-preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girls: a group-randomized study. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 39: 421-432.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Story M, Sherwood NE, Himes JH, et al. An after-school obesity prevention program for African-American girls: the Minnesota GEMS pilot study. Ethn Dis. 2003; 13: S54-S64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodenow C. Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: relationships to motivation and achievement. J Early Adolesc. 1993; 13: 21-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilligan C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ma CQ, Huebner ES. Attachment relationships and adolescents life satisfaction: some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychol Sch. 2008; 45: 177-190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Furrer C, Skinner E. Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. J Educ Psychol. 2003; 95: 148-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Phan HP. Antecedents and consequences of school belonging: empirical evidence and implications for practices. J Educ Dev Psychol. 2013; 3: 117-132.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50: 179-211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Q. 1988; 15: 175-183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada: Go Girls!: Healthy minds, healthy bodies. Burlington; 2006.

  21. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995; 117: 497-529.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013; 40: 257-265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Panagiotopoulos C, Ronsley R, Al-Dubayee M, et al. The centre for healthy weights—shapedown BC: a family-centered, multidisciplinary program that reduces weight gain in obese children over the short-term. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011; 8: 4662-4678.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anderson-Butcher D, Conroy DE. Factorial and criterion validity of scores of a measure of belonging in youth development programs. Educ Psychol Meas. 2002; 62: 857-876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prochaska J, Sallis JF, Long B. A physical activity screening measure for use with adolescents in primary care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001; 155: 554-559.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tremblay MS, Warburton DE, Janssen I. New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011; 36(36–46): 47-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisinga R, Grotenhuis MT, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2012; 58: 637-642.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. World Health Organization. The Health of Youth: a Cross National Study. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 1996.

  29. Johnson F, Wardle J, Griffith J. The adolescent food habits checklist: reliability and validity of a measure of healthy eating behaviour in adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002; 56: 644-649.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shields CA, Spink KS, Chad K, et al. Youth and adolescent physical activity lapsers: examining self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between family social influence and physical activity. J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 121-130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McAuley E, Mihalko SL. Measuring exercise-related self-efficacy. In: Duda JL, ed. Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology; 1998: 371-381.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Morton KL, Barling J, Rhodes RE, et al. The application of transformational leadership theory to parenting: questionnaire development and implications for adolescent self-regulatory efficacy and life satisfaction. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011; 33: 688-709.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Strachan SM, Brawley LR. Reactions to a perceived challenge to identity: a focus on exercise and healthy eating. J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 575-588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chatzisarantis NLD, Biddle SJH, Meek GA. A self-determination theory approach to the study of intentions and the intention-behaviour relationship in children’s physical activity. Br J Health Psychol. 1997; 2: 343-360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Luszczynska A, Tryburcy M, Schwarzer R. Improving fruit and vegetable consumption: a self-efficacy intervention compared with a combined self-efficacy and planning intervention. Health Educ Res. 2007; 22: 630-638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ajzen I. Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved October 23, 2012 from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen construction a tpb questionnaire.pdf

  38. Nasuti G, Rhodes RE. Affective judgment and physical activity in youth: review and meta-analyses. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 45: 357-376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Backman DR, Haddad EH, Lee JW, Johnston PK, Hodgkin GE. Psychosocial predictors of healthful dietary behavior in adolescents. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002; 34: 184-192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dunlap WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hox J. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ullrich-French S, McDonough MH, Smith AL. Social connection and psychological outcomes in a physical activity-based youth development setting. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2012; 83: 431-441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bonell CP, Hargreaves J, Cousens S, et al. Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: design challenges and solutions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011; 65: 582-587.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hawkins NG, Sanson-Fisher RW, Shakeshaft A, D'Este C, Green LW. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33: 162-168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1322-1327.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research team is grateful to the Big Brothers Big Sisters’ staff, specifically Karen Shaver, Matthew Chater, Farishta Zarify, Allison Boughner, Theresa Bowler, Susan Nomi, and Lonni Meisner, and the Go Girls!’ program staff and participants, for their time and assistance in facilitating this program evaluation. The research team would also like to thank the following research assistants for their contributions: Aliyah Deane, Paulina Ezer, Angela Fong, Christina Gigliotti, Shellie McParland, Jessie Rodger, Eva Pila, Tanya Scarapicchia, and Danielle Tobin. This research was supported by a Program Evaluation Grant from the Ontario Ministry of Education awarded to AJD, MRB, and MEJ as well as a doctoral research scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research awarded to AJD. The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study, nor in the interpretation and reporting of the study findings. The researchers were independent from the funders. All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Justine Dowd, Michelle Chen, Mary Jung, and Mark Beauchamp declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards according to the American Psychological Association.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1

    A Justine Dowd PhD & Mark R Beauchamp PhD

  2. Department of Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Michelle Y Chen MSc

  3. School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia at Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada

    Mary E Jung PhD

Authors
  1. A Justine Dowd PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Y Chen MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary E Jung PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark R Beauchamp PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Justine Dowd PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Interventions that foster belongingness and target health behavior change through mentorship models may represent a viable means to improve health-enhancing behaviors among adolescent girls.

Researchers: Future research is warranted that further examines the effectiveness of the Go Girls! program through use of a stepped wedge, full time series, or an experimental design with a parallel control group.

Policymakers: Resources should be directed toward the implementation and dissemination of interventions to improve health-enhancing cognitions and behaviors among adolescents.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dowd, A.J., Chen, M.Y., Jung, M.E. et al. “Go Girls!”: psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with a group-based healthy lifestyle program for adolescent girls. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 77–86 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0285-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0285-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation